Date post: | 14-Apr-2017 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | amal-sheta |
View: | 192 times |
Download: | 0 times |
IMRT and Rotational IMRT (mARC) Using
Flat and Unflat Photon Beam
Doctoral DissertationOf
Amal Sheta
Klinik und Poliklinik für Strahlentherapie
AdvisorsProf. Ulrich WolfProf. Thomas Kuhnt
2
Outline
Introduction
Aim of the WorkResults
IMRT using photon beam with and without FF mARC and IMRT
Conclusion
Effect of Flattening filter (FF) Treatment Techniques
Dosimetric characteristics of FF and FFF beams Two Planning comparison Studies
3
INTRODUCTION
4
Effect of Flattening Filter (FF)
Softening of the x-ray spectra Reduction in head scattered radiation
Non-uniform beam profile High dose rate
Uniform beam profile Significant decrease in output dose rate Beam hardening A major source of scatter and leakage radiation
Krieger, Hanno. Strahlenphysik, Dosimetrie und Strahlenschutz: Band 2: Strahlungsquellen, Detektoren und klinische Dosimetrie. Springer-Verlag, 2013.
5
Treatment TechniquesStep and Shoot IMRT and Rotational IMRT (mARC)
6
Aims of the work
7
Determine the main dosimetric characteristics of FFF beams of Artiste linacs
Assess the effect of FFF beams on S&S-IMRT treatment plans in comparison with those of FF beams.
Estimate the performance of various mARC techniques and compare their performance with S&S-IMRT.
Aim of the Work
8
Clinical Cases
prostate with LN H&N
prostate
9
Planning Comparison Parameters
Plan quality
DVH-Analysis
Achievement of the clinical goals for PTV and
OAR
Conformity Number
Homogeneity Index
Treatment Eficiency
Treatment time
MUs required
10
Dosimetric characteristicsof
FF and FFF beams
RESULTS
11
6 MV FF, 7 MV FFF 10 MV FF, 11 MV FFF
Depth dose curves almost similar, match exactly at 10 cm ×10 cm F.S and slight differences are observed for larger and smaller F.S.
The beam softening due to flattening filter removal is compensated by the higher maximum photon energy (higher electron energy on the target) of FFF beams.
Dosimetric characteristics PDD Curves
12
Dosimetric characteristics Dose Profile
The dose profiles for small F.S are almost identical and for larger F.S the difference
becomes more obevious.
For FFF beams the high photon energy shows profiles of steeper gradient.
At large F.S the out-of-field scatter is reduced due to removing the flattening filter.
.
13
IMRT planning comparisonusing
FF and FFF Photon Beams
RESULTS
14
Clinical Cases
PTVs Clinical Goals IMRT-FF IMRT-FFF
ProstateDmean = 74 GY 73.95 ±0.04 73.94 ±0.04
D98 ≥ 70.3 Gy 70.8 ±0.87 71.8 ±0.36
D2 ≤ 77.7 Gy 76.3 ±0.5 75.9 ±0.3
Prostate- LNDmean = 50.4 Gy 50.0 ±0.3 50.2 ±0.2
D98 ≥ 47.9 Gy 47.3 ±0.8 47.7 ±0.7
D2 ≤ 52.9 Gy 52.0 ±0.6 52.3 ±0.5
H&N Dmean = 50 Gy 50.1 ±0.30 50.1 ±0.2
D98 ≥ 47.5 Gy 47.8 ±0.7 47.7 ±0.6
D2 ≤ 52.5 Gy 52.2 ±0.45 52.3 ±0.35
The PTV clinical goals of the prostate, prostate-LN and H&N, in comparison with the calculated values IMRT FF and IMRT FFF
Plan Quality FF and FFF Beam
15
Plan Quality FF and FFF Beam
FF Beam (10 MV)
FFF Beam (11 MV)
100 % = 50.4 Gy
16
Bet
ter
Plan Quality FF and FFF Beam
HI & CN Prostate, Prostate-LN and H&N
Bet
ter
The dose homogeneity of IMRT-FFF is better than IMRT-FF plans for prostate and comparable for H&N and prostate-LN .
