Effect of inaccurate small field output factors on brain SRS plans.

External beam radiotherapy often includes the use of field sizes 3 × 3 cm2or less, which can be defined as small fields. Dosimetry is a difficult, yet important part of the radiotherapy process. The dosimetry of small fields has additional challenges, which can lead to treatment inconsistencies if not done properly. Most important is the use of an appropriate detector, as well as the application of the necessary corrections. The International Atomic Energy Agency and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine provide the International Code of Practice (CoP) TRS-483 for the dosimetry of small static fields used in external MV photon beams. It gives guidelines on how to apply small-field correction factors for small field dosimetry. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of inaccurate small-field output factors on clinical brain stereotactic radiosurgery plans with and without applying the small-field correction factors as suggested in the CoP. Small-field correction factors for a Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator were applied to uncorrected relative dose factors. Uncorrected and corrected clinical plans were created with two different beam configurations, 6 MV with a flattening filter (6 WFF) and 6 MV without a flattening filter (6 FFF). For the corrected plans, the planning target volume mean dose was 1.6 ± 0.9% lower with p < 0.001 for 6 WFF and 1.8 ± 1.5% lower with p < 0.001 for 6 FFF. For brainstem, a major organ at risk, the corrected plans had a dose that was 1.6 ± 0.9% lower with p = 0.03 for 6 WFF and 1.8 ± 1.5% lower with p = 0.10 for 6 FFF. This represents a systematic error that should and can be corrected.

A Practical Radiotherapy Treatment Planning Technique for Second-Incidence Cancers That Incorporates Complete Organ-At-Risk Dose History.

INTRODUCTION: Patients requiring treatment for second cancer incidences present unique radiotherapy plan development challenges. Historical dose delivered to organs at risk must be accounted for to properly estimate lifetime toxicity risks, but historical dose delivered to the region now occupied by tumours does not contribute to the prescription dose. Treatment planning systems permit inclusion of a base plan but do not provide the ability to manipulate it. We present a technique, dose cropping, which incorporates organ-at-risk dose history into the base plan while selectively excising dose history to diseased tissues now occupied by tumours. A retrospective plan comparison is performed to assess the effectiveness of dose cropping. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Nine patients who received a second course of radiotherapy for cancers of the head-and-neck were replanned using the proposed technique. Clinical second courses and replans were compared on the basis of conformity index, heterogeneity index, maximum point dose, tissue control probability (TCP), normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), and whether the planning guidelines could be met by the treatment planning system. Replan constraints and guidelines followed the clinical treatment. In addition, a tissue recovery model was incorporated, applied to both clinical and replan courses, and compared to estimate the relevance of the dose cropping technique in such regimes. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Replans had reduced organ-at-risk maximum point doses (5 Gy for spinal cord, 4 Gy for brainstem), NTCP (2.9% median reduction), and were able to more consistently achieve the V95% > 98% coverage target regardless of the tissue recovery model. At the same time, replans using the dose cropping technique were statistically indistinguishable from clinical second courses on the basis of plan conformity, heterogeneity, or TCP (P > .31 in all cases). CONCLUSIONS: Dosimetric history cropping is a valuable and widely applicable technique for second cancer radiotherapy planning. It also provides a natural means to incorporate tissue recovery models, biologically effective dose conversion, and NTCP and TCP model evaluation.

