Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “modulation”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 181 records · Page 10
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2013

Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (RapidArc) vs. conventional fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy for {sup 18}F-FDG-PET-guided dose escalation in oropharyngeal cancer: A planning study

Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography ({sup 18}F-FDG-PET)–guided focal dose escalation in oropharyngeal cancer may potentially improve local control. We evaluated the feasibility of this approach using volumetric-modulated arc therapy (RapidArc) and compared these plans with fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) focal dose escalation plans. Materials and methods: An initial study of 20 patients compared RapidArc with fixed-field IMRT using standard dose prescriptions. From this cohort, 10 were included in a dose escalation planning study. Dose escalation was applied to {sup 18}F-FDG-PET–positive regions in the primary tumor at dose levels of 5% (DL1), 10% (DL2), and 15% (DL3) above standard radical dose (65 Gy in 30 fractions). Fixed-field IMRT and double-arc RapidArc plans were generated for each dataset. Dose-volume histograms were used for plan evaluation and comparison. The Paddick conformity index (CI{sub Paddick}) and monitor units (MU) for each plan were recorded and compared. Both IMRT and RapidArc produced clinically acceptable plans and achieved planning objectives for target volumes. Dose conformity was significantly better in the RapidArc plans, with lower CI{sub Paddick} scores in both primary (PTV1) and elective (PTV2) planning target volumes (largest difference in PTV1 at DL3; 0.81 ± 0.03 [RapidArc] vs. 0.77 ± 0.07 [IMRT], p = 0.04). Maximum dose constraints for spinal cord and brainstem were not exceeded in both RapidArc and IMRT plans, but mean doses were higher with RapidArc (by 2.7 ± 1 Gy for spinal cord and 1.9 ± 1 Gy for brainstem). Contralateral parotid mean dose was lower with RapidArc, which was statistically significant at DL1 (29.0 vs. 29.9 Gy, p = 0.01) and DL2 (29.3 vs. 30.3 Gy, p = 0.03). MU were reduced by 39.8–49.2% with RapidArc (largest difference at DL3, 641 ± 94 vs. 1261 ± 118, p < 0.01). {sup 18}F-FDG-PET–guided focal dose escalation in oropharyngeal cancer is feasible with RapidArc. Compared with conventional fixed-field IMRT, RapidArc can achieve better dose conformity, improve contralateral parotid sparing, and uses fewer MU.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2013

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy for adult craniospinal irradiation—A comparison with traditional techniques

Craniospinal irradiation (CSI) poses a challenging planning process because of the complex target volume. Traditional 3D conformal CSI does not spare any critical organs, resulting in toxicity in patients. Here the dosimetric advantages of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) are compared with classic conformal planning in adults for both cranial and spine fields to develop a clinically feasible technique that is both effective and efficient. Ten adult patients treated with CSI were retrospectively identified. For the cranial fields, 5-field IMRT and dual 356° VMAT arcs were compared with opposed lateral 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) fields. For the spine fields, traditional posterior-anterior (PA) PA fields were compared with isocentric 5-field IMRT plans and single 200° VMAT arcs. Two adult patients have been treated using this IMRT technique to date and extensive quality assurance, especially for the junction regions, was performed. For the cranial fields, the IMRT technique had the highest planned target volume (PTV) maximum and was the least efficient, whereas the VMAT technique provided the greatest parotid sparing with better efficiency. 3D-CRT provided the most efficient delivery but with the highest parotid dose. For the spine fields, VMAT provided the best PTV coverage but had the highest mean dose to all organs at risk (OAR). 3D-CRT had the highest PTV and OAR maximum doses but was the most efficient. IMRT provides the greatest OAR sparing but the longest delivery time. For those patients with unresectable disease that can benefit from a higher, definitive dose, 3D-CRT–opposed laterals are the most clinically feasible technique for cranial fields and for spine fields. Although inefficient, the IMRT technique is the most clinically feasible because of the increased mean OAR dose with the VMAT technique. Quality assurance of the beams, especially the junction regions, is essential.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2013

Comparative dosimetry of volumetric modulated arc therapy and limited-angle static intensity-modulated radiation therapy for early-stage larynx cancer

