Volumetric arc intensity-modulated therapy for spine body radiotherapy: comparison with static intensity-modulated treatment

Frequency of and risk factors associated with local recurrence after spinal stereotactic body radiation therapy without surgery

PURPOSE

This study aimed to identify factors associated with local recurrence after spinal stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), focusing on patient movement during treatment and tumor characteristics.

METHODS

A total of 48 patients who underwent spinal SBRT alone without surgery from August 2017 to October 2022 were evaluated. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with local recurrence, including patient movement and tumor characteristics such as soft tissue involvement and tumor volume. Patient movement during treatment was measured using cone beam computed tomography before and after irradiation.

RESULTS

Among the included cases, 68.7% and 42.6% had soft tissue involvement and movement exceeding 1 mm, respectively. The median follow-up duration for local recurrence was 11.6 (range: 0.7-44.9) months, whereas the median duration to local recurrence was 6.3 months. Within 12 months, 29.3% of the patients experienced local recurrence, among whom 43.9% moved ≥ 1 mm during treatment, whereas 15.8% did not move. Univariable analysis found that both soft tissue involvement (OR = 10.3, 1.21-87.9; p = 0.033) and patient movement ≥ 1 mm (OR = 5.75, 1.45-22.8; p = 0.013) were associated with local recurrence. Multivariable analysis identified patient movement as an independent prognostic factor for local recurrence (OR = 5.15, 1.06-25.0; p = 0.042).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that patient movement during spinal SBRT was associated with local recurrence, emphasizing the need for better immobilization techniques and shorter delivery times to improve tumor control.

Optimising craniospinal irradiation for medulloblastoma: a dosimetric comparison of two VMAT planning methods

Background

Craniospinal irradiation (CSI) poses a challenging planning process because of the complex target volume. Traditional 3D conformal CSI does not spare any critical organs, resulting in toxicity in patients. Here the dosimetric advantages of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using partial arc and avoidance sectors are compared with each other in planning in adult patients undergoing CSI to develop a clinically feasible technique that is both effective and efficient.

Patient and methods

Eight adult patients treated with CSI were retrospectively identified. In total 16 plans were made. We generated two plans for each patient: 1. VMAT plan using partial arc, namely VMAT_pa. 2. VMAT plan using avoidance sectors, namely VMAT_as. The dose prescribed was 36 Gy in 20 fractions. The dose-volume histogram for planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OAR) (lens, eye, heart, thyroid, lungs, liver, gonads and kidneys) were analysed and compared. Dose parameters of mean dose, V95%, and V107% for the PTV were evaluated.

Results

The median length of PTV is 65.58 cm (45.8-79.5). The volume of PTV receiving 95% of the dose (V95%) in both the plans are 97.51% (VMAT_as) and 97.99% (VMAT_pa) (p = 0.121) while V107% are 0.733 and 0.742 for VMAT_as and VMAT_pa, respectively (p = 0.969). The doses of OARs such as lens, eye, liver and gonads were comparable. The mean heart dose was 10.4 and 9.0 Gy in VMAT_as and VMAT_pa plans, respectively (p = 0.005). Significant lower doses to the thyroid, kidneys and lungs were seen in VMAT plans using avoidance sectors.

Conclusion

This study provides a practically useful VMAT planning method for the treatment of CSI and illustrates the ability of VMAT using avoidance sectors to generate highly conformal and homogeneous treatment plans for CSI, while limiting the dose to the relevant OARs.

Spine Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Without Immobilization: Detailed Analysis of Intrafraction Motion Using High-Frequency kV Imaging During Irradiation

PURPOSE

Spine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) requires high positioning accuracy and a stable patient to maximize target coverage and reduce excessive irradiation to organs at risk. Positional verification during spine SBRT delivery helps to ensure accurate positioning for all patients. We report our experience with noninvasive 3-dimensional target position monitoring during volumetric modulated arc therapy of spine metastases in nonimmobilized patients positioned using only a thin mattress and simple arm and knee supports.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Fluoroscopic planar kV images were acquired at 7 frames/s using the on-board imaging system during volumetric modulated arc therapy spine SBRT. Template matching and triangulation were used to track the target in vertical, longitudinal, and lateral directions. If the tracking trace deviated >1 mm from the planned position in ≥1 direction, treatment was manually interrupted and 6-dimensional cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based couch correction was performed. Tracking data were used to retrospectively analyze the target position. Positional data, agreement with CBCT, correlation between position of the couch and direction of any positional correction, and treatment times were analyzed.

RESULTS

In total, 175 fractions were analyzed. Delivery was interrupted 83 times in 66 fractions for a deviation >1 mm. In 97% of cases the difference between tracking data and subsequent clinical shift performed after the CBCT match was ≤0.5 mm. Lateral/longitudinal shift performed after intervention correlated with the couch roll/pitch at the start of treatment (correlation coefficient, -0.63/0.53). Mean (SD; range) time between start of first imaging and end of the last arc was 15.2 minutes (5.1; 7.6-36.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Spine tracking during irradiation can be used to prompt an intervention CBCT scan and repositioning so that a spine SBRT target deviates by ≤1 mm from the planned position, even in nonimmobilized patients. kV tracking and CBCT are in good agreement. The data support verification CBCT after all 6 degrees-of-freedom positional corrections in nonimmobilized spine SBRT patients.

Comparative dosimetric, setup margin, and treatment time analysis between ring gantry and C-Arm linear accelerators for VMAT-based craniospinal irradiation plans

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the dosimetric and treatment delivery characteristics of volumetric modulated arc therapy technique (VMAT)-based craniospinal axis irradiation (CSI) between ring gantry Halcyon (HAL) and C-arm based Novalis Tx (NTx) linear accelerator. Set-up margin and treatment delivery time for both machines were also taken into account.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifteen patients, 4 females and 11 males treated between March 2019 and February 2022 within the age group 4-56 years simulated in the supine position and were planned for multiple isocentre VMAT technique in ring gantry Halcyon and C-Arm Novalis linear accelerator for 6FFF and 6 MV flatten beam energy. The number of isocenters was the same in both the machines, usually three for adult adolescent age group patients and two for pediatric patients. Total on-couch time and the patient positional shift were captured for each isocenter during each session of treatment. Margins were calculated using Herk's formula of margin = 2.5Σ +0.7σ. Dosimetry, on-couch time, and set-up margin were compared between two competing arms.

RESULTS

Ninety-five percent of PTV coverage (P = 0.333), volume receiving 107% (P = 0.676), total MU (P = 0.818) in both the arms were comparable and statically insignificant. Low-dose spillage such as D20% (P = 0.212) and D50% (P = 0.008) was lesser in HAL comparable to NTx. CI and HI were statically insignificant. Out of 26 organs at risk (OAR), only 3 organs showed a statically significant dose difference. The mean and maximum setup margin in any linear direction was 0.45 and 0.53 cm for HAL and 0.37 and 0.56 cm for NTx and, variation was statistically insignificant (0.23 < P < 0.47). On-couch time was 4.0 ± 5.5 min lesser for HAL and the difference in on-couch time between the two arms was statistically different.

CONCLUSION

Even though the majority of the delivery parameters such as gantry speed, dose rate, beam characteristic (flatten or unflatten), MLC width, and speed between the ring gantry HAL and C-arm NTx linear accelerators were distinctly different, they offered no or minimal difference in the dose distribution and in the setup margin. HAL gives a faster treatment time delivery, which could be crucial for some selective cases such as patients receiving treatment under general anesthesia.

