Comparison of Prostate IMRT and VMAT Biologically Optimised Treatment Plans

Nicholas Hardcastle, Wolfgang A. Tome, Kerwyn Foo, Andrew Miller, Martin Carolan, Peter Metcalfe

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

38 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Recently, a new radiotherapy delivery technique has become clinically available-volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). VMAT is the delivery of IMRT while the gantry is in motion using dynamic leaf motion. The perceived benefit of VMAT over IMRT is a reduction in delivery time. In this study, VMAT was compared directly with IMRT for a series of prostate cases. For 10 patients, a biologically optimized seven-field IMRT plan was compared with a biologically optimized VMAT plan using the same planning objectives. The Pinnacle RTPS was used. The resultant target and organ-at-risk dose-volume histograms (DVHs) were compared. The normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for the IMRT and VMAT plans was calculated for 3 model parameter sets. The delivery efficiency and time for the IMRT and VMAT plans was compared. The VMAT plans resulted in a statistically significant reduction in the rectal V25Gy parameter of 8.2% on average over the IMRT plans. For one of the NTCP parameter sets, the VMAT plans had a statistically significant lower rectal NTCP. These reductions in rectal dose were achieved using 18.6% fewer monitor units and a delivery time reduction of up to 69%. VMAT plans resulted in reductions in rectal doses for all 10 patients in the study. This was achieved with significant reductions in delivery time and monitor units. Given the target coverage was equivalent, the VMAT plans were superior.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)292-298
Number of pages7
JournalMedical Dosimetry
Volume36
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy
Prostate
Therapeutics
Organs at Risk
Radiotherapy

Keywords

  • Biological optimisation
  • IMRT
  • Prostate
  • VMAT

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Cite this

Comparison of Prostate IMRT and VMAT Biologically Optimised Treatment Plans. / Hardcastle, Nicholas; Tome, Wolfgang A.; Foo, Kerwyn; Miller, Andrew; Carolan, Martin; Metcalfe, Peter.

In: Medical Dosimetry, Vol. 36, No. 3, 2011, p. 292-298.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hardcastle, N, Tome, WA, Foo, K, Miller, A, Carolan, M & Metcalfe, P 2011, 'Comparison of Prostate IMRT and VMAT Biologically Optimised Treatment Plans', Medical Dosimetry, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 292-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meddos.2010.06.001
Hardcastle, Nicholas ; Tome, Wolfgang A. ; Foo, Kerwyn ; Miller, Andrew ; Carolan, Martin ; Metcalfe, Peter. / Comparison of Prostate IMRT and VMAT Biologically Optimised Treatment Plans. In: Medical Dosimetry. 2011 ; Vol. 36, No. 3. pp. 292-298.
@article{5d443e8381e44182ae56951c076e3fcf,
title = "Comparison of Prostate IMRT and VMAT Biologically Optimised Treatment Plans",
abstract = "Recently, a new radiotherapy delivery technique has become clinically available-volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). VMAT is the delivery of IMRT while the gantry is in motion using dynamic leaf motion. The perceived benefit of VMAT over IMRT is a reduction in delivery time. In this study, VMAT was compared directly with IMRT for a series of prostate cases. For 10 patients, a biologically optimized seven-field IMRT plan was compared with a biologically optimized VMAT plan using the same planning objectives. The Pinnacle RTPS was used. The resultant target and organ-at-risk dose-volume histograms (DVHs) were compared. The normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for the IMRT and VMAT plans was calculated for 3 model parameter sets. The delivery efficiency and time for the IMRT and VMAT plans was compared. The VMAT plans resulted in a statistically significant reduction in the rectal V25Gy parameter of 8.2{\%} on average over the IMRT plans. For one of the NTCP parameter sets, the VMAT plans had a statistically significant lower rectal NTCP. These reductions in rectal dose were achieved using 18.6{\%} fewer monitor units and a delivery time reduction of up to 69{\%}. VMAT plans resulted in reductions in rectal doses for all 10 patients in the study. This was achieved with significant reductions in delivery time and monitor units. Given the target coverage was equivalent, the VMAT plans were superior.",
keywords = "Biological optimisation, IMRT, Prostate, VMAT",
author = "Nicholas Hardcastle and Tome, {Wolfgang A.} and Kerwyn Foo and Andrew Miller and Martin Carolan and Peter Metcalfe",
year = "2011",
doi = "10.1016/j.meddos.2010.06.001",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "36",
pages = "292--298",
journal = "Medical Dosimetry",
issn = "0958-3947",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of Prostate IMRT and VMAT Biologically Optimised Treatment Plans

AU - Hardcastle, Nicholas

AU - Tome, Wolfgang A.

AU - Foo, Kerwyn

AU - Miller, Andrew

AU - Carolan, Martin

AU - Metcalfe, Peter

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - Recently, a new radiotherapy delivery technique has become clinically available-volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). VMAT is the delivery of IMRT while the gantry is in motion using dynamic leaf motion. The perceived benefit of VMAT over IMRT is a reduction in delivery time. In this study, VMAT was compared directly with IMRT for a series of prostate cases. For 10 patients, a biologically optimized seven-field IMRT plan was compared with a biologically optimized VMAT plan using the same planning objectives. The Pinnacle RTPS was used. The resultant target and organ-at-risk dose-volume histograms (DVHs) were compared. The normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for the IMRT and VMAT plans was calculated for 3 model parameter sets. The delivery efficiency and time for the IMRT and VMAT plans was compared. The VMAT plans resulted in a statistically significant reduction in the rectal V25Gy parameter of 8.2% on average over the IMRT plans. For one of the NTCP parameter sets, the VMAT plans had a statistically significant lower rectal NTCP. These reductions in rectal dose were achieved using 18.6% fewer monitor units and a delivery time reduction of up to 69%. VMAT plans resulted in reductions in rectal doses for all 10 patients in the study. This was achieved with significant reductions in delivery time and monitor units. Given the target coverage was equivalent, the VMAT plans were superior.

AB - Recently, a new radiotherapy delivery technique has become clinically available-volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). VMAT is the delivery of IMRT while the gantry is in motion using dynamic leaf motion. The perceived benefit of VMAT over IMRT is a reduction in delivery time. In this study, VMAT was compared directly with IMRT for a series of prostate cases. For 10 patients, a biologically optimized seven-field IMRT plan was compared with a biologically optimized VMAT plan using the same planning objectives. The Pinnacle RTPS was used. The resultant target and organ-at-risk dose-volume histograms (DVHs) were compared. The normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for the IMRT and VMAT plans was calculated for 3 model parameter sets. The delivery efficiency and time for the IMRT and VMAT plans was compared. The VMAT plans resulted in a statistically significant reduction in the rectal V25Gy parameter of 8.2% on average over the IMRT plans. For one of the NTCP parameter sets, the VMAT plans had a statistically significant lower rectal NTCP. These reductions in rectal dose were achieved using 18.6% fewer monitor units and a delivery time reduction of up to 69%. VMAT plans resulted in reductions in rectal doses for all 10 patients in the study. This was achieved with significant reductions in delivery time and monitor units. Given the target coverage was equivalent, the VMAT plans were superior.

KW - Biological optimisation

KW - IMRT

KW - Prostate

KW - VMAT

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79960901457&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79960901457&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.meddos.2010.06.001

DO - 10.1016/j.meddos.2010.06.001

M3 - Article

VL - 36

SP - 292

EP - 298

JO - Medical Dosimetry

JF - Medical Dosimetry

SN - 0958-3947

IS - 3

ER -