Volumetric modulated arc therapy: planning and evaluation for prostate cancer cases

Quality of tri-Co-60 MR-IGRT treatment plans in comparison with VMAT treatment plans for spine SABR

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the plan quality of tri-Co-60 intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans for spine stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR).

METHODS

A total of 20 patients with spine metastasis were retrospectively selected. For each patient, a tri-Co-60 IMRT plan and a volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan were generated. The spinal cords were defined based on MR images for the tri-Co-60 IMRT, while isotropic 1-mm margins were added to the spinal cords for the VMAT plans. The VMAT plans were generated with 10-MV flattening filter-free photon beams of TrueBeam STx^™ (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA), while the tri-Co-60 IMRT plans were generated with the ViewRay^™ system (ViewRay inc., Cleveland, OH). The initial prescription dose was 18 Gy (1 fraction). If the tolerance dose of the spinal cord was not met, the prescription dose was reduced until the spinal cord tolerance dose was satisfied.

RESULTS

The mean dose to the target volumes, conformity index and homogeneity index of the VMAT and tri-Co-60 IMRT were 17.8 ± 0.8 vs 13.7 ± 3.9 Gy, 0.85 ± 0.20 vs 1.58 ± 1.29 and 0.09 ± 0.04 vs 0.24 ± 0.19, respectively. The integral doses and beam-on times were 16,570 ± 1768 vs 22,087 ± 2.986 Gy cm³ and 3.95 ± 1.13 vs 48.82 ± 10.44 min, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The tri-Co-60 IMRT seems inappropriate for spine SABR compared with VMAT. Advances in knowledge: For spine SABR, the tri-Co-60 IMRT is inappropriate owing to the large penumbra, large leaf width and low dose rate of the ViewRay system.

Bladder radiotherapy treatment: A retrospective comparison of 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy, and volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans

To examine tumor׳s and organ׳s response when different radiotherapy plan techniques are used. Ten patients with confirmed bladder tumors were first treated using 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) and subsequently the original plans were re-optimized using the intensity-modulated radiation treatment (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT)-techniques. Targets coverage in terms of conformity and homogeneity index, TCP, and organs׳ dose limits, including integral dose analysis were evaluated. In addition, MUs and treatment delivery times were compared. Better minimum target coverage (1.3%) was observed in VMAT plans when compared to 3DCRT and IMRT ones confirmed by a statistically significant conformity index (CI) results. Large differences were observed among techniques in integral dose results of the femoral heads. Even if no statistically significant differences were reported in rectum and tissue, a large amount of energy deposition was observed in 3DCRT plans. In any case, VMAT plans provided better organs and tissue sparing confirmed also by the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) analysis as well as a better tumor control probability (TCP) result. Our analysis showed better overall results in planning using VMAT techniques. Furthermore, a total time reduction in treatment observed among techniques including gantry and collimator rotation could encourage using the more recent one, reducing target movements and patient discomfort.

Analysis of dose distribution in organs at risk in patients with prostate cancer treated with the intensity-modulated radiation therapy and arc technique

This study describes a comparative analysis of treatment plans in 48 patients with prostate cancer treated with ionizing radiation. Each patient was subjected to the intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and arc technique. In each treatment plan, the organs at risk were assessed: the urinary bladder, rectum and heads of the femur, as well as the volume of normal tissue. The following features were compared: treatment time, conformity indices for the planning target volume, mean doses and standard deviation in organs at risk, and organ volumes for each particular dose. The treatment period in the arc technique is 13.7% shorter than in the IMRT technique. Comparing the results of the IMRT and arc techniques (arc vs. IMRT), the mean values were 29.21 ± 12.91 Gy versus 28.36 ± 13.79 Gy for the bladder, 20.36 ± 3.16 Gy versus 18.17 ± 5.11 Gy for the right femoral head, and 18.98 ± 3.28 Gy versus 16.67 ± 5.15 Gy for the left femoral head. For the rectum, lower values were obtained after application of the arc technique, not the IMRT technique: 35.84 ± 12.28 Gy versus 35.90 ± 13.05 Gy. The results indicate that the applied therapy has a statistically significant influence on the volume for a particular dose with regard to the urinary bladder. It is advisable to apply the IMRT technique to patients who need the femur heads and urinary bladder protected by exposing them to low irradiation doses.

Dosimetric and radiobiological characterizations of prostate intensity-modulated radiotherapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy: A single-institution review of ninety cases

This study reviewed prostate volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans after prostate IMRT technique was replaced by VMAT in an institution. Characterizations of dosimetry and radiobiological variation in prostate were determined based on treatment plans of 40 prostate IMRT patients (planning target volume = 77.8–335 cm³) and 50 VMAT patients (planning target volume = 120–351 cm³) treated before and after 2013, respectively. Both IMRT and VMAT plans used the same dose-volume criteria in the inverse planning optimization. Dose-volume histogram, mean doses of target and normal tissues (rectum, bladder and femoral heads), dose-volume points (D_99% of planning target volume; D_30%, D_50%, V_{30 Gy} and V_{35 Gy} of rectum and bladder; D_5%, V_{14 Gy}, V_{22 Gy} of femoral heads), conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), gradient index (GI), prostate tumor control probability (TCP), and rectal normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) based on the Lyman-Burman-Kutcher algorithm were calculated for each IMRT and VMAT plan. From our results, VMAT plan was found better due to its higher (1.05%) CI, lower (0.83%) HI and (0.75%) GI than IMRT. Comparing doses in normal tissues between IMRT and VMAT, it was found that IMRT mostly delivered higher doses of about 1.05% to the normal tissues than VMAT. Prostate TCP and rectal NTCP were found increased (1%) for VMAT than IMRT. It is seen that VMAT technique can decrease the dose-volume evaluation criteria for the normal tissues. Based on our dosimetric and radiobiological results in treatment plans, it is concluded that our VMAT implementation could produce comparable or slightly better target coverage and normal tissue sparing with a faster treatment time in prostate radiotherapy.

A comparative planning study for lung SABR between tri-Co-60 magnetic resonance image guided radiation therapy system and volumetric modulated arc therapy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

To compare the plan quality of tri-(60)Co magnetic-resonance image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) to that of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for lung stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 22 patients with lung tumors located in the lower lobe were selected retrospectively. For each patient, VMAT plans with linac and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans with the tri-(60)Co system were generated with prescription doses of 60Gy (daily dose=15Gy). For both plan types, identical CT image sets and structures were used, with the exception of planning target volumes (PTV). The PTV for VMAT was generated from the internal target volume (ITV) while the PTV for the tri-(60)Co system was generated from the gross tumor volume (GTV). Clinically relevant dose-volumetric parameters were calculated and analyzed.

RESULTS

The average PTV volumes of tri-(60)Co plans and VMAT plans were 10.5±12.3cc vs. 27.2±23.5cc, respectively (p<0.001). The maximum and mean doses to PTVs were 64.0±2.6Gy vs. 62.5±0.9Gy (p=0.005) and 61.4±1.7Gy vs. 60.0±0.5Gy (p<0.001), respectively. The conformity and homogeneity indices were 1.89±0.38 vs. 1.01±0.40 (p<0.001) and 0.06±0.02 vs. 0.04±0.00 (p<0.001), respectively. No considerable differences for organs at risk (OARs) were observed between tri-(60)Co plans and VMAT plans. In terms of target conformity, integral dose and lung mean dose, the plan quality of tri-(60)Co plans was inferior to that of VMAT plans when the PTV volumes of tri-(60)Co plans were less than 10cc. However, all treatment plans of tri-(60)Co system were clinically acceptable.

CONCLUSION

For lung SABR, the quality of ITV-based VMAT plans was better than that of GTV-based tri-(60)Co plans especially when the PTV volumes of the tri-(60)Co plans were less than 10cc. If the breathing pattern of a patient is reproducible, VMAT is considered the optimal option for lung SABR, otherwise the tri-(60)Co IGRT should be considered due to the ability to monitor tumor motion during treatment.

What is the best way to radiate the prostate in 2016?

Prostate cancer treatment with definitive radiation therapy (RT) has evolved dramatically in the past 2 decades. From the initial 2-dimensional planning using X-rays, advances in technology led to 3-dimensional conformal RT, which used computerized tomography-based planning. This has allowed delivery of higher doses of radiation to the prostate while reducing dose to the surrounding organs, resulting in improved cancer control. Today, intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) is considered standard, where radiation beams of different shapes and intensities can be delivered from a wide range of angles, thus further decreasing doses to normal organs and likely reducing treatment-related toxicity. In addition, image guidance ascertains the location of the prostate before daily treatment delivery. Brachytherapy is the placement of radioactive seeds directly in the prostate, and has a long track record as a monotherapy for low-risk prostate cancer patients with excellent long-term cancer control and quality of life outcomes. Recent studies including several randomized trials support the use of brachytherapy in combination with external beam RT for higher-risk patients. RT for prostate cancer continues to evolve. Proton therapy has a theoretical advantage over photons as it deposits most of the dose at a prescribed depth with a rapid dose fall-off thereafter; therefore it reduces some doses delivered to the bladder and rectum. Prospective studies have shown the safety and efficacy of proton therapy for prostate cancer, but whether it leads to improved patient outcomes compared to IMRT is unknown. Hypofractionated RT delivers a larger dose of daily radiation compared to conventional IMRT, and thus reduces the overall treatment time and possibly cost. An extreme form of hypofractionation is stereotactic body radiation therapy where highly precise radiation is used and treatment is completed in a total of 4 to 5 sessions. These techniques take advantage of the biological characteristic of prostate cancer, which is more sensitive to larger radiation doses per fraction, and therefore could be more effective than conventional IMRT. Multiple randomized trials have demonstrated noninferiority of moderately hypofractionated RT compared to conventional fractionation. There is also a growing body of data demonstrating the safety and efficacy of stereotactic body radiation therapy for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Preoperative Chemoradiation With VMAT-SIB in Rectal Cancer: A Phase II Study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and toxicity of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT)-simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) in preoperative combined treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer.

METHODS

Radiation therapy was performed using the VMAT-SIB technique. The dose to mesorectum and pelvic lymph nodes was 45 Gy (1.8 Gy/fraction). A concomitant boost was delivered on GTV + 2-cm margin with a total dose of 57.5 Gy (2.3 Gy/fraction). The following concomitant chemotherapy was administered: capecitabine (825 mg/m² twice daily, 5 days per week) and oxaliplatin (130 mg/m² on days 1, 17, and 35). Efficacy was evaluated in terms of complete pathological response (pCR). Acute toxicities were evaluated according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0 criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 18 patients (7 women; median age 62 years; clinical stage: 4 local recurrences, 6 cT4, 5 cT3, 3 cT2, 2 cN0, 7 cN1, 9 cN2) were enrolled. Sixteen patients underwent surgical resection (9 low anterior resection, 6 abdominal perineal amputations; 1 transanal excision) and 2 patients did not undergo surgery for early metastatic progression or death from acute pulmonary edema. R0 resection was achieved in all patients who underwent surgery. Overall, 4 patients had a pCR and 7 patients only a microscopic residual of disease (pT0-Tmic: 11/18 = 61.1%; 95% CI, 36.2-86.1). Acute grade ≥ 3 toxicity was as follows: 1 case of leukopenia, 1 skin toxicity, 1 genitourinary toxicity, and 5 gastrointestinal toxicities, with an overall incidence of 8 (44.4%) of 18 patients. One-, 3-, and 5-year cumulative local control was 100%, 68.6%, and 68.6%, respectively. One-, 3-, and 5-year cumulative disease-free survival was 88.9%, 66.7%, and 66.7%, respectively. One-, 3-, and 5-year cumulative overall survival was 85%, 63.8%, and 63.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The regimen used in this study showed excellent results in terms of pathologic responses. However, despite the use of the VMAT technique, more than one-third of patients had severe acute toxicity.

The dosimetric significance of using 10 MV photons for volumetric modulated arc therapy for post-prostatectomy irradiation of the prostate bed

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the study was to analyse the dosimetric differences when using 10 MV instead of 6 MV for VMAT treatment plans for post-prostatectomy irradiation of the prostate bed.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Ten post-prostatectomy prostate bed irradiation cases previously treated using 6 MV with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) were re-planned using 10 MV with VMAT. Prescription dose was 66.6 Gy with 1.8 Gy per fraction for 37 daily fractions. The same structure set, number of arcs, field sizes, and minimum dose to the Planning Target Volume (PTV) were used for both 6 MV and 10 MV plans. Results were collected for dose to Organs at Risk (OAR) constraints, dose to the target structures, number of monitor units for each arc, Body V5, Conformity Index, and Integral Dose. The mean values were used to compare the 6 MV and 10 MV results. To determine the statistical significance of the results, a paired Student t test and power analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Statistically significant lower mean values were observed for the OAR dose constraints for the rectum, bladder-Clinical Target Volume (bladder-CTV), left femoral head, and right femoral head. Also, statistically significant lower mean values were observed for the Body V5, Conformity Index, and Integral Dose.

CONCLUSIONS

Several dosimetric benefits were observed when using 10 MV instead of 6 MV for VMAT based treatment plans. Benefits include sparing more dose from the OAR while still maintaining the same dose coverage to the PTV. Other benefits include lower Body V 5,Conformity Index, and Integral Dose.

An investigation of the dose distribution effect related with collimator angle in volumetric arc therapy of prostate cancer

To investigate the dose-volume variations of planning target volume (PTV) and organ at risks (OARs) in eleven prostate cancer patients planned with single and double arc volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) when varying collimator angle. Single and double arc VMAT treatment plans were created using Monaco5.0^® with collimator angle set to 0°. All plans were normalized 7600 cGy dose to the 95% of clinical target volume (CTV) volume. The single arc VMAT plans were reoptimized with different collimator angles (0°, 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, 75°, and 90°), and for double arc VMAT plans (0–0°, 15°–345, 30–330°, 45–315°, 60–300°, 75–285°, 90–270°) using the same optimization parameters. For the comparison the parameters of heterogeneity index (HI), dose-volume histogram and minimum dose to the 95% of PTV volume (D95 PTV) calculated and analyzed. The best plans were verified using 2 dimensional ion chamber array IBA Matrixx^® and three-dimensional IBA Compass^® program. The comparison between calculation and measurement were made by the γ-index (3%/3 mm) analysis. A higher D95 (PTV) were found for single arc VMAT with 15° collimator angle. For double arc, VMAT with 60–300° and 75–285° collimator angles. However, lower rectum doses obtained for 75–285° collimator angles. There was no significant dose difference, based on other OARs which are bladder and femur head. When we compared single and double arc VMAT's D95 (PTV), we determined 2.44% high coverage and lower HI with double arc VMAT. All plans passed the γ-index (3%/3 mm) analysis with more than 97% of the points and we had an average γ-index for CTV 0.36, for PTV 0.32 with double arc VMAT. These results were significant by Wilcoxon signed rank test statistically. The results show that dose coverage of target and OAR's doses also depend significantly on the collimator angles due to the geometry of target and OARs. Based on the results we have decided to plan prostate cancer patients in our clinic with double arc VMAT and 75°–285° collimator angles.

Volumetric modulated arc therapy for carotid sparing in the management of early glottic cancer

Purpose

Radiotherapy of the neck is known to cause carotid artery stenosis. We compared the carotid artery dose received between volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and conventional fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans in patients with early glottic cancer.

Materials and Methods

Twenty-one early glottic cancer patients who previously underwent definitive radiotherapy were selected for this study. For each patient, double arc VMAT, 8-field IMRT, 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), and lateral parallel-opposed photon field radiotherapy (LPRT) plans were created. The 3DCRT plan was generated using lateral parallel-opposed photon fields plus an anterior photon field. VMAT and IMRT treatment plan optimization was performed under standardized conditions to obtain adequate target volume coverage and spare the carotid artery. Dose-volume specifications for the VMAT, IMRT, 3DCRT, and LPRT plans were calculated with radiotherapy planning system. Monitor units (MUs) and delivery time were measured to evaluate treatment efficiency.

Results

Target volume coverage and homogeneity results were comparable between VMAT and IMRT; however, VMAT was superior to IMRT for carotid artery dose sparing. The mean dose to the carotid arteries in double arc VMAT was reduced by 6.8% compared to fixed-field IMRT (p < 0.001). The MUs for VMAT and IMRT were not significantly different (p = 0.089). VMAT allowed an approximately two-fold reduction in treatment delivery time in comparison to IMRT (3 to 5 minutes vs. 5 to 10 minutes).

Conclusion

VMAT resulted in a lower carotid artery dose compared to conventional fixed-field IMRT, and maintained good target coverage in patients with early glottic cancer.

Under conditions of large geometric miss, tumor control probability can be higher for static gantry intensity-modulated radiation therapy compared to volume-modulated arc therapy for prostate cancer

The purpose of this work was to compare static gantry intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with volume-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in terms of tumor control probability (TCP) under scenarios involving large geometric misses, i.e., those beyond what are accounted for when margin expansion is determined. Using a planning approach typical for these treatments, a linear-quadratic-based model for TCP was used to compare mean TCP values for a population of patients who experiences a geometric miss (i.e., systematic and random shifts of the clinical target volume within the planning target dose distribution). A Monte Carlo approach was used to account for the different biological sensitivities of a population of patients. Interestingly, for errors consisting of coplanar systematic target volume offsets and three-dimensional random offsets, static gantry IMRT appears to offer an advantage over VMAT in that larger shift errors are tolerated for the same mean TCP. For example, under the conditions simulated, erroneous systematic shifts of 15mm directly between or directly into static gantry IMRT fields result in mean TCP values between 96% and 98%, whereas the same errors on VMAT plans result in mean TCP values between 45% and 74%. Random geometric shifts of the target volume were characterized using normal distributions in each Cartesian dimension. When the standard deviations were doubled from those values assumed in the derivation of the treatment margins, our model showed a 7% drop in mean TCP for the static gantry IMRT plans but a 20% drop in TCP for the VMAT plans. Although adding a margin for error to a clinical target volume is perhaps the best approach to account for expected geometric misses, this work suggests that static gantry IMRT may offer a treatment that is more tolerant to geometric miss errors than VMAT.

Dose calculation for hypofractionated volumetric-modulated arc therapy: approximating continuous arc delivery and tongue-and-groove modeling

Hypofractionated treatments generally increase the complexity of a treatment plan due to the more stringent constraints of normal tissues and target coverage. As a result, treatment plans contain more modulated MLC motions that may require extra efforts for accurate dose calculation. This study explores methods to minimize the differences between in-house dose calculation and actual delivery of hypofractionated volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), by focusing on arc approximation and tongue-and-groove (TG) modeling. For dose calculation, the continuous delivery arc is typically approximated by a series of static beams with an angular spacing of 2°. This causes significant error when there is large MLC movement from one beam to the next. While increasing the number of beams will minimize the dose error, calculation time will increase significantly. We propose a solution by inserting two additional apertures at each of the beam angle for dose calculation. These additional apertures were interpolated at two-thirds' degree before and after each beam. Effectively, there were a total of three MLC apertures at each beam angle, and the weighted average fluence from the three apertures was used for calculation. Because the number of beams was kept the same, calculation time was only increased by about 6%-8%. For a lung plan, areas of high local dose differences (> 4%) between film measurement and calculation with one aperture were significantly reduced in calculation with three apertures. Ion chamber measurement also showed similar results, where improvements were seen with calculations using additional apertures. Dose calculation accuracy was further improved for TG modeling by developing a sampling method for beam fluence matrix. Single element point sampling for fluence transmitted through MLC was used for our fluence matrix with 1 mm resolution. For Varian HDMLC, grid alignment can cause fluence sampling error. To correct this, transmission volume averaging was applied. For three paraspinal HDMLC cases, the average dose difference was greatly reduced in film and calculation comparisons with our new approach. The gamma (3%, 3 mm) pass rates have improved significantly from 74.1%, 90.0%, and 90.4% to 99.2%, 97.9%, and 97.3% for three cases, for calculation without volume averaging and calculation with volume averaging, respectively. Our results indicate that more accurate MLC leaf position and transmission sampling can improve accuracy and agreement between calculation and measurement, and are particularly important for hypofractionated VMAT that consists of large MLC movement.

Dosimetric evaluation of 4 different treatment modalities for curative-intent stereotactic body radiation therapy for isolated thoracic spinal metastases

To investigate the dosimetric characteristics of 4 SBRT-capable dose delivery systems, CyberKnife (CK), Helical TomoTherapy (HT), Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) by Varian RapidArc (RA), and segmental step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) by Elekta, on isolated thoracic spinal lesions. CK, HT, RA, and IMRT planning were performed simultaneously for 10 randomly selected patients with 6 body types and 6 body + pedicle types with isolated thoracic lesions. The prescription was set with curative intent and dose of either 33Gy in 3 fractions (3F) or 40Gy in 5F to cover at least 90% of the planning target volume (PTV), correspondingly. Different dosimetric indices, beam-on time, and monitor units (MUs) were evaluated to compare the advantages/disadvantages of each delivery modality. In ensuring the dose-volume constraints for cord and esophagus of the premise, CK, HT, and RA all achieved a sharp conformity index (CI) and a small penumbra volume compared to IMRT. RA achieved a CI comparable to those from CK, HT, and IMRT. CK had a heterogeneous dose distribution in the target as its radiosurgical nature with less dose uniformity inside the target. CK had the longest beam-on time and the largest MUs, followed by HT and RA. IMRT presented the shortest beam-on time and the least MUs delivery. For the body-type lesions, CK, HT, and RA satisfied the target coverage criterion in 6 cases, but the criterion was satisfied in only 3 (50%) cases with the IMRT technique. For the body + pedicle-type lesions, HT satisfied the criterion of the target coverage of ≥90% in 4 of the 6 cases, and reached a target coverage of 89.0% in another case. However, the criterion of the target coverage of ≥90% was reached in 2 cases by CK and RA, and only in 1 case by IMRT. For curative-intent SBRT of isolated thoracic spinal lesions, RA is the first choice for the body-type lesions owing to its delivery efficiency (time); the second choice is CK or HT; HT is the preferential choice for the body + pedicle-type lesions. This study suggests further clinical investigations with longer follow-up for these studied cases.

Beam’s-eye-view dosimetrics (BEVD) guided rotational station parameter optimized radiation therapy (SPORT) planning based on reweighted total-variation minimization

Conventional VMAT optimizes aperture shapes and weights at uniformly sampled stations, which is a generalization of the concept of a control point. Recently, rotational station parameter optimized radiation therapy (SPORT) has been proposed to improve the plan quality by inserting beams to the regions that demand additional intensity modulations, thus formulating nonuniform beam sampling. This work presents a new rotational SPORT planning strategy based on reweighted total-variation (TV) minimization (min.), using beam’s-eye-view dosimetrics (BEVD) guided beam selection. The convex programming based reweighted TV min. assures the simplified fluence-map, which facilitates single-aperture selection at each station for single-arc delivery. For the rotational arc treatment planning and non-uniform beam angle setting, the mathematical model needs to be modified by additional penalty term describing the fluence-map similarity and by determination of appropriate angular weighting factors. The proposed algorithm with additional penalty term is capable of achieving more efficient and deliverable plans adaptive to the conventional VMAT and SPORT planning schemes by reducing the dose delivery time about 5 to 10 s in three clinical cases (one prostate and two head-and-neck (HN) cases with a single and multiple targets). The BEVD guided beam selection provides effective and yet easy calculating methodology to select angles for denser, non-uniform angular sampling in SPORT planning. Our BEVD guided SPORT treatment schemes improve the dose sparing to femoral heads in the prostate and brainstem, parotid glands and oral cavity in the two HN cases, where the mean dose reduction of those organs ranges from 0.5 to 2.5 Gy. Also, it increases the conformation number assessing the dose conformity to the target from 0.84, 0.75 and 0.74 to 0.86, 0.79 and 0.80 in the prostate and two HN cases, while preserving the delivery efficiency, relative to conventional single-arc VMAT plans.

Clinical utility of RapidArc™ radiotherapy technology

RapidArc™ is a radiation technique that delivers highly conformal dose distributions through the complete rotation (360°) and speed variation of the linear accelerator gantry. This technique, called volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), compared with conventional radiotherapy techniques, can achieve high-target volume coverage and sparing damage to normal tissues. RapidArc delivers precise dose distribution and conformity similar to or greater than intensity-modulated radiation therapy in a short time, generally a few minutes, to which image-guided radiation therapy is added. RapidArc has become a currently used technology in many centers, which use RapidArc technology to treat a large number of patients. Large and small hospitals use it to treat the most challenging cases, but more and more frequently for the most common cancers. The clinical use of RapidArc and VMAT technology is constantly growing. At present, a limited number of clinical data are published, mostly concerning planning and feasibility studies. Clinical outcome data are increasing for a few tumor sites, even if only a little. The purpose of this work is to discuss the current status of VMAT techniques in clinical use through a review of the published data of planning systems and clinical outcomes in several tumor sites. The study consisted of a systematic review based on analysis of manuscripts retrieved from the PubMed, BioMed Central, and Scopus databases by searching for the keywords “RapidArc”, “Volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy”, and “Intensity-modulated radiotherapy”.

The effect of body contouring on the dose distribution delivered with volumetric-modulated arc therapy technique

The purpose of the study was to investigate the dosimetric effect defining the body structure with various Hounsfield unit (HU) threshold values on the dose distributions of volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans. Twenty patients with prostate cancer and twenty patients with head and neck (H&N) cancer were retrospectively selected. For each patient, the body structure was redefined with HU threshold values of −180(Body180), −350(Body350), −700(Body700), and −980(Body980). For each patient, dose‐volumetric parameters with those body structures were calculated using identical VMAT plans. The differences in dose‐volumetric parameters due to the varied HU threshold values were calculated. For the prostate boost target volume, the maximum dose, mean dose, D95%, and D5% with Body180 were higher than those with Body980 by approximately 0.7% (p<0.001). For H&N target volumes, the changes in D95% of the targets receiving 67.5 Gy, 54 Gy, and 48 Gy between Body180 and Body980 were −1.2%, −0.9%, and −1.2%, respectively (p<0.001). The differences were larger for H&N VMAT plans than for prostate VMAT plans due to the inclusion of an immobilization device in the irradiated region in H&N cases. To apply all attenuating materials to dose calculation, the body structure would be defined with −980 HU. Otherwise, systematic error of about 1%, resulting in underdosage of the target volume, can occur.

PACS number: 87.55.ne

Comparison of genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity among four radiotherapy modalities for prostate cancer: Conventional radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and permanent iodine-125 implantation with or without external beam radiotherapy

PURPOSE

To compare late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity following different prostate cancer treatment modalities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study included 1084 consecutive prostate cancer patients treated with conventional radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), permanent iodine-125 implantation (PI) alone, and PI combined with external beam radiotherapy (PI+EBRT). The effects of treatment- and patient-related factors on late grade ⩾ 2 (G2+) GU/GI toxicity risk were assessed.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 43 months (range, 12-97 months). Compared to the PI+EBRT, there was significantly less G2+ GU toxicity in the conventional radiotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.39; 95% CI, 0.20-0.77) and the IMRT (HR=0.45, 95% CI, 0.27-0.73). Compared to the PI+EBRT, there was significantly more G2+ GI toxicity in the IMRT (HR = 2.38; 95% CI, 1.16-4.87). In PI-related groups, prostate equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions was a significant predictor of G2+ GU toxicity (p = 0.001), and the rectal volume receiving more than 100% of the prescribed dose was a significant predictor of G2+ GI toxicity (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The differences in the late G2+ GU/GI risk cannot be explained by the differences in treatment modalities themselves, but by the total radiation dose to the GU/GI tract, which had a causal role in the development of late G2+ GU/GI toxicity across all treatment modality groups.

Comparison of hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique and double arc VMAT technique in the treatment of prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) has quickly become accepted as standard of care for the treatment of prostate cancer based on studies showing it is able to provide faster delivery with adequate target coverage and reduced monitor units while maintaining organ at risk (OAR) sparing. This study aims to demonstrate the potential to increase dose conformality with increased planner control and OAR sparing using a hybrid treatment technique compared to VMAT.

METHODS

Eleven patients having been previously treated for prostate cancer with VMAT techniques were replanned with a hybrid technique on Varian Treatment Planning System. Multiple static IMRT fields (2 to 3) were planned initially based on critical OAR to reduce dose but provide some planning treatment volume (PTV) coverage. This was used as a base dose plan to provide 30-35% coverage for a single arc VMAT plan.

RESULTS

The clinical VMAT plan was used as a control for the purposes of comparison. Average of all OAR sparing between the hybrid technique and VMAT showed the hybrid plan delivering less dose in almost all cases except for V80 of the bladder and maximum dose to right femoral head. PTV coverage was superior with the VMAT technique. Monitor unit differences varied, with the hybrid plan able to deliver fewer units 37% of the time, similar results 18% of the time, and higher units 45% of the time. On average, the hybrid plan delivered 10% more monitor units.

CONCLUSIONS

The hybrid plan can be delivered in a single gantry rotation combining aspects of VMAT with regions of dynamic intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) within the treatment arc.

A comparison of the acute toxicities using moderate hypo-fractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy or volumetric modulated arc therapy for the treatment of early-stage prostate cancer

Aim

This study compared the acute toxicities reported during radiotherapy treatment using either intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to deliver a moderate hypo-fractionated treatment for early-stage prostate cancer.

Material and methods

Acute toxicities are routinely reported at the clinical site for all patients using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Toxicity assessment is performed on day 1 of treatment, then once weekly thereafter. The recorded toxicities of 40 cases treated with five-field IMRT, and 32 cases treated using VMAT were retrospectively compared. All cases were prescribed 73·68 Gy in 28 fractions. Eight symptoms were assessed; diarrhoea, proctitis, fatigue, pain, dermatitis, urinary frequency, urinary retention and urinary tract pain.

Results

In terms of the overall toxicity recorded, VMAT was shown to reduce the toxicities of dermatitis, fatigue, pain and urinary frequency (p&lt;0·05). Using IMRT, grade 2 toxicities were reported for proctitis, pain, urinary frequency, urinary retention and urinary tract pain. Using VMAT, grade 2 toxicities were reported for urinary frequency and urinary retention.

Findings

The research reported here is one of the first publications to demonstrate that VMAT is associated with decreased toxicities compared with IMRT for the treatment of early-stage prostate cancer.

Volumetric-modulated arc therapy planning using multicriteria optimization for localized prostate cancer

The purpose of this work is to evaluate the volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) multicriteria optimization (MCO) algorithm clinically available in the RayStation treatment planning system (TPS) and its ability to reduce treatment planning time while providing high dosimetric plan quality. Nine patients with localized prostate cancer who were previously treated with 78 Gy in 39 fractions using VMAT plans and rayArc system based on the direct machine parameter optimization (DMPO) algorithm were selected and replanned using the VMAT‐MCO system. First, the dosimetric quality of the plans was evaluated using multiple conformity metrics that account for target coverage and sparing of healthy tissue, used in our departmental clinical protocols. The conformity and homogeneity index, number of monitor units, and treatment planning time for both modalities were assessed. Next, the effects of the technical plan parameters, such as constraint leaf motion CLM (cm/°) and maximum arc delivery time T (s), on the accuracy of delivered dose were evaluated using quality assurance passing rates (QAs) measured using the Delta⁴ phantom from ScandiDos. For the dosimetric plan's quality analysis, the results show that the VMAT‐MCO system provides plans comparable to the rayArc system with no statistical difference for V95% (p<0.01), D1% (p<0.01), CI (p<0.01), and HI (p<0.01) of the PTV, bladder (p<0.01), and rectum (p<0.01) constraints, except for the femoral heads and healthy tissues, for which a dose reduction was observed using MCO compared with rayArc (p<0.01). The technical parameter study showed that a combination of CLM equal to 0.5 cm/degree and a maximum delivery time of 72 s allowed the accurate delivery of the VMAT‐MCO plan on the Elekta Versa HD linear accelerator. Planning evaluation and dosimetric measurements showed that VMAT‐MCO can be used clinically with the advantage of enhanced planning process efficiency by reducing the treatment planning time without impairing dosimetric quality.

PACS numbers: 87.55.D, 87.55.de, 87.55.Qr

Comparison of testicular dose delivered by intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in patients with prostate cancer

A small decrease in testosterone level has been documented after prostate irradiation, possibly owing to the incidental dose to the testes. Testicular doses from prostate external beam radiation plans with either intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) were calculated to investigate any difference. Testicles were contoured for 16 patients being treated for localized prostate cancer. For each patient, 2 plans were created: 1 with IMRT and 1 with VMAT. No specific attempt was made to reduce testicular dose. Minimum, maximum, and mean doses to the testicles were recorded for each plan. Of the 16 patients, 4 received a total dose of 7800 cGy to the prostate alone, 7 received 8000 cGy to the prostate alone, and 5 received 8000 cGy to the prostate and pelvic lymph nodes. The mean (range) of testicular dose with an IMRT plan was 54.7 cGy (21.1 to 91.9) and 59.0 cGy (25.1 to 93.4) with a VMAT plan. In 12 cases, the mean VMAT dose was higher than the mean IMRT dose, with a mean difference of 4.3 cGy (p = 0.019). There was a small but statistically significant increase in mean testicular dose delivered by VMAT compared with IMRT. Despite this, it unlikely that there is a clinically meaningful difference in testicular doses from either modality.

Whole-pelvic volumetric-modulated arc therapy for high-risk prostate cancer: treatment planning and acute toxicity

The objectives of this study were to evaluate dosimetric quality and acute toxicity of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and daily image guidance in high-risk prostate cancer patients. A total of 100 consecutive high-risk prostate cancer patients treated with definitive VMAT with prophylactic whole-pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) were enrolled. All patients were treated with a double-arc VMAT plan delivering 52 Gy to the prostate planning target volume (PTV), while simultaneously delivering 46.8 Gy to the pelvic nodal PTV in 26 fractions, followed by a single-arc VMAT plan delivering 26 Gy to the prostate PTV in 13 fractions. Image-guided RT was performed with daily cone-beam computed tomography. Dose-volume parameters for the PTV and the organs at risk (OARs), total number of monitor units (MUs) and treatment time were evaluated. Acute toxicity was assessed using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0. All dosimetric parameters met the present plan acceptance criteria. Mean MU and treatment time were 471 and 146 s for double-arc VMAT, respectively, and were 520 and 76 s for single-arc VMAT, respectively. No Grade 3 or higher acute toxicity was reported. Acute Grade 2 proctitis, diarrhea, and genitourinary toxicity occurred in 12 patients (12%), 6 patients (6%) and 13 patients (13%), respectively. The present study demonstrated that VMAT for WPRT in prostate cancer results in favorable PTV coverage and OAR sparing with short treatment time and an acceptable rate of acute toxicity. These findings support the use of VMAT for delivering WPRT to high-risk prostate cancer patients.

mARC vs. IMRT radiotherapy of the prostate with flat and flattening-filter-free beam energies

BACKGROUND

There as yet exists no systematic planning study investigating the novel mARC rotational radiotherapy technique, which is conceptually different from VMAT. We therefore present a planning study for prostate cancer, comparing mARC with IMRT treatment at the same linear accelerator equipped with flat and flattening-filter-free (FFF) photon energies.

METHODS

We retrospectively re-contoured and re-planned treatment plans for 10 consecutive prostate cancer patients. Plans were created for a Siemens Artiste linear accelerator with flat 6 MV and FFF 7 MV photons, using the Prowess Panther treatment planning system. mARC and IMRT plans were compared with each other considering indices for plan quality and dose to organs at risk. All plans were exported to the machine and irradiated while measuring scattered dose by thermoluminescent dosimeters placed on an anthropomorphic phantom. Treatment times were also measured and compared.

RESULTS

All plans were found acceptable for treatment. There was no marked preference for either technique or energy from the point of view of target coverage and dose to organs at risk. Scattered dose was significantly decreased by the use of FFF energies. While mARC and IMRT plans were of very similar overall quality, treatment time could be markedly decreased both by the use of mARC and FFF energy.

CONCLUSIONS

Highly conformal treatment plans could be created both by the use of flat 6 MV and FFF 7 MV energy, using IMRT or mARC. For all practical purposes, the FFF 7 MV energy and mARC plans are acceptable for treatment, a combination of both allowing a drastic reduction in treatment time from over 5 minutes to about half this value.

Utility of Smart Arc CDR for intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer

Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is a widespread intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) method, however, VMAT requires adaptation of the radiation treatment planning system (RTPS) and linear accelerator (linac); these upgrades are quite expensive. The Smart Arc of Pinnacle(3) (Philips), which is the software used in VMAT calculations, can select constant dose rate (CDR) mode. This approach has a low initial cost because the linac upgrade is not required. The objective of this study was to clarify the utility of CDR mode for prostate IMRT. Pinnacle(3) and Clinac 21EX linac (Varian, 10 MV X-rays) were used for planning. The plans were created for 28 patients using a fixed multi-field IMRT (f-IMRT), VMAT and CDR techniques. The dose distribution results were classified into three groups: optimal, suboptimal and reject. For the f-IMRT, VMAT and CDR results, 25, 26 and 21 patients were classified as 'optimal', respectively. Our results show a significant reduction in the achievement rate of 'optimal' for a CDR when the bladder volume is <100 cm(3). The total numbers of monitoring units (MUs) (average ± 1σ) were 469 ± 53, 357 ± 35 and 365 ± 33; the average optimization times were ∼50 min, 2 h and 2 h 40 min, and the irradiation times were ∼280 s, 60 s and 110 s, respectively. CDR can reduce the total MUs and irradiation time compared with f-IMRT, and CDR has a lower initial cost compared with VMAT. Thus, for institutions that do not currently perform VMAT, CDR is a useful option. Additionally, in the context of patient identification, bladder volume may be useful.

