Direct-aperture optimization applied to selection of beam orientations in intensity-modulated radiation therapy.

Direct-aperture optimization (DAO) was applied to iterative beam-orientation selection in intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), so as to ensure a realistic segmental treatment plan at each iteration. Nested optimization engines dealt separately with gantry angles, couch angles, collimator angles, segment shapes, segment weights and wedge angles. Each optimization engine performed a random search with successively narrowing step sizes. For optimization of segment shapes, the filtered backprojection (FBP) method was first used to determine desired fluence, the fluence map was segmented, and then constrained direct-aperture optimization was used thereafter. Segment shapes were fully optimized when a beam angle was perturbed, and minimally re-optimized otherwise. The algorithm was compared with a previously reported method using FBP alone at each orientation iteration. An example case consisting of a cylindrical phantom with a hemi-annular planning target volume (PTV) showed that for three-field plans, the method performed better than when using FBP alone, but for five or more fields, neither method provided much benefit over equally spaced beams. For a prostate case, improved bladder sparing was achieved through the use of the new algorithm. A plan for partial scalp treatment showed slightly improved PTV coverage and lower irradiated volume of brain with the new method compared to FBP alone. It is concluded that, although the method is computationally intensive and not suitable for searching large unconstrained regions of beam space, it can be used effectively in conjunction with prior class solutions to provide individually optimized IMRT treatment plans.

Assessment of MLC tracking performance during hypofractionated prostate radiotherapy using real-time dose reconstruction.

By adapting to the actual patient anatomy during treatment, tracked multi-leaf collimator (MLC) treatment deliveries offer an opportunity for margin reduction and healthy tissue sparing. This is assumed to be especially relevant for hypofractionated protocols in which intrafractional motion does not easily average out. In order to confidently deliver tracked treatments with potentially reduced margins, it is necessary to monitor not only the patient anatomy but also the actually delivered dose during irradiation. In this study, we present a novel real-time online dose reconstruction tool which calculates actually delivered dose based on pre-calculated dose influence data in less than 10 ms at a rate of 25 Hz. Using this tool we investigate the impact of clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume (PTV) margins on CTV coverage and organ-at-risk dose. On our research linear accelerator, a set of four different CTV-to-PTV margins were tested for three patient cases subject to four different motion conditions. Based on this data, we can conclude that tracking eliminates dose cold spots which can occur in the CTV during conventional deliveries even for the smallest CTV-to-PTV margin of 1 mm. Changes of organ-at-risk dose do occur frequently during MLC tracking and are not negligible in some cases. Intrafractional dose reconstruction is expected to become an important element in any attempt of re-planning the treatment plan during the delivery based on the observed anatomy of the day.

Optimization of coplanar six-field techniques for conformal radiotherapy of the prostate.

PURPOSE: To determine the optimal coplanar treatment technique for six-field conformal radiotherapy of prostate only (PO) or prostate plus seminal vesicles (PSV). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A series of 6-MV six-field coplanar treatment plans were created for PO and PSV volumes in 10 patients prescribed to both 64 and 74 Gy. All plans consisted of laterally-symmetric anterior oblique, lateral, and posterior oblique fields. The posterior oblique fields were varied through 20-45 degrees relative to the lateral fields, and for each of these angles, the anterior oblique fields were varied through 25-65 degrees relative to lateral. The plans were compared by means of rectal volumes irradiated to 80% or more of the prescribed dose (V80); normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for rectum, bladder, and femoral heads; and tumor control probability (TCP). Femoral head tolerance was designated as 52 Gy to no more than 10% volume. RESULTS: For the PO group, anterior oblique fields at 50 degrees from lateral and posterior oblique fields at 25 degrees from lateral produced the lowest V80, together with femoral head doses which were appropriate for most patients (V80 = 24.4+/-5.3% [1 SD]). Compared to a commonly-used six-field (reference) plan with both anterior and posterior oblique fields at 35 degrees from lateral (V80 = 26.3+/-5.9%), this represented an improvement (p = 0.001). For the PSV group, the optimal anterior and posterior oblique fields were at 65 degrees and 30 degrees from lateral, respectively (V80 = 47.5+/-6.3%). Relative to the reference plan (V80 = 49.4+/-5.6%), this was a marginal improvement (p = 0.07). CONCLUSION: The optimized six-field plans provide increased rectal sparing at both standard and escalated doses. Moreover, the gain in TCP resulting from dose escalation can be achieved with a smaller increase in rectal NTCP using the optimized six-field plans.

