A generalized inverse planning tool for volumetric-modulated arc therapy.

The recent development in linear accelerator control systems, named volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), has generated significant interest in arc-based intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). The VMAT delivery technique features simultaneous changes in dose rate, gantry angle and gantry rotation speed as well as multi-leaf collimator (MLC) leaf positions while radiation is on. In this paper, we describe a generalized VMAT planning tool that is designed to take full advantage of the capabilities of the new linac control systems. The algorithm incorporates all of the MLC delivery constraints such as restrictions on MLC leaf interdigitation and the MLC leaf velocity constraints. A key feature of the algorithm is that it is able to plan for both single- and multiple-arc deliveries. Compared to conventional step-and-shoot IMRT plans, our VMAT plans created using this tool can achieve similar or better plan quality with less MU and better delivery efficiency. The accuracy of the obtained VMAT plans is also demonstrated through plan verifications performed on an Elekta Synergy linear accelerator equipped with a conventional MLC of 1 cm leaf width using a PreciseBeam VMAT linac control system.

Comparison of plan quality provided by intensity-modulated arc therapy and helical tomotherapy.

PURPOSE: Intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT) is an arc-based approach to intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) that can be delivered on a conventional linear accelerator using a conventional multileaf collimator. In a previous work, we demonstrated that our arc-sequencing algorithm can produce highly conformal IMAT plans. Through plan comparisons, we explored the ability of IMAT to serve as an alternative to helical tomotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The IMAT plans were created for 10 patients previously treated with helical tomotherapy. Treatment plan comparisons, according to the target dose coverage and critical structure sparing, were performed to determine whether similar plan quality could be achieved using IMAT. RESULTS: In 8 of 10 patient cases, IMAT was able to provide plan quality comparable to that of helical tomotherapy. In 2 of these 8 cases, the use of non-axial coplanar or non-coplanar arcs in IMAT planning led to significant improvements in normal tissue sparing. The remaining 2 cases posed particular dosimetric challenges. In 1 case, the target was immediately adjacent to a spinal cord that had received previous irradiation. The second case involved multiple target volumes and multiple prescription levels. Both IMAT and tomotherapy were able to produce clinically acceptable plans. Tomotherapy, however, provided a more uniform target dose and improved critical structure sparing. CONCLUSIONS: For most cases, IMAT can provide plan qualities comparable to that of helical tomotherapy. For some intracranial tumors, IMAT's ability to deliver non-coplanar arcs led to significant dosimetric improvements. Helical tomotherapy, however, can provide improved dosimetric results in the most complex cases.