Treating patients with Dynamic Wave Arc: First clinical experience

Treatment planning comparison between dynamic wave arc and volumetric modulated arc therapies for prostate-cancer treatment

The aim of this study was to compare the quality of dynamic wave arc (DWA) and coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (co-VMAT) plans for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. The planning target volume (PTV)-rectum, a section of the PTV comprising the PTV minus that of the rectum, received 78 Gy in 39 fractions as the mean dose to the PTV-rectum. The DWA and co-VMAT plans were generated for each patient using the RayStation treatment planning system for the Vero4DRT system. The PTV-rectum dose (D_95%: the percent dose irradiating 95% of the volume), homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), as well as doses to the bladder wall, rectum wall (V_10-70 Gy: the percent volume receiving 10-70 Gy), and bilateral femoral heads of the DWA and co-VMAT plans were compared. The output monitor unit (MU) and delivery time obtained for each set of plans were also investigated. In terms of target coverage, the DWA plans provided an average D_95% of 75.5 Gy, which was comparable to the co-VMAT-plan D_95% of 75.2 Gy (p < 0.05). The HI was significantly better with the DWA. As for the DWA plans, the bladder-wall volume receiving 10, 20, 30, and 40 Gy (V_{10-40 Gy}) was significantly smaller than that of the co-VMAT plans, and the volume of the rectal wall receiving 10 Gy (V_10Gy) was significantly larger than that of the co-VMAT plans. The DWA plans yielded a reduced dose to the bilateral femoral heads compared with the co-VMAT plans (p < 0.05). The values of the CI and MU, and the delivery time exhibited no significant differences between the DWA and co-VMAT plans. The DWA plan is a feasible treatment option for prostate cancer radiotherapy.

The gimbaled-head radiotherapy system: Rise and downfall of a dedicated system for dynamic tumor tracking with real-time monitoring and dynamic WaveArc

A gimbaled-head radiotherapy device was developed by industry-academic collaborations, with a concept of robust structures whilst maintaining high flexibilities, and its clinical application started in 2008. The unique structures with multi-image guidance functions initiated 2 new treatment modalities. One is dynamic tumor tracking radiotherapy with real time monitoring (DTTRM), which enables 4-D radiotherapy without prolongation of radiotherapy treatment time. This treatment has become clinically feasible for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) of lung cancers and liver tumors, and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for pancreatic cancers. The second one is Dynamic WaveArc therapy (DWA), the non-coplanar versatility of the SBRT system by combining the gantry-ring synchronized rotation with dynamic multileaf collimator optimization. DWA opens the possibility to create patient-individualized treatment plans, allowing additional flexibility in organ at risk sparing while preserving dosimetric robust delivery. The clinical usefulness of the DWA has been preliminary shown for those tumors in the prostate, breast and skull base. Prospective clinical trials are under way with a support of the national funding of Japan for DTTRM and DWA, respectively. Marketing of the system was terminated in 2016 due to a commercial decision. However, lessons can be learned from the development process of this device that might be useful for those who have interests in new technologies and clinical applications in radiation oncology. This review article aims to summarize the developments and achievements of a gimbaled-head radiotherapy device with a focus on DTTRM and DWA.

Recent developments in non-coplanar radiotherapy

This paper gives an overview of recent developments in non-coplanar intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Modern linear accelerators are capable of automating motion around multiple axes, allowing efficient delivery of highly non-coplanar radiotherapy techniques. Novel techniques developed for C-arm and non-standard linac geometries, methods of optimization, and clinical applications are reviewed. The additional degrees of freedom are shown to increase the therapeutic ratio, either through dose escalation to the target or dose reduction to functionally important organs at risk, by multiple research groups. Although significant work is still needed to translate these new non-coplanar radiotherapy techniques into the clinic, clinical implementation should be prioritized. Recent developments in non-coplanar radiotherapy demonstrate that it continues to have a place in modern cancer treatment.

Quality assurance of non-coplanar, volumetric-modulated arc therapy employing a C-arm linear accelerator, featuring continuous patient couch rotation

PURPOSE

To perform quality assurance of non-coplanar, volumetric-modulated arc therapy featuring continuous couch rotation (CCR-VMAT) using a C-arm linear accelerator.

METHODS

We planned and delivered CCR-VMAT using the TrueBeam Developer Mode. Treatment plans were created for both a C-shaped phantom and five prostate cancer patients using seven CCR trajectories that lacked collisions; we used RayStation software (ver. 4.7) to this end. Subsequently, verification plans were generated. The mean absolute error (MAE) between the center of an MV-imaged steel ball and the radiation field was calculated using the Winston-Lutz test. The MAEs between planned and actual irradiation values were also calculated from trajectory logs. In addition, correlation coefficients (r values) among the MAEs of gantry angle, couch angle, and multi-leaf collimator (MLC) position, and mechanical parameters including gantry speed, couch speed, MLC speed, and beam output, were estimated. The dosimetric accuracies of planned and measured values were also assessed using ArcCHECK.

