Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy Boost with the CyberKnife for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer: Dosimetric Analysis and Potential Clinical Benefits.

(1) Aim: To compare the treatment plans of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) with CyberKnife (CK) and high-dose-rate (HDR) intracavitary/interstitial brachytherapy (IC/ISBT) and examine the feasibility of CK-SBRT as a viable alternative to BT in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC). (2) Methods: A BT plan of 28 Gy in four fractions delivered previously to 20 patients with LACC was compared with a CK plan based on the same CT images with structures delineation for BT. The SBRT treatment plan was further divided according to two different approaches, with the high-risk planning target volume (HR-PTV) defined by the high-risk clinical target volume (HR-CTV) without and with a 5 mm margin, which were named CK-CTV plan and CK-PTV plan, respectively. The dose distributions and dosimetric parameters of the target volumes and organs at risk (OARs) were recorded and compared for the three boost plans. Radiobiological metrics were calculated based on the EUD for the hybrid plans. Additionally, the relationship between tumor volume and tolerance doses for the OARs in the BT plan and CK-PTV plan was investigated. (3) Results: Target coverage was better with the CK plan than with the BT plan, as the D95%, D98%, HI and CI of the CK-CTV plan and CK-PTV plan were higher than those of the BT plan; an exception was the D50%. Similarly, the TCP of the target was also significantly in favor of the CK hybrid plans (p < 0.01). For the OARs, the CK-CTV plan was superior to the BT plan as regards the rectum D2cc, bladder D2cc and bladder Dmax. The CK-PTV plan could achieve dosimetric parameters comparable to those of the BT plan for OARs concerning the small residual tumor volume. The NTCP of the rectum for the WPI+CK-CTV plans was significantly lower than that of the WPI+BT plans (p < 0.01). (4) Conclusions: CK-based SBRT can achieve better target coverage, dose sparing for the OARs and radiobiological effects compared with the BT plan for tumors that are not excessively large. CK-based SBRT could be an alternative option to administer a radiation boost for patients with LACC.

Radiobiological Comparison of Acuros External Beam and Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm on Esophageal Carcinoma Radiotherapy Treatment Plans.

Objective: The present study aimed to investigate the dose differences and radiobiological assessment between Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) and Acuros External Beam (AXB) with its 2 calculation models, namely, dose-to-water (AXB-Dw) and dose-to-medium (AXB-Dm), on esophageal carcinoma radiotherapy treatment plans. Materials and methods: The AXB-Dw and AXB-Dm plans were generated by recalculating the initial 66 AAA plans using the AXB algorithm with the same monitor units and beam parameters as those in the original plan. The dosimetric and radiobiological assessment parameters were calculated for the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs). The gamma agreement for the PTV and the correlation between it and the volume of the air cavity and bone among the different algorithms were compared simultaneously. The dose discrepancy between the theoretical calculation and treatment planning system (TPS) when switching from AXB-Dm to AXB-Dw was analyzed according to the composition of the structures. Results: The PTV dose of AXB-Dm plans was significantly smaller than that of the AAA and AXB-Dw plans (P < .05), except for D2. The difference values for AAA vs AXB-Dm (∆D x,(AAA-AXB,Dm)) and AXB-Dw vs AXB-Dm (∆D x,(AXB,Dw-AXB,Dm)) were 1.94% [1.27%, 2.64%] and 1.95% [1.56%, 2.27%], respectively. For the spinal cord and heart, there were obvious differences between the AAA vs AXB-Dm (spinal cord: 1.15%, heart: 2.89%) and AXB-Dw vs AXB-Dm (spinal cord: 1.88%, heart: 3.25%) plans. For the lung, the differences between AAA vs AXB-Dm and AAA vs AXB-Dw were significantly larger than those of AXB-Dm vs AXB-Dw. Compared to the case of AAA and AXB-Dw, the decrease in biologically effective dose (BED10, α ß = 10   ) of AXB-Dm due to dose non-uniformity exceeded 6.5%, even for a small σ . The average values of equivalent uniform dose in the AAA, AXB-Dw, and AXB-Dm plans were 52.03±.39 Gy, 52.24 ± .81 Gy, and 51.13 ± .47 Gy, respectively. The tumor control probability (TCP) results for PTV in the AAA, AXB-Dw, and AXB-Dm plans were 62.29 ± 1.57%, 62.82 ± 1.69%, and 58.68±1.88%, respectively. With the 2%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm acceptance criteria, the mean values of   Δ Î³ AAA AXB - Dw , Δ Î³ AAA AXB - Dm , and   Δ Î³ AXB - Dm AXB - Dw were 87.24, 63.3, and 64.81% vs 97.86, 91.77, and 89.25%, respectively. The dose discrepancy between the theoretical calculation and TPS when switching from AXB-Dm to AXB-Dw was approximately 1.63%. Conclusions: The AAA and AXB-Dw algorithms overestimated the radiobiological parameters when the tumor particularly consisted of nonuniform tissues. A relatively small dose difference could cause a significant reduction in the corresponding TCP. Dose distribution algorithms should be carefully chosen by physicists and oncologists to improve tumor control, as well as to optimize OARs protection.

