Planning analysis for locally advanced lung cancer: dosimetric and efficiency comparisons between intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), single-arc/partial-arc volumetric modulated arc therapy (SA/PA-VMAT)

Clinical implications of Eclipse analytical anisotropic algorithm and Acuros XB algorithm for the treatment of lung cancer

The aim of the present study was to investigate the dose-volume variations of planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risks (OARs) in 15 left lung cancer patients comparing analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) versus Acuros XB algorithm. Originally, all plans were created using AAA with a template of dose constraints and optimization parameters, and the patients were treated using intensity modulated radiotherapy. In addition, another set of plans was created by performing only dose calculations using Acuros algorithm without doing any reoptimization. Thereby, in both set of plans, the entire plan parameters, namely, beam angle, beam weight, number of beams, prescribed dose, normalization point, region of interest constraints, number of monitor units, and plan optimization were kept constant. The evaluated plan parameters were PTV coverage at dose at 95% volume (TV95) of PTV (D95), the dose at 5% of PTV (D5), maximum dose (D_max), the mean dose (D_mean), the percent volume receiving 5 Gy (V5), 20 Gy (V20), 30 Gy (V30) of normal lung at risk (left lung- gross target volume [GTV], the dose at 33% volume (D33), at 67% volume (D67), and the D_mean (Gy) of the heart, the D_max of the spinal cord. Furthermore, homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index were evaluated to check the quality of the plans. Significant statistical differences between the two algorithms, P < 0.05, were found in D95, D_max, TV95, and HI of PTV. Furthermore, significant statistical differences were found in the dose parameters for the OARs, namely, V5, V20, and V30 of left lung-GTV, right lung (D_mean), D33, and D_mean of the heart, and D_max of the spine, respectively. Although statistical differences do exist, the magnitude of the differences is too small to cause any clinically observable effect.

An IMRT/VMAT Technique for Nonsmall Cell Lung Cancer

The study is to investigate a Hybrid IMRT/VMAT technique which combines intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for the treatment of nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Two partial arcs VMAT, 5-field IMRT, and hybrid plans were created for 15 patients with NSCLC. The hybrid plans were combination of 2 partial arcs VMAT and 5-field IMRT. The dose distribution of planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs) for hybrid technique was compared with IMRT and VMAT. The monitor units (MUs) and treatment delivery time were also evaluated. Hybrid technique significantly improved the target conformity and homogeneity compared with IMRT and VMAT. The mean delivery time of IMRT, VMAT, and hybrid plans was 280 s, 114 s, and 327 s, respectively. The mean MUs needed for IMRT, VMAT, and hybrid plans were 933, 512, and 737, respectively. Hybrid technique reduced V5, V10, V30, and MLD of normal lung compared with VMAT and spared the OARs better with fewer MUs with the cost of a little higher V5, V10, and mean lung dose (MLD) of normal lung compared with IMRT. Hybrid IMRT/VMAT can be a viable radiotherapy technique with better plan quality.

Feasibility of a unified approach to intensity-modulated radiation therapy and volume-modulated arc therapy optimization and delivery

PURPOSE

To study the feasibility of unified intensity-modulated arc therapy (UIMAT) which combines intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) optimization and delivery to produce superior radiation treatment plans, both in terms of dose distribution and efficiency of beam delivery when compared with either VMAT or IMRT alone.

METHODS

An inverse planning algorithm for UIMAT was prototyped within the pinnacle treatment planning system (Philips Healthcare). The IMRT and VMAT deliveries are unified within the same arc, with IMRT being delivered at specific gantry angles within the arc. Optimized gantry angles for the IMRT and VMAT phases are assigned automatically by the inverse optimization algorithm. Optimization of the IMRT and VMAT phases is done simultaneously using a direct aperture optimization algorithm. Five treatment plans each for prostate, head and neck, and lung were generated using a unified optimization technique and compared with clinical IMRT or VMAT plans. Delivery verification was performed with an ArcCheck phantom (Sun Nuclear) on a Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator (Varian Medical Systems).

