Dosimetric comparison of RapidArc with fixed gantry intensity-modulated radiotherapy treatment for multiple liver metastases radiotherapy

Feasibility and dosimetric evaluation of single- and multi-isocentre stereotactic body radiation therapy for multiple liver metastases

Objectives

Single-isocentre volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) improves treatment efficiency and patient compliance for patients with multiple liver metastases (MLM). However, the potential increase in dose spillage to normal liver tissue using a single-isocentre technique has not yet been studied. We comprehensively evaluated the quality of single- and multi-isocentre VMAT-SBRT for MLM and propose a RapidPlan-based automatic planning (AP) approach for MLM SBRT.

Methods

A total of 30 patients with MLM (two or three lesions) were selected for this retrospective study. We manually replanned all patients treated with MLM SBRT by using the single-isocentre (MUS) and multi-isocentre (MUM) techniques. Then, we randomly selected 20 MUS and MUM plans for training to generate the single-isocentre RapidPlan model (RPS) and the multi-isocentre RapidPlan model (RPM). Finally, we used data from the remaining 10 patients to validate RPS and RPM.

Results

Compared with MUS, MUM reduced the mean dose delivered to the right kidney by 0.3 Gy. The mean liver dose (MLD) was 2.3 Gy higher for MUS compared with MUM. However, the monitor units, delivery time, and V20Gy of normal liver (liver-gross tumour volume) for MUM were significantly higher than for MUS. Based on validation, RPS and RPM slightly improved the MLD, V20Gy, normal tissue complications, and dose sparing to the right and left kidneys and spinal cord compared with manual plans (MUS vs RPS and MUM vs RPM), but RPS and RPM significantly increased monitor units and delivery time.

Conclusions

The single-isocentre VMAT-SBRT approach could be used for MLM to reduce treatment time and patient comfort at the cost of a small increase in the MLD. Compared with the manual plans, RapidPlan-based plans, especially RPS, have slightly improved quality.

Dosimetric analysis and comparison of volumetric-modulated arc therapy versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy for liver carcinoma

Aim:

This study dosimetrically compared volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMRT) for patients with liver carcinoma.

Materials and methods:

Ten patients with liver carcinoma previously treated with IMRT or VMAT were retrospectively selected for this study. Each patient received a total dose of 54 Gy in 1·8 Gy fractions. Dosimetric evaluations for each patient were performed using the dose–volume histograms (DVHs) for planning target volumes (PTVs) and organs at risk (OAR). All dosimetric parameters were statistically analysed using mean values, standard deviations and p-values for determining the significance. The conformality index (CI) and homogeneity index (HI) were calculated and compared. For efficiency evaluation, monitor units (MUs) and beam on times (BOT) were recorded.

Results:

Compared to IMRT, VMAT plans showed significant differences in the heterogeneity with p < 0·01 and insignificant differences in both conformality and normal tissue sparing. VMAT required marginally fewer mean MU and shorter BOT when compared to IMRT with insignificant differences.

Conclusions:

For radiation therapy treatment of liver carcinoma, IMRT and VMAT can achieve similar PTV coverage and normal tissue sparing. Treatment time is only marginally shorter with VMAT versus IMRT with insignificant differences.

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.

Feasibility of using intermediate x-ray energies for highly conformal extracranial radiotherapy

PURPOSE

To investigate the feasibility of using intermediate energy 2 MV x-rays for extracranial robotic intensity modulated radiation therapy.

METHODS

Two megavolts flattening filter free x-rays were simulated using the Monte Carlo code MCNP (v4c). A convolution/superposition dose calculation program was tuned to match the Monte Carlo calculation. The modeled 2 MV x-rays and actual 6 MV flattened x-rays from existing Varian Linacs were used in integrated beam orientation and fluence optimization for a head and neck, a liver, a lung, and a partial breast treatment. A column generation algorithm was used for the intensity modulation and beam orientation optimization. Identical optimization parameters were applied in three different planning modes for each site: 2, 6 MV, and dual energy 2/6 MV.

RESULTS

Excellent agreement was observed between the convolution/superposition and the Monte Carlo calculated percent depth dose profiles. For the patient plans, overall, the 2/6 MV x-ray plans had the best dosimetry followed by 2 MV only and 6 MV only plans. Between the two single energy plans, the PTV coverage was equivalent but 2 MV x-rays improved organs-at-risk sparing. For the head and neck case, the 2 MV plan reduced lips, mandible, tongue, oral cavity, brain, larynx, left and right parotid gland mean doses by 14%, 8%, 4%, 14%, 24%, 6%, 30% and 16%, respectively. For the liver case, the 2 MV plan reduced the liver and body mean doses by 17% and 18%, respectively. For the lung case, lung V 20, V 10, and V5 were reduced by 13%, 25%, and 30%, respectively. V 10 of heart with 2 MV plan was reduced by 59%. For the partial breast treatment, the 2 MV plan reduced the mean dose to the ipsilateral and contralateral lungs by 27% and 47%, respectively. The mean body dose was reduced by 16%.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors showed the feasibility of using flattening filter free 2 MV x-rays for extracranial treatments as evidenced by equivalent or superior dosimetry compared to 6 MV plans using the same inverse noncoplanar intensity modulated planning method.

A comparison of liver protection among 3-D conformal radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy and RapidArc for hepatocellular carcinoma

Purpose

The analysis was designed to compare dosimetric parameters among 3-D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and RapidArc (RA) to identify which can achieve the lowest risk of radiation-induced liver disease (RILD) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Methods

Twenty patients with HCC were enrolled in this study. Dosimetric values for 3DCRT, IMRT, and RA were calculated for total dose of 50 Gy/25f. The percentage of the normal liver volume receiving >40, >30, >20, >10, and >5 Gy (V₄₀, V₃₀, V₂₀, V₁₀ and V₅) were evaluated to determine liver toxicity. V₅, V₁₀, V₂₀, V₃₀ and D_mean of liver were compared as predicting parameters for RILD. Other parameters included the conformal index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), and hot spot (V_110%) for the planned target volume (PTV) as well as the monitor units (MUs) for plan efficiency, the mean dose (D_mean) for the organs at risk (OARs) and the maximal dose at 1% volume (D_1%) for the spinal cord.

Results

The D_mean of IMRT was higher than 3DCRT (p = 0.045). For V₅, there was a significant difference: RA > IMRT >3DCRT (p <0.05). 3DCRT had a lower V₁₀ and higher V₂₀, V₃₀ values for liver than RA (p <0.05). RA and IMRT achieved significantly better CI and lower V_110% values than 3DCRT (p <0.05). RA had better HI, lower MUs and shorter delivery time than 3DCRT or IMRT (p <0.05).

Conclusion

For right lobe tumors, RapidArc may have the lowest risk of RILD with the lowest V₂₀ and V₃₀ compared with 3DCRT or IMRT. For diameters of tumors >8 cm in our study, the value of D_mean for 3DCRT was lower than IMRT or RapidArc. This may indicate that 3DCRT is more suitable for larger tumors.

Assessing the role of volumetric-modulated arc therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma

The role of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to determine the potential clinical role of VMAT compared with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D CRT) for liver irradiation. Four-dimensional CT scans of 24patients with unresectable HCC were included and divided into two groups: (1) adjacent group (n = 11), with planning target volumes overlapping or within 1 cm adjacent to the alimentary tract; (2) nonadjacent group (n = 13), in which the normal liver itself was the dose-limiting structure. Target coverage, organs-at-risk (OARs) doses, delivery parameters, and treatment accuracy were evaluated. Superior target coverage, conformity, and homogeneity were achieved with VMAT compared with 3D CRT. In the adjacent group, VMAT provided superior sparing of serial functioning OARs including the stomach, small intestine, and spinal cord. In the nonadjacent group, VMAT provided inferior sparing of most OARs including the liver, stomach, and small intestine. For the whole group, the effective treatment time was 2.1 ± 0.3 min for 3D CRT and 3.1 ± 0.2 min for VMAT. For liver lesions adjacent to the alimentary tract, this study indicates that VMAT should be selected due to the plan quality, delivery efficiency, and superior sparing of stomach and small intestine. However, for liver lesions away from the alimentary tract, VMAT is not superior to 3D CRT for normal tissue protection.

