Search results for: VMAT.

Authors: A. Taqaddas

Abstract:

Purpose: This E-survey was carried out to facilitate the implementation and Education of VMAT (Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy) in Radiotherapy-RT departments and reasons for not using IMRT (Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy). VMAT Skills in demand were also identified. Method: E-Survey was distributed to NHS hospitals across UK by email. Thirty NHS and related centres in England, 21 in Scotland, 3 in Ireland and 1 in Wales were contacted. This Survey was intended for those working in RT and Medical Physics and who were responsible for Treatment Planning and training. Results: This E-survey have indicated pathways adopted by staff to acquire VMAT skills, strategies to efficiently implement VMAT in RT departments and for obtaining VMAT Education. Conclusion: Despite poor survey response this survey has managed to highlight requirements for education and implementation of VMAT that are also applicable to IMRT. Other RT centres in world can also find these results useful.

Keywords: IMRT, Radiotherapy, Treatment Planning, VMAT.

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 2427

Authors: Jayesh K., Ganesh T., Suganthi D., Mohan R., Rakesh C. J., Sarojkumar D. M., Jacob S. J.

Abstract:

Prior to the use of detectors, characteristics comparison study was performed and baseline established. In patient specific QA, the portal dosimetry mean values of area gamma, average gamma and maximum gamma were 1.02, 0.31 and 1.31 with standard deviation of 0.33, 0.03 and 0.14 for IMRT and the corresponding values were 1.58, 0.48 and 1.73 with standard deviation of 0.31, 0.06 and 0.66 for VMAT. With ImatriXX 2-D array system, on an average 99.35% of the pixels passed the criteria of 3%-3 mm gamma with standard deviation of 0.24 for dynamic IMRT. For VMAT, the average value was 98.16% with a standard deviation of 0.86. The results showed that both the systems can be used in patient specific QA measurements for IMRT and VMAT. The values obtained with the portal dosimetry system were found to be relatively more consistent compared to those obtained with ImatriXX 2-D array system.

Keywords: Gamma, IMRT, QA, TPS, VMAT.

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 2516

Authors: M. Umar Farooq, T. Ahmad Afridi, M. Zia-Ul-Islam Arsalan, U. Hussain Haider, S. Ullah

Abstract:

Cancer, a leading fatal disease worldwide, can be treated with various techniques including radiation therapy. It involves the use of ionizing radiation to target cancer cells. On basis of source placement, radiation therapy is of two types i.e., Brachytherapy and External Beam Radiotherapy (EBRT). EBRT has evolved from 2-D conventional therapy to 3-D Conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and then Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT). IMRT improves dose conformity and sparing of organs at risk. Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) is a modern technique that uses treatment delivery in arcs with rotation of the gantry. In this report, a dosimetry comparison was performed between IMRT and VMAT. This study was conducted in the Radiotherapy Department of the Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Oncology Lahore (INMOL). Ten patients with Prostate Carcinoma were selected for this study to compare the methods. Simulation of these patients was done with help of a CT Simulator. All target volumes and organs were delineated by the oncologists. Then suitable fields/arcs were applied which cover volumes effectively. This was followed by the optimization of plans for both techniques for every patient. Finally, a comparison of evaluating parameters e.g., Conformity Index (CI), Volume Coverage, Homogeneity Index (HI), Organ Doses, and MUs (Monitor Units) was performed. We obtained better results of target conformity indices from VMAT (CI = 1.16) than IMRT (CI = 1.24). VMAT was better in organ sparing too. Also, VMAT shows fewer MUs (733 MUs) as compared to IMRT (2149 MUs). From this study, it is concluded that VMAT is a better treatment technique than IMRT. This technique will enhance treatment efficiency as it takes less time in obtaining the required results. Also, a very less scatter dose will be delivered to the patient.

Keywords: 2-D Conventional Radiotherapy, 3-D Conformal Radiotherapy, Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy, Prostate Carcinoma, Radiotherapy, Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy.

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 291

Authors: A. Taqaddas

Abstract:

Purpose: Planning and dosimetry of different VMAT algorithms (SmartArc, Ergo++, Autobeam) is compared with IMRT for Head and Neck Cancer patients. Modelling was performed to rule out the causes of discrepancies between planned and delivered dose. Methods: Five HNC patients previously treated with IMRT were re-planned with SmartArc (SA), Ergo++ and Autobeam. Plans were compared with each other and against IMRT and evaluated using DVHs for PTVs and OARs, delivery time, monitor units (MU) and dosimetric accuracy. Modelling of control point (CP) spacing, Leaf-end Separation and MLC/Aperture shape was performed to rule out causes of discrepancies between planned and delivered doses. Additionally estimated arc delivery times, overall plan generation times and effect of CP spacing and number of arcs on plan generation times were recorded. Results: Single arc SmartArc plans (SA4d) were generally better than IMRT and double arc plans (SA2Arcs) in terms of homogeneity and target coverage. Double arc plans seemed to have a positive role in achieving improved Conformity Index (CI) and better sparing of some Organs at Risk (OARs) compared to Step and Shoot IMRT (ss-IMRT) and SA4d. Overall Ergo++ plans achieved best CI for both PTVs. Dosimetric validation of all VMAT plans without modelling was found to be lower than ss-IMRT. Total MUs required for delivery were on average 19%, 30%, 10.6% and 6.5% lower than ss-IMRT for SA4d, SA2d (Single arc with 2⁰ Gantry Spacing), SA2Arcs and Autobeam plans respectively. Autobeam was most efficient in terms of actual treatment delivery times whereas Ergo++ plans took longest to deliver. Conclusion: Overall SA single arc plans on average achieved best target coverage and homogeneity for both PTVs. SA2Arc plans showed improved CI and some OARs sparing. Very good dosimetric results were achieved with modelling. Ergo++ plans achieved best CI. Autobeam resulted in fastest treatment delivery times.

Keywords: Dosimetry, Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy, Optimization Algorithms, Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy.

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 3249