RESULTS

In this prototype implementation, the UIMAT plans offered the same target dose coverage while reducing mean doses to organs at risk by 8.4% for head-and-neck cases, 5.7% for lung cases, and 3.5% for prostate cases, compared with the VMAT or IMRT plans. In addition, UIMAT can be delivered with similar efficiency as VMAT.

CONCLUSIONS

In this proof-of-concept work, a novel radiation therapy optimization and delivery technique that interlaces VMAT or IMRT delivery within the same arc has been demonstrated. Initial results show that unified VMAT/IMRT has the potential to be superior to either standard IMRT or VMAT.

Multivariable normal-tissue complication modeling of acute esophageal toxicity in advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with intensity-modulated (chemo-)radiotherapy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The majority of normal-tissue complication probability (NTCP) models for acute esophageal toxicity (AET) in advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer (AS-NSCLC) patients treated with (chemo-)radiotherapy are based on three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT). Due to distinct dosimetric characteristics of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), 3D-CRT based models need revision. We established a multivariable NTCP model for AET in 149 AS-NSCLC patients undergoing IMRT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An established model selection procedure was used to develop an NTCP model for Grade ⩾2 AET (53 patients) including clinical and esophageal dose-volume histogram parameters.

RESULTS

The NTCP model predicted an increased risk of Grade ⩾2 AET in case of: concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCR) [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 14.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.70-42.19; p<0.001], increasing mean esophageal dose [Dmean; OR 1.12 per Gy increase, 95% CI 1.06-1.19; p<0.001], female patients (OR 3.33, 95% CI 1.36-8.17; p=0.008), and ⩾cT3 (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.12-6.50; p=0.026). The AUC was 0.82 and the model showed good calibration.

CONCLUSIONS

A multivariable NTCP model including CCR, Dmean, clinical tumor stage and gender predicts Grade ⩾2 AET after IMRT for AS-NSCLC. Prior to clinical introduction, the model needs validation in an independent patient cohort.

Is 5 mm MMLC suitable for VMAT-based lung SBRT? A dosimetric comparison with 2.5 mm HDMLC using RTOG-0813 treatment planning criteria for both conventional and high-dose flattening filter-free photon beams

The aim of this study is to assess the suitability of 5 mm millennium multileaf collimator (MMLC) for volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT)‐based lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Thirty lung SBRT patient treatment plans along with their planning target volumes (ranging from 2.01 cc to 150.11 cc) were transferred to an inhomogeneous lung phantom and retrospectively planned using VMAT technique, along with the high definition multileaf collimator (HDMLC) and MMLC systems. The plans were evaluated using Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG‐0813) treatment planning criteria for target coverage, normal tissue sparing, and treatment efficiency for both the MMLC and HDMLC systems using flat and flattening filter‐free (FFF) photon beams. Irrespective of the target volumes, both the MLC systems were able to satisfy the RTOG‐0813 treatment planning criteria without having any major deviation. Dose conformity was marginally better with HDMLC. The average conformity index (CI) value was found to be 1.069±0.034 and 1.075±0.0380 for HDMLC and MMLC plans, respectively. For the 6 MV FFF beams, the plan was slightly more conformal, with the average CI values of 1.063±0.029 and 1.073±0.033 for the HDMLC and MMLC plans, respectively. The high dose spillage was the maximum for 2 cc volume set (3% for HDMLC and 3.1% for MMLC). In the case of low dose spillage, both the MLCs were within the protocol of no deviation, except for the 2 cc volume set. The results from this study revealed that VMAT‐based lung SBRT using 5 mm MMLC satisfies the RTOG‐0813 treatment planning criteria for the studied target size and shapes.

