• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.106-114
• /
• 2018

This study aimed to compare the performance of previous optimization algorithms against new a photon optimizer (PO) algorithm for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for prostate cancer. Eighteen patients with prostate cancer were retrospectively selected and planned to receive 78 Gy in 39 fractions of the planning target volume (PTV). All plans for each patient optimized with the dose volume optimizer (DVO) and progressive resolution optimizer (PRO) algorithms for IMRT and VMAT were compared against plans optimized with the PO within Eclipse version 13.7. No interactive action was performed during optimization. Dosimetric and radiobiological indices for the PTV and organs at risk were analyzed. The monitor units (MU) per plan were recorded. Based on the plan quality for the target coverage, prostate IMRT and VMAT plans using the PO showed an improvement over DVO and PRO. In addition, the PO generally showed improvement in the tumor control probability for the PTV and normal tissue control probability for the rectum. From a technical perspective, the PO generated IMRT treatment plans with fewer MUs than DVO, whereas it produced slightly more MUs in the VMAT plan, compared with PRO. The PO showed over potentiality of DVO and PRO whenever available, although it led to more MUs in VMAT than PRO. Therefore, the PO has become the preferred choice for planning prostate IMRT and VMAT at our institution.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.137-147
• /
• 2012

Purpose: Analyze the Effectiveness of Radiation Treatment Planning by dose calculation and optimization algorithm, apply consideration of actual treatment planning, and then suggest the best way to treatment planning protocol. Materials and Methods: The treatment planning system use Eclipse 10.0. (Varian, USA). PBC (Pencil Beam Convolution) and AAA (Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm) Apply to Dose calculation, DVO (Dose Volume Optimizer 10.0.28) used for optimized algorithm of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT), PRO II (Progressive Resolution Optimizer V 8.9.17) and PRO III (Progressive Resolution Optimizer V 10.0.28) used for optimized algorithm of VAMT. A phantom for experiment virtually created at treatment planning system, $30{\times}30{\times}30$ cm sized, homogeneous density (HU: 0) and heterogeneous density that inserted air assumed material (HU: -1,000). Apply to clinical treatment planning on the basis of general treatment planning feature analyzed with Phantom planning. Results: In homogeneous density phantom, PBC and AAA show 65.2% PDD (6 MV, 10 cm) both, In heterogeneous density phantom, also show similar PDD value before meet with low density material, but they show different dose curve in air territory, PDD 10 cm showed 75%, 73% each after penetrate phantom. 3D treatment plan in same MU, AAA treatment planning shows low dose at Lung included area. 2D POP treatment plan with 15 MV of cervical vertebral region include trachea and lung area, Conformity Index (ICRU 62) is 0.95 in PBC calculation and 0.93 in AAA. DVO DVH and Dose calculation DVH are showed equal value in IMRT treatment plan. But AAA calculation shows lack of dose compared with DVO result which is satisfactory condition. Optimizing VMAT treatment plans using PRO II obtained results were satisfactory, but lower density area showed lack of dose in dose calculations. PRO III, but optimizing the dose calculation results were similar with optimized the same conditions once more. Conclusion: In this study, do not judge the rightness of the dose calculation algorithm. However, analyzing the characteristics of the dose distribution represented by each algorithm, especially, a method for the optimal treatment plan can be presented when make a treatment plan. by considering optimized algorithm factors of the IMRT or VMAT that needs to optimization make a treatment plan.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.30 no.4
• /
• pp.150-154
• /
• 2019

The objective of this study is to monitor the radiation doses delivered to a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) by comparing the absorbed doses calculated by a commercial treatment planning system (TPS) to those measured by an in vivo dosimeter. Accurate monitoring of the radiation absorbed by a CIED during radiotherapy is necessary to prevent damage to the device. We conducted this study on three patients, who had the CIED inserted and were to be treated with radiotherapy. Treatment plans were generated using the Eclipse system, with a progressive resolution photon optimizer algorithm and the Acuros XB dose calculation algorithm. Measurements were performed on the patients using optically stimulated luminescence detectors placed on the skin, near the CIED. The results showed that the calculated doses from the TPS were up to 5 times lower than the measured doses. Therefore, it is recommended that in vivo dosimetry be conducted during radiotherapy for CIED patients to prevent damage to the CIED.

• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• v.16 no.12
• /
• pp.5019-5024
• /
• 2015

Background: The purpose of this study was to assess the dosimetric and clinical feasibility of volumetric modulated arc based hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (RapidArc) treatment for large acoustic schwannoma (AS >10cc). Materials and Methods: Ten AS patients were immobilized using BrainLab mask. They were subject to multimodality imaging (magnetic resonance and computed tomography) to contour target and organs at risk (brainstem and cochlea). Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) based stereotactic plans were optimized in Eclipse (V11) treatment planning system (TPS) using progressive resolution optimizer-III and final dose calculations were performed using analytical anisotropic algorithm with 1.5 mm grid resolution. All AS presented in this study were treated with VMAT based HSRT to a total dose of 25Gy in 5 fractions (5fractions/week). VMAT plan contains 2-4 non-coplanar arcs. Treatment planning was performed to achieve at least 99% of PTV volume (D99) receives 100% of prescription dose (25Gy), while dose to OAR's were kept below the tolerance limits. Dose-volume histograms (DVH) were analyzed to assess plan quality. Treatments were delivered using upgraded 6 MV un-flattened photon beam (FFF) from Clinac-iX machine. Extensive pretreatment quality assurance measurements were carried out to report on quality of delivery. Point dosimetry was performed using three different detectors, which includes CC13 ion-chamber, Exradin A14 ion-chamber and Exradin W1 plastic scintillator detector (PSD) which have measuring volume of $0.13cm^3$, $0.009cm^3$ and $0.002cm^3$ respectively. Results: Average PTV volume of AS was 11.3cc (${\pm}4.8$), and located in eloquent areas. VMAT plans provided complete PTV coverage with average conformity index of 1.06 (${\pm}0.05$). OAR's dose were kept below tolerance limit recommend by American Association of Physicist in Medicine task group-101(brainstem $V_{0.5cc}$ < 23Gy, cochlea maximum < 25Gy and Optic pathway <25Gy). PSD resulted in superior dosimetric accuracy compared with other two detectors (p=0.021 for PSD.

• 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.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.145-156
• /
• 2015

Purpose : The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficiency of Split VMAT planning(Contouring rectum divided into an upper and a lower for reduce rectum dose) compare to Conventional VMAT planning(Contouring whole rectum) for prostate cancer radiotherapy involving pelvic lymph nodes. Materials and Methods : A total of 9 cases were enrolled. Each case received radiotherapy with Split VMAT planning to the prostate involving pelvic lymph nodes. Treatment was delivered using TrueBeam STX(Varian Medical Systems, USA) and planned on Eclipse(Ver. 10.0.42, Varian, USA), PRO3(Progressive Resolution Optimizer 10.0.28), AAA(Anisotropic Analytic Algorithm Ver. 10.0.28). Lower rectum contour was defined as starting 1cm superior and ending 1cm inferior to the prostate PTV, upper rectum is a part, except lower rectum from the whole rectum. Split VMAT plan parameters consisted of 10MV coplanar $360^{\circ}$ arcs. Each arc had $30^{\circ}$ and $30^{\circ}$ collimator angle, respectively. An SIB(Simultaneous Integrated Boost) treatment prescription was employed delivering 50.4Gy to pelvic lymph nodes and 63~70Gy to the prostate in 28 fractions. $D_{mean}$ of whole rectum on Split VMAT plan was applied for DVC(Dose Volume Constraint) of the whole rectum for Conventional VMAT plan. In addition, all parameters were set to be the same of existing treatment plans. To minimize the dose difference that shows up randomly on optimizing, all plans were optimized and calculated twice respectively using a 0.2cm grid. All plans were normalized to the prostate $PTV_{100%}$ = 90% or 95%. A comparison of $D_{mean}$ of whole rectum, upperr ectum, lower rectum, and bladder, $V_{50%}$ of upper rectum, total MU and H.I.(Homogeneity Index) and C.I.(Conformity Index) of the PTV was used for technique evaluation. All Split VMAT plans were verified by gamma test with portal dosimetry using EPID. Results : Using DVH analysis, a difference between the Conventional and the Split VMAT plans was demonstrated. The Split VMAT plan demonstrated better in the $D_{mean}$ of whole rectum, Up to 134.4 cGy, at least 43.5 cGy, the average difference was 75.6 cGy and in the $D_{mean}$ of upper rectum, Up to 1113.5 cGy, at least 87.2 cGy, the average difference was 550.5 cGy and in the $D_{mean}$ of lower rectum, Up to 100.5 cGy, at least -34.6 cGy, the average difference was 34.3 cGy and in the $D_{mean}$ of bladder, Up to 271 cGy, at least -55.5 cGy, the average difference was 117.8 cGy and in $V_{50%}$ of upper rectum, Up to 63.4%, at least 3.2%, the average difference was 23.2%. There was no significant difference on H.I., and C.I. of the PTV among two plans. The Split VMAT plan is average 77 MU more than another. All IMRT verification gamma test results for the Split VMAT plan passed over 90.0% at 2 mm / 2%. Conclusion : As a result, the Split VMAT plan appeared to be more favorable in most cases than the Conventional VMAT plan for prostate cancer radiotherapy involving pelvic lymph nodes. By using the split VMAT planning technique it was possible to reduce the upper rectum dose, thus reducing whole rectal dose when compared to conventional VMAT planning. Also using the split VMAT planning technique increase the treatment efficiency.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.171-178
• /
• 2016

