Comprehensive comparison between Halcyon 2.0 and Truebeam VMAT plans for different treatment sites: dosimetric quality and plan complexity
Zhu Qizhen1, Yang Bo1, Wang Zhiqun1, Liang Yongguang1, Zhang Wenjun1, Gao Yuan2, Qiu Jie1
1Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China; 2School of Medical Imaging, Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang 050017, China
Abstract：Objective To analyze the differences in dosimetric quality and plan complexity of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans based on Halcyon 2.0 and Truebeam for different treatment sites of the patients. Methods Halcyon 2.0 VMAT plans in head & neck, chest, abdomen, and pelvis treatment sites of 49 cases were retrospectively selected and the VMAT plans were re‐designed based on Truebeam with the same optimization parameters. The differences in dosimetric metrics and plan complexity between the two types of plans were compared and analyzed. P<0.05 was considered as statistically significant. Results In terms of PTV, Halcyon 2.0 plans showed better homogeneity index (HI), conformal index (CI) in the head & neck and chest. Besides, Halcyon 2.0 plans yielded better D98% and CI in the abdomen and better D2% in the pelvis. For organs at risk (OAR), the D20% and Dmean of bilateral lungs, and Dmean of heart for Halcyon 2.0 plans in the chest were lower than those for Truebeam plans (all P<0.05). For the complexity metrics, the median average aperture area variability (AAV) of Halcyon 2.0 plans in the head & neck, abdomen and pelvis were 0.414, 0.425 and 0.432, which were better than 0.385, 0.368 and 0.361 of Truebeam plans in the corresponding sites, respectively. In the abdomen and pelvis, Halcyon 2.0 plans showed better median modulation complexity score (MCS) than Truebeam plans (0.320 vs. 0.268, 0.303 vs. 0.282; both P<0.05). The median small aperture score (SAS) for all plans of Halcyon 2.0 were better than that of Truebeam plans (all P<0.05), and the median plan average beam area (PA) of all plans of Halcyon 2.0 were larger than that of Truebeam plans (all P<0.05). Conclusions Compared with conventional fractionated VMAT plans based on Halcyon 2.0 and Truebeam, Halcyon 2.0 plans have similar or even better dosimetric quality. However, Halcyon 2.0 plans have lower plan complexity, which makes it an advantage in clinical application.
Zhu Qizhen,Yang Bo,Wang Zhiqun et al. Comprehensive comparison between Halcyon 2.0 and Truebeam VMAT plans for different treatment sites: dosimetric quality and plan complexity[J]. Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology, 2023, 32(3): 241-247.
[1] Ferlay J, Colombet M, Soerjomataram I, et al.Cancer statistics for the year 2020: an overview[J]. Int J Cancer, 2021. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.33588. [2] Bedford JL.Treatment planning for volumetric modulated arc therapy[J]. Med Phys, 2009,36(11):5128-5138. DOI: 10.1118/1.3240488. [3] Cozzi L, Dinshaw KA, Shrivastava SK, et al.A treatment planning study comparing volumetric arc modulation with RapidArc and fixed field IMRT for cervix uteri radiotherapy[J]. Radiother Oncol, 2008,89(2):180-191. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2008.06.013. [4] Du WL, Cho SH, Zhang XD, et al.Quantification of beam complexity in intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment plans[J]. Med Phys, 2014,41(2):021716. DOI: 10.1118/1.4861821. [5] Kubo K, Monzen H, Tamura M, et al.Minimizing dose variation from the interplay effect in stereotactic radiation therapy using volumetric modulated arc therapy for lung cancer[J]. J Appl Clin Med Phys, 2018,19(2):121-127. DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12264. [6] Kamperis E, Kodona C, Hatziioannou K, et al.Complexity in radiation therapy: it's complicated[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2020,106(1):182-184. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.09.003. [7] Masi L, Doro R, Favuzza V, et al.Impact of plan parameters on the dosimetric accuracy of volumetric modulated arc therapy[J]. Med Phys, 2013,40(7):071718. DOI: 10.1118/1.4810969. [8] Crowe SB, Kairn T, Kenny J, et al.Treatment plan complexity metrics for predicting IMRT pre-treatment quality assurance results[J]. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med, 2014,37(3):475-482. DOI: 10.1007/s13246-014-0274-9. [9] Tamura M, Matsumoto K, Otsuka M, et al.Plan complexity quantification of dual-layer multi-leaf collimator for volumetric modulated arc therapy with Halcyon linac[J]. Phys Eng Sci Med, 2020,43(3):947-957. DOI: 10.1007/s13246-020-00891-2. [10] Lim TY, Dragojević I, Hoffman D, et al.Characterization of the Halcyon(TM) multileaf collimator system[J]. J Appl Clin Med Phys, 2019,20(4):106-114. DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12568. [11] Li T, Scheuermann R, Lin A, et al.Impact of multi-leaf collimator parameters on head and neck plan quality and delivery: a comparison between Halcyon™ and Truebeam® treatment delivery systems[J]. Cureus, 2018,10(11):e3648. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.3648. [12] Pokhrel D, Webster A, Stephen J, et al.SBRT treatment of abdominal and pelvic oligometastatic lymph nodes using ring-mounted Halcyon linac[J]. J Appl Clin Med Phys, 2021,22(6):162-171. DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13268. [13] 庄婷婷, 林柏翰, 李东升, 等. 有无均整器模式下脊柱转移瘤立体定向放疗计划的剂量学比较[J].中华放射医学与防护杂志,2016,36(1):63-66. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-5098.2016.01.012. Zhuang TT, Lin BH, Li DS, et al.Dosimetric comparison of stereotactic body radiation therapy plans for spine metastasis using flattening filter free and flattening filter modes[J]. Chin J Radiol Med Prot,2016,36(1):63-66. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-5098.2016.01.012. [14] Spruijt KH, Dahele M, Cuijpers JP, et al.Flattening filter free vs flattened beams for breast irradiation[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2013,85(2):506-513. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.03.040. [15] 李成强, 陈进琥, 李振江, 等. 基于Halcyon和Trilogy固定野调强计划质量和执行效率应用研究[J].中华放射肿瘤学杂志,2019,28(1):57-60. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1004-4221.2019.01.012. Li CQ, Chen JH, Li ZJ, et al.The dosimetric and delivery efficiency between Halcyon-and Trilogy-based IMRT plans[J]. Chin J Radiat Oncol,2019,28(1):57-60. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1004-4221.2019.01.012. [16] Petroccia HM, Malajovich I, Barsky AR, et al.Spine SBRT with Halcyon™: plan quality, modulation complexity, delivery accuracy, and speed[J]. Front Oncol, 2019,9:319. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2019.00319. [17] Michiels S, Poels K, Crijns W, et al.Volumetric modulated arc therapy of head-and-neck cancer on a fast-rotating O-ring linac: plan quality and delivery time comparison with a C-arm linac[J]. Radiother Oncol, 2018,128(3):479-484. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2018.04.021. [18] Hernandez V, Hansen CR, Widesott L, et al.What is plan quality in radiotherapy? The importance of evaluating dose metrics, complexity, and robustness of treatment plans[J]. Radiother Oncol, 2020,153:26-33. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.09.038. [19] Younge KC, Matuszak MM, Moran JM, et al.Penalization of aperture complexity in inversely planned volumetric modulated arc therapy[J]. Med Phys, 2012,39(11):7160-7170. DOI: 10.1118/1.4762566. [20] Götstedt J, Karlsson Hauer A, Bäck A.Development and evaluation of aperture-based complexity metrics using film and EPID measurements of static MLC openings[J]. Med Phys, 2015,42(7):3911-3921. DOI: 10.1118/1.4921733. [21] Kairn T, Crowe SB, Kenny J, et al.Predicting the likelihood of QA failure using treatment plan accuracy metrics[J]. J Phys, 2014,489:12051. DOI:10.1088/1742‐6596/489/1/012051.
2023, Vol. 32 
