Unilateral and bilateral neck SIB for head and neck cancer patients : Intensity-modulated proton therapy, tomotherapy, and RapidArc.

AIM: To compare simultaneous integrated boost plans for intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT), helical tomotherapy (HT), and RapidArc therapy (RA) for patients with head and neck cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 20 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck received definitive chemoradiation with bilateral (n = 14) or unilateral (n = 6) neck irradiation and were planned using IMPT, HT, and RA with 54.4, 60.8, and 70.4 GyE/Gy in 32 fractions. Dose distributions, coverage, conformity, homogeneity to planning target volumes (PTV)s and sparing of organs at risk and normal tissue were compared. RESULTS: All unilateral and bilateral plans showed excellent PTV coverage and acceptable dose conformity. For unilateral treatment, IMPT delivered substantially lower mean doses to contralateral salivary glands (< 0.001-1.1 Gy) than both rotational techniques did (parotid gland: 6-10 Gy; submandibular gland: 15-20 Gy). Regarding the sparing of classical organs at risk for bilateral treatment, IMPT and HT were similarly excellent and RA was satisfactory. CONCLUSION: For unilateral neck irradiation, IMPT may minimize the dry mouth risk in this subgroup but showed no advantage over HT for bilateral neck treatment regarding classical organ-at-risk sparing. All methods satisfied modern standards regarding toxicity and excellent target coverage for unilateral and bilateral treatment of head and neck cancer at the planning level.

Anatomy driven optimization strategy for total marrow irradiation with a volumetric modulated arc therapy technique.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the possibility of dose distribution optimization for total marrow irradiation (TMI) employing volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with RapidArc (RA) technology setting isocenter's positions and jaw's apertures according to patient's anatomical features. Plans for five patients were generated with the RA engine (PROIII): eight arcs were distributed along four isocenters and simultaneously optimized with collimator set to 90°. Two models were investigated for geometrical settings of arcs: (1) in the "symmetric" model, isocenters were equispaced and field apertures were set the same for all arcs to uniformly cover the entire target length; (2) in the "anatomy driven" model, both field sizes and isocenter positions were optimized in order to minimize the target volume near the field edges (i.e., to maximize the freedom of motion of MLC leaves inside the field aperture (for example, avoiding arcs with ribs and iliac wings in the same BEV)). All body bones from the cranium to mid of the femurs were defined as PTV; the maximum length achieved in this study was 130 cm. Twelve (12) Gy in 2 Gy/fractions were prescribed in order to obtain the covering of 85% of the PTV by 100% of the prescribed dose. For all organs at risk (including brain, optical structures, oral and neck structures, lungs, heart, liver, kidneys, spleen, bowels, bladder, rectum, genitals), planning strategy aimed to maximize sparing according to ALARA principles, looking to reach a mean dose lower than 6 Gy (i.e., 50% of the prescribed dose). Mean MU/fraction resulted 3184 ± 354 and 2939 ± 264 for the two strategies, corresponding to a reduction of 7% (range -2% to 13%) for (1) and (2). Target homogeneity, defined as D(2%)-D(98%) was 18% better for (2). Mean dose to the healthy tissue, defined as body minus PTV, had 10% better reduction with (2). The isocenter's position and the jaw's apertures are significant parameters in the optimization of the TMI with RA technique, giving the medical physicist a crucial role in driving the optimization and thus obtaining the best plan. A clinical protocol started in our department in October 2010.

Accuracy of Acuros XB and AAA dose calculation for small fields with reference to RapidArc(®) stereotactic treatments.

PURPOSE: To assess the accuracy against measurements of two photon dose calculation algorithms (Acuros XB and the Anisotropic Analytical algorithm AAA) for small fields usable in stereotactic treatments with particular focus on RapidArc(®). METHODS: Acuros XB and AAA were configured for stereotactic use. Baseline accuracy was assessed on small jaw-collimated open fields for different values for the spot sizes parameter in the beam data: 0.0, 0.5, 1, and 2 mm. Data were calculated with a grid of 1 × 1 mm(2). Investigated fields were: 3 × 3, 2 × 2, 1 × 1, and 0.8 × 0.8 cm(2) with a 6 MV photon beam generated from a Clinac2100iX (Varian, Palo Alto, CA). Profiles, PDD, and output factors were measured in water with a PTW diamond detector (detector size: 4 mm(2), thickness 0.4 mm) and compared to calculations. Four RapidArc test plans were optimized, calculated and delivered with jaw settings J3 × 3, J2 × 2, and J1 × 1 cm(2), the last was optimized twice to generate high (H) and low (L) modulation patterns. Each plan consisted of one partial arc (gantry 110° to 250°), and collimator 45°. Dose to isocenter was measured in a PTW Octavius phantom and compared to calculations. 2D measurements were performed by means of portal dosimetry with the GLAaS method developed at authors' institute. Analysis was performed with gamma pass-fail test with 3% dose difference and 2 mm distance to agreement thresholds. RESULTS: Open square fields: penumbrae from open field profiles were in good agreement with diamond measurements for 1 mm spot size setting for Acuros XB, and between 0.5 and 1 mm for AAA. Maximum MU difference between calculations and measurements was 1.7% for Acuros XB (0.2% for fields greater than 1 × 1 cm(2)) with 0.5 or 1 mm spot size. Agreement for AAA was within 0.7% (2.8%) for 0.5 (1 mm) spot size. RapidArc plans: doses were evaluated in a 4 mm diameter structure at isocenter and computed values differed from measurements by 0.0, -0.2, 5.5, and -3.4% for Acuros XB calculations (1 mm spot size), and of -0.1, 0.3, 6.7, and -1.2% for AAA, respectively for J3 × 3, J2 × 2, J1 × 1H, J1 × 1L RapidArc plans. Gamma Agreement Index from 2D dose analysis was higher than 95% for J3 × 3 and J2 × 2 plans, being around 80% for J1 × 1 maps. Sensitivity with respect to the dosimetric leaf gap and transmission factor MLC parameters was evaluated in the four RapidArc plans, showing the need to properly set the dosimetric leaf gap for accurate calculations. CONCLUSIONS: Acuros XB and AAA showed acceptable characteristics for stereotactic small fields if adequate tuning of configuration parameters is performed. Dose calculated for RapidArc stereotactic plans showed an acceptable agreement against point and 2D measurements. Both algorithms can therefore be considered safely applicable to stereotactic treatments.

