SU‐E‐T‐200: Comparison Between HybridARC and Sliding Windows IMRT for Spine SBRT Tumors

Abstract

Purpose:Spine SBRT treatments require high dose to PTV, located close to OAR. Treatment time should be short due to patient condition. The objective of this work is to compare HybridARC (HA) with sliding windows IMRT treatment modalityMethods:A 6MV photon beam with 1000MU/min (SRS beam) produced by a NovalisTX (Varian/BrainLAB) equipped with HDMLC was used. The TPS was iPlan v4.5.3 (BrainLAB). Treatment plans comparison was done for 5 patients. Dose prescription was 27Gy in 3 fractions. HA used 1 arc plus 3 (HA), 5 (HA5) and 8 (HA8) IMRT fields. HA plans used OAR high. Between 60–40% of the prescribed dose was given by the arc. IMRT plans used 15 beams. Treatment times, MU, CI, V50% and V20% was used for plans comparisons.Results:Assuming IMRT plan as reference, the treatment time was reduced by −14.6% with HA8, −8.6% with HA5 and −23% with HA3. Increasing arc dose proportion in HA (arc MU > 2000) requires 2 or more arcs which increments treatment time. HA3 and HA5 exhibits beam hold off for fixed IMRT fields which in some cases need to be split in 2 segments. MU varied +4% with HA8, +3.7% with HA5 and −5% with HA3. CI increased +5% with HA8, +23% with HA5 and +37% with H3. V50% increased +5% with HA8, +43% with HA5 and +62% with HA3. V20% increased +13.2% with HA8, +7.6% with HA5 and +1% with HA3. OARs doses were keep within tolerances in all plans.Conclusion:HybridARC for spine SBRT with 8 fix IMRT gantry angle shows a treatment time reduction, comparable MU and similar dose conformation to dMLC IMRT. HybridARC with 5 or 3 fix IMRT fields produce undesirable beam hold off, worse dose conformation and increments the total volume with 50% of the prescribed dose.