RESULTS

The MAEs ±2 standard deviations as revealed by the Winston-Lutz test for all trajectories were 0.3 ± 0.3 mm in two dimensions. The MAEs of the gantry, couch, and MLC positions calculated from all trajectory logs were within 0.04°, 0.08°, and 0.02 mm, respectively. Deviations in the couch angle (r = 0.98, p < 0.05) and MLC position (r = 0.86, p < 0.05) increased significantly with speed. The MAE of the beam output error was less than 0.01 MU. The mean gamma passing rate ± 2 SD (range) of the 3%/3 mm, 3%/1 mm, and 5%/1 mm was 98.1 ± 1.9% (95.7-99.6%), 87.2 ± 2.8% (80.2-96.7%), and 96.3 ± 2.8% (93.9-99.6%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

CCR-VMAT delivered via the TrueBeam Developer Mode was associated with high-level geometric and mechanical accuracy, thus affording to high dosimetric accuracy. The CCR-VMAT performance was stable regardless of the trajectory chosen.

Dosimetric advantages afforded by a new irradiation technique, Dynamic WaveArc, used for accelerated partial breast irradiation

PURPOSE

To identify dosimetric advantages of the novel Dynamic WaveArc (DWA) technique for accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI), compared with non-coplanar three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (nc3D-CRT) and coplanar tangential volumetric modulated arc therapy (tVMAT) with dual arcs of 45-65°.

METHODS

Vero4DRT enables DWA by continuous gantry rotation and O-ring skewing with movement of the multi-leaf collimator. We compared the dose distributions of DWA, nc3D-CRT and tVMAT in 24 consecutive left-sided breast cancer patients treated with APBI (38.5 Gy in 10 fractions). The average doses and volumes to the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk, especially heart and left anterior descending artery (LAD) were compared among DWA, nc3D-CRT and tVMAT.

RESULTS

The doses and volumes to the PTVs did not differ significantly among the three plans. For the DWA plans, the mean dose to the heart was 0.2 ± 0.1 Gy, less than those of the nc3D-CRT and tVMAT plans. The D_2% values of the planning organ at risk volume of the LAD were 9.3 ± 10.9%, 28.2 ± 31.9% and 20.3 ± 25.7% for DWA, nc3D-CRT and tVMAT, respectively. The V_20Gy and V_10Gy of the ipsilateral lung for the DWA plans were also significantly lower.

CONCLUSIONS

DWA allowed to find a better compromise for OAR which overlapped with the PTV. Use of the DWA for APBI improved the dose distributions compared with those of nc3D-CRT and tVMAT.

Quality assurance of geometric accuracy based on an electronic portal imaging device and log data analysis for Dynamic WaveArc irradiation

The purpose of this study was to develop a simple verification method for the routine quality assurance (QA) of Dynamic WaveArc (DWA) irradiation using electronic portal imaging device (EPID) images and log data analysis. First, an automatic calibration method utilizing the outermost multileaf collimator (MLC) slits was developed to correct the misalignment between the center of the EPID and the beam axis. Moreover, to verify the detection accuracy of the MLC position according to the EPID images, various positions of the MLC with intentional errors in the range 0.1–1 mm were assessed. Second, to validate the geometric accuracy during DWA irradiation, tests were designed in consideration of three indices. Test 1 evaluated the accuracy of the MLC position. Test 2 assessed dose output consistency with variable dose rate (160–400 MU/min), gantry speed (2.2–6°/s), and ring speed (0.5–2.7°/s). Test 3 validated dose output consistency with variable values of the above parameters plus MLC speed (1.6–4.2 cm/s). All tests were delivered to the EPID and compared with those obtained using a stationary radiation beam with a 0° gantry angle. Irradiation log data were recorded simultaneously. The 0.1‐mm intentional error on the MLC position could be detected by the EPID, which is smaller than the EPID pixel size. In Test 1, the MLC slit widths agreed within 0.20 mm of their exposed values. The averaged root‐mean‐square error (RMSE) of the dose outputs was less than 0.8% in Test 2 and Test 3. Using log data analysis in Test 3, the RMSE between the planned and recorded data was 0.1 mm, 0.12°, and 0.07° for the MLC position, gantry angle, and ring angle, respectively. The proposed method is useful for routine QA of the accuracy of DWA.

Monitoring of mechanical errors and their dosimetric impact throughout the course of non-coplanar continuous volumetric-modulated arc therapy

BACKGROUND

Volumetric-modulated Dynamic WaveArc therapy (VMDWAT) is a non-coplanar continuous volumetric modulated radiation therapy (VMAT) delivery technique. Here, we monitored mechanical errors and their impact on dose distributions in VMDWAT using logfiles throughout the course of treatment.

METHODS

Fifteen patients were enrolled (2 skull base tumor patients and 13 prostate cancer patients). VMDWAT plans were created for the enrolled patients. The prescribed dose for the skull base tumor was set as 54 Gy at 1.8 Gy per fraction, and that for the prostate cancer was set as 72 to 78 Gy at 2 Gy per fraction. We acquired logfiles to monitor mechanical errors and their impact on dose distribution in each fraction. The root mean square error (RMSE) in the multi-leaf collimator (MLC), gantry angle, O-ring angle and monitor unit (MU) were calculated using logfiles throughout the course of VMDWAT for each patient. The dosimetric impact of mechanical errors throughout the course of VMDWAT was verified using a logfile-based dose reconstruction method. Dosimetric errors between the reconstructed plans and the original plans were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 517 datasets, including 55 datasets for the 2 skull base tumor patients and 462 datasets for the 13 prostate cancer patients, were acquired. The RMSE values were less than 0.1 mm, 0.2°, 0.1°, and 0.4 MU for MLC position, gantry angle, O-ring angle, and MU, respectively. For the skull base tumors, the absolute mean dosimetric errors and two standard deviations throughout the course of treatment were less than 1.4% and 1.1%, respectively. For prostate cancer, these absolute values were less than 0.3% and 0.5%, respectively. The largest dosimetric error of 2.5% was observed in a skull base tumor patient. The resultant dosimetric error in the accumulated daily delivered dose distribution, in the patient with the largest error, was up to 1.6% for all dose-volumetric parameters relative to the planned dose distribution.

CONCLUSIONS

MLC position, gantry rotation, O-ring rotation and MU were highly accurate and stable throughout the course of treatment. The daily dosimetric errors due to mechanical errors were small. VMDWAT provided high delivery accuracy and stability throughout the course of treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN000023870 . Registered: 1 October 2016.

Geometric and dosimetric quality assurance using logfiles and a 3D helical diode detector for Dynamic WaveArc

PURPOSE

To conduct patient-specific geometric and dosimetric quality assurance (QA) for the Dynamic WaveArc (DWA) using logfiles and ArcCHECK (Sun Nuclear Inc., Melbourne, FL, USA).

METHODS

Twenty DWA plans, 10 for pituitary adenoma and 10 for prostate cancer, were created using RayStation version 4.7 (RaySearch Laboratories, Stockholm, Sweden). Root mean square errors (RMSEs) between the actual and planned values in the logfiles were evaluated. Next, the dose distributions were reconstructed based on the logfiles. The differences between dose-volumetric parameters in the reconstructed plans and those in the original plans were calculated. Finally, dose distributions were assessed using ArcCHECK. In addition, the reconstructed dose distributions were compared with planned ones.

RESULTS

The means of RMSEs for the gantry, O-ring, MLC position, and MU for all plans were 0.2°, 0.1°, 0.1 mm, and 0.4 MU, respectively. Absolute means of the change in PTV D_99% were 0.4 ± 0.4% and 0.1 ± 0.1% points between the original and reconstructed plans for pituitary adenoma and prostate cancer, respectively. The mean of the gamma passing rate (3%/3 mm) between the measured and planned dose distributions was 97.7%. In addition, that between the reconstructed and planned dose distributions was 99.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

We have demonstrated that the geometric accuracy and gamma passing rates were within AAPM 119 and 142 criteria during DWA. Dose differences in the dose-volumetric parameters using the logfile-based dose reconstruction method were also clinically acceptable in DWA.

Frontiers in planning optimization for lung SBRT

Emerging data are showing the safety and the efficacy of Stereotactic Body Radiation therapy (SBRT) in lung cancer management. In this context, the very high doses delivered to the Planning Target Volume, make the planning phase essential for achieving high dose levels conformed to the shape of the target in order to have a good prognosis for tumor control and to avoid an overdose in relevant healthy adjacent tissue. In this non-systematic review we analyzed the technological and the physics aspects of SBRT planning for lung cancer. In particular, the aims of the study were: (i) to evaluate prescription strategies (homogeneous or inhomogeneous), (ii) to outline possible geometrical solutions by comparing the dosimetric results (iii) to describe the technological possibilities for a safe and effective treatment, (iv) to present the issues concerning radiobiological planning and the automation of the planning process.