Search Courses

DJR 46-2A: Automatic Feathering Algorithm for VMAT Craniospinal Irradiation: A Comprehensive Comparison with other VMAT Planning Strategies

Course Details

MDCB Credits: 2.50

ARRT Credits: 2.50

Available Until: 6/30/2022

Non-Member Price: $87.50

Member Price: $50.00

Member PLUS Price: $50.00

Add to My Courses

Once you have exceeded your annual free credit allowance you will be prompted to pay a per-credit fee.

Courses purchased using your credit allowance are non-refundable and need to be completed before their expiration date

View your annual credit allowance here.

Authors: Michele Maddalo, MSc ,∗∗, Giovanna Benecchi, MSc , Luisa Altabella, MSc , Caterina Ghetti, MSc , Nunziata D’Abbiero, MD

Medical Physics Department, University Hospital of Parma, Parma 43126, Italy
Radiotherapy Unit, University Hospital of Parma, Parma 43126, Italy

Abstract:
In craniospinal irradiation, field matching is very sensitive to intrafraction positional uncertainties in craniocaudal direction, which could lead to severe overdoses/underdoses inside the planning target volume. During the last decade, significant efforts were made to develop volumetric-modulated arc therapy strategies, which were less sensitive to setup uncertainties. In this study, a treatment planning system- integrated method, named automatic feathering (AF) algorithm, was compared against other volumetric- modulated arc therapy strategies. Three patients were retrospectively included. Five different planning techniques were compared, including overlap (O), staggered overlap (SO), gradient optimization (GO), overlap with AF algorithm turned on (O-AF), and staggered overlap with AF algorithm turned on (SO-AF). Three overlapping lengths were considered (5 cm, 7.5 cm, and 10 cm). The middle isocenter was shifted of ±1 mm, ±3 mm, and ±5 mm to simulate setup uncertainties. Plan robustness against simulated un- certainties was evaluated by calculating near maximum and near minimum dose differences between shifted and nonshifted plans (ΔD2%, ΔD98%). Dose differences among combinations of techniques and junction lengths were tested using Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Higher ΔD2% and ΔD98% were obtained using the overlap technique (ΔD2% = 15.4%, ΔD98% = 15.0%). O-AF and SO-AF provided comparable plan robustness to GO technique. Their performance improved significantly for grater overlapping length. For 10-cm overlap and 5-mm shift, GO, O-AF, and SO-AF yielded to the better plan robustness (5.7% < ΔD2%< 6.0%, 6.1% < ΔD98% < 7.6%). SO provided an intermediate plan robustness (9.8% < ΔD2% < 10.8%, 8.9%< ΔD98% < 10.3%). The addition of AF to the overlap technique significantly improves plan robustness especially if larger overlapping lengths are used. Using the AF algorithm, plans become as robust as plans optimized with more sophisticated and time-consuming approaches (like GO).