To compare relative carotid and normal tissue sparing using volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) or intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for early-stage larynx cancer. Seven treatment plans were retrospectively created on 2 commercial treatment planning systems for 11 consecutive patients with T1-2N0 larynx cancer. Conventional plans consisted of opposed-wedged fields. IMRT planning used an anterior 3-field beam arrangement. Two VMAT plans were created, a full 360° arc and an anterior 180° arc. Given planning target volume (PTV) coverage of 95% total volume at 95% of 6300 cGy and maximum spinal cord dose below 2500 cGy, mean carotid artery dose was pushed as low as possible for each plan. Deliverability was assessed by comparing measured and planned planar dose with the gamma (γ) index. Full-arc planning provided the most effective carotid sparing but yielded the highest mean normal tissue dose (where normal tissue was defined as all soft tissue minus PTV). Static IMRT produced next-best carotid sparing with lower normal tissue dose. The anterior half-arc produced the highest carotid artery dose, in some cases comparable with conventional opposed fields. On the whole, carotid sparing was inversely related to normal tissue dose sparing. Mean γ indexes were much less than 1, consistent with accurate delivery of planned treatment. Full-arc VMAT yields greater carotid sparing than half-arc VMAT. Limited-angle IMRT remains a reasonable alternative to full-arc VMAT, given its ability to mediate the competing demands of carotid and normal tissue dose constraints. The respective clinical significance of carotid and normal tissue sparing will require prospective evaluation.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2013

Volumetric-modulated arc therapy vs conventional fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy in a whole-ventricular irradiation: A planning comparison study

This study evaluated the dosimetric difference between volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and conventional fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (cIMRT) in whole-ventricular irradiation. Computed tomography simulation data for 13 patients were acquired to create plans for VMAT and cIMRT. In both plans, the same median dose (100% = 24 Gy) was prescribed to the planning target volume (PTV), which comprised a tumor bed and whole ventricles. During optimization, doses to the normal brain and body were reduced, provided that the dose constraints of the target coverage were satisfied. The dose-volume indices of the PTV, normal brain, and body as well as monitor units were compared between the 2 techniques by using paired t-tests. The results showed no significant difference in the homogeneity index (0.064 vs 0.065; p = 0.824) of the PTV and conformation number (0.78 vs 0.77; p = 0.065) between the 2 techniques. In the normal brain and body, the dose-volume indices showed no significant difference between the 2 techniques, except for an increase in the volume receiving a low dose in VMAT; the absolute volume of the normal brain and body receiving 1 Gy of radiation significantly increased in VMAT by 1.6% and 8.3%, respectively, compared with that in cIMRT (1044 vs 1028 mL for the normal brain and 3079.2 vs 2823.3 mL for the body; p<0.001). The number of monitor units to deliver a 2.0-Gy fraction was significantly reduced in VMAT compared with that in cIMRT (354 vs 873, respectively; p<0.001). In conclusion, VMAT delivers IMRT to complex target volumes such as whole ventricles with fewer monitor units, while maintaining target coverage and conformal isodose distribution comparable to cIMRT; however, in addition to those characteristics, the fact that the volume of the normal brain and body receiving a low dose would increase in VMAT should be considered.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2013

A dosimetric comparative study: Volumetric modulated arc therapy vs intensity-modulated radiation therapy in the treatment of nasal cavity carcinomas

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the differences between volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in the treatment of nasal cavity carcinomas. The treatment of 10 patients, who had completed IMRT treatment for resected tumors of the nasal cavity, was replanned with the Philips Pinnacle{sup 3} Version 9 treatment-planning system. The IMRT plans used a 9-beam technique whereas the VMAT (known as SmartArc) plans used a 3-arc technique. Both types of plans were optimized using Philips Pinnacle{sup 3} Direct Machine Parameter Optimization algorithm. IMRT and VMAT plans' quality was compared by evaluating the maximum, minimum, and mean doses to the target volumes and organs at risk, monitor units (MUs), and the treatment delivery time. Our results indicate that VMAT is capable of greatly reducing treatment delivery time and MUs compared with IMRT. The reduction of treatment delivery time and MUs can decrease the effects of intrafractional uncertainties that can occur because of patient movement during treatment delivery. VMAT's plans further reduce doses to critical structures that are in close proximity to the target volume.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2013

