Fast and robust online adaptive planning in stereotactic MR-guided adaptive radiation therapy (SMART) for pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To implement a robust and fast stereotactic MR-guided adaptive radiation therapy (SMART) online strategy in locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: SMART strategy for plan adaptation was implemented with the MRIdian system (ViewRay Inc.). At each fraction, OAR (re-)contouring is done within a distance of 3cm from the PTV surface. Online plan re-optimization is based on robust prediction of OAR dose and optimization objectives, obtained by building an artificial neural network (ANN). Proposed limited re-contouring strategy for plan adaptation (SMART3CM) is evaluated by comparing 50 previously delivered fractions against a standard (re-)planning method using full-scale OAR (re-)contouring (FULLOAR). Plan quality was assessed using PTV coverage (V95%, Dmean, D1cc) and institutional OAR constraints (e.g. V33Gy). RESULTS: SMART3CM required a significant lower number of optimizations than FULLOAR (4 vs 18 on average) to generate a plan meeting all objectives and institutional OAR constraints. PTV coverage with both strategies was identical (mean V95%=89%). Adaptive plans with SMART3CM exhibited significant lower intermediate and high doses to all OARs than FULLOAR, which also failed in 36% of the cases to adhere to the V33Gy dose constraint. CONCLUSIONS: SMART3CM approach for LAPC allows good OAR sparing and adequate target coverage while requiring only limited online (re-)contouring from clinicians.

Intracranial radiosurgery in the Netherlands. A planning comparison of available systems with regard to physical aspects and workload.

Different planning and treatment systems for intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery available in the Netherlands are compared. The systems for intracranial radiosurgery include: Gamma Knife, Cyberknife, Novalis, and Tomotherapy. Electronic data of 5 patients was transferred to all participating centres and treatment plans were generated according to 2 different prescription protocols. For this study, plans were also generated for a conventional linac. Even systems with a high resolution (Gammaknife and Novalis) have conformity indices in violation with RTOG guidelines (CI > 2.5) when target volumes of <0.5 cc are treated. For medium sized targets (0.5-1 cc) all systems performed reasonably well, but for the different systems a large range of conformity indices was seen (1.1 to 3.7). The differences are partly system dependent but depend also on specific planning choices made. For larger target volumes (> 1 cc), all systems perform well. The workload of the different techniques was comparable although the treatment times were usually longer for Gamma Knife radiosurgery. We conclude that small targets should be treated by dedicated systems, larger volumes (> 0.5-1 cc) can also be treated using conventional treatment systems equipped with a MLC.

A study on the influence of breathing phases in intensity-modulated radiotherapy of lung tumours using four-dimensional CT.

During gated intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment for patients with inoperable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the end-expiration (EE) phase of respiratory is more stable, whereas end-inspiration (EI) spares more normal lung tissue. This study compared the relative plan quality based on dosimetric and biological indices of the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs) between EI and EE in gated IMRT. 16 Stage I NSCLC patients, who were scanned by four-dimensional CT, were recruited and re-planned. An IMRT plan of a prescription dose of 60 Gy per respiratory phase was computed using the iPlan treatment planning system. The heart, spinal cord, both lungs and PTV were outlined. The tumour control probability for the PTV and normal tissue complication probability for all OARs in the EE and EI phases were nearly the same; only the normal tissue complication probability of the heart in EE was slightly lower. Conversely, the conformation number of the PTV, V20 of the left lung, V30 of both lungs, Dmax of the heart and spinal cord, V10 of the heart and D5% of the spinal cord were better in EE, whereas D(mean) of the PTV, V20 of the right lung and maximum doses of both lungs were better in EI. No differences reached statistical significance (p<0.05) except Dmax of the spinal cord (p=0.033). Overall, there was no expected clinical impact between EI and EE in the study. However, based on the practicality factor, EI is recommended for patients who can perform breath-hold; otherwise, EE is recommended.

Comments on 'Single-Arc IMRT?'.

We read with interest the article titled 'Single-Arc IMRT?' (Bortfeld and Webb 2009 Phys. Med. Biol. 54 N9-20) and feel it imperative to draw the attention of your readers to comments suggesting that the authors may not be fully aware of current developments in this field. As their paper was first submitted on 19th of August 2008, it could not have taken into account data presented at the AAPM, ESTRO and ASTRO meetings in 2008. In this letter, we would like to clarify some relevant aspects of RapidArc (Varian Medical Systems) as a modality for delivering single-arc treatment.

Clinical use of a non-isocentric C-arm unit for on-line filmless reconstruction of brachytherapy applicators.

PURPOSE: In this paper it is described how a mobile non-isocentric C-arm can be used to reconstruct brachytherapy applicators using an 'isocentric' imaging set-up without using an orthogonal reconstruction box. METHODS: The images are on-line digitally transferred to the treatment planning system. In order to determine the physical dimensions of the C-arm a simple method is presented that makes use of the relation between the magnification factor and the translational degrees of freedom of the C-arm. A phantom has been used to determine the overall reconstruction accuracy. RESULTS: The accuracy in the reconstruction of the distance between two points is better than 2 mm when using radiographs. If digital images are used the maximum error in reconstructed distances equals 3.6 mm for points located in the corners of the field of view, whereas in the central part of the field the errors are less than 2 mm.