Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “modulating”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 181 records · Page 10
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2011

Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy for Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy of Lung Tumors: A Comparison With Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Techniques

Purpose: To demonstrate the potential of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) compared with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) techniques with a limited number of segments for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for early-stage lung cancer. Methods and Materials: For a random selection of 27 patients eligible for SBRT, coplanar and noncoplanar IMRT and coplanar VMAT (using SmartArc) treatment plans were generated in Pinnacle{sup 3} and compared. In addition, film measurements were performed using an anthropomorphic phantom to evaluate the skin dose for the different treatment techniques. Results: Using VMAT, the delivery times could be reduced to an average of 6.6 min compared with 23.7 min with noncoplanar IMRT. The mean dose to the healthy lung was 4.1 Gy for VMAT and noncoplanar IMRT and 4.2 Gy for coplanar IMRT. The volume of healthy lung receiving >5 Gy and >20 Gy was 18.0% and 5.4% for VMAT, 18.5% and 5.0% for noncoplanar IMRT, and 19.4% and 5.7% for coplanar IMRT, respectively. The dose conformity at 100% and 50% of the prescribed dose of 54 Gy was 1.13 and 5.17 for VMAT, 1.11 and 4.80 for noncoplanar IMRT and 1.12 and 5.31 for coplanar IMRT, respectively. The measured skin doses were comparable for VMAT and noncoplanar IMRT and slightly greater for coplanar IMRT. Conclusions: Coplanar VMAT for SBRT for early-stage lung cancer achieved plan quality and skin dose levels comparable to those using noncoplanar IMRT and slightly better than those with coplanar IMRT. In addition, the delivery time could be reduced by {<=}70% with VMAT.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗
DOE OSTI2012

Dosimetric Comparison of Three-Dimensional Conformal Proton Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy, and Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy for Treatment of Pediatric Craniopharyngiomas

Purpose: Cranial irradiation in pediatric patients is associated with serious long-term adverse effects. We sought to determine whether both three-dimensional conformal proton radiotherapy (3D-PRT) and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) compared with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) decrease integral dose to brain areas known to harbor neuronal stem cells, major blood vessels, and other normal brain structures for pediatric patients with craniopharyngiomas. Methods and Materials: IMRT, forward planned, passive scattering proton, and IMPT plans were generated and optimized for 10 pediatric patients. The dose was 50.4 Gy (or cobalt Gy equivalent) delivered in 28 fractions with the requirement for planning target volume (PTV) coverage of 95% or better. Integral dose data were calculated from differential dose-volume histograms. Results: The PTV target coverage was adequate for all modalities. IMRT and IMPT yielded the most conformal plans in comparison to 3D-PRT. Compared with IMRT, 3D-PRT and IMPT plans had a relative reduction of integral dose to the hippocampus (3D-PRT, 20.4; IMPT, 51.3%{sup Asterisk-Operator }), dentate gyrus (27.3, 75.0%{sup Asterisk-Operator }), and subventricular zone (4.5, 57.8%{sup Asterisk-Operator }). Vascular organs at risk also had reduced integral dose with the use of proton therapy (anterior cerebral arteries, 33.3{sup Asterisk-Operator }, 100.0%{sup Asterisk-Operator }; middle cerebral arteries, 25.9%{sup Asterisk-Operator }, 100%{sup Asterisk-Operator }; anterior communicating arteries, 30.8{sup Asterisk-Operator }, 41.7%{sup Asterisk-Operator }; and carotid arteries, 51.5{sup Asterisk-Operator }, 77.6{sup Asterisk-Operator }). Relative reduction of integral dose to the infratentorial brain (190.7{sup Asterisk-Operator }, 109.7%{sup Asterisk-Operator }), supratentorial brain without PTV (9.6, 26.8%{sup Asterisk-Operator }), brainstem (45.6, 22.4%{sup Asterisk-Operator }), and whole brain without PTV (19.4{sup Asterisk-Operator }, 34.4%{sup Asterisk-Operator }) were recorded with the use of proton therapy. ({sup Asterisk-Operator }Differences were significant based on Friedman's test with Bonferroni-Dunn correction, {alpha} = 0.05) Conclusions: The current study found that proton therapy was able to avoid excess integral radiation dose to a variety of normal structures at all dose levels while maintaining equal target coverage. Future studies will examine the clinical benefits of these dosimetric advantages.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗
DOE OSTI2012