Influence of Using a Contrast-Enhanced CT Image as the Primary Image on CyberKnife Brain Radiosurgery Treatment Plans.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This study aimed to quantify the differences between pre- and post-contrast agent (CA) CT for CyberKnife brain SRS plans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients were retrospectively analyzed. They were divided into two categories, inhomogeneous cases (13 patients) and homogeneous cases (12 patients), according to whether the tumor was close to the cavity and inhomogeneous tissues or not. The pre-CA and post-CA plans were designed and calculated using the same monitor unit and paths as those in the ray-tracing algorithm, respectively. RESULTS: The CT number difference of tumor between pre- and post-CA was significant (on average, 24.78 ± 18.56 HU, P-value < 0.01). The deviation value of the target was the largest at approximately 37 HU (inhomo-) and 13 HU (homo-) (P < 0.01), and the values of the organs at risk (OARs) were not statistically significant (P-value > 0.05). However, it was not statistically significant for the dose difference between the two groups with the injection of CA (P-value > 0.05). The absolute effective depth difference generally remained at a level of 1 mm, but the dose difference was quitely fluctuated sometimes more than 20%. The absolute effective depth difference of the inhomo-case (0.62 mm) was larger than that of the homo-case (0.37 mm) on median, as well as the variation amplitude (P-value < 0.05). Moreover, the relative dose differences between the two cases were 0.38% (inhomo-) and 0.2% (homo-), respectively (P-value < 0.05). At the criterion of 1 mm/1%, the gamma pass rate of the homo-case (95.89%) was larger than that of the inhomo-case (93.79%). For the OARs, except for the cochlea, the two cases were almost the same (>98.85%). The tumor control probability of the target was over 99.99% before and after injection of a CA, as well as the results for the homo-case and inhomo-case. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the difference of evaluation indexes between pre- and post-CA images, we recommended plain CT to be employed as the primary image for improving the CK treatment accuracy of brain SRS, especially when the target was close to CA-sensitive OARs and cavity.

Quantification of Intrafraction and Interfraction Tumor Motion Amplitude and Prediction Error for Different Liver Tumor Trajectories in Cyberknife Synchrony Tracking.

PURPOSE: To research the fiducial-based, real-time tracking intrafraction (during the fraction [intra-]) and interfraction (between fractions [inter-]) tumor respiration amplitude, motion trajectory, and prediction error and quantify their relationships for different types of motion trajectories during Cyberknife-based stereotactic ablation radiotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twelve patients with liver tumors were treated using a Cyberknife system, and 58 fractions were involved in this study. Real-time target motion tracking data were extracted and transformed from the robot coordinate system into the patient coordinate system by the rotation matrix. Only the time sessions of the beam on were studied according to the data information generated from the Cyberknife motion tracking system. The motion correlation model between the external marker signal and internal fiducial position was built to present the type of motion trajectory. RESULTS: Using the correlation model as a function of external marker signal and internal fiducial position, we knew 4 motion trajectories mainly existed for liver cancer patients as follows: perfect linearity (group I), simple linearity (group II), hysteresis (group III), and area respiratory (group IV) patterns. More than half of the patients had a linear breathing trajectory. Analyzing all patients together, the intra-amplitudes were slightly less than those of the inter-amplitudes. The amplitude from large to small was in the superior-inferior, left-right and anterior-posterior directions, regardless of inter- and intra-amplitudes. Then, patients with a larger peak-to-peak have a larger standard deviation of amplitude and a larger amplitude in all fractions/sessions. The prediction errors of the linear motion trajectory were generally less than 1 mm. The prediction errors of the regular hysteresis breathing model were smaller than those of the irregular hysteresis model. Scattered breathing would result in a larger tracking error, such as the area respiratory trajectory. It was logical that prediction errors were larger for patients who showed much variation in their breathing amplitude. CONCLUSIONS: This paper showed that the liver motion trajectory model included perfect linearity, sample linearity, hysteresis, and area. The linear motion trajectory presented the minimum tracking error and the best stability, and the hysteresis and area trajectory were the worst. Therefore, breathing management, including respiration training, control, and evaluation of motion trajectory in all directions, was significantly necessary during liver SABR treatment.

Preliminary study of clinical application on IMRT three-dimensional dose verification-based EPID system.

The three-dimensional dose (3D) distribution of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) was verified based on electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs), and the results were analyzed. Thirty IMRT plans of different lesions were selected for 3D EPID-based dose verification. The gamma passing rates of the 3D dose verification-based EPID system (Edose, Version 3.01, Raydose, Guangdong, China) and Delta4 measurements were then compared with treatment planning system (TPS) calculations using global gamma criteria of 5%/3 mm, 3%/3 mm, and 2%/2 mm. Furthermore, the dose-volume histograms (DVHs) for planning target volumes (PTVs) as well as organs at risk (OARs) were analyzed using Edose. For dose verification of the 30 treatment plans, the average gamma passing rates of Edose reconstructions under the gamma criteria of 5%/3 mm, 3%/3 mm, and 2%/2 mm were (98.58 ± 0.93)%, (95.67 ± 1.97)%, and (83.13 ± 4.53)%, respectively, whereas the Delta4 measurement results were (99.14% ± 1.16)%, (95.81% ± 2.88)%, and (84.74% ± 7.00)%, respectively. The dose differences between Edose reconstructions and TPS calculations were within 3% for D95% , D98% , and Dmean in each PTV, with the exception that the D98% of the PTV-clinical target volume (CTV) in esophageal carcinoma cases was (3.21 ± 2.33)%. However, the larger dose deviations in OARs (such as lens, parotid gland, optic nerve, and spinal cord) can be determined based on DVHs. The difference was particularly obvious for OARs with small volumes; for example, the maximum dose deviation for the lens reached (-6.12 ± 5.28)%. A comparison of the results obtained with Edose and Delta4 indicated that the Edose system could be applied for 3D pretreatment dose verification of IMRT. This system could also be utilized to evaluate the gamma passing rate of each treatment plan. Furthermore, the detailed dose distributions of PTVs and OARs could be indicated based on DVHs, providing additional reliable data for quality assurance in a clinic setting.

The Feasibility Study of a Hybrid Coplanar Arc Technique Versus Hybrid Intensity-modulated Radiotherapy in Treatment of Early-stage Left-sided Breast Cancer with Simultaneous-integrated Boost.

This study demonstrated the feasibility and advantages of a hybrid, volumetric arc therapy technique that used two 90° coplanar arcs and two three-dimensional conformal tangential beams in the simultaneous-integrated boost radiotherapy of left-sided breast cancer after breast-conserving surgery. A total of nine patients with stage I, left-sided breast cancer who underwent breast-conserving surgery were selected for this retrospective study. For each patient, a hybrid arc plan was generated and then compared with two hybrid intensity-modulated radiotherapy plans. All plans were optimized using the same objectives and dose constraints. The prescription dose was 50.4 Gy to the planning target volume with simultaneous boost to 60 Gy to the expanded gross target volume in 28 fractions. The differences among these hybrid plans were analyzed by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test or the Wilcoxon rank sum test. The hybrid arc plans achieved the clinical requirements of target dose coverage and normal tissue (NT) dose constraints. It was found that the hybrid arc plans showed advantages in the conformity index of the expanded gross target volume, the V5 of the heart, the D2 of the left ventricle, and the D2 and V50.4 of NTs. The average beam-on time and monitor units of the hybrid arc plans were significantly lower (P < 0.001).