Dosimetric comparison of robotic- and LINAC-based treatment of spine stereotactic body radiotherapy

To determine which treatment technique and modality would offer better dosimetric results and be preferable for spinal stereotactic body therapy (SBRT) depending on the three different regions of the vertebrae. Linear accelerator (LINAC)- and CyberKnife (CK)-based treatment techniques were compared in terms of their dosimetric quality, treatment efficiency, and delivery accuracy. Thirty previously treated patients were included in this study. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques were used for LINAC-based treatment, whereas CK-based treatment plans were generated for two different collimator systems: fixed and multileaf collimator (MLC). The plans were compared based on spinal cord sparing, dose homogeneity, conformity index (CI), gradient index (GI), monitor unit (MU), and beam-on time. The percentage volumes of V2Gy, V5Gy (representing volume low of the dose spillage region), V10Gy, and V20Gy (representing the volume of the high-dose spillage region) of the healthy tissue were analyzed. The CI and GI of the VMAT plans were better than those of the IMRT plans. For spinal cord sparing, the VMAT and MLC-based CK (CK-MLC) techniques were superior. The percentage of low-dose spillage regions was the lowest for IMRT and fixed cone-based CK (CK-FIX) plans. The percentage of the high-dose spillage region was the lowest for the VMAT and CK-MLC plans. In terms of treatment efficiency, the VMAT and CK-MLC plans were superior to the IMRT and CK-FIX plans. The VMAT technique lowered the MU and beam-on time values. The plan delivery accuracy of the VMAT and CK-FIX plans was better than that of the IMRT plans. VMAT is the best option for LINAC-based spinal SBRT. For CK-based spinal SBRT, MLC-based plans are preferred. If the clinic has both treatment modalities and the patient can tolerate long treatment times, CK-MLC-based treatment should be chosen because of its superiority in sparing the spinal cord and sharp dose fall-off.

Special stereotactic radiotherapy techniques: procedures and equipment for treatment simulation and dose delivery

Stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT ) is a multi-step procedure with each step requiring extreme accuracy. Physician-dependent accuracy includes appropriate disease staging, multi-disciplinary discussion with shared decision-making, choice of morphological and functional imaging methods to identify and delineate the tumor target and organs at risk, an image-guided patient set-up, active or passive management of intra-fraction movement, clinical and instrumental follow-up. Medical physicist-dependent accuracy includes use of advanced software for treatment planning and more advanced Quality Assurance procedures than required for conventional radiotherapy. Consequently, all the professionals require appropriate training in skills for high-quality SRT.

Thanks to the technological advances, SRT has moved from a “frame-based” technique, i.e. the use of stereotactic coordinates which are identified by means of rigid localization frames, to the modern “frame-less” SRT which localizes the target volume directly, or by means of anatomical surrogates or fiducial markers that have previously been placed within or near the target. This review describes all the SRT steps in depth, from target simulation and delineation procedures to treatment delivery and image-guided radiation therapy. Target movement assessment and management are also described.

Dosimetric evaluation of different planning techniques based on flattening filter-free beams for central and peripheral lung stereotactic body radiotherapy

This study aimed to dosimetrically compare and evaluate the flattening filter-free (FFF) photon beam-based three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). RANDO phantom computed tomography (CT) images were used for treatment planning. Gross tumor volumes (GTVs) were delineated in the central and peripheral lung locations. Planning target volumes (PTVs) was determined by adding a 5 mm margin to the GTV. 3DCRT, IMRT, and VMAT plans were generated using a 6-MV FFF photon beam. Dose calculations for all plans were performed using the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB algorithms. The accuracy of the algorithms was validated using the dose measured in a CIRS thorax phantom. The conformity index (CI), high dose volume (HDV), low dose location (D_2cm), and homogeneity index (HI) improved with FFF-VMAT compared to FFF-IMRT and FFF-3DCRT, while low dose volume (R_50%) and gradient index (GI) showed improvement with FFF-3DCRT. Compared with FFF-3DCRT, a drastic decrease in the mean treatment time (TT) value was observed with FFF-VMAT for different lung sites between 57.09% and 60.39%, while with FFF-IMRT it increased between 10.78% and 17.49%. The dose calculation with Acuros XB was found to be superior to that of AAA. Based on the comparison of dosimetric indices in this study, FFF-VMAT provides a superior treatment plan to FFF-IMRT and FFF-3DCRT in the treatment of peripheral and central lung PTVs. This study suggests that Acuros XB is a more accurate algorithm than AAA in the lung region.

Treatment planning of VMAT and step-and-shoot IMRT delivery techniques for single fraction spine SBRT: An intercomparative dosimetric analysis and phantom-based quality assurance measurements

PURPOSE

To retrospectively compare clinically treated step-and-shoot intensity modulated radiotherapy (ssIMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) spine stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) plans in dosimetric endpoints and pretreatment quality assurance (QA) measurements.

METHODS

Five single fraction spine SBRT (18 Gy) cases - including one cervical, two thoracic, and two lumbar spines - clinically treated with ssIMRT were replanned with VMAT, and all plans were delivered to a phantom for comparing plan quality and delivery accuracy. Furthermore, we analyzed 98 clinically treated plans (18 Gy single fraction), including 34 ssIMRT and 29 VMAT for cervical/thoracic spine, and 19 ssIMRT and 16 VMAT for lumbar spine. The conformality index (CI) and homogeneity index (HI) were calculated, and QA measurement records were compared. For the spinal cord/cauda equina, the maximum dose to 0.03 cc (D_0.03cc ) and volume receiving 10 or 12 Gy (V_10Gy /V_12Gy ) were recorded. Statistical significance was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

Compared to ssIMRT, replanned VMAT plans had lower V_10Gy /V_12Gy and D_0.03cc to the spinal cord/cauda equina in all five cases, and better CI in three out of five cases. The VMAT replans were slightly less homogeneous than those of ssIMRT plans. Both modalities passed IMRT QA with >95% passing rate with (3%, 3 mm) gamma criteria. With the 98 clinical cases, for cervical/thoracic ssIMRT and VMAT plans, the median V_10Gy of spinal cord was 4.15% and 1.85% (P = 0.004); the median D_0.03cc of spinal cord was 10.85 Gy and 10.10 Gy (P = 0.032); the median CI was 1.28 and 1.08 (P = 0.009); the median HI were 1.34 and 1.33 (P = 0.697), respectively. For lumbar spine, no significant dosimetric endpoint differences were observed. The two modalities were comparable in delivery accuracy.

CONCLUSION

From our clinically treated plans, we found that VMAT plans provided better dosimetric quality and comparable delivery accuracy when compared to ssIMRT for single fraction spine SBRT.

Intrafractional motion in stereotactic body radiotherapy of spinal metastases utilizing cone beam computed tomography image guidance

Background and purpose

Spine stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) requires a high degree of accuracy due to steep dose gradients close to the spinal cord. This study aimed to (1) evaluate intrafractional motion in spine SBRT utilizing flattening filter free (FFF) beam delivery and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) image guidance and (2) evaluate if adding another CBCT acquisition and corrections prior to treatment improves the overall position accuracy.

Materials and methods

Intrafractional motion was retrospectively analyzed for 78 fractions in 54 patients. All patients were immobilized with an evacuated cushion. Before treatment, a CBCT was acquired, a bony fusion with the planning CT was performed and translational and rotational errors were corrected. For 30 of the patients (39 fractions) acquisition of another CBCT and corrections were performed before treatment. A post treatment CBCT was acquired for all patients, and translational and rotational errors measured by fusion of the post treatment CBCT with the planning CT were recorded to calculate means and standard deviations (SDs).

