Advertisement

The effect of beam interruption during FFF-VMAT plans for SBRT

  • Seongjong Oh
  • Benjamin Lewis
  • Amy Watson
  • Siyong Kim
  • Taeho KimEmail author
Technical Paper

Abstract

To investigate the dosimetric effect of intended beam interruption during volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with flattening filter free (FFF) beam for exploring the possibility of deep inspiration breath hold stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). A total of ten SBRT plans with 6 and 10 MV FFF beams were retrospectively selected. All plans consisted of four partial arcs, except one plan with six partial arcs. We delivered the plans using a Varian Truebeam™ with three different scenarios; without interruption (0int), with one intentional interruption (1int), or with two intentional interruptions (2int), per each partial arc. The treatment log files were exported from the treatment console, and the variations in delivered MU were evaluated at the beam interruption angles. The dose distributions were also measured using a 3D cylindrical diode array detector, ArcCHECK™. The 2D global gamma evaluations were performed, compared to the planned dose distribution, with 3%/3 and 4%/2 mm passing criterion. The dose difference (DD) was also determined between uninterrupted and interrupted data with 3, 2, 1, and 0.5% of global maximum dose. The interruption caused a total increase of 0.14 ± 0.05% and 0.25 ± 0.08% of the total planned MU, ranging from 1746 to 3261 MU, at the interrupted angles in 1int and 2int, respectively. All global gamma passing rates satisfied our clinical threshold of 90%, and the differences of passing rates were less than 0.3% on average with both criterions. All measured 1int and 2int data were within 3% DD from 0int measured data. For 6 MV FFF beams, the average passing rate with 2, 1, and 0.5% DD were 99.9 ± 0.2%, 92.3 ± 12.0%, and 81.9 ± 24.9%, respectively, between 0int and 1int, and 99.8 ± 0.4%, 92.1%12.4%, and 80.7 ± 26.5%, respectively, between 0int and 2int. For 10 MV FFF beams, the average passing rate with 2, 1, and 0.5% DD were 100.0 ± 0.2%, 95.4 ± 9.4% and 87.0 ± 19.8%, respectively, between 0int and 1int, and 99.9 ± 0.3%, 95.4 ± 9.7%, and 87.2 ± 21.3% between 0int and 2int. The dosimetric impact of beam interruption was investigated with small field and high dose rate FFF-VMAT SBRT plans. The delivered dose distributions with up to 12 interruptions per plan were still clinically acceptable. Only minimal changes were observed in Gamma, DD, and log file analysis.

Keywords

SBRT VMAT FFF Beam interruption Cylindrical diode array detector DIBH Deep inspiration breath hold 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Robert D. Timmerman et al (2007) Stereotactic body radiation therapy in multiple organ sites. J Clin Oncol 25:947–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brendan M, Prendergast et al (2013) Flattening filter-free linac improves treatment delivery efficiency in stereotactic body radiation therapy. JACMP 14:64–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Scorsetti M et al (2011) Feasibility and early clinical assessment of flattening filter free (FFF) based stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) treatments. Radiat Oncol 6:113CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ohara K, Okumura T, Akisada M et al (1989) Irradiation synchronized with respiration gate. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 17:853–857CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wong JW, Sharpe MB, Jaffray DA et al (1999) The use of active breathing control (ABC) to reduce margin for breathing motion. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 44:911–919CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boda-Heggemann J et al (2013) Flattening-filter-free intensity modulated breath-hold image-guided SABR (Stereotactic ABlative Radiotherapy) can be applied in a 15-min treatment slot. Radiother Oncol 109:505–509CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nicolini G et al (2010) Pre-clinical evaluation of respiratory-gated delivery of volumetric modulated arc therapy with RapidArc. Phys Med Biol 55:N347–N357CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Qian J et al (2011) Dose verification for respiratory-gated volumetric modulated arc therapy. Phys Med Biol 56:4827–4838CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heo T et al (2015) The effect of beam interruption during VMAT delivery on the delivered dose distribution. Phys Med 31:297–300CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guangjun, Li et al (2013) Evaluation of the ArcCHECK QA system for IMRT and VMAT verification. Phys Med 29:295–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Baoxhou, Sun et al (2013) Initial experience with TrueBeam trajectory log files for radiation therapy delivery verification. Pract Radiat Oncol 3:e199–e208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Manikandan A et al (2012) Quality assurance of dynamic parameters in volumetric modulated arc therapy. Br J Radiol 85:1002–1010CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Qian J, Lee L, Liu W et al (2010) Dose reconstruction for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using cone-beam CT and dynamic log files. Phys Med Biol 55:3597–3610CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee L, Le QT, Xing L (2008) Retrospective IMRT dose reconstruction based on cone-beam CT and MLC log-file. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 70:634–644CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Australasian College of Physical Scientists and Engineers in Medicine 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seongjong Oh
    • 1
  • Benjamin Lewis
    • 1
  • Amy Watson
    • 1
  • Siyong Kim
    • 1
  • Taeho Kim
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Radiation OncologyVirginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmondUSA

Personalised recommendations