Rotational IMRT techniques compared to fixed gantry IMRT and Tomotherapy

Multi-institutional planning study for head-and-neck cases

Tilo Wiezorek, Tim Brachwitz, Dietmar Georg, Eyck Blank, Irina Fotina, Gregor Habl, Matthias Kretschmer, Gerd Lutters, Henning Salz, Kai Schubert, Daniela Wagner, Thomas G. Wendt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

61 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Recent developments enable to deliver rotational IMRT with standard C-arm gantry based linear accelerators. This upcoming treatment technique was benchmarked in a multi-center treatment planning study against static gantry IMRT and rotational IMRT based on a ring gantry for a complex parotid gland sparing head-and-neck technique.Methods: Treatment plans were created for 10 patients with head-and-neck tumours (oropharynx, hypopharynx, larynx) using the following treatment planning systems (TPS) for rotational IMRT: Monaco (ELEKTA VMAT solution), Eclipse (Varian RapidArc solution) and HiArt for the helical tomotherapy (Tomotherapy). Planning of static gantry IMRT was performed with KonRad, Pinnacle and Panther DAO based on step&shoot IMRT delivery and Eclipse for sliding window IMRT. The prescribed doses for the high dose PTVs were 65.1Gy or 60.9Gy and for the low dose PTVs 55.8Gy or 52.5Gy dependend on resection status. Plan evaluation was based on target coverage, conformity and homogeneity, DVHs of OARs and the volume of normal tissue receiving more than 5Gy (V5Gy). Additionally, the cumulative monitor units (MUs) and treatment times of the different technologies were compared. All evaluation parameters were averaged over all 10 patients for each technique and planning modality.Results: Depending on IMRT technique and TPS, the mean CI values of all patients ranged from 1.17 to 2.82; and mean HI values varied from 0.05 to 0.10. The mean values of the median doses of the spared parotid were 26.5Gy for RapidArc and 23Gy for VMAT, 14.1Gy for Tomo. For fixed gantry techniques 21Gy was achieved for step&shoot+KonRad, 17.0Gy for step&shoot+Panther DAO, 23.3Gy for step&shoot+Pinnacle and 18.6Gy for sliding window.V5Gy values were lowest for the sliding window IMRT technique (3499 ccm) and largest for RapidArc (5480 ccm). The lowest mean MU value of 408 was achieved by Panther DAO, compared to 1140 for sliding window IMRT.Conclusions: All IMRT delivery technologies with their associated TPS provide plans with satisfying target coverage while at the same time respecting the defined OAR criteria. Sliding window IMRT, RapidArc and Tomo techniques resulted in better target dose homogeneity compared to VMAT and step&shoot IMRT. Rotational IMRT based on C-arm linacs and Tomotherapy seem to be advantageous with respect to OAR sparing and treatment delivery efficiency, at the cost of higher dose delivered to normal tissues. The overall treatment plan quality using Tomo seems to be better than the other TPS technology combinations.

Original languageEnglish
Article number20
JournalRadiation Oncology
Volume6
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 21 Feb 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Neck
Head
Planning Techniques
Therapeutics
Technology
Monaco
Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy
Hypopharynx
Particle Accelerators
Oropharynx
Parotid Gland
Larynx
Arm
Neoplasms

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Rotational IMRT techniques compared to fixed gantry IMRT and Tomotherapy : Multi-institutional planning study for head-and-neck cases. / Wiezorek, Tilo; Brachwitz, Tim; Georg, Dietmar; Blank, Eyck; Fotina, Irina; Habl, Gregor; Kretschmer, Matthias; Lutters, Gerd; Salz, Henning; Schubert, Kai; Wagner, Daniela; Wendt, Thomas G.