Template-based Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy: A Cost-effective Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy Planning Procedure for Prostate Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has been widely accepted for the treatment of prostate cancer. In comparison with traditional three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT), it improves local control while minimizing side effects. However, IMRT comes at a significantly higher cost. In this report, we describe the development of template-based IMRT (TB-IMRT) planning for prostate cancer that does not require additional resources above 3D-CRT. METHODS: Twenty patients previously treated using 3D-CRT were retrospectively planned using the TB-IMRT planning technique. Planning target volume coverage, dose to organs at risk, and resource usage were compared between 3D-CRT and TB-IMRT techniques. RESULTS: All 3D-CRT and TB-IMRT plans met the planning guidelines. TB-IMRT compared better than 3D-CRT in terms of the homogeneity index (0.039 ± 0.007 vs. 0.052 ± 0.008) and conformity index (0.866 ± 0.024 vs. 0.752 ± 0.054). TB-IMRT also provided better sparing of organs at risk. Planning times were significantly less for TB-IMRT (average 13.43 ± 2.18 minutes) compared with conventional plans (45.4 ± 17.0 minutes). Times required for patient-specific quality assurance were similar between TB-IMRT and 3D-CRT. CONCLUSIONS: The TB-IMRT technique for prostate allows for all the potential benefits of IMRT without any additional resources above conventional 3D-CRT.

On using the dosimetric leaf gap to model the rounded leaf ends in VMAT/RapidArc plans.

Partial transmission through rounded leaf ends of Varian multileaf collimators (MLC) is accounted for with a parameter called the dosimetric leaf gap (DLG). Verification of the value of the DLG is needed when the dose delivery is accompanied by gantry rotation in VMAT plans. We compared the doses measured with GAFCHROMIC film and an ionization chamber to treatment planning system (TPS) calculations to identify the optimum values of the DLG in clinical plans of the whole brain with metastases transferred to a phantom. We noticed the absence of a single value of the DLG that properly models all VMAT plans in our cohort (the optimum DLG varied between 0.93 ± 0.15 mm and 2.2 ± 0.2 mm). The former value is considerably different from the optimum DLG in sliding window plans (about 2.0 mm) that approximate IMRT plans. We further found that a single-value DLG model cannot accurately reproduce the measured dose profile even of a uniform static slit at a fixed gantry, which is the simplest MLC-delimited field. The calculation overestimates the measurement in the proximal penumbra, while it underestimates in the distal penumbra. This prompted us to expand the DLG parameter from a plan-specific number to a mathematical concept of the DLG being a function of the distance in the beam's eye view (BEV) between the dose point and the leaf ends. Such function compensates for the difference between the penumbras in a beam delimited with a rounded leaf MLC and delimited with solid jaws. Utilization of this concept allowed us generating a pair of step-and-shoot MLC plans for which we could qualitatively predict the value of the DLG providing best match to ionization chamber measurements. The plan for which the leafs stayed predominantly at positions requiring low values of the DLG (as seen in the profiles of 1D slits) yielded the combined DLG of 1.1 ± 0.2 mm, while the plan with leafs staying at positions requiring larger values of the DLG yielded the DLG 2.4 ± 0.2 mm. Considering the DLG to be a function of the distance (in BEV) between the dose point and the leaf ends allowed us to provide an explanation as to why conventional single-number DLG is plan-specific in VMAT plans.

The quality assurance of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for early stage prostate cancer: a technical note.

As radiation therapy transitions from intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) it is important to consider the quality assurance (QA) of VMAT plans in light of what has previously been learned and developed in IMRT QA. This technical note assesses if IMRT based plan QA software, which has reduced the need in IMRT for phantom dose measurements on the linear accelerator, can be incorporated into VMAT QA processes. Twenty prostate cases were retrospectively planned using VMAT with one arc to deliver a prescription of 74 Gy in 37 fractions. A plan QA was performed using both IMSure (version 3.3), a software-based IMRT QA program, and ArcCHECK (version 6.2.3.5713), a phantom-based VMAT QA tool. Outcomes assessed included the time needed to perform the QA of both the IMSure and ArcCHECK QA methods, and agreement between planned dose and QA measured dose. On average per case, the ArcCHECK technique needed 31.5 min to perform the VMAT plan QA, while IMSure required 3.5 min to perform the same QA. All 20 cases passed dosimetric QA using ArcCHECK. However, using IMSure, three cases failed dosimetric QA using the departments existing IMRT QA criteria. This research has demonstrated that the IMRT QA software IMSure may be incorporated into the QA of VMAT plans, however the criteria to assess the dosimetry of the VMAT plans may need to be different to that for IMRT cases. The implication of this research for radiation therapists is to be critically aware of the differences between the plan QA requirements and methods for IMRT and those required for VMAT.

