A Phantom Study on Feasibility of Manual Field-in-Field Clinical Implementation for Total Body Irradiation and Comparison of Midplane Dose with Different Bilateral TBI Techniques.

Objective: The aim of this study is to implement a new treatment technique in total body irradiation (TBI) using the manual field-in-field-TBI (MFIF-TBI) technique and dosimetrically verifying its results with respect to compensator-based TBI (CB-TBI) and open field TBI technique. Materials and Methods: A rice flour phantom (RFP) was placed on TBI couch with knee bent position at 385 cm source to surface distance. Midplane depth (MPD) was calculated for skull, umbilicus, and calf regions by measuring separations. Three subfields were opened manually for different regions using the multi-leaf collimator and jaws. The treatment Monitor unit (MU) was calculated based on each subfield size. In the CB-TBI technique, Perspex was used as a compensator. Treatment MU was calculated using MPD of umbilicus region and the required compensator thickness was calculated. For open field TBI, treatment MU was calculated using MPD of umbilicus region, and the treatment was executed without placing compensator. The diodes were placed on the surface of RFP to measure the delivered dose and the results were compared. Results: The MFIF-TBI results showed that the deviation was within ± 3.0% for the different regions, except for the neck for which the deviation was 8.72%. In the CB-TBI delivery, the dose deviation was ± 3.0% for different regions in the RFP. The open field TBI results showed that the dose deviation was not within the limit ± 10.0%. Conclusion: The MFIF-TBI technique can be implemented for TBI treatment as no TPS is required, and laborious process of making a compensator can be avoided while ensuring that the dose uniformity in all the regions within the tolerance limit.

Comparison of Progressive Resolution Optimizer and Photon Optimizer algorithms in RapidArc delivery for head and neck SIB treatments.

Background: The aim of this study is to analyze and verify characterization of two different algorithms using simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) in head and neck (H&N) plans. Materials and methods: In our study 15 patients were selected, who received radiation therapy by using Eclipse volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) Progressive Resolution Optimizer (PRO) algorithm 15.1. The same cases were re-optimized using a Photon Optimizer (PO) algorithm 15.6.A total of 30 treatment plans (15 PRO-VMAT plans and 15 PO-VMAT plans) were produced in the present study. All plans were created using double full arcs, keeping the identical constraints, cost functions and optimization time. Plan evaluation was done using planning target volume (PTV) parameters (D98%, D95%, D50%, D2% mean dose and V105%), homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), Monitor unit (MU) per degree with control points (CP), organ at risk (OAR) doses and gamma verification (Portal dosimetry and ArcCHECK) values were evaluated. Treatment was delivered in Varian Truebeam 2.5, energy 6 MV with Millennium 120 multileaf collimator (MLC). Results: The PTV coverage (D95%) for PRO and PO were 98.7 ± 0.8 Gy, 98.8 ± 0.9 Gy, HI were 0.09 ± 0.02 and 0.09 ± 0.02, CI were 0.98 ± 0.01 and 0.99 ± 0.01. Monitor units (MU) for PRO and PO were 647.5 ± 137.9, 655.2 ± 138.4. The Portal dose results were [3%, 3mm (%) & 1 %, 1 mm (%)] for PO and PRO 100 ± 0.1, 95.1 ± 1.4 and 100 ± 0.1, 95.2 ± 1.3. For ArcCHECK were 99.9 ± 0.1, 94.7 ± 3.0 and 99.9 ± 0.1, 93.5 ± 3.9, respectively. Conclusion: Results showed that PTV coverage and OAR doses were comparable. For individual patients CI and HI of PO showed slightly higher values than PRO. MUs for PO were slightly increased as compared to PRO. MU per degree with each individual control points generated by PO showed a high degree of modulation compared to PRO. Hence, new PO optimizer can produce a comparable degree of plan while using the same PRO objectives.

Evaluation of Surface Dose and Commissioning of Compensator-Based Total Body Irradiation.

Purpose: The aim of the current study is to commission compensator-based total body irradiation (TBI) and to compare surface dose using percentage depth dose (PDD) while varying the distance between beam spoiler and phantom surface. Materials and Methods: TBI commissioning was performed on Elekta Synergy® Platform linear accelerator for bilateral extended source to surface distance treatment technique. The PDD was measured by varying the distance (10 cm, 20 cm, 30 cm, and 40 cm) between the beam spoiler and the phantom surface. Beam profile and half-value layer (HVL) measurement were carried out using the FC65 ion-chamber. Quality assurance (QA) was performed using an in-house rice-flour phantom (RFP). In-vivo diodes (IVD) were placed on the RFP at various regions to measure the delivered dose, and it was compared to the calculated dose. Results: An increase in Dmax and surface dose was observed when beam spoiler was moved away from the phantom surface. The flatness and symmetry of the beam profile were calculated. The HVL of Perspex and aluminum is 17 cm and 8 cm, respectively. The calculated dose of each region was compared to the measured dose on the RFP with IVD, and the findings showed that the variation was <4.7% for both Perspex and Aluminum compensators. Conclusion: The commissioning of the compensator-based TBI technique was performed and its QA measurements were carried out. The Mayneord factor corrected PDD and measured PDD values were compared. The results are well within the clinical tolerance limit. This study concludes that 10 cm -20 cm is the optimal distance from the beam spoiler to phantom surface to achieve prescribed dose to the skin.

Dosimetric Importance of the Implementation of Daily Image Guidance in Radiotherapy Practice.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to show the dosimetric importance of using daily image guidance in radiotherapy treatment. METHODS: A sample of 30 patients with various head and neck cancers were retrospectively selected for the studies. The prescribed dose, 66 Gy/33 fractions was used for all patients who received 7 to 9 beams, 6 MV Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) plan delivered by Varian Truebeam STx. Before the first fraction of the treatment, the patient's shift corresponds to isocenter was noted and corrected. Subsequently, the images were taken daily for all 30 patients and the maximum, mode, median and mean of all shifts were recorded and applied to the base plan and recalculated for quantitative analysis of tumour coverage and Organ at Risk's (OARs) doses using various dosimetric parameters such as Homogeneity Index (HI), Conformation Number (CN), Conformity Index (CI), Coverage Index (COVI), Dose Gradient Index (DGI) and Unified Dosimetry Index (UDI) of shift plan. RESULTS: The results showed the Planning Target Volume (PTV) and the OARs values deteriorated from its base plan values in the various shift plans created by applying the patient setup errors analyzed using image guidance. Mean dose of maximum shift plan with a significant P value of 0.002, D2% of maximum shift plan with a significant P value 0.028, the D98% Values of maximum and mode plans with the significant P value 0.004 each, the D50% and D80% values of the maximum shift plans with their significant P values 0.001 and 0.002 respectively. Also, HI95%, CN95% and COVI values of the maximum shift plan showed much variation with significant P values of 0.004, 0.040 and 0.0004 respectively from their base plan values. There were significant changes observed in OARs values between base plan and shift plans. CONCLUSION: Implementation of daily image guidance in radiotherapy is mandatory taking into account of its dosimetric importance and to achieve the goal of radiotherapy practice of sparing the critical organs without compromising the target coverage.

Evaluation of Dosimetric Effect of Millennium and High Definition Multi Leaf Collimator Using 6 MV Photon Beams.

PURPOSE: The present study aims to compare different dosimetric parameters from field sizes defined by secondary and tertiary collimators. A comparison has been drawn between two types of Multi Leaf Collimator (MLC) designs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The measurements were obtained using Millennium MLC (Mi-MLC) from Varian Unique™ linear accelerator (LINAC-1) and compared with measurements from Varian Truebeam™ linear accelerator (LINAC-2) using High Definition MLC (HD-MLC). Dosimetric analysis included percentage depth dose (PDD), cross profile, dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) and scatter factor (SF) that were taken for different field sizes defined by both the MLC design and jaw. For beam data measurement PTW Radiation field analyse (RFA) was utilized. RESULTS: When the surface dose for MLC field for linac 1 and linac 2 were compared with jaws they were found to be on the higher side that is 2.8% to 4.9% and 2.2% to 3.6% respectively. The SF was found to vary from -3.2% to 0.73% for LINAC-1 with Mi-MLC when compared with jaws. Similarly, the SF variation from -2.4% to 1.1% was observed for LINAC-2 with HD-MLC as compared with jaw. Larger field sizes gave increased SF while smaller field sizes showed the opposite for HD-MLC. The penumbra was found to be less in HD-MLC as compared to Mi-MLC. Similarly, DLG was found to reduce by 0.056 mm in Mi-MLC when compared with HD-MLC. The results of symmetry and flatness were seen within the limits for both MLC designs. CONCLUSION: It can be concluded from the results that both the MLC designs have merits and demerits that are based on their effectiveness and clinical use. However, higher surface dose was found in HD-MLC in contrast to Mi-MLC.

IMPACT OF THREE DIFFERENT MATCHING METHODS ON PATIENT SET-UP ERROR IN X-RAY VOLUMETRIC IMAGING FOR HEAD AND NECK CANCER.

Impact of three different matching methods for delivery of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) in Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) on patient set-up error. As per institutional imaging protocol, 300 CBCT scans of 20 VMAT head and neck cancer patients treated with 60 Gy/30 fractions were chosen for the present study. Approved CT images of the plan were registered as a reference with the CBCT images on board. Grey-scale matching (GM), manual matching (MM), and bone matching (BM) between on-board CBCT and reference CT images were used to assess patient translation errors. Patient positioning verification was evaluated using the Clip-box registration in all three matching methods. Using the GM approach as a reference point, two additional matchings were rendered in offline mode using BM and MM. For analysis, random error (σ), systematic error (∑), maximum error (E) mean set-up error (M), mean displacement vector (R), matching time (Mt), and multiple comparisons using Post hoc Tukey's HSD test were performed. In MM, less random and systematic errors were found than in GM and BM with an insignificant difference (p > 0.05) Compared to BM and GM, the maximum error, mean set-up error, and displacement vector were marginally less in MM (p > 0.05). In MM, an increased Mt relative to BM and GM was observed (p > 0.05). Furthermore, an insignificant difference in set-up error was revealed in a multiple comparison test (p > 0.05). Any of the three matching methods can be used during CBCT to check patient translation errors for the delivery of the VMAT head and neck patients.

Validation of a Software Upgrade in a Monte Carlo Treatment Planning System by Comparison of Plans in Different Versions.

PURPOSE: Validation of a new software version of a Monte Carlo treatment planning system through comparing plans generated by two software versions in volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for lung cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three patients who were treated with 60 Gy/30 fractions in Elekta Synergy™ linear accelerator by VMAT technique with 2% statistical uncertainty (SU) were chosen for the study. Multiple VMAT plans were generated using two different software versions of Monaco treatment planning system TPS (V5.10.02 and V5.11). By keeping all other parameters constant, originally accepted plans were recalculated for the SUs of 0.5%, 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, and 5%. For plan evaluation, the metrics compared were conformity Index (CI), homogeneity Index (HI), dose coverage to planning target volume (PTV), organ at risk (OAR) doses to spinal cord, pericardium, bilateral lungs-PTV, esophagus, liver, normal tissue integral dose (NTID), volumes receiving dose >5 and >10 Gy, calculation time (tCT), and gamma pass rates. RESULTS: In both versions, CI and HI improved as the SU increased from 0.5% to 5%. No significant dose difference was observed in Dmean to PTV, bilateral lungs-PTV, pericardium, esophagus, liver, normal tissue volume receiving >5, and >10 Gy and NTID. It was observed that while the tCT and gamma pass rates decreased, the maximum dose to PTV increased as the SU increased. No other significant dose differences were observed between the two MC versions compared. CONCLUSION: For lung VMAT plans, in both versions, SU could be accepted up to 3% per plan with reduced tCT without compromising plan quality and deliverability by accepting variations in point dose and an inhomogeneous dose within the target. The plan quality of Monaco™V5.10.02 was similar to Monaco™TPS-V5.11 except for tCT.

Study to Compare the Effect of Different Registration Methods on Patient Setup Uncertainties in Cone-beam Computed Tomography during Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Breast Cancer Patients.

PURPOSE: This study compared three different methods used in registering cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) image set with planning CT image set for determining patient setup uncertainties during volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for breast cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven breast cancer patients treated with 50 Gy in 25 fractions using VMAT technique were chosen for this study. A total of 105 CBCT scans were acquired by image guidance protocol for patient setup verification. Approved plans' CT images were used as the reference image sets for registration with their corresponding CBCT image sets. Setup errors in mediolateral, craniocaudal, and anteroposterior direction were determined using gray-scale matching between the reference CT images and onboard CBCT images. Patient setup verification was performed using clip-box registration (CBR) method during online imaging. Considering the CBR method as the reference, two more registrations were performed using mask registration (MR) method and dual registration (DR) (CBR + MR) method in the offline mode. For comparison, systematic error (∑), random error (σ), mean displacement vector (R), mean setup error (M), and registration time (R t) were analyzed. Post hoc Tukey's honest significant difference test was performed for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: Systematic and random errors were less in CBR as compared to MR and DR (P > 0.05). The mean displacement error and mean setup errors were less in CBR as compared to MR and DR (P > 0.05). Increased R t was observed in DR as compared to CBR and MR (P < 0.05). In addition, multiple comparisons did not show any significant difference in patient setup error (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: For breast VMAT plan delivery, all three registration methods show insignificant variation in patient setup error. One can use any of the three registration methods for patient setup verification.