Comparison of 2D and 3D algorithms for adding a margin to the gross tumor volume in the conformal radiotherapy planning of prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the adequacy of tumor volume coverage using a three-dimensional (3D) margin-growing algorithm compared to a two-dimensional (2D) margin-growing algorithm in the conformal radiotherapy planning of prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Two gross tumor volumes (GTV) were segmented in each of 10 patients with localized prostate cancer; prostate gland only (PO) and prostate with seminal vesicles (PSV). A predetermined margin of 10 mm was applied to these two groups (PO and PSV) using both 2D and 3D margin-growing algorithms. The 2D algorithm added a transaxial margin to each GTV slice, whereas the 3D algorithm added a volumetric margin all around the GTV. The true planning target volume (PTV) was defined as the region delineated by the 3D algorithm. The adequacy of geometric coverage of the GTV by the two algorithms was examined in a series of transaxial planes throughout the target volume. RESULTS: The 2D margin-growing algorithm underestimated the PTV by 17% (range 12-20) in the PO group and by 20% (range 13-28) for the PSV group when compared to the 3D-margin algorithm. For the PO group, the mean transaxial difference between the 2D and 3D algorithm was 3.8 mm inferiorly (range 0-20), 1.8 mm centrally (range 0-9), and 4.4 mm superiorly (range 0-22). Considering all of these regions, the mean discrepancy anteriorly was 5.1 mm (range 0-22), posteriorly 2.2 (range 0-20), right border 2.8 mm (range 0-14), and left border 3.1 mm (range 0-12). For the PSV group, the mean discrepancy in the inferior region was 3.8 mm (range 0-20), central region of the prostate was 1.8 mm ( range 0-9), the junction region of the prostate and the seminal vesicles was 5.5 mm (range 0-30), and the superior region of the seminal vesicles was 4.2 mm (range 0-55). When the different borders were considered in the PSV group, the mean discrepancies for the anterior, posterior, right, and left borders were 6.4 mm (range 0-55), 2.5 mm (range 0-20), 2.6 mm (range 0-14), and 3.9 mm (range 0-45), respectively. Underestimation of the required margin with the 2D algorithm occurred when the transaxial definition of the GTV shifted in position significantly between successive adjacent slices, resulting in transaxial discrepancies of up to 22 mm and 55 mm, respectively, for the PO and PSV groups. In the superior regions, the 2D algorithm was inadequate, often providing a margin of less than 3 mm compared to the 10 mm margin delineated by the 3D algorithm. CONCLUSION: This study illustrates that target margins added by a laminar method in the transaxial plane are inadequate for covering a 3D tumor volume so that a margin-growing algorithm which fully takes into account the 3D shape of the GTV should be used. If a 2D-margin method is utilized, an appreciation of spatial margins in 3D is required.

Comparison of intensity-modulated tomotherapy with stereotactically guided conformal radiotherapy for brain tumors.

PURPOSE: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) offers the potential to more closely conform dose distributions to the target, and spare organs at risk (OAR). Its clinical value is still being defined. The present study aims to compare IMRT with stereotactically guided conformal radiotherapy (SCRT) for patients with medium size convex-shaped brain tumors. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Five patients planned with SCRT were replanned with the IMRT-tomotherapy method using the Peacock system (Nomos Corporation). The planning target volume (PTV) and relevant OAR were assessed, and compared relative to SCRT plans using dose statistics, dose-volume histograms (DVH), and the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) stereotactic radiosurgery criteria. RESULTS: The median and mean PTV were 78 cm3 and 85 cm3 respectively (range 62-119 cm3). The differences in PTV doses for the whole group (Peacock-SCRT +/-1 SD) were 2%+/-1.8 (minimum PTV), and 0.1%+/-1.9 (maximum PTV). The PTV homogeneity achieved by Peacock was 12.1%+/-1.7 compared to 13.9%+/-1.3 with SCRT. Using RTOG guidelines, Peacock plans provided acceptable PTV coverage for all 5/5 plans compared to minor coverage deviations in 4/5 SCRT plans; acceptable homogeneity index for both plans (Peacock = 1.1 vs. SCRT = 1.2); and comparable conformity index (1.4 each). As a consequence of the transaxial method of arc delivery, the optic nerves received mean and maximum doses that were 11.1 to 11.6%, and 10.3 to 15.2% higher respectively with Peacock plan. The maximum optic lens, and brainstem dose were 3.1 to 4.8% higher, and 0.6% lower respectively with Peacock plan. However, all doses remained below the tolerance threshold (5 Gy for lens, and 50 Gy for optic nerves) and were clinically acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: The Peacock method provided improved PTV coverage, albeit small, in this group of convex tumors. Although the OAR doses were higher using the Peacock plans, all doses remained within the clinically defined threshold and were clinically acceptable. Further improvements may be expected using other methods of IMRT planning that do not limit the treatment delivery to transaxial arcs. Each IMRT system needs to be individually assessed as the paradigm utilized may provide different outcomes.

