2D IMRT QA passing rate dependency on coronal plane.

Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) delivery involves a complex series of beam angles and multileaf collimator (MLC) arrangements, requiring quality assurance to be performed to validate delivery before treatment. The purpose of this work is to investigate the effect of dose gradient on quality assurance (QA) passing rate. Many (n = 40) IMRT plans were delivered and measured using a 2D planar array of ion chambers; additionally, eleven plans were measured at several coronal planes. For each measurement, dose gradient was assessed using a number of metrics and passing rate assessed at both 3%/3 mm and 3%/2 mm criteria. The passing rates of the various IMRT plans were shown to be generally correlated to gradient, with an average distance correlation of 0.54 ± 0.04 for the lateral dose gradient. The passing rate for an individual plan was shown to vary with coronal slice, though the correlation to dose gradient was not predictable. Even though the passing rate was strongly related to dose gradient for many of the plans, the signs of the correlations were not always negative, as hypothesized. The coronal plane at which QA is performed affects passing rate, though dose gradient may not easily be used to predict slices at which passing rate is higher.

A new target localization method for image-guided radiation therapy of prostate cancer.

In imaged-guided radiation therapy (IGRT), target localization is usually done with rigid-body registration based on anatomy matching. Problems arise when the target volume can only be matched partially due to inter-fractional organ motion and deformation, resulting in deteriorated target coverage and critical structure sparing. A new target localization method is investigated in which the treatment target volume is aligned with the prescription isodose surface. Our study included 15 prostate patients previously treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Patient setup and target localization were performed using a CT-on-rails system before and after the IMRT treatment. IMRT plans were generated on the original simulation CTs (15) and the same MUs and leaf sequences were used to compute the dose distributions on post-treatment CTs (98) with the isocenter adjustments based on either anatomical structure matching or prescription isodose surface alignment. When patients were aligned with the traditional anatomy matching method, the dose to 95% of the CTV, D95, received 74.0 - 77.6 Gy and the minimum CTV dose, Dmin, was 61.9 - 71.6 Gy, respectively, in the cumulative dose distributions. The rectal dose-volume constraints were violated in 35.7% of the treatment fractions. When patients were aligned using the new localization method, the dose to 95% of the CTV, D95, received 74.0 - 78.2 Gy and the minimum CTV dose, Dmin, was 68.4 - 71.6 Gy, respectively, in the cumulative dose distributions. The rectal dose-volume constraints were violated in 17.3% of the treatment fractions. Traditional IGRT target localization based on anatomy matching is effective for population-based PTV margins but not ideal for those patients with large inter-fractional prostate rotation/deformation due to large rectal and bladder volume variation. The new method using the prescription isodose surface to align the target volume could improve the target coverage and rectal sparing for these patients, which can be implemented clinically to improve target dose delivery accuracy.

Long-Term Results of a Phase 3 Randomized Prospective Trial of Erectile Tissue-Sparing Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy for Men With Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to determine whether limiting the doses delivered to the penile bulb (PB) and corporal bodies with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) preserves erectile function compared with standard IMRT in men with prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 117 patients with low- to intermediate-risk, clinical T1a-T2c prostate adenocarcinoma were enrolled in a single-institution, prospective, single-blind, phase 3 randomized trial. All received definitive IMRT to 74 to 80 Gy in 37 to 40 fractions and standard IMRT (s-IMRT) or erectile tissue-sparing IMRT (ETS-IMRT), which placed additional planning constraints that limited the D90 to the penile bulb and corporal bodies to ≤15 Gy and ≤7 Gy, respectively. Erectile potency was assessed with components of the International Index of Erectile Function and phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor (PDE5) medication records. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients received ETS-IMRT, and 54 received s-IMRT; 1 patient did not receive radiation therapy. Before treatment, all patients reported erectile potency. No patients received androgen deprivation therapy. In the intention-to-treat analysis, treatment arms did not differ in potency preservation at 24 months (37.1% ETS-IMRT vs 31.5% s-IMRT, P = .53). Of 85 evaluable patients with International Index of Erectile Function and PDE5 medication follow-up, erectile potency was seen in 47.9% of patients in the ETS-IMRT arm and 46.0% of patients in the s-IMRT arm (P = .86). PDE5 inhibitors were initiated in 41.7% of ETS-IMRT patients and 35.1% of s-IMRT patients (P = .54). Among all patients enrolled, there was no difference in freedom from biochemical failure between those treated with ETS-IMRT and s-IMRT (5-year 91.8% vs 90.7%, respectively, P = .77), with a median follow-up of 7.4 years. There were no differences in acute or late gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicity. An unplanned per-protocol analysis demonstrated no differences in potency preservation or secondary endpoints between patients who exceeded erectile tissue-sparing constraints and those who met constraints, although power was limited by attrition and unplanned dosimetric crossover. CONCLUSIONS: ETS-IMRT that strictly limits dose to the penile bulb and corporal bodies is safe and feasible. Use of this planning technique did not show an effect on potency preservation outcomes at 2 years, though power to detect a difference was limited.

