SU‐GG‐T‐172

Dosimetric Comparison of Low Dose Region (V5) for Tomotherapy versus Conventional IMRT Plans of Lung Cancer

S. Jang, S. Krafft, Russell J Hamilton, Christopher J Watchman, N. Nguyen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To compare clinical Tomotherapy plans for lung cancer with conventional IMRT plans in terms of mean lung/ventricle dose, heterogeneity index, V5, V10, V15, and V20 for total lung. Method: The conventional IMRT plans for 16 patients treated with clinical Tomotherapy plans were made retrospectively with Pinnacle 8.0 for Varian 6EX. We designed the conventional plans to achieve comparable target coverage as well as maximum spinal cord dose of the clinical Tomotherapy plans. To minimize any planning‐related subjective issue, nine‐beam angles aligned through anterior‐posterior directions were chosen for all cases. Multiple iterative processes were performed until the objective functions were minimized and the treatment planning goals were met. Dosimetric parameters of the two types of plans were compared in terms of avoidance of normal tissues (i.e., total lung and ventricle). Results Median differences in lung between the Tomotherapy plans and conventional IMRT plans for 16 patients were 7.4%, 4.4%, 3.0%, and 1.9% for V5, V10, V15, and V20, respectively. Median ratios of mean lung dose and mean ventricle dose between the Tomotherapy plans and conventional IMRT plans were 1.2 (range, 0.97∼1.41) and 1.6 (range, 0.86∼2.55), demonstrating that dose to normal tissues for conventional IMRT plans, especially in low dose region (V5∼V10), was considerably lower than Tomotherapy plans for lung cancer. However, median ratio of heterogeneity index defined as D5%/D95% was 0.96 (range, 0.86∼2.55) indicating better dose‐uniformity of Tomotherapy plans, which resulted from the difference in number of beam angles for the two different plans. Conclusions Median V5 of conventional IMRT plans was lower than that of Tomotherapy plans, showing that conventional IMRT plan appears to be effective in low dose region (V5) for lung cancer. However, Tomotherapy plans showed better dose‐uniformity in terms of target coverage.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)3224
Number of pages1
JournalMedical Physics
Volume37
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2010

Fingerprint

Lung Neoplasms
Lung
Spinal Cord
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

@article{8174996db2a24a49adb2aa4da1d930a3,
title = "SU‐GG‐T‐172: Dosimetric Comparison of Low Dose Region (V5) for Tomotherapy versus Conventional IMRT Plans of Lung Cancer",
abstract = "Purpose: To compare clinical Tomotherapy plans for lung cancer with conventional IMRT plans in terms of mean lung/ventricle dose, heterogeneity index, V5, V10, V15, and V20 for total lung. Method: The conventional IMRT plans for 16 patients treated with clinical Tomotherapy plans were made retrospectively with Pinnacle 8.0 for Varian 6EX. We designed the conventional plans to achieve comparable target coverage as well as maximum spinal cord dose of the clinical Tomotherapy plans. To minimize any planning‐related subjective issue, nine‐beam angles aligned through anterior‐posterior directions were chosen for all cases. Multiple iterative processes were performed until the objective functions were minimized and the treatment planning goals were met. Dosimetric parameters of the two types of plans were compared in terms of avoidance of normal tissues (i.e., total lung and ventricle). Results Median differences in lung between the Tomotherapy plans and conventional IMRT plans for 16 patients were 7.4{\%}, 4.4{\%}, 3.0{\%}, and 1.9{\%} for V5, V10, V15, and V20, respectively. Median ratios of mean lung dose and mean ventricle dose between the Tomotherapy plans and conventional IMRT plans were 1.2 (range, 0.97∼1.41) and 1.6 (range, 0.86∼2.55), demonstrating that dose to normal tissues for conventional IMRT plans, especially in low dose region (V5∼V10), was considerably lower than Tomotherapy plans for lung cancer. However, median ratio of heterogeneity index defined as D5{\%}/D95{\%} was 0.96 (range, 0.86∼2.55) indicating better dose‐uniformity of Tomotherapy plans, which resulted from the difference in number of beam angles for the two different plans. Conclusions Median V5 of conventional IMRT plans was lower than that of Tomotherapy plans, showing that conventional IMRT plan appears to be effective in low dose region (V5) for lung cancer. However, Tomotherapy plans showed better dose‐uniformity in terms of target coverage.",
author = "S. Jang and S. Krafft and Hamilton, {Russell J} and Watchman, {Christopher J} and N. Nguyen",
year = "2010",
doi = "10.1118/1.3468562",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "37",
pages = "3224",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐GG‐T‐172

T2 - Dosimetric Comparison of Low Dose Region (V5) for Tomotherapy versus Conventional IMRT Plans of Lung Cancer

AU - Jang, S.

