Coplanar versus noncoplanar intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment planning for fronto-temporal high-grade glioma.

The purpose of this study was to compare dosimetric and radiobiological parameters of treatment plans using coplanar and noncoplanar beam arrangements in patients with fronto-temporal high-grade glioma (HGG) generated for intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Ten cases of HGG overlapping the optic apparatus were selected. Four separate plans were created for each case: coplanar IMRT, noncoplanar IMRT (ncIMRT), VMAT, and noncoplanar VMAT (ncVMAT). The prescription dose was 60 Gy in 30 fractions. Dose-volume histograms and equivalent uniform doses (EUD) for planning target volumes (PTVs) and organs at risk (OARs) were generated. The four techniques resulted in comparable mean, minimum, maximum PTV doses, and PTV EUDs (p ≥ 0.33). The mean PTV dose and EUD averaged for all techniques were 59.98 Gy (Standard Deviation (SD) ± 0.15) and 59.86 Gy (SD ± 0.27). Non-coplanar IMRT significantly reduced contralateral anterior globe EUDs (6.7 Gy versus 8.2 Gy, p = 0.05), while both ncIMRT and ncVMAT reduced contralateral retina EUDs (16 Gy versus 18.8 Gy, p = 0.03). Noncoplanar techniques resulted in lower contralateral temporal lobe dose (22.2 Gy versus 24.7 Gy). Compared to IMRT, VMAT techniques required fewer monitor units (755 vs. 478, p ≤ 0.001) but longer optimization times. Treatment delivery times were 6.1 and 10.5 minutes for coplanar and ncIMRT versus 2.9 and 5.0 minutes for coplanar and ncVMAT. In this study, all techniques achieved comparable target coverage. Superior sparing of contralateral optic structures was seen with ncIMRT. The VMAT techniques reduced treatment delivery duration but prolonged plan optimization times, compared to IMRT techniques. Technique selection should be individualized, based on patient-specific clinical and dosimetric parameters.

Consistency in electronic portal imaging registration in prostate cancer radiation treatment verification.

BACKGROUND: A protocol of electronic portal imaging (EPI) registration for the verification of radiation treatment fields has been implemented at our institution. A template is generated using the reference images, which is then registered with the EPI for treatment verification. This study examines interobserver consistency among trained radiation therapists in the registration and verification of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for patients with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 20 consecutive patients with prostate cancer undergoing EBRT were analyzed. The EPIs from the initial 10 fractions were registered independently by 6 trained radiation therapist observers. For each fraction, an anterior-posterior (AP or PA) and left lateral (Lat) EPIs were generated and registered with the reference images. Two measures of displacement for the AP EPI in the superior-inferior (SI) and right left (RL) directions and two measures of displacement for the Lat EPI in the AP and SI directions were prospectively recorded. A total of 2400 images and 4800 measures were analyzed. Means and standard deviations, as well as systematic and random errors were calculated for each observer. Differences between observers were compared using the chi-square test. Variance components analysis was used to evaluate how much variance is attributed to the observers. Time trends were estimated using repeated measures analysis. RESULTS: Inter-observer variation expressed as the standard deviation of the six observers' measurements within each image were 0.7, 1.0, 1.7 and 1.4 mm for APLR, APSI, LatAP and LatSI respectively. Variance components analysis showed that the variation attributed to the observers was small compared to variation due to the images. On repeated measure analysis, time trends were apparent only for the APLR and LatSI measurements. Their magnitude however was small. CONCLUSION: No clinically important systematic observer effect or time trends were identified in the registration of EPI by the radiation therapist observers in this study. These findings are useful in the documentation of consistency and reliability in the quality assurance of treatment verification of EBRT for prostate cancer.