Impact of the gradient in gantry-table rotation on dynamic trajectory radiotherapy plan quality.
dynamic trajectory radiotherapy
non-coplanar radiotherapy
treatment plan quality
Journal
Medical physics
ISSN: 2473-4209
Titre abrégé: Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0425746
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2023
Nov 2023
Historique:
revised:
07
09
2023
received:
18
01
2023
accepted:
10
09
2023
medline:
6
11
2023
pubmed:
25
9
2023
entrez:
25
9
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To improve organ at risk (OAR) sparing, dynamic trajectory radiotherapy (DTRT) extends VMAT by dynamic table and collimator rotation during beam-on. However, comprehensive investigations regarding the impact of the gantry-table (GT) rotation gradient on the DTRT plan quality have not been conducted. To investigate the impact of a user-defined GT rotation gradient on plan quality of DTRT plans in terms of dosimetric plan quality, dosimetric robustness, deliverability, and delivery time. The dynamic trajectories of DTRT are described by GT and gantry-collimator paths. The GT path is determined by minimizing the overlap of OARs with planning target volume (PTV). This approach is extended to consider a GT rotation gradient by means of a maximum gradient of the path ( The extension of the DTRT planning process with user-defined The impact of the GT rotation gradient on DTRT plan quality is comprehensively investigated for three cases in the head and neck and brain region. Increasing freedom in this gradient improves dosimetric plan quality at the cost of increased delivery time for the investigated cases. No clear dependency of GT rotation gradient on dosimetric robustness is observed.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To improve organ at risk (OAR) sparing, dynamic trajectory radiotherapy (DTRT) extends VMAT by dynamic table and collimator rotation during beam-on. However, comprehensive investigations regarding the impact of the gantry-table (GT) rotation gradient on the DTRT plan quality have not been conducted.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the impact of a user-defined GT rotation gradient on plan quality of DTRT plans in terms of dosimetric plan quality, dosimetric robustness, deliverability, and delivery time.
METHODS
METHODS
The dynamic trajectories of DTRT are described by GT and gantry-collimator paths. The GT path is determined by minimizing the overlap of OARs with planning target volume (PTV). This approach is extended to consider a GT rotation gradient by means of a maximum gradient of the path (
RESULTS
RESULTS
The extension of the DTRT planning process with user-defined
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The impact of the GT rotation gradient on DTRT plan quality is comprehensively investigated for three cases in the head and neck and brain region. Increasing freedom in this gradient improves dosimetric plan quality at the cost of increased delivery time for the investigated cases. No clear dependency of GT rotation gradient on dosimetric robustness is observed.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
7104-7117Subventions
Organisme : Varian
Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Références
Otto K. Volumetric modulated arc therapy: IMRT in a single gantry arc. Med Phys. 2008;35(1):310-317. doi:10.1118/1.2818738
Verbakel WFAR, Cuijpers JP, Hoffmans D, Bieker M, Slotman BJ, Senan S. Volumetric intensity-modulated arc therapy vs. conventional IMRT in head-and-neck cancer: a comparative planning and dosimetric study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;74(1):252-259. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.12.033
Teoh M, Clark CH, Wood K, Whitaker S, Nisbet A. Volumetric modulated arc therapy: a review of current literature and clinical use in practice. Br J Radiol. 2011;84(1007). doi:10.1259/bjr/22373346
Smyth G, Evans PM, Bamber JC, et al. Non-coplanar trajectories to improve organ at risk sparing in volumetric modulated arc therapy for primary brain tumors. Radiother Oncol. 2016;121(1):124-131. doi:10.1016/J.RADONC.2016.07.014
Park J, Park JW, Yea JW. Non-coplanar whole brain radiotherapy is an effective modality for parotid sparing. Yeungnam Univ J Med. 2019;36(1):36. doi:10.12701/YUJM.2019.00087
Fogliata A, Clivio A, Nicolini G, Vanetti E, Cozzi L. A treatment planning study using non-coplanar static fields and coplanar arcs for whole breast radiotherapy of patients with concave geometry. Radiother Oncol. 2007;85(3):346-354. doi:10.1016/J.RADONC.2007.10.006