Evaluating suggested stricter gamma criteria for linac-based patient-specific delivery QA in the conventional and SBRT environments.

PURPOSE: To evaluate AAPM TG-218 recommended tolerances for IMRT QA for conventional and SBRT delivery. METHODS: QA analysis was repeated for 150 IMRT/VMAT patients with varying gamma criteria. True composite delivery was utilized, corrected for detector and output variation. Universal tolerance (TLuniv) and action limits (ALuniv) were compared with statistical process control (SPC) TLSPC and ALSPC values. Analysis was repeated as a function of plan complexity for 250 non-stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) VMAT patients at 3%/2mm and a threshold of 10% and for 75 SBRT VMAT patients at 2%/2 mm and a threshold of 50% with results plotted as a function of PTV volume. Regions of failure were dose-scaled on the planning CT data sets based on delivery results. RESULTS: The IMRT/VMAT TLSPC and ALSPC for gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm were 96.5% and 95.6% and for 3%/2 mm were 91.2% and 89.2%, respectively. Correlation with plan complexity for conventional fractionation VMAT was "low" for all sites with pelvis having the highest r value at -0.35. The equivalent SBRT PTV diameter ranged from 2.0 cm to 5.6 cm. Negative low correlation was found for 38 of 75 VMAT cases below ALuniv. CONCLUSIONS: The ALuniv and ALSPC are similar for 3%/2 mm. However, our 5% failure rate for ALuniv, may result in treatment start delays approximately 2 times/month, given 40 new cases/month. VMAT QA failure at stricter criteria did not correlate strongly with plan complexity. Site-specific action limits vary less than 3% from the average. SBRT QA results do not strongly correlate with target size over the range studied.

Initial Clinical Experience With Novel Directional Low-Dose Rate Brachytherapy for Retroperitoneal Sarcoma.

BACKGROUND: A novel Palladium-103 low-dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy device was developed to provide dose-escalation to the tumor bed after resection while shielding adjacent tissues. This multicenter report describes the initial experience with this device in patients with retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with recurrent RPS, prior radiotherapy, and/or concern for positive margins were considered. An LDR brachytherapy dose of 20-60 Gy was administered, corresponding to biologically effective dose values of 15-53 Gy and equivalent dose values of 12-43 Gy. RESULTS: Six patients underwent implantation at four institutions. Of these, five had recurrent disease in the retroperitoneum or pelvic sidewall, one had untreated locally advanced leiomyosarcoma, two had prior external beam radiation therapy at the time of initial diagnosis, and four received neoadjuvant external beam radiation therapy plus brachytherapy. The device was easily implanted and conformed to the treatment area. Median follow-up was 16 mo; radiation was delivered to the at-risk margin with minimal irradiation of adjacent structures. No local recurrences at the site of implantation, device migration, or radiation-related toxicities were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The novel LDR directional brachytherapy device successfully delivered a targeted dose escalation to treat RPS high-risk margins. Lack of radiation-related toxicity demonstrates its safety.

Practical Clinical Implementation of the Special Physics Consultation Process in the Re-irradiation Environment.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this work is to present a practical, structured process allowing for consistent, safe radiation therapy delivery in the re-treatment environment. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A process for reirradiation is described with documentation in the form of a special physics consultation. Data acquisition associated with previous treatment is described from highest to lowest quality. Methods are presented for conversion to equieffective dose, as well as our departmental assumptions for tissue repair. The generation of organ-at-risk available physical dose for use in treatment planning is discussed. Results using our methods are compared with published values after conversion to biologically effective dose. Utilization of pulsed-low-dose-rate delivery is described, and data for reirradiation using these methods over the previous 5 years are presented. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2019, the number of patients in our department requiring equieffective dose calculation has doubled. We have developed guidelines for estimation of sublethal damage repair as a function of time between treatment courses ranging from 0% for <6 months to 50% for >1 year. These guidelines were developed based on available spinal cord data because we found that 84% of organs at risk involved nerve-like tissues. The average percent repair used increased from 32% to 37% over this time period. When comparing the results obtained using our methods with published values, 99% of patients had a cumulative biologically effective dose below the limits established for acceptable myelopathy rates. Pulsed-low-dose-rate use over this period tripled with an average prescription dose of 49 Gy. CONCLUSIONS: The methods described result in safe, effective treatment in the reirradiation setting. Further correlation with patient outcomes and side effects is warranted.

