Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Sep 6;13(5):3382.
doi: 10.1120/jacmp.v13i5.3382.

Application of AAPM TG 119 to volumetric arc therapy (VMAT)

Dinesh Kumar Mynampati  1 , Ravindra Yaparpalvi, Linda Hong, Hsiang-Chi Kuo, Dennis Mah
Affiliations

Application of AAPM TG 119 to volumetric arc therapy (VMAT)

Dinesh Kumar Mynampati et al. J Appl Clin Med Phys. .

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to create AAPM TG 119 benchmark plans for volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) and to compare VMAT plans with IMRT plan data. AAPM TG 119 proposes a set of test clinical cases for testing the accuracy of IMRT planning and delivery system. For these test cases, we generated two treatment plans, the first plan using 7-9 static dMLC IMRT fields and a second plan utilizing one- or two-arc VMAT technique. Dose optimization and calculations performed using 6 MV photons and Eclipse treatment planning system. Dose prescription and planning objectives were set according to the TG 119 goals. Plans were scored based on TG 119 planning objectives. Treatment plans were compared using conformity index (CI) for reference dose and homogeneity index (HI) (for D(5)-D(95)). For test cases prostate, head-and-neck, C-shape and multitarget prescription dose are 75.6 Gy, 50.4 Gy, 50 Gy and 50 Gy, respectively. VMAT dose distributions were comparable to dMLC IMRT plans. Our planning results matched TG 119 planning results. For treatment plans studied, conformity indices ranged from 1.05-1.23 (IMRT) and 1.04-1.23 (VMAT). Homogeneity indices ranged from 4.6%-11.0% (IMRT) and 4.6%-10.5% (VMAT). The ratio of total monitor units necessary for dMLC IMRT to that of VMAT was in the range of 1.1-2.0. AAPM TG 119 test cases are useful to generate VMAT benchmark plans. At preclinical implementation stage, plan comparison of VMAT and IMRT plans of AAPM TG 119 test case allowed us to understand basic capabilities of VMAT technique.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. AAPM TG 119 test structure set for prostate, head‐and‐neck, C‐shaped, and Multi Target.
Figure 2
Figure 2. IMRT and VMAT dose distributions for test prostate, head‐and‐neck, C‐shaped, and Multi Target.
Figure 3(a)
Figure 3(a). Test prostate plan comparison DVH.
Figure 3(b)
Figure 3(b). Test head‐and‐neck plan comparison DVH.
Figure 3(c)
Figure 3(c). C‐shaped plan comparison DVH.
Figure 3(d)
Figure 3(d). Multi Target plan comparison DVH.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Ling CC, Burman C, Chui CS, et al. Conformal radiation treatment of prostate cancer using inversely‐planned intensity‐modulated photon beams produced with dynamic multileaf collimation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1996;35(4):721–30. - PubMed
    1. Yu CX. Intensity‐modulated arc therapy with dynamic multileaf collimation: an alternative to tomotherapy. Phys Med Biol. 1995;40(9):1435–49. - PubMed
    1. Otto K. Volumetric modulated arc therapy: IMRT in a single gantry arc. Med Phys. 2008;35(1):310–17. - PubMed
    1. Cozzi L, Dinshaw KA, Shrivastava SK, et al. A treatment planning study comparing volumetric arc modulation with RapidArc and fixed field IMRT for cervix uteri radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol. 2008;89(2):180–91. - PubMed
    1. Clivio A, Fogliata A, Franzetti‐Pellanda A, et al. Volumetric‐modulated arc radiotherapy for carcinomas of the anal canal: a treatment planning comparison with fixed field IMRT. Radiother Oncol. 2009;92(1):118–24. - PubMed