Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.
KMID : 1164220200320010017
Journal of Korean Society for Radiotherapeutic Technology
2020 Volume.32 No. 1 p.17 ~ p.29
Feasibility of Mixed-Energy Partial Arc VMAT Plan with Avoidance Sector for Prostate Cancer
Hwang Se-Ha

Na Kyoung-Su
Lee Je-Hee
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this work was to investigate the dosimetric impact of mixed energy partial arc technique on prostate cancer VMAT.

Materials and Methods: This study involved prostate only patients planned with 70Gy in 30 fractions to the planning target volume (PTV). Femoral heads, Bladder and Rectum were considered as oragan at risk (OARs). For this study, mixed energy partial arcs (MEPA) were generated with gantry angle set to 180¡Æ~230¡Æ, 310¡Æ~50¡Æ for 6MV arc and 130¡Æ~50¡Æ, 310¡Æ~230¡Æ for 15MV arc. Each arc set the avoidance sector which is gantry angle 230¡Æ~310¡Æ, 50¡Æ~130¡Æ at first arc and 50¡Æ~310¡Æ at second arc. After that, two plans were summed and were analyzed the dosimetry parameter of each structure such as Maximum dose, Mean dose, D2%, Homogeneity index (HI) and Conformity Index (CI) for PTV and Maximum dose, Mean dose, V70Gy, V50Gy, V30Gy, and V20Gy for OARs and Monitor Unit (MU) with 6MV 1 ARC, 6MV, 10MV, 15MV 2 ARC plan.

Results: In MEPA, the maximum dose, mean dose and D2% were lower than 6MV 1 ARC plan(p<0.0005). However, the average difference of maximum dose was 0.24%, 0.39%, 0.60% (p<0.450, 0.321, 0.139) higher than 6MV, 10MV, 15MV 2 ARC plan, respectively and D2% was 0.42%, 0.49%, 0.59% (p<0.073, 0.087, 0.033) higher than compared plans. The average difference of mean dose was 0.09% lower than 10MV 2 ARC plan, but it is 0.27%, 0.12% (p<0.184, 0.521) higher than 6MV 2 ARC, 15MV 2 ARC plan, respectively. HI was 0.064¡¾0.006 which is the lowest value (p<0.005, 0.357, 0.273, 0.801) among the all plans. For CI, there was no significant differences which were 1.12¡¾0.038 in MEPA, 1.12¡¾0.036, 1.11¡¾0.024, 1.11¡¾0.030, 1.12¡¾0.027 in 6MV 1 ARC, 6MV, 10MV, 15MV 2 ARC, respectively. MEPA produced significantly lower rectum dose. Especially, V70Gy, V50Gy, V30Gy, V20Gy were 3.40, 16.79, 37.86, 48.09 that were lower than other plans. For bladder dose, V30Gy, V20Gy were lower than other plans. However, the mean dose of both femoral head were 9.69¡¾2.93, 9.88¡¾2.5 which were 2.8Gy~3.28Gy higher than other plans. The mean MU of MEPA were 19.53% lower than 6MV 1 ARC, 5.7% lower than 10MV 2 ARC respectively.

Conclusion: This study for prostate radiotherapy demonstrated that a choice of MEPA VMAT has the potential to minimize doses to OARs and improve homogeneity to PTV at the expense of a moderate increase in maximum and mean dose to the femoral heads.
KEYWORD
Mixed energy VMAT, Prostate radiation therapy, Radiation treatment planning
FullTexts / Linksout information
 
Listed journal information