s'authentifier
version française rss feed
Fiche concise
Comparison between two treatment planning systems for volumetric modulated arc therapy optimization for prostate cancer.
Lafond C., Gassa F., Odin C., Dréan G., Even J., De Crevoisier R., Pommier P., Manens J.-P., Biston M.-C.
Physica Medica 30, 1 (2012) 2-9 - http://www.hal.inserm.fr/inserm-00750958
(23116552)
Comparison between two treatment planning systems for volumetric modulated arc therapy optimization for prostate cancer.
Caroline Lafond () 1, 2, Frédéric Gassa3, Christophe Odin4, Gaël Dréan1, Justine Even2, Renaud De Crevoisier1, 2, Pascal Pommier3, Jean-Pierre Manens1, 2, Marie-Claude Biston3
1 :  LTSI - Laboratoire Traitement du Signal et de l'Image
http://www.ltsi.univ-rennes1.fr
INSERM : U1099 – Université de Rennes 1
Campus Universitaire de Beaulieu - Bât 22 - 35042 Rennes
France
2 :  Service de radiothérapie
CRLCC Eugène Marquis
Rue de la Bataille Flandre-Dunkerque - C.S. 44229 - 35042 Rennes Cedex
France
3 :  Centre Léon Bérard
CRLCC Léon Bérard
28, rue Laennec 69373 LYON Cedex 08
France
4 :  IPR - Institut de Physique de Rennes
http://www.ipr.univ-rennes1.fr/
Université de Rennes 1 – CNRS : UMR6251
Bâtiment 11A F-35042 Rennes
France
Matière molle
IMPACT
VMAT with Monaco versus Pinnacle
PURPOSE: To investigate the performances of two commercial treatment planning systems (TPS) for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) optimization regarding prostate cancer. The TPS were compared in terms of dose distributions, treatment delivery parameters and quality control results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For ten patients, two VMAT plans were generated: one with Monaco TPS (Elekta) and one with Pinnacle TPS (Philips Medical Systems). The total prescribed dose was 78 Gy delivered in one 360° arc with a Synergy(®) linear accelerator equipped with a MLCi2(®). RESULTS: VMAT with Monaco provided better homogeneity and conformity indexes but lower mean dose to PTVs than Pinnacle. For the bladder wall (p = 0.019), the femoral heads (p = 0.017), and healthy tissues (p = 0.005), significantly lower mean doses were found using Monaco. For the rectal wall, VMAT with Pinnacle provided a significantly (p = 0.047) lower mean dose, and lower dose into 50% of the volume (p = 0.047) compared to Monaco. Despite a greater number of monitor units (factor 1.5) for Monaco TPS, the total treatment time was equivalent to that of Pinnacle. The treatment delivery parameter analysis showed larger mean MLC area for Pinnacle and lower mean dose rate compared to Monaco. The quality control results gave a high passing rate (>97.4%) for the gamma index for both TPS but Monaco provided slightly better results. CONCLUSION: For prostate cancer patients, VMAT treatment plans obtained with Monaco and Pinnacle offered clinically acceptable dose distributions. Further investigations are in progress to confirm the performances of the two TPS for irradiating more complex volumes.
Sciences du Vivant/Cancérologie
Sciences du Vivant/Ingénierie biomédicale
Anglais
1724-191X

Articles dans des revues avec comité de lecture
10.1016/j.ejmp.2012.10.003
Physica Medica
Publisher Elsevier
ISSN 1120-1797 
internationale
30/10/2012
02/2014
30
1
2-9

Radiotherapy – VMAT – Pinnacle – Monaco – Prostate Cancer
27 pages
avec la société Elekta
Liste des fichiers attachés à ce document : 
PDF
Lafond_et_al_PhysicaMedica_FinalVersion.pdf(257 KB)