Dosiomic feature comparison between dose-calculation algorithms used for lung stereotactic body radiation therapy.

To evaluate the reproducibility of dose-based radiomic (dosiomic) features between dose-calculation algorithms for lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). We analyzed 105 patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer who underwent lung SBRT between March 2011 and December 2017. Radiation doses of 48, 60, and 70 Gy were prescribed to the isocenter in 4-8 fractions. Dose calculations were performed using X-ray voxel Monte Carlo (XVMC) on the iPlan radiation treatment planning system (RTPS). Thereafter, the radiation doses were recalculated using the Acuros XB (AXB) and analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) on the Eclipse RTPS while maintaining the XVMC-calculated monitor units and beam arrangements. A total of 6808 dosiomic features were extracted without preprocessing (112 shape, 144 first-order, and 600 texture features) or with wavelet filters to eight decompositions (1152 first-order and 4800 texture features). Features with absolute pairwise concordance correlation coefficients-|CCcon|-values exceeding or equaling 0.85 were considered highly reproducible. Subgroup analyses were performed considering the wavelet filters and prescribed doses. The numbers of highly reproducible first-order and texture features were 34.8%, 26.9%, and 31.0% for the XVMC-AXB, XVMC-AAA, and AXB-AAA pairs, respectively. The maximum difference between the mean |CCcon| values was 0.70 and 0.11 for the subgroup analyses of wavelet filters and prescribed dose, respectively. The application of wavelet filter-based dosiomic analyses may be limited when using different types of dose-calculation algorithms for lung SBRT.

Appropriate margin for planning target volume for breast radiotherapy during deep inspiration breath-hold by variance component analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to quantify errors by using a cine electronic portal imaging device (cine EPID) during deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) for left-sided breast cancer and to estimate the planning target volume (PTV) by variance component analysis. METHODS: This study included 25 consecutive left-sided breast cancer patients treated with whole-breast irradiation (WBI) using DIBH. Breath-holding was performed while monitoring abdominal anterior-posterior (AP) motion using the Real-time Position Management (RPM) system. Cine EPID was used to evaluate the chest wall displacements in patients. Cine EPID images of the patients (309,609 frames) were analyzed to detect the edges of the chest wall using a Canny filter. The errors that occurred during DIBH included differences between the chest wall position detected by digitally reconstructed radiographs and that of all cine EPID images. The inter-patient, inter-fraction, and intra-fractional standard deviations (SDs) in the DIBH were calculated, and the PTV margin was estimated by variance component analysis. RESULTS: The median patient age was 55 (35-79) years, and the mean irradiation time was 20.4 ± 1.7 s. The abdominal AP motion was 1.36 ± 0.94 (0.14-5.28) mm. The overall mean of the errors was 0.30 mm (95% confidence interval: - 0.05-0.65). The inter-patient, inter-fraction, and intra-fractional SDs in the DIBH were 0.82 mm, 1.19 mm, and 1.63 mm, respectively, and the PTV margin was calculated as 3.59 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Errors during DIBH for breast radiotherapy were monitored using EPID images and appropriate PTV margins were estimated by variance component analysis.

Improvement of prediction and classification performance for gamma passing rate by using plan complexity and dosiomics features.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to predict and classify the gamma passing rate (GPR) value by using new features (3D dosiomics features and combined with plan and dosiomics features) together with a machine learning technique for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment plans. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 888 patients who underwent VMAT were enrolled comprising 1255 treatment plans. Further, 24 plan complexity features and 851 dosiomics features were extracted from the treatment plans. The dataset was randomly split into a training/validation (80%) and test (20%) dataset. The three models for prediction and classification using XGBoost were as follows: (i) plan complexity features-based prediction method (plan model); (ii) 3D dosiomics feature-based prediction model (dosiomics model); (iii) a combination of both the previous models (hybrid model). The prediction performance was evaluated by calculating the mean absolute error (MAE) and the correlation coefficient (CC) between the predicted and measured GPRs. The classification performance was evaluated by calculating the area under curve (AUC) and sensitivity. RESULTS: MAE and CC at γ2%/2 mm in the test dataset were 4.6% and 0.58, 4.3% and 0.61, and 4.2% and 0.63 for the plan model, dosiomics model, and hybrid model, respectively. AUC and sensitivity at γ2%/2 mm in test dataset were 0.73 and 0.70, 0.81 and 0.90, and 0.83 and 0.90 for the plan model, dosiomics model, and hybrid model, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of both plan and dosiomics features with machine learning technique can improve the prediction and classification performance for GPR.

Independent calculation-based verification of volumetric-modulated arc therapy-stereotactic body radiotherapy plans for lung cancer.

This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of independent calculation-based verification of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT)-stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for patients with lung cancer using a secondary treatment planning system (sTPS). In all, 50 patients with lung cancer who underwent VMAT-SBRT between April 2018 and May 2019 were included in this study. VMAT-SBRT plans were devised using the Collapsed-Cone Convolution in RayStation (primary TPS: pTPS). DICOM files were transferred to Eclipse software (sTPS), which utilized the Eclipse software, and the dose distribution was then recalculated using Acuros XB. For the verification of dose distribution in homogeneous phantoms, the differences among pTPS, sTPS, and measurements were evaluated using passing rates of a dose difference of 5% (DD5%) and gamma index of 3%/2 mm (γ3%/2 mm). The ArcCHECK cylindrical diode array was used for measurements. For independent verification of dose-volume parameters per the patient's geometry, dose-volume indices for the planning target volume (PTV) including D95% and the isocenter dose were evaluated. The mean differences (± standard deviations) between the pTPS and sTPS were then calculated. The gamma passing rates of DD5% and γ3%/2 mm criteria were 99.2 ± 2.4% and 98.6 ± 3.2% for pTPS vs. sTPS, 92.9 ± 4.0% and 94.1 ± 3.3% for pTPS vs. measurement, and 93.0 ± 4.4% and 94.3 ± 4.1% for sTPS vs. measurement, respectively. The differences between pTPS and sTPS for the PTVs of D95% and the isocenter dose were -3.1 ± 2.0% and -2.3 ± 1.8%, respectively. Our investigation of VMAT-SBRT plans for lung cancer revealed that independent calculation-based verification is a time-efficient method for patient-specific quality assurance.

Investigation of 4D dose in volumetric modulated arc therapy-based stereotactic body radiation therapy: does fractional dose or number of arcs matter?

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of fractional dose and the number of arcs on interplay effects when volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is used to treat lung tumors with large respiratory motions. A three (fractional dose of 4, 7.5 or 12.5 Gy) by two (number of arcs, one or two) VMAT plan was created for 10 lung cancer cases. The median 3D tumor motion was 17.9 mm (range: 8.2-27.2 mm). Ten phase-specific subplans were generated by calculating the dose on each respiratory phase computed tomography (CT) scan using temporally assigned VMAT arcs. We performed temporal assignment of VMAT arcs using respiratory information obtained from infrared markers placed on the abdomens of the patients during CT simulations. Each phase-specific dose distribution was deformed onto exhale phase CT scans using contour-based deformable image registration, and a 4D plan was created by dose accumulation. The gross tumor volume dose of each 4D plan (4D GTV dose) was compared with the internal target volume dose of the original plan (3D ITV dose). The near-minimum 4D GTV dose (D99%) was higher than the near-minimum 3D internal target volume (ITV) dose, whereas the near-maximum 4D GTV dose (D1%) was lower than the near-maximum 3D ITV dose. However, the difference was negligible, and thus the 4D GTV dose corresponded well with the 3D ITV dose, regardless of the fractional dose and number of arcs. Therefore, interplay effects were negligible in VMAT-based stereotactic body radiation therapy for lung tumors with large respiratory motions.

Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for Large Uterine Fibroids.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) has increasingly been used in total hysterectomy for uterine fibroids. In our department, approximately 95% of total hysterectomies for benign uterine disease are performed by LH; however, in the 5% patients for whom LH is contraindicated, how to provide minimally invasive surgery was a challenge. METHODS: To avoid open surgery with a large vertical midline incision, we introduced a hand-assisted LH (HALH), whereby a lower abdominal transverse incision of 8 cm was made above the pubic symphysis apart from an incision needed for the operating port for laparoscopy. RESULTS: The procedure was performed on five patients between January 2015 and February 2016. The mean weight of the resected uteri was 1382 g, and the mean estimated blood loss was 541 ml. No patients required allogeneic blood transfusion, and there were no complications. Recovery was rapid and postoperative progress was good. CONCLUSION: HALH is a procedure that avoids traditional open surgery using a large vertical midline incision in patients for whom LH is contraindicated and for those with large uterine fibroids.

Prediction of dosimetric accuracy for VMAT plans using plan complexity parameters via machine learning.

PURPOSE: The dosimetric accuracies of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were predicted using plan complexity parameters via machine learning. METHODS: The dataset consisted of 600 cases of clinical VMAT plans from a single institution. The predictor variables (n = 28) for each plan included complexity parameters, machine type, and photon beam energy. Dosimetric measurements were performed using a helical diode array (ArcCHECK), and the dosimetric accuracy of the passing rates for a 5% dose difference (DD5%) and gamma index of 3%/3 mm (γ3%/3 mm) were predicted using three machine learning models: regression tree analysis (RTA), multiple regression analysis (MRA), and neural networks (NNs). First, the prediction models were applied to 500 cases of the VMAT plans. Then, the dosimetric accuracy was predicted using each model for the remaining 100 cases (evaluation dataset). The error between the predicted and measured passing rates was evaluated. RESULTS: For the 600 cases, the mean ± standard deviation of the measured passing rates was 92.3% ± 9.1% and 96.8% ± 3.1% for DD5% and γ3%/3 mm, respectively. For the evaluation dataset, the mean ± standard deviation of the prediction errors for DD5% and γ3%/3 mm was 0.5% ± 3.0% and 0.6% ± 2.4% for RTA, 0.0% ± 2.9% and 0.5% ± 2.4% for MRA, and -0.2% ± 2.7% and -0.2% ± 2.1% for NN, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: NNs performed slightly better than RTA and MRA in terms of prediction error. These findings may contribute to increasing the efficiency of patient-specific quality-assurance procedures.

[Use of Deformable Image Registration for Dose Accumulation].

Deformable image registration (DIR) can be used for accurate dose mapping between multiple radiotherapy image set. Dose accumulation based on DIR is playing an important role in advanced radiation therapy, such as 4 dimensional radiation therapy and adaptive Radiotherapy. The accuracy of dose mapping depends on the accuracy of the deformation vector fields arising from DIR and on the local dose gradient in the irradiated geometry. Therefore, in clinical use, patient-specific verification should be performed. In this article, challenges and points to notice on DIR based dose accumulation are overviewed and discussed briefly.

Single-isocenter volumetric-modulated Dynamic WaveArc therapy for two brain metastases.

PURPOSE: A new irradiation technique, volumetric-modulated Dynamic WaveArc therapy (VMDWAT), based on sequential non-coplanar trajectories, can be performed using the Vero4DRT. This planning study compared the dose distribution and treatment time between single-isocenter volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with multiple straight non-coplanar arcs and single-isocenter VMDWAT in patients with two brain metastases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients with two planning target volumes exceeding 2.0 cm3 were included. Both VMAT and VMDWAT plans were created with single isocenter and a prescribed dose of 28 Gy delivered in five fractions. Target conformity was evaluated using indices modified from the RTOG-CI (mRTOG-CI) and IP-CI (mIP-CI). RESULTS: VMDWAT significantly improved both mRTOG-CI and mIP-CI and reduced the volume of normal brain tissue receiving 25 and 28 Gy compared to VMAT. The two modalities did not significantly differ in terms of the volume of normal brain tissue receiving 5, 10, 12, 15, and 20 Gy. The mean treatment time was significantly shorter in the VMDWAT group. CONCLUSION: VMDWAT significantly improved dose distribution in a shorter treatment time compared to VMAT in patients treated for two brain metastases. Single-isocenter VMDWAT may thus be a promising treatment for two brain metastases.

