A survey on table tolerances and couch overrides in radiotherapy.

The purpose of this study was to survey current departmental policies on treatment couch overrides and the values of table tolerances used clinically. A 25-question electronic survey on couch overrides and tolerances was sent to full members of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM). The first part of the survey asked participants if table overrides were allowed at their institution, who was allowed to perform these overrides, and if imaging was required with overrides. The second part of the survey asked individuals to provide table tolerance data for the following treatment sites: brain/head and neck (H&N), lung, breast, abdo-men/pelvis and prostate. Each site was further divided into IMRT/VMAT and 3D conformal techniques. Spaces for free-text were provided, allowing respondents to enter any table tolerance data they were unable to specify under the treatment sites listed. A total of 361 individuals responded, of which approximately half partici-pated in the couch tolerances portion of the survey. Overall, 86% of respondents' institutions allow couch tolerance overrides at treatment. Therapists were the most common staff members permitted to perform overrides, followed by physicists, dosimetrists, and physicians, respectively. Of the institutions allowing overrides, 34% reported overriding daily. More than half of the centers document the over-ride and/or require a setup image to radiographically verify the treatment site. With respect to table tolerances, SRS/SBRT table tolerances were the tightest, while clinical setup table tolerances were the largest. There were minimal statistically significant differences between IMRT/VMAT and 3D conformal table tolerances. Our results demonstrated that table overrides are relatively common in radiotherapy despite being a potential safety concern. Institutions should review their override policy and table tolerance values in light of the practices of other institutions. Careful attention to these matters is crucial in ensuring the safe and accurate delivery of radiotherapy.

Can MRI-only replace MRI-CT planning with a titanium tandem and ovoid applicator?

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S): To evaluate dosimetric differences between MRI-only and MRI-CT planning with a titanium tandem and ovoid applicator to determine if all imaging and planning goals can be achieved with MRI only. MATERIALS/METHODS: We evaluated 10 patients who underwent MRI-CT-based cervical brachytherapy with a titanium tandem and ovoid applicator. High-risk clinical target volume and organs at risk were contoured on the 3D T2 MRI, which were transferred to the co-registered CT, where the applicator was identified. Retrospectively, three planners independently delineated the applicator on the axial 3D T2 MRI while blinded to the CT. Identical dwell position times in the delivered plan were loaded. Dose-volume histogram parameters were compared to the previously delivered MRI-CT plan. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in dose to D90 or D98 of the high-risk clinical target volume with MRI vs. MRI-CT planning. MRI vs. MRI-CT planning resulted in mean D0.1cc bladder of 8.8 ± 3.4 Gy vs. 8.5 ± 3.2 Gy (p = 0.29) and D2cc bladder of 6.2 ± 1.4 Gy vs. 6.0 ± 1.4 Gy (p = 0.33), respectively. Mean D0.1cc rectum was 5.7 ± 1.2 Gy vs. 5.3 ± 1.2 Gy (p = 0.03) and D2cc rectum 4.0 ± 0.8 Gy vs. 4.2 ± 1.0 Gy (p = 0.18), respectively. Mean D0.1cc sigmoid was 5.2 ± 1.3 Gy vs. 5.4 ± 1.6 Gy (p = 0.23) and D2cc sigmoid 3.9 ± 1.0 Gy vs. 4.0 ± 1.1 Gy (p = 0.18), respectively. CONCLUSION: There were no clinically significant dosimetric differences between the MRI and MRI-CT plans. This study demonstrates that cervical brachytherapy with a titanium applicator can be planned with MRI alone, which is now our clinical standard.

How one institution overcame the challenges to start an MRI-based brachytherapy program for cervical cancer.

PURPOSE: Adaptive magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based brachytherapy results in improved local control and decreased high-grade toxicities compared to historical controls. Incorporating MRI into the workflow of a department can be a major challenge when initiating an MRI-based brachytherapy program. This project aims to describe the goals, challenges, and solutions when initiating an MRI-based cervical cancer brachytherapy program at our institution. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We describe the 6-month multi-disciplinary planning phase to initiate an MRI-based brachytherapy program. We describe the specific challenges that were encountered prior to treating our first patient. RESULTS: We describe the solutions that were realized and executed to solve the challenges that we faced to establish our MRI-based brachytherapy program. We emphasize detailed coordination of care, planning, and communication to make the workflow feasible. We detail the imaging and radiation physics solutions to safely deliver MRI-based brachytherapy. The focus of these efforts is always on the delivery of optimal, state of the art patient care and treatment delivery within the context of our available institutional resources. CONCLUSIONS: Previous publications have supported a transition to MRI-based brachytherapy, and this can be safely and efficiently accomplished as described in this manuscript.

Bladder distension improves the dosimetry of organs at risk during intracavitary cervical high-dose-rate brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate dose-volume histograms (DVHs) and dose-surface histograms (DSHs) to analyze bladder distension during cervical brachytherapy. METHODS: Twenty brachytherapy fractions from five cervical cancer patients were selected. For each fraction, empty and full (200cc of contrasted saline) bladder simulation CT scans existed, one of which was used to plan treatment. An alternative plan was then created with the unused scan. DVH for each fraction was generated for the bladder, rectum, sigmoid colon, and small bowel. Mean DVH dose, D0.1cc, and D2cc were calculated for each organ at risk. Plans were then exported to a MATLAB-based program to generate a DSH. RESULTS: Full bladder plans showed no difference in bladder D2cc or D0.1cc compared with empty bladder plans; however, bladder mean DVH dose and DSH dose were both significantly reduced. Full bladder plans showed a significant reduction in small intestine D2cc from 2.81 Gy to 1.83 Gy and reduction in D0.1cc from 4.07 Gy to 2.57 Gy (p < 0.05); similarly, sigmoid D2cc was significantly reduced from 4.24 Gy to 3.87 Gy (p < 0.05) and D0.1cc was reduced from 6.12 Gy to 5.61 Gy (p < 0.05) in full bladder plans. Both small intestine and sigmoid also showed reduced mean DVH and DSH dose in full bladder plans. The rectum showed no significant difference in D2cc, D0.1cc, mean DVH, or DSH dose between plans. CONCLUSIONS: Bladder distension during cervical brachytherapy significantly reduced dose in all DVH and DSH parameters for sigmoid and small intestine with no change in bladder parameters. It reduces dose to organ at risk, but the correlation to toxicity requires further investigation.