SU‐DD‐A1‐01: IMRT Monitor Unit Efficiency Comparison of Treatment Planning/delivery Systems

Abstract

Purpose: Treatment planning system/delivery system combinations affect IMRT optimization. Delivery method (step and shoot vs. dynamic), leakage radiation variations (lack of secondary collimators on the Elekta SL‐S MLC head), hardware constraints and leaf edge shape all factor in when a radiation treatment planning system (RTPS) optimizes MLC segments. Different optimization algorithms within treatment planning systems influence IMRT planning results as well. In our study we evaluated delivery efficiencies from Elekta, Varian and Siemens machines coupling with two different treatment planning systems. Method and Materials: 16 IMRT plans were created for prostate and headneck (HN) sites (5 and 6 co‐planar beams respectively) using CMS Xio and Philips ADAC Pinnacle. Plans were optimized using the same dose and DVH objectives and modulated using clinical thresholds. The monitor units needed to deliver the weight point dose for each field were tabulated for each site and machine source data. Results: All plans have similar quality meeting the objectives. HN plans have an average MU efficiency of 5.02 +/− 1.09 MU/cGy. The plans created on the Pinnacle RTPS had a lower mean efficiency but was not statistically significant due to the high standard deviation. Prostate plans were more efficient than the HN plans with an average value of 2.19 +/− 0.47 MU/cGy. Pinnacle prostate plans had a mean MU efficiency of 1.69 +/− 0.18 MU/cGy compared to 2.51 +/− 0.22 MU/cGy from Xio. Conclusion: There is no statistical difference in MU efficiency for HN plans from different planning/delivery system combinations. Prostate plans have higher delivery MU efficiencies than those from HN plans, most likely due to less modulation. For the prostate plans there exist slight differences in MU efficiencies with unknown clinical significance between different planning/delivery systems.