SU‐FF‐T‐647: RapidArc Versus DMLC IMRT: Planning Comparison Utilizing AAPM TG119 Guidelines

D. Mynampati, Ravindra Yaparpalvi, L. Hong, Hsiang-Chi Kuo, E. Miller, D. Mah

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To compare treatment plans produced by RapidArc® and dMLC IMRT techniques for test cases proposed in AAPM TG119 report. Materials and Methods: AAPM‐TG119 proposes a set of mock clinical cases for testing the accuracy of IMRT planning and delivery system. For these mock cases, we generated two treatment plans, the first plan using 7–9 static IMRT fields and a second plan utilizing 1 or 2 arc RapidArc® technique. Dose optimization and calculations were performed using 6 MV photons and Eclipse® treatment planning system (Varian Medical Systems). Dose prescription and planning objectives were set according to the TG119 goals. Plans were scored based on TG119 planning objectives. Treatment plans were compared using‐ Conformity Index (CI) for reference isodose, Homogeneity Index (D5‐D95), dose gradient (mean radius difference between V50 and V100 of total volume), Normal Tissue Integral‐dose (NTID) and total MU. Results: RapidArc® dose distributions were comparable to dMLC IMRT plans. Our planning results matched published TG119 planning results. For treatment plans studied, conformity indices were ranged from 1.05 – 1.10 (IMRT) and 1.04 – 1.09 (RapidArc®) respectively. Homogeneity indices ranged from 4.6 – 11.0% (IMRT) and 4.6 – 10.5% (RapidArc®) respectively. For IMRT plans, the dose gradient measure and NTID ranges were 1.5 – 2.5 cm and 8.6 – 17.7 respectively. In case of RapidArc® plans, the gradient measure and NTID ranges were 1.4–2.5cm and 8.5–16.8 respectively. The ratio of total Monitor Units necessary for dMLC IMRT to that of RapidArc® was in the range 1.1–2.0 Conclusion: RapidArc® treatment plans were similar to dose distributions achieved by 7‐ or 9‐ field dynamic‐IMRT plans. The advantage of RapidArc® technique lies in the decreased number of total monitor units necessary which can further lead to reduction in patient “beam‐on” time and out of field scatter doses.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2673-2674
Number of pages2
JournalMedical Physics
Volume36
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2009

Fingerprint

Guidelines
Therapeutics
Photons
Prescriptions

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

SU‐FF‐T‐647 : RapidArc Versus DMLC IMRT: Planning Comparison Utilizing AAPM TG119 Guidelines. / Mynampati, D.; Yaparpalvi, Ravindra; Hong, L.; Kuo, Hsiang-Chi; Miller, E.; Mah, D.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 36, No. 6, 2009, p. 2673-2674.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{ffcfc36bd7944333ab7652a9d7c72f13,
title = "SU‐FF‐T‐647: RapidArc Versus DMLC IMRT: Planning Comparison Utilizing AAPM TG119 Guidelines",
abstract = "Purpose: To compare treatment plans produced by RapidArc{\circledR} and dMLC IMRT techniques for test cases proposed in AAPM TG119 report. Materials and Methods: AAPM‐TG119 proposes a set of mock clinical cases for testing the accuracy of IMRT planning and delivery system. For these mock cases, we generated two treatment plans, the first plan using 7–9 static IMRT fields and a second plan utilizing 1 or 2 arc RapidArc{\circledR} technique. Dose optimization and calculations were performed using 6 MV photons and Eclipse{\circledR} treatment planning system (Varian Medical Systems). Dose prescription and planning objectives were set according to the TG119 goals. Plans were scored based on TG119 planning objectives. Treatment plans were compared using‐ Conformity Index (CI) for reference isodose, Homogeneity Index (D5‐D95), dose gradient (mean radius difference between V50 and V100 of total volume), Normal Tissue Integral‐dose (NTID) and total MU. Results: RapidArc{\circledR} dose distributions were comparable to dMLC IMRT plans. Our planning results matched published TG119 planning results. For treatment plans studied, conformity indices were ranged from 1.05 – 1.10 (IMRT) and 1.04 – 1.09 (RapidArc{\circledR}) respectively. Homogeneity indices ranged from 4.6 – 11.0{\%} (IMRT) and 4.6 – 10.5{\%} (RapidArc{\circledR}) respectively. For IMRT plans, the dose gradient measure and NTID ranges were 1.5 – 2.5 cm and 8.6 – 17.7 respectively. In case of RapidArc{\circledR} plans, the gradient measure and NTID ranges were 1.4–2.5cm and 8.5–16.8 respectively. The ratio of total Monitor Units necessary for dMLC IMRT to that of RapidArc{\circledR} was in the range 1.1–2.0 Conclusion: RapidArc{\circledR} treatment plans were similar to dose distributions achieved by 7‐ or 9‐ field dynamic‐IMRT plans. The advantage of RapidArc{\circledR} technique lies in the decreased number of total monitor units necessary which can further lead to reduction in patient “beam‐on” time and out of field scatter doses.",
author = "D. Mynampati and Ravindra Yaparpalvi and L. Hong and Hsiang-Chi Kuo and E. Miller and D. Mah",
year = "2009",
doi = "10.1118/1.3182145",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "36",
pages = "2673--2674",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐FF‐T‐647

T2 - RapidArc Versus DMLC IMRT: Planning Comparison Utilizing AAPM TG119 Guidelines

AU - Mynampati, D.

