Impact of machines on plan quality: volumetric modulated arc therapy and intensity modulated radiation therapy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of different machines on plan quality using both intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the oropharynx were selected at random. Plans were computed for IMRT and VMAT Smart Arc, using Pinnacle TPS for an Elekta (IMRT-E, VMAT-E) and Varian linac (IMRT-V, VMAT-V). A three-dose level prescription was used to deliver 70, 63 and 58.1 Gy to regions of macroscopic, microscopic high- and low-risk disease, respectively. All doses were given in 35 fractions. Comparisons were performed on dose-volume histogram data, monitor units (MU), and delivery time. RESULTS: VMAT-E plans resulted slightly MU efficient (-24 % p < 0.05) compared to VMAT-V while IMRT-V shortened delivery time (-19 % p < 0.05) compared to IMRT-E. All the delivery techniques resulted in equivalent target coverage in terms of D(98) % and D(2) %. For VMAT technique, a significant improvement of 7 % in homogeneity index (HI) for PTV58.1 was observed for Varian machine. A slight improvement in OARs sparing was observed with Elekta machine both for IMRT and VMAT techniques. CONCLUSION: Similar plan quality was observed for Elekta and Varian linacs, significant differences were observed in delivery efficiency, as MU number and delivery times, in favor of Elekta and Varian, respectively.

To evaluate the accuracy of dynamic versus static IMRT delivery using portal dosimetry.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the delivery accuracy of dynamic (DMLC) and static (SMLC) intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) techniques using portal dosimetry (PD) in Varian Eclipse Treatment Planning System. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven DMLC IMRT Head and Neck plans were retrospectively generated for the study using SMLC mode at 20, 10 and 5 levels of intensity (SMLC20, SMLC10, SMLC5). Dosimetric verifications performed by PD on a total of 107 fields were evaluated using the gamma index (maximum (γmax), average (γavg), percentage of points with (γ%) ≤ 1). The images were acquired at a source-detector distance of 100 cm at gantry zero degree and also at clinically planned gantry angles. RESULTS: For both modes, measurements are within acceptable criteria. (γ%) ≤ 1 improves by increasing SMLC levels (+3.4 % from SMLC5 to SMLC20, p < 0.001) and using DMLC (+3.9 % and +0.6 % compared to SMLC5 and SMLC20, respectively, p < 0.001). Also (γmax) parameter improves significantly by increasing SMLC levels (+22 % from SMLC5 to SMLC20) and using DMLC (+34 % and +16 % compared to SMLC5 and SMLC20, respectively). The effect of the gantry rotation influences the delivery accuracy by up to -7 % (p < 0.05). The effect of leaves travelling direction was almost negligible (1 %). CONCLUSIONS: A good agreement between calculated and measured fluences was obtained for DMLC and SMLC techniques at higher intensity levels; however, DMLC delivery ensures the best reproduction of computed fluence maps. The gantry rotation influences the delivery accuracy in particular for SMLC modes at lower intensity levels.