A Comparison of clinical target volumes determined by CT and MRI for the radiotherapy planning of base of skull meningiomas.

PURPOSE: To assess the utility of image registration and to compare the localization of clinical target volumes (CTV) using CT and MRI for patients with base of skull meningiomas undergoing radiotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Seven patients were imaged using CT and a T1-weighted MR volumetric sequence. Following image registration using a chamfer-matching algorithm, transaxial MR slices were reconstructed to match the planning CT slices. The accuracy of the image fusion was assessed in a preliminary study with matching accuracy better than 1.5 mm. The CTV in each patient was separately segmented by two independent observers for both CT and reconstructed MR image sets. Scalar and vector assessments were made of the difference in radial extent between the two outlines on each transaxial plane for all patients. A positive vector value corresponded to a greater extension of the tumor on MR compared to CT and vice versa. Scalar measurements compared the modulus of the differences between MR and CT, regardless of which volume was more extensive. Qualitative comparisons were also performed. RESULTS: Interobserver difference was small with a mean (+/- 1SD) volume difference of 1.5 +/- 1.5 cm(3) for CT and 0.5 +/- 1.0 cm(3) for MRI. The mean CT- and MR- CTVs were 17.6 +/-10.8 and 19.6 +/-14.2 cm(3) respectively. The mean overlap and composite volumes were 13.8 +/-10. 1 and 23.3 +/-14.8 cm(3) respectively. Average scalar differences in the left, right, anterior, and posterior directions were 6.0 +/- 7.0, 3.3 +/- 2.5, 4.9 +/- 3.9, and 4.5 +/- 5.0 mm respectively. The average vector differences were 3.3 +/- 8.5, -0.3 +/- 3.8, 1.1 +/- 5. 8, 1.5 +/- 6.4 mm (for left, right, anterior, and posterior directions respectively). Qualitatively, MR appeared to discern more tumor involvement in soft tissue regions adjacent to the skull base whereas CT appeared to provide larger target volumes within bony regions. CONCLUSIONS: MRI appeared to define CTVs that were larger but not inclusive of CT-defined CTVs. Although the average vector differences were small, the differences on individual borders could be large. In some instances, the CT or MR volumes were vastly different, each providing separate information. Therefore, the use of MRI and CT is complementary. Until accurate histological confirmation of disease extent is available, it is prudent to consider composite CT/MR volumes for the radiotherapy planning of base of skull meningiomas.

An evaluation of three-field coplanar plans for conformal radiotherapy of prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A series of coplanar three-field configurations for two different clinical treatment volumes, prostate only (PO) and prostate plus seminal vesicles (PSV) were studied to determine the optimal three-field plan arrangement for prostate radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A variety of conformal three-field 6 MV plans prescribed to both 64 and 74 Gy were created for PO and PSV volumes in each of ten patients. For description, the orientation of each sequential beam was named in a clockwise fashion. Plans included series with arrangements of 0 degrees, 60-150 degrees, 210-300 degrees; 0 degrees, 90 degrees, 225-255 degrees; 90 degrees, 210-240 degrees, 300-330 degrees and a four-field (4F) box plan for comparison. Six-hundred and eighty plans were compared using the rectal volume irradiated to greater than 50% (V(50)), 80% (V(80)), and 90% (V(90)) of the prescribed dose, normal tissue complications (NTCP) for rectum, bladder, and femoral heads (FH), and tumour control probabilities (TCP). FH tolerance was set at 52 Gy to 10% volume. RESULTS: In comparing the 34 different three-field configurations for each of the PO and PSV groups, the greatest rectal sparing was achieved by a three-field plan with gantry angles of 0 degrees, 90 degrees, 270 degrees (PO: rectal V(80)=22.8+/-5.5% (1S.D.), V(90)=18.4+/-5.7%, and PSV: rectal V(80)=41.9+/-5.8%, V(90)=35.5+/-5.9%). This also improved on the 4F-box plan (PO: rectal V(80)=26.0+/-5.8%, V(90)=21.4+/-5.2%, P<0.001; and PSV: rectal V(80)=47.3+/-5.5%, V(90)=41.6+/-5.1%, P<0.001). The worst rectal sparing was seen with the 0 degrees, 120 degrees, 240 degrees plan (PO: rectal V(80)=35.2+/-8.0%, V(90)=30.3+/-7.1%, P<0.001; and PSV: rectal V(80)=65.7+/-9.0%, V(90)=58.8+/-8.8%, P<0.001). In the PO group, the increase in predicted rectal NTCP with dose escalation from 64 to 74 Gy was 3.3% using the 0 degrees, 90 degrees, 270 degrees plan, 4.7% with the 4F-box plan, and 6.9% with the 0 degrees, 120 degrees, 240 degrees plan. In the PSV group, dose escalation increased the predicted rectal NTCP by 7.9, 10.1 and 15.7% for the 0 degrees, 90 degrees, 270 degrees plan, 4F-box plan, and 0 degrees, 120 degrees, 240 degrees plan, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For both PO and PSV volumes, the three-field plan which afforded the greatest rectal sparing with acceptable bladder and femoral head doses was the 0 degrees, 90 degrees, 270 degrees plan. This plan also improved on the 4F-box. The increase in predicted rectal NTCP when escalating dose from 64 to 74 Gy was smaller using this plan compared to either the three-field 0 degrees, 120 degrees, 240 degrees plan or the 4F-box plan.

A comparison of coplanar four-field techniques for conformal radiotherapy of the prostate.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Conformal radiotherapy of the prostate is an increasingly common technique, but the optimal choice of beam configuration remains unclear. This study systematically compares a number of coplanar treatment plans for four-field irradiation of two different clinical treatment volumes: prostate only (PO) and the prostate plus seminal vesicles (PSV). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A variety of four-field coplanar treatment plans were created for PO and PSV volumes in each of ten patients. Plans included a four-field 'box' plan, a symmetric plan having bilateral anterior and posterior oblique fields, a plan with anterior oblique and lateral fields, a series of asymmetric plans, and a three-field plan having anterior and bilateral fields for comparison. Doses of 64 and 74 Gy were prescribed to the isocentre. Plans were compared using the volume of rectum irradiated to greater than 50% (V50), 80% (V80) and 90% (V90) of the prescribed dose. Tumour control probabilities (TCP) and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) for the rectum, bladder and femoral heads were also evaluated. Femoral head dose was limited such that less than 10% of each femoral head received 70% of the prescribed dose. RESULTS: For the PO group, the optimal plan consisted of anterior oblique and lateral fields (Rectal V80 = 23.8+/-5.0% (1 SD)), while the box technique (V80 = 26.0+/-5.8%) was less advantageous in terms of rectal sparing (P = 0.001). Similar results were obtained for the PSV group (Rectal V80 = 43.9+/-5.0% and 47.3+/-5.5% for the two plan types, respectively, P = 0.001). The three-field plan was comparable to the optimal four-field plan but gave higher superficial body dose. With dose escalation from 64 to 74 Gy, the mean TCP for the optimal plan rose from 52.0+/-2.8% to 74.1+/-2.0%. Meanwhile, rectal NTCP for the optimal plan rose by 3.5% (PO) or 8.4% (PSV), compared to 4.7% (PO) or 10.1% (PSV) for the box plan. CONCLUSIONS: For PO volumes, a plan with gantry angles of 35 degrees, 90 degrees, 270 degrees and 325 degrees offers a high level of rectal sparing and acceptable dose to the femoral heads for all patients, while for PSV volumes, the corresponding plan has gantry angles of 20 degrees, 90 degrees , 270 degrees and 340 degrees. Using these plans, the gain in TCP resulting from dose escalation can be achieved with a smaller increase in anticipated rectal NTCP.

A quantitative treatment planning study evaluating the potential of dose escalation in conformal radiotherapy of the oesophagus.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate the reduction in radiation dose to normal thoracic structures through the use of conformal radiotherapy techniques in the treatment of oesophageal cancer, and to quantify the resultant potential for dose escalation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three different CT-derived treatment plans were created and compared for each of ten patients. A two-phase treatment with conventional straight-edged fields and standard blocks (CV2), a two-phase conformal plan (CF2), and a three-phase conformal plan where the third phase was delivered to the gross tumour only (CF3), were considered for each patient. Escalated dose levels were determined for techniques CF2 and CF3, which by virtue of the conformal field shaping, did not increase the mean lung dose. The resulting increase in tumour control probability (TCP) was estimated. RESULTS: A two-phase conformal technique (CF2) reduced the volume of lung irradiated to 18 Gy from 19.7+/-11.8 (1 SD) to 17.1+/-12.3% (P=0.004), and reduced the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) from 2.4+/-4.0 to 0.7+/-1.6% (P=0.02) for a standard prescribed dose of 55 Gy. Consequently, technique CF2 permitted a target dose of 59.1+/-3.2 Gy without increasing the mean lung dose. Technique CF3 facilitated a prescribed dose of 60.7+/-4.3 Gy to the target, the additional 5 Gy increasing the TCP from 53. 1+/-5.5 to 68.9+/-4.1%. When the spinal cord tolerance was raised from 45 to 48 Gy, technique CF3 allowed 63.6+/-4.l Gy to be delivered to the target, thereby increasing the TCP to 78.1+/-3.2%. CONCLUSIONS: Conformal radiotherapy techniques offer the potential for a 5-10 Gy escalation in dose delivered to the oesophagus, without increasing the mean lung dose. This is expected to increase local tumour control by 15-25%.

Comparison of a multi-leaf collimator with conformal blocks for the delivery of stereotactically guided conformal radiotherapy.

Stereotactically-guided conformal radiotherapy is a practical technique for irradiating irregular lesions in the brain. The shaping of the conformal fields may be achieved using lead alloy blocks, a conventional multi-leaf collimator (MLC) or a mini/micro-MLC. Although the former gives more precise shaping, it is labour intensive. The latter methods are more practical as both mould room and treatment room times are reduced, but the shaping is limited by the finite leaf-width. This study compares treatment plans, in terms of normal tissue doses and tumour coverage, for fields shaped using conformal blocks and a conventional MLC in two series of geometrical shapes and nine patient tumours. For the range of tumour sizes considered (volumes 14-264 cm3, minimum dimension 30 mm, maximum 102 mm), the MLC treats, on average, 14% (range 3-34%) and 17% (range 0-36%) more normal brain tissue than conformal blocks to >50% and >80% of the prescription dose, respectively. The large variability is due to strong dependence on tumour shape and the presence of partial leaf-widths in the MLC fit. It is therefore important to consider both of these effects when deciding whether the MLC is appropriate for a particular target volume.

A comparison of multileaf collimator with conformal blocks for the boost phase of dose-escalated conformal prostate radiotherapy.

A multileaf collimator (MLC) is compared with conformal blocks for delivering the boost phase of dose-escalated conformal prostate radiotherapy. When using conformal blocks, the volume of rectum irradiated to 90% (V90) is lower (1.4+/-1.3%, 1 SD) for a three-field plan with gantry angles 0 degree, 90 degrees, 270 degrees than for a six-field plan with gantry angles 50 degrees, 90 degrees, 130 degrees, 230 degrees, 270 degrees, 310 degrees (2.1 +/- 1.3%, P = 0.002). However, when using an MLC in which the leaves and wedge are oriented at right angles, V90 is higher (4.7 +/- 3.0%) for a three-field plan than for a six-field plan (2.7 +/- 1.6%, P=0.05). The larger increase in V90 for the three-field plan when changing from conformal blocks to MLC is mainly due to the limitation imposed upon the MLC orientation by the use of wedges.

