Advertisement

A measurement validation of improved plan deliverability with monitor unit objective tool for spine stereotactic ablative radiotherapy

Published:October 21, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meddos.2022.09.005

      Abstract

      Spine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) uses high dose per fraction for palliative pain control. The treatment plans are often heavily modulated due to close proximity to spinal cord and this can lead to poor plan quality which are susceptible to dose delivery discrepancy. Therefore, we aim to assess the effectiveness of the monitor unit (MU) objective tool in Eclipse treatment planning systems in modulating the plan complexity to improve the plan quality in spine SBRT.
      Seven retrospective spine SBRT plans are re-optimized using the MU objective tool in Eclipse TPS v13.6 and were compared with the original plans. The dose metrics of the tumor PTV were compared using D1cc. D99%, D95%, D0.03cc, D0.1cc, D0.35cc and D1cc, and that of cord PRV were compared using D0.03cc, D0.1cc, D0.35cc. Four different plan complexities were also calculated for the original and re-optimized plans to quantify the impact of the tool on the modulation. Patient specific quality assurance measurements were performed with Stereophan and SRS MapCheck, and analyzed using the 1%/1-mm and 2%/2-mm criteria with gamma analysis.
      The dose metrics of the PTV and cord PRV of the re-optimized and original plans are similar and still meet the planning dose constraints. In particular, the PTV dose coverage has a small percentage difference of (0.15 ± 1.33)% and (0.01 ± 1.04)% for D99% and D95%, respectively. The 4 calculated plan complexity metrics consistently show that the re-optimized plans are quantitatively less complex than the original plan. The gamma passing rate of the re-optimized plans improved from (92.2 ± 2.0)% to (94.2 ± 1.6)% with the 1%/1-mm criterion, and (98.7 ± 1.0)% to (99.5 ± 0.3)% with the 2%/2-mm criterion. Overall, the re-optimized plans achieve at least a 10% MU reduction (11.7% to 24.6%).
      Our study shows that optimization with the MU objective tool can reduce plan complexity and improves dose delivery accuracy, while not compromising the dose distribution.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Medical Dosimetry
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Osborn V.W.
        • Lee A.
        • Yamada Y
        Stereotactic body radiation therapy for spinal malignancies.
        Technol. Cancer Res. Treat. 2018; 17
        • Zeng K.L.
        • et al.
        Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for oligometastatic spine metastases: An overview.
        Front. Oncol. 2019; 9: 337
        • Sahgal A.
        • et al.
        Spinal cord dose tolerance to stereotactic body radiation therapy.
        Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. 2021; 110: 124-136
        • Hernandez V.
        • et al.
        What is plan quality in radiotherapy? The importance of evaluating dose metrics, complexity, and robustness of treatment plans.
        Radiother. Oncol. 2020; 153: 26-33
        • Crowe S.B.
        • et al.
        Treatment plan complexity metrics for predicting IMRT pre-treatment quality assurance results.
        Australas. Phys. Eng. Sci. Med. 2014. 2014; 37 (373): 475-482
        • Masi L.
        • Doro R.
        • Favuzza V.
        • Cipressi S.
        • Livi L
        Impact of plan parameters on the dosimetric accuracy of volumetric modulated arc therapy.
        Med. Phys. 2013; 40071718
        • Jiménez-Puertas S.
        • Sánchez-Artuñedo D.
        • Hermida-López M.
        Assessment of the monitor unit objective tool for VMAT in the eclipse treatment planning system.
        Reports Pract. Oncol. Radiother. 2018; 23: 121-125https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpor.2018.02.001
        • Prado A.
        • et al.
        Performance of the eclipse monitor unit objective tool utilizing volumetric modulated arc therapy for rectal cancer.
        Reports Pract. Oncol. Radiother. 2019; 24: 227-232https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpor.2019.02.004
        • Chiavassa S.
        • Bessieres I.
        • Edouard M.
        • Mathot M.
        • Moignier A.
        Complexity metrics for IMRT and VMAT plans: A review of current literature and applications.
        Br. J. Radiol. 2019; 92
        • Crowe S.B.
        • et al.
        Examination of the properties of IMRT and VMAT beams and evaluation against pre-treatment quality assurance results.
        Phys. Med. Biol. 2015; 60: 2587-2601
        • McNiven A.L.
        • Sharpe M.B.
        • Purdie T.G.
        A new metric for assessing IMRT modulation complexity and plan deliverability.
        Med. Phys. 2010; 37: 505-515https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3276775
        • Kairn T.
        • Crowe S.B.
        • Kenny J.
        • Knight R.T.
        • Trapp J.V
        Predicting the likelihood of QA failure using treatment plan accuracy metrics.
        J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2014; 489012051
        • Miften M.
        • et al.
        Tolerance limits and methodologies for IMRT measurement-based verification QA: Recommendations of AAPM Task Group No. 218.
        Med. Phys. 2018; https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.12810
        • Manger R.
        • Yock A.
        • Hoopes D.J.
        Monitor unit-efficient planning for stereotactic body radiation therapy and stereotactic radiosurgery.
        Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. 2016; 96: E649-E650https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.06.2255
        • Younge K.C.
        • et al.
        Predicting deliverability of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans using aperture complexity analysis.
        J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 2016; 17: 124-131
        • Vieillevigne L.
        • Khamphan C.
        • Saez J.
        • Hernandez V
        On the need for tuning the dosimetric leaf gap for stereotactic treatment plans in the Eclipse treatment planning system.
        J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 2019; 20: 68-77
        • Hubley E.
        • Pierce G
        The influence of plan modulation on the interplay effect in VMAT liver SBRT treatments.
        Phys. Med. 2017; 40: 115-121
        • De Muinck Keizer D.M.
        • et al.
        Dosimetric impact of soft-tissue based intrafraction motion from 3D cine-MR in prostate SBRT.
        Phys. Med. Biol. 2020; 65: 025012
        • Ezzell G.A.
        • et al.
        IMRT commissioning: Multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119.
        Med. Phys. 2009; 36: 5359-5373https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3238104
        • Lee M.T.
        • Purdie T.G.
        • Eccles C.L.
        • Sharpe M.B.
        • Dawson L.A
        Comparison of simple and complex liver intensity modulated radiotherapy.
        Radiat. Oncol. 2010; 5: 1-9
        • Younge K.C.
        • et al.
        Penalization of aperture complexity in inversely planned volumetric modulated arc therapy.
        Med. Phys. 2012; 39: 7160-7170
        • Craft D.
        • Süss P.
        • Bortfeld T
        The tradeoff between treatment plan quality and required number of monitor units in intensity-modulated radiotherapy.
        Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2007; 67: 1596-1605
        • Matuszak M.M.
        • Larsen E.W.
        • Fraass B.A
        Reduction of IMRT beam complexity through the use of beam modulation penalties in the objective function.
        Med. Phys. 2007; 34: 507-520
        • Binny D.
        • et al.
        Investigating the use of aperture shape controller in VMAT treatment deliveries.
        Med. Dosim. 2020; 45: 284-292
        • Scaggion A.
        • et al.
        Limiting treatment plan complexity by applying a novel commercial tool.
        J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 2020; 21: 27-34