Template-based breast IMRT planning for increased workload efficiency.

BACKGROUND: To be less resource intensive, we developed a template-based breast IMRT technique (TB-IMRT). This study aims to compare resources and dose distribution between TB-IMRT and conventional breast radiation (CBR). METHODS: Twenty patients with early stage breast cancer were planned using CBR and TB-IMRT. Time to plan, coverage of volumes, dose to critical structures and treatment times were evaluated for CBR and TB-IMRT. Two sided-paired t tests were used. RESULTS: TB-IMRT planning time was less than CBR (14.0 vs 39.0 min, p < 0.001). Fifteen patients with CBR needed 18 MV, and 11 of these were planned successfully with TB-IMRT using 6 MV. TB-IMRT provided better homogeneity index (0.096 vs 0.124, p < 0.001) and conformity index (0.68 vs 0.59, p = 0.003). Dose to critical structures were comparable between TB-IMRT and CBR, and treatment times were also similar (6.0 vs 7.8 min, p = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: TB- IMRT provides reduction of planning time and minimizes the use of high energy beams, while providing similar treatment times and equal plans compared to CBR. This technique permits efficient use of resources with a low learning curve, and can be done with existing equipment and personnel.

A Retrospective Planning Analysis Comparing Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) to Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) for Radiotherapy Treatment of Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: This study aims to compare intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for the treatment of prostate cancer. Particular focus was placed on the impact IMRT and VMAT have on departmental planning and treatment resources. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty prostate cancer cases were retrospectively planned to compare 5-field IMRT to VMAT using a single arc (VMAT-1A) and 2 arcs (VMAT-2A). The impact on departmental resources was assessed by comparing the time needed to generate the dose distributions and to deliver the treatment plan. A comparison of plan quality was also performed by comparing homogeneity, conformity, the number of monitor units (MUs), and dose to the organs at risk. RESULTS: IMRT and VMAT-2A were able to produce adequate plans for all cases. Using VMAT-1A, planning guidelines were achieved in 8 of the 20 cases. IMRT provided an improved dose distribution and the best homogeneity to the planning target volume. Also, the IMRT plans were generated significantly faster than both VMAT techniques. VMAT planning provided significantly improved conformity and used significantly fewer monitor units than IMRT. VMAT-1A treatments were significantly faster than both IMRT and VMAT-2A. VMAT plans delivered lower dose to the bladder and heads of femur, and an increased dose to the rectum in the low dose region. CONCLUSION: IMRT may have an advantage over VMAT for the treatment of prostate cancers. This is primarily due to the uncertainty of achieving planning guidelines using VMAT and the extended time needed to generate the VMAT plans.

A three-isocenter jagged-junction IMRT approach for craniospinal irradiation without beam edge matching for field junctions.

PURPOSE: Traditionally craniospinal irradiation treats the central nervous system using two or three adjacent field sets. We propose a technique using a three-isocenter intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plan (jagged-junction IMRT) which overcomes problems associated with field junctions and beam edge matching and improves planning and treatment setup efficiencies with homogenous target dose distribution. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Treatments for 3 patients with a prescription of 36 Gy in 20 fractions were retrospectively planned with jagged-junction IMRT and compared to conventional treatment plans. Planning target volume (PTV) included the whole brain and spinal canal to the S3 vertebral level. The plan used three field sets, each with a unique isocenter. One field set with seven fields treated the cranium. Two field sets treated the spine, each set using three fields. Fields from adjacent sets were overlapped, and the optimization process smoothly integrated the dose inside the overlapped junction. RESULTS: For jagged-junction IMRT plans vs. conventional technique, the average homogeneity index equaled 0.08 ± 0.01 vs. 0.12 ± 0.02, respectively, and conformity number equaled 0.79 ± 0.01 vs. 0.47 ± 0.12, respectively. The 95% isodose surface covered (99.5 ± 0.3)% of the PTV vs. (98.1 ± 2.0)%, respectively. Both jagged-junction IMRT plans and the conventional plans had good sparing of organs at risk. CONCLUSIONS: Jagged-junction IMRT planning provided good dose homogeneity and conformity to the target while maintaining a low dose to organs at risk. Results from jagged-junction IMRT plans were better than or equivalent to those from the conventional technique. Jagged-junction IMRT optimization smoothly distributed dose in the junction between field sets. Because there was no beam matching, this treatment technique is less likely to produce hot or cold spots at the junction, in contrast to conventional techniques. The planning process is also simplified as only one IMRT plan is required for the entire target volume.

