Dear Authors,
If you believe that your paper was mistakenly rejected by other leading journals and you do not agree with final decision, the editors of Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy offer new fast track review. You may submit your manuscript to Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy together with all prior peer-reviews obtained from the other journal and your rebuttal letter. We guarantee review based decision within 72 hours from the time we will receive your manuscript.

Fast track submission process: Please submit the manuscript with all reviews and rebuttal letter by email to Dr. Michal Masternak (michal.masternak@ucf.edu) for fast review processing. To assure immediate attention the email title must to include: RPOR-fast track- Last Name First Name (of corresponding author).

Volume 24, Number 2, 2019

Performance of the eclipse monitor unit objective tool utilizing volumetric modulated arc therapy for rectal cancer

Alejandro Prado, Ángel Gaitán, Mario Leonor, Marta Manzano, Gustavo Pozo

Summary:

Aim To assess the performance of the monitor unit (MU) Objective tool in Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) utilizing volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for rectal cancer. Background Eclipse VMAT planning module includes a tool to control the number of MUs delivered: the MU Objective tool. This tool could be utilized to reduce the total number of MUs in rectal cancer treatments. Materials and methods 20 rectal cancer patients were retrospectively studied using VMAT and the MU Objective tool. The baseline plan for each patient was selected as the one with no usage of the MU Objective tool. The number of MUs of this plan was set to be the reference number of MUs (MUref). Five plans were re-optimized for each patient only varying the Max MU parameter. The selected values were 30%, 60%, 90%, 120% and 150% of MUref for each patient. Differences with respect to the baseline plan were evaluated regarding MU number and parameters for PTVs coverage evaluation, PTVs homogeneity and OARs doses assessment. A two-tailed, paired-samples t-test was used to quantify these differences. Results Average relative differences in MU number obtained was 10% for Max MU values of 30% and 60% of MUref, respectively (p < 0.03). PTVs coverage and homogeneity were not compromised and discrepancies obtained with respect to baseline plans were not significant. Furthermore, maximum OARs doses deviations were also not significant. Conclusions A 10% reduction in the MU number could be obtained without an alteration of PTV coverage and OARs doses for rectal cancer.

Signature: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother, 2019; 24(2) : 227-232


« back

 
INDEXED IN:

Indexed in: EMBASE®, the Excerpta Medica database, the Elsevier BIOBASE (Current Awareness in Biological Sciences) and in the Index Copernicus.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/15071367/19/2