Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Cancer 1/2021

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Breast Cancer | Research article

Beam complexity and monitor unit efficiency comparison in two different volumetric modulated arc therapy delivery systems using automated planning

Authors: Chengqiang Li, Cheng Tao, Tong Bai, Zhenjiang Li, Ying Tong, Jian Zhu, Yong Yin, Jie Lu

Published in: BMC Cancer | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

To investigate the beam complexity and monitor unit (MU) efficiency issues for two different volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivery technologies for patients with left-sided breast cancer (BC) and nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).

Methods

Twelve left-sided BC and seven NPC cases were enrolled in this study. Each delivered treatment plan was optimized in the Pinnacle3 treatment planning system with the Auto-Planning module for the Trilogy and Synergy systems. Similar planning dose objectives and beam configurations were used for each site in the two different delivery systems to produce clinically acceptable plans. The beam complexity was evaluated in terms of the segment area (SA), segment width (SW), leaf sequence variability (LSV), aperture area variability (AAV), and modulation complexity score (MCS) based on the multileaf collimator sequence and MU. Plan delivery and a gamma evaluation were performed using a helical diode array.

Results

With similar plan quality, the average SAs for the Trilogy plans were smaller than those for the Synergy plans: 55.5 ± 21.3 cm2 vs. 66.3 ± 17.9 cm2 (p < 0.05) for the NPC cases and 100.7 ± 49.2 cm2 vs. 108.5 ± 42.7 cm2 (p < 0.05) for the BC cases, respectively. The SW was statistically significant for the two delivery systems (NPC: 6.87 ± 1.95 cm vs. 6.72 ± 2.71 cm, p < 0.05; BC: 8.84 ± 2.56 cm vs. 8.09 ± 2.63 cm, p < 0.05). The LSV was significantly smaller for Trilogy (NPC: 0.84 ± 0.033 vs. 0.86 ± 0.033, p < 0.05; BC: 0.89 ± 0.026 vs. 0.90 ± 0.26, p < 0.05). The mean AAV was significantly larger for Trilogy than for Synergy (NPC: 0.18 ± 0.064 vs. 0.14 ± 0.037, p < 0.05; BC: 0.46 ± 0.15 vs. 0.33 ± 0.13, p < 0.05). The MCS values for Trilogy were higher than those for Synergy: 0.14 ± 0.016 vs. 0.12 ± 0.017 (p < 0.05) for the NPC cases and 0.42 ± 0.106 vs. 0.30 ± 0.087 (p < 0.05) for the BC cases. Compared with the Synergy plans, the average MUs for the Trilogy plans were larger: 828.6 ± 74.1 MU and 782.9 ± 85.2 MU (p > 0.05) for the NPC cases and 444.8 ± 61.3 MU and 393.8 ± 75.3 MU (p > 0.05) for the BC cases. The gamma index agreement scores were never below 91% using 3 mm/3% (global) distance to agreement and dose difference criteria and a 10% lower dose exclusion threshold.

