Dose Impact of Systemic MLC Position Error for Esophagus Cancer Plan: Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Versus Step and Shoot Modulated Therapy
C. C. Chang,J. C. Lin,H. W. Cheng,J. T. Tsai
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.07.1989
2015-01-01
Abstract:Purpose/Objective(s)For esophageal treatment, some studies demonstrated that the volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) can reduce the treatment time compared to the step and shoot modulated therapy (IMRT). On the other hand, the low dose to the lung was lower in IMRT technique. The systemic MLC leaf position error may occur during the VMAT and IMRT delivery. We applied the hypothesis that VMAT technique was more sensitive to the systemic MLC error than IMRT due to its narrower segment aperture. The purpose of this study is to compare the dosimetric impact of the systemic MLC error on VMAT and IMRT techniques for esophageal treatment and find acceptable tolerance for systemic MLC leaf position error.Materials/MethodsTen esophageal cancer patients were planned by both VMAT and IMRT techniques. The prescription was 50.4Gy / 28fx. In order to reduce the heart dose, we used four partial arcs in VMAT technique. In the IMRT technique, there were four (n = 4) or six fields (n = 6) and the average number of control point was 50. We extracted the MLC position information from the planning system. Four systemic MLC error magnitudes (0.5mm, 1mm, 2mm, and 3mm) were simulated to X1 bank in these plans. These modified plans were restored into the planning system for dose calculation. The MLC error sensitivity was evaluated based on the linear correlation of MLC errors with dose percentage change for PTV and OARs (heart, spine, and lung), as well as the 3D gamma index evaluation (2mm/2% and 3mm/3%).ResultsPoster Viewing Abstracts 3414; Table 13D Gamma Index Passing Rate (%) 0.5mm error1mm error2mm error3mm error VMATIMRTVMATIMRTVMATIMRTVMATIMRT3%/3mm98.099.094.098.054.082.031.060.02%/2mm90.096.074.092.032.060.015.039.0 Open table in a new tab ConclusionThe dose characteristics and gamma index of VMAT and IMRT techniques in esophageal treatment were greatly affected by the systemic MLC error, especially in VMAT technique. In AAPM TG-142 report, the MLC leaf position repeatability tolerance is <=1mm. For IMRT technique, this was acceptable standard. However, in the VMAT technique the tolerance should be set stricter to 0.5mm. Purpose/Objective(s)For esophageal treatment, some studies demonstrated that the volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) can reduce the treatment time compared to the step and shoot modulated therapy (IMRT). On the other hand, the low dose to the lung was lower in IMRT technique. The systemic MLC leaf position error may occur during the VMAT and IMRT delivery. We applied the hypothesis that VMAT technique was more sensitive to the systemic MLC error than IMRT due to its narrower segment aperture. The purpose of this study is to compare the dosimetric impact of the systemic MLC error on VMAT and IMRT techniques for esophageal treatment and find acceptable tolerance for systemic MLC leaf position error. For esophageal treatment, some studies demonstrated that the volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) can reduce the treatment time compared to the step and shoot modulated therapy (IMRT). On the other hand, the low dose to the lung was lower in IMRT technique. The systemic MLC leaf position error may occur during the VMAT and IMRT delivery. We applied the hypothesis that VMAT technique was more sensitive to the systemic MLC error than IMRT due to its narrower segment aperture. The purpose of this study is to compare the dosimetric impact of the systemic MLC error on VMAT and IMRT techniques for esophageal treatment and find acceptable tolerance for systemic MLC leaf position error. Materials/MethodsTen esophageal cancer patients were planned by both VMAT and IMRT techniques. The prescription was 50.4Gy / 28fx. In order to reduce the heart dose, we used four partial arcs in VMAT technique. In the IMRT technique, there were four (n = 4) or six fields (n = 6) and the average number of control point was 50. We extracted the MLC position information from the planning system. Four systemic MLC error magnitudes (0.5mm, 1mm, 2mm, and 3mm) were simulated to X1 bank in these plans. These modified plans were restored into the planning system for dose calculation. The MLC error sensitivity was evaluated based on the linear correlation of MLC errors with dose percentage change for PTV and OARs (heart, spine, and lung), as well as the 3D gamma index evaluation (2mm/2% and 3mm/3%). Ten esophageal cancer patients were planned by both VMAT and IMRT techniques. The prescription was 50.4Gy / 28fx. In order to reduce the heart dose, we used four partial arcs in VMAT technique. In the IMRT technique, there were four (n = 4) or six fields (n = 6) and the average number of control point was 50. We extracted the MLC position information from the planning system. Four systemic MLC error magnitudes (0.5mm, 1mm, 2mm, and 3mm) were simulated to X1 bank in these plans. These modified plans were restored into the planning system for dose calculation. The MLC error sensitivity was evaluated based on the linear correlation of MLC errors with dose percentage change for PTV and OARs (heart, spine, and lung), as well as the 3D gamma index evaluation (2mm/2% and 3mm/3%). ResultsPoster Viewing Abstracts 3414; Table 13D Gamma Index Passing Rate (%) 0.5mm error1mm error2mm error3mm error VMATIMRTVMATIMRTVMATIMRTVMATIMRT3%/3mm98.099.094.098.054.082.031.060.02%/2mm90.096.074.092.032.060.015.039.0 Open table in a new tab ConclusionThe dose characteristics and gamma index of VMAT and IMRT techniques in esophageal treatment were greatly affected by the systemic MLC error, especially in VMAT technique. In AAPM TG-142 report, the MLC leaf position repeatability tolerance is <=1mm. For IMRT technique, this was acceptable standard. However, in the VMAT technique the tolerance should be set stricter to 0.5mm. The dose characteristics and gamma index of VMAT and IMRT techniques in esophageal treatment were greatly affected by the systemic MLC error, especially in VMAT technique. In AAPM TG-142 report, the MLC leaf position repeatability tolerance is <=1mm. For IMRT technique, this was acceptable standard. However, in the VMAT technique the tolerance should be set stricter to 0.5mm.