Open AccessOn the reduction of aperture complexity in kidney SABR
Author(s) -
Gaudreault Mathieu,
Offer Keith,
Kron Tomas,
Siva Shankar,
Hardcastle Nicholas
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
journal of applied clinical medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.83
H-Index - 48
ISSN - 1526-9914
DOI - 10.1002/acm2.13215
Subject(s) - sabr volatility model , aperture (computer memory) , nuclear medicine , quartile , medicine , dosimetry , radiation treatment planning , intensity modulation , mathematics , computer science , projection (relational algebra) , radiation therapy , physics , medical physics , algorithm , radiology , optics , volatility (finance) , confidence interval , stochastic volatility , phase modulation , acoustics , phase noise , econometrics
Background Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) of primary kidney cancers is confounded by motion. There is a risk of interplay effect if the dose is delivered using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and flattening filter‐free (FFF) dose rates due to target and linac motion. This study aims to provide an efficient way to generate plans with minimal aperture complexity. Methods In this retrospective study, 62 patients who received kidney SABR were reviewed. For each patient, two plans were created using internal target volume based motion management, on the average intensity projection of a four‐dimensional CT. In the first plan, optimization was performed using a knowledge‐based planning model based on delivered clinical plans in our institution. In the second plan, the optimization was repeated, with a maximum monitor unit (MU) objective applied in the optimization. Dose‐volume, conformity, and complexity metric (with the field edge metric and the modulation complexity score) were compared between the two plans. Results are shown in terms of median (first quartile — third quartile). Results Similar dosimetry was obtained with and without the utilization of an objective on the MU. However, complexity was reduced by using the objective on the MUs (modulation complexity score = 0.55 (0.50–0.61) / 0.33 (0.29–0.36), P ‐value < 10 −10 , with/without the MU objective). Reduction of complexity was driven by a larger aperture area (area aperture variability = 0.68 (0.64–0.73) / 0.42 (0.37–0.45), P ‐value < 10 −10 , with/without the MU objective). Using the objective on the MUs resulted in a more spherical dose distribution (sphericity 50% isodose = 0.73 (0.69–0.75) / 0.64 (0.60–0.68), P ‐value < 10 −8 , with/without the MU objective) reducing dose to organs at risk given respiratory motion. Conclusions Aperture complexity is reduced in kidney SABR by using an objective on the MU delivery with VMAT and FFF dose rate.