SU‐GG‐T‐558

Effective MLC Leaf Width for RapidArc Plans: Can Coarse Resolution Give Fine Results?

C. Buckey, Sotirios Stathakis, D. Mihailidis, P. Mavroidis, Nikos Papanikolaou

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To determine the feasibility of using a multileaf collimator (MLC) with leaf widths of 1.0 cm, to obtain dosimetrically similar results to an MLC with 0.5 cm leaf widths, for RapidArc treatments. Method and Materials: The CT data of 10 patients, who had recently completed treatment at our clinic, were loaded into the Eclipse treatment planning system. Two plans were generated for each patient: a single‐arc plan using a 0.5 cm MLC leaf width, and a two‐arc plan using a 1.0 cm MLC leaf width, with the isocenter of one field shifted by 0.5 cm in the direction perpendicular to leaf travel. The optimization parameters used were the same as those employed during the original patient treatment plan. Both plans were optimized by Eclipse's arc optimization algorithm, without any manipulation of constraints or other outside intervention once the process was underway. All plans were normalized such that 95% of the target volume received 100% of the prescribed dose. Results: For all 10 patients, the two‐arc 1.0 cm MLC plans were able to return at least equivalent results for PTV coverage; in all but one instance the two arcs had superior PTV coverage and homogeniety as compared to the single‐arc 0.5 cm MLC plan. Dose to organs at risk (OARs) were not identical, but no trend for higher OAR doses for a particular leaf width can be established. On average, the number of monitor units used for the two‐arc 1.0 cm MLC plans increased by 15%, when compared to the single‐arc 0.5 cm MLC plans. Conclusion: By using two arcs, with an isocenter shift of half a leaf‐width, it is possible for centers using a 1.0 cm MLC leaf‐width to plan RapidArc cases that are dosimetrically similar to those planned with a 0.5 cm leaf width.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)3315
Number of pages1
JournalMedical Physics
Volume37
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2010

Fingerprint

Organs at Risk
Therapeutics
Direction compound

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

SU‐GG‐T‐558 : Effective MLC Leaf Width for RapidArc Plans: Can Coarse Resolution Give Fine Results? / Buckey, C.; Stathakis, Sotirios; Mihailidis, D.; Mavroidis, P.; Papanikolaou, Nikos.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 37, No. 6, 2010, p. 3315.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Buckey, C. ; Stathakis, Sotirios ; Mihailidis, D. ; Mavroidis, P. ; Papanikolaou, Nikos. / SU‐GG‐T‐558 : Effective MLC Leaf Width for RapidArc Plans: Can Coarse Resolution Give Fine Results?. In: Medical Physics. 2010 ; Vol. 37, No. 6. pp. 3315.
@article{bcb94daf2fa44a338e6578f5bdea8e35,
title = "SU‐GG‐T‐558: Effective MLC Leaf Width for RapidArc Plans: Can Coarse Resolution Give Fine Results?",
abstract = "Purpose: To determine the feasibility of using a multileaf collimator (MLC) with leaf widths of 1.0 cm, to obtain dosimetrically similar results to an MLC with 0.5 cm leaf widths, for RapidArc treatments. Method and Materials: The CT data of 10 patients, who had recently completed treatment at our clinic, were loaded into the Eclipse treatment planning system. Two plans were generated for each patient: a single‐arc plan using a 0.5 cm MLC leaf width, and a two‐arc plan using a 1.0 cm MLC leaf width, with the isocenter of one field shifted by 0.5 cm in the direction perpendicular to leaf travel. The optimization parameters used were the same as those employed during the original patient treatment plan. Both plans were optimized by Eclipse's arc optimization algorithm, without any manipulation of constraints or other outside intervention once the process was underway. All plans were normalized such that 95{\%} of the target volume received 100{\%} of the prescribed dose. Results: For all 10 patients, the two‐arc 1.0 cm MLC plans were able to return at least equivalent results for PTV coverage; in all but one instance the two arcs had superior PTV coverage and homogeniety as compared to the single‐arc 0.5 cm MLC plan. Dose to organs at risk (OARs) were not identical, but no trend for higher OAR doses for a particular leaf width can be established. On average, the number of monitor units used for the two‐arc 1.0 cm MLC plans increased by 15{\%}, when compared to the single‐arc 0.5 cm MLC plans. Conclusion: By using two arcs, with an isocenter shift of half a leaf‐width, it is possible for centers using a 1.0 cm MLC leaf‐width to plan RapidArc cases that are dosimetrically similar to those planned with a 0.5 cm leaf width.",
author = "C. Buckey and Sotirios Stathakis and D. Mihailidis and P. Mavroidis and Nikos Papanikolaou",
year = "2010",
doi = "10.1118/1.3468956",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "37",
pages = "3315",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐GG‐T‐558

T2 - Effective MLC Leaf Width for RapidArc Plans: Can Coarse Resolution Give Fine Results?

AU - Buckey, C.

AU - Stathakis, Sotirios

AU - Mihailidis, D.

AU - Mavroidis, P.

AU - Papanikolaou, Nikos

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - Purpose: To determine the feasibility of using a multileaf collimator (MLC) with leaf widths of 1.0 cm, to obtain dosimetrically similar results to an MLC with 0.5 cm leaf widths, for RapidArc treatments. Method and Materials: The CT data of 10 patients, who had recently completed treatment at our clinic, were loaded into the Eclipse treatment planning system. Two plans were generated for each patient: a single‐arc plan using a 0.5 cm MLC leaf width, and a two‐arc plan using a 1.0 cm MLC leaf width, with the isocenter of one field shifted by 0.5 cm in the direction perpendicular to leaf travel. The optimization parameters used were the same as those employed during the original patient treatment plan. Both plans were optimized by Eclipse's arc optimization algorithm, without any manipulation of constraints or other outside intervention once the process was underway. All plans were normalized such that 95% of the target volume received 100% of the prescribed dose. Results: For all 10 patients, the two‐arc 1.0 cm MLC plans were able to return at least equivalent results for PTV coverage; in all but one instance the two arcs had superior PTV coverage and homogeniety as compared to the single‐arc 0.5 cm MLC plan. Dose to organs at risk (OARs) were not identical, but no trend for higher OAR doses for a particular leaf width can be established. On average, the number of monitor units used for the two‐arc 1.0 cm MLC plans increased by 15%, when compared to the single‐arc 0.5 cm MLC plans. Conclusion: By using two arcs, with an isocenter shift of half a leaf‐width, it is possible for centers using a 1.0 cm MLC leaf‐width to plan RapidArc cases that are dosimetrically similar to those planned with a 0.5 cm leaf width.

AB - Purpose: To determine the feasibility of using a multileaf collimator (MLC) with leaf widths of 1.0 cm, to obtain dosimetrically similar results to an MLC with 0.5 cm leaf widths, for RapidArc treatments. Method and Materials: The CT data of 10 patients, who had recently completed treatment at our clinic, were loaded into the Eclipse treatment planning system. Two plans were generated for each patient: a single‐arc plan using a 0.5 cm MLC leaf width, and a two‐arc plan using a 1.0 cm MLC leaf width, with the isocenter of one field shifted by 0.5 cm in the direction perpendicular to leaf travel. The optimization parameters used were the same as those employed during the original patient treatment plan. Both plans were optimized by Eclipse's arc optimization algorithm, without any manipulation of constraints or other outside intervention once the process was underway. All plans were normalized such that 95% of the target volume received 100% of the prescribed dose. Results: For all 10 patients, the two‐arc 1.0 cm MLC plans were able to return at least equivalent results for PTV coverage; in all but one instance the two arcs had superior PTV coverage and homogeniety as compared to the single‐arc 0.5 cm MLC plan. Dose to organs at risk (OARs) were not identical, but no trend for higher OAR doses for a particular leaf width can be established. On average, the number of monitor units used for the two‐arc 1.0 cm MLC plans increased by 15%, when compared to the single‐arc 0.5 cm MLC plans. Conclusion: By using two arcs, with an isocenter shift of half a leaf‐width, it is possible for centers using a 1.0 cm MLC leaf‐width to plan RapidArc cases that are dosimetrically similar to those planned with a 0.5 cm leaf width.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024795228&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024795228&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.3468956

DO - 10.1118/1.3468956

M3 - Article

VL - 37

SP - 3315

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -