• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.89-94
• /
• 2008

TomoTherapy has a merit to treat cancer with Intensity modulated radiation and combines precise 3-D imaging from computerized tomography (CT scanning) with highly targeted radiation beams and rotating beamlets. In this paper, we comparing the dose distribution between TomoTherapy and linear accelerator based intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for 10 Head & Neck patients using TomoTherapy which is newly installed and operated at National Cancer Center since Sept. 2006. Furthermore, we estimate how the homogeneity and Normal Tissue Complication Probability (NTCP) are changed by motion of target. Inverse planning was carried out using CadPlan planning system (CadPlan R.6.4.7, Varian Medical System Inc. 3100 Hansen Way, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1129, USA). For each patient, an inverse IMRT plan was also made using TomoTherapy Hi-Art System (Hi-Art2_2_4 2.2.4.15, TomoTherapy Incorporated, 1240 Deming Way, Madson, WI 53717-1954, USA) and using the same targets and optimization goals. All TomoTherapy plans compared favorably with the IMRT plans regarding sparing of the organs at risk and keeping an equivalent target dose homogeneity. Our results suggest that TomoTherapy is able to reduce the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) further, keeping a similar target dose homogeneity.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.313-320
• /
• 2014

Purpose : The purpose of the study is to evaluate the efficiency of Coaxial MLC VMAT plan (Using $273^{\circ}$ and $350^{\circ}$ collimator angle) That the leaf motion direction aligned with axis of OAR (Organ at risk, It means spinal cord or cauda equine in this study.) compare to Universal MLC VMAT plan (using $30^{\circ}$ and $330^{\circ}$ collimator angle) for spine SBRT. Materials and Methods : The 10 cases of spine SBRT that treated with VMAT planned by Coaxial MLC and Varian TBX were enrolled. Those cases were planned by Eclipse (Ver. 10.0.42, Varian, USA), PRO3 (Progressive Resolution Optimizer 10.0.28) and AAA (Anisotropic Analytic Algorithm Ver. 10.0.28) with coplanar $360^{\circ}$ arcs and 10MV FFF (Flattening filter free). Each arc has $273^{\circ}$ and $350^{\circ}$ collimator angle, respectively. The Universal MLC VMAT plans are based on existing treatment plans. Those plans have the same parameters of existing treatment plans but collimator angle. To minimize the dose difference that shows up randomly on optimizing, all plans were optimized and calculated twice respectively. The calculation grid is 0.2 cm and all plans were normalized to the target V100%=90%. The indexes of evaluation are V10Gy, D0.03cc, Dmean of OAR (Organ at risk, It means spinal cord or cauda equine in this study.), H.I (Homogeneity index) of the target and total MU. All Coaxial VMAT plans were verified by gamma test with Mapcheck2 (Sun Nuclear Co., USA), Mapphan (Sun Nuclear Co., USA) and SNC patient (Sun Nuclear Co., USA Ver 6.1.2.18513). Results : The difference between the coaxial and the universal VMAT plans are follow. The coaxial VMAT plan is better in the V10Gy of OAR, Up to 4.1%, at least 0.4%, the average difference was 1.9% and In the D0.03cc of OAR, Up to 83.6 cGy, at least 2.2 cGy, the average difference was 33.3 cGy. In Dmean, Up to 34.8 cGy, at least -13.0 cGy, the average difference was 9.6 cGy that say the coaxial VMAT plans are better except few cases. H.I difference Up to 0.04, at least 0.01, the average difference was 0.02 and the difference of average total MU is 74.1 MU. The coaxial MLC VMAT plan is average 74.1 MU lesser then another. All IMRT verification gamma test results for the coaxial MLC VMAT plan passed over 90.0% at 1mm / 2%. Conclusion : Coaxial MLC VMAT treatment plan appeared to be favorable in most cases than the Universal MLC VMAT treatment planning. It is efficient in lowering the dose of the OAR V10Gy especially. As a result, the Coaxial MLC VMAT plan could be better than the Universal MLC VMAT plan in same MU.