VMAT plan quality comparison between Clinac-iX and halcyon treatment delivery systems for nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Radiotherapy planning for nasopharyngeal carcinoma is a complex process due to the proximity of critical structures. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) can improve the therapeutic ratio. However, multiple treatment delivery systems offer VMAT with varying technical specifications. This study co...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Medical dosimetry : official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists 2024-08
Hauptverfasser: Gundapuneedi, Bhargav Shreeram, Sethi, Pooja, Vijayaprabhu, N., Saravanan, K., Mahalakshmy, T.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page
container_title Medical dosimetry : official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists
container_volume
creator Gundapuneedi, Bhargav Shreeram
Sethi, Pooja
Vijayaprabhu, N.
Saravanan, K.
Mahalakshmy, T.
description Radiotherapy planning for nasopharyngeal carcinoma is a complex process due to the proximity of critical structures. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) can improve the therapeutic ratio. However, multiple treatment delivery systems offer VMAT with varying technical specifications. This study compares the dosimetric plan quality of 2 systems, Clinac-iX and Halcyon in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. We utilized contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) simulation and magnetic resonance (MR) image datasets from thirty patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma to contour target volumes and organs at risk (OARs). Two medical physicists independently performed dosimetric planning for Clinac-iX and Halcyon machines, following standard international dosimetric constraints for OARs. We compared plan quality for dosimetric profiles, indices, and plan complexity parameters from both machines. Dosimetric coverage for target volumes and plan quality indices, such as homogeneity, conformity, and coverage, showed no significant differences between Clinac-iX and Halcyon. However, Halcyon demonstrated significantly better OAR sparing, particularly for the spinal cord, optic chiasm, lenses, eyeballs and lower brain volume integral dose (BVID) (p < 0.05). Complexity parameters showed that both systems used a similar number of arcs, but Halcyon had higher monitor units and lower treatment time per fraction owing to higher dose rate. Our study results favor Halcyon for better plan quality regarding critical organ sparing, low brain volume integral dose, and fast treatment delivery. This study can be used as a reference for selecting an optimal treatment delivery system for nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients in centres equipped with multiple linear accelerators.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.meddos.2024.07.004
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3090632559</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0958394724000372</els_id><sourcerecordid>3090632559</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1567-86eb60146d64f01170655dea28ff1039300daa99f8a97fc1bc5d2e10babd4c443</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEtv1TAQhS1ERS-Ff4CQl2wSxonz8AapuuIlFXVTqu6siT2hvkrs1M4tyr_H1S0sWc3inDNn5mPsnYBSgGg_HsqZrA2prKCSJXQlgHzBdqLv6kJCVb1kO1BNX9RKdufsdUoHAGgk1K_Yea2EqITodize_ri84cuEnj8ccXLrxk2YF4wuBc8HWn8Teb6fnEdTuDuO3vJ7nMyW1TUSrjP5lVua3CPFjactrTQnPobIPaaw3GPc_C_CiRuMxvkw4xt2NuKU6O3zvGA_v3y-2X8rrq6_ft9fXhVGNG1X9C0NLQjZ2laOkI-FtmksYdWPo4Ba1QAWUamxR9WNRgymsRUJGHCw0khZX7APp71LDA9HSqueXTI05V8pHJOuQUFbV02jslWerCaGlCKNeoluzqdrAfqJtj7oE239RFtDpzPtHHv_3HAcsvwv9BdvNnw6GSj_-ego6mQceUPWRTKrtsH9v-EPaRGUSg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3090632559</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>VMAT plan quality comparison between Clinac-iX and halcyon treatment delivery systems for nasopharyngeal carcinoma</title><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Gundapuneedi, Bhargav Shreeram ; Sethi, Pooja ; Vijayaprabhu, N. ; Saravanan, K. ; Mahalakshmy, T.</creator><creatorcontrib>Gundapuneedi, Bhargav Shreeram ; Sethi, Pooja ; Vijayaprabhu, N. ; Saravanan, K. ; Mahalakshmy, T.</creatorcontrib><description>Radiotherapy planning for nasopharyngeal carcinoma is a complex process due to the proximity of critical structures. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) can improve the therapeutic ratio. However, multiple treatment delivery systems offer VMAT with varying technical specifications. This study compares the dosimetric plan quality of 2 systems, Clinac-iX and Halcyon in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. We utilized contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) simulation and magnetic resonance (MR) image datasets from thirty patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma to contour target volumes and organs at risk (OARs). Two medical physicists independently performed dosimetric planning for Clinac-iX and Halcyon machines, following standard international dosimetric constraints for OARs. We compared plan quality for dosimetric profiles, indices, and plan complexity parameters from both machines. Dosimetric