Evaluation of the conformity of intensity-modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy using AAPM TG 119 protocol

被引:0
|
作者
Tam, Dang Thi Minh [1 ]
Ho, Phan Long [2 ,3 ,4 ]
Uy, Phan Quoc [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Hieu, Nguyen Trung [1 ]
Linh, Vo Tan [1 ]
Hoa, Nguyen Thi [1 ]
Lam, Nguyen Thi The [1 ]
Nga, Bui Thi Thuy [1 ]
Thanh, Truong Huu [1 ]
Thanh, Tran Thien [2 ,3 ]
Tao, Chau Van [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Ho Chi Minh Oncol Hosp, Dept Radiol Technol, Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam
[2] Univ Sci, Fac Phys & Engn Phys, Dept Nucl Phys, 227,Nguyen Van Cu St,Dist 5, Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam
[3] Vietnam Natl Univ, Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam
[4] Inst Publ Hlth Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam
关键词
IMRT; VMAT; TG; 119; protocol; TrueBeam linac; Semiflex ion chamber; EPID; Quality assurance; IMRT; VERIFICATION; RADIOTHERAPY; IRRADIATION; CARCINOMA; SYSTEM; VMAT;
D O I
10.1007/s00411-024-01091-2
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
The aim of this work was to evaluate the conformity of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and verify the accuracy of the planning and delivery system used in this work based on the AAPM TG-119 protocol. The Eclipse 13.6 treatment planning system (TPS) was used to plan the TG-119 test suite, which included four test cases: MultiTarget, Prostate, Head/Neck, and C-Shape for IMRT and VMAT techniques with 6 MV and 10 MV acceleration voltages. The results were assessed and discussed in terms of the TG-119 protocol and the results of previous studies. In addition, point dose and planar dose measurements were done using a semiflex ion chamber and an electronic portal imaging device (EPID), respectively. The planned doses of all test cases met the criteria of the TG-119 protocol, except those for the spinal cord of the C-Shape hard case. There were no significant differences between the treatment planning doses and the doses given in the TG-119 report, with p-values ranging from 0.974 to 1 (p > 0.05). Doses to the target volumes were similar in the IMRT and VMAT plans, but the organs at risk (OARs) doses were different depending on the test case. The planning results showed that IMRT is more conformal than VMAT in certain cases. For the point dose measurements, the confidence limit (CLpoint) of 0.030 and 0.021 were better than the corresponding values of 0.045 and 0.047 given in the TG-119 report for high-dose and low-dose areas, respectively. Regarding the planar dose measurements, the CLplanar value of 0.38 obtained in this work was lower than that given in the TG-119 report (12.4). It is concluded that the dosimetry measurements performed in this study showed better confidence limits than those provided in the TG 119 report. IMRT remains more conformal in certain circumstances than the more progressive VMAT. When selecting the method of delivering a dose to the patient, several factors must be considered, including the radiotherapy technique, energy, treatment site, and tumour geometry.
引用
收藏
页码:557 / 571
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Dosimetric comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy for pancreatic malignancies
    Ali, Arif N.
    Dhabaan, Anees H.
    Jarrio, Christie S.
    Siddiqi, Arsalan K.
    Landry, Jerome C.
    MEDICAL DOSIMETRY, 2012, 37 (03) : 271 - 275
  • [2] Volumetric intensity-modulated arc therapy vs conventional intensity-modulated radiation therapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a dosimetric study
    White, Peter
    Chan, Kit Chi
    Cheng, Ka Wai
    Chan, Ka Yiu
    Chau, Ming Chun
    JOURNAL OF RADIATION RESEARCH, 2013, 54 (03) : 532 - 545
  • [3] Application of AAPM TG 119 to volumetric arc therapy (VMAT)
    Mynampati, Dinesh Kumar
    Yaparpalvi, Ravindra
    Hong, Linda
    Kuo, Hsiang-Chi
    Mah, Dennis
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2012, 13 (05): : 108 - 116
  • [4] Volumetric modulated arc therapy versus intensity-modulated proton therapy in the postoperative irradiation of thymoma
    Franceschini, Davide
    Cozzi, Luca
    Loi, Mauro
    Franzese, Ciro
    Reggiori, Giacomo
    Mancosu, Pietro
    Clivio, Alessandro
    Fogliata, Antonella
    Scorsetti, Marta
    JOURNAL OF CANCER RESEARCH AND CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2020, 146 (09) : 2267 - 2276
  • [5] Dosimetric analysis and comparison of volumetric-modulated arc therapy versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy for liver carcinoma
    Chiang, Bing-Hao
    Schnell, Erich
    Hibbitts, Kerry
    Herman, Terence
    Ahmad, Salahuddin
    JOURNAL OF RADIOTHERAPY IN PRACTICE, 2022, 21 (01) : 138 - 140
  • [6] Evaluation of internal margins for prostate for step and shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy using different margin formulas
    Higuchi, Daiki
    Ono, Tomohiro
    Kakino, Ryo
    Aizawa, Rihito
    Nakayasu, Naoki
    Ito, Hitoshi
    Sakamoto, Takashi
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2022, 23 (09):
  • [7] Intensity-modulated radiation therapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy for adult craniospinal irradiation-A comparison with traditional techniques
    Studenski, Matthew T.
    Shen, Xinglei
    Yu, Yan
    Xiao, Ying
    Shi, Wenyin
    Biswas, Tithi
    Werner-Wasik, Maria
    Harrison, Amy S.
    MEDICAL DOSIMETRY, 2013, 38 (01) : 48 - 54
  • [8] Impact of machines on plan quality: volumetric modulated arc therapy and intensity modulated radiation therapy
    Clemente, S.
    Cozzolino, M.
    Oliviero, C.
    Fiorentino, A.
    Chiumento, C.
    Fusco, V.
    CLINICAL & TRANSLATIONAL ONCOLOGY, 2014, 16 (02) : 141 - 146
  • [9] Dosimetric comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy and intensity modulated radiation therapy for anal cancer
    Chiang, Bing-Hao
    Hibbitts, Kerry
    Ortega, Heather
    Herman, Terence
    Ahmad, Salahuddin
    JOURNAL OF RADIOTHERAPY IN PRACTICE, 2020, 19 (02) : 190 - 192
  • [10] Validation of Delivery Consistency for Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy and Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy Plans
    Woon, Wui Ann
    Ravindran, Paul B.
    Ekayanake, Piyasiri
    Lim, Yivonne Yih Fang
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2018, 43 (02) : 119 - 128