Why all radiotherapy planning studies are wrong but some are useful

Benchmarking Tests of Contemporary SRS Platforms: Have Technological Developments Resulted in Improved Treatment Plan Quality?

PURPOSE

Stereotactic radiosurgery treatment delivery can be performed with a range of devices, each of which have evolved over recent years. We sought to evaluate the differences in performance of contemporary stereotactic radiosurgery platforms and also to compare them with earlier platform iterations from a previous benchmarking study.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The following platforms were selected as "state of the art" in 2022: Gamma Knife Icon (GK), CyberKnife S7 (CK), Brainlab Elements (Elekta VersaHD and Varian TrueBeam), Varian Edge with HyperArc (HA), and Zap-X. Six benchmarking cases were used from a 2016 study. To reflect the evolution of increasing numbers of metastases treated per patient, a 14-target case was added. The 28 targets among the 7 patients ranged from 0.02 to 7.2 cc in volume. Participating centers were sent images and contours for each patient and asked to plan them to the best of their ability. Although some variation in local practice was allowed (eg, margins), groups were asked to prescribe a specified dose to each target and tolerance doses to organs at risk were agreed upon. Parameters compared included coverage, selectivity, Paddick conformity index, gradient index (GI), R50%, efficiency index, doses to organs at risk, and planning and treatment times.

RESULTS

Mean coverage for all targets ranged from 98.2% (Brainlab/Elekta) to 99.7% (HA-6X). Paddick conformity index values ranged from 0.722 (Zap-X) to 0.894 (CK). GI ranged from a mean of 3.52 (GK), representing the steepest dose gradient, to 5.08 (HA-10X). The GI appeared to follow a trend with beam energy, with the lowest values from the lower energy platforms (GK, 1.25 MeV; Zap-X, 3 MV) and the highest value from the highest energy (HA-10X). Mean R50% values ranged from 4.48 (GK) to 5.98 (HA-10X). Treatment times were lowest for C-arm linear accelerators.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with earlier studies, newer equipment appears to deliver higher quality treatments. CyberKnife and linear accelerator platforms appear to give higher conformity whereas lower energy platforms yield a steeper dose gradient.

VMAT partial arc technique decreases dose to organs at risk in whole pelvic radiotherapy for prostate cancer when compared to full arc VMAT and IMRT

Whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) can sterilize microscopic lymph node metastases in treatment of prostate cancer. WPRT, compared to prostate only radiotherapy (PORT), is associated with increased acute gastrointestinal, and hematological toxicities. To further explore minimizing normal tissue toxicities associated with WPRT in definitive IMRT for prostate cancer, this planning study compared dosimetric differences between static 9-field-IMRT, full arc VMAT, and mixed partial-full arc VMAT techniques. In this retrospective study, 12 prostate cancer patients who met the criteria for WPRT were randomly selected for this study. The initial volume, PTV46, included the prostate, seminal vesicles, and pelvic nodes with margin and was prescribed to 4600 cGy. The cone-down volume, PTV78, included the prostate and proximal seminal vesicles with margin to a total dose of 7800 cGy. For each CT image set, 3 plans were generated for each of the PTVs: an IMRT plan, a full arc (FA) VMAT plan, and a mixed partial-full arc (PFA) VMAT plan, using 6MV photons energy. According to RTOG protocols none of the plans had a major Conformity Index (CI) violation by any of the 3 planning techniques. PFA plan had the best mean CI index of 1.00 and significantly better than IMRT (p = 0.03) and FA (p = 0.007). For equivalent PTV coverage, the average composite gradient index of the PFA plans was better than the IMRT and the FA plans with values 1.92, 2.03, and 2.01 respectively. The defference was statistically significant between PFA/IMRT and PFA/FA, with p- values of < 0.001. The IMRT plans and the PFA plans provided very similar doses to the rectum, bladder, sigmoid colon, and femoral heads, which were lower than the dose in the FA plans. There was a significant decrease in the mean dose to the rectum from 4524 cGy with the FA to 4182 cGy with the PFA and 4091 cGy with IMRT (p < 0.001). The percent of rectum receiving 4000 cGy was also the highest with FA at 66.1% compared to 49.9% (PFA) and 47.5% (IMRT). There was a significant decrease in the mean dose to the bladder from 3922 cGy (FA) to 3551 cGy (PFA) and 3612 cGy (IMRT) (p < 0.001). The percent of bladder receiving 4000 cGy was also the highest with FA at 45.4% compared to 36.6% (PFA) and 37.4% (IMRT). The average mean dose to the sigmoid colon decreased from 4177 cGy (FA) to 3893 cGy (PFA) and 3819 cGy (IMRT). The average mean dose to the femoral heads decreased from 2091 cGy (FA) to 2026 cGy (PFA) and 1987 cGy (IMRT). Considering the improvement in plan quality indices recorded in this study including the dose gradient and the dose to organs at risk, mixed partial-full arc plans may be the preferred VMAT treatment technique over full arc plans for prostate cancer treatments that include nodal volumes.

Dosimetric Comparison of Ultra-Hypofractionated and Conventionally Fractionated Radiation Therapy Boosts for Patients with High-Risk Prostate Cancer

Recent comparison of an ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy (UF-RT) boost to a conventionally fractionated (CF-RT) option showed similar toxicity and disease control outcomes. An analysis of the treatment plans for these patients is needed for evaluating calculated doses for different organs, treatment beam-on time, and requirements for human and financial resources. Eighty-six plans for UF-RT and 93 plans for CF-RT schemes were evaluated. The biologically equivalent dose, EQD2, summed for the first phase and the boost, was calculated for dose-volume parameters for organs at risk (OARs), as well as for the PTV1. ArcCHECK measurements for the boost plans were used for a comparison of planned and delivered doses. Monitor units and beam-on times were recorded by the Eclipse treatment planning system. Statistical analysis was performed with a significance level of 0.05. Dosimetric parameter values for OARs were well within tolerance for both groups. EQD2 for the PTV1 was on average 84 Gy for UF-RT patients and 76 Gy for CF-RT patients. Gamma passing rate for planned/delivered doses comparison was above 98% for both groups with 3 mm/3% distance to agreement/dose difference criteria. Total monitor units per fraction were 647 ± 94 and 2034 ± 570 for CF-RT and UF-RT, respectively. The total delivery time for boost radiation for the patients in the UF-RT arm was, on average, four times less than the total time for a conventional regimen with statistically equal clinical outcomes for the two arms in this study.