A comparison of conformal and intensity-modulated techniques for oesophageal radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To investigate the potential of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) to reduce lung irradiation in the treatment of oesophageal carcinoma with radical radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A treatment planning study was performed to compare two-phase conformal radiotherapy (CFRT) with IMRT in five patients. The CFRT plans consisted of anterior, posterior and bilateral posterior oblique fields, while the IMRT plans consisted of either nine equispaced fields (9F), or four fields (4F) with orientations equal to the CFRT plans. IMRT plans with seven, five or three equispaced fields were also investigated in one patient. Treatment plans were compared using dose-volume histograms and normal tissue complication probabilities. RESULTS: The 9F IMRT plan was unable to improve on the homogeneity of dose to the planning target volume (PTV), compared with the CFRT plan (dose range, 16.9+/-4.5 (1 SD) vs. 12.4+/-3.9%; P=0.06). Similarly, the 9F IMRT plan was unable to reduce the mean lung dose (11.7+/-3.2 vs. 11.0+/-2.9 Gy; P=0.2). Similar results were obtained for seven, five and three equispaced fields in the single patient studied. The 4F IMRT plan provided comparable PTV dose homogeneity with the CFRT plan (11.8+/-3.3 vs. 12.4+/-3.9%; P=0.6), with reduced mean lung dose (9.5+/-2.3 vs 11.0+/-2.9 Gy; P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: IMRT using nine equispaced fields provided no improvement over CFRT. This was because the larger number of fields in the IMRT plan distributed a low dose over the entire lung. In contrast, IMRT using four fields equal to the CFRT fields offered an improvement in lung sparing. Thus, IMRT with a few carefully chosen field directions may lead to a modest reduction in pneumonitis, or allow tumour dose escalation within the currently accepted lung toxicity.

A digital method for computing target margins in radiotherapy.

Computer methods for determining the planning target volume from the gross tumor volume for both conventional and conformal radiotherapy are presented. Production of a two-dimensional (2D) treatment plan is assisted by projecting outlines of the gross tumor onto a single transverse plane, so that the total extent of the tumor can be easily visualized. A 2D margin can then be added to the resulting outline, so as to account for microscopic tumor spread, organ motion, and setup uncertainty. The margin may be anisotropic to account for the known differences in setup accuracy in the anterior, posterior, left and right directions. For three-dimensional (3D) treatment planning, it is necessary to add a 3D margin to the gross tumor volume to define the planning target volume, the anisotropy of the margin now being allowed to extend to the superior and inferior directions also. Robust methods for automatically calculating these regions are described, and illustrated for the case of a prostate tumor. It is demonstrated that while a slicewise 2D margin is adequate for 2D planning, a fully 3D margin must be used for 3D conformal planning to avoid underdosing the superior and inferior extremities of the clinical target volume.

A case study comparing the relative benefit of optimizing beam weights, wedge angles, beam orientations and tomotherapy in stereotactic radiotherapy of the brain.

A treatment-planning case study has been performed on a patient with a medium-sized, convex brain tumour. The study involved the application of advanced treatment-plan optimization techniques to improve on the dose distribution of the 'standard plan' used to treat the patient. The standard plan was created according to conventional protocol at the Royal Marsden NHS Trust, and consisted of a three-field (one open and two wedged) non-coplanar arrangement, with field shaping to the beam's-eye view of the planning target volume (PTV). Three optimized treatment plans were created corresponding to (i) the optimization of the beam weights and wedge angles of the standard plan, (ii) the optimization of the beam orientations, beam weights and wedge angles of the standard plan, and (iii) a full fluence tomotherapy optimization of 1 cm wide (at isocentre), 270 degree arcs. (i) and (ii) were created on the VOXELPLAN research 3D treatment-planning system, using in-house developed optimization algorithms, and (iii) was created on the PEACOCK tomotherapy planning system. The downhill-simplex optimization algorithm is used, in conjunction with 'threshold-dose' cost-function terms enabling the algorithm to optimize specific regions of the dose-volume histogram (DVH) curve. The 'beam-cost plot' tool is presented as a visual aid to the selection of beneficial beam directions. The methods and pitfalls in the transfer of plans and patient data between the two planning systems are discussed. Each optimization approach was evaluated, relative to the standard plan, on the basis of DVH and dose statistics in the PTV and organs at risk (OARs). All three optimization approaches were able to improve on the dose distribution of the standard plan. The magnitude of the improvement was greater for the optimized beam-orientation and tomotherapy plans (up to 15% and 30% for the maximum and mean OAR doses). A smaller improvement was observed in the beam-weight and wedge-angle optimized plan (up to 5% and 10% in the maximum and mean OAR doses). In the tomotherapy plan, difficulty was encountered achieving an acceptable homogeneity of dose in the PTV. This was improved by treating the gross tumour volume (GTV) and (PTV - GTV) regions as separate targets in the inverse planning, with the latter region prescribed a slightly higher dose to reduce edge under-dosing. In conclusion, for the medium-sized convex tumour studied, the tomotherapy dose distribution showed a significant improvement on the standard plan, but no significant improvement over a conventional three-field plan where the beam orientations, beam weights and wedge angles had been optimized.