In: Radiation Oncology, Vol. 6, No. 1, 20, 21.02.2011.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Wiezorek, T, Brachwitz, T, Georg, D, Blank, E, Fotina, I, Habl, G, Kretschmer, M, Lutters, G, Salz, H, Schubert, K, Wagner, D & Wendt, TG 2011, 'Rotational IMRT techniques compared to fixed gantry IMRT and Tomotherapy: Multi-institutional planning study for head-and-neck cases', Radiation Oncology, vol. 6, no. 1, 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-6-20
Wiezorek, Tilo ; Brachwitz, Tim ; Georg, Dietmar ; Blank, Eyck ; Fotina, Irina ; Habl, Gregor ; Kretschmer, Matthias ; Lutters, Gerd ; Salz, Henning ; Schubert, Kai ; Wagner, Daniela ; Wendt, Thomas G. / Rotational IMRT techniques compared to fixed gantry IMRT and Tomotherapy : Multi-institutional planning study for head-and-neck cases. In: Radiation Oncology. 2011 ; Vol. 6, No. 1.
@article{e8f91d5843c74c33b66e5b906575511a,
title = "Rotational IMRT techniques compared to fixed gantry IMRT and Tomotherapy: Multi-institutional planning study for head-and-neck cases",
abstract = "Background: Recent developments enable to deliver rotational IMRT with standard C-arm gantry based linear accelerators. This upcoming treatment technique was benchmarked in a multi-center treatment planning study against static gantry IMRT and rotational IMRT based on a ring gantry for a complex parotid gland sparing head-and-neck technique.Methods: Treatment plans were created for 10 patients with head-and-neck tumours (oropharynx, hypopharynx, larynx) using the following treatment planning systems (TPS) for rotational IMRT: Monaco (ELEKTA VMAT solution), Eclipse (Varian RapidArc solution) and HiArt for the helical tomotherapy (Tomotherapy). Planning of static gantry IMRT was performed with KonRad, Pinnacle and Panther DAO based on step&shoot IMRT delivery and Eclipse for sliding window IMRT. The prescribed doses for the high dose PTVs were 65.1Gy or 60.9Gy and for the low dose PTVs 55.8Gy or 52.5Gy dependend on resection status. Plan evaluation was based on target coverage, conformity and homogeneity, DVHs of OARs and the volume of normal tissue receiving more than 5Gy (V5Gy). Additionally, the cumulative monitor units (MUs) and treatment times of the different technologies were compared. All evaluation parameters were averaged over all 10 patients for each technique and planning modality.Results: Depending on IMRT technique and TPS, the mean CI values of all patients ranged from 1.17 to 2.82; and mean HI values varied from 0.05 to 0.10. The mean values of the median doses of the spared parotid were 26.5Gy for RapidArc and 23Gy for VMAT, 14.1Gy for Tomo. For fixed gantry techniques 21Gy was achieved for step&shoot+KonRad, 17.0Gy for step&shoot+Panther DAO, 23.3Gy for step&shoot+Pinnacle and 18.6Gy for sliding window.V5Gy values were lowest for the sliding window IMRT technique (3499 ccm) and largest for RapidArc (5480 ccm). The lowest mean MU value of 408 was achieved by Panther DAO, compared to 1140 for sliding window IMRT.Conclusions: All IMRT delivery technologies with their associated TPS provide plans with satisfying target coverage while at the same time respecting the defined OAR criteria. Sliding window IMRT, RapidArc and Tomo techniques resulted in better target dose homogeneity compared to VMAT and step&shoot IMRT. Rotational IMRT based on C-arm linacs and Tomotherapy seem to be advantageous with respect to OAR sparing and treatment delivery efficiency, at the cost of higher dose delivered to normal tissues. The overall treatment plan quality using Tomo seems to be better than the other TPS technology combinations.",
author = "Tilo Wiezorek and Tim Brachwitz and Dietmar Georg and Eyck Blank and Irina Fotina and Gregor Habl and Matthias Kretschmer and Gerd Lutters and Henning Salz and Kai Schubert and Daniela Wagner and Wendt, {Thomas G.}",
year = "2011",
month = "2",
day = "21",
doi = "10.1186/1748-717X-6-20",
language = "English",
volume = "6",
journal = "Radiation Oncology",
issn = "1748-717X",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Rotational IMRT techniques compared to fixed gantry IMRT and Tomotherapy

T2 - Multi-institutional planning study for head-and-neck cases

AU - Wiezorek, Tilo

AU - Brachwitz, Tim

AU - Georg, Dietmar

AU - Blank, Eyck

AU - Fotina, Irina

AU - Habl, Gregor

AU - Kretschmer, Matthias

AU - Lutters, Gerd

AU - Salz, Henning

AU - Schubert, Kai

AU - Wagner, Daniela

AU - Wendt, Thomas G.

