Role of IMRT in reducing penile doses in dose escalation for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: In three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), penile tissues adjacent to the prostate are exposed to significant doses of radiation. This is likely to be a factor in development of posttreatment erectile dysfunction. In this study, we investigate whether intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) leads to lower radiation exposure to proximal penile tissues (PPT) when compared with 3D-CRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten randomly selected patients with clinically localized prostate cancer constituted the study group. Using identical structure sets, 3D-CRT and IMRT plans were designed for each patient. For IMRT, both tomographic (TOMO) and step-and-shoot (SS) techniques were used. Treatment plans were developed using 18 MV photons for 3D-CRT, 6 MV photons for TOMO, and 6 MV and 18 MV photons for SS plans. The PPT up to the beginning of the penile shaft (usually measuring 2-3 cm) was outlined by a team composed of a board-certified urologist and a radiation oncologist. The outlined PPT was subdivided into three segments (P1, P2, P3), and the radiation dose to each segment and to the entire structure was calculated. In addition, PPT was subdivided into corporal cavernosa (CC) and corpus spongiosum (bulb). The prostate dose was escalated from 73.8 Gy to 81 Gy to 90 Gy. Target D(95) (dose to 95% volume), critical structure D(5) (dose to 5% volume), and D(mean) (mean dose) were used in the comparison among treatment plans. Because 3D-CRT uses larger field margins than does IMRT, target and critical structure doses were recalculated in 3D-CRT plans employing field margins obtained from IMRT plans. Planning target volumes in original and modified 3D-CRT plans were the same. RESULTS: Compared with 3D-CRT plans, the mean PPT doses were reduced by 40.2%, 43.6%, and 46.2%, respectively, at the three prescription dose levels in TOMO plans. The average D(mean) for CC was lower by 46.4%, 48.4%, and 51.4%, whereas the average bulb D(mean) was reduced by 44.2%, 44.9%, and 47.9%, respectively. There was also considerable sparing of P1, with a reduction in average D(mean) of 41.9%, 45.5%, and 48.5% compared with 3D-CRT. All differences between 3D-CRT and IMRT doses were statistically significant (p < 0.001). Similar improvements were noticed in maximum doses (D(5)) for penile structures. The percent dose reduction with IMRT plans improved as prostate dose was escalated. When compared with 3D-CRT plans with reduced fields, IMRT plans showed slightly smaller but still significant improvements in critical structure doses (p < 0.001). Compared with SS plans, TOMO plans produced improved sparing of dose to critical structures. CONCLUSIONS: IMRT allows for dose escalation in prostate cancer while keeping penile tissue doses significantly lower compared to conformal radiotherapy. This may result in improved potency rates over current results observed with 3D-CRT.

Assessment of different IMRT boost delivery methods on target coverage and normal-tissue sparing.

