Effects of positioning robustness on dosimetry for intensity-modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1004-4221.2016.07.003
- VernacularTitle:摆位稳健性对IMRT与VMAT剂量学影响研究
- Author:
Biao ZHANG
;
Pengfei JIA
;
Lemin TANG
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Positioning robustness;
Intedsity-modulated radiotherapy;
Volumetric modulated arc therapy;
Dosimetry
- From:
Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology
2016;25(7):676-680
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To compare the effects of positioning robustness on dose distribution between intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for head and neck tumor,and to evaluate their needs for image-based guidance.Methods Thirty patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma undergoing IMRT were enrolled as subjects.The VMAT plans were designed according to the clinical dosimetric requirements and the dose calculation was made by the AAA method.For the two plans in each patient,the isocenters were shifted by ±1.0,±3.0,and ±5.0 mm along the original x,y,and z axes to simulate the impacts of positioning errors in left-right (LR),superior-inferior (SI),and anterior-posterior (AP) directions,respectively,on dose distribution.The dose-volume histogram parameters were analyzed in 60 references and 1080 re-calculated plans.Comparison was made by paired t-test.Results When the error was 1 mm,the average deviations of gross tumor volume (GTV) D98,clinical target volume (CTV) D95 and heterogeneity index,and planning gross tumor volume (PGTV) V95 were＜0.5％.When the error was 3 mm,the average dose deviations of GTV and CTV were＜1.0％ and significantly larger in VMAT than in IMRT;the average dose deviation of PGTV was large (GTV D98,P=0.00;CTV D95,P=0.00);the average deviations of PGTVnxV95 and PGTVndV95 were significantly smaller in IMRT than in VMAT (1.64％vs.1.95％,P=0.01;1.73％ vs.2.63％,P=0.00).The deviations of parameters became larger with the increasing positioning error and were significantly larger in VMAT than in IMRT (GTV D98,P=0.00;CTV D95,P=0.00;CTV HI;P=0.00;PGTV V95;P=0.01).Compared with the target volume,Dmax to the spinal cord and brain stem had larger deviations.However,there were no significant differences in Dmax to the spinal cord and brain stem between IMRT and VMAT.Conclusions The IMRT and VMAT plans are both robust when the positioning error is small (＜3 mm).Compared with IMRT,VAMT is more sensitive to the positioning error,mainly in the target volume.The difference between the two plans becomes larger with the increasing positioning error.An increase in the frequency of image-based guidance is recommended for patients undergoing VMAT.
