Premium
SU‐F‐T‐388: Comparison of Biophysical Indices in Hippocampal‐Avoidance Whole Brain VMAT and IMRT Radiation Therapy Treatment Plans
Author(s) -
Kendall E,
Ahmad S,
Algan O,
Higby C,
Hossain S
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.4956573
Subject(s) - nuclear medicine , medicine , contouring , radiation therapy , radiation oncologist , radiation treatment planning , radiology , engineering drawing , engineering
Purpose: To compare biophysical indices of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) and Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) treatment plans for whole brain radiation therapy following the NRG‐CC001 protocol. Methods: In this retrospective study, a total of fifteen patients were planned with Varian Eclipse Treatment Planning System using VMAT (RapidArc) and IMRT techniques. The planning target volume (PTV) was defined as the whole brain volume excluding a uniform three‐dimensional 5mm expansion of the hippocampus volume. Prescribed doses in all plans were 30 Gy delivered over 10 fractions normalized to a minimum of 95% of the target volume receiving 100% of the prescribed dose. The NRG Oncology protocol guidelines were followed for contouring and dose‐volume constraints. A single radiation oncologist evaluated all treatment plans. Calculations of statistical significance were performed using Student's paired t‐test. Results: All VMAT and IMRT plans met the NRG‐CC001 protocol dose‐volume criteria. The average equivalent uniform dose (EUD) for the PTV for VMAT vs. IMRT was respectively (19.05±0.33 Gy vs. 19.38±0.47 Gy) for α/β of 2 Gy and (19.47±0.30 Gy vs. 19.84±0.42 Gy) for α/β of 10 Gy. For the PTV, the average mean and maximum doses were 2% and 5% lower in VMAT plans than in IMRT plans, respectively. The average EUD and the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for the hippocampus in VMAT vs. IMRT plans were (15.28±1.35 Gy vs. 15.65±0.99 Gy, p=0.18) and (0.305±0.012 Gy vs. 0.308±0.008 Gy, p=0.192), respectively. The average EUD and NTCP for the optic chiasm were both 2% higher in VMAT than in IMRT plans. Conclusion: Though statistically insignificant, VMAT plans indicate a lower hippocampus EUD than IMRT plans. Also, a small variation in NTCP was found between plans.