coverage for target volumes and plan quality indices, such as homogeneity, conformity, and coverage, showed no significant differences between Clinac-iX and Halcyon. However, Halcyon demonstrated significantly better OAR sparing, particularly for the spinal cord, optic chiasm, lenses, eyeballs and lower brain volume integral dose (BVID) (p &lt; 0.05). Complexity parameters showed that both systems used a similar number of arcs, but Halcyon had higher monitor units and lower treatment time per fraction owing to higher dose rate. Our study results favor Halcyon for better plan quality regarding critical organ sparing, low brain volume integral dose, and fast treatment delivery. This study can be used as a reference for selecting an optimal treatment delivery system for nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients in centres equipped with multiple linear accelerators.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0958-3947</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1873-4022</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-4022</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2024.07.004</identifier><identifier>PMID: 39112117</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Clinac-iX ; Halcyon ; Nasopharyngeal carcinoma ; Plan quality ; VMAT</subject><ispartof>Medical dosimetry : official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists, 2024-08</ispartof><rights>2024 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists</rights><rights>Copyright © 2024 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1567-86eb60146d64f01170655dea28ff1039300daa99f8a97fc1bc5d2e10babd4c443</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-8326-2855 ; 0000-0003-0663-6424</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meddos.2024.07.004$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39112117$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gundapuneedi, Bhargav Shreeram</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sethi, Pooja</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vijayaprabhu, N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saravanan, K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mahalakshmy, T.</creatorcontrib><title>VMAT plan quality comparison between Clinac-iX and halcyon treatment delivery systems for nasopharyngeal carcinoma</title><title>Medical dosimetry : official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists</title><addtitle>Med Dosim</addtitle><description>Radiotherapy planning for nasopharyngeal carcinoma is a complex process due to the proximity of critical structures. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) can improve the therapeutic ratio. However, multiple treatment delivery systems offer VMAT with varying technical specifications. This study compares the dosimetric plan quality of 2 systems, Clinac-iX and Halcyon in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. We utilized contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) simulation and magnetic resonance (MR) image datasets from thirty patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma to contour target volumes and organs at risk (OARs). Two medical physicists independently performed dosimetric planning for Clinac-iX and Halcyon machines, following standard international dosimetric constraints for OARs. We compared plan quality for dosimetric profiles, indices, and plan complexity parameters from both machines. Dosimetric coverage for target volumes and plan quality indices, such as homogeneity, conformity, and coverage, showed no significant differences between Clinac-iX and Halcyon. However, Halcyon demonstrated significantly better OAR sparing, particularly for the spinal cord, optic chiasm, lenses, eyeballs and lower brain volume integral dose (BVID) (p &lt; 0.05). Complexity parameters showed that both systems used a similar number of arcs, but Halcyon had higher monitor units and lower treatment time per fraction owing to higher dose rate. Our study results favor Halcyon for better plan quality regarding critical organ sparing, low brain volume integral dose, and fast treatment delivery. This study can be used as a reference for selecting an optimal treatment delivery system for nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients in centres equipped with multiple linear accelerators.</description><subject>Clinac-iX</subject><subject>Halcyon</subject><subject>Nasopharyngeal carcinoma</subject><subject>Plan quality</subject><subject>VMAT</subject><issn>0958-3947</issn><issn>1873-4022</issn><issn>1873-4022</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kEtv1TAQhS1ERS-Ff4CQl2wSxonz8AapuuIlFXVTqu6siT2hvkrs1M4tyr_H1S0sWc3inDNn5mPsnYBSgGg_HsqZrA2prKCSJXQlgHzBdqLv6kJCVb1kO1BNX9RKdufsdUoHAGgk1K_Yea2EqITodize_ri84cuEnj8ccXLrxk2YF4wuBc8HWn8Teb6fnEdTuDuO3vJ7nMyW1TUSrjP5lVua3CPFjactrTQnPobIPaaw3GPc_C_CiRuMxvkw4xt2NuKU6O3zvGA_v3y-2X8rrq6_ft9fXhVGNG1X9C0NLQjZ2laOkI-FtmksYdWPo4Ba1QAWUamxR9WNRgymsRUJGHCw0khZX7APp71LDA9HSqueXTI05V8pHJOuQUFbV02jslWerCaGlCKNeoluzqdrAfqJtj7oE239RFtDpzPtHHv_3HAcsvwv9BdvNnw6GSj_-ego6mQceUPWRTKrtsH9v-EPaRGUSg</recordid><startdate>20240806</startdate><enddate>20240806</enddate><creator>Gundapuneedi, Bhargav Shreeram</creator><creator>Sethi, Pooja</creator><creator>Vijayaprabhu, N.