Stereotactic body radiation therapy planning with duodenal sparing using volumetric-modulated arc therapy vs intensity-modulated radiation therapy in locally advanced pancreatic cancer: A dosimetric analysis

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) achieves excellent local control for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC), but may increase late duodenal toxicity. Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivers intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with a rotating gantry rather than multiple fixed beams. This study dosimetrically evaluates the feasibility of implementing duodenal constraints for SBRT using VMAT vs IMRT. Non–duodenal sparing (NS) and duodenal-sparing (DS) VMAT and IMRT plans delivering 25 Gy in 1 fraction were generated for 15 patients with LAPC. DS plans were constrained to duodenal D{sub max} of<30 Gy at any point. VMAT used 1 360° coplanar arc with 4° spacing between control points, whereas IMRT used 9 coplanar beams with fixed gantry positions at 40° angles. Dosimetric parameters for target volumes and organs at risk were compared for DS planning vs NS planning and VMAT vs IMRT using paired-sample Wilcoxon signed rank tests. Both DS VMAT and DS IMRT achieved significantly reduced duodenal D{sub mean}, D{sub max}, D{sub 1cc}, D{sub 4%}, and V{sub 20} {sub Gy} compared with NS plans (all p≤0.002). DS constraints compromised target coverage for IMRT as demonstrated by reduced V{sub 95%} (p = 0.01) and D{sub mean} (p = 0.02), but not for VMAT. DS constraints resulted in increased dose to right kidney, spinal cord, stomach, and liver for VMAT. Direct comparison of DS VMAT and DS IMRT revealed that VMAT was superior in sparing the left kidney (p<0.001) and the spinal cord (p<0.001), whereas IMRT was superior in sparing the stomach (p = 0.05) and the liver (p = 0.003). DS VMAT required 21% fewer monitor units (p<0.001) and delivered treatment 2.4 minutes faster (p<0.001) than DS IMRT. Implementing DS constraints during SBRT planning for LAPC can significantly reduce duodenal point or volumetric dose parameters for both VMAT and IMRT. The primary consequence of implementing DS constraints for VMAT is increased dose to other organs at risk, whereas for IMRT it is compromised target coverage. These findings suggest clinical situations where each technique may be most useful if DS constraints are to be employed.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2013

Dosimetric effects of weight loss or gain during volumetric modulated arc therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer

Weight loss or gain during the course of radiation therapy for prostate cancer can alter the planned dose to the target volumes and critical organs. Typically, source-to-surface distance (SSD) measurements are documented by therapists on a weekly basis to ensure that patients' exterior surface and isocenter-to-skin surface distances remain stable. The radiation oncology team then determines whether the patient has undergone a physical change sufficient to require a new treatment plan. The effect of weight change (SSD increase or decrease) on intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) dosimetry is not well known, and it is unclear when rescanning or replanning is needed. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of weight change (SSD increase or decrease) on IMRT or VMAT dose delivery in patients with prostate cancer and to determine the SSD change threshold for replanning. Whether IMRT or VMAT provides better dose stability under weight change conditions was also determined. We generated clinical IMRT and VMAT prostate and seminal vesicle treatment plans for varying SSDs for 10 randomly selected patients with prostate cancer. The differences due to SSD change were quantified by a specific dose change for a specified volume of interest. The target mean dose, decreased or increased by 2.9% per 1-cm SSD decrease or increase in IMRT and by 3.6% in VMAT. If the SSD deviation is more than 1 cm, the radiation oncology team should determine whether to continue treatment without modifications, to adjust monitor units, or to resimulate and replan.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2013

Single-arc volumetric-modulated arc therapy (sVMAT) as adjuvant treatment for gastric cancer: Dosimetric comparisons with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT)