The derivation of tissue-maximum ratio from percentage depth dose requires peak scatter factor to be considered a function of source-to-surface distance.

A formula for the calculation of tissue-maximum ratio (TMR) from percentage depth dose (PDD) and peak scatter factor (PSF) is derived from first principles using a simple geometric model for the case when the field size for PDD and PSF is defined at the surface. The derivation is carried out in two ways: (a) taking field size for PDD and PSF as defined at the depth of maximum dose and then applying a conversion factor, and (b) by a direct derivation. The first of these methods yields a formula which agrees with BJR Supplement 25, but the latter yields a result which differs from it. Numerically, this difference is insignificant, but it has implications for the theoretical basis of the conversion formulae. The difference arises due to the translation of field size from one depth to another when calculating PSF: two different values of source-to-surface distance (SSD) yield two apparently different PSFs for the same size of field at the depth of maximum dose. Disagreements of this type are prevalent throughout the standard conversion formulae given in BJR Supplement 25 when field size for PDD and PSF is defined at the surface rather than at the depth of dose maximum. These disagreements are illustrated here using the conversion of PDD from one SSD to another as an example. The difficulty is overcome by considering PSF to be a function of SSD as well as field size.

Evaluation of the optimal co-planar field arrangement for use in the boost phase of dose escalated conformal radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer.

The aim of this study was to determine the optimal co-planar beam arrangement from a variety of three-field (3F), four-field (4F) and six-field (6F) plans for the boost phase of a dose escalated conformal radiotherapy schedule. Three selected plans (3F 0 degrees, 90 degrees, 270 degrees plan, 4F 45 degrees, 90 degrees, 270 degrees, 315 degrees plan and 6F 40 degrees, 90 degrees, 115 degrees, 245 degrees, 270 degrees, 320 degrees plan) were compared with reference plans (3F 0 degrees, 120 degrees, 240 degrees plan, 4F 0 degrees, 90 degrees, 180 degrees, 270 degrees plan, 6F 55 degrees, 90 degrees, 125 degrees, 235 degrees, 270 degrees, 305 degrees plan and 6F 50 degrees, 90 degrees, 130 degrees, 230 degrees, 270 degrees, 310 degrees plan) in 10 patients. Doses of 64 Gy and 74 Gy were prescribed to the isocentre using 6 MV photons. The boost planning target volume comprised the prostate gland alone without a margin. Plans were compared by means of rectal volumes irradiated to >50% (V50), >80% (V80) and >90% (V90) of the prescribed dose. Irradiated volumes were also measured for the bladder (V90) and the femoral heads (V70). All optimal 3F, 4F and 6F plans gave lower irradiated rectal V80 and V90 levels than their corresponding reference plan. The 3F (0 degrees, 90 degrees, 270 degrees) plan consistently provided lower irradiated rectal levels at V50 to V90, with acceptable bladder and femoral head doses compared with the other plans in the study. When the 6F (50 degrees, 90 degrees, 130 degrees, 230 degrees, 270 degrees, 310 degrees) plan used at our institution for the boost phase was compared with the 3F (0 degrees, 90 degrees, 270 degrees) plan, the rectal V50 was reduced from 20.8+/-5.2%, to 12.6+/-5.1%, the rectal V80 was reduced from 8.7+/-2.9% to 6.5+/-3.1% and the rectal V90 was reduced from 5.5+/-2.1% to 3.9+/-2.0% (all p<0.001). The bladder V90 and the femoral heads V70 levels were equivalent. For the boost phase when escalating the dose from 64 Gy to 74 Gy, the co-planar plan that allowed optimal rectal sparing was a 3F beam arrangement using gantry angles of 0 degrees, 90 degrees and 270 degrees. This 3F plan provided improved rectal sparing compared with the 6F (50 degrees, 90 degrees, 130 degrees, 230 degrees, 270 degrees, 310 degrees) beam arrangement currently used at our institution, with equivalent and acceptable bladder and femoral head doses.

Methods for transferring patient and plan data between radiotherapy treatment planning systems.