Conclusions

The Pinnacle3 Auto-Planning system can optimize BC and NPC plans to achieve the same plan quality using both the Trilogy and Synergy systems. We found that these two systems resulted in different SAs, SWs, LSVs, AAVs and MCSs. As a result, we suggested that the beam complexity should be considered in the development of further methodologies while optimizing VMAT autoplanning.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Otto K. Volumetric modulated arc therapy: IMRT in a single gantry arc. Med Phys. 2008;35:310–7.CrossRef Otto K. Volumetric modulated arc therapy: IMRT in a single gantry arc. Med Phys. 2008;35:310–7.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Bedford JL. Treatment planning for volumetric modulated arc therapy. Med Phys. 2009;36:5128–38.CrossRef Bedford JL. Treatment planning for volumetric modulated arc therapy. Med Phys. 2009;36:5128–38.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Wu Y, Dogan N, Liang X. Assessment of volumetric arc therapy plans for constant and variable dose rates. Med Phys. 2010;37:3350–1.CrossRef Wu Y, Dogan N, Liang X. Assessment of volumetric arc therapy plans for constant and variable dose rates. Med Phys. 2010;37:3350–1.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Kim JI, Park JM, Park SY, Choi CH, Wu HG, Ye SJ. Assessment of potential jaw-tracking advantage using control point sequences of VMAT planning. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2014;15:4625–8.PubMed Kim JI, Park JM, Park SY, Choi CH, Wu HG, Ye SJ. Assessment of potential jaw-tracking advantage using control point sequences of VMAT planning. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2014;15:4625–8.PubMed
5.
go back to reference Serna A, Puchades V, Mata F, Ramos D, Alcaraz M. Influence of multi-leaf collimator leaf width in radiosurgery via volumetric modulated arc therapy and 3D dynamic conformal arc therapy. Phys Med. 2015;33:293–6.CrossRef Serna A, Puchades V, Mata F, Ramos D, Alcaraz M. Influence of multi-leaf collimator leaf width in radiosurgery via volumetric modulated arc therapy and 3D dynamic conformal arc therapy. Phys Med. 2015;33:293–6.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Jeulink M, Dahele M, Meijnen P, Slotman BJ, Verbakel W-FAR. Is there a preferred IMRT technique for left-breast irradiation? J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2015;16:5266–74.CrossRef Jeulink M, Dahele M, Meijnen P, Slotman BJ, Verbakel W-FAR. Is there a preferred IMRT technique for left-breast irradiation? J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2015;16:5266–74.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Tsai PF, Lin SM, Lee SH, Yeh CY, Huang YT, Lee CC, et al. The feasibility study of using multiple partial volumetric-modulated arcs therapy in early stage left-sided breast cancer patients. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2012;13:3806–17.CrossRef Tsai PF, Lin SM, Lee SH, Yeh CY, Huang YT, Lee CC, et al. The feasibility study of using multiple partial volumetric-modulated arcs therapy in early stage left-sided breast cancer patients. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2012;13:3806–17.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Popescu CC, Olivotto IA, Beckham WA, Ansbacher W, Zavgorodni S, Shaffer R, et al. Volumetric modulated arc therapy improves dosimetry and reduces treatment time compared to conventional intensity-modulated radiotherapy for locoregional radiotherapy of left-sided breast cancer and internal mammary nodes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76:287–95.CrossRef Popescu CC, Olivotto IA, Beckham WA, Ansbacher W, Zavgorodni S, Shaffer R, et al. Volumetric modulated arc therapy improves dosimetry and reduces treatment time compared to conventional intensity-modulated radiotherapy for locoregional radiotherapy of left-sided breast cancer and internal mammary nodes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76:287–95.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Lu SH, Cheng JCH, Kuo SH, Lee J-JS, Chen LH, Wu JK, et al. Volumetric modulated arc therapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a dosimetric comparison with TomoTherapy and step-and-shoot IMRT. Radiother Oncol. 2012;104(3):324–30.CrossRef Lu SH, Cheng JCH, Kuo SH, Lee J-JS, Chen LH, Wu JK, et al. Volumetric modulated arc therapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a dosimetric comparison with TomoTherapy and step-and-shoot IMRT. Radiother Oncol. 2012;104(3):324–30.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Bertelsen A, Hansen CR, Johansen J, Brink C. Single arc volumetric modulated arc therapy of head and neck cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2010;95:142–8.CrossRef Bertelsen A, Hansen CR, Johansen J, Brink C. Single arc volumetric modulated arc therapy of head and neck cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2010;95:142–8.