Comparison of treatment plan quality of VMAT for esophageal carcinoma with: flattening filter beam versus flattening filter free beam.

Purpose: To investigate the difference in treatment plan quality of volumetric modulated arc treatment (VMAT) for esophageal carcinoma with flattening filter beam (FF) and flattening filter free beam (FFF). Material and methods: A total of fifty-six treatment plans were generated for twenty eight esophageal carcinoma patients with flattening filter beam and flattening filter free beam, using same optimal parameters. The homogeneity index (HI) and conformal index (CI) of targets, and some special points on Dose-Volume Histogram (DVH) curves were used to compare the plan quality. The coverage volumes of 45 Gy, 30 Gy and 20 Gy outside targets (V45Gy, V30Gy and V20Gy ) were used to compare the targets peripheral dose. The MU numbers, measured delivery time and averaged dose rates were used to evaluate the delivery efficiency of treatment plans. Results: A significant decreasing in peripheral dose around targets was found using FFF beams while the dose distributions in targets were equivalent to the plans with FF beams. V45Gy, V30Gy and V20Gy were decreased by 6.46%, 88.18% and 4.40%, respectively. A significant increase in MUs and decrease in treatment time were also found in delivery test. The average MUs was increased by 21.83% and the average treatment time was reduced by down to 11.9%. Conclusions: For esophageal carcinoma, the research showed that the treatment plans with FFF beams could get comparable dose distribution in targets and could significantly reduce the peripheral dose around targets compared to the plans with FF beams.

Dosimetric Effects of Head and Neck Immobilization Devices on Multi-field Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma.

Background: In practice, the dose perturbation effect of head and neck immobilization devices is often overlooked in intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Purpose of this study is to verify and analyze the dosimetric effect of head and neck immobilization devices on NPC multi-field IMRT. Methods: Ten patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma were randomly selected. Two sets of body contours were established for each patient. One set of body contours did not contain the immobilization device, and the other contour set included the immobilization device. For each patient, dose calculations were conducted for the two sets of contours using the same 9-field IMRT plan, which were recorded as Plan- and Plan+. The dose difference caused by the head and neck immobilization devices was assessed by comparing the dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameter results and by plan subtraction. The gafchromic EBT3 film and anthropomorphic phantom were used to verify the calculated doses. Results: The target coverage and average dose of Plan+ were lower than those of Plan- : the prescription dose coverage rates for PTVnx, PTVnd, PTV1 and PTV2 decreased by 2.4%, 9.9%, 1.5%, and 3.6%, respectively, and the mean doses were reduced by 0.9%, 1.9%, 1.1%, and 1.5%, respectively. Doses in the organs at risk showed no significant differences or slight reductions (the maximum reduction in mean dose was 1.7%). From the EBT3 measurements, the skin dose on the posterior neck was increased by approximately 53%. Conclusion: The attenuation and bolus effects of the head and neck immobilization device reduce dose coverage rate and average dose of the planning target volumes in nasopharyngeal carcinoma and lead to an increase in the skin dose. During treatment planning and dose calculation, the immobilization device should be included within body contour to account for the dose attenuation and skin dose increment.

Correction to: Retrospective dosimetry study of intensity-modulated radiation therapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: measurement-guided dose reconstruction and analysis.

The original version of this article [1] unfortunately contained a mistake.

Prospective matched study on comparison of volumetric-modulated arc therapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: dosimetry, delivery efficiency and outcomes.