To compare the dosimetric differences between the single-arc volumetric-modulated arc therapy (sVMAT), 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) techniques in treatment planning for gastric cancer as adjuvant radiotherapy. Twelve patients were retrospectively analyzed. In each patient's case, the parameters were compared based on the dose-volume histogram (DVH) of the sVMAT, 3D-CRT, and IMRT plans, respectively. Three techniques showed similar target dose coverage. The maximum and mean doses of the target were significantly higher in the sVMAT plans than that in 3D-CRT plans and in the 3D-CRT/IMRT plans, respectively, but these differences were clinically acceptable. The IMRT and sVMAT plans successfully achieved better target dose conformity, reduced the V{sub 20/30}, and mean dose of the left kidney, as well as the V{sub 20/30} of the liver, compared with the 3D-CRT plans. And the sVMAT technique reduced the V{sub 20} of the liver much significantly. Although the maximum dose of the spinal cord were much higher in the IMRT and sVMAT plans, respectively (mean 36.4 vs 39.5 and 40.6 Gy), these data were still under the constraints. Not much difference was found in the analysis of the parameters of the right kidney, intestine, and heart. The IMRT and sVMAT plans achieved similar dose distribution to the target, but superior to the 3D-CRT plans, in adjuvant radiotherapy for gastric cancer. The sVMAT technique improved the dose sparings of the left kidney and liver, compared with the 3D-CRT technique, but showed few dosimetric advantages over the IMRT technique. Studies are warranted to evaluate the clinical benefits of the VMAT treatment for patients with gastric cancer after surgery in the future.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2014

Volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy for pancreatic malignancies: Dosimetric comparison with sliding-window intensity-modulated radiotherapy and 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy

Volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) is an iteration of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), both of which deliver highly conformal dose distributions. Studies have shown the superiority of VMAT and IMRT in comparison with 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) in planning target volume (PTV) coverage and organs-at-risk (OARs) sparing. This is the first study examining the benefits of VMAT in pancreatic cancer for doses more than 55.8 Gy. A planning study comparing 3D-CRT, IMRT, and VMAT was performed in 20 patients with pancreatic cancer. Treatments were planned for a 25-fraction delivery of 45 Gy to a large field followed by a reduced-volume 8-fraction external beam boost to 59.4 Gy in total. OARs and PTV doses, conformality index (CI) deviations from 1.0, monitor units (MUs) delivered, and isodose volumes were compared. IMRT and VMAT CI deviations from 1.0 for the large-field and the boost plans were equivalent (large field: 0.032 and 0.046, respectively; boost: 0.042 and 0.037, respectively; p > 0.05 for all comparisons). Both IMRT and VMAT CI deviations from 1.0 were statistically superior to 3D-CRT (large field: 0.217, boost: 0.177; p < 0.05 for all comparisons). VMAT showed reduction of the mean dose to the boost PTV (VMAT: 61.4 Gy, IMRT: 62.4 Gy, and 3D-CRT: 62.3 Gy; p < 0.05). The mean number of MUs per fraction was significantly lower for VMAT for both the large-field and the boost plans. VMAT delivery time was less than 3 minutes compared with 8 minutes for IMRT. Although no statistically significant dose reduction to the OARs was identified when comparing VMAT with IMRT, VMAT showed a reduction in the volumes of the 100% isodose line for the large-field plans. Dose escalation to 59.4 Gy in pancreatic cancer is dosimetrically feasible with shorter treatment times, fewer MUs delivered, and comparable CIs for VMAT when compared with IMRT.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Comparison of testicular dose delivered by intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in patients with prostate cancer

A small decrease in testosterone level has been documented after prostate irradiation, possibly owing to the incidental dose to the testes. Testicular doses from prostate external beam radiation plans with either intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) were calculated to investigate any difference. Testicles were contoured for 16 patients being treated for localized prostate cancer. For each patient, 2 plans were created: 1 with IMRT and 1 with VMAT. No specific attempt was made to reduce testicular dose. Minimum, maximum, and mean doses to the testicles were recorded for each plan. Of the 16 patients, 4 received a total dose of 7800 cGy to the prostate alone, 7 received 8000 cGy to the prostate alone, and 5 received 8000 cGy to the prostate and pelvic lymph nodes. The mean (range) of testicular dose with an IMRT plan was 54.7 cGy (21.1 to 91.9) and 59.0 cGy (25.1 to 93.4) with a VMAT plan. In 12 cases, the mean VMAT dose was higher than the mean IMRT dose, with a mean difference of 4.3 cGy (p = 0.019). There was a small but statistically significant increase in mean testicular dose delivered by VMAT compared with IMRT. Despite this, it unlikely that there is a clinically meaningful difference in testicular doses from either modality.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2016

