TY - JOUR
T1 - Application of AAPM TG 119 to volumetric arc
T2 - Therapy (VMAT)
AU - Mynampati, Dinesh Kumar
AU - Yaparpalvi, Ravindra
AU - Hong, Linda
AU - Kuo, Hsiang Chi
AU - Mah, Dennis
PY - 2012
Y1 - 2012
N2 - The purpose of this study was to create AAPM TG 119 benchmark plans for volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) and to compare VMAT plans with IMRT plan data. AAPM TG 119 proposes a set of test clinical cases for testing the accuracy of IMRT planning and delivery system. For these test cases, we generated two treatment plans, the first plan using 7-9 static dMLC IMRT fields and a second plan utilizing one- or two-arc VMAT technique. Dose optimization and calculations performed using 6MV photons and Eclipse treatment planning system. Dose prescription and planning objectives were set according to the TG 119 goals. Plans were scored based on TG 119 planning objectives. Treatment plans were compared using conformity index (CI) for reference dose and homogeneity index (HI) (for D5-D95). For test cases prostate, head-and-neck, C-shape and multitarget prescription dose are 75.6Gy, 50.4 Gy, 50 Gy and 50 Gy, respectively. VMAT dose distributions were comparable to dMLC IMRT plans. Our planning results matched TG 119 planning results. For treatment plans studied, conformity indices ranged from 1.05-1.23 (IMRT) and 1.04-1.23 (VMAT). Homogeneity indices ranged from 4.6%-11.0% (IMRT) and 4.6%-10.5% (VMAT). The ratio of total monitor units necessary for dMLC IMRT to that of VMAT was in the range of 1.1-2.0. AAPM TG 119 test cases are useful to generate VMAT benchmark plans. At preclinical implementation stage, plan comparison of VMAT and IMRT plans of AAPM TG 119 test case allowed us to understand basic capabilities of VMAT technique.
AB - The purpose of this study was to create AAPM TG 119 benchmark plans for volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) and to compare VMAT plans with IMRT plan data. AAPM TG 119 proposes a set of test clinical cases for testing the accuracy of IMRT planning and delivery system. For these test cases, we generated two treatment plans, the first plan using 7-9 static dMLC IMRT fields and a second plan utilizing one- or two-arc VMAT technique. Dose optimization and calculations performed using 6MV photons and Eclipse treatment planning system. Dose prescription and planning objectives were set according to the TG 119 goals. Plans were scored based on TG 119 planning objectives. Treatment plans were compared using conformity index (CI) for reference dose and homogeneity index (HI) (for D5-D95). For test cases prostate, head-and-neck, C-shape and multitarget prescription dose are 75.6Gy, 50.4 Gy, 50 Gy and 50 Gy, respectively. VMAT dose distributions were comparable to dMLC IMRT plans. Our planning results matched TG 119 planning results. For treatment plans studied, conformity indices ranged from 1.05-1.23 (IMRT) and 1.04-1.23 (VMAT). Homogeneity indices ranged from 4.6%-11.0% (IMRT) and 4.6%-10.5% (VMAT). The ratio of total monitor units necessary for dMLC IMRT to that of VMAT was in the range of 1.1-2.0. AAPM TG 119 test cases are useful to generate VMAT benchmark plans. At preclinical implementation stage, plan comparison of VMAT and IMRT plans of AAPM TG 119 test case allowed us to understand basic capabilities of VMAT technique.
KW - IMRT
KW - Quality assurance
KW - TG 119
KW - VMAT
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84867093023&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84867093023&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1120/jacmp.v13i5.3382
DO - 10.1120/jacmp.v13i5.3382
M3 - Article
C2 - 22955639
AN - SCOPUS:84867093023
SN - 1526-9914
VL - 13
SP - 108
EP - 116
JO - Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics
JF - Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics
IS - 5
ER -