IMRT/VMAT dose distributions generated for HD ® and Millennium ® collimators TrueBeam ® and Clinac ® accelerators.

AIM: The aim of this study is to answer the question whether the calculated dose distributions for HD and Millennium collimators (Varian Medical Systems) are equivalent for large treatment volumes. BACKGROUND: Modern biomedical linacs are equipped with multileaf collimators where leaves can be of different widths. Thinner leaves allow better fit to desired (tumor) shape. At the same time, however, the maximum size of the field that can be obtained with the collimator is also reduced. Varian Medical Systems HD and Millennium collimators can be a good sample. They have 40 cm or 22 cm × 40 cm maximal field size at the isocenter, respectively. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This paper presents the comparison of selected statistical and dosimetric parameters achieved for treatment plans where the beams for a HD collimator had to be merged because of the size of the tumor volume. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Achieved results show that, independently from irradiated volume, there is no statistically significant difference for calculated dose distributions, integral doses, MU values and coefficients evaluating dose distributions for HD and Millennium collimators. CONCLUSIONS: Results show that both types of collimators can be used interchangeably for preparing the treatment plans for large tumor volume without quality reduction of the prepared treatment plan.

Radiosurgery or hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy after craniospinal irradiation in children and adults with medulloblastoma and ependymoma.

PURPOSE: To assess the results and tolerance of radiosurgery/hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy performed after craniospinal irradiation for recurrent tumor. METHODS: Fourteen patients aged 3-46 years, diagnosed with medulloblastoma (10), anaplastic ependymoma (3), and primitive neuroectodermal tumor (1). All patients had craniospinal irradiation (CSI) with the total dose of 30.6-36 Gy and boost to 53.9-60 Gy either during primary or during second-line treatment. Twelve patients were irradiated with a single dose of 6-15 Gy (median 14.5 Gy). One received three fractions of 5 Gy and one six fractions of 5 Gy. In statistical analysis, the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test were used. The overall survival was calculated from the date of the end of stereotactic radiosurgery to the date of death or last contact. RESULTS: Recurrences were diagnosed after the median time of 16 months after the end of primary treatment. Eleven patients died during the follow-up. The follow-up for the 3 patients still alive was 6.7, 40.5, and 41.4 months, respectively. One- and 2-year overall survival (OS) was 70% and 39%. Patients who had ECOG performance status of 0 at the time of diagnosis of the disease trended to have better 2-year OS compared to those evaluated as ECOG 1 (p = 0.057). Treatment results were evaluable in 12 patients. Local control (stabilization or regression of the lesion) was achieved in 9 (75%). Overall disease progression was 67%. No patient developed radiation-induced necrosis. The treatment was well tolerated and no serious adverse effects were observed. Eleven patients were given steroids as a prevention of brain edema and four of them needed continuation of this treatment afterwards. In 7 patients, symptoms of brain edema were observed during the first weeks after reirradiation. CONCLUSIONS: Stereotactic radiosurgery or hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy is an effective treatment method of the local recurrence after CSI and can be performed safely in heavily pre-treated patients.

Can we obtain planning goals for conformal techniques in neoadjuvant and adjuvant radiochemotherapy for gastric cancer patients?

AIM: The purpose of this study was to compare conformal radiotherapy techniques used in the treatment of gastric cancer patients. The study is dedicated to radiotherapy centres that have not introduced dynamic techniques in clinical practice. BACKGROUND: The implementation of multi-field technique can minimise the toxicity of treatment and improve dose distribution homogeneity in the target volume with simultaneous protection of organs at risk (OaRs). Treatment plan should be personalised for each patient by taking into account the planning target volume and anatomical conditions of the individual patient. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For each patient, four different three dimensional conformal plans were compared: 2-field plan, 3-field plan, non-coplanar 3-field plan and non-coplanar 4-field plan. Dose distributions in a volume of 107% of the reference dose, and OaRs such as the liver, kidneys, intestines, spinal cord, and heart were analysed. RESULTS: The mean volume of the patient body covered using the isodose of 107% was 3004.73 cm(3), 1454.28 cm(3), 1426.62 cm(3), 889.14 cm(3) for the 2-field, 3-field, non-coplanar 3-field and non-coplanar 4-field techniques, respectively. For all plans the minimum dose in the PTV volume was at least 95% of the reference dose. The QUANTEC protocol was used to investigate doses in OaRs. CONCLUSIONS: Comparison of 3D conformal radiotherapy techniques in gastric cancer patients indicates that none of the plans can fulfil simultaneously all of the criteria of the tolerance dose in the organs at risk. The implementation of the multi-field technique can minimise the toxicity of treatment and improve dose distribution homogeneity in the target volume with additional protection of organs at risk (OaRs).