SU-E-T-616: Plan Quality Assessment of Both Treatment Planning System Dose and Measurement-Based 3D Reconstructed Dose in the Patient

2015 ◽  
Vol 42 (6Part22) ◽  
pp. 3478-3478
Author(s):  
A Olch
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Plan Quality

scholarly journals Benchmarking techniques for stereotactic body radiotherapy for early-stage glottic laryngeal cancer: LINAC-based non-coplanar VMAT vs. Cyberknife planning

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
You Zhang ◽  
Tsuicheng Chiu ◽  
Jeffrey Dubas ◽  
Zhen Tian ◽  
Pam Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Laryngeal Cancer ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Dose Calculation ◽  
Monte Carlo Algorithm ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Conformity Index ◽  
Plan Quality ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Introduction Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) was found effective in treating laryngeal cancer with only five treatment fractions by a recent clinical trial (NCT01984502, ClinicalTrials.gov). Nevertheless, this trial used the Cyberknife system, which is not widely accessible enough to benefit all patients affected by laryngeal cancer. Our study investigates the feasibility of larynx SBRT treatment planning on a conventional gantry-based LINAC and compares its plan quality with that from the Cyberknife. Materials & methods Ten larynx SBRT cases were originally treated by Cyberknife using fixed cones in our institution, with plans created and optimized using the Monte-Carlo algorithm in the MultiPlan treatment planning system. These cases were retrospectively planned in the Eclipse planning system for a LINAC with the same prescription dose. We used volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for larynx SBRT planning in Eclipse and incorporated non-coplanar arcs to approach the Cyberknife’s large solid angle delivery space. We used both anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm for dose calculation and compared their accuracy by measurements on an in-house larynx phantom. We compared the LINAC VMAT plans (VMAT-AAA and VMAT-AXB) with the original Cyberknife plans using dosimetric endpoints such as the conformity index, gradient indices (R50, R20), OAR maximum/mean doses, and the monitor units. Results Phantom measurement showed that both the AAA and the AXB algorithms provided adequate dose calculation accuracy (94.7% gamma pass rate on 2%/2 mm criteria for AAA vs. 97.3% for AXB), though AXB provided better accuracy in the air cavity. The LINAC-based VMAT plans achieved similar dosimetric endpoints as the Cyberknife planning, and all plans met the larynx SBRT dosimetric constraints. Cyberknife plans achieved an average conformity index of 1.13, compared to 1.20 of VMAT-AXB and 1.19 of VMAT-AAA. The VMAT plans spared the thyroid gland better with average Dmean of 2.4 Gy (VMAT-AXB) and 2.7 Gy (VMAT-AAA), as compared to 4.3 Gy for Cyberknife plans. The VMAT-AAA plans had a slightly lower contralateral arytenoid Dmax (average: 15.2 Gy) than Cyberknife plans (average: 17.9 Gy) with statistical significance, while the contralateral arytenoid Dmax was similar between VMAT-AXB and Cyberknife plans with no statistically significant difference. Cyberknife plans offered slightly better R50 (average: 5.0) than VMAT-AXB (5.9) and VMAT-AAA (5.7) plans. The VMAT plans substantially reduced the plan MUs to less than 1/3 of the Cyberknife plans, and the differences were statistically significant. The other metrics were similar between VMAT and Cyberknife plans with no statistically significant differences. Conclusions Gantry-based LINACs can achieve similar plan quality to Cyberknife systems. Treatment outcome with both methods remains to be investigated.

scholarly journals EP-1911: Impact on prostate cancer treatment plan quality by MR Linac treatment planning system

2018 ◽  
Vol 127 ◽  
pp. S1037-S1038
Author(s):  
R.L. Christiansen ◽  
C.R. Hansen ◽  
R.H. Dahlrot ◽  
A.S. Bertelsen ◽  
O. Hansen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Plan Quality ◽  
Prostate Cancer Treatment

Inter-planner variation in treatment-plan quality of plans created with a knowledge-based treatment planning system

2019 ◽  
Vol 67 ◽  
pp. 132-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kazuki Kubo ◽  
Hajime Monzen ◽  
Kentaro Ishii ◽  
Mikoto Tamura ◽  
Yuta Nakasaka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Plan Quality ◽  
Knowledge Based

scholarly journals EP-1787 Commissioning of the RayStation treatment planning system in a multi-vendor context

2019 ◽  
Vol 133 ◽  
pp. S967
Author(s):  
A. Savini ◽  
F. Rosica ◽  
V. D'Errico ◽  
T. Licciardello ◽  
E. Menghi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document