Results

The positional errors were significantly smaller in 4 out of 6 error values in the patient group treated with verification CBCT. In this group, translational and rotational SDs ranged from 0.5 to 0.6 mm and 0.3°, respectively. Corresponding values in the group treated without verification CBCT were 0.7-1.0 mm and 0.4-0.7°.

Conclusion

With proper CBCT image guidance, patient immobilization and FFF-beam delivery, one can obtain very high patient position accuracy in spine SBRT. Inclusion of a verification CBCT prior to treatment increases the overall position accuracy.

Pain REduction with bone metastases STereotactic radiotherapy (PREST): A phase III randomized multicentric trial

Background

Palliative antalgic treatments represent an issue for clinical management and a challenge for scientific research. Radiotherapy (RT) plays a central role. Techniques such as stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) were largely investigated in several phase 2 studies with good symptom response, becoming widely adopted. However, evidence from randomized, direct comparison of RT and SBRT is still lacking.

Methods/design

The PREST trial was designed as an interventional study without medicinal treatment. It is a phase 3, open-label, multicentric trial randomized 1:1. Inclusion criteria include painful spinal bone metastases presenting with a pain level > 4 (or > 1 if being treated with an analgesic) on the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS); expected intermediate/high prognosis (greater than 6 months) according to the Mizumoto prognostic score; low spine instability neoplastic score (SINS) sores (< 7); magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) assessment of the bulky lesion. Patients will be assigned to either standard conventional radiotherapy involving 4 Gy × 5 fractions (fx) to the whole involved vertebra or SBRT by intensity modulated radiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost (IMRT-SIB) involving 7 Gy × 3 fx to the whole involved vertebra + 10 Gy × 3 fx on the macroscopic lesion (gross tumor volume (GTV)). In the experimental arm, the GTV will be contoured by registration with baseline MRI.

Discussion

The primary endpoint is overall pain reduction, defined in terms of variation between baseline and 3-month evaluation; pain will be measured using the NRS. Secondary endpoints include pain control duration; retreatment rates (after a minimum interval of 1 month); local control assessed with RECIST criteria; symptom progression free survival; progression-free survival; overall survival; and quality of life (at 0, 30, and 90 days). Accrual of 330 lesions is planned. The experimental arm is expected to have an improvement in overall pain response rates of 15% with respect to the standard arm (60% according to Chow et al. (Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 82(5):1730–7, 2012)).

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03597984. Registered on July 2018.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3676-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Dosimetric study for spine stereotactic body radiation therapy: magnetic resonance guided linear accelerator versus volumetric modulated arc therapy

Background Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) given in 1-5 fractions is an effective treatment for vertebral metastases. Real-time magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) improves soft tissue contrast, which translates into accurate delivery of spine SBRT. Here we report on clinical implementation of MRgRT for spine SBRT, the quality of MRgRT plans compared to TrueBeam based volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans in the treatment of spine metastases and benefits of MRgRT MR scan. Patients and methods Ten metastatic lesions were included in this study for plan comparison. Lesions were spread across thoracic spine and lumbosacral spine. Three fraction spine SBRT plans: 27Gy to planning target volume (PTV) and 30Gy to gross tumor volume (GTV) were generated on the ViewRay MRIdian Linac system and compared to TrueBeamTM STx based VMAT plans. Plans were compared using metrics such as minimum dose, maximum dose, mean dose, ratio of the dose to 50% of the volume (R50), conformity index, homogeneity index and dose to the spinal cord. Results MRIdian plans achieved equivalent target coverage and spinal cord dose compared to VMAT plans. The maximum and minimum PTV doses and homogeneity index were equivalent for both planning systems. R50 was lower for MRIdian plans compared to VMAT plans, indicating a lower spread of intermediate doses with MRIdian system (5.16 vs. 6.11, p = 0.03). Conclusions MRgRT can deliver high-quality spine SBRT plans comparable to TrueBeam volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans.

Comparison of treatment plan quality among MRI-based IMRT with a linac, MRI-based IMRT with tri-Co-60 sources, and VMAT for spine SABR

PURPOSE

This study compares the plan quality of magnetic-resonance image (MRI)-based intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using a linac (MR-linac-IMRT), MRI-based IMRT using tri-Co-60 sources (MR-Co-60-IMRT), and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for spine stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR).

METHODS

Twenty patients with thoracic spine metastasis were retrospectively selected for this study. For each patient, the MR-linac-IMRT, MR-Co-60-IMRT, and VMAT plans were generated using an identical CT image set and structures, except for the spinal cord and spinal cord planning organ-at-risk volume (PRV). Those two structures were contoured based on CT image sets for VMAT planning while those were contoured based on MR image sets for MR-linac-IMRT and MR-Co-60-IMRT planning. The initial prescription doses were 18 Gy in a single fraction for every plan in this study. If the tolerance level of the spinal cord was not met, the prescription doses were reduced to meet the tolerance level of the spinal cord. Dose-volumetric parameters of each plan were analyzed.

RESULTS

The average spinal cord volumes contoured based on the CT and MR images were 3.8±1.6 cm3 and 1.1±1.0 cm3, respectively (p<0.001). For four patients, the prescription doses of VMAT plans were reduced to 16 Gy to satisfy the spinal cord tolerance level. For thirteen patients, the prescription doses of MR-Co-60-IMRT plans were reduced to be less than 16 Gy to meet the spinal cord tolerance level. However, for every MR-linac-IMRT plan, the initial prescription doses of 18 Gy could be delivered to the target volume while satisfying the spinal cord tolerance. The average values of D10%, V10Gy, and V14Gy of the spinal cord PRV consistently indicated that the doses to the spinal cord PRV in the MR-linac-IMRT plans were the lowest among three types of plans in this study (all with p≤0.003).

CONCLUSION

MR-linac-IMRT appears promising for spine SABR.

Kilovoltage projection streaming-based tracking application (KiPSTA): First clinical implementation during spine stereotactic radiation surgery

Purpose

This study aimed to develop a linac-mounted kilovoltage (kV) projection streaming-based tracking method for vertebral targets during spine stereotactic radiation surgery and evaluate the clinical feasibility of the proposed spine tracking method.

Methods and materials

Using real-time kV projection streaming within XVI (Elekta XVI), kV-projection-based tracking was applied to the target vertebral bodies. Two-dimensional in-plane patient translation was calculated via an image registration between digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) and kV projections. DRR was generated from the cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan, which was obtained immediately before the tracking session. During a tracking session, each kV projection was streamed for an intensity gradient-based image with similar metric-based registration to the offset DRR. The ground truth displacement for each kV beam angle was calculated at the beam isocenter using the 6 degrees-of-freedom transformation that was obtained by a CBCT-CBCT rigid registration. The resulting translation by the DRR-projection registration was compared with the ground truth displacement. The proposed tracking method was evaluated retrospectively and online, using 7 and 5 spine patients, respectively.

Results

The accuracy and precision of spine tracking for in-plane patient motion were 0.5 ± 0.2 and 0.2 ± 0.1 mm. The magnitude of patient motion that was estimated using the CBCT-CBCT rigid registration was (0.5 ± 0.4, 0.4 ± 0.3, 0.3 ± 0.3) mm and (0.3 ± 0.4, 0.2 ± 0.2, 0.5 ± 0.6) mm for all tracking sessions. The intrafraction motion was within 2 mm for all CBCT scans considered.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated that the proposed spine tracking method can track intrafraction motion with sub-millimeter accuracy and precision, and sub-second latency.

Improving accuracy for stereotactic body radiotherapy treatments of spinal metastases

PURPOSE

Use of SBRT techniques is now a relatively common recourse for spinal metastases due to good local control rates and durable pain control. However, the technique has not yet reached maturity for gantry-based systems, so work is still required in finding planning approaches that produce optimum conformity as well as delivery for the slew of treatment planning systems and treatment machines.

