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

Abstract

AbstractTo 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.