Factual survey of the clinical use of deformable image registration software for radiotherapy in Japan.

Deformable image registration (DIR) has recently become commercially available in the field of radiotherapy. However, there was no detailed information regarding the use of DIR software at each medical institution. Thus, in this study, we surveyed the status of the clinical use of DIR software for radiotherapy in Japan. The Japan Society of Medical Physics and the Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology mailing lists were used to announce this survey. The questionnaire was created by investigators working under the research grant of the Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology (2017-2018) and intended for the collection of information regarding the use of DIR in radiotherapy. The survey was completed by 161 institutions in Japan. The survey results showed that dose accumulation was the most frequent purpose for which DIR was used in clinical practice (73%). Various commissioning methods were performed, although they were not standardized. Qualitative evaluation with actual patient images was the most commonly used method (28%), although 30% of the total number of responses (42% of institutions) reported that they do not perform commissioning. We surveyed the current status of clinical use of DIR software for radiotherapy in Japan for the first time. Our results indicated that a certain number of institutions used DIR software for clinical practice, and various commissioning methods were performed, although they were not standardized. Taken together, these findings highlight the need for a technically unified approach for commissioning and quality assurance for the use of DIR software in Japan.

Quality assurance of non-coplanar, volumetric-modulated arc therapy employing a C-arm linear accelerator, featuring continuous patient couch rotation.

PURPOSE: To perform quality assurance of non-coplanar, volumetric-modulated arc therapy featuring continuous couch rotation (CCR-VMAT) using a C-arm linear accelerator. METHODS: We planned and delivered CCR-VMAT using the TrueBeam Developer Mode. Treatment plans were created for both a C-shaped phantom and five prostate cancer patients using seven CCR trajectories that lacked collisions; we used RayStation software (ver. 4.7) to this end. Subsequently, verification plans were generated. The mean absolute error (MAE) between the center of an MV-imaged steel ball and the radiation field was calculated using the Winston-Lutz test. The MAEs between planned and actual irradiation values were also calculated from trajectory logs. In addition, correlation coefficients (r values) among the MAEs of gantry angle, couch angle, and multi-leaf collimator (MLC) position, and mechanical parameters including gantry speed, couch speed, MLC speed, and beam output, were estimated. The dosimetric accuracies of planned and measured values were also assessed using ArcCHECK. RESULTS: The MAEs ±2 standard deviations as revealed by the Winston-Lutz test for all trajectories were 0.3 ± 0.3 mm in two dimensions. The MAEs of the gantry, couch, and MLC positions calculated from all trajectory logs were within 0.04°, 0.08°, and 0.02 mm, respectively. Deviations in the couch angle (r = 0.98, p < 0.05) and MLC position (r = 0.86, p < 0.05) increased significantly with speed. The MAE of the beam output error was less than 0.01 MU. The mean gamma passing rate ± 2 SD (range) of the 3%/3 mm, 3%/1 mm, and 5%/1 mm was 98.1 ± 1.9% (95.7-99.6%), 87.2 ± 2.8% (80.2-96.7%), and 96.3 ± 2.8% (93.9-99.6%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: CCR-VMAT delivered via the TrueBeam Developer Mode was associated with high-level geometric and mechanical accuracy, thus affording to high dosimetric accuracy. The CCR-VMAT performance was stable regardless of the trajectory chosen.

Quality assurance of geometric accuracy based on an electronic portal imaging device and log data analysis for Dynamic WaveArc irradiation.

The purpose of this study was to develop a simple verification method for the routine quality assurance (QA) of Dynamic WaveArc (DWA) irradiation using electronic portal imaging device (EPID) images and log data analysis. First, an automatic calibration method utilizing the outermost multileaf collimator (MLC) slits was developed to correct the misalignment between the center of the EPID and the beam axis. Moreover, to verify the detection accuracy of the MLC position according to the EPID images, various positions of the MLC with intentional errors in the range 0.1-1 mm were assessed. Second, to validate the geometric accuracy during DWA irradiation, tests were designed in consideration of three indices. Test 1 evaluated the accuracy of the MLC position. Test 2 assessed dose output consistency with variable dose rate (160-400 MU/min), gantry speed (2.2-6°/s), and ring speed (0.5-2.7°/s). Test 3 validated dose output consistency with variable values of the above parameters plus MLC speed (1.6-4.2 cm/s). All tests were delivered to the EPID and compared with those obtained using a stationary radiation beam with a 0° gantry angle. Irradiation log data were recorded simultaneously. The 0.1-mm intentional error on the MLC position could be detected by the EPID, which is smaller than the EPID pixel size. In Test 1, the MLC slit widths agreed within 0.20 mm of their exposed values. The averaged root-mean-square error (RMSE) of the dose outputs was less than 0.8% in Test 2 and Test 3. Using log data analysis in Test 3, the RMSE between the planned and recorded data was 0.1 mm, 0.12°, and 0.07° for the MLC position, gantry angle, and ring angle, respectively. The proposed method is useful for routine QA of the accuracy of DWA.

Five-year outcomes following hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy delivered in five fractions for acoustic neuromas: the mean cochlear dose may impact hearing preservation.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the clinical outcomes of acoustic neuromas (ANs) treated with hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (hypo-FSRT) prescribed at a uniform dose. METHODS: Forty-seven patients with a unilateral AN were treated consecutively with hypo-FSRT between February 2007 and March 2012. Nineteen patients maintained a serviceable hearing status at the beginning of hypo-FSRT. The prescribed dose was 25 Gy delivered in five fractions per week to the isocenter, and the planning target volume was covered by the 80% isodose line. RESULTS: The median follow-up and audiometric follow-up periods were 61 and 52 months, respectively. The estimated tumor control rate at 5 years was 90% (95% CI 76-96). The existence of the cystic component before hypo-FSRT had a significantly worse impact on tumor control (p = 0.02). The estimated hearing preservation rates at 1, 3 and 5 years were 68% (95% CI 42-84), 41% (95% CI 20-62) and 36% (95% CI 15-57), respectively. A borderline significant difference was identified in the mean biological effective dose with an α/ß value of 3 Gy (BED3) to the ipsilateral cochlea between the preserved hearing and hearing loss groups (19 Gy vs. 28 Gy) (p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Hypo-FSRT delivered in five fractions for unilateral ANs may achieve excellent tumor control with no severe facial or trigeminal complications. The mean BED3 in the cochlea may impact the hearing preservation rate. Therefore, the cochlear dose should be as low as possible.

Monitoring of mechanical errors and their dosimetric impact throughout the course of non-coplanar continuous volumetric-modulated arc therapy.