A Treatment Planning and Acute Toxicity Comparison of Two Pelvic Nodal Volume Delineation Techniques and Delivery Comparison of Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Versus Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Hypofractionated High-Risk Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy

Purpose: To perform a comparison of two pelvic lymph node volume delineation strategies used in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for high risk prostate cancer and to determine the role of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Methods and Materials: Eighteen consecutive patients accrued to an ongoing clinical trial were identified according to either the nodal contouring strategy as described based on lymphotropic nanoparticle-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging technology (9 patients) or the current Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) consensus guidelines (9 patients). Radiation consisted of 45 Gy to prostate, seminal vesicles, and lymph nodes, with a simultaneous integrated boost to the prostate alone, to a total dose of 67.5 Gy delivered in 25 fractions. Prospective acute genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were compared at baseline, during radiotherapy, and 3 months after radiotherapy. Each patient was retrospectively replanned using the opposite method of nodal contouring, and plans were normalized for dosimetric comparison. VMAT plans were also generated according to the RTOG method for comparison. Results: RTOG plans resulted in a significantly lower rate of genitourinary frequency 3 months after treatment. The dosimetric comparison showed that the RTOG plans resulted in both favorable planning target volume (PTV) coverage and lower organs at risk (OARs) and integral (ID) doses. VMAT required two to three arcs to achieve adequate treatment plans, we did not observe consistent dosimetric benefits to either the PTV or the OARs, and a higher ID was observed. However, treatment times were significantly shorter with VMAT. Conclusion: The RTOG guidelines for pelvic nodal volume delineation results in favorable dosimetry and acceptable acute toxicities for both the target and OARs. We are unable to conclude that VMAT provides a benefit compared with IMRT.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗
DOE OSTI2012

Dosimetric Impact of Breathing Motion in Lung Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy Treatment Using Image-Modulated Radiotherapy and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy

Purpose: The objective of this study was to investigate the influence of tumor motion on dose delivery in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for lung cancer, using fixed field intensity- modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Methods and Materials: For each of 10 patients with stage I/II non-small-cell pulmonary tumors, a respiration-correlated four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) study was carried out. The internal target volume was delineated on the maximum intensity projection CT, which was reconstructed from the 4DCT dataset. A 5-mm margin was used for generation of the planning target volume. VMAT and five-field IMRT plans were generated using Pinnacle{sup 3} SmartArc and direct machine parameter optimization, respectively. All plans were generated for an Elekta Synergy linear accelerator using 6-MV photons. Simulation was performed to study the interplay between multileaf collimator (MLC) sequences and target movement during the delivery of VMAT and IMRT. For each plan, 4D dose was calculated using deformable image registration of the 4DCT images. Target volume coverage and doses to critical structures calculated using 4D methodology were compared with those calculated using 3D methodology. Results: For all patients included in this study, the interplay effect was found to present limited impact (less than 1% of prescription) on the target dose distribution, especially for SBRT, in which fewer fractions (three fractions) are delivered. Dose to the gross tumor volume (GTV) was, on average, slightly decreased (1% of prescription) in the 4D calculation compared with the 3D calculation. The motion impact on target dose homogeneity was patient-dependent and relatively small. Conclusions: Both VMAT and IMRT plans experienced negligible interplay effects between MLC sequence and tumor motion. For the most part, the 3D doses to the GTV and critical structures provided good approximations of the 4D dose calculations.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗
DOE OSTI2013