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Ning ZH, Mu JM, Jin JX, Li XD, Li QL, Gu WD, et al. Single arc volumetric-modulated arc therapy is sufficient for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a dosimetric comparison with dual arc VMAT and dynamic MLC and step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Radiat Oncol. 2013;8:237–45.CrossRef Ning ZH, Mu JM, Jin JX, Li XD, Li QL, Gu WD, et al. Single arc volumetric-modulated arc therapy is sufficient for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a dosimetric comparison with dual arc VMAT and dynamic MLC and step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Radiat Oncol. 2013;8:237–45.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Holt A, Van Gestel D, Arends MP, Korevaar EK, Schuring D, Kunze-Busch MC, et al. Multi-institutional comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy vs. intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head-and-neck cancer: a planning study. Radiat Oncol. 2013;8:26–35.CrossRef Holt A, Van Gestel D, Arends MP, Korevaar EK, Schuring D, Kunze-Busch MC, et al. Multi-institutional comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy vs. intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head-and-neck cancer: a planning study. Radiat Oncol. 2013;8:26–35.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Hansen CR, Bertelsen A, Hazell I, Zukauskaite R, Gyldenkerne N, Johansen J, et al. Automatic treatment planning improves the clinical quality of head and neck cancer treatment plans. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2016;1:2–8.CrossRef Hansen CR, Bertelsen A, Hazell I, Zukauskaite R, Gyldenkerne N, Johansen J, et al. Automatic treatment planning improves the clinical quality of head and neck cancer treatment plans. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2016;1:2–8.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Hazell I, Bzdusek K, Kumar P, Hansen CR, Bertelsen A, Eriksen JG, et al. Automatic planning of head and neck treatment plans. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016;17:272–82.CrossRef Hazell I, Bzdusek K, Kumar P, Hansen CR, Bertelsen A, Eriksen JG, et al. Automatic planning of head and neck treatment plans. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016;17:272–82.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Sharfo AW, Voet PW, Breedveld S, Mens JW, Hoogeman MS, Heijmen BJ. Comparison of VMAT and IMRT strategies for cervical cancer patients using automated planning. Radiother Oncol. 2015;114:395–401.CrossRef Sharfo AW, Voet PW, Breedveld S, Mens JW, Hoogeman MS, Heijmen BJ. Comparison of VMAT and IMRT strategies for cervical cancer patients using automated planning. Radiother Oncol. 2015;114:395–401.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Mitchell RA, Wai P, Colgan R, Kieby AM, Donovan EM. Improving the efficiency of breast radiotherapy treatment planning using a semi-automated approach. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017;18:18–24.PubMed Mitchell RA, Wai P, Colgan R, Kieby AM, Donovan EM. Improving the efficiency of breast radiotherapy treatment planning using a semi-automated approach. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017;18:18–24.PubMed
17.
go back to reference Tyagi N, Yang K, Gersten D, Yan D. A real time dose monitoring and dose reconstruction tool for patient specific VMAT QA and delivery. Med Phys. 2012;39:7194–204.CrossRef Tyagi N, Yang K, Gersten D, Yan D. A real time dose monitoring and dose reconstruction tool for patient specific VMAT QA and delivery. Med Phys. 2012;39:7194–204.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Webb S. Use of a quantitative index of beam modulation to characterize dose conformality: illustration by a comparison of full beamlet IMRT, few-segment IMRT (fsIMRT) and conformal unmodulated radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol. 2003;48:2051–62.CrossRef Webb S. Use of a quantitative index of beam modulation to characterize dose conformality: illustration by a comparison of full beamlet IMRT, few-segment IMRT (fsIMRT) and conformal unmodulated radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol. 2003;48:2051–62.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Mcniven AL, Sharpe MB, Purdie TG. A new metric for assessing IMRT modulation complexity and plan deliverability. Med Phys. 2010;37:505–15.CrossRef Mcniven AL, Sharpe MB, Purdie TG. A new metric for assessing IMRT modulation complexity and plan deliverability. Med Phys. 2010;37:505–15.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Dhanabalan R, Prakash J, Prabakar S, Ranganathan A, Johnjothi S, Nagarajan V. A study on the correlation between plan complexity and gamma index analysis in patient specific quality assurance of volumetric modulated arc therapy. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2015;20:57–65.CrossRef Dhanabalan R, Prakash J, Prabakar S, Ranganathan A, Johnjothi S, Nagarajan V. A study on the correlation between plan complexity and gamma index analysis in patient specific quality assurance of volumetric modulated arc therapy. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2015;20:57–65.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Wang Q, Dai J, Zhang K. A novel method for routine quality assurance of volumetric-modulated arc therapy. Med Phys. 2013;40:1017121–10. Wang Q, Dai J, Zhang K. A novel method for routine quality assurance of volumetric-modulated arc therapy. Med Phys. 2013;40:1017121–10.
