Impact of different optimization strategies on the compatibility between planned and delivered doses during radiation therapy of cervical cancer.

3DVH software. Cervical cancer Treatment plan complexity VMAT gamma analysis

Journal

Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology
ISSN: 1507-1367
Titre abrégé: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother
Pays: Poland
ID NLM: 100885761

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Historique:
received: 06 11 2019
revised: 13 03 2020
accepted: 30 03 2020
entrez: 7 5 2020
pubmed: 7 5 2020
medline: 7 5 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

To analyse the impact of different optimization strategies on the compatibility between planned and delivered doses during radiotherapy of cervical cancer. Four treatment plans differing in optimisation strategies were prepared for ten cervical cancer cases. These were: volumetric modulated arc therapy with (_OPT) and without optimization of the doses in the bone marrow and for two sets of margins applied to the clinical target volume that arose from image guidance based on the bones (IG(B)) and soft tissues (IG(ST)). The plans were subjected to dosimetric verification by using the ArcCHECK system and 3DVH software. The planned dose distributions were compared with the corresponding measured dose distributions in the light of complexity of the plans and its deliverability. The clinically significant impact of the plans complexity on their deliverability is visible only for the gamma passing rates analysis performed in a local mode and directly in the organs. While more general analyses show statistically significant differences, the clinical relevance of them has not been confirmed. The analysis showed that IG(ST)_OPT and IG(B)_OPT significantly differ from IG(ST) and IG(B). The clinical acceptance of IG(ST)_OPT obtained for hard combinations of gamma acceptance criteria (2%/2 mm) confirm its satisfactory deliverability. In turn, for IG(B)_OPT in the case of the rectum, the combination of 2%/2 mm did not meet the criteria of acceptance. Despite the complexity of the IG(ST)_OPT, the results of analysis confirm the acceptance of its deliverability when 2%/2 mm gamma acceptance criteria are used during the analysis.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32372881
doi: 10.1016/j.rpor.2020.03.027
pii: S1507-1367(20)30057-2
pmc: PMC7191125
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

412-421

Informations de copyright

© 2020 Greater Poland Cancer Centre. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Références

Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2018 Sep-Oct;23(5):392-397
pubmed: 30127680
Radiother Oncol. 2017 Aug;124(2):302-310
pubmed: 28687395
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2014 Apr;26(4):185-96
pubmed: 24566332
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Jun 1;71(2):428-34
pubmed: 18037584
Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. 2014 Sep;37(3):475-82
pubmed: 24810792
Radiother Oncol. 2002 Mar;62(3):309-19
pubmed: 12175562
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Mar 15;79(4):1043-7
pubmed: 20471182
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013 May 1;86(1):83-90
pubmed: 23582248
Phys Med. 2018 Aug;52:42-47
pubmed: 30139608
Phys Med. 2018 Aug;52:65-71
pubmed: 30139611
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 Aug 1;56(5):1354-60
pubmed: 12873680
Acta Oncol. 2017 Jan;56(1):1-6
pubmed: 27846757
Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2014 Dec;13(6):583-91
pubmed: 24000985
PLoS One. 2015 Mar 25;10(3):e0119937
pubmed: 25807544
Cancer Radiother. 2016 Oct;20(6-7):622-8
pubmed: 27614513
Med Phys. 2011 Oct;38(10):5477-89
pubmed: 21992366
Anticancer Res. 2014 Sep;34(9):5091-8
pubmed: 25202097
Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2009 Oct;8(5):369-77
pubmed: 19754213
Med Phys. 2013 Jul;40(7):071718
pubmed: 23822422
Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2013 Oct 03;18(6):363-70
pubmed: 24416580
Med Phys. 1998 May;25(5):656-61
pubmed: 9608475
Phys Med. 2017 Apr;36:54-59
pubmed: 28410686
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 Jul 15;62(4):1117-24
pubmed: 15990017
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Aug 1;71(5):1504-10
pubmed: 18640499
Med Phys. 2011 Feb;38(2):1037-44
pubmed: 21452741
Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2018 Nov-Dec;23(6):517-527
pubmed: 30534015
Med Phys. 2014 Feb;41(2):021716
pubmed: 24506607
Cancer Radiother. 2012 May;16(3):209-14
pubmed: 22498094
Phys Med. 2017 Aug;40:11-16
pubmed: 28760506
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018 May;28(4):641-655
pubmed: 29688967
Semin Radiat Oncol. 2019 Jul;29(3):284-298
pubmed: 31027645
Phys Med Biol. 2018 Oct 17;63(20):205015
pubmed: 30230475
Phys Med Biol. 2014 Dec 7;59(23):7315-40
pubmed: 25383976
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Feb 1;79(2):348-55
pubmed: 20472347
Phys Med. 2019 Jan;57:183-190
pubmed: 30738524

Auteurs

Agata Jodda (A)

Department of Medical Physics, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Garbary 15, 61-866 Poznań, Poland.

Tomasz Piotrowski (T)

Department of Medical Physics, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Garbary 15, 61-866 Poznań, Poland.
Department of Electroradiology, Poznań University of Medical Sciences, Poznań, Poland.

Marta Kruszyna-Mochalska (M)

Department of Medical Physics, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Garbary 15, 61-866 Poznań, Poland.
Department of Electroradiology, Poznań University of Medical Sciences, Poznań, Poland.

Julian Malicki (J)

Department of Medical Physics, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Garbary 15, 61-866 Poznań, Poland.
Department of Electroradiology, Poznań University of Medical Sciences, Poznań, Poland.

Classifications MeSH