Purpose : In order to minimize the dose of femoral head as an appropriate treatment plan for rectal cancer radiation therapy, we compare and evaluate the usefulness of 3-field 3D conformal radiation therapy(below 3fCRT), which is a universal treatment method, and 5-field 3D conformal radiation therapy(below 5fCRT), and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT). Materials and Methods : The 10 cases of rectal cancer that treated with 21EX 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). 3fCRT and 5fCRT plan has $0^{\circ}$, $270^{\circ}$, $90^{\circ}$ and $0^{\circ}$, $95^{\circ}$, $45^{\circ}$, $315^{\circ}$, $265^{\circ}$ gantry angle, respectively. VMAT plan parameters consisted of 15MV coplanar $360^{\circ}$ 1 arac. Treatment prescription was employed delivering 54Gy to recum in 30 fractions. To minimize the dose difference that shows up randomly on optimizing, VMAT plans were optimized and calculated twice, and normalized to the target V100%=95%. The indexes of evaluation are D of Both femoral head and aceta fossa, total MU, H.I.(Homogeneity index) and C.I.(Conformity index) of the PTV. All VMAT plans were verified by gamma test with portal dosimetry using EPID. Results : D of Rt. femoral head was 53.08 Gy, 50.27 Gy, and 30.92 Gy, respectively, in the order of 3fCRT, 5fCRT, and VMAT treatment plan. Likewise, Lt. Femoral head showed average 53.68 Gy, 51.01 Gy and 29.23 Gy in the same order. D of Rt. aceta fossa was 54.86 Gy, 52.40 Gy, 30.37 Gy, respectively, in the order of 3fCRT, 5fCRT, and VMAT treatment plan. Likewise, Lt. Femoral head showed average 53.68 Gy, 51.01 Gy and 29.23 Gy in the same order. The maximum dose of both femoral head and aceta fossa was higher in the order of 3fCRT, 5fCRT, and VMAT treatment plan. C.I. showed the lowest VMAT treatment plan with an average of 1.64, 1.48, and 0.99 in the order of 3fCRT, 5fCRT, and VMAT treatment plan. There was no significant difference on H.I. of the PTV among three plans. Total MU showed that the VMAT treatment plan used 124.4MU and 299MU more than the 3fCRT and 5fCRT treatment plan, respectively. IMRT verification gamma test results for the VMAT plan passed over 90.0% at 2mm/2%. Conclusion : In rectal cancer treatment, the VMAT plan was shown to be advantageous in most of the evaluation indexes compared to the 3D plan, and the dose of the femoral head was greatly reduced. However, because of practical limitations there may be a case where it is difficult to select a VMAT treatment plan. 5fCRT has the advantage of reducing the dose of the femoral head as compared to the existing 3fCRT, without regard to additional problems. Therefore, not only would it extend survival time but the quality of life in general, if hospitals improved radiation therapy efficiency by selecting the treatment plan in accordance with the hospital's situation.