SU‐FF‐T‐258: IMRT Planning Comparisons Between Elekta Synergy‐S and Elekta Synergy

F. Q. Guo, K. ho, C. wu, C. Yang, T. Liu, Robin L Stern, J. Purdy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To compare IMRT planning between Elekta Synergy (ES) and Elekta Synergy‐S (ES‐S), which has a new “beam modulator” MLC design. Method and Materials: ES‐S is equipped with a “Beam Modulator” MLC (4 mm leaf width at isocenter), which provides a maximum field size of 21cm×16cm. IMRT plans for two patients (prostate cancer and parotid cancer disease sites) were generated for both ES and ES‐S. Planning CTs were obtained using Philips AcQSim and CT data were transferred into Pinnacle3 TPS 8.0. IMRT plans for each patient were calculated with two machine models, ES‐S and ES, with minimum segment areas of 1.6×1.6 cm2 and 2×2 cm2 respectively. All other calculation configurations are the same. Dose volume histograms (DVH) were generated and exported into Excel for comparison. Results: For prostate site, PTV DVH for ES‐S demonstrates more conformality than that for ES, possibly because ES‐S has smaller segment area. However, in the low dose region, bladder and rectum DVHs show higher doses from ES‐S versus ES. This may be due to more scatter and leakage doses from MLC of ES‐S. Same trend is observed for the parotid patient. While PTV DVH for ES‐S is slightly more conformal than that for ES, doses for cord expansion, left parotid, and brain stem expansion for ES‐S are slightly higher in low dose region compared to corresponding DVHs for ES. Conclusions: Preliminary results indicate IMRT plans with ES‐S provide slightly better conformality for target volume but slightly higher doses for critical structures in low dose region. For these two sites, there does not appear to be clinically significant differences for IMRT plans between Elekta Synergy‐S and Elekta Synergy. More case example studies are planned and findings will be discussed in depth including practical considerations such as transfer of treatment plans between the two types of machines.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Number of pages1
JournalMedical Physics
Volume34
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2007

Fingerprint

Parotid Neoplasms
Parotid Diseases
Rectum
Brain Stem
Prostate
Prostatic Neoplasms
Urinary Bladder
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

SU‐FF‐T‐258 : IMRT Planning Comparisons Between Elekta Synergy‐S and Elekta Synergy. / Guo, F. Q.; ho, K.; wu, C.; Yang, C.; Liu, T.; Stern, Robin L; Purdy, J.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 34, No. 6, 2007.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Guo, F. Q. ; ho, K. ; wu, C. ; Yang, C. ; Liu, T. ; Stern, Robin L ; Purdy, J. / SU‐FF‐T‐258 : IMRT Planning Comparisons Between Elekta Synergy‐S and Elekta Synergy. In: Medical Physics. 2007 ; Vol. 34, No. 6.
@article{bbb812e32a7c4df5b3889eda0b31b459,
title = "SU‐FF‐T‐258: IMRT Planning Comparisons Between Elekta Synergy‐S and Elekta Synergy",
abstract = "Purpose: To compare IMRT planning between Elekta Synergy (ES) and Elekta Synergy‐S (ES‐S), which has a new “beam modulator” MLC design. Method and Materials: ES‐S is equipped with a “Beam Modulator” MLC (4 mm leaf width at isocenter), which provides a maximum field size of 21cm×16cm. IMRT plans for two patients (prostate cancer and parotid cancer disease sites) were generated for both ES and ES‐S. Planning CTs were obtained using Philips AcQSim and CT data were transferred into Pinnacle3 TPS 8.0. IMRT plans for each patient were calculated with two machine models, ES‐S and ES, with minimum segment areas of 1.6×1.6 cm2 and 2×2 cm2 respectively. All other calculation configurations are the same. Dose volume histograms (DVH) were generated and exported into Excel for comparison. Results: For prostate site, PTV DVH for ES‐S demonstrates more conformality than that for ES, possibly because ES‐S has smaller segment area. However, in the low dose region, bladder and rectum DVHs show higher doses from ES‐S versus ES. This may be due to more scatter and leakage doses from MLC of ES‐S. Same trend is observed for the parotid patient. While PTV DVH for ES‐S is slightly more conformal than that for ES, doses for cord expansion, left parotid, and brain stem expansion for ES‐S are slightly higher in low dose region compared to corresponding DVHs for ES. Conclusions: Preliminary results indicate IMRT plans with ES‐S provide slightly better conformality for target volume but slightly higher doses for critical structures in low dose region. For these two sites, there does not appear to be clinically significant differences for IMRT plans between Elekta Synergy‐S and Elekta Synergy. More case example studies are planned and findings will be discussed in depth including practical considerations such as transfer of treatment plans between the two types of machines.",
author = "Guo, {F. Q.} and K. ho and C. wu and C. Yang and T. Liu and Stern, {Robin L} and J. Purdy",
year = "2007",
doi = "10.1118/1.2760919",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "34",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐FF‐T‐258

T2 - IMRT Planning Comparisons Between Elekta Synergy‐S and Elekta Synergy

AU - Guo, F. Q.

AU - ho, K.

AU - wu, C.

AU - Yang, C.

AU - Liu, T.

AU - Stern, Robin L

AU - Purdy, J.

PY - 2007

Y1 - 2007

N2 - Purpose: To compare IMRT planning between Elekta Synergy (ES) and Elekta Synergy‐S (ES‐S), which has a new “beam modulator” MLC design. Method and Materials: ES‐S is equipped with a “Beam Modulator” MLC (4 mm leaf width at isocenter), which provides a maximum field size of 21cm×16cm. IMRT plans for two patients (prostate cancer and parotid cancer disease sites) were generated for both ES and ES‐S. Planning CTs were obtained using Philips AcQSim and CT data were transferred into Pinnacle3 TPS 8.0. IMRT plans for each patient were calculated with two machine models, ES‐S and ES, with minimum segment areas of 1.6×1.6 cm2 and 2×2 cm2 respectively. All other calculation configurations are the same. Dose volume histograms (DVH) were generated and exported into Excel for comparison. Results: For prostate site, PTV DVH for ES‐S demonstrates more conformality than that for ES, possibly because ES‐S has smaller segment area. However, in the low dose region, bladder and rectum DVHs show higher doses from ES‐S versus ES. This may be due to more scatter and leakage doses from MLC of ES‐S. Same trend is observed for the parotid patient. While PTV DVH for ES‐S is slightly more conformal than that for ES, doses for cord expansion, left parotid, and brain stem expansion for ES‐S are slightly higher in low dose region compared to corresponding DVHs for ES. Conclusions: Preliminary results indicate IMRT plans with ES‐S provide slightly better conformality for target volume but slightly higher doses for critical structures in low dose region. For these two sites, there does not appear to be clinically significant differences for IMRT plans between Elekta Synergy‐S and Elekta Synergy. More case example studies are planned and findings will be discussed in depth including practical considerations such as transfer of treatment plans between the two types of machines.

AB - Purpose: To compare IMRT planning between Elekta Synergy (ES) and Elekta Synergy‐S (ES‐S), which has a new “beam modulator” MLC design. Method and Materials: ES‐S is equipped with a “Beam Modulator” MLC (4 mm leaf width at isocenter), which provides a maximum field size of 21cm×16cm. IMRT plans for two patients (prostate cancer and parotid cancer disease sites) were generated for both ES and ES‐S. Planning CTs were obtained using Philips AcQSim and CT data were transferred into Pinnacle3 TPS 8.0. IMRT plans for each patient were calculated with two machine models, ES‐S and ES, with minimum segment areas of 1.6×1.6 cm2 and 2×2 cm2 respectively. All other calculation configurations are the same. Dose volume histograms (DVH) were generated and exported into Excel for comparison. Results: For prostate site, PTV DVH for ES‐S demonstrates more conformality than that for ES, possibly because ES‐S has smaller segment area. However, in the low dose region, bladder and rectum DVHs show higher doses from ES‐S versus ES. This may be due to more scatter and leakage doses from MLC of ES‐S. Same trend is observed for the parotid patient. While PTV DVH for ES‐S is slightly more conformal than that for ES, doses for cord expansion, left parotid, and brain stem expansion for ES‐S are slightly higher in low dose region compared to corresponding DVHs for ES. Conclusions: Preliminary results indicate IMRT plans with ES‐S provide slightly better conformality for target volume but slightly higher doses for critical structures in low dose region. For these two sites, there does not appear to be clinically significant differences for IMRT plans between Elekta Synergy‐S and Elekta Synergy. More case example studies are planned and findings will be discussed in depth including practical considerations such as transfer of treatment plans between the two types of machines.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024782586&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024782586&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.2760919

DO - 10.1118/1.2760919

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85024782586

VL - 34

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -