Assessment of collimator angle variation in volumetric-modulated arc therapy planning for head and neck carcinoma patients

Ullah, Sadiq; Afridi, Touqir Ahmad; Arsalan, Muhammad Zia-Ul-Islam; Haider, Umar Hussain; Farooq, Muhammad Umar; Saeed, Hashir

doi:10.61186/rabms.10.2.94

Volume 10, Issue 2 (4-2024) Journal of Research in Applied and Basic Medical Sciences 2024, 10(2): 94-102 | Back to browse issues page

‎ 10.61186/rabms.10.2.94

Mendeley

Zotero

RefWorks

Ullah S, Afridi T A, Arsalan M Z, Haider U H, Farooq M U, Saeed H. Assessment of collimator angle variation in volumetric-modulated arc therapy planning for head and neck carcinoma patients. Journal of Research in Applied and Basic Medical Sciences 2024; 10 (2) :94-102
URL: http://ijrabms.umsu.ac.ir/article-1-278-en.html

Assessment of collimator angle variation in volumetric-modulated arc therapy planning for head and neck carcinoma patients

Sadiq Ullah

, Touqir Ahmad Afridi ^*

, Muhammad Zia-Ul-Islam Arsalan

, Umar Hussain Haider

, Muhammad Umar Farooq

, Hashir Saeed

Medical Physics Division, Atomic Energy Cancer Hospital NORIN, Nawabshah, Sindh, Pakistan , taukeerameer@gmail.com,

Abstract: (333 Views)

Background & Aims: The collimator angle significantly impacts radiation leakage between the multi-leaf collimator (MLCs) leaves. This study aims to examine dose-volume evaluation in planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs) for Head & Neck patients undergoing volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with 2.5 arcs and varying collimator angles.
Materials & Methods: In this experimental study, five patients with nasopharyngeal cancer were selected for treatment with the VMAT method. CT images were prepared using a CT simulator and transferred to the treatment planning system. For optimizing VMAT plans, volume and dose constraints were applied to OARs and PTVs by the algorithm. Then, the doses were calculated using the AAA algorithm.
Results: Although no significant differences were observed in DVH curves across different collimator angles, other parameters exhibited variations. Notably, in Head & Neck cancer patients, optimal values for dose conformity, homogeneity, MUs, and gradient index were found at collimator angles of 20° and 30°. Additionally, OAR sparing was favorable at these angles. Based on target coverage, homogeneity, and MUs, the collimator angles were optimized for VMAT planning.
Conclusion: Our findings offer valuable guidance to clinical medical physicists in making informed decisions regarding collimator angles. The dosimetric analysis underscores the importance of selecting the optimal collimator angle for accurate PTV coverage.

Keywords: Dose-Volume Histogram, Collimator Angle, Head and Neck Carcinoma, Planning Target Volume, Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy

Full-Text [PDF 486 kb] (211 Downloads) | | Full-Text (HTML) (84 Views)

Type of Study: orginal article | Subject: Radiotherapy

References

1. Wu HC, Chang DK, Huang CT. Targeted therapy for cancer. J Cancer Mol 2006;2(2):57-66. [URL]

2. Murtaza G, Mehmood S, Rasul S, Murtaza I, Khan EU. Dosimetric effect of limited aperture multileaf collimator on VMAT plan quality: A study of prostate and head-and-neck cancers. Reports Pract Oncol Radiother. 2018;23(3):189-98. doi.org/10.1016/j.rpor.2018.02.006 [DOI:10.1016/j.rpor.2018.02.006] [PMID] []

3. Bortfeld T, Boyer AL, Schlegel W, Kahler DL, Waldron TJ. Realization and verification of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy with modulated fields. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1994;30(4):899-908. doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(94)90366-2 [DOI:10.1016/0360-3016(94)90366-2] [PMID]

4. Spirou SV, Chui C. Generation of arbitrary intensity profiles by combining the scanning beam with dynamic multileaf collimation. Med Phys 1996;23(1):1-8. doi.org/10.1118/1.597672 [DOI:10.1118/1.597672] [PMID]

5. Otto K. Volumetric modulated arc therapy: IMRT in a single gantry arc. Med Phys 2008;35(1):310-317. doi.org/10.1118/1.2818738 [DOI:10.1118/1.2818738] [PMID]

6. Georg D, Clark CH, Hussein M. Patient-Specific Quality Assurance: Pretreatment 3D Dose Verification. In: Clinical 3D dosimetry in modern radiation therapy. CRC Press; 2017. p. 433-456. doi.org/10.1201/9781315118826-17 [DOI:10.1201/9781315118826-17]

7. Zhang P, Happersett L, Hunt M, Jackson A, Zelefsky M, Mageras G. Volumetric modulated arc therapy: planning and evaluation for prostate cancer cases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76(5):1456-62. doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.03.033 [DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.03.033] [PMID]

8. Xu D, Li G, Li H, Jia F. Comparison of IMRT versus 3D-CRT in the treatment of esophagus cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine 2017;96(31). doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000007685 [DOI:10.1097/MD.0000000000007685] [PMID] []

9. Lu S-H, Cheng J-C, Kuo S-H, Lee J-J, Chen L-H, Wu J-K, et al. Volumetric modulated arc therapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a dosimetric comparison with TomoTherapy and step-and-shoot IMRT. Radiother Oncol 2012;104(3):324-30. doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2011.11.017 [DOI:10.1016/j.radonc.2011.11.017] [PMID]