Whole-brain hippocampal sparing radiation therapy: Volume-modulated arc therapy vs intensity-modulated radiation therapy case study

The hippocampus is responsible for memory and cognitive function. An ongoing phase II clinical trial suggests that sparing dose to the hippocampus during whole-brain radiation therapy can help preserve a patient's neurocognitive function. Progressive research and advancements in treatment techniques have made treatment planning more sophisticated but beneficial for patients undergoing treatment. The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare hippocampal sparing whole-brain (HS-WB) radiation therapy treatment planning techniques using volume-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). We randomly selected 3 patients to compare different treatment techniques that could be used for reducing dose to the hippocampal region. We created 2 treatment plans, a VMAT and an IMRT, from each patient's data set and planned on the Eclipse 11.0 treatment planning system (TPS). A total of 6 plans (3 IMRT and 3 VMAT) were created and evaluated for this case study. The physician contoured the hippocampus as per the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0933 protocol atlas. The organs at risk (OR) were contoured and evaluated for the plan comparison, which included the spinal cord, optic chiasm, the right and left eyes, lenses, and optic nerves. Both treatment plans produced adequate coverage on the planning target volume (PTV) while significantly reducing dose to the hippocampal region. The VMAT treatment plans produced a more homogenous dose distribution throughout the PTV while decreasing the maximum point dose to the target. However, both treatment techniques demonstrated hippocampal sparing when irradiating the whole brain.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2016

A comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy and sliding-window intensity-modulated radiotherapy in the treatment of Stage I-II nasal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma

This article is aimed to compare the dosimetric differences between volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for Stage I-II nasal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma (NNKTL). Ten patients with Stage I-II NNKTL treated with IMRT were replanned with VMAT (2 arcs). The prescribed dose of the planning target volume (PTV) was 50 Gy in 25 fractions. The VMAT plans with the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (Version 8.6.15) were based on an Eclipse treatment planning system; the monitor units (MUs) and treatment time (T) were scored to measure the expected treatment efficiency. All the 10 patients under the study were subject to comparisons regarding the quality of target coverage, the efficiency of delivery, and the exposure of normal adjacent organs at risk (OARs). The study shows that VMAT was associated with a better conformal index (CI) and homogeneity index (HI) (both p < 0.05) but slightly higher dose to OARs than IMRT. The MUs with VMAT (650.80 ± 24.59) were fewer than with IMRT (1300.10 ± 57.12) (relative reduction of 49.94%, p = 0.00) when using 2-Gy dose fractions. The treatment time with VMAT (3.20 ± 0.02 minutes) was shorter than with IMRT (7.38 ± 0.18 minutes) (relative reduction of 56.64%, p = 0.00). We found that VMAT and IMRT both provide satisfactory target dosimetric coverage and OARs sparing clinically. Likely to deliver a bit higher dose to OARs, VMAT in comparison with IMRT, is still a better choice for treatment of patients with Stage I-II NNKTL, thanks to better dose distribution, fewer MUs, and shorter delivery time.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2016

Skin dose differences between intensity-modulated radiation therapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy and between boost and integrated treatment regimens for treating head and neck and other cancer sites in patients

The purpose of this study was (1) to evaluate dose to skin between volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment techniques for target sites in the head and neck, pelvis, and brain and (2) to determine if the treatment dose and fractionation regimen affect the skin dose between traditional sequential boost and integrated boost regimens for patients with head and neck cancer. A total of 19 patients and 48 plans were evaluated. The Eclipse (v11) treatment planning system was used to plan therapy in 9 patients with head and neck cancer, 5 patients with prostate cancer, and 5 patients with brain cancer with VMAT and static-field IMRT. The mean skin dose and the maximum dose to a contiguous volume of 2 cm{sup 3} for head and neck plans and brain plans and a contiguous volume of 5 cm{sup 3} for pelvis plans were compared for each treatment technique. Of the 9 patients with head and neck cancer, 3 underwent an integrated boost regimen. One integrated boost plan was replanned with IMRT and VMAT using a traditional boost regimen. For target sites located in the head and neck, VMAT reduced the mean dose and contiguous hot spot most noticeably in the shoulder region by 5.6% and 5.4%, respectively. When using an integrated boost regimen, the contiguous hot spot skin dose in the shoulder was larger on average than a traditional boost pattern by 26.5% and the mean skin dose was larger by 1.7%. VMAT techniques largely decrease the contiguous hot spot in the skin in the pelvis by an average of 36% compared with IMRT. For the same target coverage, VMAT can reduce the skin dose in all the regions of the body, but more noticeably in the shoulders in patients with head and neck and pelvis cancer. We also found that using integrated boost regimens in patients with head and neck cancer leads to higher shoulder skin doses compared with traditional boost regimens.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2016

