Comparing the robustness of different skin flash approaches using wide tangents, manual flash VMAT, and simulated organ motion robust optimization VMAT in breast and nodal radiotherapy

Hybrid VMAT-3DCRT as breast cancer treatment improvement tool

Radiation therapy is an important tool in the treatment of breast cancer and can play a crucial role in improving patient outcomes. For breast cancer, if the technique has been for a long time the use of 3DCRT, clinicians have seen the management evolve greatly in recent years. Field-in-field and IMRT approaches and more recently dynamic arctherapy are increasingly available. All of these approaches are constantly trying to improve tumour coverage and to preserve organs at risk by minimising the doses delivered to them. If arctherapy allows a considerable reduction of high doses received by healthy tissues, no one can deny that it also leads to an increase of low doses in tissues that would not have received any with other techniques. We propose a hybrid approach combining the robustness of the 3DCRT approach and the high technicality and efficiency of arctherapy. Statistical tests (ANOVA, Wilcoxon, determination coefficient, ROC, etc.) allow us to draw conclusions about the possibility of using the hybrid approach in certain cases (right breast, BMI [Formula: see text], age [Formula: see text], target volume [Formula: see text] cc, etc.). Depending on the breast laterality and patients morphological characteristics, hybridization may prove to be a therapeutic tool of choice in the management of breast cancer in radiotherapy.

Implementation of automated personalised breast radiotherapy planning techniques with scripting in Raystation

OBJECTIVE

Implement scripted automatic breast planning (AP) for breast techniques within Raystation.

METHODS

Manual plans (MPs) were re-planned and compared with AP plans for whole breast (WB), partial breast (PB), hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy simultaneous integrated boost (VMAT SIB) and VMAT nodal plans.

RESULTS

WB AP plans took 7 min comparing well to MP. One WB AP failed a mandatory dose constraint. Small statistically significant differences showed improved coverage for AP at expense of slightly hotter plans, however absolute differences were small (mean differences < 1% or D _0.5cc<0.2 Gy). PB AP plans took 9 min, showing improved coverage (V _24.7Gy97.6 vs 96.4 %). One PB AP case failed a mandatory constraint. Other dosimetric differences were non-significant. SIB AP plans took 14 min with one case failing a mandatory constraint with minor differences compared with MP except larger V _42.8Gy (3 vs 1.5 %) and more MU. VMAT AP plans took 12 min and were hotter for PTVp_4000 but had higher nodal coverage. Contra_Lung V _2.5Gy was higher (8.8 %) than MP plans (6.5 %).

CONCLUSION

Automatic planning of modern breast techniques has been successfully introduced using a commercial planning system. AP plans are very similar to MP, requiring little manual interaction for most cases with significant timesaving potential.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

Scripted breast plans produced within minutes for WB, PB, SIB and VMAT. Successfully introduced into large busy department. Plans similar to manual plans, requiring little manual interaction.

Robustness of Breast Margins with Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy without a Six-Degrees-of-Freedom Couch: A Dosimetric Evaluation

In our hospital, a TrueBeam linear accelerator and the PerfectPitch 6-degrees-of-freedom (6-DOF) couch (Varian), with 7 mm margins, are used for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) of breast cancer (BC). This study tested whether a 3-degrees-of-freedom (3-DOF) couch, i.e., without rotation compensation (such as the Halcyon couch), affected dose metrics. A total of 446 daily extended cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) data of 20 patients who received VMAT for BC were used to recalculate the treatment plans with the session registration (6-DOF) and a simulated matching with 3-DOF. The initial plan provided significantly better coverage for internal mammary chain and clavicular lymph node clinical target volumes (CTVs) than the 6-DOF and 3-DOF CBCT plans. The volumes receiving 110% of the prescribed dose (V110%) were increased for all CTVs with the 6-DOF and 3-DOF CBCT plans, but the difference was significant only for the breast/chest wall CTV (p < 0.05; paired samples t-test). Protection of the heart and lungs was comparable among plans. The dose volume histograms based on the 6-DOF and 3-DOF data were similar for CTVs and organs at risk. Therefore, with a 7 mm margin, VMAT and a 3-DOF couch can be used for BC treatment without any compromise in delivery accuracy.

Dose verification of virtual bolus application for helical tomotherapy

The objective of the study is to verify the dose delivered on helical tomotherapy based on treatment plan with varying virtual bolus (VB) thickness. The target was localized on the ArcCHECK image by 3 mm margin from the phantom surface. The dimension of target, which includes the ArcCHECK's detectors, with the 4.0 cm width and length 12.0 cm along the phantom The 5 treatment plans were generated, 1 plan without VB application (NoVB) and the 4 plans with varying of VB thickness on the phantom surface by 0.5 cm (VB0.5), 1.0 cm (VB1.0), 1.5 cm (VB1.5), and 2.0 cm (VB2.0), in treatment planning but absent during irradiation. For measurement analysis, the ionization chamber and the ArcCHECK detectors were used for point dose and dose distribution by investigating the percentage of dose difference and the gamma passing rate. The VB thickness 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 cm showed acceptable value with less than 2% for dose difference by 0.37% (VB0.5), -0.11% (VB1.0) and -0.37% (VB1.5) at the center of ArcCHECK. The accuracy of dose distribution showed an acceptable gamma passing rate of 99.8% (VB0.5), 100% (VB1.0), and 90.2% (VB1.5) for gamma criteria by 3%/3mm for absolute dose analysis. However, the gamma passing rate of VB2.0 down to 71.2% of absolute mode for gamma criteria by 3%/3mm. The treatment plans with VB thickness less than 15 mm deliver doses that are comparable to treatment plans without virtual bolus based on gamma analysis. However, the deviation showed a trend increasing when VB thickness increased. The VB2.0 was not acceptable for point dose and dose distribution verification by more than 2% dose difference and less than 90% of gamma passing rate.