PURPOSE: Because of biologic, medical, and sometimes logistic reasons, patients may be treated with 3D conformal therapy or intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for the initial treatment volume (PTV(1)) followed by a sequential IMRT boost dose delivered to the boost volume (PTV(2)). In some patients, both PTV(1) and PTV(2) may be simultaneously treated by IMRT (simultaneous integrated boost technique). The purpose of this work was to assess the sequential and simultaneous integrated boost IMRT delivery techniques on target coverage and normal-tissue sparing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen patients with head-and-neck (H&N), lung, and prostate cancer were selected for this comparative study. Each site included 5 patients. In all patients, the target consisted of PTV(1) and PTV(2). The prescription doses to PTV(1) and PTV(2) were 46 Gy and 66 Gy (H&N cases), 45 Gy and 66.6 Gy (lung cases), 50 Gy and 78 Gy (prostate cases), respectively. The critical structures included the following: spinal cord, parotid glands, and brainstem (H&N structures); spinal cord, esophagus, lungs, and heart (lung structures); and bladder, rectum, femurs (prostate structures). For all cases, three IMRT plans were created: (1) 3D conformal therapy to PTV(1) followed by sequential IMRT boost to PTV(2) (sequential-IMRT(1)), (2) IMRT to PTV(1) followed by sequential IMRT boost to PTV(2) (sequential-IMRT(2)), and (3) Simultaneous integrated IMRT boost to both PTV(1) and PTV(2) (SIB-IMRT). The treatment plans were compared in terms of their dose-volume histograms, target volume covered by 100% of the prescription dose (D(100%)), and maximum and mean structure doses (D(max) and D(mean)). RESULTS: H&N cases: SIB-IMRT produced better sparing of both parotids than sequential-IMRT(1), although sequential-IMRT(2) also provided adequate parotid sparing. On average, the mean cord dose for sequential-IMRT(1) was 29 Gy. The mean cord dose was reduced to approximately 20 Gy with both sequential-IMRT(2) and SIB-IMRT. Prostate cases: The volume of rectum receiving 70 Gy or more (V(>70 Gy)) was reduced to 18.6 Gy with SIB-IMRT from 22.2 Gy with sequential-IMRT(2). SIB-IMRT reduced the mean doses to both bladder and rectum by approximately 10% and approximately 7%, respectively, as compared to sequential-IMRT(2). The mean left and right femur doses with SIB-IMRT were approximately 32% lower than obtained with sequential-IMRT(1). Lung cases: The mean heart dose was reduced by approximately 33% with SIB-IMRT as compared to sequential-IMRT(1). The mean esophagus dose was also reduced by approximately 10% using SIB-IMRT as compared to sequential-IMRT(1). The percentage of the lung volume receiving 20 Gy (V(20 Gy)) was reduced to 26% by SIB-IMRT from 30.6% with sequential-IMRT(1). CONCLUSIONS: For equal PTV coverage, both sequential-IMRT techniques demonstrated moderately improved sparing of the critical structures. SIB-IMRT, however, markedly reduced doses to the critical structures for most of the cases considered in this study. The conformality of the SIB-IMRT plans was also much superior to that obtained with both sequential-IMRT techniques. The improved conformality gained with SIB-IMRT may suggest that the dose to nontarget tissues will be lower.

Comparison of ionization chambers of various volumes for IMRT absolute dose verification.

IMRT plans are usually verified by phantom measurements: dose distributions are measured using film and the absolute dose using an ionization chamber. The measured and calculated doses are compared and planned MUs are modified if necessary. To achieve a conformal dose distribution, IMRT fields are composed of small subfields, or "beamlets." The size of beamlets is on the order of 1 x 1 cm2. Therefore, small chambers with sensitive volumes < or = 0.1 cm3 are generally used for absolute dose verification. A dosimetry system consisting of an electrometer, an ion chamber, and connecting cables may exhibit charge leakage. Since chamber sensitivity is proportional to volume, the effect of leakage on the measured charge is relatively greater for small chambers. Furthermore, the charge contribution from beamlets located at significant distances from the point of measurement may be below the small chambers threshold and hence not detected. On the other hand, large (0.6 cm3) chambers used for the dosimetry of conventional external fields are quite sensitive. Since these chambers are long, the electron fluence through them may not be uniform ("temporal" uniformity may not exist in the chamber volume). However, the cumulative, or "spatial" fluence distribution (as indicated by calculated IMRT dose distribution) may become uniform at the chamber location when the delivery of all IMRT fields is completed. Under the condition of "spatial" fluence uniformity, the charge collected by the large chamber may accurately represent the absolute dose delivered by IMRT to the point of measurement. In this work, 0.6, 0.125, and 0.009 cm3 chambers were used for the absolute dose verification for tomographic and step-and-shoot IMRT plans. With the largest, 0.6 cm3 chamber, the measured dose was equal to calculated within 0.5%, when no leakage corrections were made. Without leakage corrections, the error of measurement with a 0.125 cm3 chamber was 2.6% (tomographic IMRT) and 1.5% (step-and-shoot IMRT). When doses measured by a 0.125 cm3 chamber were corrected for leakage, the difference between the calculated and measured doses reduced to 0.5%. Leakage corrected doses obtained with the 0.009 cm3 chamber were within 1.5%-1.7% of calculated doses. Without leakage corrections, the measurement error was 16% (tomographic IMRT) and 7% (step-and-shoot IMRT).

Improvement of dose distributions in abutment regions of intensity modulated radiation therapy and electron fields.

