A comparison of a moderately hypofractionated IMRT planning technique used in a randomised UK external beam radiotherapy trial with an in-house technique for localised prostate cancer.

AIM: To compare the radiotherapy technique used in a randomised trial with VMAT and an in-house technique for prostate cancer. BACKGROUND: Techniques are evolving with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) commonly used. The CHHiP trial used a 3 PTV forward planned IMRT technique (FP_CH). Our centre has adopted a simpler two PTV technique with locally calculated margins. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 25 patients treated with FP_CH to 60 Gy in 20 fractions were re-planned with VMAT (VMAT_CH) and a two PTV protocol (VMAT_60/52 and VMAT_60/48). Target coverage, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), monitor units (MU) and dose to the rectum, bladder, hips and penile bulb were compared. RESULTS: PTV coverage was high for all techniques. VMAT_CH plans had better CI than FP_CH (p ≤  0.05). VMAT_60/52/48 plans had better CI than VMAT_CH. FP_CH had better HI and fewer MU than VMAT (p ≤  0.05). More favourable rectum doses were found for VMAT _CH than FP_CH (V48.6, V52.8, V57, p ≤  0.05) with less difference for bladder (p ≥  0.05). Comparing VMAT_CH to VMAT_60/52/48 showed little differences for the bladder and rectum but VMAT_CH had larger penile bulb doses (V40.8, V48.6, mean, D2, p ≤  0.05). Femoral head doses (V40.8) were similarly low for all techniques (p = ≥ 0.05). CONCLUSION: VMAT produced more conformal plans with smaller rectum doses compared to FP_CH albeit worse HI and more MU. VMAT_60/52 and VMAT_60/48 plans had similar rectal and bladder doses to VMAT_CH but better CI and penile bulb doses which may reduce toxicity.

Patient, tumour, and dosimetric factors influencing survival in non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy.

Objectives: We aimed to analyse clinical outcomes of peripheral, early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR), and evaluate potential patient, tumour, and dosimetric variables influencing survival. Methods: Data were collected retrospectively from patients treated between September 2012 and December 2016 and followed up until January 2021. Patient demographics, tumour characteristics, SABR dosimetric parameters, and survival data were collected from electronic patient medical records. Descriptive statistics were performed, and SPSS software was used for survival analysis. Results: Eighty-nine patients were included of whom 49.5% were male and 50.5% female. Median age was 74 years. 98.8% of patients had T1-2 tumours and 89.9% underwent 55 Gy in 5 fractions. Median overall survival time was 58.7 months. On uni- and multi-variate analysis, neither patient nor tumour variables showed association with overall survival. However, planning target volume (PTV) and minimum dose to PTV correlated with overall survival. There was a signal for association between mean lung dose and overall survival on multivariate analysis. Conclusions: Our long-term results show SABR is an effective treatment for peripheral, early-stage NSCLC with excellent overall survival, comparable to other series. Our study found only the PTV and minimum dose to PTV had an impact on overall survival, which demonstrates the importance of generating optimal SABR plans. Advances in knowledge: Our work identified lung SABR dosimetric parameters that correlate with survival, which illustrates the importance of producing optimal lung SABR plans.

Implementation of automated personalised breast radiotherapy planning techniques with scripting in Raystation.

OBJECTIVE: Implement scripted automatic breast planning (AP) for breast techniques within Raystation. METHODS: Manual plans (MPs) were re-planned and compared with AP plans for whole breast (WB), partial breast (PB), hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy simultaneous integrated boost (VMAT SIB) and VMAT nodal plans. RESULTS: WB AP plans took 7 min comparing well to MP. One WB AP failed a mandatory dose constraint. Small statistically significant differences showed improved coverage for AP at expense of slightly hotter plans, however absolute differences were small (mean differences < 1% or D 0.5cc<0.2 Gy). PB AP plans took 9 min, showing improved coverage (V 24.7Gy97.6 vs 96.4 %). One PB AP case failed a mandatory constraint. Other dosimetric differences were non-significant. SIB AP plans took 14 min with one case failing a mandatory constraint with minor differences compared with MP except larger V 42.8Gy (3 vs 1.5 %) and more MU. VMAT AP plans took 12 min and were hotter for PTVp_4000 but had higher nodal coverage. Contra_Lung V 2.5Gy was higher (8.8 %) than MP plans (6.5 %). CONCLUSION: Automatic planning of modern breast techniques has been successfully introduced using a commercial planning system. AP plans are very similar to MP, requiring little manual interaction for most cases with significant timesaving potential. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Scripted breast plans produced within minutes for WB, PB, SIB and VMAT. Successfully introduced into large busy department. Plans similar to manual plans, requiring little manual interaction.

Comparing the robustness of different skin flash approaches using wide tangents, manual flash VMAT, and simulated organ motion robust optimization VMAT in breast and nodal radiotherapy.

