University of Groningen
Enhanced prostate SBRT using VMAT + a single computer-optimized non-coplanar IMRT
beam
Sharfo, A.W. ; Rossi, Linda; Dirkx, M.L.P. ; Al-Uwini, Shafak; Breedveld, Sebastiaan;
Heijmen, Ben J. M.
Published in:
Radiotherapy and Oncology
DOI:
10.1016/S0167-8140(18)31233-7
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from
it. Please check the document version below.
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date:
2018
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):
Sharfo, A. W., Rossi, L., Dirkx, M. L. P., Al-Uwini, S., Breedveld, S., & Heijmen, B. J. M. (2018). Enhanced
prostate SBRT using VMAT + a single computer-optimized non-coplanar IMRT beam. Radiotherapy and
Oncology, 127(Suppl. 1), S497. [PO-0923]. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8140(18)31233-7
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
ESTRO 37
S497
swallowing organs (Table 1, bold) varied from zero to several months.
Results
All target volumes were covered and all critical organs, such as spinal cord and brainstem were well spared in all dose plans. However, for the swallowing organs large variations were observed with standard deviations (SD) of up to 6.6Gy (lower pharyngeal constrictor muscle, PCM) from the mean, corresponding to a dose difference of 10Gy between the lowest (35Gy) and the highest (45Gy) dose to the lower PCM, see Fig. 1 (blue), which also shows the results for contralateral parotid (red). Other organs with large differences in obtained sparing were glottic (SD=5.5Gy) and supraglottic larynx (SD=5.1Gy). In general, the SD of the mean dose to the swallowing OARs varied between 2Gy and 7Gy indicating large differences in the sparing of these organs (Table 1).
Conclusion
In general, the majority of the dose constraints to the OARs were respected. However, the large variations in obtained mean doses to the swallowing OARs indicates a need for additional training, exchange of experience, more dummy runs and workshops to improve treatment quality.
PO-0923 Enhanced prostate SBRT using VMAT + a single computer-optimized non-coplanar IMRT beam
A.W. Sharfo1, L. Rossi1, M.L.P. Dirkx1, S. Aluwini1, S.
Breedveld1, B.J.M. Heijmen1
1Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Radiation Oncology,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Purpose or Objective
In SBRT, non-coplanar beam set-ups are often used to minimize the dose to normal tissues. Generally, volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) results in reduced dose conformality, but allows much shorter treatment delivery times. In this study, we quantified for prostate SBRT the potential of improving the coplanar VMAT dose distribution by adding a single, computer-optimized non-coplanar IMRT beam (VMAT+1).
Material and Methods
For 20 prostate SBRT patients prescribed to 38 Gy in 4 fractions, VMAT+1 plans were benchmarked against a) VMAT plans b) VMAT plans with 3 or 5 computer-optimized non-coplanar IMRT beams (VMAT+3 and VMAT+5, respectively) and c) IMRT plans with 30 computer-optimized non-coplanar beams (30NCP). VMAT was always delivered with two full coplanar arcs. All plans were clinically deliverable at an Elekta linac, and were generated using our platform for fully automated multi-criterial treatment planning. Non-coplanar IMRT beam directions were defined by beam angle optimization as implemented in the optimizer.
Results
For comparison, all plans were normalized to have identical PTV coverage (i.e., V38Gy = 95%). With VMAT+1,
doses to rectum and bladder were significantly reduced compared to VMAT, with mean percentage differences of 3-16% for rectum D2%, Dmean, V40GyEq and V60GyEq, and
bladder D2% and Dmean (all p ≤ 0.001, see Fig. 1). The
patient integral dose, quantified by V5Gy, V10Gy, V20Gy and
V30Gy was significantly lower with VMAT+1, with mean
reductions of 6%, 7%, 4% and 1%, respectively (p ≤ 0.006) compared to VMAT. This improvement in plan quality only required 7% longer beam-on time (p = 0.091). The weight of the non-coplanar IMRT beam in the VMAT+1 plan was 6.2% ± 5.6% on average. Rectum V40GyEq, V60GyEq and
integral dose parameters could be reduced more by using VMAT+3 or VMAT+5, but this required significantly longer delivery times. This applied even more for 30NCP plans (Fig. 1).
Conclusion
For prostate SBRT, combining VMAT with a single computer-optimized non-coplanar IMRT beam significantly enhanced plan quality with a minor increase in beam delivery time.
