Comparison of IMRT and rapidarc treatment plans using AAPM task group test suites

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study is to examine the plan quality and monitor unit with sliding window IMRT and RapidArc [RA] treatment plans using American Association Physicists in plans using American Association Physicits in Medicine TG119 test suite DICOM-RT images and structure sets. The structure set includes multi-target [superior, central, inferior], prostate, head and neck and C-shape. Plans were performed with Eclipse planning system using AAA algorithm with the plan goals specified in TG119. The plan results for multitarget shows that the D99 is greater than the plan goal for all the targets. The D10 is less than the plan goal for superior and inferior targets in both IMRT and RA plans. The D10 is 5% more with IMRT plan and 7% more with RA plan from central target in comparison with plan goal. The plan results for prostate shows that D95 is greater than the plan goal for both IMRT and RA plans. The D5 is less than the plan goal for IMRT plan and almost equal to plan goal for RA plan. The D30 is less than the plan goal for bladder and rectum in both the plans. The D10 is higher than the plan goal by 1.9% and 2.5% in IMRT and RA plan for rectum. The plan results for head and neck shows that the D99 and D90 were greater than the plan goal for PTV. The spinal cord and parotid doses were less than the plan goal in both the plans. The plan results for C-shape shows that the D95 was greater than the plan goal and D10 was less than the plan goal for PTV. The dose to central core was less than the plan goal in both IMRT and RA plans. Both the IMRT and RapidArc plans have met the plan goal for all the target and normal structures. RapidArc optimization and treatment planning requires more time than the IMRT plan. The monitor unit calculated by the RapidArc plan is less compared to IMRT plan, which reduces the treatment error caused by patient motion during treatment and integral dose