BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Tomotherapy treatment planning depends on parameters that are not used conventionally such as: field width (FW), pitch factor (PF) and modulation factor (MF).
The aim of this study is to analyze the relationship between these parameters and their influence on the quality of treatment plans and beam-on time.
MATERIAL AND METHODS:Ten prostate cancer patients were included in the study. For each patient, two cases of irradiation were considered depending on the target volume: PTV1 included the prostate gland, seminal vesicles, pelvic lymph nodes and a 1 cm margin, whereas PTV2 included only the prostate gland with a 1 cm margin. For each patient and each case of irradiation (PTV1 and PTV2) 8 treatment plans were created - all consisted of a different combination of planning parameters (FW = 1.05, 2.5, 5 cm; PF = 0.107, 0.215, 0.43; MF = 1.5, 2.5, 3.5). Default values used in this study were FW = 2.5 cm, PF = 0.215 and MF = 2.5. Hence, for plans with different FWs, parameters of PF and MF were 0.215 and 2.5, respectively; for different PFs, FW and MF were 2.5 and 2.5, respectively; finally for different MFs, FW and PF were 2.5 and 0.215, respectively. The reference plan was optimized for FW = 1.05 cm, PF = 0.107 and MF = 3.5, which was assumed to result in the best dose distribution and the longest treatment time. As a result, 160 plans were created. Each plan was analyzed for dose distribution and execution time.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Treatment plans with FW of 5 cm resulted in the shortest execution time compromising the dose distribution. Moreover, the dose fall off in the longitudinal direction was not sharp. FW of 1.05 cm and PF of 0.107 were not recommended for routine prostate plans due to long execution time, which was 3 times longer than for plans with FW = 5 cm. There was no substantial decrease of irradiation time when PF was increased from 0.215 to 0.43 for both cases (PTV1 and PTV2); however, the dose distribution was slightly compromised. Finally, decreasing MF from 2.5 to 1.5 was useless because it did not change the beam-on time; however, it did remarkably decrease the dose distribution. Nevertheless, increasing MF up to 3.5 could be considered. The lowest EUD for the rectum and intestines, could be observed for PF = 0.107. For the other plans the differences were rather small (the EUD was almost the same). By reducing PF from 0.43 to 0.107 or FW from 5 to 1.05 the EUD for bladder (in PTV1 case) decreased by 3.13% and 2.60%. When PTV2 was a target volume, the EUD for bladder decreased by 4.54% and 3.43% when FW was changed from 5 to 1.05 and MF from 1.5 to 3.5, respectively. For optimal balance between beam-on time and dose distribution in OARs for routine patients, the authors would suggest to use: FW = 2.5, PF = 0.215 and MF = 2.5.
Written by:
Skórska M, Piotrowski T. Are you the author?
Department of Medical Physics, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Garbary 15, 61-866 Poznan, Poland.
Reference: Phys Med. 2012 Apr 19. Epub ahead of print.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2012.03.007
PubMed Abstract
PMID: 22521735