Comparing four volumetric modulated arc therapy beam arrangements for the treatment of early-stage prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

This study compared four different volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) beam arrangements for the treatment of early-stage prostate cancer examining plan quality and the impact on a radiotherapy department's resources.

METHODS

Twenty prostate cases were retrospectively planned using four VMAT beam arrangements (1) a partial arc (PA), (2) one arc (1A), (3) one arc plus a partial arc (1A + PA) and (4) two arcs (2A). The quality of the dose distributions generated were compared by examining the overall plan quality, the homogeneity and conformity to the planning target volume (PTV), the number of monitor units and the dose delivered to the organs at risk. Departmental resources were considered by recording the planning time and beam delivery time.

RESULTS

Each technique produced a plan of similar quality that was considered adequate for treatment; though some differences were noted. The 1A, 1A + PA and 2A plans demonstrated a better conformity to the PTV which correlated to improved sparing of the rectum in the 60-70 Gy range for the 1A + PA and 2A techniques. The time needed to generate the plans was different for each technique ranging from 13.1 min for 1A + PA to 17.8 min for 1A. The PA beam delivery time was fastest with a mean time of 0.9 min. Beam-on times then increased with an increase in the number of arcs up to an average of 2.2 min for the 2A technique.

CONCLUSION

Which VMAT technique is best suited for clinical implementation for the treatment of prostate cancer may be dictated by the individual patient and the availability of departmental resources.

Applying the technique of volume-modulated arc radiotherapy to upper esophageal carcinoma

This study aims to evaluate the possibility of using the technique of volume-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to combine the advantages of simplified intensity-modulated radiation therapy (sIMRT) with that of regular intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in upper esophageal cancer. Ten patients with upper esophageal carcinoma were randomly chosen in this retrospective study. sIMRT, IMRT, and VMAT plans were generated to deliver 60 Gy in 30 fractions to the planning target volume (PTV). For each patient, with the same clinical requirements (target dose prescription, and dose/dose-volume constraints to organs at risk (OARs)), three plans were designed for sIMRT (five equispaced coplanar beams), IMRT (seven equispaced coplanar beams), and VMAT (two complete arcs). Comparisons were performed for dosimetric parameters of PTV and of OARs (lungs, spinal cord PRV, heart and normal tissue (NT)). All the plans were delivered to a phantom to evaluate the treatment time. The Wilcoxon matched-pairs, signed-rank test was used for intragroup comparison. For all patients, compared to sIMRT plans, VMAT plans statistically provide: a) significant improvement in HI and CI for PTV; b) significant decrease in delivery time, lung V20, MLD, heart V30 and spinal cord PRV D1cc; c) significant increase in NT V5; and d) no significant reduction in lung V5, V10, and heart MD. For all patients, compared to IMRT plans, VMAT plans statistically provide: a) significant improvement in CI for PTV; b) significant decrease in delivery time, lung V20, MLD, NT and spinal cord PRV D1cc; c) significant increase in NT V5; and d) no significant reduction in HI for PTV, lung V5, V10, heart V30 and heart MD. For patients with upper esophageal carcinoma, using VMAT significantly reduces the delivery time and the dose to the lungs compared with IMRT, and consequently saves as much treatment time as sIMRT. Considering those significant advantages, compared to sIMRT and IMRT, VMAT is the first choice of radiotherapy techniques for upper esophageal carcinoma.

Radiobiological impact of planning techniques for prostate cancer in terms of tumor control probability and normal tissue complication probability

Background:

The radiobiological models describe the effects of the radiation treatment on cancer and healthy cells, and the radiobiological effects are generally characterized by the tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP).

Aim:

The purpose of this study was to assess the radiobiological impact of RapidArc planning techniques for prostate cancer in terms of TCP and normal NTCP.

Subjects and Methods:

A computed tomography data set of ten cases involving low-risk prostate cancer was selected for this retrospective study. For each case, two RapidArc plans were created in Eclipse treatment planning system. The double arc (DA) plan was created using two full arcs and the single arc (SA) plan was created using one full arc. All treatment plans were calculated with anisotropic analytical algorithm. Radiobiological modeling response evaluation was performed by calculating Niemierko's equivalent uniform dose (EUD)-based Tumor TCP and NTCP values.

Results:

For prostate tumor, the average EUD in the SA plans was slightly higher than in the DA plans (78.10 Gy vs. 77.77 Gy; P = 0.01), but the average TCP was comparable (98.3% vs. 98.3%; P = 0.01). In comparison to the DA plans, the SA plans produced higher average EUD to bladder (40.71 Gy vs. 40.46 Gy; P = 0.03) and femoral heads (10.39 Gy vs. 9.40 Gy; P = 0.03), whereas both techniques produced NTCP well below 0.1% for bladder (P = 0.14) and femoral heads (P = 0.26). In contrast, the SA plans produced higher average NTCP compared to the DA plans (2.2% vs. 1.9%; P = 0.01). Furthermore, the EUD to rectum was slightly higher in the SA plans (62.88 Gy vs. 62.22 Gy; P = 0.01).

Conclusion:

The SA and DA techniques produced similar TCP for low-risk prostate cancer. The NTCP for femoral heads and bladder was comparable in the SA and DA plans; however, the SA technique resulted in higher NTCP for rectum in comparison with the DA technique.

Treatment plan comparison between stereotactic body radiation therapy techniques for prostate cancer: non-isocentric CyberKnife versus isocentric RapidArc

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and dose distribution of two different stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) techniques, isocentric RapidArc (RA) and non-isocentric CyberKnife (CK), for the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

METHODS

Two groups of patients (Groups 1 and 2 with ten patients per group) treated with CK were re-planned with RA. The patients were grouped according to the rectum constraint used (Group1, maximum dose for rectum; Group 2, dose-volume histogram for rectum). The prescription dose was 37.5 Gy in five fractions. The two SBRT techniques were compared by target coverage, normal tissue sparing, and dose distribution parameters. Monitor units (MUs) and the delivery time were likewise compared to assess delivery efficiency.

RESULTS

The RA plans consistently exhibited superior PTV coverage and better rectum sparing at low doses in the both groups. The conformity and heterogeneity indices of the RA plans were better than the CK plans. Additionally, the RA plans resulted in fewer low-dose regions, lower MUs, and faster delivery times than the CK plans.

