Thomas Bortfeld and Steve Webb 2009 Phys. Med. Biol. 54 N9 doi:10.1088/0031-9155/54/1/N02
Thomas Bortfeld1 and Steve Webb2
Show affiliationsThe idea of delivering intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with a multileaf collimator in a continuous dynamic mode during a single rotation of the gantry has recently gained momentum both in research and industry. In this note we investigate the potential of this Single-Arc IMRT technique at a conceptual level. We consider the original theoretical example case from Brahme et al that got the field of IMRT started. Using analytical methods, we derive deliverable intensity 'landscapes' for Single-Arc as well as standard IMRT and Tomotherapy. We find that Tomotherapy provides the greatest flexibility in shaping intensity landscapes and that it allows one to deliver IMRT in a way that comes close to the ideal case in the transverse plane. Single-Arc and standard IMRT make compromises in different areas. Only in relatively simple cases that do not require substantial intensity modulation will Single-Arc be dosimetrically comparable to Tomotherapy. Compared with standard IMRT, Single-Arc could be dosimetrically superior in certain cases if one is willing to accept the spreading of low dose values over large volumes of normal tissue. In terms of treatment planning, Single-Arc poses a more challenging optimization problem than Tomotherapy or standard IMRT. We conclude that Single-Arc holds potential as an efficient IMRT technique especially for relatively simple cases. In very complex cases, Single-Arc may unduly compromise the quality of the dose distribution, if one tries to keep the treatment time below 2 min or so. As with all IMRT techniques, it is important to explore the tradeoff between plan quality and the efficiency of its delivery carefully for each individual case.
For more information on this article, see medicalphysicsweb.org
Issue 1 (7 January 2009)
Received 19 August 2008, in final form 16 November 2008
Published 10 December 2008
Thomas Bortfeld and Steve Webb 2009 Phys. Med. Biol. 54 N9
C X Yu 1995 Phys. Med. Biol. 40 1435
W F A R Verbakel et al 2009 Phys. Med. Biol. 54 L31
S Jan et al 2004 Phys. Med. Biol. 49 4543
A V Kessenikh 2007 Phys.-Usp. 50 977
Dean Ho et al 2005 Nanotechnology 16 3120
Dean Ho et al 2004 Nanotechnology 15 1084
D W Townsend 2008 Phys. Med. Biol. 53 R1
Ursula Nestle et al 2009 Phys. Med. Biol. 54 R1
I. Lodato et al 2007 EPL 78 28001