METHODS

A set of 32 SBRT spine treatment plans based on four vertebral sites, varying in modality and number of control points, were created in Pinnacle. These plans were assessed according to complexity metrics and planning objectives as well as undergoing treatment delivery QA on an Elekta VersaHD through ion chamber measurement, ArcCheck, film-dose map comparison and MLC log-file reconstruction via PerFraction.

RESULTS

All methods of QA demonstrated statistically significant agreement with each other (r = 0.63, P < 0.001). Plan complexity and delivery accuracy were found to be independent of MUs (r = 0.22, P > 0.05) but improved with the number of control points (r = 0.46, P < 0.03); with use of 90 control points producing the most complex and least accurate plans. The fraction of small apertures used in treatment had no impact on plan quality or accuracy (r = 0.29, P > 0.05) but rather more complexly modulated plans showed poorer results due to MLC leaf position inaccuracies. Plans utilizing 180 and 240 control points produced optimal plan coverage with similar complexity metrics to each other. However, plans with 240 control points demonstrated slightly better delivery accuracy, with fewer MLC leaf position discrepancies.

CONCLUSION

In contrast to other studies, MU had no effect on delivery accuracy, with the most impactful parameter at the disposal of the planner being the number of control points utilized.

Dosimetric impact of multileaf collimator leaf width according to sophisticated grade of technique in the IMRT and VMAT planning for pituitary adenoma lesion

We analyzed the difference in the dosimetric effect between 5-mm and 2.5-mm multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf width according to the sophisticated grades of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Nineteen patients with pituitary adenomas were selected for this study. The treatment plans were performed according to the size of the MLC (5-mm and 2.5-mm MLC), the type of technique (IMRT and VMAT), and the sophisticated grades of each technique (5-field, 9-field, 13-field, 17-field technique in IMRT and 1-arc and 2-arc techniques in VMAT). The downsizing effects of MLC leaf width were analyzed using target volume coverage (TVC), conformity index (CI), dose gradient index (GI), and normal tissue difference 70% isodose line and 50% isodose line. Upon replacing the 5-mm MLC with the 2.5-mm MLC, TVC and CI improved by 1.30% and 1.36%, respectively, in total plans. The TVC and CI improved by 1.68% and 1.67% in IMRT, respectively, and by 0.54% and 0.72% in VMAT, respectively. TVC improved by 2.53%, 1.82%, 1.34%, and 0.94%, and CI also improved by 2.70%, 1.81%, 1.24%, and 0.94%, in 5-field, 9-field, 13-field, and 17-field IMRT, respectively. TVC improved by 0.66% and 0.43%, and CI also improved by 0.93%, and 0.52% in 1-arc and 2-arc VMAT, respectively. Regarding the target coverage, there were dosimetric benefits of a smaller MLC leaf width. However, the downsizing effect of the MLC leaf width decreased with the use of a more precise RT technique and a more sophisticated grade of the same technique.

Treatment plan quality and delivery accuracy assessments on 3 IMRT delivery methods of stereotactic body radiotherapy for spine tumors

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for spine tumors has demonstrated clinical effectiveness. The treatment planning and delivery techniques have evolved from dynamic conformal arc therapy, to fixed gantry angle intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and most recently to volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). A hybrid-arc (HARC) planning and delivery method combining dynamic conformal arc therapy delivery with a number of equally spaced IMRT beams is proposed. In this study we investigated plan quality, delivery accuracy, and efficiency of 3 delivery techniques: IMRT, HARC, and VMAT. Patients who underwent spine SBRT treatments were randomly selected from an Institutional Review Board-approved registry. For each patient, the prescription dose was 14 to 16 Gy in a single fraction to cover >90% of the tumor (without planning margin) while constraining V_10Gy ≤ 10% of the spinal cord and the maximum point dose (MPD) of the spinal cord ≤ 14 Gy. All cases were clinically treated with fixed gantry step-shoot IMRT plans and then re-planned with VMAT using Pinnacle 9.0 and with HARC using Brainlab iPlan 4.5. Student t-test was used to compare the dosimetric end points, including V_16Gy to the planning target volume, homogeneity index, MPD_PTV, the conformity index, V_10Gy of the spinal cord, and MPD_cord. To compare the accuracy of delivery, we delivered all plans on a phantom and conducted gamma index (GI) comparisons with 3 mm/3% and 2 mm/2% criteria. All plans met our clinical requirements. Among 3 techniques, there were no differences on dose coverage to the tumor volume, maximum dose to the spinal cord, and plan homogeneity index (p > 0.05). The average V_10Gy of the spinal cord was 6.66 ± 0.03%, 5.49 ± 0.03%, and 4.76 ± 0.02% for IMRT, HARC, and VMAT plans, respectively. Accordingly, the conformity indices were 1.30 ± 0.11 and 1.29 ± 0.20, 1.53 ± 0.29, respectively. VMAT plans were significantly (p < 0.05) less conformal but significantly (p < 0.05) lower V_10Gy of the spinal cord than those from HARC and IMRT plans. With delivery accuracy measured by GIs, the average GIs of 3%/3 mm were 92.6 ± 1.1%, 96.5 ± 2.7%, 99.0 ± 1.1% for IMRT, HARC, and VMAT plans, respectively. The differences were significant (p < 0.05). Accordingly, the average monitor units were 9238 ± 2242, 9853 ± 2548 and 5091 ± 910. The plan quality created from the 3 planning techniques can meet the clinical requirement. Adding arc beams in delivery such as in HARC and VMAT plans improves the delivery accuracy. VMAT is the most efficient delivery method.

Comparison of four techniques for spine stereotactic body radiotherapy: Dosimetric and efficiency analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to compare the dosimetric differences between four techniques for spine stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT): CyberKnife (CK), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and helical tomotherapy (HT) with dynamic jaws (HT-D) and fixed jaws (HT-F).

MATERIALS/METHODS

Data from 10 patients were utilized. All patients were planned for 24 Gy in two fractions, with the primary objectives being: (a) restricting the maximum dose to the cord to ≤ 17 Gy and/or cauda equina to ≤ 20 Gy, and (b) to maximize the clinical target volume (CTV) to receive the prescribed dose. Treatment plans were generated by separate dosimetrists and then compared using velocity AI. Parameters of comparison include target volume coverage, conformity index (CI), gradient index (GI), homogeneity index (HI), treatment time (TT) per fraction, and monitor units (MU) per fraction.

RESULTS

PTV D2 and D5 were significantly higher for CK compared to VMAT, HT-F, and HT-D (P < 0.001). The average volume of CTV receiving the prescription dose (CTV D95) was significantly less for VMAT compared to CK, HT-F and HT-D (P = 0.036). CI improved for CK (0.69), HT-F (0.66), and HT-D (0.67) compared to VMAT (0.52) (P = 0.013). CK (41.86) had the largest HI compared to VMAT (26.99), HT-F (20.69), and HT-D (21.17) (P < 0.001). GI was significantly less for CK (3.96) compared to VMAT (6.76) (P = 0.001). Likewise, CK (62.4 min, 14059 MU) had the longest treatment time and MU per fraction compared to VMAT (8.5 min, 9764 MU), HT-F (13 min, 10822 MU), and HT-D (13.5 min, 11418 MU) (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Both CK and HT plans achieved conformal target coverage while respecting cord tolerance. Dose heterogeneity was significantly larger in CK. VMAT required the least treatment time and MU output, but had the least steep GI, CI, and target coverage.