Dosimetric comparison between step-shoot intensity-modulated radiotherapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy for upper thoracic and cervical esophageal carcinoma

To compare and analyze the dosimetric characteristics of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) vs step-shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy (sIMRT) for upper thoracic and cervical esophageal carcinoma. Single-arc VMAT (VMAT1), dual-arc VMAT (VMAT2), and 7-field sIMRT plans were designed for 30 patients with upper thoracic or cervical esophageal carcinoma. Planning target volume (PTV) was prescribed to 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions, and PTV1 was prescribed to 60 Gy in 28 fractions. The parameters evaluated included dose homogeneity and conformality, dose to organs at risk (OARs), and delivery efficiency. (1) In comparison to sIMRT, VMAT provided a systematic improvement in PTV1 coverage. The homogeneity index of VMAT1 was better than that of VMAT2. There were no significant differences among sIMRT, VMAT1, and VMAT2 in PTV coverage. (2) VMAT1 and VMAT2 reduced the maximum dose of spinal cord as compared with sIMRT (p < 0.05). The rest dose-volume characteristics of OARs were similar. (3) Monitor units of VMAT2 and VMAT1 were more than sIMRT. However, the treatment time of VMAT1, VMAT2, and sIMRT was (2.0 ± 0.2), (2.8 ± 0.3), and (9.8 ± 0.8) minutes, respectively. VMAT1 was the fastest, and the difference was statistically significant. In the treatment of upper thoracic and cervical esophageal carcinoma by the AXESSE linac, compared with 7-field sIMRT, VMAT showed better PTV1 coverage and superior spinal cord sparing. Single-arc VMAT had similar target volume coverage and the sparing of OAR to dual-arc VMAT, with shortest treatment time and highest treatment efficiency in the 3 kinds of plans.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2016

Under conditions of large geometric miss, tumor control probability can be higher for static gantry intensity-modulated radiation therapy compared to volume-modulated arc therapy for prostate cancer

The purpose of this work was to compare static gantry intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with volume-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in terms of tumor control probability (TCP) under scenarios involving large geometric misses, i.e., those beyond what are accounted for when margin expansion is determined. Using a planning approach typical for these treatments, a linear-quadratic–based model for TCP was used to compare mean TCP values for a population of patients who experiences a geometric miss (i.e., systematic and random shifts of the clinical target volume within the planning target dose distribution). A Monte Carlo approach was used to account for the different biological sensitivities of a population of patients. Interestingly, for errors consisting of coplanar systematic target volume offsets and three-dimensional random offsets, static gantry IMRT appears to offer an advantage over VMAT in that larger shift errors are tolerated for the same mean TCP. For example, under the conditions simulated, erroneous systematic shifts of 15 mm directly between or directly into static gantry IMRT fields result in mean TCP values between 96% and 98%, whereas the same errors on VMAT plans result in mean TCP values between 45% and 74%. Random geometric shifts of the target volume were characterized using normal distributions in each Cartesian dimension. When the standard deviations were doubled from those values assumed in the derivation of the treatment margins, our model showed a 7% drop in mean TCP for the static gantry IMRT plans but a 20% drop in TCP for the VMAT plans. Although adding a margin for error to a clinical target volume is perhaps the best approach to account for expected geometric misses, this work suggests that static gantry IMRT may offer a treatment that is more tolerant to geometric miss errors than VMAT.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2016

Dosimetric advantages of intensity-modulated proton therapy for oropharyngeal cancer compared with intensity-modulated radiation: A case-matched control analysis