AU - Krafft, S.

AU - Hamilton, Russell J

AU - Watchman, Christopher J

AU - Nguyen, N.

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - Purpose: To compare clinical Tomotherapy plans for lung cancer with conventional IMRT plans in terms of mean lung/ventricle dose, heterogeneity index, V5, V10, V15, and V20 for total lung. Method: The conventional IMRT plans for 16 patients treated with clinical Tomotherapy plans were made retrospectively with Pinnacle 8.0 for Varian 6EX. We designed the conventional plans to achieve comparable target coverage as well as maximum spinal cord dose of the clinical Tomotherapy plans. To minimize any planning‐related subjective issue, nine‐beam angles aligned through anterior‐posterior directions were chosen for all cases. Multiple iterative processes were performed until the objective functions were minimized and the treatment planning goals were met. Dosimetric parameters of the two types of plans were compared in terms of avoidance of normal tissues (i.e., total lung and ventricle). Results Median differences in lung between the Tomotherapy plans and conventional IMRT plans for 16 patients were 7.4%, 4.4%, 3.0%, and 1.9% for V5, V10, V15, and V20, respectively. Median ratios of mean lung dose and mean ventricle dose between the Tomotherapy plans and conventional IMRT plans were 1.2 (range, 0.97∼1.41) and 1.6 (range, 0.86∼2.55), demonstrating that dose to normal tissues for conventional IMRT plans, especially in low dose region (V5∼V10), was considerably lower than Tomotherapy plans for lung cancer. However, median ratio of heterogeneity index defined as D5%/D95% was 0.96 (range, 0.86∼2.55) indicating better dose‐uniformity of Tomotherapy plans, which resulted from the difference in number of beam angles for the two different plans. Conclusions Median V5 of conventional IMRT plans was lower than that of Tomotherapy plans, showing that conventional IMRT plan appears to be effective in low dose region (V5) for lung cancer. However, Tomotherapy plans showed better dose‐uniformity in terms of target coverage.

AB - Purpose: To compare clinical Tomotherapy plans for lung cancer with conventional IMRT plans in terms of mean lung/ventricle dose, heterogeneity index, V5, V10, V15, and V20 for total lung. Method: The conventional IMRT plans for 16 patients treated with clinical Tomotherapy plans were made retrospectively with Pinnacle 8.0 for Varian 6EX. We designed the conventional plans to achieve comparable target coverage as well as maximum spinal cord dose of the clinical Tomotherapy plans. To minimize any planning‐related subjective issue, nine‐beam angles aligned through anterior‐posterior directions were chosen for all cases. Multiple iterative processes were performed until the objective functions were minimized and the treatment planning goals were met. Dosimetric parameters of the two types of plans were compared in terms of avoidance of normal tissues (i.e., total lung and ventricle). Results Median differences in lung between the Tomotherapy plans and conventional IMRT plans for 16 patients were 7.4%, 4.4%, 3.0%, and 1.9% for V5, V10, V15, and V20, respectively. Median ratios of mean lung dose and mean ventricle dose between the Tomotherapy plans and conventional IMRT plans were 1.2 (range, 0.97∼1.41) and 1.6 (range, 0.86∼2.55), demonstrating that dose to normal tissues for conventional IMRT plans, especially in low dose region (V5∼V10), was considerably lower than Tomotherapy plans for lung cancer. However, median ratio of heterogeneity index defined as D5%/D95% was 0.96 (range, 0.86∼2.55) indicating better dose‐uniformity of Tomotherapy plans, which resulted from the difference in number of beam angles for the two different plans. Conclusions Median V5 of conventional IMRT plans was lower than that of Tomotherapy plans, showing that conventional IMRT plan appears to be effective in low dose region (V5) for lung cancer. However, Tomotherapy plans showed better dose‐uniformity in terms of target coverage.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024795342&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024795342&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.3468562

DO - 10.1118/1.3468562

M3 - Article

VL - 37

SP - 3224

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -