Radiotherapy equipment and departments in the European countries: final results from the ESTRO-HERO survey.

BACKGROUND: Documenting the distribution of radiotherapy departments and the availability of radiotherapy equipment in the European countries is an important part of HERO - the ESTRO Health Economics in Radiation Oncology project. HERO has the overall aim to develop a knowledge base of the provision of radiotherapy in Europe and build a model for health economic evaluation of radiation treatments at the European level. The aim of the current report is to describe the distribution of radiotherapy equipment in European countries. METHODS: An 84-item questionnaire was sent out to European countries, principally through their national societies. The current report includes a detailed analysis of radiotherapy departments and equipment (questionnaire items 26-29), analyzed in relation to the annual number of treatment courses and the socio-economic status of the countries. The analysis is based on validated responses from 28 of the 40 European countries defined by the European Cancer Observatory (ECO). RESULTS: A large variation between countries was found for most parameters studied. There were 2192 linear accelerators, 96 dedicated stereotactic machines, and 77 cobalt machines reported in the 27 countries where this information was available. A total of 12 countries had at least one cobalt machine in use. There was a median of 0.5 simulator per MV unit (range 0.3-1.5) and 1.4 (range 0.4-4.4) simulators per department. Of the 874 simulators, a total of 654 (75%) were capable of 3D imaging (CT-scanner or CBCT-option). The number of MV machines (cobalt, linear accelerators, and dedicated stereotactic machines) per million inhabitants ranged from 1.4 to 9.5 (median 5.3) and the average number of MV machines per department from 0.9 to 8.2 (median 2.6). The average number of treatment courses per year per MV machine varied from 262 to 1061 (median 419). While 69% of MV units were capable of IMRT only 49% were equipped for image guidance (IGRT). There was a clear relation between socio-economic status, as measured by GNI per capita, and availability of radiotherapy equipment in the countries. In many low income countries in Southern and Central-Eastern Europe there was very limited access to radiotherapy and especially to equipment for IMRT or IGRT. CONCLUSIONS: The European average number of MV machines per million inhabitants and per department is now better in line with QUARTS recommendations from 2005, but the survey also showed a significant heterogeneity in the access to modern radiotherapy equipment in Europe. High income countries especially in Northern-Western Europe are well-served with radiotherapy resources, other countries are facing important shortages of both equipment in general and especially machines capable of delivering high precision conformal treatments (IMRT, IGRT).

A comparison of forward and inverse planned conformal, multi segment and intensity modulated radiotherapy for the treatment of prostate and pelvic nodes.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Full inverse planned intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) may be indicated to treat concave targets like prostate and pelvic nodes, because concave dose distributions cannot be generated with conformal radiotherapy (CRT). We investigated whether this concave dose distribution can be produced using simplified forward planned multi segment radiotherapy (MSRT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: CRT, MSRT and IMRT dose distributions were calculated and compared for five patients treated in our current IMRT prostate and pelvic node dose escalation trial. The same beam arrangement was used for CRT, MSRT and IMRT, increasing the number of segments. The MSRT concave dose distribution was realised regarding left and right pelvic nodes as two separate targets. The IMRT dose distribution had been used to treat the patients using a step and shoot delivery. RESULTS: Contrary to CRT, forward planned MSRT concave dose distributions had improved target coverage at lower or equivalent bowel doses than inverse planned IMRT. The five MSRT beams had a maximum of three segments per beam. Both lateral beams had two segments to deliver the two dose levels to prostate and nodes. The posterior field needed a third segment to avoid using a central block. The two anterior oblique beams needed a third segment to account for the different beam weighting because the nodes were irradiated partially using four and partially using five beams. Inverse planned IMRT used up to 15 segments in any one beam, with an average of 11.4 per beam. CONCLUSIONS: Concave dose distributions for prostate and pelvic node treatment were generated using forward planned multi segment techniques. The plans met clinical constraints used in our IMRT protocol. MSRT presented a significant advantage over both CRT and IMRT.

Clinical implementation of dynamic and step-and-shoot IMRT to treat prostate cancer with high risk of pelvic lymph node involvement.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Two systems have been developed for treating patients with locally advanced prostate cancer using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT): one using dynamic multi-leaf collimator delivery and the other using step-and-shoot. This paper describes the clinical implementation of these two techniques, and presents results from the first 14 patients treated in a clinical setting (nine dynamic, five step-and-shoot). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Dynamic treatments were planned using Corvus, and step-and-shoot using Helax-TMS; all were delivered using Elekta accelerators. Prior to the first clinical treatments, validation measurements were carried out for each system, including measurements for a complete IMRT treatment. The reproducibility of dynamic delivery and the characteristics of the accelerator for low-monitor-unit (MU) deliveries were also assessed. An extensive quality assurance (QA) program was performed for each of the patients. Additionally, timing measurements were carried out to assess the practicalities of the technique. RESULTS: The planning objectives were met in most cases. Absolute doses for complete IMRT treatments were within 2%, on average, with dose distributions generally showing agreement within 3% or 3 mm. Beam modulation measurements made throughout each patient's treatment indicated that both delivery methods were reproducible. The dynamic plans required an average of 765 MU per beam, with a treatment delivery time of 14 min; corresponding results for step-and-shoot plans were 105 MU and 10 min. CONCLUSIONS: Two IMRT techniques for this group of patients have been successfully implemented in the clinic. The more complex dynamic treatments showed no advantages over the step-and-shoot approach. QA results have shown accurate and reproducible delivery for both techniques, giving increased confidence in the techniques and allowing a reduction in the QA program.