title: Clinical implementation of intensity-modulated arc therapy.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT) is a method for delivering intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using rotational beams. During delivery, the field shape, formed by a multileaf collimator (MLC), changes constantly. The objectives of this study were to (1) clinically implement the IMAT technique, and (2) evaluate the dosimetry in comparison with conventional three-dimensional (3D) conformal techniques.
  
  
  METHODS
  Forward planning with a commercial system (RenderPlan 3D, Precision Therapy International, Inc., Norcross, GA) was used for IMAT planning. Arcs were approximated as multiple shaped fields spaced every 5-10 degrees around the patient. The number and ranges of the arcs were chosen manually. Multiple coplanar, superimposing arcs or noncoplanar arcs with or without a wedge were allowed. For comparison, conventional 3D conformal treatment plans were generated with the same commercial forward planning system as for IMAT. Intensity-modulated treatment plans were also created with a commercial inverse planning system (CORVUS, Nomos Corporation). A leaf-sequencing program was developed to generate the dynamic MLC prescriptions. IMAT treatment delivery was accomplished by programming the linear accelerator (linac) to deliver an arc and the MLC to step through a sequence of fields. Both gantry rotation and leaf motion were enslaved to the delivered MUs. Dosimetric accuracy of the entire process was verified with phantoms before IMAT was used clinically. For each IMAT treatment, a dry run was performed to assess the geometric and dosimetric accuracy. Both the central axis dose and dose distributions were measured and compared with predictions by the planning system.
  
  
  RESULTS
  By the end of May 2001, 50 patients had completed their treatments with the IMAT technique. Two to five arcs were needed to achieve highly conformal dose distributions. The IMAT plans provided better dose uniformity in the target and lower doses to normal structures than 3D conformal plans. The results varied when the comparison was made with fixed gantry IMRT. In general, IMAT plans provided more uniform dose distributions in the target, whereas the inverse-planned fixed gantry treatments had greater flexibility in controlling dose to the critical structures. Because the field sizes and shapes used in the IMAT were similar to those used in conventional treatments, the dosimetric uncertainty was very small. Of the first 32 patients treated, the average difference between the measured and predicted doses was -0.54 +/- 1.72% at isocenter. The 80%-95% isodose contours measured with film dosimetry matched those predicted by the planning system to within 2 mm. The planning time for IMAT was slightly longer than for generating conventional 3D conformal plans. However, because of the need to create phantom plans for the dry run, the overall planning time was doubled. The average time a patient spent on the table for IMAT treatment was similar to conventional treatments.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Initial results demonstrated the feasibility and accuracy of IMAT for achieving highly conformal dose distributions for different sites. If treatment plans can be optimized for IMAT cone beam delivery, we expect IMAT to achieve dose distributions that rival both slice-based and fixed-field IMRT techniques. The efficient delivery with existing linac and MLC makes IMAT a practical choice.
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA. Cyu002@umaryland.edu
authors.forename: Cedric X
authors.initials: CX
authors.lastname: Yu
authors.forename: X Allen
authors.initials: XA
authors.lastname: Li
authors.forename: Lijun
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Ma
authors.forename: Dongjun
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Chen
authors.forename: Shahid
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Naqvi
authors.forename: David
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Shepard
authors.forename: Mehrdad
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Sarfaraz
authors.forename: Timothy W
authors.initials: TW
authors.lastname: Holmes
authors.forename: Mohan
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Suntharalingam
authors.forename: Carl M
authors.initials: CM
authors.lastname: Mansfield
mesh_terms: D001932:Brain Neoplasms / Q000532:radiotherapy; D005240:Feasibility Studies; D005373:Film Dosimetry; D006258:Head and Neck Neoplasms / Q000532:radiotherapy; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D009369:Neoplasms / Q000532:radiotherapy*; D019047:Phantoms, Imaging; D011471:Prostatic Neoplasms / Q000532:radiotherapy; D011879:Radiotherapy Dosage; D011880:Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted; D020266:Radiotherapy, Conformal / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*