Dosimetric evaluation of image-guided radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

The aim of this study was to investigate the dosimetric accuracy of imaged-guided radiation therapy for prostate patients using the in-room computed tomography (CT) target localization technique. A Siemens CT-on-rails system was used for patient setup and target localization for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) of prostate cancer. Fifteen previously treated prostate patients were included in this retrospective study. CT-on-Rails scans were performed before and after the IMRT treatment under local IRB approval. A total of 15 original simulation CT scans and 98 post-treatment CT scans were contoured by the same oncologist to delineate the prostate target, bladder, and rectum. IMRT plans were generated on the original simulation CTs and the same MUs and leaf sequences were used to compute the dose distributions using post-treatment CTs. Varian Velocity deformable registration was used for the summation of the fractional doses and the cumulative doses were compared with the planned doses. For the 15 patients investigated, the mean isocenter shift was up to 4.0 mm in the left-right direction, 5.9 mm in the anterior-posterior direction and 5.6 mm in the superior-inferior direction due to interfractional organ motion. The mean rectal volume varied from 0.6 to 1.73 times and the mean bladder volume varied from 0.59 to 3.65 times between simulation and the end of treatment. The prescription dose to 95% of the PTV, Dp, was set to 76 Gy for all treatment plans. The dose to 95% of the clinical treatment volume (CTV), D95, was 74.0 to 77.6 Gy and the minimum CTV dose, Dmin, was 61.0 to 71.6 Gy, respectively, in the cumulative dose distributions. Detailed analyses showed that 7.1% of the treatment fractions had cold spots (< 85% of Dp) in the peripheral CTV, leading to Dmin < 64 Gy in the cumulative dose distributions for 4 patients. The rectal dose-volume constraints were violated in 35.7% of the treatment fractions while the bladder dose was much improved in 82.7% of the treatment fractions. The current IGRT procedure for patient setup and target localization using rigid-body registration based on contour/anatomy matching is effective for population-based PTV margins. For a small group of patients, specific PTV margins and/or real-time target monitoring/tracking will be necessary due to significant prostate deformation/rotation caused by inter- and intrafractional bladder and rectal volume variation.

Pelvic Reirradiation Utilizing Pulsed Low-dose Rate Radiation Therapy.

Pulsed low-dose rate radiation therapy has been shown to reduce normal tissue damage while decreasing DNA damage repair in tumor cells. In a cohort of patients treated with palliative or definitive pelvic reirradiation using pulsed low-dose rate radiation therapy, we observed substantial local control and low rates of toxicity.

Ten-Year Update of a Randomized, Prospective Trial of Conventional Fractionated Versus Moderate Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: The previously published single institution randomized prospective trial failed to show superiority in the 5-year biochemical and/or clinical disease failure (BCDF) rate with moderate hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (H-IMRT) versus conventionally fractionated IMRT (C-IMRT). We now present 10-year disease outcomes using updated risk groups and definitions of biochemical failure. METHODS: Men with protocol-defined intermediate- and high-risk prostate adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned to receive C-IMRT (76 Gy in 38 fractions) or H-IMRT (70.2 Gy in 26 fractions). Men with high-risk disease were all prescribed 24 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and had lymph node irradiation. Men with intermediate risk were prescribed 4 months of ADT at the discretion of the treating physician. The primary endpoint was cumulative incidence of BCDF. We compared disease outcomes and overall mortality by treatment arm, with sensitivity analyses for National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group adjustment. RESULTS: Overall, 303 assessable men were randomly assigned to C-IMRT or H-IMRT. The median follow-up was 122.9 months. Per updated NCCN risk classification, there were 28 patients (9.2%) with low-risk, 189 (62.4%) with intermediate-risk, and 86 (28.4%) with high-risk prostate cancer. The arms were equally balanced for clinicopathologic factors, except that there were more black patients in the C-IMRT arm (17.8% v 7.3%; P = .02). There was no difference in ADT use (P = .56). The 10-year cumulative incidence of BCDF was 25.9% in the C-IMRT arm and was 30.6% in the H-IMRT arm (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.82 to 2.11). The two arms also had similar cumulative 10-year rates of biochemical failure, prostate cancer-specific mortality, and overall mortality; however, the 10-year cumulative incidence of distant metastases was higher in the H-IMRT arm (rate difference, 7.8%; 95% CI, 0.7% to 15.1%). CONCLUSION: H-IMRT failed to demonstrate superiority compared with C-IMRT in long-term disease outcomes.

Local Control and Toxicity of External Beam Reirradiation With a Pulsed Low-dose-rate Technique.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of external beam reirradiation using a pulsed low-dose-rate (PLDR) technique. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We evaluated patients treated with PLDR reirradiation from 2009 to 2016 at a single institution. Toxicity was graded using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0, and local control was assessed using the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors, version 1.1. On univariate analysis (UVA), the χ2 and Fisher exact tests were used to assess the toxicity outcomes. Competing risk analysis using cumulative incidence function estimates were used to assess local progression. RESULTS: A total of 39 patients were treated to 41 disease sites with PLDR reirradiation. These patients had a median follow-up time of 8.8 months (range 0.5-64.7). The targets were the thorax, abdomen, and pelvis, including 36 symptomatic sites. The median interval from the first radiation course and reirradiation was 26.2 months; the median dose of the first and second course of radiation was 50.4 Gy and 50 Gy, respectively. Five patients (13%) received concurrent systemic therapy. Of the 39 patients, 9 (23%) developed grade ≥2 acute toxicity, most commonly radiation dermatitis (5 of 9). None developed grade ≥4 acute or subacute toxicity. The only grade ≥2 late toxicity was late skin toxicity in 1 patient. On UVA, toxicity was not significantly associated with the dose of the first course of radiation or reirradiation, the interval to reirradiation, or the reirradiation site. Of the 41 disease sites treated with PLDR reirradiation, 32 had pre- and post-PLDR scans to evaluate for local control. The local progression rate was 16.5% at 6 months and 23.8% at 12 months and was not associated with the dose of reirradiation, the reirradiation site, or concurrent systemic therapy on UVA. Of the 36 symptomatic disease sites, 25 sites (69%) achieved a symptomatic response after PLDR, including 6 (17%) with complete symptomatic relief. CONCLUSION: Reirradiation with PLDR is effective and well-tolerated. The risk of late toxicity and the durability of local control were limited by the relatively short follow-up duration in the present cohort.

A multi-institutional phase 2 trial of prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) using continuous real-time evaluation of prostate motion with patient-reported quality of life.

PURPOSE: The use of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer has been reported predominantly from single institutional studies, although concerns for broader adoption exist. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From 2011 through 2013, 66 men were accrued to a phase 2 trial at 5 centers. SBRT consisted of 5 fractions of 7.4 Gy to a total dose of 37 Gy using conventional linear accelerators. Electromagnetic transponders were used for motion management. Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) was evaluated via the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite 26 questionnaire. Acute and late toxicities were collected according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0. Linear mixed modeling was performed to assess changes in HRQOL over time. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 36 months. All men had low- or intermediate-risk disease. There have been 0 biochemical recurrences. No grade 3 urinary or bowel toxicity was reported. Twenty-three percent of patients had acute grade 2 urinary toxicity, with 9% late grade 2 urinary toxicity. Four percent and 5% experienced acute or late grade 2+ bowel toxicity, respectively. Urinary bother and bowel HRQOL transiently decreased during the first 6 to 12 months post-SBRT, and then returned to baseline. In men with good erectile function at baseline, sexual HRQOL declined during the first 6 months and stabilized thereafter. On linear mixed modeling, the strongest predictor of sustained bowel and sexual HRQOL was baseline HRQOL. CONCLUSIONS: In this multi-institutional phase 2 clinical trial using continuous real-time evaluation of prostate motion, prostate SBRT has excellent intermediate-term tumor control with mild and expected treatment-related side effects.

Long-Term Patient-Reported Outcomes From a Phase 3 Randomized Prospective Trial of Conventional Versus Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: To assess the long-term quality of life (QoL) outcomes from a phase 3 trial comparing 2 modes of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT): conventional IMRT (CIMRT) versus hypofractionated IMRT (HIMRT) in patients with localized prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 2002 and 2006, 303 men with low-risk to high-risk prostate cancer were randomized to 76 Gy in 38 fractions (CIMRT) versus 70.2 Gy in 26 fractions (HIMRT). QoL was compared by use of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and EuroQoL (EQ5D) questionnaires. The primary outcome of the QoL analysis was a minimum clinically important difference defined as a 0.5 standard deviation change from baseline for each respective QoL parameter. Treatment effects were evaluated with the use of logistic mixed effects regression models. RESULTS: A total of 286, 299, and 218 patients had baseline EPIC, IPSS, or EQ5D data available and were included in the analysis. Overall, there was no statistically significant difference between the 2 treatment arms in terms of EPIC, IPSS, or EQ5D scores over time, although there was a trend toward lower EPIC urinary incontinence scores in the HIMRT arm. More patients in the HIMRT arm had a lower EPIC urinary incontinence score relative to baseline versus patients in the CIMRT arm with long-term follow-up. On multivariable analysis, there was no association between radiation fractionation scheme and any QoL parameter. When other clinical factors were examined, lymph node radiation was associated with worse EPIC hormonal scores versus patients receiving no lymph node radiation. In general, QoL outcomes were generally stable over time, with the exception of EPIC hormonal and EQ5D scores. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized prospective study, there were stable QoL changes in patients receiving HIMRT or CIMRT. Our results add to the growing body of literature suggesting that HIMRT may be an acceptable treatment modality in clinically localized prostate cancer.

A comparison of robotic arm versus gantry linear accelerator stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer is the most prevalent cancer diagnosed in men in the United States besides skin cancer. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT; 6-15 Gy per fraction, up to 45 minutes per fraction, delivered in five fractions or less, over the course of approximately 2 weeks) is emerging as a popular treatment option for prostate cancer. The American Society for Radiation Oncology now recognizes SBRT for select low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. SBRT grew from the notion that high doses of radiation typical of brachytherapy could be delivered noninvasively using modern external-beam radiation therapy planning and delivery methods. SBRT is most commonly delivered using either a traditional gantry-mounted linear accelerator or a robotic arm-mounted linear accelerator. In this systematic review article, we compare and contrast the current clinical evidence supporting a gantry vs robotic arm SBRT for prostate cancer. The data for SBRT show encouraging and comparable results in terms of freedom from biochemical failure (>90% for low and intermediate risk at 5-7 years) and acute and late toxicity (<6% grade 3-4 late toxicities). Other outcomes (eg, overall and cancer-specific mortality) cannot be compared, given the indolent course of low-risk prostate cancer. At this time, neither SBRT device is recommended over the other for all patients; however, gantry-based SBRT machines have the abilities of treating larger volumes with conventional fractionation, shorter treatment time per fraction (~15 minutes for gantry vs ~45 minutes for robotic arm), and the ability to achieve better plans among obese patients (since they are able to use energies >6 MV). Finally, SBRT (particularly on a gantry) may also be more cost-effective than conventionally fractionated external-beam radiation therapy. Randomized controlled trials of SBRT using both technologies are underway.

Dosimetric and delivery efficiency investigation for treating hepatic lesions with a MLC-equipped robotic radiosurgery-radiotherapy combined system.

PURPOSE: The CyberKnife M6 (CK-M6) Series introduced a multileaf collimator (MLC) for extending its capability from stereotactic radiosurgery/stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT) to conventionally fractionated radiotherapy. This work is to investigate the dosimetric quality of plans that are generated using MLC-shaped beams on the CK-M6, as well as their delivery time, via comparisons with the intensity modulated radiotherapy plans that were clinically used on a Varian Linac for treating hepatic lesions. METHODS: Nine patient cases were selected and divided into three groups with three patients in each group: (1) the group-one patients were treated conventionally (25 fractions); (2) the group-two patients were treated with SBRT-like hypofractionation (5 fractions); and (3) the group-three patients were treated similar to group-one patients, but with two planning target volumes (PTVs) and two different prescription dose levels correspondingly. The clinically used plans were generated on the eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) and delivered on a Varian Linac (E-V plans). The multiplan (MP) TPS was used to replan these clinical cases with the MLC as the beam device for the CK-M6 (C-M plans). After plans were normalized to the same PTV dose coverage, comparisons between the C-M and E-V plans were performed based on D(99%) (percentage of prescription dose received by 99% of the PTV), D(0.1cm(3)) (the percentage of prescription dose to 0.1 cm(3) of the PTV), and doses received by critical structures. Then, the delivery times for the C-M plans will be obtained, which are the MP TPS generated estimations assuming having an imaging interval of 60 s. RESULTS: The difference in D(99%) between C-M and E-V plans is +0.6% on average (+ or - indicating a higher or lower dose from C-M plans than from E-V plans) with a range from -4.1% to +3.8%, and the difference in D(0.1cm(3)) was -1.0% on average with a range from -5.1% to +2.9%. The PTV conformity index (CI) for the C-M plans ranges from 1.07 to 1.29 with a mean of 1.19, slightly inferior to the E-V plans, in which the CI ranges from 1.00 to 1.15 with a mean of 1.07. Accounting for all nine patients in three groups, 45% of the critical structures received a lower mean dose for the C-M plans as compared with the E-V plans, and similarly, 48% received a lower maximum dose. Furthermore, the average difference of the mean critical structure dose between the C-M and E-V plans over all critical structures for all patients showed only +2.10% relative to the prescription dose and the similar comparison finds the average difference of the maximum critical structure dose of only +1.24%. The estimated delivery times for the C-M plans on the CK-M6 range from 18 to 24 minutes while they are from 7 to 13.7 min for the E-V plans on the Varian Linac. CONCLUSIONS: For treating hepatic lesions, for the C-M plans that are comparable to E-V plans in quality, the times needed to deliver these C-M plans on the CK-M6 are longer than the delivery time for the E-V plans on the Varian Linac, but may be clinically acceptable.

