SU-F-T-641: Comparative Study On Planning and Delivery Efficiency of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Between Varian and Elekta Platforms for SBRT Lung Treatment

2016 ◽  
Vol 43 (6Part23) ◽  
pp. 3611-3611
Author(s):  
Varadhan ◽  
L Arentsen ◽  
S Way ◽  
C Overbeck ◽  
S Yerich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Arc Therapy ◽  
Delivery Efficiency

scholarly journals Comparative study of automatic and manual planning methods for volumetric modulated arc therapy in patients with intraocular cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 68-72
Author(s):  
Xiaomin Zheng ◽  
Ce Han ◽  
Jinling Yi ◽  
Yongqiang Zhou ◽  
Yao Ai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Arc Therapy ◽  
Planning Methods

scholarly journals Planning Aspects of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy and Intensity Modulated Radio therapy in Carcinoma Left Breast - A Comparative Study

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 1633-1636 ◽  
Author(s):  
Varadharajan Ekambaram ◽  
Ramasubramanian Velayudham ◽  
Shiyama Swaminathan ◽  
Padmanabhan Loganathan ◽  
Vijaya Swaminathan
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Left Breast ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Radio Therapy ◽  
Arc Therapy

scholarly journals Volumetric-modulated arc therapy with RapidArc®: An evaluation of treatment delivery efficiency

2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (6) ◽  
pp. 383-386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beatriz E. Amendola ◽  
Marco Amendola ◽  
Naipy Perez ◽  
Alejandro Iglesias ◽  
Xiaodong Wu
Keyword(s):  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Treatment Delivery ◽  
Arc Therapy ◽  
Delivery Efficiency

scholarly journals A Hybrid IMRT/VMAT Technique for the Treatment of Nasopharyngeal Cancer

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nan Zhao ◽  
Ruijie Yang ◽  
Yuliang Jiang ◽  
Suqing Tian ◽  
Fuxin Guo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Organs At Risk ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Cancer ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy ◽  
Delivery Time ◽  
Target Dose ◽  
Arc Therapy ◽  
Dose Homogeneity ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Delivery Efficiency

Hybrid IMRT/VMAT technique which combined intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) was developed for the treatment of nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC). Two-full-arc VMAT (2ARC-VMAT), 9-field IMRT (9F-IMRT), and Hybrid IMRT/VMAT plans for NPC were compared in terms of the dosimetric quality, sparing of organs at risk (OARs), and delivery efficiency. The Hybrid IMRT/VMAT technique can improve the target dose homogeneity and conformity compared with 9F-IMRT and 2ARC-VMAT. It can reduce the dose delivered to the TMJ, mandible, temporal lobe, and unspecified tissue with fewer MUs compared with 9F-IMRT and dose delivered to parotids, brainstem, and spinal cord compared with 2ARC-VMAT technique. The mean delivery time of Hybrid plans was shorter than that of 9F-IMRT plans (408 s versus 812 s;P=0.00) and longer than that of 2ARC-VMAT plans (408 s versus 179 s;P=0.00). Hybrid IMRT/VMAT technique could be a viable radiotherapy technique with better plan quality.

Dosimetric Comparison of Static Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy, Dynamic Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Thoracic Esophageal Cancer: A Single Institutional Experience

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 628-632
Author(s):  
Ruihao Wang ◽  
Qingxing Zeng ◽  
Songgui Luo ◽  
Guohui Shen ◽  
Ping Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Thoracic Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Arc Therapy ◽  
Delivery Efficiency

The aim of this study was to evaluate the dosimetric variations of static intensity-modulated radiotherapy (sIMRT), dynamic intensity-modulated radiotherapy (dIMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for thoracic esophageal cancer (EC). Ten patients with pathologically-confirmed EC were randomly selected. The Monaco 5.11 treatment planning system was used to design six radiotherapy plans, namely sIMRT with 5 fixedfields (S5) and 7 fixed-fields (S7), dIMRT with 5 fixed-fields (D5) and 7 fixed-fields (D7) and VMAT plan with single arc (VMAT1) and double arc (VMAT2), respectively. The dosimetric parameters were compared among six different plans. The dose to target volumes met the clinical prescription requirements in all six plans. The D5 plan had the lowest dose exposed to the whole lungs, except for V5, which was only 1.7% higher than that in the D7 plan. The low dose to lungs (V5 and V10) in VMAT plans (VMAT1 and VMAT2) were higher than in IMRT plans, but the statistical differences were significant (P < 0.05) only in comparison with dynamic IMRT plans (D5 and D7). The V20 and V30 of lungs in VMAT2 plan were also higher than that in other plans, but the statistical differences were significant (P < 0.05) only in comparison with D5 plan. The doses delivered to the spinal cord and heart showed no statistical significance (P > 0.05). The monitor units (MUs) and treatment time (TT) significantly increased with the increasing number of fields in the same kind of fixed-fields IMRT plans (S5 vs. S7; D5 vs. D7). The MUs in VMAT plans, especially in VMAT2, increased significantly (P < 0.05) when compared with sIMRT and 5-fields dIMRT plans, respectively. VMAT1 plan had the shortest TT and the highest delivery efficiency. For thoracic esophageal cancer, the D5 plan can shorten the TT and improve the delivery efficiency while meeting the dosimetric requirements and sparing the lungs. VMAT can significantly reduce the TT, but at the expense of increasing the dose to lower-dose regions of lungs, which means VMAT plan may not shows obvious dose advantage for thoracic esophageal cancer.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document