Background: The purpose of this study is to assess the feasibility of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients by comparing the physical dosimetry, delivery efficiency and clinical outcomes with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Methods: A prospective matched study was performed for patients with newly diagnosed NPC who underwent VMAT or IMRT. The patients in two groups were equally matched in terms of gender, age, tumor stage and chemotherapy. The target coverage, homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI) of the planning target volume (PTV), organs at risk (OARs) sparing, average treatment time and clinical outcomes were analyzed. Results: From June 2013 to August 2015, a total of 80 patients were enrolled in this study, with 40 patients in each group. The coverage of PTV was similar for both groups. D2 was observed slight difference only in early stage disease (T1-2) (VMAT vs. IMRT, 7494±109 cGy vs. 7564±92 cGy; p=0.06). The HI of VMAT group was better than that of IMRT group (p=0.001), whereas CI was slightly worse (p=0.061). The maximum doses received by the brain stem, spinal cord, and optic nerve of VMAT were higher than those of IMRT (p<0.05). But the irradiation volumes in healthy tissue were generally lower for VMAT group, with significant differences in V20, V25 and V45 (p<0.05). With regard to the delivery efficiency compared with IMRT (1160 ± 204s), a 69% reduction in treatment time was achieved by VMAT (363 ± 162s). Both groups had 5 cases of nasopharyngeal residual lesions after radiotherapy. The 2-year estimated local relapse-free survival, regional relapse-free survival and locoregional relapse-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, disease-free survival and overall survival were similar between two groups, with the corresponding rates of 100%, 97.4%, 97.4%, 90.0%, 90.0% and 92.4% in VMAT group, and 100%, 100%, 100%, 95.0%, 95.0% and 97.5% in IMRT group, respectively. Conclusions: Both VMAT and IMRT can meet the clinical requirements for the treatment of NPC. The short-term tumor regression rates and 2-year survival rates with the two techniques are comparable. The faster treatment time benefits of VMAT will enable more patients to receive precision radiotherapy.

Retrospective dosimetry study of intensity-modulated radiation therapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: measurement-guided dose reconstruction and analysis.

BACKGROUND: Conventional phantom-based planar dosimetry (2D-PBD) quality assurance (QA) using gamma pass rate (GP (%)) is inadequate to reflect clinically relevant dose error in intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), owing to a lack of information regarding patient anatomy and volumetric dose distribution. This study aimed to evaluate the dose distribution accuracy of IMRT delivery for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), which passed the 2D-PBD verification, using a measurement-guided 3D dose reconstruction (3D-MGR) method. METHODS: Radiation treatment plans of 30 NPC cases and their pre-treatment 2D-PBD data were analyzed. 3D dose distribution was reconstructed on patient computed tomography (CT) images using the 3DVH software and compared to the treatment plans. Global and organ-specific dose GP (%), and dose-volume histogram (DVH) deviation of each structure was evaluated. Interdependency between GP (%) and the deviation of the volumetric dose was studied through correlation analysis. RESULTS: The 3D-MGR achieved global GP (%) similar to conventional 2D-PBD in the same criteria. However, structure-specific GP (%) significantly decreased under stricter criteria, including the planning target volume (PTV). The average deviation of all inspected dose volumes (DV) and volumetric dose (VD) parameters ranged from - 2.93% to 1.17%, with the largest negative deviation in V100% of the PTVnx of - 15.66% and positive deviation in D1cc of the spinal cord of 6.66%. There was no significant correlation between global GP (%) of 2D-PBD or 3D-MGR and the deviation of the most volumetric dosimetry parameters (DV or VD), when the Pearson's coefficient value of 0.8 was used for correlation evaluation. CONCLUSION: Even upon passing the pre-treatment phantom based dosimetric QA, there could still be risk of dose error like under-dose in PTVnx and overdose in critical structures. Measurement-guided 3D volumetric dosimetry QA is recommended as the more clinically efficient verification for the complicated NPC IMRT.

A novel supine isocentric approach for craniospinal irradiation and its clinical outcome.

OBJECTIVE: To report a novel approach for craniospinal irradiation (CSI) using a supine isocentric technique. METHODS: Patients were treated in the supine position using CT simulation. Half-beam-blocked lateral cranial fields and superior spinal fields have the same isocentre, and their beam divergences match. Tangential irradiation provides a non-divergent junction for the other two full-beam spinal fields. Shielding for cranial fields was generated, and dose distribution was calculated using a three-dimensional planning system. When sacral spinal fields were required, two lateral opposite fields were designed to protect the urogenital organs. All treatment portals were filmed once per week. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 49.8 months, 5 relapses and no cases of radiation myelitis developed in 26 consecutive patients. In the junctions of the brain-spine or spine-spine field, no failure occurred. Three failures occurred in the primary site alone, two in the spinal axis alone. CONCLUSION: The results of our study have shown that our novel approach for CSI was not associated with increased failures at the field junction and deaths. In addition, no radiation myelitis, pneumonia, severe damage to the heart and gastrointestinal tract, and second cancers occurred in our study. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This new approach is an optimal alternative in cancer centre without tomotherapy because of its convenience for immobilization, repeatability, optimal dose distribution and satisfactory clinical outcome.