The effectiveness of conformal radiotherapy can ultimately only be assessed by the use of clinical trials. As large multicentre clinical trials become more widespread, methods of transferring patient and plan data between radiotherapy treatment planning systems become increasingly important. In this paper, the general strategy for the transfer of data is discussed, and also illustrated with reference to two specific systems: TARGET 2 (GE Medical Systems) and VOXELPLAN (DKFZ-Heidelberg). The transfer method involves using a computer program to translate the data formats used by each of the two systems for CT scans, patient outlines, plan information and block descriptions. This paper does not address the question of transferring beam data between systems: beam data must first be entered separately into both machines. The physical concepts encountered when transferring plans are described, with specific reference to the two planning systems used. Differences in the strategies used by the two planning systems for definition of irregular field shapes are compared. The dose calculations used by the two systems are also briefly evaluated. Isodoses produced by VOXELPLAN around a circular target volume are found to be up to 3 mm different in location to those produced by TARGET 2, owing to the use of a smooth field shape contour as opposed to a stepped field shape which closely models the leaves of a multileaf collimator. In general, dose distributions generated by both systems are comparable, but some differences are found in the presence of large tissue inhomogeneities. It is concluded that the transfer of patient and plan data between two different treatment planning systems is feasible, provided that any differences in field shape definition methods or dose calculation methods between the two systems are understood.

A comparison of conventional and conformal radiotherapy of the oesophagus: work in progress.

A retrospective treatment planning study was carried out in five patients to assess the effectiveness of conformal radiotherapy of the oesophagus. A two-phase conventional treatment plan was created for each patient, with a prescribed dose of 55 Gy. This plan was compared with a single-phase conformal plan consisting of the same field arrangement as the second phase of the conventional treatment, but with conformal blocks shaped to the beam's eye view of the planning target volume. A further comparison was made between the conventional plan and a two-phase plan using the same beam angles and weights as the conventional plan, but with conformal field shapes. The effectiveness of each treatment plan was assessed using dose--volume histograms and normal tissue complication probabilities for the lungs. On average, the single-phase conformal technique increased the mean lung dose from 22.5% (+/- 6.2 SD) of the prescribed dose to 29.5% (+/- 5.2 SD) compared with the conventional technique (p = 0.0001). This indicates that this technique did not offer any benefit in terms of reducing the risk of pneumonitis. However, the two-phase conformal technique reduced the mean lung dose from 22.5% (+/- 6.2 SD) of the prescribed dose to 19.8% (+/- 4.6 SD)(p = 0.03), showing that this technique should reduce the risk of pneumonitis. Further work is underway to study more patients and to investigate tumour control probability and dose escalation.

Commissioning and quality assurance of the Pinnacle(3) radiotherapy treatment planning system for external beam photons.

The commissioning of a Pinnacle(3) treatment planning system is described. Four Elekta linear accelerators were commissioned for external beam photons. Measured data were used to derive parameter values for the Pinnacle(3) beam model by (1). fitting a Monte Carlo model of the accelerator head to measured data and then extracting the parameters for the Pinnacle(3) beam model, and by (2). using the auto-modelling facility within Pinnacle(3). Both of these methods yielded dose distributions in accord with published recommendations. A separate small-field beam model, customized for an in-house compact blocking system, was also created, which satisfied appropriate acceptance criteria for stereotactically guided conformal brain treatments. Inhomogeneous, oblique, asymmetrical and irregular fields were also assessed, with calculated and measured doses agreeing to within +/-3%. Dose-volume histogram calculation was found to be accurate to within +/-5% dose or volume for a grid size of 4 mm x 4 mm x 4 mm, with better accuracy being achieved for finer grids. Isocentric doses were compared between Pinnacle(3)'s collapsed cone convolution algorithm and the Bentley-Milan algorithm within the Target-2 treatment planning system. Dose differences were generally less than 3% in the dose prescribed, with larger values for breast plans, where the Pinnacle(3) algorithm calculated scatter more accurately. Pelvic and thoracic plans were also verified using an anthropomorphic phantom, with local dose differences between calculated and delivered dose of up to 8%, but mainly less than 3%, and with no systematic difference. Ionization chamber verifications using START and RT-01 trial procedures demonstrated differences between calculated and measured doses of less than 2%. Following satisfactory performance in the commissioning process, Pinnacle(3) has now been introduced into routine clinical use.