Volumetric-modulated arc therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment planning for prostate cancer with flattened beam and flattening filter free linear accelerators

The effects of flattening filter-free beams and aperture shape controller on the complexity of conventional large-field treatment plans

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of using flattening filter-free (FFF) beams and the aperture shape controller (ASC) on the complexity of conventional large-field treatment plans.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A total of 24 head and neck (H&N) and 24 prostate with pelvic nodes treatment plans were used in this study. Each plan was reoptimized using the original clinical objectives with both flattened and FFF beams, as well as six different ASC settings. The dosimetric qualities of each plan cohort were evaluated using commonly used dose-volume histogram values, and plan complexities were assessed through metrics including monitor unit (MU)/Dose, change in gantry speed, multileaf collimator (MLC) speed, the edge area ratio metric (EM), and the equivalent square length.

RESULTS

No significant differences in dosimetric qualities were found between plans with flattened and FFF beams. The ASC settings did not have significant effects on dosimetric qualities in the H&N plan cohort, but the "very high" ASC setting resulted in poorer dosimetric results for the prostate plans. Plans with FFF beams had significantly higher MU/Dose compared to plans with flattened beams. The use of flattening filter (FF) had significant effects on the change in gantry speed, with flattened beams producing plans that required higher change in gantry speed. However, the FF did not have significant effects on MLC speed, EM, or equivalent square length. In contrast, ASC settings had significant effects on these three metrics; increasing the ASC level resulted in plans with decreasing MLC speed, lower edge area ratio, and higher equivalent square length.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that using FFF beams with various ASC settings, except for the "very high" level, can produce plans with reduced complexities without compromising dosimetric qualities in conventional large-field treatment plans.

Assessment of Treatment Plan Quality between Flattening Filter and Flattening Filter Free Photon Beam for Carcinoma of the Esophagus with IMRT Technique

Background

As compared to the flattened photon beam, removing the flattening filter (FF) from the head of a gantry decreases the average energy of the photon beam and increases the dose rate, leading to an impact on the quality of treatment plans.

Objective

This study aimed to compare the quality of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment plans for esophageal cancer with and without a flattened filter photon beam.

Material and Methods

In this analytical study, 12 patients, who had already been treated with a 6X FF photon beam, were treated based on new IMRT methods using a 6X the flattening filter-free (FFF) photon beam. Both 6X FF IMRT and 6X FFF IMRT plans used identical beam parameters and planning objectives. All plans were evaluated with planning indices and doses for organs at risk (OARs).

Results

Insignificant dose variation was for HI, CI, D_98%, and V_95% between FF and FFF photon beam IMRT plans. FF-based IMRT plan delivered a 15.51 % and 11.27% higher mean dose to both lungs and heart than the FFF plan, respectively. The integral dose (ID) for the heart and lungs was 11.21% and 15.51%, respectively, less in the IMRT plan with an FFF photon beam.

Conclusion

In contrast to the FF photon beam, a filtered photon beam-oriented IMRT plan provides significant OAR sparing without losing the quality of the treatment plan. High monitor units (MUs), low ID, and Beam on Time (BOT) are major highlights of the IMRT plan with FFF beam.

Volumetric modulated arc therapy for hippocampal-sparing prophylactic cranial irradiation: Planning comparison of Halcyon and C-arm accelerators

Background

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the dosimetry of the Halcyon in prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and hippocampal-sparing for small cell lung cancer (SCLC).

Methods

Five VMAT plans were designed on CT images of 15 patients diagnosed with SCLC and received PCI. Three plans with two full arcs were generated on the Trilogy and the TrueBeam accelerators, and flattening filter (FF) and flattening filter free (FFF) modes were used on TrueBeam. Two Halcyon plans with two and three full arcs were generated, referred to as H-2A and H-3A, respectively. The prescription dose was 25 Gy in 2.5-Gy fractions. The dose limit for hippocampus were D₁₀₀ ≤ 9Gy and D_max ≤ 16Gy. The Wilcoxon matched-paired signed-rank test was used to evaluate the significance of the observed differences between the five plans.

