Optimization of the dosimetric leaf gap for use in planning VMAT treatments of spine SABR cases.

The dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) is a beam configuration parameter used in the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system, to model the effects of rounded MLC leaf ends. Measuring the DLG using the conventional sliding-slit technique has been shown to be produce questionable results for some volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatments. This study therefore investigated the use of radiochromic film measurements to optimize the DLG specifically for the purpose of producing accurate VMAT plans using a flattening-filter-free (FFF) beam, for use in treating vertebral targets using a stereotactic (SABR, also known as SBRT) fractionation schedule. Four test treatments were planned using a VMAT technique, to deliver a prescription of 24 Gy in 3 fractions to four different spine SABR treatment sites. Measurements of the doses delivered by these treatments were acquired using an ionization chamber and radiographic film. These measurements were compared with the doses calculated by the treatment planning system using a range of DLG values, including a DLG identified using the conventional sliding-slit method (1.1 mm). An optimal DLG value was identified, as the value that produced the closest agreement between the planned and measured doses (1.9 mm). The accuracy of the dose calculations produced using the optimized DLG value was verified using additional radiochromic film measurements in a heterogeneous phantom. This study provided a specific initial DLG (1.9 mm) as well as a film-based optimization method, which may be used by radiotherapy centers when attempting to commission or improve an FFF VMAT-based SABR treatment programme.

Which patients benefit from post-implant CT dosimetry after real-time intraoperative planning for low dose rate prostate brachytherapy? Case series and systematic literature review.

INTRODUCTION: At present, post-implant CT-based dosimetry is a standard quality assurance practice following low dose rate (LDR) prostate brachytherapy. However, it rarely influences management and involves radiation exposure, costs and inconvenience. The purpose of our study was to assess the need for post-implant CT-based dosimetry through correlation with pre-implant and real-time dosimetry and review its place in the management of patients treated with LDR brachytherapy, so that it could be undertaken more selectively. METHODS: The real-time dosimetry parameters of 34 consecutive patients who underwent LDR brachytherapy were compared with day 30 post-implant CT-based dosimetry. To validate our results against the world practice, we performed a meta-analysis of six relevant published studies, which combined data from 699 patients. The Student's t-test was performed to verify whether our dosimetric parameters significantly differ from the results of the meta-analysis. RESULTS: In our case series, the mean target volume on real-time-planned US and post-implant CT was 33.9 and 32.7 cc, respectively (P > 0.05). The dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters were significantly different between real-time-planned and post-implant dosimetry, but re-implantation was not needed for any patients. The literature review demonstrated that there is no consensus on measures being reported. Comparison showed that our cohort had significantly smaller prostate volumes, but the DVHs were similar to other series. CONCLUSIONS: Post-implant CT and dosimetry did not alter patients' management after real-time intraoperative planning. However, we recommend that it still be employed for difficult cases or if there are any concerns identified in real-time planned dosimetry.

Retrospective evaluation of dosimetric quality for prostate carcinomas treated with 3D conformal, intensity modulated and volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: This study examines and compares the dosimetric quality of radiotherapy treatment plans for prostate carcinoma across a cohort of 163 patients treated across five centres: 83 treated with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), 33 treated with intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and 47 treated with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). METHODS: Treatment plan quality was evaluated in terms of target dose homogeneity and organs at risk (OAR), through the use of a set of dose metrics. These included the mean, maximum and minimum doses; the homogeneity and conformity indices for the target volumes; and a selection of dose coverage values that were relevant to each OAR. Statistical significance was evaluated using two-tailed Welch's T-tests. The Monte Carlo DICOM ToolKit software was adapted to permit the evaluation of dose metrics from DICOM data exported from a commercial radiotherapy treatment planning system. RESULTS: The 3DCRT treatment plans offered greater planning target volume dose homogeneity than the other two treatment modalities. The IMRT and VMAT plans offered greater dose reduction in the OAR: with increased compliance with recommended OAR dose constraints, compared to conventional 3DCRT treatments. When compared to each other, IMRT and VMAT did not provide significantly different treatment plan quality for like-sized tumour volumes. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that IMRT and VMAT have provided similar dosimetric quality, which is superior to the dosimetric quality achieved with 3DCRT.