The IMRT FFF plans have better conformity than IMRT FF for all cases
17
Treatment delivery time is the same for IMRT plans using FF beams and FFF beams
The number of MUs/Fx of IMRT plans with FFF beams is higher than with FF beams and the %-differences of the number of MUs increase with increasing the volume of PTV
Treatment Efficiency FF and FFF Beam
18
Planning comparison between IMRT and mARC
RESULTS
19
mARC Module
F.G.S
No of (OP) = No of segments = ⌠arc span / F.G.S⌡, Range: 4 – 15°
* Artiste mARC Treatment planning Guide
20
Clinical Cases
PTVs Clinical Goals
SA (8) SA (4) DA (6) IMRT 7B IMRT 9B
ProstateDmean = 74.0 GY 74.1 ±0.06 73.9 ±0.13 73.8 ±0.1
D98 ≥ 70.3 Gy 70.7 ±0.5 70.8 ±0.75 70.7 ±0.7
D2 ≤ 77.7 Gy 76.6 ±0.4 76.0 ±0.2 75.9 ±0.24
Prostate-LN
Dmean = 50.4 Gy 50.4 ±0.0 50.5 ± 0.04 50.3 ±0.08 50.3 ±0.05
D98 ≥ 47.88 Gy 48 ±0.2 48.1 ± 0.14 47.6 ±0.13 47.9 ±0.30
D2 ≤ 52.9 Gy 52.3 ±0.12 52.2 ± 0.26 52.3 ±0.13 52.2 ±0.3
H&N Dmean = 50.0 Gy 49.9 ±0.02 49.9±0.05 49.9±0.05 49.9±0.06
D98 ≥ 47.5 Gy 47.8 ±0.15 47.7±0.22 47.6 ±0.13 47.6 ±0.17
D2 ≤ 52.5 Gy 51.7 ±0.15 51.7 ±0.2 51.8 ±0.13 51.7 ±0.24
Plan Quality IMRT and mARC
The PTV clinical goals of the prostate, prostate-LN and H&N, in comparison with the calculated values of SA (4), DA (6), IMRT 7B and IMRT 9B
21
IMRT(9B) SA(4) DA(6)
DVH IMRT(9) SA(4)----- DA(6)…….
Plan Quality IMRT and mARC
22
CN & HI of Prostate,Prostate-LN and H&N using IMRT(7&9B) and mARC (SA&DA)
Plan Quality IMRT and mARC
23
The treatment delivery time of prostate, prostate-LN and H&N plans due to IMRT(7&9B) and mARC (SA&DA)
Treatment Efficiency IMRT and mARC
Technique Prostate Time(min)
Prostate-LN Time(min)
H&N time(min)
SA(4) (90seg) 6:22 8:26 8:10SA(6) (60seg) - 6:10 6:00SA(8) (45seg) 3:30 4:46 4:41
DA(6) (122seg) - 9:10 10:45IMRT 9B (50 or 60 segments) 6:21 8:00 6:47
24
The number of MU required to deliver the planned dose for prostate, prostate-LN and H&N by using IMRT and mARC
Treatment Efficiency IMRT and mARC
25
The shapes of the profiles of FFF beams were conical and affected by the field size and the photon beam energy.
The FFF beams produce PDD curves with similar characteristics to FF photon beams.
IMRT-FFF plans are clinically acceptable and comparable with IMRT-FF plans but need more MUs and the differences of TDT are between -20% to +25% in comparison with that of IMRT-FF plans.
mARC has a various options to create clinically acceptable treatment plans with comparable dose distribution with S&S-IMRT.
The main advantages of mARC technique are the lower MUs than IMRT and the possibility to shorten the TDT to the half.
Conclusions
Thank you for
your attention