Results

H-2A plans significantly increased the D₂ of PTV, and H-3A plans showed comparable or even better target dosimetry (better conformity) compared to the three plans on C-arm accelerators. Compared to T and TB plans, the two Halcyon plans significantly reduced the D₁₀₀ and mean doses of bilateral hippocampus, the mean doses of eyeballs, and the maximum doses of lenses. D₁₀₀ of hippocampus was reduced in TrueBeam plans comparing to Trilogy plans. The FFF plans on TrueBeam also represented advantages in D_mean and D₁₀₀ of hippocampas, D_mean and D_max of eyeballs, and the D_max of lenses compared to FF plans. Halcyon plans and TrueBeam plans with FFF mode increased the MUs compared to FF plans. Comparing to H-2A, the H-3A plans exhibited additional dosimetric advantages, including D₂, CI and HI of PTV, as well as the maximum and mean doses of hippocampus and eyeballs, and the maximum doses of optic nerves and brainstem. The two Halcyon plans significantly reduced the delivery time and showed the higher gamma passing rate than the three plans of C-arm accelerators.

Conclusions

Compared with the C-arm accelerators, the dose of hippocampus and the delivery times on Halcyon are relatively significantly reduced for hippocampal-sparing PCI. Three arcs are recommended for VMAT plans with the Halcyon in hippocampal-sparing PCI.

Target volume size effect on comparison of dynamic arc treatment plans computed using flattened and unflattened 6MV beams

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

In conventional linear accelerators, to obtain flat profiles leading to uniform dose distribution in homogeneous medium, the flattening filter is usually applied on the beam path. In recent years, to obtain higher dose rates, there have been the options of flattening filter free (FFF) beams and it has been noticed that these have many advantages. The aim of this study was to clearly underline the advantages and the drawbacks of flattened filter free (FFF) beams in comparison with the flattening filter (FF) beams for different clinical contexts (planning target volumes locations).

METHODS

Two groups (planned with auto-planning VMAT, full and partial arcs) of eight patients each were analyzed: Group I (small planning target volume PTV, with average volume 48.9 ±44.4 cm³), Group II (large PTV, with average volume 532.4 ±368.8 cm³). Both beam modalities 6MV and 6MVFFF were compared in terms of Dmax, D95%, D1cc, D2cc, homogeneity index (HI), number of monitor units (MU), treatment delivery time.

RESULTS

Using the 6MVFFF, the treatment delivery time was significantly reduced (p<0.05). For larger PTVs, the number of MU increased by more than twice, and the p-value shown a significant difference (p= 0.008). The value of Dmax increased by 4%. On the contrary, for small volumes, the results were quite similar from 6MVFFF to 6MV except some differences in terms of MU.

CONCLUSION

It is recommended to use 6MVFFF beam with small PTV volumes. Dose distributions are almost the same as with 6MV and there is a significant reduction of the treatment delivery time up to 57%. Due to the dose profile shape in FFF mode, the dose is lowered beyond the central axis for the FFF beams, and the additional MU allows the dose to be delivered away from the beam axis.

Comparison of Moderate Hypofractionated Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy Plans With and Without Flattening Filter for Localized Prostate Cancer

Background/Aim The aim of this study was to compare volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) radiation plans between conventional VMAT with flattening filter (cFF-VMAT) and flattening filter-free VMAT (FFF-VMAT) for localized prostate cancer. Materials and methods Ten patients with localized prostate cancer who underwent cFF-VMAT at Yokosuka General Hospital Uwamachi, Yokosuka, Japan, from July 2020 to October 2020 were enrolled. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters of the target volume, normal organs, monitor units (MU), and beam-on time (BOT) were compared between cFF-VMAT and FFF-VMAT plans. Results No significant difference was observed for DVH parameters for the target volume. No significant difference was observed in all parameters for the bladder and rectum between the cFF-VMAT and FFF-VMAT groups. The mean values of MU were 686 ± 52 and 784 ± 80 in cFF-VMAT and FFF-VMAT, respectively (p < 0.001). The mean BOT was 97.0 ± 6.6 s and 72.9 ± 1.4 s for cFF-VMAT and FFF-VMAT, respectively (p < 0.001). Conclusion DVH parameters of the target volume and normal organs were not significantly different between the cFF-VMAT and FFF-VMAT plans. In FFF-VMAT, MU was significantly higher, and the BOT was significantly shorter than those in cFF-VMAT.

