Comprehensive comparison between Halcyon 2.0 and Truebeam VMAT plans for different treatment sites: dosimetric quality and plan complexity
10.3760/cma.j.cn113030-20211108-00456
- VernacularTitle:基于Halcyon 2.0和Truebeam的多部位VMAT计划剂量学质量与复杂度综合对比研究
- Author:
Qizhen ZHU
1
;
Bo YANG
;
Zhiqun WANG
;
Yongguang LIANG
;
Wenjun ZHANG
;
Yuan GAO
;
Jie QIU
Author Information
1. 中国医学科学院 北京协和医学院 北京协和医院放射治疗科，北京 100730
- Keywords:
Halcyon 2.0 linac;
Plan complexity;
Volumetric modulated arc therapy;
Dual-layer multileaf collimator
- From:
Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology
2023;32(3):241-247
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To analyze the differences in dosimetric quality and plan complexity of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans based on Halcyon 2.0 and Truebeam for different treatment sites of the patients.Methods:Halcyon 2.0 VMAT plans in head & neck, chest, abdomen, and pelvis treatment sites of 49 cases were retrospectively selected and the VMAT plans were re-designed based on Truebeam with the same optimization parameters. The differences in dosimetric metrics and plan complexity between the two types of plans were compared and analyzed. P<0.05 was considered as statistically significant. Results:In terms of PTV, Halcyon 2.0 plans showed better homogeneity index (HI), conformal index (CI) in the head & neck and chest. Besides, Halcyon 2.0 plans yielded better D 98% and CI in the abdomen and better D 2% in the pelvis. For organs at risk (OAR), the D 20% and D mean of bilateral lungs, and D meanof heart for Halcyon 2.0 plans in the chest were lower than those for Truebeam plans (all P<0.05). For the complexity metrics, the median average aperture area variability (AAV) of Halcyon 2.0 plans in the head & neck, abdomen and pelvis were 0.414, 0.425 and 0.432, which were better than 0.385, 0.368 and 0.361 of Truebeam plans in the corresponding sites, respectively. In the abdomen and pelvis, Halcyon 2.0 plans showed better median modulation complexity score (MCS) than Truebeam plans (0.320 vs. 0.268, 0.303 vs. 0.282; both P<0.05). The median small aperture score (SAS) for all plans of Halcyon 2.0 were better than that of Truebeam plans (all P<0.05), and the median plan average beam area (PA) of all plans of Halcyon 2.0 were larger than that of Truebeam plans (all P<0.05). Conclusions:Compared with conventional fractionated VMAT plans based on Halcyon 2.0 and Truebeam, Halcyon 2.0 plans have similar or even better dosimetric quality. However, Halcyon 2.0 plans have lower plan complexity, which makes it an advantage in clinical application.
