Volumetric modulated arc therapy in prostate cancer patients with metallic hip prostheses in a UK centre

The impact of metal implants on the dose and clinical outcome of radiotherapy (Review)

Radiotherapy (RT) is one of the most widely used and effective cancer treatments. With the increasing need for organ reconstruction and advancements in material technology, an increasing number of patients with cancer have metallic implants. These implants can affect RT dosage and clinical outcomes, warranting careful consideration by oncologists. The present review discussed the mechanisms by which different types of metallic implants impact various stages of the RT process, examined methods to mitigate these effects during treatment, and discussed the clinical implications of metallic implants on RT outcomes. In summary, when metallic implants are present within the RT field, oncologists should carefully assess their impact on the treatment.

Heavy metal in radiation therapy: A simple method to differentiate hip prosthesis materials

BACKGROUND

In recent years, the number of hip replacement patients receiving radiation therapy has steadily increased. In parallel, strategies have been developed to reduce metal artifacts in computed tomography (CT) images and improve the accuracy of dose calculation algorithms. However, in certain situations, knowledge of the type of prosthesis material is required to accurately determine the dose distribution.

PURPOSE

This study aims to identify physical materials in hip prostheses to correctly assign them in the treatment planning system and improve dose calculation accuracy.

METHODS

We first verified the validity of the extended CT mass density calibration curve measured on titanium (Ti) and stainless steel (SS) metal inserts of two different diameters. Then using dedicated reference objects of various circular diameters, we developed a method based on interpolation functions to differentiate between Ti and SS material groups. Forty data sets from 18 patients were used to validate our method on two different reconstruction kernels: a standard Br44f and the electron DirectDensity (Sd40f) kernels from Siemens.

RESULTS

Hounsfield units (HU) of Ti and SS inserts were found to vary widely depending on insert diameter, CT spectrum, and reconstruction kernels due to cupping artifacts. The largest HU difference (-79%) was obtained for SS at 70 kV with Br44f when the diameter increased from 8 to 30 mm. Therefore, under these conditions, the extended CT-density calibration curve is not recommended for heavy metal density determination. Using our interpolation-based method, we achieved excellent detection (100%) and material differentiation (100%) results for stems in both reconstruction kernels. At CT energies between 110 and 140 kV, the detection and material differentiation rates were 93.3% and 92.9% for the heads and 93.3% and 92.9% for the acetabular cups, respectively, with the Br44f. Similarly, the use of Sd40f resulted in detection and differentiation rates of 94.7% and 100% for the heads and 100% and 95.0% for the acetabular cups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This method makes it possible to differentiate between hip prosthesis materials and correctly assign them to the Ti or SS group without prior knowledge of the prosthesis type, regardless of the reconstruction kernels. In combination with the Acuros XB (Varian) or Monte Carlo dose algorithms, excellent dosimetric accuracy can be achieved even in the vicinity of hip prostheses. By performing basic measurements, the method can be adapted to other CT units and reconstruction kernels, replacing the use of an extended CT-density calibration curve.

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) in prostate cancer in the presence of hip prosthesis - is it a contraindication? A narrative review

Hip replacement is a common orthopedic surgery in the aging population. With the rising incidence of prostate cancer, metallic hip prosthetics can cause considerable beam hardening and streak artifacts, leading to difficulty in identifying the target volumes and planning process for radiation treatment. The growing use of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) to treat prostate cancer is now well established. However, the use of this treatment modality in the presence of a hip prosthesis is poorly understood. There is enough literature on planning for external beam radiation treatment without any difficulties in the presence of hip prosthesis with conventional or Hypofractionated treatment. However, there is a shortage of literature on the impact of the prosthesis in SBRT planning, and there is a need for further understanding and measures to mitigate the obstacles in planning for SBRT in the presence of hip prosthesis. We present our review of the intricacies that need to be understood while considering SBRT in the presence of hip prostheses in prostate cancer treatment.

The Role of Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer in the Setting of Hip Prosthesis

PURPOSE

Given that the current standard of proton therapy (PT) for prostate cancer is through bilateral beams, this modality is typically avoided when it comes to treatment of patients with hip prosthesis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether novel PT methods, i.e., anterior proton beams and proton arc therapy (PArc), could be feasible options to treat this patient subpopulation. We evaluate PT methods in the context of dosimetry and robustness and compare with standard of practice volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to explore any potential benefits.

METHODS

Two PT and one VMAT treatment plans were retrospectively created for 10 patients who participated in a clinical trial with a weekly repeat CT (rCT) imaging component. All plans were robustly optimized and featured: (1) combination anterior oblique and lateral proton beams (AoL), (2) PArc, and (3) VMAT. All patients had hydrogel spacers in place, which enabled safe application of anterior proton beams. The planned dose was 70 Gy (RBE) to the entire prostate gland and 50 Gy (RBE) to the proximal seminal vesicles in 28 fractions. Along with plan dose-volume metrics, robustness to setup and interfractional variations were evaluated using the weekly rCT images. The linear energy transfer (LET)-weighted dose was evaluated for PArc plans to ensure urethra sparing given the typical high-LET region at the end of range.