In recent years, intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is used to radiate tumors that are in close proximity to vital organs. Targets consisting of a deep-seated region followed by a superficial one may be treated with abutting photon and electron fields. However, no systematic study regarding matching of IMRT and electron beams was reported. In this work, a study of dose distributions in the abutment region between tomographic and step-and-shoot IMRT and electron fields was carried out. A method that significantly improves dose homogeneity between abutting tomographic IMRT and electron fields was developed and tested. In this method, a target region that is covered by IMRT was extended into the superficial target area by approximately 2.0 cm. The length and shape of IMRT target extension was chosen such that high isodose lines bent away from the region treated by the electrons. This reduced the magnitude of hot spots caused by the "bulging effect" of electron field penumbra. To account for the uncertainties in positioning of the IMRT and electron fields, electron field penumbra was modified using conventional (photon) multileaf collimator (MLC). The electron beam was delivered in two steps: half of the dose delivered with MLCs in retracted position and another half with MLCs extended to the edge of electron field that abuts tomographic IMRT field. The experimental testing of this method using film dosimetry has demonstrated that the magnitude of the hot spots was reduced from approximately 45% to approximately 5% of the prescription dose. When an error of +/- 1.5 mm in field positioning was introduced, the dose inhomogeneity in the abutment region did not exceed +/- 15% of the prescription dose. With step-and-shoot IMRT, the most homogeneous dose distribution was achieved when there was a 3 mm gap between the IMRT and electron fields.

Comparative evaluation of Kodak EDR2 and XV2 films for verification of intensity modulated radiation therapy.

Film dosimetry provides a convenient tool to determine dose distributions, especially for verification of IMRT plans. However, the film response to radiation shows a significant dependence on depth, energy and field size that compromise the accuracy of measurements. Kodak's XV2 film has a low saturation dose (approximately 100 cGy) and, consequently, a relatively short region of linear dose-response. The recently introduced Kodak extended range EDR2 film was reported to have a linear dose-response region extending to 500 cGy. This increased dose range may be particularly useful in the verification of IMRT plans. In this work, the dependence of Kodak EDR2 film's response on the depth, field size and energy was evaluated and compared with Kodak XV2 film. Co-60, 6 MV, 10 MV and 18 MV beams were used. Field sizes were 2 x 2, 6 x 6, 10 x 10, 14 x 14, 18 x 18 and 24 x 24 cm2. Doses for XV2 and EDR2 films were 80 cGy and 300 cGy, respectively. Optical density was converted to dose using depth-corrected sensitometric (Hurter and Driffield, or H&D) curves. For each field size, XV2 and EDR2 depth-dose curves were compared with ion chamber depth-dose curves. Both films demonstrated similar (within 1%) field size dependence. The deviation from the ion chamber for both films was small forthe fields ranging from 2 x 2 to 10 x 10 cm2: < or =2% for 6, 10 and 18 MV beams. No deviation was observed for the Co-60 beam. As the field size increased to 24 x 24 cm2, the deviation became significant for both films: approximately 7.5% for Co-60, approximately 5% for 6 MV and 10 MV, and approximately 6% for 18 MV. During the verification of IMRT plans, EDR2 film showed a better agreement with the calculated dose distributions than the XV2 film.

Automatic feathering of split fields for step-and-shoot intensity modulated radiation therapy.

