4:43 (total) IMRT treatment field delivery time (two isocenter plan)
Name (ID): Saudi_PC2016, FEB-2016 (AhmadPC LT BREAST)
Plan or PlanSum ID: SX1_2IsoID
Structure ID | Structure Code | Patient Structure | DVH Objective | Evaluator | Variation | Priority | Met | Achieved |
PTV_TOT_EVAL | PTV_TOT_EVAL | D99.0%[Gy] | >=47.5 | 45 | Goal | 48.858 Gy | ||
PTV_TOT_EVAL | PTV_TOT_EVAL | D95.0%[Gy] | >=50 | 45 | Goal | 50.066 Gy | ||
PTV_TOT_EVAL | PTV_TOT_EVAL | D50.0%[Gy] | <=52 | 54 | Goal | 51.312 Gy | ||
PTV_TOT_EVAL | PTV_TOT_EVAL | D0.03cc[Gy] | <=55 | 57 | Variation | 55.138 Gy | ||
HEART | HEART | Mean[Gy] | <=4 | 5 | Goal | 3.932 Gy | ||
HEART | HEART | V15.0Gy[%] | <=15 | 20 | Goal | 3.17 % | ||
HEART | HEART | D5.0%[Gy] | <=20 | 25 | Goal | 10.145 Gy | ||
BREAST_RIGHT | BREAST_RIGHT | D0.03cc[Gy] | <=2 | 3 | Not met | 13.702 Gy | ||
BREAST_RIGHT | BREAST_RIGHT | D5.0%[Gy] | <=2 | 3 | Goal | 2.000 Gy | ||
SPINAL CORD | SPINAL CORD | D0.03cc[Gy] | <=8 | 20 | Goal | 7.867 Gy | ||
LUNG_RIGHT | LUNG_RIGHT | V5.0Gy[%] | <=3 | 6 | Goal | 2.32 % | ||
LUNG_LEFT | LUNG_LEFT | Mean[Gy] | <=9 | 15 | Goal | 8.900 Gy | ||
LUNG_LEFT | LUNG_LEFT | V20.0Gy[%] | <=15 | 20 | Goal | 12.80 % | ||
LUNG_LEFT | LUNG_LEFT | V10.0Gy[%] | <=30 | 40 | Goal | 24.56 % | ||
LUNG_LEFT | LUNG_LEFT | V5.0Gy[%] | <=50 | 70 | Variation | 50.78 % |
This international plan competition, held by a group in Saudi Arabia, used a large intact breast and involved lymph node case. The target (including the superior nodes) proved too large (head to foot) to fit inside a single isocenter beam arrangement on this linear accelerator. Two isocenters were placed with a single 10cm head to foot shift to accommodate the large target. Ten (10) non equally spaced beams were placed on each isocenter with beams arranged closely on the further medial and lateral sides and further apart in the center of the breast. All twenty (20) beams were optimized together in a single plan and the plans were then broken into two separate single isocenter plans for treatment delivery as required by the inital delivery system software release. Dose constraints for the scoring metric on this case were built from a superset of those constraints found in RTOG-1304. The biggest challenges in this case were:
Retrospectivly, this plan scored higher than 95% of the plans originally submitted into the competition. The critical components contributing the plan performance were:
3rd party software plan report |
Dosimetric ScoreCard |
DICOM patient export |
Any reference to a "plan study" are simply what the organizers call each case and may not be a "study" in the FDA sense as they may not have been published in a peer reviewed journal.
Varian does not provide medical advice and these are illustrative examples only.
Leading plans by expert planner. Your results may vary.
FOR EDUCATIONAL AND SCIENTIFIC EXCHANGE ONLY – NOT FOR SALES OR PROMOTIONAL USE.