Abstract

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the dosimetric and treatment delivery characteristics of volumetric modulated arc therapy technique (VMAT)-based craniospinal axis irradiation (CSI) between ring gantry Halcyon (HAL) and C-arm based Novalis Tx (NTx) linear accelerator. Set-up margin and treatment delivery time for both machines were also taken into account. Fifteen patients, 4 females and 11 males treated between March 2019 and February 2022 within the age group 4-56 years simulated in the supine position and were planned for multiple isocentre VMAT technique in ring gantry Halcyon and C-Arm Novalis linear accelerator for 6FFF and 6 MV flatten beam energy. The number of isocenters was the same in both the machines, usually three for adult adolescent age group patients and two for pediatric patients. Total on-couch time and the patient positional shift were captured for each isocenter during each session of treatment. Margins were calculated using Herk's formula of margin = 2.5Σ +0.7σ. Dosimetry, on-couch time, and set-up margin were compared between two competing arms. Ninety-five percent of PTV coverage (P = 0.333), volume receiving 107% (P = 0.676), total MU (P = 0.818) in both the arms were comparable and statically insignificant. Low-dose spillage such as D20% (P = 0.212) and D50% (P = 0.008) was lesser in HAL comparable to NTx. CI and HI were statically insignificant. Out of 26 organs at risk (OAR), only 3 organs showed a statically significant dose difference. The mean and maximum setup margin in any linear direction was 0.45 and 0.53 cm for HAL and 0.37 and 0.56 cm for NTx and, variation was statistically insignificant (0.23 < P < 0.47). On-couch time was 4.0 ± 5.5 min lesser for HAL and the difference in on-couch time between the two arms was statistically different. Even though the majority of the delivery parameters such as gantry speed, dose rate, beam characteristic (flatten or unflatten), MLC width, and speed between the ring gantry HAL and C-arm NTx linear accelerators were distinctly different, they offered no or minimal difference in the dose distribution and in the setup margin. HAL gives a faster treatment time delivery, which could be crucial for some selective cases such as patients receiving treatment under general anesthesia.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call