PMID- 37144958
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20240202
LR  - 20240202
IS  - 1526-9914 (Electronic)
IS  - 1526-9914 (Linking)
VI  - 24
IP  - 9
DP  - 2023 Sep
TI  - Dosimetric comparison of VMAT standard optimization (SO) and multi-criteria 
      optimization (MCO) treatment plans with standard mode delivery (STD) or sliding 
      window (SW) for head and neck cancer.
PG  - e14013
LID - 10.1002/acm2.14013 [doi]
LID - e14013
AB  - PURPOSE: A new development on the RayStation treatment planning system (TPS) 
      allows a plan to be planned by imposing a constraint on the leaf sequencing: all 
      leaves move in the same direction before moving again in the opposite direction 
      to create a succession of sliding windows (SWs). The study aims to investigate 
      this new leaf sequencing, coupled with standard optimization (SO) and 
      multi-criteria optimization (MCO) and to compare it with the standard sequencing 
      (STD). METHODS: Sixty plans were replanned for 10 head and neck cancer patients 
      (two dose levels simultaneously SIB, 56 and 70 Gy in 35 fractions). All plans 
      were compared, and a Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed. Pre-processing QA 
      and metrics of multileaf collimator (MLC) complexity were studied. RESULTS: All 
      methodologies met the dose requirements for the planning target volumes (PTVs) 
      and organs at risk (OARs). SO demonstrates significantly best results for 
      homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), and target coverage (TC). SO-SW 
      gives best results for PTVs (D(98%) and D(2%) ) but the differences between 
      techniques are less than 1%. Only the D(2%,PTV-56 Gy) is higher with both MCO 
      methods. MCO-STD offer the best sparing OARs (parotids, spinal cord, larynx, oral 
      cavity). The gamma passing rates (GPRs) with 3%/3 mm criteria between the 
      measured and calculated dose distributions are higher than 95%, slightly lowest 
      with SW. The number of monitor units (MUs) and MLC metrics are higher in SW show 
      a higher modulation. CONCLUSIONS: All plans are feasible for the treatment. A 
      clear advantage of SO-SW is that the treatment plan is more straightforward to 
      planning by the user due to the more advanced modulation. MCO stands out for its 
      ease of use and will allow a less experienced user to offer a better plan than in 
      SO. In addition, MCO-STD will reduce the dose to the OARs while maintaining good 
      TC.
CI  - (c) 2023 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by 
      Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of The American Association of Physicists in 
      Medicine.
FAU - Rolland, Julien
AU  - Rolland J
AD  - Department of Medical Physics, Centre Hospitalier InterCommunal des Alpes du Sud, 
      Gap, France.
AD  - Department of Medical Physics, Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille, France.
FAU - Favrel, Veronique
AU  - Favrel V
AD  - Department of Radiotherapy, Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille, France.
FAU - Fau, Pierre
AU  - Fau P
AD  - Department of Medical Physics, Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille, France.
FAU - Mailleux, Hugues
AU  - Mailleux H
AD  - Department of Medical Physics, Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille, France.
FAU - Tallet, Agnes
AU  - Tallet A
AD  - Department of Radiotherapy, Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille, France.
LA  - eng
PT  - Journal Article
DEP - 20230505
PL  - United States
TA  - J Appl Clin Med Phys
JT  - Journal of applied clinical medical physics
JID - 101089176
SB  - IM
MH  - Humans
MH  - *Head and Neck Neoplasms/radiotherapy
MH  - Organs at Risk
MH  - Radiotherapy Dosage
MH  - *Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted/methods
MH  - Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated/methods
PMC - PMC10476993
OTO - NOTNLM
OT  - H&N
OT  - MCO
OT  - QA
OT  - VMAT
OT  - sliding windows
OT  - volumetric modulated arc therapy
COIS- Julien Rolland realized the study. All contributing authors reviewed the 
      manuscript and gave feedback on the findings. The authors declare no conflicts of 
      interest.
EDAT- 2023/05/05 12:42
MHDA- 2023/09/06 06:42
PMCR- 2023/05/05
CRDT- 2023/05/05 09:53
PHST- 2023/03/28 00:00 [revised]
PHST- 2022/10/17 00:00 [received]
PHST- 2023/04/18 00:00 [accepted]
PHST- 2023/09/06 06:42 [medline]
PHST- 2023/05/05 12:42 [pubmed]
PHST- 2023/05/05 09:53 [entrez]
PHST- 2023/05/05 00:00 [pmc-release]
AID - ACM214013 [pii]
AID - 10.1002/acm2.14013 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2023 Sep;24(9):e14013. doi: 10.1002/acm2.14013. Epub 2023 
      May 5.