A simple, yet novel hybrid-dynamic conformal arc therapy planning via flattening filter-free beam for lung stereotactic body radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: Due to multiple beamlets in the delivery of highly modulated volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) plans, dose delivery uncertainties associated with small-field dosimetry and interplay effects can be concerns in the treatment of mobile lung lesions using a single-dose of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Herein, we describe and compare a simple, yet clinically useful, hybrid 3D-dynamic conformal arc (h-DCA) planning technique using flattening filter-free (FFF) beams to minimize these effects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen consecutive solitary early-stage I-II non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who underwent a single-dose of 30 Gy using 3-6 non-coplanar VMAT arcs with 6X-FFF beams in our clinic. These patients' plans were re-planned using a non-coplanar hybrid technique with 2-3 differentially-weighted partial dynamic conformal arcs (DCA) plus 4-6 static beams. About 60-70% of the total beam weight was given to the DCA and the rest was distributed among the static beams to maximize the tumor coverage and spare the organs-at-risk (OAR). The clinical VMAT and h-DCA plans were compared via RTOG-0915 protocol for conformity and dose to OAR. Additionally, delivery efficiency, accuracy, and overall h-DCA planning time were recorded. RESULTS: All plans met RTOG-0915 requirements. Comparison with clinical VMAT plans h-DAC gave better target coverage with a higher dose to the tumor and exhibited statistically insignificance differences in gradient index, D2cm , gradient distance and OAR doses with the exception of maximal dose to skin (P = 0.015). For h-DCA plans, higher values of tumor heterogeneity and tumor maximum, minimum and mean doses were observed and were 10%, 2.8, 1.0, and 2.0 Gy, on average, respectively, compared to the clinical VMAT plans. Average beam on time was reduced by a factor of 1.51. Overall treatment planning time for h-DCA was about an hour. CONCLUSION: Due to no beam modulation through the target, h-DCA plans avoid small-field dosimetry and MLC interplay effects and resulting in enhanced target coverage by improving tumor dose (characteristic of FFF-beam). The h-DCA simplifies treatment planning and beam on time significantly compared to clinical VMAT plans. Additionally, h-DCA allows for the real time target verification and eliminates patient-specific VMAT quality assurance; potentially offering cost-effective, same or next day SBRT treatments. Moreover, this technique can be easily adopted to other disease sites and small clinics with less extensive physics or machine support.

FFF-VMAT for SBRT of lung lesions: Improves dose coverage at tumor-lung interface compared to flattened beams.

PURPOSE: To quantify the differences in dosimetry as a function of ipsilateral lung density and treatment delivery parameters for stereotactic, single dose of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) delivered with 6X flattening filter free (6X-FFF) beams compared to traditional flattened 6X (6X-FF) beams. MATERIALS/METHODS: Thirteen consecutive early stage I-II non-small-cell-lung cancer (NSCLC) patients were treated with highly conformal noncoplanar VMAT SBRT plans (3-6 partial arcs) using 6X-FFF beam and advanced Acuros-based dose calculations to a prescription dose of 30 Gy in one fraction to the tumor margin. These clinical cases included relatively smaller tumor (island tumors) sizes (2.0-4.2 cm diameters) and varying average ipsilateral lung densities between 0.14 g/cc and 0.34 g/cc. Treatment plans were reoptimized with 6X-FF beams for identical beam/arc geometries and planning objectives. For same target coverage, the organs-at-risk (OAR) dose metrics as a function of ipsilateral lung density were compared between 6X-FFF and 6X-FF plans. Moreover, monitor units (MU), beam modulation factor (MF) and beam-on time (BOT) were evaluated. RESULTS: Both plans met the RTOG-0915 protocol compliance. The ipsilateral lung density and the tumor location heavily influenced the treatment plans with 6X-FFF and 6X-FF beams, showing differences up to 12% for the gradient indices. For similar target coverage, 6X-FFF beams showed better target conformity, lower intermediate dose-spillage, and lower dose to the OAR. Additionally, BOT was reduced by a factor of 2.3 with 6X-FFF beams compared to 6X-FF beams. CONCLUSION: While prescribing dose to the tumor periphery, 6X-FFF VMAT plans for stereotactic single-dose lung SBRT provided similar target coverage with better dose conformity, superior intermediate dose-spillage (improved dose coverage at tumor interface), and improved OAR sparing compared to traditional 6X-FF beams and significantly reduced treatment time. The ipsilateral lung density and tumor location considerably affected dose distributions requiring special attention for clinical SBRT plan optimization on a per-patient basis. Clinical follow up of these patients for tumor local-control rate and treatment-related toxicities is in progress.

A novel, yet simple MLC-based 3D-crossfire technique for spatially fractionated GRID therapy treatment of deep-seated bulky tumors.

