Clinical implementation of AXB from AAA for breast: Plan quality and subvolume analysis.

PURPOSE: Two dose calculation algorithms are available in Varian Eclipse software: Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) and Acuros External Beam (AXB). Many Varian Eclipse-based centers have access to AXB; however, a thorough understanding of how it will affect plan characteristics and, subsequently, clinical practice is necessary prior to implementation. We characterized the difference in breast plan quality between AXB and AAA for dissemination to clinicians during implementation. METHODS: Locoregional irradiation plans were created with AAA for 30 breast cancer patients with a prescription dose of 50 Gy to the breast and 45 Gy to the regional node, in 25 fractions. The internal mammary chain (IMCCTV ) nodes were covered by 80% of the breast dose. AXB, both dose-to-water and dose-to-medium reporting, was used to recalculate plans while maintaining constant monitor units. Target coverage and organ-at-risk doses were compared between the two algorithms using dose-volume parameters. An analysis to assess location-specific changes was performed by dividing the breast into nine subvolumes in the superior-inferior and left-right directions. RESULTS: There were minimal differences found between the AXB and AAA calculated plans. The median difference between AXB and AAA for breastCTV V95% , was <2.5%. For IMCCTV , the median differences V95% , and V80% were <5% and 0%, respectively; indicating IMCCTV coverage only decreased when marginally covered. Mean superficial dose increased by a median of 3.2 Gy. In the subvolume analysis, the medial subvolumes were "hotter" when recalculated with AXB and the lateral subvolumes "cooler" with AXB; however, all differences were within 2 Gy. CONCLUSION: We observed minimal difference in magnitude and spatial distribution of dose when comparing the two algorithms. The largest observable differences occurred in superficial dose regions. Therefore, clinical implementation of AXB from AAA for breast radiotherapy is not expected to result in changes in clinical practice for prescribing or planning breast radiotherapy.

The transition in practice to reduce bolus use in post-mastectomy radiotherapy: A dosimetric study of skin and subcutaneous tissue.

To inform clinical practice for women receiving post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT), this study demonstrates the dosimetric impact of removing daily bolus on skin and subcutaneous tissue. Two planning strategies were used: clinical field-based (n = 30) and volume-based planning (n = 10). The clinical field-based plans were created with bolus and recalculated without bolus for comparison. The volume-based plans were created with bolus to ensure a minimum target coverage of the chest wall PTV and recalculated without bolus. In each scenario, the dose to superficial structures, including skin (3 mm and 5 mm) and subcutaneous tissue (a 2 mm layer, 3 mm deep from surface) were reported. Additionally, the difference in the clinically evaluated dosimetry to skin and subcutaneous tissue in volume-based plans were recalculated using Acuros (AXB) and compared to the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) algorithm. For all treatment planning strategies, chest wall coverage (V90%) was maintained. As expected, superficial structures demonstrate significant loss in coverage. The largest difference observed in the most superficial 3 mm where V90% coverage is reduced from a mean (± standard deviation) of 95.1% (± 2.8) to 18.9% (± 5.6) for clinical field-based treatments with and without bolus, respectively. For volume-based planning, the subcutaneous tissue maintains a V90% of 90.5% (± 7.0) compared to the clinical field-based planning coverage of 84.4% (± 8.0). In all skin and subcutaneous tissue, the AAA algorithm underestimates the volume of the 90% isodose. Removing bolus results in minimal dosimetric differences in the chest wall and significantly lower skin dose while dose to the subcutaneous tissue is maintained. Unless the skin has disease involvement, the most superficial 3 mm is not considered part of the target volume. The continued use of the AAA algorithm is supported for the PMRT setting.

Dosimetric consequences of seed placement accuracy in permanent breast seed implant brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: This study quantifies the dosimetric impact of implant accuracy and derives a quantitative relationship relating implant accuracy to target dosimetry. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A framework was developed to simulate multiple implants for error combinations. Spherical clinical target volumes (CTVs) were modeled with volumes 1.4 cm3, 9.2 cm3, and 20.6 cm3, representing the range seen clinically. Each CTV was expanded 10 mm isotropically to create a planning target volume (PTV).. Random and systematic seed placement errors were simulated by shifting needles from their planned positions. Implant errors were simulated over the range of clinically practical errors in permanent breast seed implant. The relative effect on target coverage was evaluated. Regression analysis was performed to derive relationships between CTV dosimetry and the magnitude of implant accuracy. The validity of the clinically used 10 mm PTV margin for each of the CTVs was assessed. RESULTS: Introducing practical implant errors resulted in CTV V90% median (10th and 90th percentile) of 97.7% (85.9% and 100%), 96.2% (86.8% and 99.7%), and 100% (77.8% and 100%) for the typical, large, and small CTV, respectively. All CTVs show similar trends in target coverage. Polynomials were derived relating seed placement accuracy to median (R2 = 0.82) and 10th percentile (R2 = 0.78) CTV V90%.. CONCLUSIONS: This work quantitatively describes the relationship between implant accuracy and CTV coverage. Based on simulations, the 10 mm PTV margin is adequate to maintain target coverage. These equations can be used with institutional seed placement accuracy to estimate coverage.

