Dosimetric effects of volumetric modulated arc therapy plans for lung cancer caused by different dose algorithms and radiation field settings
10.3760/cma.j.cn112271-20220504-00187
- VernacularTitle:算法和射野设置对肺癌容积旋转调强计划的剂量学影响
- Author:
Wanjia ZHENG
1
;
Enting LI
;
Sijuan HUANG
;
Yunting ZHU
;
Jinxing LIAN
;
Mingli WANG
;
Xiaoyan HUANG
;
Xin YANG
Author Information
1. 中国人民解放军南部战区空军医院肿瘤科，广州 510050
- Keywords:
Lung cancer;
Volume modulated arc therapy;
Irradiation field setting;
Dose calculation algorithms;
Dose difference analysis
- From:
Chinese Journal of Radiological Medicine and Protection
2022;42(9):671-677
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To analyze the dosimetric differences of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for lung cancer caused by different dose calculation algorithms and radiation field settings and thus to provide a reference for designing clinical VMAT plans for lung cancer.Methods:This study randomly selected 20 patients with lung cancer and divided them into four groups of VMAT plans, namely, a group adopting two fields and two arcs based on the AAA algorithm (2F2A_AAA), a group employing two fields and two arcs based on the AXB algorithm (2F2A_AXB), a group using two fields and two arcs based on the MC algorithm (2F2A_MC), and a group adopting one field and two arcs based on the MC algorithm (1F2A_MC). Then, this study evaluated the target coverage, high-dose control, dose homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), and organs at risk (OARs) of the plans using different algorithms and radiation field settings.Results:The planning target volume (PTV) results of two fields combined with two arcs (2F2A) of three groups using different algorithms are as follows. 2F2A_MC achieved better results in both D1% and V 95% (the relative volume of the target volume surrounded by 95% of the prescribed dose) of planning gross target volume (PGTV) than 2F2A_AAA (D1%: t=-2.44, P=0.03; V95%:z=-2.04, P=0.04) and 2F2A_AXB (D1%: t=2.34, P=0.03; z=-3.21, P < 0.01). 2F2A_AXB outperformed 2F2A_AAA ( z=-3.66, P < 0.01) and was comparable to 2F2A_MC in terms of the CI of PGTV. Regarding OARs, 2F2A_AXB and 2F2A_MC decreased the V5 Gy of the whole lung by 0.68% ( z=-2.69, P=0.01) and 3.05% ( z=-3.52, P < 0.01), respectively compared to 2F2A_AAA. 2F2A_AXB achieved a whole-lung Dmean of 1776.44 cGy, which was superior to that of 2F2A_MC ( t=2.67, P=0.02) and 2F2A_AAA ( t=8.62, P < 0.01). Compared to 2F2A_AAA and 2F2A_MC, 2F2A_AXB decreased the V20 Gy of Body_5 mm by 1.45% ( z=-3.88, P < 0.01) and 2.01% ( z=-3.66, P < 0.01), respectively. The results of the two groups with different field settings showed that 1F2A_MC was superior to 2F2A_MC in both the CI of PTV1 and the HI of PTV2 (CI: t=2.61, P=0.02; HI: z=-2.20, P=0.03). Moreover, 1F2A_MC increased the Dmean of the whole lung by 26.29 cGy compared to 2F2A_MC ( t=2.28, P=0.04). Conclusions:Regarding the design of VMAT plans for lung cancer, the MC algorithm is suitable for the target priority and the AXB algorithm is suitable for the OAR priority. When only the MC algorithm is available, it is recommended to choose 1F2A in the case of target priority and select 2F2A in the case of OAR priority.