PURPOSE: Treating deep-seated bulky tumors with traditional single-field Cerrobend GRID-blocks has many limitations such as suboptimal target coverage and excessive skin toxicity. Heavy traditional GRID-blocks are a concern for patient safety at various gantry-angles and dosimetric detail is not always available without a GRID template in user's treatment planning system. Herein, we propose a simple, yet clinically useful multileaf collimator (MLC)-based three-dimensional (3D)-crossfire technique to provide sufficient target coverage, reduce skin dose, and potentially escalate tumor dose to deep-seated bulky tumors. MATERIALS/METHODS: Thirteen patients (multiple sites) who underwent conventional single-field cerrobend GRID-block therapy (maximum, 15 Gy in 1 fraction) were re-planned using an MLC-based 3D-crossfire method. Gross tumor volume (GTV) was used to generate a lattice pattern of 10 mm diameter and 20 mm center-to-center mimicking conventional GRID-block using an in-house MATLAB program. For the same prescription, MLC-based 3D-crossfire grid plans were generated using 6-gantry positions (clockwise) at 60° spacing (210°, 270°, 330°, 30°, 90°, 150°, therefore, each gantry angle associated with a complement angle at 180° apart) with differentially-weighted 6 or 18 MV beams in Eclipse. For each gantry, standard Millenium120 (Varian) 5 mm MLC leaves were fit to the grid-pattern with 90° collimator rotation, so that the tunneling dose distribution was achieved. Acuros-based dose was calculated for heterogeneity corrections. Dosimetric parameters evaluated include: mean GTV dose, GTV dose heterogeneities (peak-to-valley dose ratio, PVDR), skin dose and dose to other adjacent critical structures. Additionally, planning time and delivery efficiency was recorded. With 3D-MLC, dose escalation up to 23 Gy was simulated for all patient's plans. RESULTS: All 3D-MLC crossfire GRID plans exhibited excellent target coverage with mean GTV dose of 13.4 ± 0.5 Gy (range: 12.43-14.24 Gy) and mean PVDR of 2.0 ± 0.3 (range: 1.7-2.4). Maximal and dose to 5 cc of skin were 9.7 ± 2.7 Gy (range: 5.4-14.0 Gy) and 6.3 ± 1.8 Gy (range: 4.1-11.1 Gy), on average respectively. Three-dimensional-MLC treatment planning time was about an hour or less. Compared to traditional GRID-block, average beam on time was 20% less, while providing similar overall treatment time. With 3D-MLC plans, tumor dose can be escalated up to 23 Gy while respecting skin dose tolerances. CONCLUSION: The simple MLC-based 3D-crossfire GRID-therapy technique resulted in enhanced target coverage for de-bulking deep-seated bulky tumors, reduced skin toxicity and spare adjacent critical structures. This simple MLC-based approach can be easily adopted by any radiotherapy center. It provides detailed dosimetry and a safe and effective treatment by eliminating the heavy physical GRID-block and could potentially provide same day treatment. Prospective clinical trial with higher tumor-dose to bulky deep-seated tumors is anticipated.

Potential reduction of lung dose via VMAT with jaw tracking in the treatment of single-isocenter/two-lesion lung SBRT.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: Due to higher radiosensitivity, non-target normal tissue dose is a major concern in stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) treatment. The aim of this report was to estimate the dosimetric impact, specifically the reduction of normal lung dose in the treatment of single-isocenter/two-lesion lung SBRT via volumetric modulated arc therapy with jaw tracking (JT-VMAT). MATERIALS/METHODS: Twelve patients with two peripherally located early-stage non-small-cell-lung cancer (NSCLC) lung lesions underwent single-isocenter highly conformal non-coplanar JT-VMAT SBRT treatment in our institution. The mean isocenter to tumors distance was 5.6 ± 1.9 (range 4.3-9.5) cm. The mean combined planning target volume (PTV) was 38.7 ± 22.7 (range 5.0-80.9) cc. A single isocenter was placed between the two lesions. Doses were 54 and 50 Gy in three and five fractions, respectively. Plans were optimized in Eclipse with AcurosXB algorithm utilizing jaw tracking options for the Truebeam with a 6 MV-FFF beam and standard 120 leaf millennium multi-leaf collimators. For comparison, the JT-VMAT plans were retrospectively re-computed utilizing identical beam geometry, objectives, and planning parameters, but without jaw tracking (no JT-VMAT). Both plans were normalized to receive the same target coverage. The conformity and heterogeneity indices, intermediate-dose spillage [D2cm , R50, Gradient Index (GI), Gradient Distance (GD)], organs at risks (OAR) doses including normal lung as well as modulation factor (MF) were compared for both plans. RESULTS: For similar target coverage, GI, R50, GD, as well as the normal lung V5, V10, V20, mean lung dose (MLD), and maximum dose received by 1000 cc of lungs were statistically significant. Normal lung doses were reduced by 8%-11% with JT-VMAT. Normal lung dose increased as a function of tumor distance from isocenter. For the other OAR, up to 1%-16% reduction of non-target doses were observed with JT-VMAT. The MF and beam-on time were similar for both plans, however, MF increased as a function of tumors distance, consequently, delivering higher dose to normal lungs. CONCLUSION: Utilizing jaw tracking options during optimization for single-isocenter/two-lesion lung SBRT VMAT plans reduced doses to the normal lung and other OAR, reduced intermediate-dose spillage and provided superior/similar target coverage. Application of jaw tracking did not affect delivery efficiency and provided excellent plan quality with similar MF and beam-on time. Jaw tracking is recommended for future clinical SBRT plan optimization.