Volumetric modulated arc therapy treatment planning of thoracic vertebral metastases using stereotactic body radiotherapy

Purpose/Objectives

To retrospectively evaluate the plan quality, treatment efficiency, and accuracy of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for thoracic spine metastases using stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT).

Materials/Methods

Seven patients with thoracic vertebral metastases treated with noncoplanar hybrid arcs (NCHA) (1 to 2 3D‐conformal partial arcs +7 to 9 IMRT beams) were re‐optimized with VMAT plans using three coplanar arcs. Tumors were located between T2 and T7 and PTVs ranged between 24.3 and 240.1 cc (median 48.1 cc). All prescriptions were 30 Gy in 5 fractions with 6 MV beams treated using the Novalis Tx linac equipped with high definition multileaf collimators (HDMLC). MR images were fused with planning CTs for target and OAR contouring. Plans were compared for target coverage using conformality index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), D90, D98, D2, and Dmedian. Normal tissue sparing was evaluated by comparing doses to the spinal cord (Dmax, D0.35, and D1.2 cc), esophagus (Dmax and D5 cc), heart (Dmax, D15 cc), and lung (V5 and V10). Data analysis was performed with a two‐sided t‐test for each set of parameters. Dose delivery efficiency and accuracy of each VMAT plan was assessed via quality assurance (QA) using a MapCHECK device. The Beam‐on time (BOT) was recorded, and a gamma index was used to compare dose agreement between the planned and measured doses.

Results

VMAT plans resulted in improved CI (1.02 vs. 1.36, P = 0.05), HI (0.14 vs. 0.27, P = 0.01), D98 (28.4 vs. 26.8 Gy, P = 0.03), D2 (32.9 vs. 36.0 Gy, P = 0.02), and Dmedian (31.4 vs. 33.7 Gy, P = 0.01). D90 was improved but not statistically significant (30.4 vs. 31.0 Gy, P = 0.38). VMAT plans showed statistically significant improvements in normal tissue sparing: Esophagus D_max (22.5 vs. 27.0 Gy, P = 0.03), Esophagus 5 cc (17.6 vs. 21.5 Gy, P = 0.02), and Heart D_max (13.1 vs. 15.8 Gy, P = 0.03). Improvements were also observed in spinal cord and lung sparing as well but were not statistically significant. The BOT showed significant reduction for VMAT, 4.7 ± 0.6 min vs. 7.1 ± 1 min for NCHA (not accounting for couch kicks). VMAT plans demonstrated an accurate dose delivery of 95.5 ± 1.0% for clinical gamma passing rate of 3%/3 mm criteria, which was similar to NCHA plans.

Conclusions

VMAT plans have shown improved dose distributions and normal tissue sparing compared to NCHA plans. Significant reductions in treatment time could potentially minimize patient discomfort and intrafraction movement errors. VMAT planning for SBRT is an attractive option for the treatment of metastases to thoracic vertebrae, and further investigation using alternative fractionation schedules is warranted.

Assessment of Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy for Constant and Variable Dose Rates

Purpose:

The aim of this study is to compare the effects of dose rate on volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans to determine optimal dose rates for prostate and head and neck (HN) cases.

Materials and Methods:

Ten prostate and ten HN cases were retrospectively studied. For each case, seven plans were generated: one variable dose rate (VDR) and six constant dose rate (CDR) (100–600 monitor units [MUs]/min) plans. Prescription doses were: 80 Gy to planning target volume (PTV) for the prostate cases, and 70, 60, and 54 Gy to PTV1, PTV2, and PTV3, respectively, for HN cases. Plans were normalized to 95% of the PTV and PTV1, respectively, with the prescription dose. Plans were assessed using Dose-Volume-Histogram metrics, homogeneity index, conformity index, MUs, and delivery time.

Results:

For the prostate cases, significant differences were found for rectum D35 between VDR and all CDR plans, except CDR500. Furthermore, VDR was significantly different than CDR100 and 200 for bladder D50. Delivery time for all CDR plans and MUs for CDR400–600 were significantly higher when compared to VDR. HN cases showed significant differences between VDR and CDR100, 500 and 600 for D2 to the cord and brainstem. Significant differences were found for delivery time and MUs for all CDR plans, except CDR100 for number of MUs.

Conclusion:

The most significant differences were observed in delivery time and number of MUs. All-in-all, the best CDR for prostate cases was found to be 300 MUs/min and 200 or 300 MUs/min for HN cases. However, VDR plans are still the choice in terms of MU efficiency and plan quality.

Dosimetric comparison between IMRT and VMAT in irradiation for peripheral and central lung cancer

The aim of the present study was to compare intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in irradiation of lung cancer. Plans of 14 patients were compared. The results demonstrated that in peripheral lung cancer, V5 (%) of the lung in partial-arc (PA)-VMAT was decreased compared with IMRT, single-arc (SA)-, and double partial-arc (2PA)-VMAT. V30 (%) of the lung in IMRT was decreased compared with SA-, PA- and 2PA-VMAT. In the case of planning target volume (PTV) not encompassing the mediastinum in central lung cancer, the conformality index (CI) and heterogeneity index (HI) of SA-VMAT was improved compared with IMRT, PA-, and 2PA-VMAT. The received dose of heart in SA-VMAT was higher compared with IMRT, PA- and 2PA-VMAT. V30 (%) and V5 (%) of the lung in IMRT was higher compared with SA-, PA- and 2PA-VMAT; V10 (%) of the lung in 2PA was decreased compared with IMRT, SA- and PA. In the case of PTV encompassing the mediastinum in central lung cancer, the HI and CI of 2PA was improved compared with IMRT, SA- and PA-VMAT. The received dose of heart in 2PA was higher compared with IMRT, SA- and PA-VMAT. V30 (%) and V5 (%) of the lung in 2PA-VMAT was higher compared with IMRT, SA- and PA-VMAT. V20 (%) of the lung in 2PA was decreased compared with IMRT, SA- and PA-VMAT. In conclusion, it may be necessary to classify the radiotherapy plans of lung cancer into three categories including peripheral lung cancer, PTV not encompassing the mediastinum of central lung cancer, and PTV encompassing the mediastinum of central lung cancer. Each of IMRT, SA-VMAT, PA-VMAT, 2PA-VMAT strategy had individual advantages, and therefore it may be crucial to employ different planning techniques for different disease classifications and OAR requirements.

Volumetric modulated arc therapy for treatment of solid tumors: current insights

Aim

This article discusses the current use of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques in clinical practice and reviews the available data from clinical outcome studies in different clinical settings. An overview of available literature about clinical outcomes with VMAT stereotactic/radiosurgical treatment is also reported.

Materials and methods

All published manuscripts reporting the use of VMAT in a clinical setting from 2009 to November 2016 were identified. The search was carried out in December 2016 using the National Library of Medicine (PubMed/Medline). The following words were searched: “volumetric arc therapy”[All Fields] OR “vmat”[All Fields] OR “rapidarc”[All Fields], AND “radiotherapy”[All Fields] AND “Clinical Trial”[All Fields].

Results

Overall, 37 studies (21 prospective and 16 retrospective) fulfilling inclusion criteria and thus included in the review evaluated 2,029 patients treated with VMAT; of these patients, ~30.8% had genitourinary (GU) tumors (81% prostate, 19% endometrial), 26.2% head-and-neck cancer (H&NC), 13.9% oligometastases, 11.2% had anorectal cancer, 10.6% thoracic neoplasms (81% breast, 19% lung), and 7.0% brain metastases (BMs). Six different clinical scenarios for VMAT use were identified: 1) BMs, 2) H&NC, 3) thoracic neoplasms, 4) GU cancer, 5) anorectal tumor, and 6) stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) performed by VMAT technique in the oligometastatic patient setting.