Out-of-field organ doses and associated risk of cancer development following radiation therapy with photons

Innovations in cancer treatment have contributed to the improved survival rate of these patients. Radiotherapy is one of the main options for cancer management nowadays. High doses of ionizing radiation are usually delivered to the tumor site with high energy photon beams. However, the therapeutic radiation exposure may lead to second cancer induction. Moreover, the introduction of intensity-modulated radiation therapy over the last decades has increased the radiation dose to out-of-field organs compared to that from conventional irradiation. The increased organ doses might result in elevated probabilities for developing secondary malignancies to critical organs outside the treatment volume. The organ-specific dosimetry is considered necessary for the theoretical second cancer risk assessment and the proper analysis of data derived from epidemiological reports. This study reviews the methods employed for the measurement and calculation of out-of-field organ doses from exposure to photons and/or neutrons. The strengths and weaknesses of these dosimetric approaches are described in detail. This is followed by a review of the epidemiological data associated with out-of-field cancer risks. Previously published theoretical cancer risk estimates for adult and pediatric patients undergoing radiotherapy with conventional and advanced techniques are presented. The methodology for the theoretical prediction of the probability of carcinogenesis to out-of-field sites and the limitations of this approach are discussed. The article also focuses on the factors affecting the magnitude of the probability for developing radiotherapy-induced malignancies. The restriction of out-of-field doses and risks through the use of different types of shielding equipment is presented.

Dosimetric impact of FFF over FF beam using VMAT for brain neoplasms treated with radiotherapy

Background: This study was conducted to assess the dosimetric impact of FFF beam plans on high-grade brain neoplasms using the VMAT technique when compared with FF beam plans.

Material and Methods: Thirty patients with high-grade brain neoplasms, who had received radiotherapy using VMAT technique retrospectively were selected for this study. All the patients were planned for VMAT using 6MV_FF beam and the same plan was re-optimized using 6MV_FFF beam keeping the same dose constraint. Radiotherapy dose distribution on planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OAR), target conformity index (CI), Homogeneity Index (HI), Low dose volume in the patient (V5, V10, V20, and V30), and Integral dose to the whole body in both plans were compared.

Results: The PTV coverage and OAR’s showed no significant differences in dose distribution between the FFF and FF beam VMAT planning. There was a reduction of the average maximum dose in the right eye, left eye, right optic nerve, and left optic nerve using FFF beams. The reduction in average low dose volume was observed in V5, V10, V20, V30, and Mean Dose. Also, a significant reduction was observed in the integral dose to the whole body using the FFF beam.

Conclusions: Using FFF beams with VMAT is doable for the treatment of high-grade brain neoplasms, and the delivery mode of the FFF beam in VMAT may yield similar results to FF beam which should be confirmed in a large scale prospective clinical trial.

Comparison between flattening filter-free (FFF) and flattened photon beam VMAT plans for the whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) with hippocampus sparing

Purpose

To evaluate and investigate the feasibility of flattening filter‐free (FFF) beam for the whole‐brain radiotherapy (WBRT) with hippocampus sparing.

Methods

Eighteen patients with volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans in FFF and conventional beam modes were included in this study. The prescribed dose was 30 Gy in 10 fractions. The conformity index (CI), heterogeneity index reported by TPS (HI‐M), and homogeneity index (HI) for planning target volume (PTV) were evaluated. Subsequently, the following parameters for PTV were calculated and compared: D_2%, D_98%; the mean dose, maximum dose, and minimal dose for OARs. Plan modulation index, total MUs, and the gamma index were used to evaluate the plan quality.