22.
go back to reference Lafond C, Chajon E, Devillers A, et al. Impact of MLC leaf width on volumetric-modulated arc therapy planning for head and neck cancers. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2013;14:40–52.CrossRef Lafond C, Chajon E, Devillers A, et al. Impact of MLC leaf width on volumetric-modulated arc therapy planning for head and neck cancers. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2013;14:40–52.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Height FJ, Kron T, Willis D, et al. Impact of MLC leaf width on the quality of the dose distribution in partial breast irradiation. Med Dosi. 2012;37:37–41.CrossRef Height FJ, Kron T, Willis D, et al. Impact of MLC leaf width on the quality of the dose distribution in partial breast irradiation. Med Dosi. 2012;37:37–41.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Samuel B French, Stephen, et al. Adapting VMAT plans optimized for an HD120 MLC for delivery with a millennium MLC. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017;18:143–51.CrossRef Samuel B French, Stephen, et al. Adapting VMAT plans optimized for an HD120 MLC for delivery with a millennium MLC. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017;18:143–51.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Qi P, Xia P. Relationship of segment area and monitor unit efficiency in aperture-based IMRT optimization. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2013;14:232–43.CrossRef Qi P, Xia P. Relationship of segment area and monitor unit efficiency in aperture-based IMRT optimization. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2013;14:232–43.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Pogson EM, Aruguman S, Hansen CR, Currie M, Oborn BM, Blake SJ, et al. Multi-institutional comparison of simulated treatment delivery errors in ssIMRT, manually planned VMAT and autoplan-VMAT plans for nasopharyngeal radiotherapy. Phys Med. 2017;42:55–66.CrossRef Pogson EM, Aruguman S, Hansen CR, Currie M, Oborn BM, Blake SJ, et al. Multi-institutional comparison of simulated treatment delivery errors in ssIMRT, manually planned VMAT and autoplan-VMAT plans for nasopharyngeal radiotherapy. Phys Med. 2017;42:55–66.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Osborn J. Is VMAT beneficial for patients undergoing radiotherapy to the head and neck? Radiography. 2016;23(1):73.CrossRef Osborn J. Is VMAT beneficial for patients undergoing radiotherapy to the head and neck? Radiography. 2016;23(1):73.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Crowe SB, Kairn T, Kenny J, Knight RT, Hill B, Langton CM, et al. Treatment plan complexity metrics for predicting IMRT pre-treatment quality assurance results. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. 2014;37:475–82.CrossRef Crowe SB, Kairn T, Kenny J, Knight RT, Hill B, Langton CM, et al. Treatment plan complexity metrics for predicting IMRT pre-treatment quality assurance results. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. 2014;37:475–82.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Li G, Wu K, Peng G, Zhang Y, Bai S. A retrospective analysis for patient-specific quality assurance of volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans. Med Dosi. 2015;39:309–13.CrossRef Li G, Wu K, Peng G, Zhang Y, Bai S. A retrospective analysis for patient-specific quality assurance of volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans. Med Dosi. 2015;39:309–13.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Mcgarry CK, Chinneck CD, O'Toole MM, O’Sullivan JM, Prise KM, Hounsell AR. Assessing software upgrades, plan properties and patient geometry using intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) complexity metrics. Med Phys. 2011;38:2027–34.CrossRef Mcgarry CK, Chinneck CD, O'Toole MM, O’Sullivan JM, Prise KM, Hounsell AR. Assessing software upgrades, plan properties and patient geometry using intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) complexity metrics. Med Phys. 2011;38:2027–34.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Beam complexity and monitor unit efficiency comparison in two different volumetric modulated arc therapy delivery systems using automated planning
Authors
Chengqiang Li
Cheng Tao
Tong Bai
Zhenjiang Li
Ying Tong
Jian Zhu
Yong Yin
Jie Lu
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Cancer / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2407
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-021-07991-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

BMC Cancer 1/2021 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine