Comparing biological and physical cost functions in VMAT planning for pediatric nasopharyngeal cancer

Abstract

BackgroundVolumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) is an option for the delivery of Radiotherapy treatment technique for pediatric nasopharyngeal cancer, VMAT is the most common treatment technique for pediatric nasopharyngeal cancer. The use of a combination of both biological and physical parameters in VMAT planning optimization may produce better target coverage and sparing of critical organs. This work was to compare Biological Cost Functions (BCFs) and Physical Cost Functions (PCFs) in the VMAT of pediatric nasopharyngeal cancer patients. MethodVMAT plans for 20 nasopharyngeal pediatric cancer patients were created using Monaco 5.11® treatment planning system (TPS). Three VMAT plans were retrospectively generated for each patient using BCFs, PCFs and mixed plan with a total dose of 61.2 Gy in 34 fractions to planning target volume (PTV). All plans were adjusted to deliver 95% of the prescribed dose to 95% of the PTV. The calculated plans were qualitatively and quantitatively evaluated using the dose-volume histogram (DVH). ResultsThe coverage of the target and the maximum dose for the three plans were nearly the same, and better sparing was achieved in the serial organs (spinal cord and brain stem) with PCFs. On the contrary, more dose spring was observed using the BCFs in the organs at risk (OARs) that were not involved in the dose optimization, such as the optic nerve maximum dose, with a significant p-value (0.035 and 0.0001) respectively. Using the PCFs, both parotids received a lower mean dose, but not for the oral cavity, which had a lower mean dose using BCFs (p=<0.0001). The same values of tumor control probability (TCP) were found for both cost functions in PTVs and normal tissue complications probability (NTCP) (99%). The values reported were as follows: spinal cord = 0.5%, brain stem = 19.1%, and brain = 90.7% for BCFs, compared to spinal cord = 0.3%, brain stem = 14.9%, and brain = 90.7% for PCFs. The delivery time was found to be less in BCFs (p=0.005). ConclusionThe BCFs are superior to the PCFs in conformity index and time of radiation delivery. However, PCFs were better at dose sparing for the serial organs and achieving a sharper falloff dose around the involved volumes. A patient-specific clinical compromise is recommended to gain the best plan that meets the clinical goals.