Conclusion

The literature addressing the clinical appropriateness of VMAT is scarce. Current literature suggests that VMAT, especially when used as simultaneous integrated boost or SBRT strategy, is an effective safe modality for all cancer types.

Dosimetric effect of multileaf collimator leaf width on volumetric modulated arc stereotactic radiotherapy for spine tumors

This work aimed to study the dosimetric effect of multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf widths in treatment plans for patients receiving volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for spine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Thirteen patients treated with spine SBRT were retrospectively selected for this study. The patients were treated following the protocol of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0631 (RTOG 0631) for spine metastasis. The prescription dose was 16 Gy in 1 fraction to 90% of the target volume (V16 > 90%). The maximum spinal cord dose of 14 Gy and 10% of the spinal cord receiving < 10 Gy (V10) were the acceptable tolerance doses. For the purpose of this study, 2 dual-arc VMAT plans were created for each patient using 3 different MLC leaf widths: 2.5 mm, 4 mm, and 5 mm. The compliance with the RTOG 0631 protocol, conformity index (CI), dose gradient index (DGI), and number of monitor units (MUs) were compared. The average V16Gy of the targets was 91.8 ± 1.2%, 92.2 ± 2.1%, and 91.7 ± 2.3% for 2.5-mm, 4-mm, and 5-mm leaf widths, respectively (p = 0.78). Accordingly, the average CI was 1.45 ± 0.4, 1.47 ± 0.29, and 1.47 ± 0.31 (p = 0.98), respectively. The average DGI was 0.22 ± 0.04, 0.20 ± 0.06, and 0.22 ± 0.05, respectively (p = 0.77). The average maximum dose to the spinal cord was 12.45 ± 1.0 Gy, 12.80 ± 1.0 Gy, and 12.48 ± 1.1 (p = 0.62) and V10% of the spinal cord was 3.6 ± 2.1%, 5.6 ± 2.8%, and 5.5 ± 3.0% (p = 0.11) for 2.5-mm, 4-mm, and 5-mm leaf widths, respectively. Accordingly, the average number of MUs was 4341 ± 500 MU, 5019 ± 834 MU, and 4606 ± 691 MU, respectively (p = 0.053). The use of 2.5-mm, 4-mm, and 5-mm MLCs achieved similar VMAT plan quality as recommended by the RTOG 0631. The dosimetric parameters were also comparable for the 3 MLCs. In general, any of these leaf widths can be used for spine SBRT using VMAT.

Investigating the dosimetric effects of grid size on dose calculation accuracy using volumetric modulated arc therapy in spine stereotactic radiosurgery

PURPOSE

Sharp dose gradients between the target and the spinal cord are critical to achieve dose constraints in spine stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), however the accuracy of the doses to the spinal cord at these high dose gradients is sensitive to the how the dose is sampled across the structure using a discretized isotropic calculation grid. In this study, the effect of the grid size (GS) on the dosimetric accuracy of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) spine SRS plans was investigated.

METHODS

The Eclipse v11.0 Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) algorithm was used for dose calculation. Plan qualities of fifty treatment plans were evaluated with a GS of 2.5 (AAA's default value), 1.5 and 1mm. All plans were prescribed to the 90% isodose line in 1 fraction. Parameters used for plan comparison included the distance-to-fall-off (DTF) between the 90% and 50% isodose levels in the axial plane, planning tumor volume (PTV) coverage to 99%, 95%, 5% and 0.03cc, dose to 10% (Cord_D10%) and 0.03cc (Cord_D0.03cc) of the spinal cord sub volume. The dosimetric accuracy was evaluated based on film dosimetry percent gamma pass rate, line profile through the cord. Calculation times between different grid sizes as well as DVH algorithm differences between two treatment planning systems (Eclipse vs Velocity) were compared. Paired t-test was used to investigate the statistical significance.

RESULTS

The DTF decreased for all plans with 1mm compared to 1.5mm and 2.5mm GS (2.52±0.54mm, 2.83±0.58mm, 3.30±0.64, p<0.001). Relative to the 1mm GS, Cord_D0.03cc and Cord_D10% increased by 6.24% and 7.81% with the 1.5mm GS, and 9.80% and 13% with the 2.5mm GS. Film analysis demonstrated higher gamma pass rates for 1.5mm GS compared to 1 and 2.5mm GS (95.9%±5.4%, 94.3%±6.0%, 93.6%±5.4%, p<0.001), however 1mm GS showed better agreement in the high dose gradient near the cord. Calculation times for 1mm GS plans increased for 1.5 and 2.5mm GS (61% and 84%, p<0.001). The average difference between the two treatment planning systems was approximately 0-1.2%. A maximum difference of 5.9% occurred for Cord_D0.03cc for the 1mm GS.

CONCLUSION

Plans calculated with a 1mm grid size resulted in the most accurate representation of the dose delivered to the cord, however resulted in less uniform dose distributions in the high dose region of the PTV. The use of a 1.5mm grid size may balance accurate cord dose and PTV coverage, while also being more practical with respect to computation time.

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.

Dosimetric comparison between cone/Iris-based and InCise MLC-based CyberKnife plans for single and multiple brain metastases

We performed an evaluation of the CyberKnife InCise MLC by comparing plan qualities for single and multiple brain lesions generated using the first version of InCise MLC, fixed cone, and Iris collimators. We also investigated differences in delivery efficiency among the three collimators. Twenty‐four patients with single or multiple brain mets treated previously in our clinic on a CyberKnife M6 using cone/Iris collimators were selected for this study. Treatment plans were generated for all lesions using the InCise MLC. Number of monitor units, delivery time, target coverage, conformity index, and dose falloff were compared between MLC‐ and clinical cone/Iris‐based plans. Statistical analysis was performed using the nonparametric Wilcoxon‐Mann‐Whitney signed‐rank test. The planning accuracy of the MLC‐based plans was validated using chamber and film measurements. The InCise MLC‐based plans achieved mean dose and target coverage comparable to the cone/Iris‐based plans. Although the conformity indices of the MLC‐based plans were slightly higher than those of the cone/Iris‐based plans, beam delivery time for the MLC‐based plans was shorter by 30%∼40%. For smaller targets or cases with OARs located close to or abutting target volumes, MLC‐based plans provided inferior dose conformity compared to cone/Iris‐based plans. The QA results of MLC‐based plans were within 5% absolute dose difference with over 90% gamma passing rate using 2%/2 mm gamma criteria. The first version of InCise MLC could be a useful delivery modality, especially for clinical situations for which delivery time is a limiting factor or for multitarget cases.

PACS number(s): 87.53.Ly, 87.55.D‐

Dose Evaluation of Fractionated Schema and Distance From Tumor to Spinal Cord for Spinal SBRT with Simultaneous Integrated Boost: A Preliminary Study

BACKGROUND This study investigated and quantified the dosimetric impact of the distance from the tumor to the spinal cord and fractionation schemes for patients who received stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and hypofractionated simultaneous integrated boost (HF-SIB). MATERIAL AND METHODS Six modified planning target volumes (PTVs) for 5 patients with spinal metastases were created by artificial uniform extension in the region of PTV adjacent spinal cord with a specified minimum tumor to cord distance (0-5 mm). The prescription dose (biologic equivalent dose, BED) was 70 Gy in different fractionation schemes (1, 3, 5, and 10 fractions). For PTV V100, Dmin, D98, D95, and D1, spinal cord dose, conformity index (CI), V30 were measured and compared. RESULTS PTV-to-cord distance influenced PTV V100, Dmin, D98, and D95, and fractionation schemes influenced Dmin and D98, with a significant difference. Distances of ≥2 mm, ≥1 mm, ≥1 mm, and ≥0 mm from PTV to spinal cord meet dose requirements in 1, 3, 5, and 10 fractionations, respectively. Spinal cord dose, CI, and V30 were not impacted by PTV-to-cord distance and fractionation schemes. CONCLUSIONS Target volume coverage, Dmin, D98, and D95 were directly correlated with distance from the spinal cord for spine SBRT and HF-SIB. Based on our study, ≥2 mm, ≥1 mm, ≥1 mm, and ≥0 mm distance from PTV to spinal cord meets dose requirements in 1, 3, 5 and 10 fractionations, respectively.

Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Spine Radiosurgery: Superior Treatment Planning and Delivery Compared to Static Beam Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy

PURPOSE

Spine stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) delivers an accurate and efficient high radiation dose to vertebral metastases in 1-5 fractions. We aimed to compare volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to static beam intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for spine SRS.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Ten spine lesions of previously treated SRS patients were planned retrospectively using both IMRT and VMAT with a prescribed dose of 16 Gy to 100% of the planning target volume (PTV). The plans were compared for conformity, homogeneity, treatment delivery time, and safety (spinal cord dose).

RESULTS

All evaluated parameters favored the VMAT plan over the IMRT plans. D min in the IMRT was significantly lower than in the VMAT plan (7.65 Gy/10.88 Gy, p < 0.001), the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) was found to be significantly better for the VMAT plans compared to the IMRT plans (0.77/0.58, resp., p  value < 0.01), and an almost 50% reduction in the net treatment time was calculated for the VMAT compared to the IMRT plans (6.73 min/12.96 min, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In our report, VMAT provides better conformity, homogeneity, and safety profile. The shorter treatment time is a major advantage and not only provides convenience to the painful patient but also contributes to the precision of this high dose radiation therapy.

Dosimetric impact of different CT datasets for stereotactic treatment planning using 3D conformal radiotherapy or volumetric modulated arc therapy

Background

The purpose of this study was to assess the impact on dose to the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OAR) by using four differently generated CT datasets for dose calculation in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) of lung and liver tumors. Additionally, dose differences between 3D conformal radiotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans calculated on these CT datasets were determined.

Methods

Twenty SBRT patients, ten lung cases and ten liver cases, were retrospectively selected for this study. Treatment plans were optimized on average intensity projection (AIP) CTs using 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Afterwards, the plans were copied to the planning CTs (PCT), maximum intensity projection (MIP) and mid-ventilation (MidV) CT datasets and dose was recalculated keeping all beam parameters and monitor units unchanged. Ipsilateral lung and liver volumes and dosimetric parameters for PTV (D_mean, D₂, D₉₈, D₉₅), ipsilateral lung and liver (D_mean, V₃₀, V₂₀, V₁₀) were determined and statistically analysed using Wilcoxon test.

Results

Significant but small mean differences were found for PTV dose between the CTs (lung SBRT: ≤2.5 %; liver SBRT: ≤1.6 %). MIPs achieved the smallest lung and the largest liver volumes. OAR mean doses in MIP plans were distinctly smaller than in the other CT datasets. Furthermore, overlapping of tumors with the diaphragm results in underestimated ipsilateral lung dose in MIP plans. Best agreement was found between AIP and MidV (lung SBRT). Overall, differences in liver SBRT were smaller than in lung SBRT and VMAT plans achieved slightly smaller differences than 3D-CRT plans.

Conclusions

Only small differences were found for PTV parameters between the four CT datasets. Larger differences occurred for the doses to organs at risk (ipsilateral lung, liver) especially for MIP plans. No relevant differences were observed between 3D-CRT or VMAT plans. MIP CTs are not appropriate for OAR dose assessment. PCT, AIP and MidV resulted in similar doses. If a 4DCT is acquired PCT can be omitted using AIP or MidV for treatment planning.

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”.

Inter- and intra-fraction motion in stereotactic body radiotherapy for spinal and paraspinal tumours using cone-beam CT and positional correction in six degrees of freedom

INTRODUCTION

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for spinal tumours delivers high doses per fraction to targets in close proximity to neural tissue. With steep dose gradients, small changes in position can confer significant dosimetric impact on adjacent structures. We analysed positioning error in consecutively treated patients on a strict image-guidance protocol with online correction in 6 degrees of freedom (6-DOF).

METHODS

Set-up error, residual error post-correction and intra-fraction motion for 30 courses of spinal SBRT in 27 patients were assessed using cone-beam CT. Positional error was corrected in x, y and z translational planes and rotational axes using a robotic couch, applying 2 mm and 2° action levels. Linear mixed-effects model assessed whether positional error was influenced by factors such as vertebral level, immobilisation device and treatment duration.

RESULTS

Sixty-two fractions were delivered with 225 image registrations. Median treatment duration was significantly longer for patients treated with static-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy compared with volumetric-modulated arc treatment--40 min versus 28 min, respectively (P = 0.01). Across all fractions, the median residual positional error after initial correction was greatest in the x translational plane (0.5 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.3-0.6) and y rotational axis (0.25°; 95% CI 0.1-0.3). Median intra-fraction error was also greatest in the x-plane (0.7 mm; 95% CI 0.5-1.0) and y-axis (0.4°; 95% CI 0.2-0.5).

CONCLUSION

With strict immobilisation, image-guidance and 6-DOF correction, our current practice of applying 3-mm planning margins for target volumes and critical structures appears safe. Lower image-guidance action thresholds plus verification with end-to-end testing would be recommended before further reducing margins.

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 review of stereotactic body radiotherapy - is volumetric modulated arc therapy the answer?

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is a high precision radiotherapy technique used for the treatment of small to moderate extra-cranial tumours. Early studies utilising SBRT have shown favourable outcomes. However, major disadvantages of static field SBRT include long treatment times and toxicity complications. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) may potentially mitigate these disadvantages. This review aims to assess the feasibility of emerging VMAT and IMRT-based SBRT treatment techniques and qualify which offers the best outcome for patients, whilst identifying any emerging and advantageous SBRT planning trends. A review and synthesis of data from current literature up to September 2013 was conducted on EMBASE, Medline, PubMed, Science Direct, Proquest central, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews. Only full text papers comparing VMAT and or IMRT and or Static SBRT were included. Ten papers were identified that evaluated the results of VMAT/IMRT SBRT. Five related to medically inoperable stage 1 and 2 non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), three to spinal metastasis, one related to abdominal lymph node malignancies, with the final one looking at pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Overall treatment times with VMAT were reduced by 66–70% for lung, 46–58% for spine, 42% and 21% for lymph node and pancreatic metastasis respectively, planning constraints were met with several studies showing improved organs at risk sparing with IMRT/VMAT to static SBRT. Both IMRT and VMAT were able to meet all planning constraints in the studies reviewed, with VMAT offering the greatest treatment efficiency. Early clinical outcomes with VMAT and IMRT SBRT have demonstrated excellent local control and favourable survival outcomes.

Sub-millimeter spine position monitoring for stereotactic body radiotherapy using offline digital tomosynthesis

PURPOSE

Spine stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT) requires intrafraction motion <1-2mm. We evaluated the accuracy and precision of digital tomosynthesis (DTS) in combination with triangulation for spine position tracking.

