EP-1815 MCO in VMAT treatment planning for locally advanced head and neck cancer

Farnault, B.; Favrel, V.; Moureau-Zabotto, L.; Rolland, Jonathan; Tallet, A.; Fau, Pierre

doi:10.1016/s0167-8140(19)32235-2

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[8][9][10][11][12] In addition, MCO allows a less experienced user of inverse planning to reduce planning time and to propose treatment plans of similar quality in complex locations such as the head and neck region (H&N). 13,14 The RayStation 8B release introduces a sliding window sequencing (SW). The standard sequencing (STD) does not impose any constraints on leaf travel.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dosimetric comparison of VMAT standard optimization (SO) and multi‐criteria optimization (MCO) treatment plans with standard mode delivery (STD) or sliding window (SW) for head and neck cancer

Rolland

Favrel

Fau

et al. 2023

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeA new development on the RayStation treatment planning system (TPS) allows a plan to be planned by imposing a constraint on the leaf sequencing: all leaves move in the same direction before moving again in the opposite direction to create a succession of sliding windows (SWs). The study aims to investigate this new leaf sequencing, coupled with standard optimization (SO) and multi‐criteria optimization (MCO) and to compare it with the standard sequencing (STD).MethodsSixty plans were replanned for 10 head and neck cancer patients (two dose levels simultaneously SIB, 56 and 70 Gy in 35 fractions). All plans were compared, and a Wilcoxon signed‐rank test was performed. Pre‐processing QA and metrics of multileaf collimator (MLC) complexity were studied.ResultsAll methodologies met the dose requirements for the planning target volumes (PTVs) and organs at risk (OARs). SO demonstrates significantly best results for homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), and target coverage (TC). SO‐SW gives best results for PTVs (D98% and D2%) but the differences between techniques are less than 1%. Only the D2%,PTV‐56 Gy is higher with both MCO methods. MCO‐STD offer the best sparing OARs (parotids, spinal cord, larynx, oral cavity). The gamma passing rates (GPRs) with 3%/3 mm criteria between the measured and calculated dose distributions are higher than 95%, slightly lowest with SW. The number of monitor units (MUs) and MLC metrics are higher in SW show a higher modulation.ConclusionsAll plans are feasible for the treatment. A clear advantage of SO‐SW is that the treatment plan is more straightforward to planning by the user due to the more advanced modulation. MCO stands out for its ease of use and will allow a less experienced user to offer a better plan than in SO. In addition, MCO‐STD will reduce the dose to the OARs while maintaining good TC.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, MCO allows a less experienced user of inverse planning to reduce planning time and to propose treatment plans of similar quality in complex locations such as the head and neck region (H&N). 13 , 14 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%