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.

Understanding the impact of RapidArc therapy delivery errors for prostate cancer.

The purpose of this study is to simulate random and systematic RapidArc delivery errors for external beam prostate radiotherapy plans in order to determine the dose sensitivity for each error type. Ten prostate plans were created with a single 360° arc. The DICOM files for these treatment plans were then imported into an in-house computer program that introduced delivery errors. Random and systematic gantry position (0.25°, 0.5°, 1°), monitor unit (MU) (1.25%, 2.5%, 5%), and multileaf collimator (MLC) position (0.5, 1, 2 mm) errors were introduced. The MLC errors were either random or one of three types of systematic errors, where the MLC banks moved in the same (MLC gaps remain unchanged) or opposing directions (increasing or decreasing the MLC gaps). The generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD) was calculated for the original plan and all treatment plans with errors introduced. The dose sensitivity for the cohort was calculated using linear regression for the gantry position, MU, and MLC position errors. Because there was a large amount of variability for systematic MLC position errors, the dose sensitivity of each plan was calculated and correlated with plan MU, mean MLC gap, and the percentage of MLC leaf gaps less than 1 and 2 cm for each individual plan. We found that random and systematic gantry position errors were relatively insignificant (< 0.1% gEUD change) for gantry errors up to 1°. Random MU errors were also insignificant, and systematic MU increases caused a systematic increase in gEUD. For MLC position errors, random MLC errors were relatively insignificant up to 2 mm as had been determined in previous IMRT studies. Systematic MLC shift errors caused a decrease of approximately -1% in the gEUD per mm. For systematic MLC gap open errors, the dose sensitivity was 8.2%/mm and for MLC gap close errors the dose sensitivity was -7.2%/mm. There was a large variability for MLC gap open/close errors for the ten RapidArc plans which correlated strongly with MU, mean gap width, and percentage of MLC gaps less than 1 or 2cm. This study evaluates the magnitude of various simulated RapidArc delivery errors by calculating gEUED on various prostate plans.

Comparing planning time, delivery time and plan quality for IMRT, RapidArc and Tomotherapy.

The purpose of this study is to examine plan quality, treatment planning time, and estimated treatment delivery time for 5- and 9-field sliding window IMRT, single and dual arc RapidArc, and tomotherapy. For four phantoms, 5- and 9-field IMRT, single and dual arc RapidArc and tomotherapy plans were created. Plans were evaluated based on the ability to meet dose-volume constraints, dose homogeneity index, radiation conformity index, planning time, estimated delivery time, integral dose, and volume receiving more than 2 and 5 Gy. For all of the phantoms, tomotherapy was able to meet the most optimization criteria during planning (50% for P1, 67% for P2, 0% for P3, and 50% for P4). RapidArc met less of the optimization criteria (25% for P1, 17% for P2, 0% for P3, and 0% for P4), while IMRT was never able to meet any of the constraints. In addition, tomotherapy plans were able to produce the most homogeneous dose. Tomotherapy plans had longer planning time, longer estimated treatment times, lower conformity index, and higher integral dose. Tomotherapy plans can produce plans of higher quality and have the capability to conform dose distributions better than IMRT or RapidArc in the axial plane, but exhibit increased dose superior and inferior to the target volume. RapidArc, however, is capable of producing better plans than IMRT for the test cases examined in this study.

Analysis of RapidArc optimization strategies using objective function values and dose-volume histograms.

RapidArc is a novel treatment planning and delivery system that has recently been made available for clinical use. Included within the Eclipse treatment planning system are a number of different optimization strategies that can be employed to improve the quality of the final treatment plan. The purpose of this study is to systematically assess three categories of strategies for four phantoms, and then apply proven strategies to clinical head and neck cases. Four phantoms were created within Eclipse with varying shapes and locations for the planning target volumes and organs at risk. A baseline optimization consisting of a single 359.8 degrees arc with collimator at 45 degrees was applied to all phantoms. Three categories of strategies were assessed and compared to the baseline strategy. They include changing the initialization parameters, increasing the total number of control points, and increasing the total optimization time. Optimization log files were extracted from the treatment planning system along with final dose-volume histograms for plan assessment. Treatment plans were also generated for four head and neck patients to determine whether the results for phantom plans can be extended to clinical plans. The strategies that resulted in a significant difference from baseline were: changing the maximum leaf speed prior to optimization ( p < 0.05), increasing the total number of segments by adding an arc ( p < 0.05), and increasing the total optimization time by either continuing the optimization ( p < 0.01) or adding time to the optimization by pausing the optimization ( p < 0.01). The reductions in objective function values correlated with improvements in the dose-volume histogram (DVH). The addition of arcs and pausing strategies were applied to head and neck cancer cases, which demonstrated similar benefits with respect to the final objective function value and DVH. Analysis of the optimization log files is a useful way to intercompare treatment plans that have the same dose-volume objectives and importance values. The results for clinical head and neck plans were consistent with phantom plans.

Electron energy constancy verification using a double-wedge phantom.

Routine constancy checks of electron energy are often time consuming because of the necessity to measure a dose at two depths. A technique is described that uses a double-wedge shaped phantom positioned on a Profiler diode array for measuring an electron energy constancy metric similar to R(50). The double-wedge electron profiles are invariant to phantom alignment in the wedge direction, unlike single wedge techniques, and the sensitivity of the technique is similar to water-based depth-dose measurements over an energy range of 6 to 20 MeV. Reproducibility results ranging from 0.01 to 0.03 cm were achieved for measurements taken over the course of 1.5 yrs. The technique is efficient in that only one phantom setup is required for all electron energies.

Clinical significance of multi-leaf collimator positional errors for volumetric modulated arc therapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Multi-leaf collimator (MLC) positional errors occur during intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) deliveries. The impact of such errors has been evaluated for IMRT but not VMAT. The purpose of this work is to understand how random and systematic VMAT MLC positional errors affect the patient dose distribution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight head and neck single arc (360°) VMAT treatment plans were created. Random and two types of systematic MLC errors were simulated for error magnitudes of 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2 and 5mm. The two types of systematic MLC errors were: (1) MLC banks are shifted in the same direction (left or right) and (2) MLC banks are shifted in opposing directions resulting in smaller or larger field shapes. The MLC errors were simulated, for all control points, on both banks of active MLC leaves only. RESULTS: There is a linear correlation of MLC errors with gEUD for all error types. The gEUD dose sensitivities with MLC error for the PTV70 were -0.2, -0.9, -2.8 and 1.9 Gy/mm for random, systematic shift, systematic close and systematic open MLC errors, respectively. The sensitivity of VMAT plans to MLC positional errors was similar to those of IMRT plans with less than 50 segments but much less than those created for a step and shoot with more than 50 segments or sliding-window delivery technique. To maintain the PTV70 to within 2% would require that MLC open/close errors be within 0.6mm. CONCLUSIONS: Radiation therapy centers should have adequate quality assurance programs in place to assess open/close MLC errors (i.e. leaf gap errors) as they tend to be more impactful than random or systematic MLC shift errors.

Volumetric modulated arc therapy improves dosimetry and reduces treatment time compared to conventional intensity-modulated radiotherapy for locoregional radiotherapy of left-sided breast cancer and internal mammary nodes.

PURPOSE: Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is a novel extension of conventional intensity-modulated radiotherapy (cIMRT), in which an optimized three-dimensional dose distribution may be delivered in a single gantry rotation. VMAT is the predecessor to RapidArc (Varian Medical System). This study compared VMAT with cIMRT and with conventional modified wide-tangent (MWT) techniques for locoregional radiotherapy for left-sided breast cancer, including internal mammary nodes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Therapy for 5 patients previously treated with 50 Gy/25 fractions using nine-field cIMRT was replanned with VMAT and MWT. Comparative endpoints were planning target volume (PTV) dose homogeneity, doses to surrounding structures, number of monitor units, and treatment delivery time. RESULTS: For VMAT, two 190 degrees arcs with 2-cm overlapping jaws were required to optimize over the large treatment volumes. Treatment plans generated using VMAT optimization resulted in PTV homogeneity similar to that of cIMRT and MWT. The average heart volumes receiving >30 Gy for VMAT, cIMRT, and MWT were 2.6% +/- 0.7%, 3.5% +/- 0.8%, and 16.4% +/- 4.3%, respectively, and the average ipsilateral lung volumes receiving >20 Gy were 16.9% +/- 1.1%, 17.3% +/- 0.9%, and 37.3% +/- 7.2%, respectively. The average mean dose to the contralateral medial breast was 3.2 +/- 0.6 Gy for VMAT, 4.3 +/- 0.4 Gy for cIMRT, and 4.4 +/- 4.7 Gy for MWT. The healthy tissue volume percentages receiving 5 Gy were significantly larger with VMAT (33.1% +/- 2.1%) and IMRT (45.3% +/- 3.1%) than with MWT (19.4% +/- 3.7%). VMAT reduced the number of monitor units by 30% and the treatment time by 55% compared with cIMRT. CONCLUSIONS: VMAT achieved similar PTV coverage and sparing of organs at risk, with fewer monitor units and shorter delivery time than cIMRT.

When is CT-based postoperative seroma most useful to plan partial breast radiotherapy? Evaluation of clinical factors affecting seroma volume and clarity.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of the time from surgery and other clinical factors on seroma volume and clarity and establish the optimal time to use the computed tomography (CT)-based seroma to plan partial breast irradiation (PBI). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 205 women with early-stage breast cancer underwent planning CT after breast-conserving surgery. One radiation oncologist contoured the seroma volume and scored the seroma clarity, using a standardized Seroma Clarity Score scale, from 0 (not detectable) to 5 (clearest). Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate the associations between the seroma characteristics and the interval from surgery and other clinical factors. RESULTS: The mean interval from surgery to CT was 84 days (standard deviation 59). During postoperative Weeks 3-8, the mean seroma volume decreased from 47 to 30 cm(3), stabilized during Weeks 9-14 (mean 21) and was involuted beyond 14 weeks (mean 9 cm(3)). The mean seroma clarity score was 3.4 at Weeks 3-8, 2.5 at Weeks 9-14, and 1.6 after 14 weeks. The seroma clarity was greater in patients aged >or=70 years. The seroma volume and clarity correlated significantly with the volume of excised breast tissue but not with the maximal tumor diameter, surgical re-excision, or chemotherapy use. CONCLUSION: The optimal time to obtain the planning CT scan for PBI is within 8 weeks after surgery. During Weeks 9-14, the seroma might remain adequately defined in some patients; however, after 14 weeks, alternate strategies are needed to identify the PBI target. The lack of correlation between the seroma volume and tumor size suggests that the CT-based seroma should not be the sole guide for PBI target volume definition.