MATERIALS/METHODS

Single-slice DTS images were generated from kV cone beam CT (CBCT) projection images. They were registered to reference DTS images reconstructed from the planning CT-scan to determine 2D shifts between actual patient position and treatment plan position. 3D spine position was obtained by triangulation of each registration with a previous registration, for every 1° of data. For 7 patients who underwent spine SBRT, the standard deviation (SD) of DTS+triangulation over one entire dataset was evaluated for different DTS angles (2-16°) and triangulation angles (1-46°). For 32 CBCT datasets, acquired before or after treatment of the 7 patients, using 4° DTS and 18° triangulation angle, SDs were determined and average positions were compared to clinically performed CBCT registrations.

RESULTS

Mean SDs were 0.29±0.10mm for lateral (range 0.1-0.55mm), 0.14±0.08 for longitudinal (0.05-0.39) and 0.24±0.10 for the vertical direction (0.10-0.57). Lateral and vertical SDs for thoracic spine were higher than for lumbar spine. Differences between clinical CBCT registration and DTS+triangulation were 0.1±0.26, 0.02±0.33 and -0.07±0.21mm.

CONCLUSION

The combination of DTS and triangulation allows for monitoring spine position with sub-mm accuracy and precision.

Dosimetric Evaluation of Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy (RapidArc) for Primary Leiomyosarcoma in the Spine

This study aims to investigate the suitability of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with RapidArc for primary leiomyosarcoma (LMS) in the spine, and present a new method to improve the target coverage and organs at risk (OAR) sparing. Five patients with LMS were retrospectively reviewed. The intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with five coplanar beams (5b-IMRT) or seven coplanar beams (7b-IMRT), and VMAT using four quasi-quarter coplanar arcs (4q-VMAT) or two full coplanar arcs (2f-VMAT) were generated. Planning target volume (PTV) dose coverage, OAR dose sparing, conformity index (CI), and homogeneity index (HI) were evaluated. A hollow-cylinder model (HCM) was also used for feasible optimal beam arrangements. The mean doses to PTV were 95.2% ± 1.0%, 93.0% ± 1.0%, 97.9% ± 1.0% and 96.2% ± 1.5% for 4q-VMAT, 2f-VMAT, 5b-IMRT and 7b-IMRT respectively, while the mean maximum doses to spinal cord (SC) were 43.7 ± 0.9 Gy, 42.0 ± 0.8 Gy, 41.4 ± 1.2 Gy and 40.6 ± 1.4 Gy. Compared to 5b-IMRT, the mean doses delivered to kidneys decreased by about 35.1% (8.5 Gy), 2.5% (0.6 Gy) and 35.5% (8.6 Gy) for 4q-VMAT, 2f-VMAT, and 7b-IMRT, respectively. The CI proposed by Baltas et al. was twice as good with IMRT than with 4q-VMAT, and the numbers of monitor units were increased five- and threefold with 7b-IMRT and with 5b-IMRT compared to VMAT. The unexpected results we presented here show that VMAT technique can't achieve highly conformal treatment plans while maintaining SC sparing for LMS in the spine. An approach is proposed based on a hollow-cylinder model, but it is difficult to apply to clinical practice. In this case, VMAT is not superior to IMRT except for significant reduction in delivery time.

IMRT and RapidArc commissioning of a TrueBeam linear accelerator using TG-119 protocol cases

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the overall accuracy of intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and RapidArc delivery using both flattening filter (FF) and flattening filter‐free (FFF) modalities based on test cases developed by AAPM Task Group 119. Institutional confidence limits (CLs) were established as the baseline for patient specific treatment plan quality assurance (QA). The effects of gantry range, gantry speed, leaf speed, dose rate, as well as the capability to capture intentional errors, were evaluated by measuring a series of Picket Fence (PF) tests using the electronic portal imaging device (EPID) and EBT3 films. Both IMRT and RapidArc plans were created in a Solid Water phantom (30 × 30 × 15 cm3) for the TG‐119 test cases representative of normal clinical treatment sites for all five photon energies (6X, 10X, 15X, 6X‐FFF, 10X‐FFF) and the Exact IGRT couch was included in the dose calculation. One high‐dose point in the PTV and one low‐dose point in the avoidance structure were measured with an ion chamber in each case for each energy. Similarly, two GAFCHROMIC EBT3 films were placed in the coronal planes to measure planar dose distributions in both high‐ and low‐dose regions. The confidence limit was set to have 95% of the measured data fall within the tolerance. The mean of the absolute dose deviation for variable dose rate and gantry speed during RapidArc delivery was within 0.5% for all energies. The corresponding results for leaf speed tests were all within 0.4%. The combinations of dynamic leaf gap (DLG) and MLC transmission factor were optimized based on the ion chamber measurement results of RapidArc delivery for each energy. The average 95% CLs for the high‐dose point in the PTV were 0.030 ± 0.007 (range, 0.022–0.038) for the IMRT plans and 0.029 ± 0.011 (range, 0.016–0.043) for the RapidArc plans. For low‐point dose in the avoidance structures, the CLs were 0.029 ± 0.006 (range, 0.024–0.039) for the IMRT plans and 0.027 ± 0.013 (range, 0.017–0.047) for the RapidArc plans. The average 95% CLs using 3%/3 mm gamma criteria in the high‐dose region were 5.9 ± 2.7 (range, 1.4–8.6) and 3.9 ± 2.9 (range, 1.5–8.8) for IMRT and RapidArc plans, respectively. The average 95% CLs in the low‐dose region were 5.3 ± 2.6 (range, 1.2–7.4) and 3.7 ± 2.8 (range, 1.8–8.3) for IMRT and RapidArc plans, respectively. Based on ion chamber, as well as film measurements, we have established CLs values to ensure the high precision of IMRT and RapidArc delivery for both FF and FFF modalities.

PACS number: 87

Efficiency gains for spinal radiosurgery using multicriteria optimization intensity modulated radiation therapy guided volumetric modulated arc therapy planning

PURPOSE

To evaluate plan quality and delivery efficiency gains of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) versus a multicriteria optimization-based intensity modulated radiation therapy (MCO-IMRT) for stereotactic radiosurgery of spinal metastases.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

MCO-IMRT plans (RayStation V2.5; RaySearch Laboratories, Stockholm, Sweden) of 10 spinal radiosurgery cases using 7-9 beams were developed for clinical delivery, and patients were replanned using VMAT with partial arcs. The prescribed dose was 18 Gy, and target coverage was maximized such that the maximum dose to the planning organ-at-risk volume (PRV) of the spinal cord was 10 or 12 Gy. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) constraints from the clinically acceptable MCO-IMRT plans were utilized for VMAT optimization. Plan quality and delivery efficiency with and without collimator rotation for MCO-IMRT and VMAT were compared and analyzed based upon DVH, planning target volume coverage, homogeneity index, conformity number, cord PRV sparing, total monitor units (MU), and delivery time.

RESULTS

The VMAT plans were capable of matching most DVH constraints from the MCO-IMRT plans. The ranges of MU were 4808-7193 for MCO-IMRT without collimator rotation, 3509-5907 for MCO-IMRT with collimator rotation, 4444-7309 for VMAT without collimator rotation, and 3277-5643 for VMAT with collimator of 90 degrees. The MU for the VMAT plans were similar to their corresponding MCO-IMRT plans, depending upon the complexity of the target and PRV geometries, but had a larger range. The delivery times of the MCO-IMRT and VMAT plans, both with collimator rotation, were 18.3 ± 2.5 minutes and 14.2 ± 2.0 minutes, respectively (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The MCO-IMRT and VMAT can create clinically acceptable plans for spinal radiosurgery. The MU for MCO-IMRT and VMAT can be reduced significantly by utilizing a collimator rotation following the orientation of the spinal cord. Plan quality for VMAT is similar to MCO-IMRT, with similar MU for both modalities. Delivery times can be reduced by nominally 25% with VMAT.

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.