BACKGROUND: Volumetric-modulated Dynamic WaveArc therapy (VMDWAT) is a non-coplanar continuous volumetric modulated radiation therapy (VMAT) delivery technique. Here, we monitored mechanical errors and their impact on dose distributions in VMDWAT using logfiles throughout the course of treatment. METHODS: Fifteen patients were enrolled (2 skull base tumor patients and 13 prostate cancer patients). VMDWAT plans were created for the enrolled patients. The prescribed dose for the skull base tumor was set as 54 Gy at 1.8 Gy per fraction, and that for the prostate cancer was set as 72 to 78 Gy at 2 Gy per fraction. We acquired logfiles to monitor mechanical errors and their impact on dose distribution in each fraction. The root mean square error (RMSE) in the multi-leaf collimator (MLC), gantry angle, O-ring angle and monitor unit (MU) were calculated using logfiles throughout the course of VMDWAT for each patient. The dosimetric impact of mechanical errors throughout the course of VMDWAT was verified using a logfile-based dose reconstruction method. Dosimetric errors between the reconstructed plans and the original plans were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 517 datasets, including 55 datasets for the 2 skull base tumor patients and 462 datasets for the 13 prostate cancer patients, were acquired. The RMSE values were less than 0.1 mm, 0.2°, 0.1°, and 0.4 MU for MLC position, gantry angle, O-ring angle, and MU, respectively. For the skull base tumors, the absolute mean dosimetric errors and two standard deviations throughout the course of treatment were less than 1.4% and 1.1%, respectively. For prostate cancer, these absolute values were less than 0.3% and 0.5%, respectively. The largest dosimetric error of 2.5% was observed in a skull base tumor patient. The resultant dosimetric error in the accumulated daily delivered dose distribution, in the patient with the largest error, was up to 1.6% for all dose-volumetric parameters relative to the planned dose distribution. CONCLUSIONS: MLC position, gantry rotation, O-ring rotation and MU were highly accurate and stable throughout the course of treatment. The daily dosimetric errors due to mechanical errors were small. VMDWAT provided high delivery accuracy and stability throughout the course of treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN000023870 . Registered: 1 October 2016.

Geometric and dosimetric accuracy of dynamic tumor tracking during volumetric-modulated arc therapy using a gimbal mounted linac.

PURPOSE: The aim was to examine the feasibility of a dynamic tumor-tracking volumetric modulated arc therapy (DTT-VMAT) technique using a gimbal-mounted linac and assess its positional, mechanical and dosimetric accuracy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: DTT-VMAT was performed using a surrogated signal-based technique. The positional tracking accuracy was evaluated as the difference between the predicted and detected target positions for various wave patterns. Mechanical accuracy measurements included gantry, multileaf collimator (MLC) and gimbal positions. The differences between the command and the measured positions were evaluated for various wave patterns. Dosimetric verification was performed using Gafchromic EBT3 films in the benchmark phantom and two clinical cases. RESULTS: The root mean square error (RMSE) of the positional accuracy was within 0.31 mm. The RMSE of mechanical accuracy was within 0.14° for the gantry, 0.11 ±â€¯0.02 mm for the MLC and 0.13 mm for the gimbal positions. The passing rate of the 3%/3 mm gamma index was greater than 83.3% and 91.2% for the benchmark phantom and two clinical cases, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The positional, mechanical and dosimetric accuracy of DTT-VMAT were evaluated. DTT-VMAT with a gimbal-mounted linac had sufficient accuracy and presents a new strategy for treatment of several tumors with respiratory motion.

Geometric and dosimetric quality assurance using logfiles and a 3D helical diode detector for Dynamic WaveArc.

PURPOSE: To conduct patient-specific geometric and dosimetric quality assurance (QA) for the Dynamic WaveArc (DWA) using logfiles and ArcCHECK (Sun Nuclear Inc., Melbourne, FL, USA). METHODS: Twenty DWA plans, 10 for pituitary adenoma and 10 for prostate cancer, were created using RayStation version 4.7 (RaySearch Laboratories, Stockholm, Sweden). Root mean square errors (RMSEs) between the actual and planned values in the logfiles were evaluated. Next, the dose distributions were reconstructed based on the logfiles. The differences between dose-volumetric parameters in the reconstructed plans and those in the original plans were calculated. Finally, dose distributions were assessed using ArcCHECK. In addition, the reconstructed dose distributions were compared with planned ones. RESULTS: The means of RMSEs for the gantry, O-ring, MLC position, and MU for all plans were 0.2°, 0.1°, 0.1 mm, and 0.4 MU, respectively. Absolute means of the change in PTV D99% were 0.4 ±â€¯0.4% and 0.1 ±â€¯0.1% points between the original and reconstructed plans for pituitary adenoma and prostate cancer, respectively. The mean of the gamma passing rate (3%/3 mm) between the measured and planned dose distributions was 97.7%. In addition, that between the reconstructed and planned dose distributions was 99.6%. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated that the geometric accuracy and gamma passing rates were within AAPM 119 and 142 criteria during DWA. Dose differences in the dose-volumetric parameters using the logfile-based dose reconstruction method were also clinically acceptable in DWA.