Dosimetric differences among volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy (RapidArc) plans based on different target volumes in radiotherapy of hepatocellular carcinoma

We investigated the dosimetric differences among volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy (RapidArc, RA) plans designed for various target volumes in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Ten HCC patients underwent 3D-CT scanning at free breathing (FB), 3D-CT at end inspiration hold (EIH) assisted by an Active Breathing Coordinator (ABC), and 4D-CT scanning. Gross tumor volumes (GTVs) were manually contoured on CT images. The individualized internal gross target volume (IGTV(1)) was obtained from 10 GTVs from 4D-CT images. Tumor individual margins were measured from GTV(FB) to IGTV(1). The IGTV(2) was obtained from GTV(FB) by applying individual margins. Four planning target volumes (PTV(1-4)) were obtained from IGTV(1), IGTV(2), GTV(FB), and GTV(EIH), respectively. An RA plan was designed for each of the PTVs (RA(1-4)). One 358° arc was used for PTVs(1-3), while three 135° arcs were used for PTV(4). It was found that PTV(2) and PTV(3) were larger than PTV(1) and PTV(4). The mean values of PTV(3)/PTV(1) and PTV(3)/PTV(4) were 2.5 and 1.9, respectively. The individual margins in the X, Y and Z axial directions varied greatly among these patients. There were no significant differences in the conformal index or homogeneity index among the four RA plans. RA(1) and RA(4) significantly reduced the radiation dose of normal liver tissue compared with RA(2) and RA(3) (P < 0.01). There were no significant differences between the radiation doses of the stomach and duodenum. RapidArc combined with 4D-CT or ABC technology is a promising method in radiotherapy of HCC, and accurately targeted the tumor volume while sparing more normal liver tissue.

A prospective trial of volumetric intensity-modulated arc therapy vs conventional intensity modulated radiation therapy in advanced head and neck cancer

AIM: To prospectively compare volumetric intensity-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and conventional intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in coverage of planning target volumes and avoidance of multiple organs at risk (OARs) in patients undergoing definitive chemoradiotherapy for advanced (stage III or IV) squamous cell cancer of the head and neck.

METHODS: Computed tomography scans of 20 patients with advanced tumors of the larynx, naso-, oro- and hypopharynx were prospectively planned using IMRT (7 field) and VMAT using two arcs. Calculated doses to planning target volume (PTV) and OAR were compared between IMRT and VMAT plans. Dose-volume histograms (DVH) were utilized to obtain calculated doses to PTV and OAR, including parotids, cochlea, spinal cord, brainstem, anterior tongue, pituitary and brachial plexus. DVH’s for all structures were compared between IMRT and VMAT plans. In addition the plans were compared for dose conformity and homogeneity. The final treatment plan was chosen by the treating radiation oncologist.

RESULTS: VMAT was chosen as the ultimate plan in 18 of 20 patients (90%) because the plans were thought to be otherwise clinically equivalent. The IMRT plan was chosen in 2 of 20 patients because the VMAT plan produced concentric irradiation of the cord which was not overcome even with an avoidance structure. For all patients, VMAT plans had a lower number of average monitor units on average (MU = 542.85) than IMRT plans (MU = 1612.58) (P < 0.001). Using the conformity index (CI), defined as the 95% isodose volume divided by the PTV, the IMRT plan was more conformal with a lower conformity index (CI = 1.61) than the VMAT plan (CI = 2.00) (P = 0.003). Dose homogeneity, as measured by average standard deviation of dose distribution over the PTV, was not different with VMAT (1.45 Gy) or IMRT (1.73 Gy) (P = 0.069). There were no differences in sparing organs at risk.

CONCLUSION: In this prospective study, VMAT plans were chosen over IMRT 90% of the time. Compared to IMRT, VMAT plans used only one third of the MUs, had shorter treatment times, and similar sparing of OAR. Overall, VMAT provided similar dose homogeneity but less conformity in PTV irradiation compared to IMRT. This difference in conformity was not clinically significant.