Planning quality and delivery efficiency of sMLC delivered IMRT treatment of oropharyngeal cancers evaluated by RTOG H-0022 dosimetric criteria.
The time required to deliver intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatments can be significantly longer than conventional treatments, especially for the segmented multileaf collimator (sMLC) delivery system with a large record and verification (R&V) overhead. In this work, we evaluate the impact of the number of intensity-modulated beams (IMBs) and the number of intensity levels (ILs) on the quality and delivery efficiency of IMRT plans, generated by the Corvus planning system for sMLC delivery on a Siemens LINAC with the Lantis R&V system. Detailed studies were performed for three image data sets of previously treated oropharyngeal patients. Treatment plans for patient 1 were developed using 5, 7, 9, or 15 evenly spaced axial IMBs as well as one with 7 axial IMBs whose directions were user-selected, each using ILs of 3, 5, 10, or 20. For patients 2 and 3, plans with 15 IMBs and 20 ILs were not attempted. A total of 42 plans were developed using three oropharyngeal cancer CT image data sets. Plan quality was evaluated by assessing compliance with the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) H-0022 protocol criteria and the physician's clinical judgment. Plan efficiency was accessed by the number of segments of each plan. We found that for our treatment-planning and delivery system, an IMRT plan that uses a moderate number of IMBs and ILs, such as 7 or 9 IMBs with 3 or 5 ILs, would appear to be the optimal approach when both quality of the plan and delivery efficiency are considered. Based on this study, we have routinely used 9 IMBs with 3 ILs or 7 IMBs with 5 ILs for head and neck patients. A retrospective comparison indicates that delivery efficiency is improved on the order of 30% compared to plans generated with 9 IMBs with 5 ILs.
Zhu
X Ronald
XR
Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA. xrzhu@mdanderson.org
Schultz
Christopher J
CJ
Gillin
Michael T
MT
D001822:Body Burden; D006801:Humans; D009959:Oropharyngeal Neoplasms / Q000532:radiotherapy*; D017410:Practice Guidelines as Topic; D011785:Quality Assurance, Health Care / Q000379:methods* / Q000592:standards; D011874:Radiometry / Q000379:methods* / Q000592:standards; D011879:Radiotherapy Dosage; D011880:Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods* / Q000592:standards; D020266:Radiotherapy, Conformal / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods* / Q000592:standards; D012062:Relative Biological Effectiveness; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D014481:United States
Semin Radiat Oncol. 2002 Jul;12 (3):238-49
12118389
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001 Nov 15;51(4):880-914
11704310
Phys Med Biol. 1993 Feb;38(2):291-304
8437999
Med Phys. 2003 Aug;30(8):2253-6
12945991
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000 Jan 1;46(1):195-205
10656393
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 Nov 1;57(3):843-52
14529792
Phys Med Biol. 2002 Sep 7;47(17):3105-16
12361213
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001 Jun 1;50(2):551-60
11380245
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002 Dec 1;54(5):1565-74
12459386
Med Phys. 2002 Mar;29(3):275-83
11929009
Med Phys. 2000 Jun;27(6):1238-45
10902552
Radiother Oncol. 2003 Aug;68(2):181-7
12972314
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995 Aug 30;33(1):151-9
7642414
Med Phys. 2003 Sep;30(9):2360-7
14528958
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001 Dec 1;51(5):1361-70
11728698
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999 Dec 1;45(5):1315-24
10613328
Med Phys. 1997 Feb;24(2):149-60
9048355
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 Oct 1;57(2):543-52
12957268
Phys Med Biol. 2003 Oct 7;48(19):3191-212
14579860
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 Jan 1;55(1):215-24
12504056
Med Phys. 1998 Sep;25(9):1676-84
9775373