Assessment of multi‐criteria optimization (MCO) for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in hippocampal avoidance whole brain radiation therapy (HA‐WBRT)
This study compared the dosimetric performance of (a) volumetric modulated arc therapy ( VMAT ) with standard optimization ( STD ) and (b) multi‐criteria optimization ( MCO ) to (c) intensity modulated radiation therapy ( IMRT ) with MCO for hippocampal avoidance whole brain radiation therapy ( HA ‐...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of applied clinical medical physics 2018-02, Vol.19 (2), p.184-190 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | This study compared the dosimetric performance of (a) volumetric modulated arc therapy (
VMAT
) with standard optimization (
STD
) and (b) multi‐criteria optimization (
MCO
) to (c) intensity modulated radiation therapy (
IMRT
) with
MCO
for hippocampal avoidance whole brain radiation therapy (
HA
‐
WBRT
) in RayStation treatment planning system (
TPS
). Ten
HA
‐
WBRT
patients previously treated with
MCO
‐
IMRT
or
MCO
‐
VMAT
on an Elekta Infinity accelerator with Agility multileaf collimators (5‐mm leaves) were re‐planned for the other two modalities. All patients received 30 Gy in 15 fractions to the planning target volume (
PTV
), namely,
PTV
30 expanded with a 2‐mm margin from the whole brain excluding hippocampus with margin. The patients all had metastatic lesions (up to 12) of variable sizes and proximity to the hippocampus, treated with an additional 7.5 Gy from a simultaneous integrated boost (
SIB
) to
PTV
37.5. The
IMRT
plans used eight to eleven non‐coplanar fields, whereas the
VMAT
plans used two coplanar full arcs and a vertex half arc. The averaged target coverage, dose to organs‐at‐risk (
OAR
s) and monitor unit provided by the three modalities were compared, and a Wilcoxon signed‐rank test was performed.
MCO
‐
VMAT
provided statistically significant reduction of D100 of hippocampus compared to
STD
‐
VMAT
, and Dmax of cochleas compared to
MCO
‐
IMRT
. With statistical significance,
MCO
‐
VMAT
improved V30 of
PTV
30 by 14.2% and 4.8%, respectively, compared to
MCO
‐
IMRT
and
STD
‐
VMAT
. It also raised D95 of
PTV
37.5 by 0.4 Gy compared to both
MCO
‐
IMRT
and
STD
‐
VMAT
. Improved plan quality parameters such as a decrease in overall plan Dmax and total monitor units (
MU
) were also observed for
MCO
‐
VMAT
.
MCO
‐
VMAT
is found to be the optimal modality for
HA
‐
WBRT
in terms of
PTV
coverage,
OAR
sparing and delivery efficiency, compared to
MCO
‐
IMRT
or
STD
‐
VMAT
. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1526-9914 |
DOI: | 10.1002/acm2.12277 |