Intrafractional prostate motion during external beam radiotherapy monitored by a real-time target localization system.

This paper investigates the clinical significance of real-time monitoring of intrafractional prostate motion during external beam radiotherapy using a commercial 4D localization system. Intrafractional prostate motion was tracked during 8,660 treatment fractions for 236 patients. The following statistics were analyzed: 1) the percentage of fractions in which the prostate shifted 2-7 mm for a certain duration; 2) the proportion of the entire tracking time during which the prostate shifted 2-7mm; and 3) the proportion of each minute in which the shift exceeded 2-7 mm. The ten patients exhibiting maximum intrafractional-motion patterns were analyzed separately. Our results showed that the percentage of fractions in which the prostate shifted by > 2, 3, 5, and 7 mm off the baseline in any direction for > 30 s was 56.8%, 27.2%, 4.6%, and 0.7% for intact prostate and 68.7%, 35.6%, 10.1%, and 1.8% for postprostatectomy patients, respectively. For the ten patients, these percentages were 91.3%, 72.4%, 36.3%, and 6%, respectively. The percentage of tracking time during which the prostate shifted > 2, 3, 5, and 7 mm was 27.8%, 10.7%, 1.6%, and 0.3%, respectively, and it was 56.2%, 33.7%, 11.2%, and 2.1%, respectively, for the ten patients. The percentage of tracking time for a > 3 mm posterior motion was four to five times higher than that in other directions. For treatments completed in 5 min (VMAT) and 10 min (IMRT), the proportion for the prostate to shift by > 3mm was 4% and 12%, respectively. Although intrafractional prostate motion was generally small, caution should be taken for patients who exhibit frequent large intrafractional motion. For those patients, adjustment of patient positioning may be necessary or a larger treatment margin may be used. After the initial alignment, the likelihood of prostate motion increases with time. Therefore, it is favorable to use advanced techniques (e.g., VMAT) that require less delivery time in order to reduce the treatment uncertainty resulting from intrafractional prostate motion.

Comparison of testicular dose delivered by intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in patients with prostate cancer.

A small decrease in testosterone level has been documented after prostate irradiation, possibly owing to the incidental dose to the testes. Testicular doses from prostate external beam radiation plans with either intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) were calculated to investigate any difference. Testicles were contoured for 16 patients being treated for localized prostate cancer. For each patient, 2 plans were created: 1 with IMRT and 1 with VMAT. No specific attempt was made to reduce testicular dose. Minimum, maximum, and mean doses to the testicles were recorded for each plan. Of the 16 patients, 4 received a total dose of 7800 cGy to the prostate alone, 7 received 8000 cGy to the prostate alone, and 5 received 8000 cGy to the prostate and pelvic lymph nodes. The mean (range) of testicular dose with an IMRT plan was 54.7 cGy (21.1 to 91.9) and 59.0 cGy (25.1 to 93.4) with a VMAT plan. In 12 cases, the mean VMAT dose was higher than the mean IMRT dose, with a mean difference of 4.3 cGy (p = 0.019). There was a small but statistically significant increase in mean testicular dose delivered by VMAT compared with IMRT. Despite this, it unlikely that there is a clinically meaningful difference in testicular doses from either modality.

Volumetric-modulated arc therapy for oropharyngeal carcinoma: a dosimetric and delivery efficiency comparison with static-field IMRT.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the treatment plan adequacy and delivery efficiency among volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with one or two arcs and the conventional static-field dynamic multileaf collimator (dMLC) intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in patients undergoing oropharyngeal carcinoma. Fifteen patient cases were included in this investigation. Each of the cases was planned using step-and-shoot IMRT, VMAT with a single arc (Arc1) and VMAT with double arcs (Arc2). A two-dose level prescription for planning target volumes (PTVs) was delivered with 70 Gy/56 Gy in 30 fractions. Comparisons were performed of the dose-volume histograms (DVH) for PTVs, the DVH for organs at risk (OARs), the monitor units per fraction (MU/fx), and delivery time. IMRT and Arc2 achieved similar target coverage, but superior to Arc1. Apart from the oral cavity, Arc1 showed no advantage in sparing of OARs compared with IMRT, while Arc2 obtained equivalent or better sparing of OARs among the three techniques. VMAT reduced MU/fx and shortened delivery time remarkably compared with IMRT. Our results demonstrated that for oropharyngeal cases, Arc2 can achieve superior target coverage and normal tissue sparing, as well as a significant reduction in treatment time.