Use of a second-dose calculation algorithm to check dosimetric parameters for the dose distribution of a first-dose calculation algorithm for lung SBRT plans.

PURPOSE: To verify lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) plans using a secondary treatment planning system (TPS) as an independent method of verification and to define tolerance levels (TLs) in lung SBRT between the primary and secondary TPSs. METHODS: A total of 147 lung SBRT plans calculated using X-ray voxel Monte Carlo (XVMC) were exported from iPlan to Eclipse in DICOM format. Dose distributions were recalculated using the Acuros XB (AXB) and the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA), while maintaining monitor units (MUs) and the beam arrangement. Dose to isocenter and dose-volumetric parameters, such as D2, D50, D95 and D98, were evaluated for each patient. The TLs of all parameters between XVMC and AXB (TLAXB) and between XVMC and AAA (TLAAA) were calculated as the mean±1.96 standard deviations. RESULTS: AXB values agreed with XVMC values within 3.5% for all dosimetric parameters in all patients. By contrast, AAA sometimes calculated a 10% higher dose in PTV D95 and D98 than XVMC. The TLAXB and TLAAA of the dose to isocenter were -0.3±1.4% and 0.6±2.9%, respectively. Those of D95 were 1.3±1.8% and 1.7±3.6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study quantitatively demonstrated that the dosimetric performance of AXB is almost equal to that of XVMC, compared with that of AAA. Therefore, AXB is a more appropriate algorithm for an independent verification method for XVMC.

Volumetric modulated Dynamic WaveArc therapy reduces the dose to the hippocampus in patients with pituitary adenomas and craniopharyngiomas.

PURPOSE: Reducing the radiation dose to the hippocampus is important to preserve cognitive function in patients with brain tumors. The Vero4DRT system can realize a new irradiation technique, termed volumetric-modulated Dynamic WaveArc therapy (VMDWAT), which allows the safe use of sequential noncoplanar volumetric-modulated beams without couch rotation. Because VMDWAT appears to reduce the hippocampal dose in patients with pituitary adenomas and craniopharyngiomas, we performed a planning study to compare the dose distribution of volumetric-modulated arc therapy using only a coplanar arc (coVMAT) and VMDWAT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: CoVMAT and VMDWAT plans were created for 30 patients with pituitary adenomas and craniopharyngiomas. The prescription dose was 52.2 Gy in 29 fractions, with 99% of each planning target volume covered by 90% of the prescribed dose. Optimization was performed for maximal reduction of the dose to the hippocampus. Treatment time was defined as the beam-on time. RESULTS: The mean equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions to 40% of the volume of the bilateral hippocampus (EQD40%) for coVMAT/VMDWAT were 9.90/5.31 Gy, respectively (P < .001). The mean EQD40% in VMDWAT was less than 7.3 Gy, which is the threshold for predicting cognitive impairment. Although the volume of normal brain receiving 5 Gy (V5) was significantly larger in VMDWAT, compared with coVMAT, the normal brain volume receiving 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, and 50 Gy (V10-50) was significantly smaller in VMDWAT. The conformity and homogeneity indices were significantly better in VMDWAT. The mean VMDWAT treatment time was longer compared with coVMAT (70.1 vs 67.1 seconds, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Although VMDWAT increased brain V5 and the treatment time compared with coVMAT, it significantly reduced the dose to the hippocampus and brain V10 to V50 and improved target conformity and homogeneity. VMDWAT could be a promising treatment technique for pituitary adenomas and craniopharyngiomas.