Sheng K, Shepard DM. Point/Counterpoint. Noncoplanar beams improve dosimetry quality for extracranial intensity modulated radiotherapy and should be used more extensively. Med Phys. 2015;42(2):531-533. doi:10.1118/1.4895981
Gayen S, Kombathula SH, Manna S, Varshney S, Pareek P. Dosimetric comparison of coplanar and non-coplanar volumetric-modulated arc therapy in head and neck cancer treated with radiotherapy. Radiat Oncol J. 2020;38(2):138. doi:10.3857/ROJ.2020.00143
Ohira S, Ueda Y, Akino Y, et al. HyperArc VMAT planning for single and multiple brain metastases stereotactic radiosurgery: a new treatment planning approach. Radiat Oncol. 2018;13(1):1-9. doi:10.1186/S13014-017-0948-Z
Kadoya N, Abe Y, Kajikawa T, et al. Automated noncoplanar treatment planning strategy in stereotactic radiosurgery of multiple cranial metastases: hyperArc and CyberKnife dose distributions. Med Dosimetry. 2019;44(4):394-400. doi:10.1016/J.MEDDOS.2019.02.004
Tran A, Zhang J, Woods K, et al. Treatment planning comparison of IMPT, VMAT and 4π radiotherapy for prostate cases. Radiat Oncol. 2017;12(1):1-9. doi:10.1186/S13014-016-0761-0
Rwigema JCM, Nguyen D, Heron DE, et al. 4π noncoplanar stereotactic body radiation therapy for head-and-neck cancer: potential to improve tumor control and late toxicity. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015;91(2):401-409. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2014.09.043
Dong P, Lee P, Ruan D, et al. 4π non-coplanar liver SBRT: a novel delivery technique. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;85(5):1360-1366. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2012.09.028
Murzin VL, Woods K, Moiseenko V, et al. 4π plan optimization for cortical-sparing brain radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol. 2018;127(1):128-135. doi:10.1016/J.RADONC.2018.02.011
Woods K, Nguyen D, Tran A, et al. Viability of noncoplanar VMAT for liver SBRT compared with coplanar VMAT and beam orientation optimized 4π IMRT. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2016;1(1):67-75. doi:10.1016/J.ADRO.2015.12.004
Yu VY, Landers A, Woods K, et al. A prospective 4π radiation therapy clinical study in recurrent high-grade glioma patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018;101(1):144-151. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2018.01.048
Papp D, Bortfeld T, Unkelbach J. A modular approach to intensity-modulated arc therapy optimization with noncoplanar trajectories. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60(13):5179-5198. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/60/13/5179
Smyth G, Evans PM, Bamber JC, Bedford JL. Recent developments in non-coplanar radiotherapy. Br J Radiol. 2019;92(1097). doi:10.1259/BJR.20180908
Fix MK, Frei D, Volken W, et al. Part 1: optimization and evaluation of dynamic trajectory radiotherapy. Med Phys. 2018;45(9):4201-4212. doi:10.1002/mp.13086
Manser P, Frauchiger D, Frei D, Volken W, Terribilini D, Fix MK. Dose calculation of dynamic trajectory radiotherapy using Monte Carlo. Z Med Phys. 2019;29(1). doi:10.1016/j.zemedi.2018.03.002
Hernandez V, Hansen CR, Widesott L, et al. What is plan quality in radiotherapy? The importance of evaluating dose metrics, complexity, and robustness of treatment plans. Radiother Oncol. 2020;153:26-33. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2020.09.038
Sagawa T, Ohira S, Ueda Y, et al. Dosimetric effect of rotational setup errors in stereotactic radiosurgery with HyperArc for single and multiple brain metastases. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2019;20(10):84-91. doi:10.1002/ACM2.12716
Calmels L, Blak Nyrup Biancardo S, Sibolt P, et al. Single-isocenter stereotactic non-coplanar arc treatment of 200 patients with brain metastases: multileaf collimator size and setup uncertainties. Strahlenther Onkol. 2022;198(5):436-447. doi:10.1007/s00066-021-01846-6
González Á. Measurement of areas on a sphere using fibonacci and latitude-longitude lattices. Math Geosci. 2009;42(1):49-64. doi:10.1007/S11004-009-9257-X
Hart PE, Nilsson NJ, Raphael B. A formal basis for the heuristic determination of minimum cost paths. IEEE Trans Syst Sci Cyber. 1968;4(2):100-107. doi:10.1109/TSSC.1968.300136
Fix MK, Manser P, Frei D, Volken W, Mini R, Born EJ. An efficient framework for photon Monte Carlo treatment planning*. Phys Med Biol. 2007;52(19):N425. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/52/19/N01
Kawrakow I, Fippel M. VMC, a fast MC algorithm for radiation treatment planning. Use Comp Radiat Ther. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-59758-9_46. Published online 2000:126-128.
