Skip navigation
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://mnclhd.intersearch.com.au/mnclhdjspui/handle/123456789/576
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorHoffmann, Matthew-
dc.contributor.authorPacey, J.-
dc.contributor.authorGoodworth, J.-
dc.contributor.authorLaszcyzk, A.-
dc.contributor.authorFord, R.-
dc.contributor.authorChick, Brendan-
dc.contributor.authorGreenham, Stuart-
dc.contributor.authorWesthuyzen, Justin-
dc.date.accessioned2025-03-18T22:23:26Z-
dc.date.available2025-03-18T22:23:26Z-
dc.date.issued2018-11-
dc.identifier.citationReports of practical oncology and radiotherapy. 2018 Nov;24(1):92-96. DOI: 10.1016/j.rpor.2018.10.009en
dc.identifier.issn1507-1367-
dc.identifier.urihttps://mnclhd.intersearch.com.au/mnclhdjspui/handle/123456789/576-
dc.description.abstractAIM To assess a class solution template for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for prostate cancer using plan analysis software. BACKGROUND VMAT is a development of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with potential advantages for the delivery of radiotherapy (RT) in prostate cancer. Class solutions are increasingly used for facilitating RT planning. Plan analysis software provides an objective tool for evaluating class solutions. MATERIALS AND METHODS The class solution for VMAT was based on the current static field IMRT template. The plans of 77 prostate cancer patients were evaluated using a set of in-house plan quality metrics (scores) (PlanIQ™, Sun Nuclear Corporation). The metrics compared the class solution for VMAT planning with the IMRT template and the delivered clinical plan (CP). Eight metrics were associated with target coverage and ten with organs-at-risk (OAR). Individual metrics were summed and the combined scores were subjected to non-parametric analysis. The low-dose wash for both static IMRT and VMAT plans were evaluated using 40 Gy and 25 Gy isodose volumes. RESULTS VMAT plans were of equal or better quality than the IMRT template and CP for target coverage (combined score) and OAR combined score. The 40 Gy isodose volume was marginally higher with VMAT than IMRT (4.9%) but lower than CP (-6.6%)(P = 0.0074). The 25 Gy volume was significantly lower with VMAT than both IMRT (-32.7%) and CP (-34.4%)(P < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS Automated VMAT planning for prostate cancer is feasible and the plans are equal to or better than the current IMRT class solution and the delivered clinical plan.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subjectProstatic Neoplasmsen
dc.subjectRadiotherapy, Intensity-Modulateden
dc.subjectMaleen
dc.subjectProstateen
dc.subjectRadiotherapy planningen
dc.subjectSoftwareen
dc.titleAnalysis of a volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) single phase prostate template as a class solution.en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.mnclhdauthorHoffmann, Matthew-
dc.contributor.mnclhdauthorPacey, J.-
dc.contributor.mnclhdauthorGoodworth, J.-
dc.contributor.mnclhdauthorChick, Brendan-
dc.contributor.mnclhdauthorGreenham, Stuart-
dc.contributor.mnclhdauthorWesthuyzen, Justin-
dc.description.pubmedurihttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30505239en
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.rpor.2018.10.009en
Appears in Collections:Oncology / Cancer
Urology

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Who's citing