New possibilities for volumetric-modulated arc therapy using the AgilityTM 160-leaf multileaf collimator

Purpose This study compares the quality of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans optimized for an Elekta Agility TM (Elekta, Stockholm, Sweden) multileaf collimator (MLC; leaf width 5 mm) and an Elekta MLCi2 (leaf width 10 mm) for complex target vo...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Strahlentherapie und Onkologie 2014-10, Vol.190 (11), p.1066-1074
Hauptverfasser: Blümer, Nadine, Scherf, Christian, Köhn, Janett, Kara, Eugen, Loutfi-Krauß, Britta, Imhoff, Detlef, Rödel, Claus, Ramm, Ulla, Licher, Jörg
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose This study compares the quality of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans optimized for an Elekta Agility TM (Elekta, Stockholm, Sweden) multileaf collimator (MLC; leaf width 5 mm) and an Elekta MLCi2 (leaf width 10 mm) for complex target volumes (anal, AC; head and neck, H&N and prostate cancer, PC). Patients and methods For plan comparisons, 15 patients who had been treated with IMRT or VMAT using the MLCi2 were selected. For each patient, a retrospective treatment plan using the MLCi2 for the technique not applied was created, as were treatment plans for both techniques using the Agility TM MLC. Dose–volume histograms (DHVs) for planning target volumes (PTVs) and organs at risk (OARs) were compared. Further parameters relating to dose conformity, dose homogeneity and mean dose (D mean ) to the PTV, compliance with the intended OAR dose criteria and overall dose to normal tissue were analyzed. Verification measurements were performed and optimization and treatment times were compared. Results Compared to the MLCi2 plans, the Agility TM IMRT and VMAT plans show better or equivalent results in terms of PTV dose conformity and homogeneity. Compliance with the intended OAR dose criteria does not differ according to technique or MLC type. Slight differences are shown for dose distributions in OARs and normal tissue. Verification measurements show that all plans fulfill the acceptance criteria of a minimum of 95 % matched dose points for the 3 %/3 mm γ criterion. Optimization times for the VMAT plans increase compared to the IMRT plans, whereas treatment times decrease. Conclusion With the MLCi2, treatment of complex target volumes with VMAT was only possible with compromises in terms of target coverage. Using the Agility TM MLC, even complex target volumes can be treated with VMAT without compromising target coverage or resulting in higher exposure of OARs or normal tissue.
ISSN:0179-7158
1439-099X
DOI:10.1007/s00066-014-0692-3