Results

HI‐M results were similar for the two techniques (1.239 vs. 1.247, respectively, p = 0.048); FFF beam plans yielded lower D2% compared to FF beam plans (3,416.3 cGy vs. 3,437.2 cGy, p = 0.22), mean dose (3,177.5 cGy vs. 3,195.2 cGy, p = 0.009), and CI (0.884 vs. 0.876, p = 0.001) for PTV. Significant differences were observed between the two beam modes (FF model vs. FFF model) for the maximum dose (1,612.9 cGy vs. 1,470.2 cGy, respectively, p < 0.001), minimum dose (987.6 cGy vs. 898.8 cGy, respectively, p < 0.001), and the mean dose (1144.4 cGy vs. 1047.3 cGy, respectively, p < 0.001) to the hippocampus, and the maximum dose to the eyes (2,792.6 cGy vs. 2,751.3 cGy, respectively, p < 0.001). The average total MUs for FFF‐VMAT plans was significantly greater than FF‐VMAT plans. However, differences for the plan modulation index and the gamma index were negligible.

Conclusion

In comparison with FF beam, the FFF beam mode offers a clear benefit with respect to WBRT with hippocampal sparing.

Survey on utilization of flattening filter-free photon beams in Japan

To understand the current state of flattening filter-free (FFF) beam implementation in C-arm linear accelerators (LINAC) in Japan, the quality assurance (QA)/quality control (QC) 2018-2019 Committee of the Japan Society of Medical Physics (JSMP) conducted a 37-question survey, designed to investigate facility information and specifications regarding FFF beam adoption and usage. The survey comprised six sections: facility information, devices, clinical usage, standard calibration protocols, modeling for treatment planning (TPS) systems and commissioning and QA/QC. A web-based questionnaire was developed. Responses were collected between 18 June and 18 September 2019. Of the 846 institutions implementing external radiotherapy, 323 replied. Of these institutions, 92 had adopted FFF beams and 66 had treated patients using them. FFF beams were used in stereotactic radiation therapy (SRT) for almost all disease sites, especially for the lungs using 6 MV and liver using 10 MV in 51 and 32 institutions, respectively. The number of institutions using FFF beams for treatment increased yearly, from eight before 2015 to 60 in 2018. Farmer-type ionization chambers were used as the standard calibration protocol in 66 (72%) institutions. In 73 (80%) institutions, the beam-quality conversion factor for FFF beams was calculated from TPR20,10, via the same protocol used for beams with flattening filter (WFF). Commissioning, periodic QA and patient-specific QA for FFF beams also followed the procedures used for WFF beams. FFF beams were primarily used in high-volume centers for SRT. In most institutions, measurement and QA was conducted via the procedures used for WFF beams.

Secondary malignancy risk for patients with localized prostate cancer after intensity-modulated radiotherapy with and without flattening filter

Men treated for localized prostate cancer by radiotherapy have often a remaining life span of 10 yr or more. Therefore, the risk for secondary malignancies should be taken into account. Plans for ten patients were evaluated which had been performed on an Oncentra® treatment planning system for a treatment with an Elekta Synergy™ linac with Agility™ head. The investigated techniques involved IMRT and VMTA with and without flattening filter. Different dose response models were applied for secondary carcinoma and sarcoma risk in the treated region and also in the periphery. As organs at risk we regarded for carcinoma risk urinary bladder, rectum, colon, esophagus, thyroid, and for sarcoma risk bone and soft tissue. The excess absolute risk (EAR) was found very similar in the treated region for both techniques (IMRT and VMAT) and also for both with and without flattening filter. The secondary sarcoma risk resulted about one magnitude smaller than the secondary carcinoma risk. The EAR to the peripheral organs was statistically significant reduced by application of the flattening filter free mode concerning the flattening filter as main source of scattered dose. Application of flattening filter free mode can thus support to reduce second malignancy risk for patients with localized prostate cancer.

Comparison of radiotherapy techniques with flattening filter and flattening filter-free in lung radiotherapy according to the treatment volume size

