Comparison of whole breast dosimetry techniques - From 3DCRT to VMAT and the impact on heart and surrounding tissues.

INTRODUCTION: Various techniques for whole breast radiation therapy (WBRT) have been reported to increase dose to contralateral tissues. Heart dose is of critical importance as there is no apparent dose threshold below which there is no risk. The aim of this study was to compare planning techniques for WBRT that achieves the best target dosimetry and lowest organ at risk (OAR) dose. METHODS: Thirty early-stage whole breast patient datasets, 15 each left- and right-sided cases, were retrospectively selected. Five techniques were generated for each data set: three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), hybrid intensity modulated radiation therapy (HYI), hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) - (HYV), reduced arc VMAT - bowtie (BT), and BT flattening filter free (FFF) - (BTFFF). Plan goals and OARs were evaluated and compared between techniques. RESULTS: BT had the highest median conformity index (CI) values (0.82, IQR: 0.80-0.85 left and 0.83, IQR 0.80-0.86 right). BT recorded lower mean heart doses (median value 1.19Gy, IQR: 0.90-1.55), and BTFFF recorded lower heart V2.5 Gy , V5 Gy ; median 3.96% (IQR: 2.90-6.80) and 0.90% (IQR: 0.50-1.50) respectively for left-sided patients. There was a statistically significant difference in all ipsilateral lung measures, (p < 0.001) with BTFFF producing significantly lower doses across all measures: mean, V5 Gy , V10 Gy and V20 Gy . CONCLUSION: Overall BT and BTFFF techniques produced lower OAR doses and equivalent PTV coverage for WBRT. BT and BTFFF techniques increased contralateral lung and breast doses; however, these were within prescribed tolerances and comparable to results published in the literature.

Inter- and intra-fraction motion in stereotactic body radiotherapy for spinal and paraspinal tumours using cone-beam CT and positional correction in six degrees of freedom.

INTRODUCTION: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for spinal tumours delivers high doses per fraction to targets in close proximity to neural tissue. With steep dose gradients, small changes in position can confer significant dosimetric impact on adjacent structures. We analysed positioning error in consecutively treated patients on a strict image-guidance protocol with online correction in 6 degrees of freedom (6-DOF). METHODS: Set-up error, residual error post-correction and intra-fraction motion for 30 courses of spinal SBRT in 27 patients were assessed using cone-beam CT. Positional error was corrected in x, y and z translational planes and rotational axes using a robotic couch, applying 2 mm and 2° action levels. Linear mixed-effects model assessed whether positional error was influenced by factors such as vertebral level, immobilisation device and treatment duration. RESULTS: Sixty-two fractions were delivered with 225 image registrations. Median treatment duration was significantly longer for patients treated with static-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy compared with volumetric-modulated arc treatment--40 min versus 28 min, respectively (P = 0.01). Across all fractions, the median residual positional error after initial correction was greatest in the x translational plane (0.5 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.3-0.6) and y rotational axis (0.25°; 95% CI 0.1-0.3). Median intra-fraction error was also greatest in the x-plane (0.7 mm; 95% CI 0.5-1.0) and y-axis (0.4°; 95% CI 0.2-0.5). CONCLUSION: With strict immobilisation, image-guidance and 6-DOF correction, our current practice of applying 3-mm planning margins for target volumes and critical structures appears safe. Lower image-guidance action thresholds plus verification with end-to-end testing would be recommended before further reducing margins.