McNiven AL, Sharpe MB, Purdie TG, A new metric for assessing IMRT modulation complexity and plan deliverability. Med Phys. 2010;37(2):505-515. doi:10.1118/1.3276775
Masi L, Doro R, Favuzza V, Cipressi S, Livi L. Impact of plan parameters on the dosimetric accuracy of volumetric modulated arc therapy. Med Phys. 2013;40(7):071718. doi:10.1118/1.4810969
Paddick I. A simple scoring ratio to index the conformity of radiosurgical treatment plans. Technical note. J Neurosurg. 2000;93:219-222. doi:10.3171/JNS.2000.93.SUPPLEMENT
Loebner HA, Volken W, Mueller S, et al. Development of a Monte Carlo based robustness calculation and evaluation tool. Med Phys. doi:10.1002/MP.15683. Published online May 4, 2022.
Kanakavelu N, Samuel JJ. Determination of patient set-up error and optimal treatment margin for intensity modulated radiotherapy using image guidance system. JBUON. 2016;2(21).
Delishaj D, Ursino S, Pasqualetti F, et al. Set-up errors in head and neck cancer treated with IMRT technique assessed by cone-beam computed tomography: a feasible protocol. Radiat Oncol J. 2018;36(1):54. doi:10.3857/ROJ.2017.00493
Mathew GE. Direction based heuristic for pathfinding in video games. Procedia Comput Sci. 2015;47(C):262-271. doi:10.1016/J.PROCS.2015.03.206
Mackeprang P, Bertholet J, Mueller S, et al. MO-0544 4pi-IMRT based path-finding for dynamic trajectory radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol. 2022;170:S469-S470. doi:10.1016/S0167-8140(22)02378-7
Rocha H, Dias J, Ventura T, Ferreira B, do Carmo, Lopes M. An optimization approach for noncoplanar intensity-modulated arc therapy trajectories. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics). 2019:199-214. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-24302-9_15. 11621 LNCS
Jubbier ON, Abdullah SS, Alabedi HH, Alazawy NM, MJ Al-Musawi. The effect of modulation complexity score (MCS) on the IMRT treatment planning delivery accuracy. J Phys Conf Ser. 2021;1829(1):012017. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1829/1/012017
Meedt G, Alber M, Nüsslin F. Non-coplanar beam direction optimization for intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol. 2003;48(18):2999. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/48/18/304
Dong P, Liu H, Xing L. Monte Carlo tree search -based non-coplanar trajectory design for station parameter optimized radiation therapy (SPORT). Phys Med Biol. 2018;63(13):135014. doi:10.1088/1361-6560/AACA17
Mullins J, Renaud MA, Serban M, Seuntjens J. Simultaneous trajectory generation and volumetric modulated arc therapy optimization. Med Phys. 2020;47(7):3078-3090. doi:10.1002/MP.14155
Bertholet J, Mackeprang PH, Mueller S, et al. Organ-at-risk sparing with dynamic trajectory radiotherapy for head and neck cancer: comparison with volumetric arc therapy on a publicly available library of cases. Radiat Oncol. 2022;17(1):122. doi:10.1186/S13014-022-02092-5
Loebner HA, Frauchiger D, Mueller S, et al. Technical note: feasibility of gating for dynamic trajectory radiotherapy - Mechanical accuracy and dosimetric performance. Med Phys. 2023. doi:10.1002/mp.16533
Barnes MP, Greer PB. Evaluation of the truebeam machine performance check (MPC): mechanical and collimation checks. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017;18(3):56-66. doi:10.1002/ACM2.12072
Olasolo-Alonso J, Vázquez-Galiñanes A, Pellejero-Pellejero S, Pérez-Azorín JF. Evaluation of MLC performance in VMAT and dynamic IMRT by log file analysis. Phys Med. 2017;33:87-94. doi:10.1016/J.EJMP.2016.12.013
Studenski MT, Bar-Ad V, Siglin J, et al. Clinical experience transitioning from IMRT to VMAT for head and neck cancer. Med Dosimetry. 2013;38(2):171-175. doi:10.1016/J.MEDDOS.2012.10.009
Ballangrud Å, Kuo LC, Happersett L, et al. Institutional experience with SRS VMAT planning for multiple cranial metastases. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018;19(2):176-183. doi:10.1002/ACM2.12284