Independent verification of monitor unit calculation for radiation treatment planning system.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To ensure the accuracy of dose calculation for radiation treatment plans is an important part of quality assurance (QA) procedures for radiotherapy. This study evaluated the Monitor Units (MU) calculation accuracy of a third-party QA software and a 3-dimensional treatment planning system (3D TPS), to investigate the feasibility and reliability of independent verification for radiation treatment planning. METHODS: Test plans in a homogenous phantom were designed with 3-D TPS, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Technical Report No. 430, including open, blocked, wedge, and multileaf collimator (MLC) fields. Test plans were delivered and measured in the phantom. The delivered doses were input to the QA software and the independent calculated MUs were compared with delivery. All test plans were verified with independent calculation and phantom measurements separately, and the differences of the two kinds of verification were then compared. RESULTS: The deviation of the independent calculation to the measurements was (0.1 +/- 0.9)%, the biggest difference fell onto the plans that used block and wedge fields (2.0%). The mean MU difference between the TPS and the QA software was (0.6 +/- 1.0)%, ranging from -0.8% to 2.8%. The deviation in dose of the TPS calculation compared to the measurements was (-0.2 +/- 1.7)%, ranging from -3.9% to 2.9%. CONCLUSIONS: MU accuracy of the third-party QA software is clinically acceptable. Similar results were achieved with the independent calculations and the phantom measurements for all test plans. The tested independent calculation software can be used as an efficient tool for TPS plan verification.

[Measurements and comparisons for data of small beams of linear accelerators].

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Accurate data acquisition is very important to establish a reliable dose calculation model of the treatment planning system for small radiation fields in intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT). This study was to analyze and compare small-field measurements using different methods and ionization chambers. METHODS: Three types of farmer chambers were used, with active volumes of 0.65 cc, and 0.13 cc, 0.01 cc, respectively. The beam data, including the total scatter factor (Scp), collimator scatter factor (Sc), tissue-maximum ratio (TMR), were acquired in a 30 cm x 30 cm x 30 cm3 water phantom under two linear accelerators. Measurements were performed at accelerating potentials of 4, 6, and 8 MV with the beam size ranging from 1 cm x 1 cm to 10 cm x 10 cm. The measurements were analyzed and compared. RESULTS: For the beam size of >or=3 cm x 3 cm, the differences in Scp and Sc measurements of the 0.65 cc, 0.13 cc and 0.01 cc ion chambers were within 0.8%, while the differences were much greater for the beam size of less than 3 cm x 3 cm (the maximum difference reached 64%). Using 4, 6 and 8 MV X-rays, Sc measured by the 0.13 cc chamber with an elongated source-to-surface distance (SSD) (>150 cm) were 25.4%, 6.9%, 24.6%, and 1.4%, 1.4%, 2.2% greater than those measured by a standard SSD (100 cm) for 1 cm x 1 cm and 2 cm x 2 cm beams respectively; although there was no significant difference in Sc measurements for the beams of >or=2 cm x 2 cm using the elongated SSD of the 0.13 cc and the 0.01 cc ion chambers, Sc measured by the 0.13 cc ion chamber were 0.2%, 8.5%, 3.4% less than those measured by the 0.01 cc ion chamber for the 1 cm x 1 cm beam. For the 1 cm x 1 cm beam, the TMR of the depth deeper than 15 cm measured with the 0.01 cc ion chamber was about 4% different compared with that measured with the 0.13 cc ion chamber; for radiation fields of >or=2 cm x 2 cm, the differences of TMR between the 0.01 cc and 0.13 cc chambers were within 1%. For the radiation fields of >or=3 cm x 3 cm, the measured TMR values had a good consistency with the calculated values obtained from the percentage depth doses (PDDs) at the depth of 0 to 15 cm; but the two values were obviously different at the depths of deeper than 15 cm (>2%). CONCLUSIONS: For the measurement of small fields, the choice of a suitable detector is important due to the lack of lateral electron equilibrium. Misuse of the detector may affect the accuracy of the measurements for small radiation fields. When the lateral electron equilibrium is not established, the size of the detector used to measure the absorbed dose on the central axis should be considerably smaller than the field size.