PACS numbers: 87.53.Ly, 87.53D, 87.56.jk

Comparing treatment plan in all locations of esophageal cancer: volumetric modulated arc therapy versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy

The aim of this study was to compare treatment plans of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for all esophageal cancer (EC) tumor locations.This retrospective study from July 2009 to June 2014 included 20 patients with EC who received definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy with radiation doses >50.4 Gy. Version 9.2 of Pinnacle with SmartArc was used for treatment planning. Dosimetric quality was evaluated based on doses to several organs at risk, including the spinal cord, heart, and lung, over the same coverage of gross tumor volume.In upper thoracic EC, the IMRT treatment plan had a lower lung mean dose (P = 0.0126) and lung V5 (P = 0.0037) compared with VMAT; both techniques had similar coverage of the planning target volumes (PTVs) (P = 0.3575). In middle thoracic EC, a lower lung mean dose (P = 0.0010) and V5 (P = 0.0145), but higher lung V20 (P = 0.0034), spinal cord Dmax (P = 0.0262), and heart mean dose (P = 0.0054), were observed for IMRT compared with VMAT; IMRT provided better PTV coverage. Patients with lower thoracic ECs had a lower lung mean dose (P = 0.0469) and V5 (P = 0.0039), but higher spinal cord Dmax (P = 0.0301) and heart mean dose (P = 0.0020), with IMRT compared with VMAT. PTV coverage was similar (P = 0.0858) for the 2 techniques.IMRT provided a lower mean dose and lung V5 in upper thoracic EC compared with VMAT, but exhibited different advantages and disadvantages in patients with middle or lower thoracic ECs. Thus, choosing different techniques for different EC locations is warranted.

Planning for mARC treatments with the Eclipse treatment planning system

While modulated arc (mARC) capabilities have been available on Siemens linear accelerators for almost two years now, there was, until recently, only one treatment planning system capable of planning these treatments. The Eclipse treatment planning system now offers a module that can plan for mARC treatments. The purpose of this work was to test the module to determine whether it is capable of creating clinically acceptable plans. A total of 23 plans were created for various clinical sites and all plans delivered without anomaly. The average 3%/3 mm gamma pass rate for the plans was 98.0%, with a standard deviation of 1.7%. For a total of 14 plans, an equivalent static gantry IMRT plan was also created to compare delivery time. In all but two cases, the mARC plans delivered significantly faster than the static gantry plan. We have confirmed the successful creation of mARC plans that are deliverable with high fidelity on an ARTISTE linear accelerator, thus demonstrating the successful implementation of the Eclipse mARC module.

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy have distinct clinical advantages in non-small cell lung cancer treatment

This study was conducted to compare the efficacy of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in delivering the planned dosage in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Between September 2013 and March 2014, 125 NSCLC patients were randomly chosen and allocated to the IMRT group (n = 65) and VMAT group (n = 60). We compared multiple parameters such as target dose, organ dosimetry, monitor unit (MU) and time of therapy between IMRT and VMAT groups. The prescribed dose coverage of both planning techniques was 95 % of the planning target volumes (PTVs). PTV 95 % and homogeneous index in IMRT plan were greater than those in VMAT plan (both P < 0.05), while no significant difference in conformity index was observed (P > 0.05). The mean total lung V5 and V10 in VMAT group were markedly higher than those in IMRT group, but the V20, V30, and V40 in VMAT group were significantly lower (all P < 0.05), but no statistically significant difference was observed in V15 and V20 (P > 0.05). Furthermore, the planning spine and esophagus at risk volume showed no statistical significances in both groups (P > 0.05). MU of IMRT plan was about 4.2 % less than that of VMAT plan, which was statistically significant (P < 0.001). Both IMRT and VMAT had significant advantages in the treatment of NSCLC. The IMRT may be better for NSCLC patients with poor pulmonary function, and VMAT may be recommended for NSCLC patients with normal pulmonary function.

Dosimetric and efficiency comparison of high-dose radiotherapy for esophageal cancer: volumetric modulated arc therapy versus fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy

The aim of this study was to compare high-dose volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (ff-IMRT) plans for the treatment of patients with middle-thoracic esophageal cancer. Eight patients with cT2-3N0M0 middle-thoracic esophageal cancer were enrolled. The treatment planning system was the version 9 of the Pinnacle(3) with SmartArc (Philips Healthcare, Fitchburg, WI, USA). VMAT and ff-IMRT treatment plans were generated for each case, and both techniques were used to deliver 50 Gy to the planning target volume (PTV(50)) and then provided a 16-Gy boost (PTV(66)). The VMAT plans provided superior PTV(66) coverage compared with the ff-IMRT plans (P = 0.034), whereas the ff-IMRT plans provided more appropriate dose homogeneity to the PTV(50) (P = 0.017). In the lung, the V(5) and V(10) were lower for the ff-IMRT plans than for the VMAT plans, whereas the V(20) was lower for the VMAT plans. The delivery time was significantly shorter for the VMAT plans than for the ff-IMRT plans (P = 0.012). In addition, the VMAT plans delivered fewer monitor units. The VMAT technique required a shorter planning time than the ff-IMRT technique (3.8 ± 0.8 hours vs. 5.4 ± 0.6 hours, P = 0.011). The major advantages of VMAT plans are higher efficiency and an approximately 50% reduction in delivery time compared with the ff-IMRT plans, with comparable plan quality. Further clinical investigations to evaluate the use of high-dose VMAT for the treatment of esophageal cancer are warranted.

Current concepts in clinical radiation oncology

Based on its potent capacity to induce tumor cell death and to abrogate clonogenic survival, radiotherapy is a key part of multimodal cancer treatment approaches. Numerous clinical trials have documented the clear correlation between improved local control and increased overall survival. However, despite all progress, the efficacy of radiation-based treatment approaches is still limited by different technological, biological, and clinical constraints. In principle, the following major issues can be distinguished: (1) The intrinsic radiation resistance of several tumors is higher than that of the surrounding normal tissue, (2) the true patho-anatomical borders of tumors or areas at risk are not perfectly identifiable, (3) the treatment volume cannot be adjusted properly during a given treatment series, and (4) the individual heterogeneity in terms of tumor and normal tissue responses toward irradiation is immense. At present, research efforts in radiation oncology follow three major tracks, in order to address these limitations: (1) implementation of molecularly targeted agents and 'omics'-based screening and stratification procedures, (2) improvement of treatment planning, imaging, and accuracy of dose application, and (3) clinical implementation of other types of radiation, including protons and heavy ions. Several of these strategies have already revealed promising improvements with regard to clinical outcome. Nevertheless, many open questions remain with individualization of treatment approaches being a key problem. In the present review, the current status of radiation-based cancer treatment with particular focus on novel aspects and developments that will influence the field of radiation oncology in the near future is summarized and discussed.

Critical structure sparing in stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for central lung lesions: helical tomotherapy vs. volumetric modulated arc therapy

Background

Helical tomotherapy (HT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) are both advanced techniques of delivering intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Here, we conduct a study to compare HT and partial-arc VMAT in their ability to spare organs at risk (OARs) when stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is delivered to treat centrally located early stage non-small-cell lung cancer or lung metastases.

Methods

12 patients with centrally located lung lesions were randomly chosen. HT, 2 & 8 arc (Smart Arc, Pinnacle v9.0) plans were generated to deliver 70 Gy in 10 fractions to the planning target volume (PTV). Target and OAR dose parameters were compared. Each technique’s ability to meet dose constraints was further investigated.

Results

HT and VMAT plans generated essentially equivalent PTV coverage and dose conformality indices, while a trend for improved dose homogeneity by increasing from 2 to 8 arcs was observed with VMAT. Increasing the number of arcs with VMAT also led to some improvement in OAR sparing. After normalizing to OAR dose constraints, HT was found to be superior to 2 or 8-arc VMAT for optimal OAR sparing (meeting all the dose constraints) (p = 0.0004). All dose constraints were met in HT plans. Increasing from 2 to 8 arcs could not help achieve optimal OAR sparing for 4 patients. 2/4 of them had 3 immediately adjacent structures.

Conclusion

HT appears to be superior to VMAT in OAR sparing mainly in cases which require conformal dose avoidance of multiple immediately adjacent OARs. For such cases, increasing the number of arcs in VMAT cannot significantly improve OAR sparing.