A potential advantage of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) over intensity-modulated (photon) radiation therapy (IMRT) in the treatment of oropharyngeal carcinoma (OPC) is lower radiation dose to several critical structures involved in the development of nausea and vomiting, mucositis, and dysphagia. The purpose of this study was to quantify doses to critical structures for patients with OPC treated with IMPT and compare those with doses on IMRT plans generated for the same patients and with a matched cohort of patients actually treated with IMRT. In this study, 25 patients newly diagnosed with OPC were treated with IMPT between 2011 and 2012. Comparison IMRT plans were generated for these patients and for additional IMRT-treated controls extracted from a database of patients with OPC treated between 2000 and 2009. Cases were matched based on the following criteria, in order: unilateral vs bilateral therapy, tonsil vs base of tongue primary, T-category, N-category, concurrent chemotherapy, induction chemotherapy, smoking status, sex, and age. Results showed that the mean doses to the anterior and posterior oral cavity, hard palate, larynx, mandible, and esophagus were significantly lower with IMPT than with IMRT comparison plans generated for the same cohort, as were doses to several central nervous system structures involved in the nausea and vomiting response. Similar differences were found when comparing dose to organs at risks (OARs) between the IMPT cohort and the case-matched IMRT cohort. In conclusion, these findings suggest that patients with OPC treated with IMPT may experience fewer and less severe side effects during therapy. This may be the result of decreased beam path toxicities with IMPT due to lower doses to several dysphagia, odynophagia, and nausea and vomiting–associated OARs. Further study is needed to evaluate differences in long-term disease control and chronic toxicity between patients with OPC treated with IMPT in comparison to those treated with IMRT.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2016

Dosimetric comparison of helical tomotherapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy, volumetric-modulated arc therapy, and 3-dimensional conformal therapy for the treatment of T1N0 glottic cancer

Various radiotherapy planning methods for T1N0 laryngeal cancer have been proposed to decrease normal tissue toxicity. We compare helical tomotherapy (HT), linac-based intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and 3-D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) techniques for T1N0 laryngeal cancer. Overall, 10 patients with T1N0 laryngeal cancer were selected and evaluated. Furthermore, 10 radiotherapy treatment plans have been created for all 10 patients, including HT, IMRT, VMAT, and 3D-CRT. IMRT, VMAT, and HT plans vs 3D-CRT plans consistently provided superior planning target volume (PTV) coverage. Similar target coverage was observed between the 3 IMRT modalities. Compared with 3D-CRT, IMRT, HT, and VMAT significantly reduced the mean dose to the carotid arteries. VMAT resulted in the lowest mean dose to the submandibular and thyroid glands. Compared with 3D-CRT, IMRT, HT, and VMAT significantly increased the maximum dose to the spinal cord It was observed that the 3 IMRT modalities studied showed superior target coverage with less variation between each plan in comparison with 3D-CRT. The 3D-CRT plans performed better at the D{sub max} of the spinal cord. Clinical investigation is warranted to determine if these treatment approaches would translate into a reduction in radiation therapy–induced toxicities.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2017

Bladder radiotherapy treatment: A retrospective comparison of 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy, and volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans

To examine tumor's and organ's response when different radiotherapy plan techniques are used. Ten patients with confirmed bladder tumors were first treated using 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) and subsequently the original plans were re-optimized using the intensity-modulated radiation treatment (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT)-techniques. Targets coverage in terms of conformity and homogeneity index, TCP, and organs' dose limits, including integral dose analysis were evaluated. In addition, MUs and treatment delivery times were compared. Better minimum target coverage (1.3%) was observed in VMAT plans when compared to 3DCRT and IMRT ones confirmed by a statistically significant conformity index (CI) results. Large differences were observed among techniques in integral dose results of the femoral heads. Even if no statistically significant differences were reported in rectum and tissue, a large amount of energy deposition was observed in 3DCRT plans. In any case, VMAT plans provided better organs and tissue sparing confirmed also by the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) analysis as well as a better tumor control probability (TCP) result. Our analysis showed better overall results in planning using VMAT techniques. Furthermore, a total time reduction in treatment observed among techniques including gantry and collimator rotation could encourage using the more recent one, reducing target movements and patient discomfort.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