Comparison between volumetric modulated arc therapy based coplanar and noncoplanar planning for stereotactic body radiation therapy of Comparison between Volumetric Modulated arc Therapy based Coplanar and Noncoplanar Planning for Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy of Liver

Nisha, Anjum; C, Shambhavi; Nagesh, Jyothi; Nair, Sarath S

doi:10.31557/APJCP.2024.25.4.1383

Comparison between volumetric modulated arc therapy based coplanar and noncoplanar planning for stereotactic body radiation therapy of Comparison between Volumetric Modulated arc Therapy based Coplanar and Noncoplanar Planning for Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy of Liver

Document Type : Research Articles

Authors

¹ Department of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Medical Radiation Physics Program, Manipal College of Health Professions(MCHP), Manipal Academy of Higher Education(MAHE), Manipal, Karnataka, India.

² Radiotherapy and Oncology, Senior Grade Lecturer, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India.

10.31557/APJCP.2024.25.4.1383

Abstract

Background: The study aims to investigate potential dosimetric benefits between non-coplanar and coplanar beam arrangements of Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) plans for liver stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Methods: Thirteen patients who had undergone liver SBRT treatment in our department were chosen retrospectively for the study. Two sets of SBRT-VMAT plans namely, non-coplanar (NC-VMAT) and Coplanar (C-VMAT) were generated in Monaco(v5.11) planning system for Elekta Versa HD Linac using unflatten 6MV photon. The NC-VMAT plans were created by two/three non-coplanar partial arcs with couch rotation of ±150 and had an arc span of 1300 to 1600 whereas the C-VMAT plans consisted of a full arc. Both plans were compared by statistically analyzing various dosimetric and technical parameters. Results: There is no statistically significant difference observed between the C-VMAT and NC-VMAT plans for planning target volume (PTV) coverage. However, the spine dose (D1cc) was much less in the NC-VMAT plan compared to the C-VMAT plan, with mean values of 6.127 ± 3.08Gy and 9.058 ± 4.76Gy, respectively (p-value=0.002). The low dose spillage to the healthy tissue was compared by the volume receiving 5Gy (V5Gy) and 10Gy (V10Gy). V5Gy of the NC-VMAT plan was 2399.23±1870.76cc while that of C-VMAT plans was 2835.36±1930.20cc with the p-value <0.001. Moreover, the monitor units(MU) were less with NC-VMAT than with C-VMAT SBRT plans (p=0.015). Conclusion: The plan quality of NC-VMAT plans was favorable compared to C-VMAT plans for liver SBRT especially in reducing spine dose, low dose spillage to healthy tissue, and MU.

Keywords

Main Subjects