10. Kim YH, Kim JH, Kim JH, Kim YC, Kim JH, Kim JH, et al. Effect of the collimator angle on dosimetric verification of volumetric modulated arc therapy. J Korean Phys Soc 2015;67(1):243-247. doi.org/10.3938/jkps.67.243 [DOI:10.3938/jkps.67.243]

11. Kilian-Meneghin J. VMAT Collimator Angle Optimization. State University of New York at Buffalo; 2020. [Google Scholar]

12. Pudsey LMM, Oates A, Hardcastle N, Ebert MA, Rowshanfarzad P, Vial P, et al. The use of collimator angle optimization and jaw tracking for VMAT‐based single‐isocenter multiple‐target stereotactic radiosurgery for up to six targets in the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2021;22(9):171-82. doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13360 [DOI:10.1002/acm2.13360] [PMID] []

13. Arjomandy B, Tailor R, Anand A, Sahoo N, Gillin M, Prado K, et al. AAPM task group 224: Comprehensive proton therapy machine quality assurance. Med Phys 2019;46(8):e678-e705. doi.org/10.1002/mp.13622 [DOI:10.1002/mp.13622]

14. Moussallem M, Harb P, Rima H, Al Kattar Z, Ayoubi S. New dosimetry planning strategy based on continuous dose gradient used to reduce dose estimation errors due to respiratory motion in breast radiation therapy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.10089. 2021. http://arxiv.org/abs/2110.10089 [Google Scholar]

15. Huang S-F, Chen Y-H, Lin C-Y, Wang T-E, Lin C-H, Chen S-W, et al. Optimal tumor coverage with different beam energies by IMRT, VMAT and TOMO: effects on patients with proximal gastric cancer. Medicine 2020;99(47). doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000023328 [DOI:10.1097/MD.0000000000023328] [PMID] []

16. Isa M, Rehman J, Afzal M, Chow JC. Dosimetric dependence on the collimator angle in prostate volumetric modulated arc therapy. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol 2014;2(4):20419. doi.org/10.14319/ijcto.0204.19 [DOI:10.14319/ijcto.0204.19]

17. Skouboe S, Hoffmann L, Petersen JB, Poulsen PR, Grau C, Larsen EH, et al. First clinical real-time motion-including tumor dose reconstruction during radiotherapy delivery. Radiother Oncol 2019;139:66-71. doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2019.07.007 [DOI:10.1016/j.radonc.2019.07.007] [PMID]

18. Monti AF, Cionini L, De Luca Cardillo C, Doro R, Fusco V, Landoni V, et al. An ICRU 50 radiotherapy treatment chart. Radiother Oncol 1995;35(2):145-50. doi.org/10.1016/0167-8140(95)01541-N [DOI:10.1016/0167-8140(95)01541-N] [PMID]

19. Franzese C, Fogliata A, Clerici E, Franceschini D, Comito T, Tomatis S, et al. Dosimetric impact of volumetric modulated arc therapy for nasopharyngeal cancer treatment. reports Pract Oncol Radiother 2021;26(1):101-10. doi.org/10.5603/RPOR.a2021.0017 [DOI:10.5603/RPOR.a2021.0017] [PMID] []

20. Lee AW, Ng WT, Pan JJ, Poh SS, Ahn YC, AlHussain H, et al. International guideline on dose prioritization and acceptance criteria in radiation therapy planning for nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019;105(3):567-80. doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(95)00150-W doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.06.2540 [DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.09.030] [PMID]

21. Yang Y, Shao K, Zhang J, Chen M, Chen Y, Shan G. Automatic planning for nasopharyngeal carcinoma based on progressive optimization in raystation treatment planning system. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2020;19:1533033820915710. doi.org/10.1177/1533033820915710 [DOI:10.1177/1533033820915710] [PMID] []

22. Kim J, Ahn BS, Choi CH, Park JM, Park S-Y. Optimal collimator rotation based on the outline of multiple brain targets in VMAT. Radiat Oncol 2018;13(1):1-10. doi.org/10.1186/s13014-018-1039-5 [DOI:10.1186/s13014-018-1039-5] [PMID] []

23. Serarslan A, Daştan Y, Aksu T, Yıldız RE, Gürsel B, Meydan D, et al. Ninety-degree angled collimator: a dosimetric study related to dynamic intensity-modulated radiotherapy in patients with endometrial carcinoma. BMC Cancer 2023;23(1):1-9. [DOI:10.1186/s12885-023-11033-8] [PMID] []

24. Ahn BS, Park SY, Park JM, Choi CH, Chun M, Kim JI. Dosimetric effects of sectional adjustments of collimator angles on volumetric modulated arc therapy for irregularly shaped targets. PloS One 2017;12(4):e0174924. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0174924] [PMID] []

25. Bertholet J, Mackeprang PH, Mueller S, Guyer G, Loebner HA, Wyss Y, et al. Organ-at-risk sparing with dynamic trajectory radiotherapy for head and neck cancer: comparison with volumetric arc therapy on a publicly available library of cases. Rad Oncol 2022;17(1):122. [DOI:10.1186/s13014-022-02092-5] [PMID] []