Planning target volume-to-skin proximity for head-and-neck intensity modulated radiation therapy treatment planning.

PURPOSE: The goal of this work is to evaluate planning target volume (PTV)-to-skin proximity versus plan quality as well as the effects of calculation voxel size on dose uncertainty in the surface region. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A right-sided clinical target volume with the lateral border 5 mm from the surface was delineated on the computed tomographic data of a head-and-neck phantom. A 5-mm PTV expansion was generated except laterally where distances of 0-5 mm were used. A 7-field intensity modulated radiation therapy plan was generated using the Eclipse treatment planning system. Optimization was performed where 95% of the PTV receives the prescription dose using a voxel size of 2 mm(3). Dose calculations were repeated for voxel sizes of 1, 3, and 5 mm(3). For each plan, 9 point dose values were obtained just inside the phantom surface, corresponding to a 2 cm × 2 cm grid near the central target region. Nine ultrathin thermoluminescent dosimeters were placed on the phantom surface corresponding to the grid. Measured and calculated dose values were compared. Conformality, homogeneity, and target coverage were compared as well. This process was repeated for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) calculated with a 2-mm(3) voxel size. RESULTS: Surface dose is overestimated by the treatment planning system (TPS) by approximately 21% and 9.5% for 5- and 3-mm(3) voxels, respectively, and is accurately predicted for 2-mm(3) voxels. A voxel size of 1 mm(3) results in underestimation by 11%. Conformality improves with increasing PTV-to-skin distance and a conformality index of unity is obtained for grid sizes between 1 and 3 mm(3) and PTV-to-skin distances of 4-4.5 mm. Hot spot also improves and falls below 110% at 4-mm PTV-to-skin distance. Underdosage worsens as the PTV approaches the skin. All of the above appear to hold for volumetric modulated arc therapy. CONCLUSIONS: For decreasing PTV-to-skin distance with this TPS, isodose conformality decreases, "hot spot" increases, and target coverage degrades. Surface dose is overestimated when voxel sizes greater than 2 mm(3) are chosen, and underestimated for smaller voxels.

Investigation of pulsed IMRT and VMAT for re-irradiation treatments: dosimetric and delivery feasibilities.

Many tumor cells demonstrate hyperradiosensitivity at doses below ~50 cGy. Together with the increased normal tissue repair under low dose rate, the pulsed low dose rate radiotherapy (PLDR), which separates a daily fractional dose of 200 cGy into 10 pulses with 3 min interval between pulses (~20 cGy/pulse and effective dose rate 6.7 cGy min−1), potentially reduces late normal tissue toxicity while still providing significant tumor control for re-irradiation treatments. This work investigates the dosimetric and technical feasibilities of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT)-based PLDR treatments using Varian Linacs. Twenty one cases (12 real re-irradiation cases) including treatment sites of pancreas, prostate, pelvis, lung, head-and-neck, and breast were recruited for this study. The lowest machine operation dose rate (100 MU min−1) was employed in the plan delivery. Ten-field step-and-shoot IMRT and dual-arc VMAT plans were generated using the Eclipse TPS with routine planning strategies. The dual-arc plans were delivered five times to achieve a 200 cGy daily dose (~20 cGy arc−1). The resulting plan quality was evaluated according to the heterogeneity and conformity indexes (HI and CI) of the planning target volume (PTV). The dosimetric feasibility of retaining the hyperradiosensitivity for PLDR was assessed based on the minimum and maximum dose in the target volume from each pulse. The delivery accuracy of VMAT and IMRT at the 100 MU min−1 machine operation dose rate was verified using a 2D diode array and ion chamber measurements. The delivery reproducibility was further investigated by analyzing the Dynalog files of repeated deliveries. A comparable plan quality was achieved by the IMRT (CI 1.10­1.38; HI 1.04­1.10) and the VMAT (CI 1.08­1.26; HI 1.05­1.10) techniques. The minimum/maximum PTV dose per pulse is 7.9 ± 5.1 cGy/33.7 ± 6.9 cGy for the IMRT and 12.3 ± 4.1 cGy/29.2 ± 4.7 cGy for the VMAT. Six out of the 186 IMRT pulses (fields) were found to exceed 50 cGy maximum PTV dose per pulse while the maximum PTV dose per pulse was within 40 cGy for all the VMAT pulses (arcs). However, for VMAT plans, the dosimetric quality of the entire treatment plan was less superior for the breast cases and large irregular targets. The gamma passing rates for both techniques at the 100 MU min−1 dose rate were at least 94.1% (3%/3 mm) and the point dose measurements agreed with the planned values to within 2.2%. The average root mean square error of the leaf position was 0.93 ± 0.83 mm for IMRT and 0.53 ± 0.48 mm for VMAT based on the Dynalog file analysis. The RMS error of the leaf position was nearly identical for the repeated deliveries of the same plans. In general, both techniques are feasible for PLDR treatments. VMAT was more advantageous for PLDR with more uniform target dose per pulse, especially for centrally located tumors. However, for large, irregular and/or peripheral tumors, IMRT could produce more favorable PLDR plans. By taking the biological benefit of PLDR delivery and the dosimetric benefit of IMRT and VMAT, the proposed methods have a great potential for those previously-irradiated recurrent patients.