Accuracy of Real-time Couch Tracking During 3-dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy, Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy, and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Prostate Cancer

Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of real-time couch tracking for prostate cancer. Methods and Materials: Intrafractional motion trajectories of 15 prostate cancer patients were the basis for this phantom study; prostate motion had been monitored with the Calypso System. An industrial robot moved a phantom along these trajectories, motion was detected via an infrared camera system, and the robotic HexaPOD couch was used for real-time counter-steering. Residual phantom motion during real-time tracking was measured with the infrared camera system. Film dosimetry was performed during delivery of 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT), step-and-shoot intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Results: Motion of the prostate was largest in the anterior-posterior direction, with systematic ( N-Ary-Summation ) and random ({sigma}) errors of 2.3 mm and 2.9 mm, respectively; the prostate was outside a threshold of 5 mm (3D vector) for 25.0%{+-}19.8% of treatment time. Real-time tracking reduced prostate motion to N-Ary-Summation =0.01 mm and {sigma} = 0.55 mm in the anterior-posterior direction; the prostate remained within a 1-mm and 5-mm threshold for 93.9%{+-}4.6% and 99.7%{+-}0.4% of the time, respectively. Without real-time tracking, pass rates based on a {gamma} index of 2%/2 mm in film dosimetry ranged between 66% and 72% for 3D-CRT, IMRT, and VMAT, on average. Real-time tracking increased pass rates to minimum 98% on average for 3D-CRT, IMRT, and VMAT. Conclusions: Real-time couch tracking resulted in submillimeter accuracy for prostate cancer, which transferred into high dosimetric accuracy independently of whether 3D-CRT, IMRT, or VMAT was used.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗
DOE OSTI2012

Automated Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Treatment Planning for Stage III Lung Cancer: How Does It Compare With Intensity-Modulated Radio Therapy?

Purpose: To compare the quality of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) or intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans generated by an automated inverse planning system with that of dosimetrist-generated IMRT treatment plans for patients with stage III lung cancer. Methods and Materials: Two groups of 8 patients with stage III lung cancer were randomly selected. For group 1, the dosimetrists spent their best effort in designing IMRT plans to compete with the automated inverse planning system (mdaccAutoPlan); for group 2, the dosimetrists were not in competition and spent their regular effort. Five experienced radiation oncologists independently blind-reviewed and ranked the three plans for each patient: a rank of 1 was the best and 3 was the worst. Dosimetric measures were also performed to quantitatively evaluate the three types of plans. Results: Blind rankings from different oncologists were generally consistent. For group 1, the auto-VMAT, auto-IMRT, and manual IMRT plans received average ranks of 1.6, 2.13, and 2.18, respectively. The auto-VMAT plans in group 1 had 10% higher planning tumor volume (PTV) conformality and 24% lower esophagus V70 (the volume receiving 70 Gy or more) than the manual IMRT plans; they also resulted in more than 20% higher complication-free tumor control probability (P+) than either type of IMRT plans. The auto- and manual IMRT plans in this group yielded generally comparable dosimetric measures. For group 2, the auto-VMAT, auto-IMRT, and manual IMRT plans received average ranks of 1.55, 1.75, and 2.75, respectively. Compared to the manual IMRT plans in this group, the auto-VMAT plans and auto-IMRT plans showed, respectively, 17% and 14% higher PTV dose conformality, 8% and 17% lower mean lung dose, 17% and 26% lower mean heart dose, and 36% and 23% higher P+. Conclusions: mdaccAutoPlan is capable of generating high-quality VMAT and IMRT treatment plans for stage III lung cancer. Manual IMRT plans could achieve quality similar to auto-IMRT plans if best effort was spent.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗
DOE OSTI2016

Intrafraction Motion in Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Versus Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy

Purpose: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for early-stage inoperable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients delivers high doses that require high-precision treatment. Typically, image guidance is used to minimize day-to-day target displacement, but intrafraction position variability is often not corrected. Currently, volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is replacing intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in many departments because of its shorter delivery time. This study aimed to evaluate whether intrafraction variation in VMAT patients is reduced in comparison with patients treated with IMRT. Methods and Materials: NSCLC patients (197 IMRT and 112 VMAT) treated with a frameless SBRT technique to a prescribed dose of 3 × 18 Gy were evaluated. Image guidance for both techniques was identical: pretreatment cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) (CBCT{sub precorr}) for setup correction followed immediately before treatment by postcorrection CBCT (CBCT{sub postcorr}) for verification. Then, after either a noncoplanar IMRT technique or a VMAT technique, a posttreatment (CBCT{sub postRT}) scan was acquired. The CBCT{sub postRT} and CBCT{sub postcorr} scans were then used to evaluate intrafraction motion. Treatment delivery times, systematic (Σ) and random (σ) intrafraction variations, and associated planning target volume (PTV) margins were calculated. Results: The median treatment delivery time was significantly reduced by 20 minutes (range, 32-12 minutes) using VMAT compared with noncoplanar IMRT. Intrafraction tumor motion was significantly larger for IMRT in all directions up to 0.5 mm systematic (Σ) and 0.7 mm random (σ). The required PTV margins for IMRT and VMAT differed by less than 0.3 mm. Conclusion: VMAT-based SBRT for NSCLC was associated with significantly shorter delivery times and correspondingly smaller intrafraction motion compared with noncoplanar IMRT. However, the impact on the required PTV margin was small.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗
DOE OSTI2017

A Comparison of Non-coplanar Three-dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy, Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy, and Volumetric Modulated Radiation Therapy for the Delivery of Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy to Peripheral Lung Cancer

The objective of the study was to compare three noncoplanar delivery techniques (three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy [3DCRT], intensity-modulated radiation therapy [IMRT], and volumetric-modulated arc therapy [VMAT]) for the delivery of lung stereotactic ablative radiation therapy to peripheral lung tumours.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗
DOE OSTI2012

Dosimetric comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy for pancreatic malignancies

Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) has been previously evaluated for several tumor sites and has been shown to provide significant dosimetric and delivery benefits when compared with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). To date, there have been no published full reports on the benefits of VMAT use in pancreatic patients compared with IMRT. Ten patients with pancreatic malignancies treated with either IMRT or VMAT were retrospectively identified. Both a double-arc VMAT and a 7-field IMRT plan were generated for each of the 10 patients using the same defined tumor volumes, organs at risk (OAR) volumes, dose, fractionation, and optimization constraints. The planning tumor volume (PTV) maximum dose (55.8 Gy vs. 54.4 Gy), PTV mean dose (53.9 Gy vs. 52.1 Gy), and conformality index (1.11 vs. 0.99) were statistically similar between the IMRT and VMAT plans, respectively. The VMAT plans had a statistically significant reduction in monitor units compared with the IMRT plans (1109 vs. 498, p < 0.001). In addition, the doses to the liver, small bowel, and spinal cord were comparable between the IMRT and VMAT plans. However, the VMAT plans demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in the mean left kidney V{sub 25} (9.4 Gy vs. 2.3 Gy, p = 0.018), mean right kidney V{sub 15} (53.4 Gy vs. 45.9 Gy, p = 0.035), V{sub 20} (32.2 Gy vs. 25.5 Gy, p = 0.016), and V{sub 25} (21.7 Gy vs. 14.9 Gy, p = 0.001). VMAT was investigated in patients with pancreatic malignancies and compared with the current standard of IMRT. VMAT was found to have similar or improved dosimetric parameters for all endpoints considered. Specifically, VMAT provided reduced monitor units and improved bilateral kidney normal tissue dose. The clinical relevance of these benefits in the context of pancreatic cancer patients, however, is currently unclear and requires further investigation.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2013

Treatment of left sided breast cancer for a patient with funnel chest: Volumetric-modulated arc therapy vs. 3D-CRT and intensity-modulated radiotherapy

