Encrypted login | home

Program Information

Differences in Treatment Plan Quality and Delivery Between Two Commercial Treatment Planning Systems for Volumetric Arc-Based Radiation Therapy

S Chen

S Chen*, H Zhang , B Zhang , W D'Souza , University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD


SU-E-T-268 (Sunday, July 12, 2015) 3:00 PM - 6:00 PM Room: Exhibit Hall

Purpose: To clinically evaluate the differences in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment plan and delivery between two commercial treatment planning systems.

Methods: Two commercial VMAT treatment planning systems with different VMAT optimization algorithms and delivery approaches were evaluated. This study included 16 clinical VMAT plans performed with the first system: 2 spine, 4 head and neck (HN), 2 brain, 4 pancreas, and 4 pelvis plans. These 16 plans were then re-optimized with the same number of arcs using the second treatment planning system. Planning goals were invariant between the two systems. Gantry speed, dose rate modulation, MLC modulation, plan quality, number of monitor units (MUs), VMAT quality assurance (QA) results, and treatment delivery time were compared between the 2 systems. VMAT QA results were performed using Mapcheck2 and analyzed with gamma analysis (3mm/3% and 2mm/2%).

Results: Similar plan quality was achieved with each VMAT optimization algorithm, and the difference in delivery time was minimal. Algorithm 1 achieved planning goals by highly modulating the MLC (total distance traveled by leaves (TL) = 193 cm average over control points per plan), while maintaining a relatively constant dose rate (dose-rate change <100 MU/min). Algorithm 2 involved less MLC modulation (TL = 143 cm per plan), but greater dose-rate modulation (range = 0-600 MU/min). The average number of MUs was 20% less for algorithm 2 (ratio of MUs for algorithms 2 and 1 ranged from 0.5-1). VMAT QA results were similar for all disease sites except HN plans. For HN plans, the average gamma passing rates were 88.5% (2mm/2%) and 96.9% (3mm/3%) for algorithm 1 and 97.9% (2mm/2%) and 99.6% (3mm/3%) for algorithm 2.

Conclusion: Both VMAT optimization algorithms achieved comparable plan quality; however, fewer MUs were needed and QA results were more robust for Algorithm 2, which more highly modulated dose rate.

Contact Email: