@article{KraftWeickBreueretal.2022,
  author    = {Kraft, Johannes and Weick, Stefan and Breuer, Kathrin and Lutyj, Paul and Bratengeier, Klaus and Exner, Florian and Richter, Anne and Tamihardja, J{\"o}rg and Lisowski, Dominik and Polat, B{\"u}lent and Flentje, Michael},
  title     = {Treatment plan comparison for irradiation of multiple brain metastases with hippocampal avoidance whole brain radiotherapy and simultaneous integrated boost using the Varian Halcyon and the Elekta Synergy platforms},
  series = {Radiation Oncology},
  volume    = {17},
  journal   = {Radiation Oncology},
  doi       = {10.1186/s13014-022-02156-6},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-301221},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {No abstract available.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{RichterWegenerBreueretal.2021,
  author    = {Richter, Anne and Wegener, Sonja and Breuer, Kathrin and Razinskas, Gary and Weick, Stefan and Exner, Florian and Bratengeier, Klaus and Flentje, Michael and Sauer, Otto and Polat, B{\"u}lent},
  title     = {Comparison of sliding window and field-in-field techniques for tangential whole breast irradiation using the Halcyon and Synergy Agility systems},
  series = {Radiation Oncology},
  volume    = {16},
  journal   = {Radiation Oncology},
  doi       = {10.1186/s13014-021-01942-y},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-265704},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Background To implement a tangential treatment technique for whole breast irradiation using the Varian Halcyon and to compare it with Elekta Synergy Agility plans. Methods For 20 patients two comparable treatment plans with respect to dose coverage and normal tissue sparing were generated. Tangential field-in-field treatment plans (Pinnacle/Synergy) were replanned using the sliding window technique (Eclipse/Halcyon). Plan specific QA was performed using the portal Dosimetry and the ArcCHECK phantom. Imaging and treatment dose were evaluated for treatment delivery on both systems using a modified CIRS Phantom. Results The mean number of monitor units for a fraction dose of 2.67 Gy was 515 MUs and 260 MUs for Halcyon and Synergy Agility plans, respectively. The homogeneity index and dose coverage were similar for both treatment units. The plan specific QA showed good agreement between measured and calculated plans. All Halcyon plans passed portal dosimetry QA (3\%/2 mm) with 100\% points passing and ArcCheck QA (3\%/2 mm) with 99.5\%. Measurement of the cumulated treatment and imaging dose with the CIRS phantom resulted in lower dose to the contralateral breast for the Halcyon plans. Conclusions For the Varian Halcyon a plan quality similar to the Elekta Synergy device was achieved. For the Halcyon plans the dose contribution from the treatment fields to the contralateral breast was even lower due to less interleaf transmission of the Halcyon MLC and a lower contribution of scattered dose from the collimator system.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{RichterExnerBratengeieretal.2019,
  author    = {Richter, Anne and Exner, Florian and Bratengeier, Klaus and Polat, B{\"u}lent and Flentje, Michael and Weick, Stefan},
  title     = {Impact of beam configuration on VMAT plan quality for Pinnacle\(^3\)Auto-Planning for head and neck cases},
  series = {Radiation Oncology},
  volume    = {14},
  journal   = {Radiation Oncology},
  doi       = {10.1186/s13014-019-1211-6},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-200301},
  pages     = {12},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Background The purpose of this study was to compare automatically generated VMAT plans to find the superior beam configurations for Pinnacle3 Auto-Planning and share "best practices". Methods VMAT plans for 20 patients with head and neck cancer were generated using Pinnacle3 Auto-Planning Module (Pinnacle3 Version 9.10) with different beam setup parameters. VMAT plans for single (V1) or double arc (V2) and partial or full gantry rotation were optimized. Beam configurations with different collimator positions were defined. Target coverage and sparing of organs at risk were evaluated based on scoring of an evaluation parameter set. Furthermore, dosimetric evaluation was performed based on the composite objective value (COV) and a new cross comparison method was applied using the COVs. Results The evaluation showed a superior plan quality for double arcs compared to one single arc or two single arcs for all cases. Plan quality was superior if a full gantry rotation was allowed during optimization for unilateral target volumes. A double arc technique with collimator setting of 15° was superior to a double arc with collimator 60° and a two single arcs with collimator setting of 15° and 345°. Conclusion The evaluation showed that double and full arcs are superior to single and partial arcs in terms of organs at risk sparing even for unilateral target volumes. The collimator position was found as an additional setup parameter, which can further improve the target coverage and sparing of organs at risk.},
  language  = {en}
}