Assessment of the robustness of volumetric-modulated arc therapy for lung radiotherapy

Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is increasingly popular as a treatment method in radiotherapy owing to the speed with which treatments can be delivered. However, there has been little investigation into the effect of increased modulation in lung plans with regard to interfraction organ motion. This is most likely to occur where the planning target volume (PTV) lies within areas of low density. This paper aims to investigate the effect of modulation on the dose distribution using simulated patient movement and to propose a method that is less susceptible to such movement. Simulated interfraction motion is achieved by moving the plan isocentre in steps of 0.5 cm and 1.0 cm in six directions for five clinical VMAT patients. The proposed planning method involves optimisation using a density override of 1 g cm(-3), within the PTV in lung, to reduce segment boosting in the periphery of the PTV. This investigation shows that modulation can result in an increase in the maximum dose of >25%, an increase in PTV near-maximum dose of 17% and a reduction in near-minimum dose by 46%. Unacceptable organ at risk (OAR) doses are also seen. The proposed method reduces modulation, resulting in a maximum dose increase of 10%. Although safeguards are in place to prevent the increased dose to OARs from patient movement, there is nothing to prevent the increased dose as a result of modulation in lung. A simple planning method is proposed to safeguard against this effect. Investigation suggests that, where modulation exists in a plan, this method reduces it and is clinically viable.

Dosimetric and delivery characterizations of full-arc and half-arc volumetric-modulated arc therapy for maxillary cancer

We compared the efficiency and accuracy of full-arc and half-arc volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivery for maxillary cancer. Plans for gantry rotation angles of 360° and 180° (full-arc and half-arc VMAT) were created for six maxillary cancer cases with the Monaco treatment planning system, and delivered using an Elekta Synergy linear accelerator. Full-arc and half-arc VMAT were compared with regard to homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), mean dose to normal brain, total monitor units (MU), delivery times, root mean square (r.m.s.) gantry accelerations (°/s(2)), and r.m.s. gantry angle errors (°). The half-arc VMAT plans achieved comparable HI and CI to the full-arc plans. Mean doses to the normal brain and brainstem with the half-arc VMAT plans were on average 16% and 17% lower than those with the full-arc VMAT plans. For other organs at risk (OARs), no significant DVH differences were observed between plans. Half-arc VMAT resulted in 11% less total MU and 20% shorter delivery time than the full-arc VMAT, while r.m.s. gantry acceleration and r.m.s. gantry angle error during half-arc VMAT delivery were 30% and 23% less than those during full-arc VMAT delivery, respectively. Furthermore, the half-arc VMAT plans were comparable with the full-arc plans regarding dose homogeneity and conformity in maxillary cancer, and provided a statistical decrease in mean dose to OAR, total MU, delivery time and gantry angle error. Half-arc VMAT plans may be a suitable treatment option in radiotherapy for maxillary cancer.

A dosimetric evaluation of VMAT for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer

The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the dosimetric potential of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for the treatment of patients with medically inoperable stage I/II non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Fourteen patients treated with 3D CRT with varying tumor locations, tumor sizes, and dose fractionation schemes were chosen for study. The prescription doses were 48 Gy in 4 fractions, 52.5 Gy in 5 fractions, 57.5 Gy in 5 fractions, and 60 Gy in 3 fractions for 2, 5, 1, and 6 patients, respectively. VMAT treatment plans with a mix of two to three full and partial noncoplanar arcs with 5°-25° separations were retrospectively generated using Eclipse version 10.0. The 3D CRT and VMAT plans were then evaluated by comparing their target dose, critical structure dose, high dose spillage, and low dose spillage as defined according to RTOG 0813 and RTOG 0236 protocols. In the most dosimetrically improved case, VMAT was able to decrease the dose from 17.35 Gy to 1.54 Gy to the heart. The D(2cm) decreased in 11 of 14 cases when using VMAT. The three that worsened were still within the acceptance criteria. Of the 14 3D CRT plans, seven had a D(2cm) minor deviation, while only one of the 14 VMAT plans had a D(2cm) minor deviation. The R(50%) improved in 13 of the 14 VMAT cases. The one case that worsened was still within the acceptance criteria of the RTOG protocol. Of the 14 3D CRT plans, seven had an R(50%) deviation. Only one of the 14 VMAT plans had an R(50%) deviation, but it was still improved compared to the 3D CRT plan. In this cohort of patients, no evident dosimetric compromises resulted from planning SBRT treatments with VMAT relative to the 3D CRT treatment plans actually used in their treatment.