|
KMID : 1164220140260020313
|
|
Journal of Korean Society for Radiotherapeutic Technology
2014 Volume.26 No. 2 p.313 ~ p.320
|
|
|
Evaluating efficiency of Coaxial MLC VMAT plan for spine SBRT
|
|
Son Sang-Jun
Mun Jun-Ki
Kim Dae-Ho
Yoo Suk-Hyun
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
Purpose : The purpose of the study is to evaluate the efficiency of Coaxial MLC VMAT plan (Using 273°and 350°collimator
angle) That the leaf motion direction aligned with axis of OAR (Organ at risk, It means spinal cord or cauda equine in this study.) compare to Universal MLC VMAT plan (using 30°and 330°collimator angle) for spine SBRT.
Materials and Methods : The 10 cases of spine SBRT that treated with VMAT planned by Coaxial MLC and Varian TBX were enrolled. Those cases were planned by Eclipse (Ver. 10.0.42, Varian, USA), PRO3 (Progressive Resolution Optimizer 10.0.28) and AAA (Anisotropic Analytic Algorithm Ver. 10.0.28) with coplanar 360°arcs and 10MV FFF (Flattening filter free). Each arc has 273°and 350°collimator angle, respectively. The Universal MLC VMAT plans are based on existing treatment plans. Those plans have the same parameters of existing treatment plans but collimator angle. To minimize the dose difference that shows up randomly on optimizing, all plans were optimized and calculated twice respectively. The calculation grid is 0.2 cm and all plans were normalized to the target V100%=90%. The indexes of evaluation are V10Gy, D0.03cc, Dmean of OAR (Organ at risk, It means spinal cord or cauda equine in this study.), H.I (Homogeneity index) of the target and total MU. All Coaxial VMAT plans were verified by gamma test with Mapcheck2 (Sun Nuclear Co., USA), Mapphan (Sun Nuclear Co., USA) and SNC patient (Sun Nuclear Co., USA Ver 6.1.2.18513).
Results : The difference between the coaxial and the universal VMAT plans are follow. The coaxial VMAT plan is better in the V10Gy of OAR, Up to 4.1%, at least 0.4%, the average difference was 1.9% and In the D0.03cc of OAR, Up to 83.6 cGy, at
least 2.2 cGy, the average difference was 33.3 cGy. In Dmean, Up to 34.8 cGy, at least ?13.0 cGy, the average difference was 9.6 cGy that say the coaxial VMAT plans are better except few cases. H.I difference Up to 0.04, at least 0.01, the average difference was 0.02 and the difference of average total MU is 74.1 MU. The coaxial MLC VMAT plan is average 74.1 MU lesser then another. All IMRT verification gamma test results for the coaxial MLC VMAT plan passed over 90.0% at 1mm / 2%.
Conclusion : Coaxial MLC VMAT treatment plan appeared to be favorable in most cases than the Universal MLC VMAT
treatment planning. It is efficient in lowering the dose of the OAR V10Gy especially. As a result, the Coaxial MLC VMAT plan could be better than the Universal MLC VMAT plan in same MU.
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
|
|
spine SBRT, spine VMAT, MLC, collimator
|
|
|
FullTexts / Linksout information
|
|
|
|
|
Listed journal information
|
|
|
|
|