Impact of plan parameters on the dosimetric accuracy of volumetric modulated arc therapy.

PURPOSE To evaluate the effect of plan parameters on volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) dosimetric accuracy, together with the possibility of scoring plan complexity. METHODS 142 clinical VMAT plans initially optimized using a 4° control point (CP) separation were evaluated. All plans were delivered by a 6 MV Linac to a biplanar diode array for patient-specific quality assurance (QA). Local Γ index analysis (3%, 3 mm and 2%, 2 mm) enabled the comparison between delivered and calculated dose. The following parameters were considered for each plan: average leaf travel (LT), modulation complexity score applied to VMAT (MCSv), MU value, and a multiplicative combination of LT and MCSv (LTMCS). Pearson's correlation analysis was performed between Γ passing rates and each parameter. The effects of CP angular separation on VMAT dosimetric accuracy were also analyzed by focusing on plans with high LT values. Forty out of 142 plans with LT above 350 mm were further optimized using a finer angle spacing (3° or 2°) and Γ analysis was performed. The average Γ passing rates obtained at 4° and at 3°∕2° sampling were compared. A further correlation analysis between all parameters and the Γ pass-rates was performed on 142 plans, but including the newly optimized 40 plans (CP every 3° or 2°) in place of the old ones (CP every 4°). RESULTS A moderate significant (p < 0.05) correlation between each examined parameter and Γ passing rates was observed for the original 142 plans at 4° CP discretization. A negative correlation was found for LT with Pearson's r absolute values above 0.6, suggesting that a lower dosimetric accuracy may be expected for higher LT values when a 4° CP sampling is used. A positive correlation was observed for MCSv and LTMCS with r values above 0.5. In order to score plan complexity, threshold values of LTMCS were defined. The average Γ passing rates were significantly higher for the plans created using the finer CP spacing (3°∕2°) compared to the plans optimized using the standard 4° spacing (Student t-test p < 0.05). The correlation between LT and passing rates was strongly diminished when plans with finer angular separations were considered, yielding Pearson's r absolute values below 0.45. CONCLUSIONS At 4° CP sampling, LT, MCSv, and LTMCS were found to be significantly correlated with VMAT dosimetric accuracy, expressed as Γ pass-rates. These parameters were found to be possible candidates for scoring plan complexity using threshold values. A finer CP separation (3°∕2°) led to a significant increase in dosimetric accuracy for plans with high leaf travel values, and to a decrease in correlation between LT and Γ passing rates. These results indicated that the influence of LT on VMAT dosimetric accuracy can be controlled by reducing CP separation. CP spacing for all plans requiring large leaf motion should not exceed 3°. The reported data were integrated to optimize our clinical workflow for plan creation, optimization, selection among rival plans, and patient-specific QA of VMAT treatments.

[1]  B. Dobler,et al.  Searching standard parameters for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) of prostate cancer , 2012, Radiation oncology.

[2]  Jonas D Fontenot,et al.  Comparison of action levels for patient-specific quality assurance of intensity modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy treatments. , 2012, Medical physics.

[3]  Daliang Cao,et al.  Impact of leaf motion constraints on IMAT plan quality, deliver accuracy, and efficiency. , 2011, Medical physics.

[4]  Conor K McGarry,et al.  Assessing software upgrades, plan properties and patient geometry using intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) complexity metrics. , 2011, Medical physics.

[5]  P Francescon,et al.  Quality assurance of volumetric modulated arc therapy: evaluation and comparison of different dosimetric systems. , 2011, Medical physics.

[6]  B. Dobler,et al.  Evaluation of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with Oncentra MasterPlan® for the treatment of head and neck cancer , 2010, Radiation oncology.

[7]  Ke Sheng,et al.  Comparison of Elekta VMAT with helical tomotherapy and fixed field IMRT: plan quality, delivery efficiency and accuracy. , 2010, Medical physics.

[8]  Andrea L McNiven,et al.  A new metric for assessing IMRT modulation complexity and plan deliverability. , 2010, Medical physics.

[9]  Geoffrey G. Zhang,et al.  Initial dosimetric evaluation of SmartArc – a novel VMAT treatment planning module implemented in a multi‐vendor delivery chain , 2010, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[10]  D. Shepard,et al.  A generalized inverse planning tool for volumetric-modulated arc therapy , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[11]  Matthias Guckenberger,et al.  Is a single arc sufficient in volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for complex-shaped target volumes? , 2009, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[12]  F. Lohr,et al.  Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) vs. serial tomotherapy, step-and-shoot IMRT and 3D-conformal RT for treatment of prostate cancer. , 2009, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[13]  M. Kaus,et al.  Development and evaluation of an efficient approach to volumetric arc therapy planning. , 2009, Medical physics.

[14]  Gorgen Nilsson,et al.  Characterization and clinical evaluation of a novel IMRT quality assurance system , 2009, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[15]  K. Otto,et al.  Volumetric modulated arc therapy for delivery of prostate radiotherapy: comparison with intensity-modulated radiotherapy and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy. , 2008, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[16]  J. Hendry,et al.  International perspectives on quality assurance and new techniques in radiation medicine: outcomes of an IAEA conference. , 2008, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[17]  Karl Otto,et al.  Volumetric modulated arc therapy: IMRT in a single gantry arc. , 2007, Medical physics.

[18]  S Webb,et al.  Use of a quantitative index of beam modulation to characterize dose conformality: illustration by a comparison of full beamlet IMRT, few-segment IMRT (fsIMRT) and conformal unmodulated radiotherapy. , 2003, Physics in medicine and biology.

[19]  J. Dai,et al.  Minimizing the number of segments in a delivery sequence for intensity-modulated radiation therapy with a multileaf collimator. , 2001, Medical physics.

[20]  R Mohan,et al.  The impact of fluctuations in intensity patterns on the number of monitor units and the quality and accuracy of intensity modulated radiotherapy. , 2000, Medical physics.

[21]  D. Low,et al.  A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. , 1998, Medical physics.