This case study presents a rare case of left-sided breast cancer in a patient with funnel chest, which is a technical challenge for radiation therapy planning. To identify the best treatment technique for this case, 3 techniques were compared: conventional tangential fields (3D conformal radiotherapy [3D-CRT]), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). The plans were created for a SynergyS® (Elekta, Ltd, Crawley, UK) linear accelerator with a BeamModulator™ head and 6-MV photons. The planning system was Oncentra Masterplan® v3.3 SP1 (Nucletron BV, Veenendal, Netherlands). Calculations were performed with collapsed cone algorithm. Dose prescription was 50.4 Gy to the average of the planning target volume (PTV). PTV coverage and homogeneity was comparable for all techniques. VMAT allowed reducing dose to the ipsilateral organs at risk (OAR) and the contralateral breast compared with IMRT and 3D-CRT: The volume of the left lung receiving 20 Gy was 19.3% for VMAT, 26.1% for IMRT, and 32.4% for 3D-CRT. In the heart, a D{sub 15%} of 9.7 Gy could be achieved with VMAT compared with 14 Gy for IMRT and 46 Gy for 3D-CRT. In the contralateral breast, D{sub 15%} was 6.4 Gy for VMAT, 8.8 Gy for IMRT, and 10.2 Gy for 3D-CRT. In the contralateral lung, however, the lowest dose was achieved with 3D-CRT with D{sub 10%} of 1.7 Gy for 3D-CRT, and 6.7 Gy for both IMRT and VMAT. The lowest number of monitor units (MU) per 1.8-Gy fraction was required by 3D-CRT (192 MU) followed by VMAT (518 MU) and IMRT (727 MU). Treatment time was similar for 3D-CRT (3 min) and VMAT (4 min) but substantially increased for IMRT (13 min). VMAT is considered the best treatment option for the presented case of a patient with funnel chest. It allows reducing dose in most OAR without compromising target coverage, keeping delivery time well below 5 minutes.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2013

Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (RapidArc) vs. conventional fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy for {sup 18}F-FDG-PET-guided dose escalation in oropharyngeal cancer: A planning study

Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography ({sup 18}F-FDG-PET)–guided focal dose escalation in oropharyngeal cancer may potentially improve local control. We evaluated the feasibility of this approach using volumetric-modulated arc therapy (RapidArc) and compared these plans with fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) focal dose escalation plans. Materials and methods: An initial study of 20 patients compared RapidArc with fixed-field IMRT using standard dose prescriptions. From this cohort, 10 were included in a dose escalation planning study. Dose escalation was applied to {sup 18}F-FDG-PET–positive regions in the primary tumor at dose levels of 5% (DL1), 10% (DL2), and 15% (DL3) above standard radical dose (65 Gy in 30 fractions). Fixed-field IMRT and double-arc RapidArc plans were generated for each dataset. Dose-volume histograms were used for plan evaluation and comparison. The Paddick conformity index (CI{sub Paddick}) and monitor units (MU) for each plan were recorded and compared. Both IMRT and RapidArc produced clinically acceptable plans and achieved planning objectives for target volumes. Dose conformity was significantly better in the RapidArc plans, with lower CI{sub Paddick} scores in both primary (PTV1) and elective (PTV2) planning target volumes (largest difference in PTV1 at DL3; 0.81 ± 0.03 [RapidArc] vs. 0.77 ± 0.07 [IMRT], p = 0.04). Maximum dose constraints for spinal cord and brainstem were not exceeded in both RapidArc and IMRT plans, but mean doses were higher with RapidArc (by 2.7 ± 1 Gy for spinal cord and 1.9 ± 1 Gy for brainstem). Contralateral parotid mean dose was lower with RapidArc, which was statistically significant at DL1 (29.0 vs. 29.9 Gy, p = 0.01) and DL2 (29.3 vs. 30.3 Gy, p = 0.03). MU were reduced by 39.8–49.2% with RapidArc (largest difference at DL3, 641 ± 94 vs. 1261 ± 118, p < 0.01). {sup 18}F-FDG-PET–guided focal dose escalation in oropharyngeal cancer is feasible with RapidArc. Compared with conventional fixed-field IMRT, RapidArc can achieve better dose conformity, improve contralateral parotid sparing, and uses fewer MU.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2013

