Influence of collimator angle optimization on intensity-modulated radiotherapy planning for gastric cancer
Su Huanfan1,2, Zhang Jun1, Liu Hui1, Quan Hong2, Cao Tingting2, Lv Meng2, Liang Zhiwen3
1Department of Radiation and Medical Oncology, Hubei Key Laboratory of Tumor Biological ehaviors,Hubei Cancer Clinical Study Center, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan 430071, China; 2School of Physics and Technology,Wuhan University,Wuhan 430072,China; 3Radiation Oncology Center,Cancer Center of Wuhan Union Hospital,Wuhan 430023,China
Abstract：Objective To investigate the impact of four different collimator angle optimization techniques on the planning target volume (PTV) and organ at risk (OAR) during intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for gastric cancer.Methods Ten patients with gastric cancer undergoing IMRT in Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University from 2015 to 2016 years were recruited in this study. All IMRT plans were designed by conventional five fields (330°,10°,45°,90°and 180°).In the Eclipse treatment planning system,four different collimator angle optimization techniques with consistent planning optimization parameters were employed to design the IMRT plan. Collimator angle optimization techniques included the following aspects. The collimator angle was set at 0 degree (CL0),collimator angle was set at 90 degree (CL90),Eclipse automatic collimator angle optimization (CLA) was adopted and collimator angle was set as the angle when the distance between X-Jaws and PTV (CLX) was the shortest. The dosimetric parameters mainly included the conformal index (CI) of PTV,the homogeneity index (HI),the mean dose (Mean),and the dosage of OAR.The treatment time (Time),monitor unit (MU),control point (CP),split field (SF) and conformal distance (Fx) were also considered.Results Regarding CL0 as the control,the CI,HI and Mean did not significantly differ among four collimator angle optimization techniques (all P>0.05),whereas CLX could significantly increase the average dose of PTV in the target area (P<0.05);CLX optimization reduced the liver(V30 reduction by 1.54%),left kidney(V12 decrease by 1.46%),right kidney and other OARs,whereas it slightly increased the maximum dose of the small intestine and spinal cord (<1%).CL90 and CLA optimization elevated the dose of OAR in gastric cancer. Among four different collimator angle optimization techniques,CLX optimization reduced the MU (25.02%),CP (26.03%),Fx (20.27%) and SF (by 1.3 separate fields on average) and treatment time (10.03%).CL90 and CLA optimization could decrease the MU,CP,Fx and SF.CL90 optimization had certain advantages in shortening the treatment time,whereas CLA optimization could prolong the treatment time by 5.04%.Conclusions During IMRT for gastric cancer,CL90,CLA and CLX collimator angle optimization techniques can obtain comparable dosimetry distribution to CL0 optimization technique,which can reduce the MU,decrease the radiation leakage,shorten the treatment time and improve treatment efficiency.
Su Huanfan,Zhang Jun,Liu Hui et al. Influence of collimator angle optimization on intensity-modulated radiotherapy planning for gastric cancer[J]. Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology, 2019, 28(5): 364-368.
[1]Ferlay J,Soerjomataram I,Dikshit R,et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide:sources,methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012[J].Int J Cancer,2015,136(5):E359.DOI:10.1002/ijc.29210. [2]Ferlay J,Hairim S,Bray F,et al. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008:GLOBOCAN 2008[J].Int J Cancer,2010,127(12):2893-917.DOI:10.1002/ijc.25516. [3]Balakrishnan M,George R,Sharma A,et al. Changing trends in stomach cancer throughout the world[J].Cur Gastroenterol Rep,2017,19(8):36.DOI:10.1007/s11894-017-0575-8. [4]Yang SY,Roh KH, Kim YN,et al. Surgical outcomes after open, laparoscopic, and robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer[J]. Ann Surg Oncol,2017,24(7):1770-1777.DOI:10.1245/s10434-017-5851-1. [5]Shitara K,Chin K,Yoshikawa T,et al. Phase Ⅱ study of adjuvant chemotherapy of S-1 plus oxaliplatin for patients with stage Ⅲ gastric cancer after D2 gastrectomy[J].Gastric Cancer,2017,20(1):175-181. DOI:10.1007/s10120-015-0581-1. [6]Jr WS,Tarbell NJ,Yao M,et al. Clinical Radiation oncology:indications,techniques,and Results [*].Hoboken:John Wiley& SonsInc,2017:397-408. [7]Serarslan A,Okumus N O,Gursel B,et al. Dosimetric comparison of three different radiotherapy techniques in antrum-located stomach cancer[J].Asian Pacific J Cancer PreventApjcp,2017,18(3):741.DOI:10.22034/APJCP.2017.18.3.741. [8]Luan S,Heintz PH,Sorensen SA,et al. The effect of collimator rotation on IMRT treatment planning[J].Int J Radiat Oncol BiolPhys,2005,63(2):S524-525.DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.07.886. [9]Badusha MA,Mcgarry CK.Practical collimator optimization in the management of prostate IMRT planning:a feasibility study[J].J Radiother Pract,2012,11(2):107-115.DOI:10.1017/S1460396911000197. [10]Chapek J, Tobler M, Toy B J, et al. Optimization of collimator parameters to reduce rectal dose in intensity-modulated prostate treatment planning[J]. Medical Dosimetry, 2005, 30(4):205-212.DOI:10.1016/j.meddos.2005.06.002. [11]李长虎,张春莉,徐利明,等.多叶准直器角度因素对调强放疗计划实施效率的影响[J].中华放射肿瘤学杂志,2013,22(6):482-484.DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1004-4221.2013.06.016. Li CH,Zhang CL,Xu LM,et al. Effect of multi-leaf collimator angle factor on implementation efficiency of intensity modulated radiotherapy program[J].Chin J Radiat Oncol,2013,22(6):482-484.DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1004-4221.2013.06.016. [12]陈恩乐,吴魁,董事,等.改变多叶准直器角度对调强放疗计划效率的影响[J].中国医学物理学杂志,2015,32(3):437-439.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2015.03.030. Chen EL,Wu K,Dong S,et al. Effect of changing angle of multi-leaf collimator on the efficiency of modulated radiotherapy program[J].Chin J Med Phys,2015,32(3):437-439.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2015.03.030. [13]Lin T,Wang J,Galloway TJ,et al. Daily localization impact on decision of split-field or whole-field IMRT for head and neck cancer radiation treatment[J].Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys,2017,99(2):354.DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.06.1448.
2019, Vol. 28 