PY - 2011/2/21

Y1 - 2011/2/21

N2 - Background: Recent developments enable to deliver rotational IMRT with standard C-arm gantry based linear accelerators. This upcoming treatment technique was benchmarked in a multi-center treatment planning study against static gantry IMRT and rotational IMRT based on a ring gantry for a complex parotid gland sparing head-and-neck technique.Methods: Treatment plans were created for 10 patients with head-and-neck tumours (oropharynx, hypopharynx, larynx) using the following treatment planning systems (TPS) for rotational IMRT: Monaco (ELEKTA VMAT solution), Eclipse (Varian RapidArc solution) and HiArt for the helical tomotherapy (Tomotherapy). Planning of static gantry IMRT was performed with KonRad, Pinnacle and Panther DAO based on step&shoot IMRT delivery and Eclipse for sliding window IMRT. The prescribed doses for the high dose PTVs were 65.1Gy or 60.9Gy and for the low dose PTVs 55.8Gy or 52.5Gy dependend on resection status. Plan evaluation was based on target coverage, conformity and homogeneity, DVHs of OARs and the volume of normal tissue receiving more than 5Gy (V5Gy). Additionally, the cumulative monitor units (MUs) and treatment times of the different technologies were compared. All evaluation parameters were averaged over all 10 patients for each technique and planning modality.Results: Depending on IMRT technique and TPS, the mean CI values of all patients ranged from 1.17 to 2.82; and mean HI values varied from 0.05 to 0.10. The mean values of the median doses of the spared parotid were 26.5Gy for RapidArc and 23Gy for VMAT, 14.1Gy for Tomo. For fixed gantry techniques 21Gy was achieved for step&shoot+KonRad, 17.0Gy for step&shoot+Panther DAO, 23.3Gy for step&shoot+Pinnacle and 18.6Gy for sliding window.V5Gy values were lowest for the sliding window IMRT technique (3499 ccm) and largest for RapidArc (5480 ccm). The lowest mean MU value of 408 was achieved by Panther DAO, compared to 1140 for sliding window IMRT.Conclusions: All IMRT delivery technologies with their associated TPS provide plans with satisfying target coverage while at the same time respecting the defined OAR criteria. Sliding window IMRT, RapidArc and Tomo techniques resulted in better target dose homogeneity compared to VMAT and step&shoot IMRT. Rotational IMRT based on C-arm linacs and Tomotherapy seem to be advantageous with respect to OAR sparing and treatment delivery efficiency, at the cost of higher dose delivered to normal tissues. The overall treatment plan quality using Tomo seems to be better than the other TPS technology combinations.

AB - Background: Recent developments enable to deliver rotational IMRT with standard C-arm gantry based linear accelerators. This upcoming treatment technique was benchmarked in a multi-center treatment planning study against static gantry IMRT and rotational IMRT based on a ring gantry for a complex parotid gland sparing head-and-neck technique.Methods: Treatment plans were created for 10 patients with head-and-neck tumours (oropharynx, hypopharynx, larynx) using the following treatment planning systems (TPS) for rotational IMRT: Monaco (ELEKTA VMAT solution), Eclipse (Varian RapidArc solution) and HiArt for the helical tomotherapy (Tomotherapy). Planning of static gantry IMRT was performed with KonRad, Pinnacle and Panther DAO based on step&shoot IMRT delivery and Eclipse for sliding window IMRT. The prescribed doses for the high dose PTVs were 65.1Gy or 60.9Gy and for the low dose PTVs 55.8Gy or 52.5Gy dependend on resection status. Plan evaluation was based on target coverage, conformity and homogeneity, DVHs of OARs and the volume of normal tissue receiving more than 5Gy (V5Gy). Additionally, the cumulative monitor units (MUs) and treatment times of the different technologies were compared. All evaluation parameters were averaged over all 10 patients for each technique and planning modality.Results: Depending on IMRT technique and TPS, the mean CI values of all patients ranged from 1.17 to 2.82; and mean HI values varied from 0.05 to 0.10. The mean values of the median doses of the spared parotid were 26.5Gy for RapidArc and 23Gy for VMAT, 14.1Gy for Tomo. For fixed gantry techniques 21Gy was achieved for step&shoot+KonRad, 17.0Gy for step&shoot+Panther DAO, 23.3Gy for step&shoot+Pinnacle and 18.6Gy for sliding window.V5Gy values were lowest for the sliding window IMRT technique (3499 ccm) and largest for RapidArc (5480 ccm). The lowest mean MU value of 408 was achieved by Panther DAO, compared to 1140 for sliding window IMRT.Conclusions: All IMRT delivery technologies with their associated TPS provide plans with satisfying target coverage while at the same time respecting the defined OAR criteria. Sliding window IMRT, RapidArc and Tomo techniques resulted in better target dose homogeneity compared to VMAT and step&shoot IMRT. Rotational IMRT based on C-arm linacs and Tomotherapy seem to be advantageous with respect to OAR sparing and treatment delivery efficiency, at the cost of higher dose delivered to normal tissues. The overall treatment plan quality using Tomo seems to be better than the other TPS technology combinations.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79951692630&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79951692630&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/1748-717X-6-20

DO - 10.1186/1748-717X-6-20

M3 - Article

VL - 6

JO - Radiation Oncology

JF - Radiation Oncology

SN - 1748-717X

IS - 1

M1 - 20

ER -