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy for adult craniospinal irradiation—A comparison with traditional techniques

Craniospinal irradiation (CSI) poses a challenging planning process because of the complex target volume. Traditional 3D conformal CSI does not spare any critical organs, resulting in toxicity in patients. Here the dosimetric advantages of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) are compared with classic conformal planning in adults for both cranial and spine fields to develop a clinically feasible technique that is both effective and efficient. Ten adult patients treated with CSI were retrospectively identified. For the cranial fields, 5-field IMRT and dual 356° VMAT arcs were compared with opposed lateral 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) fields. For the spine fields, traditional posterior-anterior (PA) PA fields were compared with isocentric 5-field IMRT plans and single 200° VMAT arcs. Two adult patients have been treated using this IMRT technique to date and extensive quality assurance, especially for the junction regions, was performed. For the cranial fields, the IMRT technique had the highest planned target volume (PTV) maximum and was the least efficient, whereas the VMAT technique provided the greatest parotid sparing with better efficiency. 3D-CRT provided the most efficient delivery but with the highest parotid dose. For the spine fields, VMAT provided the best PTV coverage but had the highest mean dose to all organs at risk (OAR). 3D-CRT had the highest PTV and OAR maximum doses but was the most efficient. IMRT provides the greatest OAR sparing but the longest delivery time. For those patients with unresectable disease that can benefit from a higher, definitive dose, 3D-CRT–opposed laterals are the most clinically feasible technique for cranial fields and for spine fields. Although inefficient, the IMRT technique is the most clinically feasible because of the increased mean OAR dose with the VMAT technique. Quality assurance of the beams, especially the junction regions, is essential.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2013

Comparative dosimetry of volumetric modulated arc therapy and limited-angle static intensity-modulated radiation therapy for early-stage larynx cancer

To compare relative carotid and normal tissue sparing using volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) or intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for early-stage larynx cancer. Seven treatment plans were retrospectively created on 2 commercial treatment planning systems for 11 consecutive patients with T1-2N0 larynx cancer. Conventional plans consisted of opposed-wedged fields. IMRT planning used an anterior 3-field beam arrangement. Two VMAT plans were created, a full 360° arc and an anterior 180° arc. Given planning target volume (PTV) coverage of 95% total volume at 95% of 6300 cGy and maximum spinal cord dose below 2500 cGy, mean carotid artery dose was pushed as low as possible for each plan. Deliverability was assessed by comparing measured and planned planar dose with the gamma (γ) index. Full-arc planning provided the most effective carotid sparing but yielded the highest mean normal tissue dose (where normal tissue was defined as all soft tissue minus PTV). Static IMRT produced next-best carotid sparing with lower normal tissue dose. The anterior half-arc produced the highest carotid artery dose, in some cases comparable with conventional opposed fields. On the whole, carotid sparing was inversely related to normal tissue dose sparing. Mean γ indexes were much less than 1, consistent with accurate delivery of planned treatment. Full-arc VMAT yields greater carotid sparing than half-arc VMAT. Limited-angle IMRT remains a reasonable alternative to full-arc VMAT, given its ability to mediate the competing demands of carotid and normal tissue dose constraints. The respective clinical significance of carotid and normal tissue sparing will require prospective evaluation.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2013

Volumetric-modulated arc therapy vs conventional fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy in a whole-ventricular irradiation: A planning comparison study