</creator><creator>Saravanan, K.</creator><creator>Mahalakshmy, T.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8326-2855</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0663-6424</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20240806</creationdate><title>VMAT plan quality comparison between Clinac-iX and halcyon treatment delivery systems for nasopharyngeal carcinoma</title><author>Gundapuneedi, Bhargav Shreeram ; Sethi, Pooja ; Vijayaprabhu, N. ; Saravanan, K. ; Mahalakshmy, T.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1567-86eb60146d64f01170655dea28ff1039300daa99f8a97fc1bc5d2e10babd4c443</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Clinac-iX</topic><topic>Halcyon</topic><topic>Nasopharyngeal carcinoma</topic><topic>Plan quality</topic><topic>VMAT</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gundapuneedi, Bhargav Shreeram</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sethi, Pooja</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vijayaprabhu, N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saravanan, K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mahalakshmy, T.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Medical dosimetry : official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gundapuneedi, Bhargav Shreeram</au><au>Sethi, Pooja</au><au>Vijayaprabhu, N.</au><au>Saravanan, K.</au><au>Mahalakshmy, T.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>VMAT plan quality comparison between Clinac-iX and halcyon treatment delivery systems for nasopharyngeal carcinoma</atitle><jtitle>Medical dosimetry : official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists</jtitle><addtitle>Med Dosim</addtitle><date>2024-08-06</date><risdate>2024</risdate><issn>0958-3947</issn><issn>1873-4022</issn><eissn>1873-4022</eissn><abstract>Radiotherapy planning for nasopharyngeal carcinoma is a complex process due to the proximity of critical structures. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) can improve the therapeutic ratio. However, multiple treatment delivery systems offer VMAT with varying technical specifications. This study compares the dosimetric plan quality of 2 systems, Clinac-iX and Halcyon in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. We utilized contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) simulation and magnetic resonance (MR) image datasets from thirty patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma to contour target volumes and organs at risk (OARs). Two medical physicists independently performed dosimetric planning for Clinac-iX and Halcyon machines, following standard international dosimetric constraints for OARs. We compared plan quality for dosimetric profiles, indices, and plan complexity parameters from both machines. Dosimetric coverage for target volumes and plan quality indices, such as homogeneity, conformity, and coverage, showed no significant differences between Clinac-iX and Halcyon. However, Halcyon demonstrated significantly better OAR sparing, particularly for the spinal cord, optic chiasm, lenses, eyeballs and lower brain volume integral dose (BVID) (p &lt; 0.05). Complexity parameters showed that both systems used a similar number of arcs, but Halcyon had higher monitor units and lower treatment time per fraction owing to higher dose rate. Our study results favor Halcyon for better plan quality regarding critical organ sparing, low brain volume integral dose, and fast treatment delivery. This study can be used as a reference for selecting an optimal treatment delivery system for nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients in centres equipped with multiple linear accelerators.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>39112117</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.meddos.2024.07.004</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8326-2855</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0663-6424</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0958-3947
ispartof Medical dosimetry : official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists, 2024-08
issn 0958-3947
1873-4022
1873-4022
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3090632559
source Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)
subjects Clinac-iX
Halcyon
Nasopharyngeal carcinoma
Plan quality
VMAT
title VMAT plan quality comparison between Clinac-iX and halcyon treatment delivery systems for nasopharyngeal carcinoma
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-23T02%3A01%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=VMAT%20plan%20quality%20comparison%20between%20Clinac-iX%20and%20halcyon%20treatment%20delivery%20systems%20for%20nasopharyngeal%20carcinoma&rft.jtitle=Medical%20dosimetry%20:%20official%20journal%20of%20the%20American%20Association%20of%20Medical%20Dosimetrists&rft.au=Gundapuneedi,%20Bhargav%20Shreeram&rft.date=2024-08-06&rft.issn=0958-3947&rft.eissn=1873-4022&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.meddos.2024.07.004&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3090632559%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3090632559&rft_id=info:pmid/39112117&rft_els_id=S0958394724000372&rfr_iscdi=true