CONCLUSIONS

The good dosimetric distribution and shorter delivery time make RA an attractive SBRT technique for the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

Assessment of potential jaw-tracking advantage using control point sequences of VMAT planning

This study aims to evaluate the potential jaw-tracking advantage using control point sequences of volume volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning. VMAT plans for patients with prostate and head and neck (H&amp;N) cancers were converted into new static arc (SA) plans. The SA plan consisted of a series of static fields at each control point of the VMAT plan. All other machine parameters of the SA plan were perfectly identical to those of the original VMAT plan. The jaw-tracking static arc (JTSA) plans were generated with fields that closed the jaws of each SA field into the multileaf collimators (MLCs) aperture. The dosimetric advantages of JTSA over SA were evaluated in terms of a dose-volume histogram (DVH) of organ at risk (OAR) after renormalizing both plans to make the same target coverage. Both plans were delivered to the MatriXX-based COMPASS system for 3D volume dose verification. The average jaw size reduction of the JTSA along the X direction was 3.1 ± 0.9 cm for prostate patients and 6.9 ± 1.9 cm for H&amp;N patients. For prostate patients, the organs far from the target showed larger sparing (3.7%-8.1% on average) in JTSA than the organs adjacent to the target (1.1%-1.5%). For the H&amp;N plans, the mean dose reductions for all organs ranged from 4.3% to 11.9%. The dose reductions were more significant in the dose regions of D80, D90, and D95 than the dose regions of D5, D10, and D20 for all patients. Likewise, the deliverability and reproducibility of jaw-tracking plan were validated. The measured dosimetric advantage of JTSA over SA coincided with the calculated one above.

Peripheral dose measurements in cervical cancer radiotherapy: a comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy and step-and-shoot IMRT techniques

Purpose

The aim of this study was to investigate the peripheral doses resulting from volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) techniques in cervical cancer radiotherapy.

Methods

Nine patients with cervical cancer had treatment planned with both VMAT and IMRT. A specially designed phantom was used for this study, with ion chambers placed at interest points approximating the position of the breast, thyroid, and lens. The peripheral doses at the phantom interest points were measured and compared between the VMAT and IMRT techniques.

Results

VMAT provides a potential dosimetric advantage compared with IMRT. The mean (± standard deviation) peripheral dose to the breast point for 1 fraction (2 Gy) during VMAT measured 5.13 ± 0.96 mGy, compared with 9.04 ± 1.50 mGy for IMRT. At the thyroid and lens interest points, the mean (± standard deviation) peripheral dose during VMAT was 2.19 ± 0.33 and 2.16 ± 0.28 mGy, compared with 7.07 ± 0.76 and 6.97 ± 0.91 mGy for IMRT, respectively. VMAT reduced the monitor units used by 28% and shortened the treatment delivery time by 54% compared with IMRT.

Conclusion

While the dosimetric results are similar for both techniques, VMAT results in a lower peripheral dose to the patient and reduces the monitor-unit usage and treatment delivery time compared with IMRT.

Planning study to compare dynamic and rapid arc techniques for postprostatectomy radiotherapy of prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To compare our standard technique for postprostatectomy radiotherapy of prostate cancer, i.e. using two lateral conformal dynamic arcs with volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) performed with the RapidArc(®) (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA, USA). The plans were referred to as DA and RA, respectively.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The treatment plans of 44 patients receiving adjuvant/salvage radiotherapy in the first months of 2010 were compared. In all cases, the prescribed total dose was 66-68.2 Gy (2.2 Gy per fraction). Both DA and RA plans were optimized in terms of dose coverage and constraints.

RESULTS

Small differences between the techniques were observed for planning target volume (PTV) dose distribution, whereas significant differences in sparing of organs at risk (OARs) were recorded (p < 0.0001). The OAR values (median; 95 % confidence interval, CI) were: rectum: D30 % = 60.7 Gy (59.40-62.04 Gy) and 48.2 Gy (46.40-52.72 Gy), D60 % = 34.1 Gy (28.50-38.92 Gy) and 27.7 Gy (21.80-31.51 Gy); bladder: D30 % = 57.3 Gy (45.83-64.53 Gy) and 46.4 Gy (33.23-61.48 Gy), D50 % = 16.4 Gy (11.89-42.38 Gy) and 17.2 Gy (10.97-27.90 Gy), for DA and RA, respectively. Treatment times were very similar, whereas the monitor units (MU) were 550 ± 29 versus 277 ± 3 for RA and DA, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Dose-volume histograms (DVHs) show improvements in OAR sparing with RA. However, the RA technique is associated with almost double the number of MUs compared to DA. Regarding the PTV, DA is slightly superior in terms of D2 % and dose homogeneity. On the whole, the results suggest that RA be the favorable technique.

Comparison of IMRT and VMAT plans with different energy levels using Monte-Carlo algorithm for prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To make dosimetric comparisons of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and 7-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with dynamic MLCs using the Monaco treatment planning system with Monte Carlo algorithm.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Single-arc VMAT and 7-field IMRT treatment plans were compared for 12 intermediate risk prostate cancer patients treated with prostate and seminal vesicle radiotherapy. For all patients, the prescribed dose was 78 Gy delivered in 39 fractions. The dosimetric data of IMRT and VMAT plans with 6, 10 and 15 MV energies were compared. The comparison was made for target volume, organs at risk (OAR) doses, and for monitor units (MU).

RESULTS

The normal tissue surrounding the target were lower in VMAT plans compared to IMRT plans. VMAT plans achieved lower doses to all OARs for nearly all dosimetric endpoints. VMAT plans achieved 9.4, 9.0 and 7.0 % relative decrease in MUs required for RT delivery, for 6, 10 and 15 MV energy levels, respectively. The target volume and OAR dosimetric values did not differ significantly between 6, 10 and 15 MV photon energies.

CONCLUSION

VMAT plans were found to be dosimetrically equivalent to IMRT plans for prostate cancer patients, with better rectum and bladder sparing and fewer MUs required.

FusionArc optimization: a hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) planning strategy

PURPOSE

To introduce a hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy/intensity modulated radiation therapy (VMAT/IMRT) optimization strategy called FusionArc that combines the delivery efficiency of single-arc VMAT with the potentially desirable intensity modulation possible with IMRT.

METHODS

A beamlet-based inverse planning system was enhanced to combine the advantages of VMAT and IMRT into one comprehensive technique. In the hybrid strategy, baseline single-arc VMAT plans are optimized and then the current cost function gradients with respect to the beamlets are used to define a metric for predicting which beam angles would benefit from further intensity modulation. Beams with the highest metric values (called the gradient factor) are converted from VMAT apertures to IMRT fluence, and the optimization proceeds with the mixed variable set until convergence or until additional beams are selected for conversion. One phantom and two clinical cases were used to validate the gradient factor and characterize the FusionArc strategy. Comparisons were made between standard IMRT, single-arc VMAT, and FusionArc plans with one to five IMRT∕hybrid beams.

RESULTS

The gradient factor was found to be highly predictive of the VMAT angles that would benefit plan quality the most from beam modulation. Over the three cases studied, a FusionArc plan with three converted beams achieved superior dosimetric quality with reductions in final cost ranging from 26.4% to 48.1% compared to single-arc VMAT. Additionally, the three beam FusionArc plans required 22.4%-43.7% fewer MU∕Gy than a seven beam IMRT plan. While the FusionArc plans with five converted beams offer larger reductions in final cost--32.9%-55.2% compared to single-arc VMAT--the decrease in MU∕Gy compared to IMRT was noticeably smaller at 12.2%-18.5%, when compared to IMRT.

CONCLUSIONS

A hybrid VMAT∕IMRT strategy was implemented to find a high quality compromise between gantry-angle and intensity-based degrees of freedom. This optimization method will allow patients to be simultaneously planned for dosimetric quality and delivery efficiency without switching between delivery techniques. Example phantom and clinical cases suggest that the conversion of only three VMAT segments to modulated beams may result in a good combination of quality and efficiency.

