2013Medical PhysicsRequires access

SU‐C‐108‐01: Comparison of Fast Rotational IMRT with a 2d Binary Multileaf Collimator (2D‐BMLC) with Helical Tomotherapy (HT)

G. Altenstein, Simeon Nill, Florian Sterzing, Uwe Oelfke

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

Purpose: We developed a treatment planning system(TPS) for fast rotational IMRT treatments with a 2D‐bMLC. For the dosimetric evaluation of the achievable dose distributions 2D‐bMLC plans were optimized for two patients and compared to HT plans. Methods: Within the TPS a treatment machine with a FFF 7MV linac source and a 2D‐bMLC was modeled. The total fraction dose is delivered in one gantry rotation within the time TF. 2D‐bMLC plans were generated for TF of 40s(P40), 25s(P25) and 15s(P15). The maximum dose rate was either 2000MU/min(P40, P25) or 4000MU/min(P15). The considered clinical indications were carcinomas of the oral cavity (patient A) and the nasopharyngs(B). For both patients 57.6Gy in 32 fractions were prescribed to the PTV, 70.4Gy to the boost regions. Dose constraints for OARs were the same as for the clinically accepted HT plans (TF=410s and 650s). An additional tool was developed to recompute the 2D‐bMLC plans with a Monte‐Carlo(Geant4.9.5) method, including a realistic model of the collimator absorber and gantry dynamic. Results: Concerning dose to the OARs the 2D‐bMLC plans are in good agreement with the HT plans. Target conformity was increased and the mean dose to healthy tissue was decreased by >10%(A) and >20%(B) respectively. For patient A, 95%‐coverage of the boost regions was the same as for the HT plan. Coverage of PTV was 95%(P40), 94%(P25) and 93%(P15) compared to 97%(HT). Patient B had larger target volumes. Compared to HT the coverage was decreased by ∼4% for the boosts and ∼3% for the PTV. Target dose inhomogeneity(TDI) was increased(diff.<5%). Concerning these parameters, best results were obtained with P40. Conclusion: Clinically acceptable 2D‐bMLC plans were optimized for both patients. For patient A, dosimetric parameters are comparable to the HT plan. For patient B, some minor degradation has to be accepted for the significant reduction in treatment time. This work was partially supported by Siemens Corporate Research.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Purpose: We developed a treatment planning system(TPS) for fast rotational IMRT treatments with a 2D‐bMLC. For the dosimetric evaluation of the achievable dose distributions 2D‐bMLC plans were optimized for two patients and compared to HT plans. Methods: Within the TPS a treatment machine with a FFF 7MV linac source and a 2D‐bMLC was modeled. The total fraction dose is delivered in one gantry rotation within the time TF. 2D‐bMLC plans were generated for TF of 40s(P40), 25s(P25) and 15s(P15). The maximum dose rate was either 2000MU/min(P40, P25) or 4000MU/min(P15). The considered clinical indications were carcinomas of the oral cavity (patient A) and the nasopharyngs(B). For both patients 57.6Gy in 32 fractions were prescribed to the PTV, 70.4Gy to the boost regions. Dose constraints for OARs were the same as for the clinically accepted HT plans (TF=410s and 650s). An additional tool was developed to recompute the 2D‐bMLC plans with a Monte‐Carlo(Geant4.9.5) method, including a realistic model of the collimator absorber and gantry dynamic. Results: Concerning dose to the OARs the 2D‐bMLC plans are in good agreement with the HT plans. Target conformity was increased and the mean dose to healthy tissue was decreased by >10%(A) and >20%(B) respectively. For patient A, 95%‐coverage of the boost regions was the same as for the HT plan. Coverage of PTV was 95%(P40), 94%(P25) and 93%(P15) compared to 97%(HT). Patient B had larger target volumes. Compared to HT the coverage was decreased by ∼4% for the boosts and ∼3% for the PTV. Target dose inhomogeneity(TDI) was increased(diff.<5%). Concerning these parameters, best results were obtained with P40. Conclusion: Clinically acceptable 2D‐bMLC plans were optimized for both patients. For patient A, dosimetric parameters are comparable to the HT plan. For patient B, some minor degradation has to be accepted for the significant reduction in treatment time. This work was partially supported by Siemens Corporate Research.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Purpose: We developed a treatment planning system(TPS) for fast rotational IMRT treatments with a 2D‐bMLC. For the dosimetric evaluation of the achievable dose distributions 2D‐bMLC plans were optimized for two patients and compared to HT plans. Methods: Within the TPS a treatment machine with a FFF 7MV linac source and a 2D‐bMLC was modeled. The total fraction dose is delivered in one gantry rotation within the time TF. 2D‐bMLC plans were generated for TF of 40s(P40), 25s(P25) and 15s(P15). The maximum dose rate was either 2000MU/min(P40, P25) or 4000MU/min(P15). The considered clinical indications were carcinomas of the oral cavity (patient A) and the nasopharyngs(B). For both patients 57.6Gy in 32 fractions were prescribed to the PTV, 70.4Gy to the boost regions. Dose constraints for OARs were the same as for the clinically accepted HT plans (TF=410s and 650s). An additional tool was developed to recompute the 2D‐bMLC plans with a Monte‐Carlo(Geant4.9.5) method, including a realistic model of the collimator absorber and gantry dynamic. Results: Concerning dose to the OARs the 2D‐bMLC plans are in good agreement with the HT plans. Target conformity was increased and the mean dose to healthy tissue was decreased by >10%(A) and >20%(B) respectively. For patient A, 95%‐coverage of the boost regions was the same as for the HT plan. Coverage of PTV was 95%(P40), 94%(P25) and 93%(P15) compared to 97%(HT). Patient B had larger target volumes. Compared to HT the coverage was decreased by ∼4% for the boosts and ∼3% for the PTV. Target dose inhomogeneity(TDI) was increased(diff.<5%). Concerning these parameters, best results were obtained with P40. Conclusion: Clinically acceptable 2D‐bMLC plans were optimized for both patients. For patient A, dosimetric parameters are comparable to the HT plan. For patient B, some minor degradation has to be accepted for the significant reduction in treatment time. This work was partially supported by Siemens Corporate Research.

Key concepts: Tomotherapy, Multileaf collimator, Nuclear medicine, Collimator, Dosimetry, Radiation treatment planning, Monte Carlo method, Linear particle accelerator

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
SU‐C‐108‐01: Comparison of Fast Rotational IMRT with a 2d Binary Multileaf Collimator (2D‐BMLC) with Helical Tomotherapy (HT) — Research Paper | ScholarLens