< 3 min VMAT treatment arc delivery time (estimated)
Name (ID): AAMD2015, HCSWB_SIB (AAMD2015)
Plan or PlanSum ID: HCSWB_SIB4a
Structure ID | Structure Code | Patient Structure | DVH Objective | Evaluator | Variation | Priority | Met | Achieved |
GTV_TOTAL_MET | GTV_Total_Met | D99.0%[Gy] | >=50 | 48 | Goal | 51.765 Gy | ||
PTV_TOTAL_MET | PTV_Total_Met | D98.0%[Gy] | >=49 | 46 | Goal | 51.310 Gy | ||
PTV_TOTAL_MET | PTV_Total_Met | D2.0%[Gy] | <=55 | 57 | Variation | 55.160 Gy | ||
PTV_TOTAL_MET | PTV_Total_Met | V51.0Gy[%] | >=95 | 90 | Goal | 99.21 % | ||
PTV_WB | PTV_WB | D98.0%[Gy] | >=27 | 25 | Goal | 27.993 Gy | ||
PTV_WB | PTV_WB | D2.0%[Gy] | <=37.5 | 40 | Variation | 38.784 Gy | ||
PTV_WB | PTV_WB | V30.0Gy[%] | >=93 | 90 | Goal | 94.45 % | ||
HIPPOCAMPUS_TOTL | Hippocampus_Totl | D0.03cc[Gy] | <=16 | 30 | Goal | 15.879 Gy | ||
HIPPOCAMPUS_TOTL | Hippocampus_Totl | Mean[Gy] | <=12 | 20 | Goal | 11.634 Gy | ||
HIPPOCAMPUS_TOTL | Hippocampus_Totl | Min[Gy] | <=9 | 15 | Goal | 8.757 Gy | ||
CHIASM | Chiasm | D0.03cc[Gy] | <=31 | 37.5 | Goal | 30.650 Gy | ||
BRAINSTEM | Brainstem | D0.03cc[Gy] | <=33 | 37.5 | Goal | 32.649 Gy | ||
CORD | Cord | D0.03cc[Gy] | <=25 | 37.5 | Goal | 24.292 Gy | ||
LEYE | Leye | Mean[Gy] | <=6 | 15 | Variation | 6.695 Gy | ||
REYE | Reye | Mean[Gy] | <=6 | 15 | Variation | 6.801 Gy | ||
LLACRIMAL | LLacrimal | Mean[Gy] | <=10 | 20 | Goal | 9.853 Gy | ||
RLACRIMAL | RLacrimal | Mean[Gy] | <=10 | 20 | Goal | 8.869 Gy | ||
LLENS | LLens | D0.03cc[Gy] | <=4 | 10 | Goal | 3.713 Gy | ||
RLENS | RLens | D0.03cc[Gy] | <=4 | 10 | Goal | 3.781 Gy | ||
LOPTIC | Loptic | D0.03cc[Gy] | <=30 | 37.5 | Goal | 29.545 Gy | ||
ROPTIC | Roptic | D0.03cc[Gy] | <=30 | 37.5 | Goal | 29.587 Gy |
Four (4) arc VMAT technique was chosen and 4 almost complete arcs were used. Each arc used a different start and stop angle (offset by 1 degree) to stagger the available control points throughout each arc rotation and unique collimator rotations per field were automatically generated utilizing the arc geometry tool.
The plan challenge plan quality metric grading criteria was designed expecting the use a non-coplanar arc arrangement with a vertex arc, but this beam arrangement proved not to be critical as the resulting coplanar plan created here scored higher than 80% of the cases submitted in this year’s challenge The resulting plan suffers a bit in the homogeneity criteria mainly as a result of a less sharp dose gradient around the metastases, likely due to being limited to a coplanar arc arrangement.
3rd party software plan report |
|
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.