Due to leaf travel range limitations of the Varian Dynamic Multileaf Collimator (DMLC) system, an IMRT field width exceeding 14.5 cm is split into two or more adjacent abutting sub-fields. The abutting sub-fields are then delivered as separate treatment fields. The accuracy of the delivery is very sensitive to multileaf positioning accuracy. The uncertainties in leaf and carriage positions cause errors in the delivered dose (e.g., hot or cold spots) along the match line of abutting sub-fields. The dose errors are proportional to the penumbra slope at the edge of each sub-field. To alleviate this problem, we developed techniques that feather the split line of IMRT fields. Feathering of the split line was achieved by dividing IMRT fields into several sub-groups with different split line positions. A Varian 21EX accelerator with an 80-leaf DLMC was used for IMRT delivery. Cylindrical targets with varying widths (>14.5 cm) were created to study the split line positions. Seven coplanar 6 MV fields were selected for planning using the NOMOS-CORVUS system. The isocentre of the fields was positioned at the centre of the target volume. Verification was done in a 30 x 30 x 30 cm3 polystyrene phantom using film dosimetry. We investigated two techniques to move the split line from its original position or cause feathering of them: (1) varying the isocentre position along the target width and (2) introduction of a 'pseudo target' outside of the patient (phantom). The position of the 'pseudo target' was determined by analysing the divergence of IMRT fields. For target widths of 14-28 cm, IMRT fields were automatically split into two sub-fields, and the split line was positioned along the centre of the target by CORVUS. Measured dose distributions demonstrated that the dose to the critical structure was 10% higher than planned when the split line crossed through the centre of the target. Both methods of modifying the split line positions resulted in maximum shifts of approximately 1 cm from the original. Therefore, it was concluded that the feathering of the split line may be used for reducing the magnitude of hot/cold spots. This method was tested for an oesophageal cancer case. For a six-field arrangement, it was possible to create three field sub-groups with different split lines. The feathering technique developed in this work does not require any modifications of the radiation fields during the course of treatment because only one treatment plan is used to deliver the entire course of radiation treatments. In addition, this method may be more biologically effective because the split line feathering is achieved for every fraction of radiation.

An immobilization and localization technique for SRT and IMRT of intracranial tumors.

A noninvasive localization and immobilization technique that facilitates planning and accurate delivery of both intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and linac based stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) of intracranial tumors has been developed and clinically tested. Immobilization of a patient was based on a commercially available Gill-Thomas-Cossman (GTC) relocatable frame. A stereotactic localization frame (LF) with the attached NOMOS localization device (CT pointer) was used for CT scanning of patients. Thus, CT slices contained fiducial marks for both IMRT and SRT. The patient anatomy and target(s) were contoured on a stand-alone CT-based imaging system. CT slices and contours were then transmitted to both IMRT and SRT treatment planning systems (TPSs) for concurrent development of IMRT and SRT plans. The treatment method that more closely approached the treatment goals could be selected. Since all TPSs used the same contour set, the accuracy of competing treatment plans comparison was improved. SRT delivery was done conventionally. For IMRT delivery patients used the SRT patient immobilization system. For the patient setup, the IMRT target box was attached to the SRT LF, replacing the IMRT CT Pointer. A modified and lighter IMRT target box compatible with SRT LF was fabricated. The proposed technique can also be used for planning and delivery of 3D CRT, thus improving its accuracy. Day-to-day reproducibility of the patient setup can be evaluated using a SRT Depth Helmet.

Improvement of treatment plans developed with intensity-modulated radiation therapy for concave-shaped head and neck tumors.

PURPOSE: To improve dose conformity and normal tissue sparing in patients with concave-shaped head and neck cancers by using tomotherapy and static step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and by comparing results with those of three-dimensional (3D) conformal radiation therapy (CRT) and two-dimensional (2D) radiation therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Treatment planning in 10 patients with concave-shaped head and neck tumors was performed by using tomotherapy and step-and-shoot IMRT, 3D CRT, and 2D techniques. IMRT plans were modified by placing "virtual critical structures" in regions outside the target where hot spots occurred. These modified plans were used for comparison because they provided better dose conformity. Critical structures were the spinal cord, the parotid glands, and the mandible. Comparisons were performed by means of dose-volume histograms, clinical target volume (CTV), target covered by 95% isodose (D(95%)), dose received by 5% of the critical structure volume (D(5%)), maximum dose, mean dose, and normal tissue complication probability for critical structures. RESULTS: Original IMRT plans showed more conformal dose distributions than those in 3D CRT and 2D plans. However, hot spots developed in the posterior and anterior neck. Introduction of virtual critical structures in IMRT plans resulted in removal of these hot spots without affecting target coverage. Modified IMRT plans also demonstrated better CTV coverage than that in 3D CRT and 2D plans. The average D(95%) was 97.3% with tomotherapy, 97.1% with step-and-shoot IMRT, 84.7% with 3D CRT, and 69.4% with 2D techniques. D(5%) for the spinal cord changed from approximately 45 Gy with 3D plans and 46 Gy with 2D plans to approximately 28 Gy with IMRT. CONCLUSION: IMRT demonstrated better target coverage and sparing of critical structures than that of 3D CRT and 2D techniques. Use of virtual critical structures resulted in removal of hot spots around the spinal cord.