Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  840 / 1096 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 840 / 1096 Next Page
Page Background

S824

ESTRO 36

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

waveform to amplitudes from 2 to 10mm in 2mm steps.

We built the actual 4D dose distribution for every PLAN

z

considering

all

combinations

of

breathing

patterns/amplitudes. We first copied the original

treatment (planned at CT

0mm

) to the remaining CT

z

scans

and recalculated them by using fixed MU. Then we copied

the resulting dose matrices back to the CT

0mm

scan and we

shifted them axially by -z. Later, we summed the dose

matrices using weights derived from the PDF of the

underlying waveforms.

We defined a Quality Index which balances GTV coverage

and healthy tissue-sparing as QI = (V

100%,GTV

)

2

/V

PD

, where

V

100%,GTV

and V

PD

stand for the percentage of GTV covered

with the Prescribed Dose (PD) and the volume of the PD

isodose respectively. The optimal plan, PLAN

opt

, was the

highest QI scoring plan for each breathing

pattern/amplitude. Finally, we assessed the PDF’s

measure of central tendency that best predicts PLAN

opt

irrespective of the breathing pattern/amplitude.

Results

Figure 1a shows the QI for the sinusoidal movement. Every

breathing pattern’s maximum QI scores project an optimal

curve to the x-y plane (figure 1b). For any breathing

pattern/amplitude, PLAN

opt

was found to be conformed to

an optimal ITV smaller than the purely geometric ITV.

We found that the integral of the PDF between ±x, i.e.,

the time fraction on which the GTV is on the central part

of the respiratory excursion, was the best predictor of

PLAN

opt.

Irrespective of the breathing pattern/amplitude

all PDF’s integrals collapsed to a unique curve for x = 3mm

(figure 2).

Conclusion

Based on 4D dose calculations, we propose a QI to reduce

the ITV while maintaining the GTV coverage for SBRT lung

treatments. We provide a model to predict the optimal ITV

from the integral of the PDF of the breathing waveform.

Partially financed by FIS PI15-00788 grant.

EP-1533 Modulation complexity assessment in VMAT

plans from different treatment planning systems.

P. Winkler

1

, A. Trausnitz

2

, J. Schroettner

2

, A. Apfolter

1

,

K. Kapp

1

1

Medical University of Graz, Department of Therapeutic

Radiology and Oncology, Graz, Austria

2

University of Technology, Institute of Health Care

Engineering, Graz, Austria

Purpose or Objective

Modulation complexity (MC) in Linac-based VMAT plans

might influence the accuracy of dose calculation and

dose delivery as well as the precision of dose delivery.

However, MC is not a single-parametric property, but

rather consists of several different influencing factors,

e.g. average leave speed (ALS), leave sequence

variability (LSV), mean field aperture area (FAA),

aperture area variability (AAV), gantry acceleration

(gantry-speed variation, GSV) and dose rate variability

(DRV), which might predominantly be correlated with

uncertainties in either dose calculation or delivery. In

our clinical treatment plans we observed, that different

TPS accomplish strong modulation in a noticeably

different way, forcing either ALS, LSV and AAV whilst

retaining moderate GSV and DRV, or vice versa. The aim

of this study is to present several distinct modulation

complexity indices (MCI), describing the different aspects

of modulation complexity in VMAT plans, and to assess

the characteristic ranges of these MCI for different TPS.

Material and Methods

We established six MCI, parameterising the magnitude of

ALS, LSV, FAA, AAV, GSV and DRV in a VMAT-arc, and

implemented their calculation in our automated plan-QA

software tool (in-house development). The MCI for 200

randomly selected clinical beams were calculated for the

TPS Eclipse (Varian) and Pinnacle (Philips),

respectively. Additionally 20 phantom plans (37 arcs)

with increasing modulation complexity were generated

for both of the two TPS using best possible matching of

optimization criteria, and were subsequently analysed.

Results

In the phantom plans, the Pinnacle-optimized arcs showed

significantly higher average leaf speed compared to

Eclipse-optimized arcs (10.9 and 6.7 mm/sec,

respectively). Aperture – opening was 40% larger for the

Eclipse-arcs. Consequently, the number of monitor units

was smaller in the Eclipse plans (-32%). Whereas the

differences for LSV and AAV were rather small (figure 1),

DRV and GSV differed significantly, revealing a more

pronounced modulation in the Pinnacle plans as far as dose

rate and gantry acceleration are concerned. Findings for

retrospectively analysed clinical plans and (non-biased)

phantom plans were

similar.

Figure 1: Modulation complexity scores (LSV: leave

sequence variability, AAV: aperture area variability, GSV:

gantry-speed variation, DRV: dose rate variability) for 200

VMAT plans, calculated with Eclipse and Pinnacle TPS,

respectively. Box-plots showing median, first and third

quartile and range.

Conclusion

Modulation complexity in VMAT plans has a potential

impact on dose-calculation and –delivery accuracy. We

found considerable differences for two different TPS in

multi-parametric assessment of MC features, indicating

the diverging algorithms of the different optimizers. A

further investigation of the correlation between particular

MC-scores and dosimetric accuracy can be the basis for the

definition of tolerance criteria to identify potentially

problematic

plans.

EP-1534 Automate the Complex Stuff: Pathways,

Pitfalls and Results of Planning Automation in

Raystation

B. Archibald-Heeren

1,2

, M. Byrne

1

, Y. Wang

1

, Y. Hu

3

1

Radiation Oncology Centres, Wahroonga, Sydney,

Australia

2

University of Wollongong, Clinical Medical Physics,

Wollongong, Australia

3

Radiation Oncology Centres, Gosford, Sydney, Australia

Purpose or Objective

Automation provides the real possibility of providing

exceptional plan quality to an enormous population of

patients where time constraints or staffing levels may

form a barrier. It is thus the authors hope that by openly

sharing the constructed methodologies incorporated at

Radiation Oncology Centre, Sydney, they may in some way

expedite adoption of automation across the greater

community. The work will focus on prostate and breast

deliveries, but touch on other areas and solutions