AU - Yaparpalvi, Ravindra

AU - Hong, L.

AU - Kuo, Hsiang-Chi

AU - Miller, E.

AU - Mah, D.

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - Purpose: To compare treatment plans produced by RapidArc® and dMLC IMRT techniques for test cases proposed in AAPM TG119 report. Materials and Methods: AAPM‐TG119 proposes a set of mock clinical cases for testing the accuracy of IMRT planning and delivery system. For these mock cases, we generated two treatment plans, the first plan using 7–9 static IMRT fields and a second plan utilizing 1 or 2 arc RapidArc® technique. Dose optimization and calculations were performed using 6 MV photons and Eclipse® treatment planning system (Varian Medical Systems). Dose prescription and planning objectives were set according to the TG119 goals. Plans were scored based on TG119 planning objectives. Treatment plans were compared using‐ Conformity Index (CI) for reference isodose, Homogeneity Index (D5‐D95), dose gradient (mean radius difference between V50 and V100 of total volume), Normal Tissue Integral‐dose (NTID) and total MU. Results: RapidArc® dose distributions were comparable to dMLC IMRT plans. Our planning results matched published TG119 planning results. For treatment plans studied, conformity indices were ranged from 1.05 – 1.10 (IMRT) and 1.04 – 1.09 (RapidArc®) respectively. Homogeneity indices ranged from 4.6 – 11.0% (IMRT) and 4.6 – 10.5% (RapidArc®) respectively. For IMRT plans, the dose gradient measure and NTID ranges were 1.5 – 2.5 cm and 8.6 – 17.7 respectively. In case of RapidArc® plans, the gradient measure and NTID ranges were 1.4–2.5cm and 8.5–16.8 respectively. The ratio of total Monitor Units necessary for dMLC IMRT to that of RapidArc® was in the range 1.1–2.0 Conclusion: RapidArc® treatment plans were similar to dose distributions achieved by 7‐ or 9‐ field dynamic‐IMRT plans. The advantage of RapidArc® technique lies in the decreased number of total monitor units necessary which can further lead to reduction in patient “beam‐on” time and out of field scatter doses.

AB - Purpose: To compare treatment plans produced by RapidArc® and dMLC IMRT techniques for test cases proposed in AAPM TG119 report. Materials and Methods: AAPM‐TG119 proposes a set of mock clinical cases for testing the accuracy of IMRT planning and delivery system. For these mock cases, we generated two treatment plans, the first plan using 7–9 static IMRT fields and a second plan utilizing 1 or 2 arc RapidArc® technique. Dose optimization and calculations were performed using 6 MV photons and Eclipse® treatment planning system (Varian Medical Systems). Dose prescription and planning objectives were set according to the TG119 goals. Plans were scored based on TG119 planning objectives. Treatment plans were compared using‐ Conformity Index (CI) for reference isodose, Homogeneity Index (D5‐D95), dose gradient (mean radius difference between V50 and V100 of total volume), Normal Tissue Integral‐dose (NTID) and total MU. Results: RapidArc® dose distributions were comparable to dMLC IMRT plans. Our planning results matched published TG119 planning results. For treatment plans studied, conformity indices were ranged from 1.05 – 1.10 (IMRT) and 1.04 – 1.09 (RapidArc®) respectively. Homogeneity indices ranged from 4.6 – 11.0% (IMRT) and 4.6 – 10.5% (RapidArc®) respectively. For IMRT plans, the dose gradient measure and NTID ranges were 1.5 – 2.5 cm and 8.6 – 17.7 respectively. In case of RapidArc® plans, the gradient measure and NTID ranges were 1.4–2.5cm and 8.5–16.8 respectively. The ratio of total Monitor Units necessary for dMLC IMRT to that of RapidArc® was in the range 1.1–2.0 Conclusion: RapidArc® treatment plans were similar to dose distributions achieved by 7‐ or 9‐ field dynamic‐IMRT plans. The advantage of RapidArc® technique lies in the decreased number of total monitor units necessary which can further lead to reduction in patient “beam‐on” time and out of field scatter doses.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024799909&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024799909&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.3182145

DO - 10.1118/1.3182145

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85024799909

VL - 36

SP - 2673

EP - 2674

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -