Iranian Journal of Medical Physics

Iranian Journal of Medical Physics

Impact of Multi-criteria Optimization on 6-MV Flattening Filter-Free Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Craniospinal Irradiation

Document Type : Original Paper

Authors
Mohandass P 1
KHANNA D 1
Selvaganapathi A 2
Nishaanth B 2
Saravanan C 2
Thiyagaraj T 2
Narendra Kumar Bhalla 2
a Puri 2
Blessy M 3
1 Department of Physics, School of Sciences, Arts, Media, and Management, Karunya Institute of Technology and Sciences, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu, India
2 Department of Radiation Oncology, Fortis Cancer Institute, Fortis Hospital, Mohali, Punjab, India
3 Chitkara School of Health Sciences, Chitkara University, Punjab, India
10.22038/ijmp.2019.43270.1655
Abstract
Introduction: Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is an advanced technique used for radiotherapy treatment using different optimization modes. The present study aimed to evaluate Multi-criteria Optimization (MCO) influence on VMAT for Craniospinal Irradiation.
Material and Methods: Fifteen CSI patients treated with 23.4 Gy/13 fractions followed by a boost dose of 6-MV flattening filter-free beams were chosen for this study. Conventional VMAT (c-VMAT) plans were generated for Elekta Versa HD™ linear accelerator. Keeping all other parameters constant, c-VMAT plans combined with MCO (MCO-VMAT) were created for comparison. We compared homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), planning target volume (PTV) dose coverage (D98%), organ at risk (OAR) dose, normal tissue integral dose (NTID), volume receiving ≥ 5 Gy and ≥ 10 Gy by normal tissue, delivery time (DT), monitor units (MUs), and calculation time (CT).
Results: Our findings demonstrated that HI and CI improved slightly in MCO-VMAT, in comparison with c-VMAT (P>0.05). No significant dose difference was observed in D98% for PTV and volume receiving the dose of ≥ 5 Gy, ≥ 10 Gy, and NTID (P>0.05). A slight increase was found in maximum dose to PTV in VMAT-MCO, compared to c-VMAT (P>0.05). The mean dose, max dose, and dose received by OAR were significantly lower in VMAT-MCO as compared to c-VMAT (p <0.05). The MU, CT, and DT were noticed to be lower in c-VMAT than MCO-VMAT (P>0.05).
Conclusion: The MCO-VMAT can be used for CSI, without compromising target coverage, reduced OAR dose by accepting a slight increase of MUs, delivery and calculation time as compare to c-VMAT.
Keywords
Craniospinal Irradiation Monaco™ Multi
Criteria Optimization Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy
Subjects

  1.  

    1. Packer R, Gajjar A, Vezina G, Rorke-Adams L, Burger P, Robertson P, et al. Phase III Study of Craniospinal Radiation Therapy Followed by Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Newly Diagnosed Average-Risk Medulloblastoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2006; 24(25):4202-8.
    2. Lee Y, Brooks C, Bedford J, Warrington A, Saran F. Development and Evaluation of Multiple Isocentric Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Technique for Craniospinal Axis Radiotherapy Planning. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2012; 82(2):1006-12.
    3. Sarkar B, Pradhan A. Choice of appropriate beam model and gantry rotational angle for low-dose gradient-based craniospinal irradiation using volumetric-modulated arc therapy. Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice. 2016; 16(01):53-64.
    4. Fogliata A, Bergström S, Cafaro I, Clivio A, Cozzi L, Dipasquale G, et al. Cranio-spinal irradiation with volumetric modulated arc therapy: A multi-institutional treatment experience. Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2011; 99(1):79-85.
    5. Craft D, Hong T, Shih H, Bortfeld T. Improved Planning Time and Plan Quality Through Multicriteria Optimization for Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2012; 82(1): 83-90.
    6. McGarry C, Bokrantz R, O’Sullivan J, Hounsell A. Advantages and limitations of navigation-based multicriteria optimization (MCO) for localized prostate cancer IMRT planning. Medical Dosimetry. 2014; 39(3):205-11.
    7. ICRU. Report 83 prescribing, recording, and reporting photon-beam intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements; 2010.
    8. Clements M, Schupp N, Tattersall M, Brown A, Larson R. Monaco treatment planning system tools and optimization processes. Medical Dosimetry. 2018; 43(2):106-17.
    9. Monaco training guide. Sweden: Elekta AB, Stockholm: Impac Medical Systems Inc.; 2013.16
    10. Palanisamy M, David K, Durai M, Bhalla N, Puri A. Dosimetric impact of statistical uncertainty on Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm in volumetric modulated arc therapy using Monaco TPS for three different clinical cases. Reports of Practical Oncology & Radiotherapy. 2019; 24 (2):188-99.
    11. Mohandass P, Khanna D, Manigandan D, Bhalla NK, Puri A. Validation of a software upgrade in a monte carlo treatment planning system by comparison of plans in different versions. J Med Phys. 2018; 43:93-9.
    12. Aoyama H, Westerly DC, Mackie TR, Olivera GH, Bentzen SM, Patel RR, et al. Integral radiation dose to normal structures with conformal external beam radiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;64(3):962–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.11.005.19.
    13. Studenski M, Shen X, Yu Y, Xiao Y, Shi W, Biswas T, et al. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy for adult craniospinal irradiation—A comparison with traditional techniques. Medical Dosimetry. 2013; 38(1):48-54.
    14. Miralbell R, Lomax A, Cella L, Schneider U. Potential reduction of the incidence of radiation-induced second cancers by using proton beams in the treatment of pediatric tumors. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2002; 54(3):824-9.
    15. Tatcher M, Glicksman A. Field matching in craniospinal irradiation. The British Journal of Radiology. 1995; 68(810):670.
    16. Srivastava R, Saini G, Sharma P, Chomal M, Aagarwal A, Nangia S, et al. A technique to reduce low dose region for craniospinal irradiation (CSI) with RapidArc and its dosimetric comparison with 3D conformal technique (3DCRT). Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics. 2015; 11(2):488.
    17. Myers P, Stathakis S, Gutiérrez A, Esquivel C, Mavroidis P, Papanikolaou N. Dosimetric Comparison of Craniospinal Axis Irradiation (CSI) Treatments Using Helical Tomotherapy, SmartarcTM, and 3D Conventional Radiation Therapy. International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology. 2013; 02(01):30-8.
    18. Nguyen D, Sporea C, Largeron G, Josserand-Petri F, Khodri M. Comparison between multi-criteria optimization (MCO) (Raystation®) and Progressive Resolution Optimizer (PRO) (Eclipse®) for the dosimetry of breast cancer with prophylactic nodal irradiation treated with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Physica Medica. 2016; 32:356-7.
    19. Zieminski S, Khandekar M, Wang Y. Assessment of multi-criteria optimization (MCO) for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in hippocampal avoidance whole brain radiation therapy (HA-WBRT). Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics. 2018; 19(2):184-90.
    20. Wala J, Craft D, Paly J, Zietman A, Efstathiou J. Maximizing dosimetric benefits of IMRT in the treatment of localized prostate cancer through multicriteria optimization planning. Medical Dosimetry. 2013; 38(3):298-303.
    21. Ghandour S, Matzinger O, Pachoud M. Volumetric-modulated arc therapy planning using multicriteria optimization for localized prostate cancer. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics. 2015; 16(3):258-69.
    22. Kierkels R, Visser R, Bijl H, Langendijk J, Vant Veld A, Steenbakkers R, et al. Multicriteria optimization enables less experienced planners to efficiently produce high quality treatment plans in head and neck cancer radiotherapy. Radiation Oncology. 2015; 10(1): 87. 
Iranian Journal of Medical Physics
Volume 17, Issue 6
November and December 2020
Pages 386-393

  • Receive Date 21 September 2019
  • Revise Date 12 December 2019
  • Accept Date 13 December 2019