This study evaluated the dosimetric difference between volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and conventional fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (cIMRT) in whole-ventricular irradiation. Computed tomography simulation data for 13 patients were acquired to create plans for VMAT and cIMRT. In both plans, the same median dose (100% = 24 Gy) was prescribed to the planning target volume (PTV), which comprised a tumor bed and whole ventricles. During optimization, doses to the normal brain and body were reduced, provided that the dose constraints of the target coverage were satisfied. The dose-volume indices of the PTV, normal brain, and body as well as monitor units were compared between the 2 techniques by using paired t-tests. The results showed no significant difference in the homogeneity index (0.064 vs 0.065; p = 0.824) of the PTV and conformation number (0.78 vs 0.77; p = 0.065) between the 2 techniques. In the normal brain and body, the dose-volume indices showed no significant difference between the 2 techniques, except for an increase in the volume receiving a low dose in VMAT; the absolute volume of the normal brain and body receiving 1 Gy of radiation significantly increased in VMAT by 1.6% and 8.3%, respectively, compared with that in cIMRT (1044 vs 1028 mL for the normal brain and 3079.2 vs 2823.3 mL for the body; p<0.001). The number of monitor units to deliver a 2.0-Gy fraction was significantly reduced in VMAT compared with that in cIMRT (354 vs 873, respectively; p<0.001). In conclusion, VMAT delivers IMRT to complex target volumes such as whole ventricles with fewer monitor units, while maintaining target coverage and conformal isodose distribution comparable to cIMRT; however, in addition to those characteristics, the fact that the volume of the normal brain and body receiving a low dose would increase in VMAT should be considered.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2013

A dosimetric comparative study: Volumetric modulated arc therapy vs intensity-modulated radiation therapy in the treatment of nasal cavity carcinomas

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the differences between volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in the treatment of nasal cavity carcinomas. The treatment of 10 patients, who had completed IMRT treatment for resected tumors of the nasal cavity, was replanned with the Philips Pinnacle{sup 3} Version 9 treatment-planning system. The IMRT plans used a 9-beam technique whereas the VMAT (known as SmartArc) plans used a 3-arc technique. Both types of plans were optimized using Philips Pinnacle{sup 3} Direct Machine Parameter Optimization algorithm. IMRT and VMAT plans' quality was compared by evaluating the maximum, minimum, and mean doses to the target volumes and organs at risk, monitor units (MUs), and the treatment delivery time. Our results indicate that VMAT is capable of greatly reducing treatment delivery time and MUs compared with IMRT. The reduction of treatment delivery time and MUs can decrease the effects of intrafractional uncertainties that can occur because of patient movement during treatment delivery. VMAT's plans further reduce doses to critical structures that are in close proximity to the target volume.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2013

Stereotactic body radiation therapy planning with duodenal sparing using volumetric-modulated arc therapy vs intensity-modulated radiation therapy in locally advanced pancreatic cancer: A dosimetric analysis

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) achieves excellent local control for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC), but may increase late duodenal toxicity. Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivers intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with a rotating gantry rather than multiple fixed beams. This study dosimetrically evaluates the feasibility of implementing duodenal constraints for SBRT using VMAT vs IMRT. Non–duodenal sparing (NS) and duodenal-sparing (DS) VMAT and IMRT plans delivering 25 Gy in 1 fraction were generated for 15 patients with LAPC. DS plans were constrained to duodenal D{sub max} of<30 Gy at any point. VMAT used 1 360° coplanar arc with 4° spacing between control points, whereas IMRT used 9 coplanar beams with fixed gantry positions at 40° angles. Dosimetric parameters for target volumes and organs at risk were compared for DS planning vs NS planning and VMAT vs IMRT using paired-sample Wilcoxon signed rank tests. Both DS VMAT and DS IMRT achieved significantly reduced duodenal D{sub mean}, D{sub max}, D{sub 1cc}, D{sub 4%}, and V{sub 20} {sub Gy} compared with NS plans (all p≤0.002). DS constraints compromised target coverage for IMRT as demonstrated by reduced V{sub 95%} (p = 0.01) and D{sub mean} (p = 0.02), but not for VMAT. DS constraints resulted in increased dose to right kidney, spinal cord, stomach, and liver for VMAT. Direct comparison of DS VMAT and DS IMRT revealed that VMAT was superior in sparing the left kidney (p<0.001) and the spinal cord (p<0.001), whereas IMRT was superior in sparing the stomach (p = 0.05) and the liver (p = 0.003). DS VMAT required 21% fewer monitor units (p<0.001) and delivered treatment 2.4 minutes faster (p<0.001) than DS IMRT. Implementing DS constraints during SBRT planning for LAPC can significantly reduce duodenal point or volumetric dose parameters for both VMAT and IMRT. The primary consequence of implementing DS constraints for VMAT is increased dose to other organs at risk, whereas for IMRT it is compromised target coverage. These findings suggest clinical situations where each technique may be most useful if DS constraints are to be employed.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2013