Compare the robustness of wide tangents (WT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using different skin flash approaches in breast and nodal radiotherapy. Ten patients treated with WT using 2-cm flash were replanned with VMAT using no flash (NF), manual 2-cm flash (MF), and robust optimization (RO). Plan robustness was assessed for target coverage and organs at risk (OAR) by recalculating on 5 deformed CT scans (SOM1-5), daily cone beam (CBCT), and by shifting the isocenter 5 mm. VMAT NF gave poor coverage of CTVp with its smallest change of -3.2% for V38Gy on CBCT. VMAT RO plans showed the least variations in target coverage loss compared to WT and VMAT MF which dropped as anatomical swelling increased. CTVp D0.5cc decreased on CBCT and increased most for VMAT MF plans (case max increase +3.3 Gy), whereas VMAT RO plans were relatively stable (case max increase +1.2 Gy). OAR dose changed little with anatomical changes (isocenter shifts more important with medial, posterior, and inferior increasing dose). Nodal coverage was superior for VMAT which led to the WT being less robust for coverage toward both geometric and anatomical uncertainties. All techniques except NF plans gave high levels of coverage under minor uncertainties. VMAT RO was highly robust for target coverage for anatomical changes. Manually editing control points on VMAT plans was time-consuming and less predictable. CBCT anatomical changes were modest resulting in small delivered dose changes. OAR dose changes were small with no significant differences between techniques.

Functional brain imaging interventions for radiation therapy planning in patients with glioblastoma: a systematic review.

RATIONALE: This systematic review aims to synthesise the outcomes of different strategies of incorporating functional biological markers in the radiation therapy plans of patients with glioblastoma to support clinicians and further research. METHODS: The systematic review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021221021). A structured search for publications was performed following PRISMA guidelines. Quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Study characteristics, intervention methodology and outcomes were extracted using Covidence. Data analysis focused on radiation therapy target volumes, toxicity, dose distributions, recurrence and survival mapped to functional image-guided radiotherapy interventions. RESULTS: There were 5733 citations screened, with 53 citations (n = 32 studies) meeting review criteria. Studies compared standard radiation therapy planning volumes with functional image-derived volumes (n = 20 studies), treated radiation therapy volumes with recurrences (n = 15 studies), the impact on current standard target delineations (n = 9 studies), treated functional volumes and survival (n = 8 studies), functionally guided dose escalation (n = 8 studies), radiomics (n = 4 studies) and optimal organ at risk sparing (n = 3 studies). The approaches to target outlining and dose escalation were heterogeneous. The analysis indicated an improvement in median overall survival of over two months compared with a historical control group. Simultaneous-integrated-boost dose escalation of 72-76 Gy in 30 fractions appeared to have an acceptable toxicity profile when delivered with inverse planning to a volume smaller than 100 cm[Formula: see text]. CONCLUSION: There was significant heterogeneity between the approaches taken by different study groups when implementing functional image-guided radiotherapy. It is recommended that functional imaging data be incorporated into the gross tumour volume with appropriate technology-specific margins used to create the clinical target volume when designing radiation therapy plans for patients with glioblastoma.

Dosimetric comparison of helical tomotherapy and VMAT for anal cancer: A single institutional experience.

To compare the dosimetric results of helical tomotherapy (HT) and volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) in the treatment of anal cancer. Plans were created for 20 (n = 20) patients treated for anal cancer using HT and 2 arc VMAT. Dosimetric comparison was assessed for doses to targets and organs at risk (small bowel, bladder, external genitalia, and femoral heads). Delivery time and dosimetric verification results were also compared. HT showed a higher V95% for both primary and nodal targets (V95% increase by 0.5% to 1.3%; p = ≤0.05). No differences were seen in V105%, V107%, or V110 % between techniques. HT provided better sparing of the small bowel for dose levels V30, V35, and V40 (p = 0.005, 0.001, and 0.030), but was similar at higher doses. Similarly HT provided better bladder dose at V35 only (p = 0.020). Doses to femoral heads and genitalia were similar. Delivery time was higher for the HT plans (4.58 ± 1.1 min) than VMAT (3.13 ± 0.2 minutes) (p = 0.011). Dose verification results were 99.5 ± 0.9% and 100 ± 0% (HT, n = 6) vs 95.0 ± 3.1% and 99.2 ± 0.8% (VMAT, n = 20) for global gamma criteria 3%/3 mm and 4%/4 mm, respectively. Both HT and VMAT produced high quality plans that frequently met most of the dose objectives apart from genitalia V20, V40, bladder V35, and V50. Although absolute dose differences were small, the PTV V95%, small bowel V30, V35, and V40 and bladder V35 were statistically better in the HT plans. VMAT provided a shorter delivery time by 1.45 minutes; however, our HT plans were more likely to pass tighter plan dose verification criteria than VMAT.