Plan quality and treatment efficiency assurance of two VMAT optimization for cervical cancer radiotherapy.

UNLABELLED: To investigate the difference of the fluence map optimization (FMO) and Stochastic platform optimization (SPO) algorithm in a newly-introduced treatment planning system (TPS).

METHODS

34 cervical cancer patients with definitive radiation were retrospectively analyzed. Each patient has four plans: FMO with fixed jaw plans (FMO-FJ) and no fixed jaw plans (FMO-NFJ); SPO with fixed jaw plans (SPO-FJ) and no fixed jaw plans (SPO-NFJ). Dosimetric parameters, Modulation Complexity Score (MCS), Gamma Pass Rate (GPR) and delivery time were analyzed among the four plans.

RESULTS

For target coverage, SPO-FJ plans are the best ones (P ≤ 0.00). FMO plans are better than SPO-NFJ plans (P ≤ 0.00). For OARs sparing, SPO-FJ plans are better than FMO plans for mostly OARs (P ≤ 0.04). Additionally, SPO-FJ plans are better than SPO-NFJ plans (P ≤ 0.02), except for rectum V45Gy. Compared to SPO-NFJ plans, the FMO plans delivered less dose to bladder, rectum, colon V40Gy and pelvic bone V40Gy (P ≤ 0.04). Meanwhile, the SPO-NFJ plans showed superiority in MU, delivery time, MCS and GPR in all plans. In terms of delivery time and MCS, the SPO-FJ plans are better than FMO plans. FMO-FJ plans are better than FMO-NFJ plans in delivery efficiency. MCSs are strongly correlated with PCTV length, which are negatively with PCTV length (P ≤ 0.03). The delivery time and MUs of the four plans are strongly correlated (P ≤ 0.02). Comparing plans with fixed or no fixed jaw in two algorithms, no difference was found in FMO plans in target coverage and minor difference in Kidney_L Dmean, Mu and delivery time between PCTV width≤15.5 cm group and >15.5 cm group. For SPO plans, SPO-FJ plans showed more superiority in target coverage and OARs sparing than the SPO-NFJ plans in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

SPO-FJ plans showed superiority in target coverage and OARs sparing, as well as higher delivery efficiency in the four plans.