Dosimetric benefit to organs at risk following margin reductions in nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy.

INTRODUCTION: It is important to decrease the radiation exposure of normal tissue in intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Minimizing planning target volume (PTV) margins with more precise target localization techniques can achieve this goal. This study aimed to quantify the extent to which organs at risk (OARs) are spared when using reduced margins in the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). METHODS: Two IMRT plans were regenerated for 40 patients with NPC based on two PTV margins, which were reduced or unchanged following cone beam computed tomography online correction. The reduced-margin plan was optimized based on maximal dose reduction to OARs without compromising target coverage. Dosimetric comparisons were evaluated in terms of target coverage and OAR sparing. RESULTS: Improvements in target coverage occurred with margin reduction, and significant improvements in dosimetric parameters were observed for all OARs (P < 0.05) except for the right optic nerve, chiasm, and lens. Doses to OARs decreased at a rate of 1.5% to 7.7%. Sparing of the left parotid and right parotid, where the mean dose (Dmean) decreased at a rate of 7.1% and 7.7%, respectively, was greater than the sparing of other OARs. CONCLUSIONS: Significant improvements in OAR sparing were observed with margin reduction, in addition to improvement in target coverage. The parotids benefited most from the online imaging-guided approach.

Comparison of set up accuracy among three common immobilisation systems for intensity modulated radiotherapy of nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients.

INTRODUCTION: In intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients, an effective immobilisation system is important to minimise set up deviation. This study evaluated the effectiveness of three immobilisation systems by assessing their set up deviations. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to one of the three immobilisation systems: (1) supine on head rest and base plate (HB); (2) supine with alpha cradle supporting the head and shoulder (AC); (3) supine with vacuum bag supporting the head and shoulder (VB). CBCT was conducted weekly for each patient on the linear accelerator. Image registration was conducted at the nasopharynx (NP) and cervical regions. The translational displacements (latero-medial, antero-posterior and cranio-caudal), rotational displacements (pitch, yaw and roll) and 3D vectors obtained at the NP and cervical regions were recorded and compared among the three systems. RESULTS: The mean translational and rotational deviations were within 3 mm and 2°, respectively, and the range of 3D vector was 1.53-3.47 mm. At the NP region, the AC system demonstrated the smallest translational and rotational deviations and 3D vector. The differences were significant except for the latero-medial, yaw and roll directions. Similarly, at the cervical region, the AC system showed smaller translational and rotational deviations and 3D vector, with only the cranio-caudal and yaw deviations that did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Set up deviation was greater in the neck than the NP region. The set up accuracy of the AC system was better than the other two systems, and it is recommended for IMRT of NPC patients in our institution.

Evaluation of inter-fraction and intra-fraction errors during volumetric modulated arc therapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients.

BACKGROUND: This prospective study was conducted to evaluate inter- and intra-fraction errors in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients undergoing volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and to thus obtain planning target volume (PTV) margins to effectively guide treatment in the future. METHODS: Fifteen NPC patients scheduled to undergo VMAT were prospectively enrolled in the study. For each patient, three CBCT scans were obtained; one after daily conventional positioning, one after online correction with 2 mm tolerance and one after 1 week of VMAT delivery. The scans were registered to the planning CT to determine the inter- and intra-fraction errors. Patient positioning errors were analyzed for time trends over the course of radiotherapy. PTV margins were calculated from the systematic (Σ) and random (σ) errors. RESULTS: The average absolute values of the pre-correction, post-correction and intra-fraction errors (in order) were 1.1, 0.6 and 0.4 mm in the medial-lateral (ML) direction, 1.2, 0.7 and 0.5 mm in the superior-inferior (SI) direction and 1.1, 0.7 and 0.5 mm in the anterior-posterior (AP) direction. The corresponding Σ were 1.0-1.4 mm, 0.4-0.5 mm and 0.2-0.4 mm, while the corresponding σ were 0.7-0.8 mm, 0.6-0.7 mm and 0.5-0.6 mm. With time, gradual increases in both the inter- and intra-fraction three-dimensional displacements were observed (P = 0.019 and P = 0.044, respectively). The total PTV margins accounting for pre-correction and intra-fraction errors were 3.4-4.1 mm and those accounting for post-correction and intra-fraction errors were 1.7-2.2 mm. CONCLUSIONS: CBCT is an effective modality to evaluate and improve the accuracy of VMAT in NPC patients. Inter- and intra-fraction three-dimensional displacements increased as a function of time during the course of radiotherapy. In our institution, we recommend a PTV margin of 5 mm for NPC patients undergoing VMAT without CBCT and 3 mm for those treated with rigorous daily CBCT scans.