Li Taoran, Scheuermann Ryan, Lin Alexander, Teo Boon-Keng Kevin, Zou Wei, Swisher-McClure Samuel, Alonso-Basanta Michelle, Lukens John N, Fotouhi Ghiam Alireza, Kennedy Chris, Kim Michele M, Mihailidis Dimitris, Metz James M, Dong Lei
Department of Radiation Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
Cureus. 2018 Nov 28;10(11):e3648. doi: 10.7759/cureus.3648.
Purpose A new dual-layer multi-leaf collimator (MLC) system with several improved characteristics was introduced with the Varian Halcyon™ treatment platform. This study evaluated this new MLC's impact on head and neck plan quality and delivery efficiency. Methods Nine patients were retrospectively studied with Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. To compare plan quality between the Halcyon dual-layer MLC and Truebeam® MLC, all patients were replanned with the same prescription and target coverage following the institutional clinical protocol for both platforms and using both intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or volumetrically modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques. Organs-at-risk (OAR) dose-volume histogram (DVH) statistics were compared along with total plan monitor units (MU). To evaluate delivery efficiency, actual beam-on time for five patients' plans were recorded and compared. To evaluate the impact of MLC performance parameters on plan quality, virtual MLC models were generated by matching Truebeam MLC's parameters to those of the Halcyon dual-layer MLC both individually and combined. OAR doses were then compared between these virtual MLCs, the Truebeam MLC, and the actual Halcyon MLC. Results Overall the Halcyon dual-layer MLC provided similar plan quality compared to Truebeam MLC for VMAT plans, and improved sparing for majority of the OARs when using IMRT. Paired comparison showed median dose differences in mean doses to the parotids, cochlea, esophagus, and larynx ranged from -0.83 Gy to 0.37 Gy for VMAT, and from -4.79 Gy to -0.04 Gy for IMRT, with negative values indicating improved performance by Halcyon. Despite a slight increase in plan MU, the Halcyon reduced the total beam-on time by 42.8 ± 8.5%. Virtual MLC simulations demonstrated that matching MLC transmission accounted for nearly half of the total dose difference between Halcyon and Truebeam IMRT plans. Conclusion When compared to the Truebeam, the Halcyon's dual-layer MLC achieved similar plan quality using VMAT, and improved OAR sparing using IMRT, while providing nearly twice as fast treatment delivery. Reduction in MLC transmission is the dominating factor contributing to dosimetric differences in OAR sparing.
目的 随着Varian Halcyon™治疗平台推出了一种具有多项改进特性的新型双层多叶准直器(MLC)系统。本研究评估了这种新型MLC对头颈计划质量和照射效率的影响。方法 在获得机构审查委员会(IRB)批准后,对9例患者进行回顾性研究。为了比较Halcyon双层MLC和Truebeam® MLC之间的计划质量,按照两个平台的机构临床方案,并使用调强放射治疗(IMRT)或容积调强弧形治疗(VMAT)技术,对所有患者采用相同的处方和靶区覆盖范围重新制定计划。比较危及器官(OAR)的剂量体积直方图(DVH)统计数据以及总计划监测单位(MU)。为了评估照射效率,记录并比较了5例患者计划的实际束流开启时间。为了评估MLC性能参数对计划质量的影响,通过将Truebeam MLC的参数分别或组合匹配到Halcyon双层MLC的参数来生成虚拟MLC模型。然后比较这些虚拟MLC、Truebeam MLC和实际Halcyon MLC之间的OAR剂量。结果 总体而言,对于VMAT计划,Halcyon双层MLC与Truebeam MLC相比提供了相似的计划质量,并且在使用IMRT时,对大多数OAR的保护有所改善。配对比较显示,VMAT时,腮腺、耳蜗、食管和喉的平均剂量的中位剂量差异范围为-0.83 Gy至0.37 Gy,IMRT时为-4.79 Gy至-0.04 Gy,负值表明Halcyon的性能有所改善。尽管计划MU略有增加,但Halcyon将总束流开启时间减少了42.8±8.5%。虚拟MLC模拟表明,匹配MLC透射率占Halcyon和Truebeam IMRT计划之间总剂量差异的近一半。结论 与Truebeam相比,Halcyon的双层MLC在使用VMAT时实现了相似的计划质量,在使用IMRT时改善了对OAR的保护,同时治疗照射速度快了近一倍。MLC透射率的降低是导致OAR保护剂量差异的主要因素。