On the role of the optimization algorithm of RapidArc(®) volumetric modulated arc therapy on plan quality and efficiency.

PURPOSE: The RapidArc volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning process is based on a core engine, the so-called progressive resolution optimizer (PRO). This is the optimization algorithm used to determine the combination of field shapes, segment weights (with dose rate and gantry speed variations), which best approximate the desired dose distribution in the inverse planning problem. A study was performed to assess the behavior of two versions of PRO. These two versions mostly differ in the way continuous variables describing the modulated arc are sampled into discrete control points, in the planning efficiency and in the presence of some new features. The analysis aimed to assess (i) plan quality, (ii) technical delivery aspects, (iii) agreement between delivery and calculations, and (iv) planning efficiency of the two versions. METHODS: RapidArc plans were generated for four groups of patients (five patients each): anal canal, advanced lung, head and neck, and multiple brain metastases and were designed to test different levels of planning complexity and anatomical features. Plans from optimization with PRO2 (first generation of RapidArc optimizer) were compared against PRO3 (second generation of the algorithm). Additional plans were optimized with PRO3 using new features: the jaw tracking, the intermediate dose and the air cavity correction options. RESULTS: Results showed that (i) plan quality was generally improved with PRO3 and, although not for all parameters, some of the scored indices showed a macroscopic improvement with PRO3. (ii) PRO3 optimization leads to simpler patterns of the dynamic parameters particularly for dose rate. (iii) No differences were observed between the two algorithms in terms of pretreatment quality assurance measurements and (iv) PRO3 optimization was generally faster, with a time reduction of a factor approximately 3.5 with respect to PRO2. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that PRO3 is either clinically beneficial or neutral in terms of dosimetric quality while it showed significant advantages in speed and technical aspects.

Evaluation of the dose calculation accuracy for small fields defined by jaw or MLC for AAA and Acuros XB algorithms.

PURPOSE: Small field measurements are challenging, due to the physical characteristics coming from the lack of charged particle equilibrium, the partial occlusion of the finite radiation source, and to the detector response. These characteristics can be modeled in the dose calculations in the treatment planning systems. Aim of the present work is to evaluate the MU calculation accuracy for small fields, defined by jaw or MLC, for anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB algorithms, relative to output measurements on the beam central axis. METHODS: Single point output factor measurement was acquired with a PTW microDiamond detector for 6 MV, 6 and 10 MV unflattened beams generated by a Varian TrueBeam STx equipped with high definition-MLC. Fields defined by jaw or MLC apertures were set; jaw-defined: 0.6 × 0.6, 0.8 × 0.8, 1 × 1, 2 × 2, 3 × 3, 4 × 4, 5 × 5, and 10 × 10 cm2; MLC-defined: 0.5 × 0.5 cm2 to the maximum field defined by the jaw, with 0.5 cm stepping, and jaws set to: 2 × 2, 3 × 3, 4 × 4, 5 × 5, and 10 × 10 cm2. MU calculation was obtained with 1 mm grid in a virtual water phantom for the same fields, for AAA and Acuros algorithms implemented in the Varian eclipse treatment planning system (version 13.6). Configuration parameters as the effective spot size (ESS) and the dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) were varied to find the best parameter setting. Differences between calculated and measured doses were analyzed. RESULTS: Agreement better than 0.5% was found for field sizes equal to or larger than 2 × 2 cm2 for both algorithms. A dose overestimation was present for smaller jaw-defined fields, with the best agreement, averaged over all the energies, of 1.6% and 4.6% for a 1 × 1 cm2 field calculated by AAA and Acuros, respectively, for a configuration with ESS = 1 mm for both X and Y directions for AAA, and ESS = 1.5 and 0 mm for X and Y directions for Acuros. Conversely, a calculated dose underestimation was found for small MLC-defined fields, with the best agreement averaged over all the energies, of -3.9% and 0.2% for a 1 × 1 cm2 field calculated by AAA and Acuros, respectively, for a configuration with ESS = 0 mm for both directions and both algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: For optimal setting applied in the algorithm configuration phase, the agreement of Acuros calculations with measurements could achieve the 3% for MLC-defined fields as small as 0.5 × 0.5 cm2. Similar agreement was found for AAA for fields as small as 1 × 1 cm2.