Abstract

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to compare automatically generated VMAT plans to find the superior beam configurations for Pinnacle3 Auto-Planning and share “best practices”.MethodsVMAT plans for 20 patients with head and neck cancer were generated using Pinnacle3 Auto-Planning Module (Pinnacle3 Version 9.10) with different beam setup parameters. VMAT plans for single (V1) or double arc (V2) and partial or full gantry rotation were optimized. Beam configurations with different collimator positions were defined. Target coverage and sparing of organs at risk were evaluated based on scoring of an evaluation parameter set. Furthermore, dosimetric evaluation was performed based on the composite objective value (COV) and a new cross comparison method was applied using the COVs.ResultsThe evaluation showed a superior plan quality for double arcs compared to one single arc or two single arcs for all cases. Plan quality was superior if a full gantry rotation was allowed during optimization for unilateral target volumes. A double arc technique with collimator setting of 15° was superior to a double arc with collimator 60° and a two single arcs with collimator setting of 15° and 345°.ConclusionThe evaluation showed that double and full arcs are superior to single and partial arcs in terms of organs at risk sparing even for unilateral target volumes. The collimator position was found as an additional setup parameter, which can further improve the target coverage and sparing of organs at risk.

Highlights

  • The purpose of this study was to compare automatically generated volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans to find the superior beam configurations for Pinnacle3 Auto-Planning and share “best practices”

  • The evaluation of composite objective value (COV) showed a superior plan quality of Full double arc with collimator 15° (V2C15) compared to Single arc with collimator 15° (V1C15) for all cases because the first term in eq 4 is below 1 and at the same time the second term greater than 1

  • This superiority of double arc VMAT plans compared with single arc in terms of Planning target volume (PTV) coverage and Organ at risk (OAR) sparing was confirmed in other planning studies for head and neck cases [14,15,16,17]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to compare automatically generated VMAT plans to find the superior beam configurations for Pinnacle Auto-Planning and share “best practices”. Methods: VMAT plans for 20 patients with head and neck cancer were generated using Pinnacle Auto-Planning Module (Pinnacle Version 9.10) with different beam setup parameters. Dosimetric evaluation was performed based on the composite objective value (COV) and a new cross comparison method was applied using the COVs. Today intensity-modulated radiation therapy is a widely used clinical treatment modality in many countries utilized to achieve improved target dose conformity and better sparing of critical structures [1]. The purpose of this study was to compare automatically generated VMAT plans to determine a superior beam arrangement as preset for Pinnacle Auto-Planning. Two evaluation methods were used, one of them was newly developed for this study

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
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