Plan quality and treatment efficiency assurance of two VMAT optimization for cervical cancer radiotherapy.

To investigate the difference of the fluence map optimization (FMO) and Stochastic platform optimization (SPO) algorithm in a newly-introduced treatment planning system (TPS). METHODS: 34 cervical cancer patients with definitive radiation were retrospectively analyzed. Each patient has four plans: FMO with fixed jaw plans (FMO-FJ) and no fixed jaw plans (FMO-NFJ); SPO with fixed jaw plans (SPO-FJ) and no fixed jaw plans (SPO-NFJ). Dosimetric parameters, Modulation Complexity Score (MCS), Gamma Pass Rate (GPR) and delivery time were analyzed among the four plans. RESULTS: For target coverage, SPO-FJ plans are the best ones (P ≤ 0.00). FMO plans are better than SPO-NFJ plans (P ≤ 0.00). For OARs sparing, SPO-FJ plans are better than FMO plans for mostly OARs (P ≤ 0.04). Additionally, SPO-FJ plans are better than SPO-NFJ plans (P ≤ 0.02), except for rectum V45Gy. Compared to SPO-NFJ plans, the FMO plans delivered less dose to bladder, rectum, colon V40Gy and pelvic bone V40Gy (P ≤ 0.04). Meanwhile, the SPO-NFJ plans showed superiority in MU, delivery time, MCS and GPR in all plans. In terms of delivery time and MCS, the SPO-FJ plans are better than FMO plans. FMO-FJ plans are better than FMO-NFJ plans in delivery efficiency. MCSs are strongly correlated with PCTV length, which are negatively with PCTV length (P ≤ 0.03). The delivery time and MUs of the four plans are strongly correlated (P ≤ 0.02). Comparing plans with fixed or no fixed jaw in two algorithms, no difference was found in FMO plans in target coverage and minor difference in Kidney_L Dmean, Mu and delivery time between PCTV width≤15.5 cm group and >15.5 cm group. For SPO plans, SPO-FJ plans showed more superiority in target coverage and OARs sparing than the SPO-NFJ plans in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: SPO-FJ plans showed superiority in target coverage and OARs sparing, as well as higher delivery efficiency in the four plans.

Comparison of Different Combinations of Irradiation Mode and Jaw Width in Helical Tomotherapy for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma.

Purpose: To aid in the selection of a suitable combination of irradiation mode and jaw width in helical tomotherapy (HT) for the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Materials and Methods: Twenty patients with NPC who underwent radiotherapy were retrospectively selected. Four plans using a jaw width of 2.5 or 5-cm in dynamic jaw (DJ) or fix jaw (FJ) modes for irradiation were designed (2.5DJ, 2.5FJ, 5.0DJ, and 5.0FJ). The dose parameters of planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs) of the plans were compared and analyzed, as well as the beam on time (BOT) and monitor unit (MU). The plans in each group were ranked by scoring the doses received by the OARs and the superity was assessed in combination with the planned BOT and MU. Results: The prescribed dose coverage of PTV met the clinical requirements for all plans in the four groups. The groups using a 2.5-cm jaw width or a DJ mode provided better protection to most OARs, particularly for those at the longitudinal edges of the PTV (P < 0.05). The 2.5DJ group had the best ranking for OAR-dose, followed by the 2.5FJ and 5.0DJ groups with a same score. The BOT and MU of the groups using a 5.0-cm jaw width reduced nearly 45% comparing to those of the 2.5-cm jaw groups. Conclusion: 2.5DJ has the best dose distribution, while 5.0DJ has satisfactory dose distribution and less BOT and MU that related to the leakage dose. Both 2.5DJ or 5DJ were recommended for HT treatment plan for NPC based on the center workload.