Can cost make a difference dosimetrically? Volumetric modulated arc therapy study for multileaf collimators of various widths for head and neck and prostate cancers.

Cancer is a global health issue that disproportionately kills based on stage of disease, cellular pathology, and genetics, to name a few. Another variable to consider in this ongoing fight is treatment machine complexity that leads to elevated development and purchasing cost, leading to a reduced use. Reducing the complexity (in hopes of lowering costs) would benefit underdeveloped, low- and middle-income countries by introducing newer treatment technology, as their currently accepted standards do not meet standards of more advanced, developed countries. In this study, unilateral head and neck (H&N), and prostate cases using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) were tested with multiple segment widths of 5, 10, 15, and 20mm to create treatable plans. Pinnacle 9.10v was used for planning purposes. A total of 12 cases were planned with varying multileaf collimator (MLC) widths. Treatment plans were evaluated retrospectively. Results show that altering the MLC widths from 5 through 20mm produces both comparable and treatable plans up to 99% and 98% target coverage for H&N and prostate, respectively, albeit clinically significant hot spots were shown to increase with increasing segment width. Furthermore, the results show that increasing widths can produce comparable treatment plans as measured against our current Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved treatment devices-leading to an increase in treatment efficacy in economically underdeveloped countries.

Results From the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Houston's Anthropomorphic Phantoms Used for Proton Therapy Clinical Trial Credentialing.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to summarize the findings of anthropomorphic proton phantom irradiations analyzed by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Houston QA Center (IROC Houston). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 103 phantoms were irradiated by proton therapy centers participating in clinical trials. The anthropomorphic phantoms simulated heterogeneous anatomy of a head, liver, lung, prostate, and spine. Treatment plans included those for scattered, uniform scanning, and pencil beam scanning beam delivery modalities using 5 different treatment planning systems. For every phantom irradiation, point doses and planar doses were measured using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) and film, respectively. Differences between measured and planned doses were studied as a function of phantom, beam delivery modality, motion, repeat attempt, treatment planning system, and date of irradiation. RESULTS: The phantom pass rate (overall, 79%) was high for simple phantoms and lower for phantoms that introduced higher levels of difficulty, such as motion, multiple targets, or increased heterogeneity. All treatment planning systems overestimated dose to the target, compared to TLD measurements. Errors in range calculation resulted in several failed phantoms. There was no correlation between treatment planning system and pass rate. The pass rates for each individual phantom are not improving over time, but when individual institutions received feedback about failed phantom irradiations, pass rates did improve. CONCLUSIONS: The proton phantom pass rates are not as high as desired and emphasize potential deficiencies in proton therapy planning and/or delivery. There are many areas for improvement with the proton phantom irradiations, such as treatment planning system dose agreement, range calculations, accounting for motion, and irradiation of multiple targets.