Whole brain radiotherapy with hippocampal avoidance and simultaneous integrated boost for 1-3 brain metastases: a feasibility study using volumetric modulated arc therapy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility of using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to deliver whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) with hippocampal avoidance and a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) for one to three brain metastases. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ten patients previously treated with stereotactic radiosurgery for one to three brain metastases underwent repeat planning using VMAT. The whole brain prescription dose was 32.25 Gy in 15 fractions, and SIB doses to brain metastases were 63 Gy to lesions >or=2.0 cm and 70.8 Gy to lesions <2.0 cm in diameter. The mean dose to the hippocampus was kept at <6 Gy(2). Plans were optimized for conformity and target coverage while minimizing hippocampal and ocular doses. Plans were evaluated on target coverage, prescription isodose to target volume ratio, conformity number, homogeneity index, and maximum dose to prescription dose ratio. RESULTS: Ten patients had 18 metastases. Mean values for the brain metastases were as follows: conformity number = 0.73 +/- 0.10, target coverage = 0.98 +/- 0.01, prescription isodose to target volume = 1.34 +/- 0.19, maximum dose to prescription dose ratio = 1.09 +/- 0.02, and homogeneity index = 0.07 +/- 0.02. For the whole brain, the mean target coverage and homogeneity index were 0.960 +/- 0.002 and 0.39 +/- 0.06, respectively. The mean hippocampal dose was 5.23 +/- 0.39 Gy(2). The mean treatment delivery time was 3.6 min (range, 3.3-4.1 min). CONCLUSIONS: VMAT was able to achieve adequate whole brain coverage with conformal hippocampal avoidance and radiosurgical quality dose distributions for one to three brain metastases. The mean delivery time was under 4 min.

Dosimetric evaluation of Plastic Water Diagnostic-Therapy.

High-precision radiotherapy planning and quality assurance require accurate dosimetric and geometric phantom measurements. Phantom design requires materials with mechanical strength and resilience, and dosimetric properties close to those of water over diagnostic and therapeutic ranges. Plastic Water Diagnostic Therapy (PWDT: CIRS, Norfolk, VA) is a phantom material designed for water equivalence in photon beams from 0.04 MeV to 100 MeV; the material has also good mechanical properties. The present article reports the results of computed tomography (CT) imaging and dosimetric studies of PWDT to evaluate the suitability of the material in CT and therapy energy ranges. We characterized the water equivalence of PWDT in a series of experiments in which the basic dosimetric properties of the material were determined for photon energies of 80 kVp, 100 kVp, 250 kVp, 4 MV, 6 MV, 10 MV, and 18 MV. Measured properties included the buildup and percentage depth dose curves for several field sizes, and relative dose factors as a function of field size. In addition, the PWDT phantom underwent CT imaging at beam qualities ranging from 80 kVp to 140 kVp to determine the water equivalence of the phantom in the diagnostic energy range. The dosimetric quantities measured with PWDT agreed within 1.5% of those determined in water and Solid Water (Gammex rmi, Middleton, WI). Computed tomography imaging of the phantom was found to generate Hounsfield numbers within 0.8% of those generated using water. The results suggest that PWDT material is suitable both for regular radiotherapy quality assurance measurements and for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) verification work. Sample IMRT verification results are presented.