Measurement comparison and Monte Carlo analysis for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivery verification using the ArcCHECK dosimetry system.

The objective of this study is to validate the capabilities of a cylindrical diode array system for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment quality assurance (QA). The VMAT plans were generated by the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) with the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) for dose calculation. An in-house Monte Carlo (MC) code was utilized as a validation tool for the TPS calculations and the ArcCHECK measurements. The megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) of the ArcCHECK system was adopted for the geometry reconstruction in the TPS and for MC simulations. A 10 × 10 cm2 open field validation was performed for both the 6 and 10 MV photon beams to validate the absolute dose calibration of the ArcCHECK system and also the TPS dose calculations for this system. The impact of the angular dependency on noncoplanar deliveries was investigated with a series of 10 × 10 cm2 fields delivered with couch rotation 0° to 40°. The sensitivity of detecting the translational (1 to 10 mm) and the rotational (1° to 3°) misalignments was tested with a breast VMAT case. Ten VMAT plans (six prostate, H&N, pelvis, liver, and breast) were investigated to evaluate the agreement of the target dose and the peripheral dose among ArcCHECK measurements, and TPS and MC dose calculations. A customized acrylic plug holding an ion chamber was used to measure the dose at the center of the ArcCHECK phantom. Both the entrance and the exit doses measured by the ArcCHECK system with and without the plug agreed with the MC simulation to 1.0%. The TPS dose calculation with a 2.5 mm grid overestimated the exit dose by up to 7.2% when the plug was removed. The agreement between the MC and TPS calculations for the ArcCHECK without the plug improved significantly when a 1 mm dose calculation grid was used in the TPS. The noncoplanar delivery test demonstrated that the angular dependency has limited impact on the gamma passing rate (< 1.2% drop) for the 2%-3% dose and 2mm-3 mm DTA criteria. A 1° rotational misalignment introduces 11.3% (3%/3mm) to 21.3% (1%/1 mm) and 0.2% (3%/3 mm) to 0.8% (1%/1 mm) Gamma passing rate drop for ArcCHECK system and MatriXX system, respectively. Both systems have comparable sensitivity to the AP misalignments. However, a 2 mm RL misalignment introduces gamma passing rate drop ranging from 0.9% (3%/3 mm) to 4.0% (1%/1 mm) and 5.0% (3%/3 mm) to 12.0% (1%/1 mm) for ArcCHECK and MatriXX measurements, respectively. For VMAT plan QA, the gamma analysis passing rates ranged from 96.1% (H&N case) to 99.9% (prostate case), when using the 3%/3 mm DTA criteria for the peripheral dose validation between the TPS and ArcCHCEK measurements. The peripheral dose validation between the MC simulation and ArcCHECK measurements showed at least 97.9% gamma passing rates. The central dose validation also showed an agreement within 2.2% between TPS/MC calculations and ArcCHECK measurements. The worst discrepancy was found in the H&N case, which is the most complex VMAT case. The ArcCHECK system is suitable for VMAT QA evaluation based on the sensitivity to detecting misalignments, the clinical impact of the angular dependency, and the correlation between the dose agreements in the peripheral region and the central region. This work also demonstrated the importance of carrying out a thorough validation of both the TPS and the dosimetry system prior to utilizing it for QA, and the value of having an independent dose calculation tool, such as the MC method, in clinical practice.