A bias-free, automated planning tool for technique comparison in radiotherapy - application to nasopharyngeal carcinoma treatments

In this study a novel, user‐independent automated planning technique was developed to objectively compare volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma planning, and to determine which technique offers a greater benefit for parotid‐sparing and dose escalation strategies. Ten patients were investigated, with a standard prescription of three dose levels to the target volumes (70, 63, and 56 Gy), using a simultaneous integrated boost in 33 fractions. The automated tool was used to investigate three planning strategies with both IMRT and VMAT: clinically acceptable plan creation, parotid dose sparing, and dose escalation. Clinically acceptable plans were achieved for all patients using both techniques. For parotid‐sparing, automated planning reduced the mean dose to a greater extent using VMAT rather than IMRT (17.0 Gy and 19.6 Gy, respectively, p<0.01). For dose escalation to the mean of the main clinical target volume, neither VMAT nor IMRT offered a significant benefit over the other. The OAR‐limiting prescriptions for VMAT ranged from 84‐98 Gy, compared to 76‐110 Gy for IMRT. Employing a user‐independent planning technique, it was possible to objectively compare VMAT and IMRT for nasopharyngeal carcinoma treatment strategies. VMAT offers a parotid‐sparing improvement, but no significant benefit was observed for dose escalation to the primary target.

PACS numbers: 87.55.D‐, 87.55.kd

Assessing the feasibility of volumetric-modulated arc therapy using simultaneous integrated boost (SIB-VMAT): An analysis for complex head-neck, high-risk prostate and rectal cancer cases

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) allowed the simultaneous delivery of different doses to different target volumes within a single fraction, an approach called simultaneous integrated boost (SIB). As consequence, the fraction dose to the boost volume can be increased while keeping low doses to the elective volumes, and the number of fractions and overall treatment time will be reduced, translating into better radiobiological effectiveness. In recent years, volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) has been shown to provide similar plan quality with respect to fixed-field IMRT but with large reduction in treatment time and monitor units (MUs) number. However, the feasibility of VMAT when used with SIB strategy has few investigations to date. We explored the potential of VMAT in a SIB strategy for complex cancer sites. A total of 15 patients were selected, including 5 head-and-neck, 5 high-risk prostate, and 5 rectal cancer cases. Both a double-arc VMAT and a 7-field IMRT plan were generated for each case using Oncentra MasterPlan treatment planning system for an Elekta Precise linac. Dosimetric indexes for targets and organs at risk (OARs) were compared based on dose-volume histograms. Conformity index, homogeneity index, and dose-contrast index were used for target analyses. The equivalent uniform doses and the normal tissue complication probabilities were calculated for main OARs. MUs number and treatment time were analyzed to score treatment efficiency. Pretreatment dosimetry was performed using 2-dimensional (2D)-array dosimeter. SIB-VMAT plans showed a high level of fluence modulation needed for SIB treatments, high conformal dose distribution, similar target coverage, and a tendency to improve OARs sparing compared with the benchmark SIB-IMRT plans. The median treatment times reduced from 13 to 20 minutes to approximately 5 minutes for all cases with SIB-VMAT, with a MUs reduction up to 22.5%. The 2D-array ion-chambers' measurements reported an agreement of more than 95% for a criterion of 3% to 3mm. SIB-VMAT was able to combine the advantages of conventional SIB-IMRT with its highly conformal dose distribution and OARs sparing and the advantages of 3D-conformal radiotherapy with its fast delivery.

Beam controlled arc therapy--a delivery concept for stationary targets

Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) presupposes that it is beneficial to deliver radiation from all beam angles as the gantry rotates, requiring the multi-leaf collimator to maintain continuity in shape from one angle to another. In turn, radiation from undesirable beam angles could compromise the dose distribution. In this work, we challenge the notion that the radiation beam must be held on as the gantry rotates around the patient. We propose a new approach for delivering intensity-modulated arc therapy, beam-controlled arc therapy (BCAT), during which the radiation beam is controlled on or off and the dose rate is modulated while the gantry rotates around the patient. We employ linear-programming-based dose optimization to each aperture weight, resulting in some zero weight apertures. During delivery, the radiation beam is held off at control points with zero weights as the MLC shape transits to the next non-zero weight shape. This was tested on ten head and neck cases. Plan quality and delivery efficiency were compared with VMAT. Improvements of up to 17% (p-value 0.001) and 57% (p-value 0.018) in organ-at-risk sparing and target dose uniformity, respectively, were achieved. Compared to the fixed number of apertures used in single-arc and double-arc VMAT, the BCAT used 109 and 175 apertures on average, respectively. The difference in total MUs for VMAT and BCAT plans was less than 4%. Plan quality improvement was confirmed after delivery with γ analysis resulting in over 99% agreement, or 4 in 1099 points that failed.

A retrospective planning analysis comparing intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using two optimization algorithms for the treatment of early-stage prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

The primary aim of this study is to compare intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for the radical treatment of prostate cancer using version 10.0 (v10.0) of Varian Medical Systems, RapidArc radiation oncology system. Particular focus was placed on plan quality and the implications on departmental resources. The secondary objective was to compare the results in v10.0 to the preceding version 8.6 (v8.6).

METHODS

Twenty prostate cancer cases were retrospectively planned using v10.0 of Varian's Eclipse and RapidArc software. Three planning techniques were performed: a 5-field IMRT, VMAT using one arc (VMAT-1A), and VMAT with two arcs (VMAT-2A). Plan quality was assessed by examining homogeneity, conformity, the number of monitor units (MUs) utilized, and dose to the organs at risk (OAR). Resource implications were assessed by examining planning and treatment times. The results obtained using v10.0 were also compared to those previously reported by our group for v8.6.

RESULTS

In v10.0, each technique was able to produce a dose distribution that achieved the departmental planning guidelines. The IMRT plans were produced faster than VMAT plans and displayed improved homogeneity. The VMAT plans provided better conformity to the target volume, improved dose to the OAR, and required fewer MUs. Treatments using VMAT-1A were significantly faster than both IMRT and VMAT-2A. Comparison between versions 8.6 and 10.0 revealed that in the newer version, VMAT planning was significantly faster and the quality of the VMAT dose distributions produced were of a better quality.

CONCLUSION

VMAT (v10.0) using one or two arcs provides an acceptable alternative to IMRT for the treatment of prostate cancer. VMAT-1A has the greatest impact on reducing treatment time.

A dosimetric comparison of RapidArc and IMRT with hypofractionated simultaneous integrated boost to the prostate for treatment of prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To compare the dosimetric results and treatment delivery efficiency among RapidArc® (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA), 7-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (7-f IMRT) and 9-field IMRT (9-f IMRT) with hypofractionated simultaneous integrated boost to the prostate.

METHODS

RapidArc, 7-f IMRT and 9-f IMRT plans were created for 21 consecutive patients treated for high-risk prostate cancer using the Eclipse™ treatment planning system (Varian Medical Systems). All plans were designed to deliver 70.0 Gy in 28 fractions to the prostate planning target volume (PTV) while simultaneously delivering 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions to the pelvic nodal PTV. Target coverage and sparing of organs at risk (OARs) were compared across techniques. The total number of monitor units (MUs) and the treatment time were used to assess treatment delivery efficiency.

RESULTS

RapidArc resulted in slightly superior conformity and homogeneity of prostate PTV, whereas all plans were comparable with respect to dose to the nodal PTV. Although OARs sparing for RapidArc and 7-f IMRT plans were almost equivalent, 9-f IMRT achieved better sparing of the rectum and bladder than RapidArc and 7-f IMRT. RapidArc provided the highest treatment delivery efficiency with the lowest MUs and shortest treatment time.

CONCLUSION

RapidArc resulted in similar OAR sparing to 7-f IMRT, whereas 9-f IMRT provided the best OAR sparing. Treatment delivery efficiency is significantly higher for RapidArc.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

This study validated the feasibility and limitations of RapidArc in the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer with complex pelvic target volumes.