Dosimetric effects of weight loss or gain during volumetric modulated arc therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer

Weight loss or gain during the course of radiation therapy for prostate cancer can alter the planned dose to the target volumes and critical organs. Typically, source-to-surface distance (SSD) measurements are documented by therapists on a weekly basis to ensure that patients' exterior surface and isocenter-to-skin surface distances remain stable. The radiation oncology team then determines whether the patient has undergone a physical change sufficient to require a new treatment plan. The effect of weight change (SSD increase or decrease) on intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) dosimetry is not well known, and it is unclear when rescanning or replanning is needed. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of weight change (SSD increase or decrease) on IMRT or VMAT dose delivery in patients with prostate cancer and to determine the SSD change threshold for replanning. Whether IMRT or VMAT provides better dose stability under weight change conditions was also determined. We generated clinical IMRT and VMAT prostate and seminal vesicle treatment plans for varying SSDs for 10 randomly selected patients with prostate cancer. The differences due to SSD change were quantified by a specific dose change for a specified volume of interest. The target mean dose, decreased or increased by 2.9% per 1-cm SSD decrease or increase in IMRT and by 3.6% in VMAT. If the SSD deviation is more than 1 cm, the radiation oncology team should determine whether to continue treatment without modifications, to adjust monitor units, or to resimulate and replan.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2013

Single-arc volumetric-modulated arc therapy (sVMAT) as adjuvant treatment for gastric cancer: Dosimetric comparisons with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT)

To compare the dosimetric differences between the single-arc volumetric-modulated arc therapy (sVMAT), 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) techniques in treatment planning for gastric cancer as adjuvant radiotherapy. Twelve patients were retrospectively analyzed. In each patient's case, the parameters were compared based on the dose-volume histogram (DVH) of the sVMAT, 3D-CRT, and IMRT plans, respectively. Three techniques showed similar target dose coverage. The maximum and mean doses of the target were significantly higher in the sVMAT plans than that in 3D-CRT plans and in the 3D-CRT/IMRT plans, respectively, but these differences were clinically acceptable. The IMRT and sVMAT plans successfully achieved better target dose conformity, reduced the V{sub 20/30}, and mean dose of the left kidney, as well as the V{sub 20/30} of the liver, compared with the 3D-CRT plans. And the sVMAT technique reduced the V{sub 20} of the liver much significantly. Although the maximum dose of the spinal cord were much higher in the IMRT and sVMAT plans, respectively (mean 36.4 vs 39.5 and 40.6 Gy), these data were still under the constraints. Not much difference was found in the analysis of the parameters of the right kidney, intestine, and heart. The IMRT and sVMAT plans achieved similar dose distribution to the target, but superior to the 3D-CRT plans, in adjuvant radiotherapy for gastric cancer. The sVMAT technique improved the dose sparings of the left kidney and liver, compared with the 3D-CRT technique, but showed few dosimetric advantages over the IMRT technique. Studies are warranted to evaluate the clinical benefits of the VMAT treatment for patients with gastric cancer after surgery in the future.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