Establishing a simulation-based education program for radiation oncology learners in permanent seed implant brachytherapy: Building validation evidence.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to establish a simulation-based education program for radiation oncology learners in permanent seed implant brachytherapy. The first step in formalizing any education program is a validation process that builds evidence-based verification that the learning environment is appropriate. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The primary education task allowed practitioners to use an anthropomorphic breast phantom to simulate a permanent seed implant brachytherapy delivery. Validation evidence is built by generating data to assess learner and expert cohorts according to their proficiency. Each practitioner's performance during the simulation was evaluated by seed placement accuracy, procedural time-to-complete, and two qualitative evaluation tools-a global rating scale and procedural checklist. RESULTS: The average seed placement accuracy (±SD) was 8.1 ± 3.5 mm compared to 6.1 ± 2.6 mm for the learner and expert cohort, respectively. The median (range) procedural time-to-complete was 64 (60-77) minutes and 43 (41-50) minutes for the learner and expert cohort, respectively. Seed placement accuracy (student t-test, p < 0.05) and procedural time-to-complete (Mann-Whitney U-test, p < 0.05) were statistically different between the cohorts. In both the global rating scale and procedural checklist, the expert cohort demonstrated improved proficiency compared to the learner cohort. CONCLUSIONS: This validation evidence supports the utilization of this simulation environment toward appropriately capturing the delivery experience of practitioners. The results demonstrate that, in all areas of evaluation, expert cohort proficiency was superior to learner cohort proficiency. This methodology will be used to establish a simulation-based education program for radiation oncology learners in permanent seed implant brachytherapy.

Peer-based credentialing for brachytherapy: Application in permanent seed implant.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to establish a quantitative method for implant quality evaluation in permanent seed implant brachytherapy for credentialing. Delivery-based credentialing will promote consistency in brachytherapy seed delivery and improve patient outcomes. METHODS: A workflow for delivery-based credentialing was outlined and applied to permanent breast seed implant brachytherapy. Delivery simulations were performed on implantable anthropomorphic breast phantoms. Two institutions experienced in permanent seed implant brachytherapy demonstrated the peer credentialing process. Each delivery was evaluated for seed placement accuracy as the measure of implant quality, both for implant accuracy and across five simulations to assess implant variation. Initial credentialing criteria are set based on two factors; the mean seed placement accuracy (implant accuracy) and the mean standard deviation (seed variation) with the threshold for each set with the addition of two standard deviations. RESULTS: Across two institutions, seed placement accuracy (±standard deviation) was calculated for all five delivery simulations to yield 6.1 (±2.6) mm. To set credentialing criteria, the implant accuracy (6.1 mm) plus two standard deviations (2.0 mm) and the seed variation (2.6 mm) plus two standard deviations (0.8) mm yield a threshold of 8.1 ± 3.4 mm. It is expected that 95% of experienced institutions would perform the phantom simulation within this threshold. CONCLUSION: Brachytherapy programs should validate delivery accuracy by formal credentialing, which is standard in external beam programs. This quantitative implant evaluation should be combined with current credentialing standards for permanent seed brachytherapy to form a comprehensive validation of institutional brachytherapy program quality.

Technical Note: Issues related to external marker block placement for deep inspiration breath hold breast radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: It has been suggested that the Real-time Position Management (RPM) marker block should be placed directly on the breast or sternum to verify deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) level for breast radiotherapy. We explore three potential issues with this practice: (a) surface dose effect of placing the marker block in the primary beam; (b) effect of marker block tilt on the accuracy of the RPM system; and (c) correlation between marker block positions on the patient surface and internal chest wall position. METHODS: (a) The surface dose under the two-, four-, and six-dot marker blocks was measured at incident angles of 0° and 30°; (b) the motion amplitude detected when using the two- and six-dot marker blocks was recorded for block tilts from 0° to 60° about the RPM camera line of sight; (c) the correlation between median displacement of the chest wall and median displacement of the surface contour between breath holds was investigated for superior, middle, and inferior block positions using contours extracted from portal images of eight left-sided breast cancer patients. RESULTS: (a) The marker blocks increased the surface dose for a 6 MV direct field by 48.2-52.2% of Dmax ; (b) at lateral tilts greater than 10°, the two-dot marker block overestimated the motion amplitude; however, the six-dot marker block amplitude remained accurate up to 60°; (c) the whole, superior, and middle surface positions were strongly correlated with chest wall displacement (R2 = 0.83; R2 = 0.90; R2 = 0.83), whereas the inferior position was moderately correlated (R2 = 0.36). CONCLUSIONS: The RPM marker block can be placed on the breast for DIBH treatments; however, caution should be used regarding surface dose effects. The two-dot marker block should not be used for block tilts beyond 20°. Marker block placement at a middle or superior position on the breast results in the strongest correlation with chest wall position.