In external radiotherapy (RT), the use of flattening filter-free (FFF) radiation beams obtained by removing the flattening filter (FF) in standard linear accelerators is rapidly increasing, and the benefits of clinical use are the issue of research. Advanced treatment techniques have increased the interest in the operation of linear accelerators in FFF mode. The differences of the beams with non-uniform dose distribution created by removing FF compared to the beams with uniform dose distribution used as a standard were examined. These differences were compared in the treatment plans of lung patients who have different planning target volumes (PTV). Clinac IX linear accelerator units were used. Twenty patients with previously completed treatment were divided into two groups depending on the size of the target volume. All patients underwent two different intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) plans using FF and FFF beams. The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test was used to compare two different techniques (Significance p < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the two techniques when looking at the D2%(Gy), D98%(Gy), D50%(Gy), homogeneity (HI), and conformity index (CI) data for both groups. When the critical organ doses were evaluated, there was a statistically significant difference only in the V20(%) values of the lungs, but these differences were not very large. Monitor unit (MU) data were found to be lower in FF planning, and treatment time was lower in FFF planning. Except for shorter treatment times, and of the lungs V20(%) value, in standard fractionated RT of lung cancer, there was no significant difference between the use of FFF and FF techniques for large and small target volumes.

A dosimetric comparison of flattening filter free and conventional VMAT treatments for some common cancer sites

The aim of this study was to assess the potential for treating various common cancer sites with flattening filter free (FFF) rather than conventionally flattened (cFF) treatment plans considering both in-field and out-of-field dosimetry. This study seeks to extend previous work by others to the Elekta Agility VMAT treatments commonly used at our clinic. Nine matched pairs of conventional and FFF 6X treatment plans for prostate, head and neck, and brain cancer sites were generated using the Monaco treatment planning system (Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden). Absorbed dose distribution statistics for target and healthy tissue volumes reported by the Monaco treatment planning system were compared. One matched pair of plans for each cancer site was experimentally validated by film and ion chamber measurements in an anthropomorphic phantom. Head leakage was measured at various positions in a small water tank and corrections made to the out-of-field dose distributions calculated by the treatment planning system. Out-of-field organ doses and effective whole body doses were calculated according to ICRP103 (Charles in Radiat Prot Dosim 129:500-507, 2008). The in-field target and organ dose statistics for the cFF and FFF plans were comparable whereas the out-of-field organ and whole body effective doses for plans delivered using 6X FFF were generally lower than those delivered with 6X cFF. A modest increase in monitor unit (MU) delivery rates was also observed with the FFF beams. We conclude that treatment plan delivery using FFF rather than cFF beams is feasible and may provide benefits in terms of reduced out-of-field doses and secondary cancer risks for some patients.

The influence of radiotherapy techniques on the plan quality and on the risk of secondary tumors in patients with pituitary adenoma

Background

This planning study compares different radiotherapy techniques for patients with pituitary adenoma, including flatness filter free mode (FFF), concerning plan quality and secondary malignancies for potentially young patients. The flatness filter has been described as main source of photon scatter.

Material and methods

Eleven patients with pituitary adenoma were included. An Elekta Synergy™ linac was used in the treatment planning system Oncentra® and for the measurements. 3D plans, IMRT, and VMAT plans and non-coplanar varieties were considered. The plan quality was evaluated regarding homogeneity, conformity, delivery time and dose to the organs at risk. The secondary malignancy risk was calculated from dose volume data and from measured dose to the periphery using different models for carcinoma and sarcoma risk.

Results

The homogeneity and conformity were nearly unchanged with and without flattening filter, neither was the delivery time found substantively different. VMAT plans were more homogenous, conformal and faster in delivery than IMRT plans. The secondary cancer risk was reduced with FFF both in the treated region and in the periphery. VMAT plans resulted in a higher secondary brain cancer risk than IMRT plans, but the risk for secondary peripheral cancer was reduced. Secondary sarcoma risk plays a minor role. No advantage was found for non-coplanar techniques. The FFF delivery times were not shortened due to additional monitor units needed and technical limitations. The risk for secondary brain cancer seems to depend on the irradiated volume. Secondary sarcoma risk is much smaller than carcinoma risk in accordance to the results of the atomic bomb survivors. The reduction of the peripheral dose and resulting secondary malignancy risk for FFF is statistically significant. However, it is negligible in comparison to the risk in the treated region.

Conclusion

Treatments with FFF can reduce secondary malignancy risk while retaining similar quality as with flattening filter and should be preferred. VMAT plans show the best plan quality combined with lowest peripheral secondary malignancy risk, but highest level of second brain cancer risk. Taking this into account VMAT FFF seems the most advantageous technique for the treatment of pituitary adenomas with the given equipment.