RESULTS

Both PT methods were dosimetrically feasible and provided reduction of some key OAR metrics compared to VMAT except for penile bulb, while providing equally good target coverage. Significant differences in median rectum V35 (22-25%), penile bulb Dmean (5 Gy), rectum V61 (2%), right femoral head Dmean (5 Gy), and bladder V39 (4%) were found between PT and VMAT. All plans were equally robust to variations. LET-weighted dose in urethra was equivalent to the physical dose for PArc plans and hence no added urethral toxicity was expected.

CONCLUSIONS

PT for treatment of prostate cancer patients with hip prosthesis is feasible and equivalent or potentially superior to VMAT in quality in some cases. The choice of radiotherapy regimen can be personalized based on patient characteristics to achieve the best treatment outcome.

Radiotherapy-induced toxicity in prostate cancer patients with hip prostheses

Introduction

Acute and late toxicity was analysed for prostate cancer patients with bilateral hip prostheses, who received fixed field intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). The aims were (1) to establish whether toxicity rates differed from those of a control group with normal hips, (2) to develop a volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) approach for patients with prostheses and (3) to compare doses to bladder and rectum for the control group, prostheses group and VMAT replans for the prostheses group.

Methods

Genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity was scored using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. The incidence of grade 2 or worse (G2+) toxicity was compared using Fisher’s exact test. Dose volume histograms (DVHs) and mean doses to organs at risk (OARs) were compared using signed rank tests.

Results

There were 17 patients in the prostheses group and 50 in the control group. Acute and late GU toxicity was similar. G2+ late GI toxicity incidence was 31% for the prostheses group and 14% for the control group (p = 0.14). Significant differences (p < 0.05) were seen between the OAR DVHs of the prostheses group who had IMRT and the control group for a range of intermediate doses. The rectum mean dose was significantly different (p < 0.001), but no difference was seen for the bladder mean dose (p = 0.08).

Conclusions

No significant differences were seen in GU and GI toxicity incidence between patients with bilateral hip prostheses and a control group. The DVHs for bladder and rectum were significantly higher for patients with prostheses planned with IMRT. Replanning using a VMAT technique significantly reduced doses to the OARs, whilst maintaining good planning target volume coverage.

Management of metallic implants in radiotherapy

The number of patients with metallic implant and treated with radiotherapy is constantly increasing. These hardware are responsible for the deterioration in the quality of the CT images used at each stage of the radiation therapy, during delineation, dosimetry and dose delivery. We present the update of the recommendations of the French society of oncological radiotherapy on the pros and cons of the different methods, existing and under evaluation, which limit the impact of metallic implants on the quality and safety of radiation treatments.

The feasibility of a dose painting procedure to treat prostate cancer based on mpMR images and hierarchical clustering

BACKGROUND

We aimed to assess the feasibility of a dose painting (DP) procedure, known as simultaneous integrated boost intensity modulated radiation Therapy (SIB-IMRT), for treating prostate cancer with dominant intraprostatic lesions (DILs) based on multi-parametric magnetic resonance (mpMR) images and hierarchical clustering with a machine learning technique.

METHODS

The mpMR images of 120 patients were used to create hierarchical clustering and draw a dendrogram. Three clusters were selected for performing agglomerative clustering. Then, the DIL acquired from the mpMR images of 20 patients were categorized into three groups to have them treated with a DP procedure being composed of three planning target volumes (PTVs) determined as PTV1, PTV2, and PTV3 in treatment plans. The DP procedure was carried out on the patients wherein a total dose of 80, 85 and 91 Gy were delivered to the PTV1, PTV2, and PTV3, respectively. Dosimetric and radiobiologic parameters [Tumor Control Probability (TCP) and Normal Tissue Complication Probability (NTCP)] of the DP procedure were compared with those of the conventional IMRT and Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy (3DCRT) procedures carried out on another group of 20 patients. A post-treatment follow-up was also made four months after the radiotherapy procedures.

RESULTS

All the dosimetric variables and the NTCPs of the organs at risks (OARs) revealed no significant difference between the DP and IMRT procedures. Regarding the TCP of three investigated PTVs, significant differences were observed between the DP versus IMRT and also DP versus 3DCRT procedures. At post-treatment follow-up, the DIL volumes and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in the DP group differed significantly (p-value < 0.001) from those of the IMRT. However, the whole prostate ADC and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) indicated no significant difference (p-value > 0.05) between the DP versus IMRT.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this comprehensive clinical trial illustrated the feasibility of our DP procedure for treating prostate cancer based on mpMR images validated with acquired patients' dosimetric and radiobiologic assessment and their follow-ups. This study confirms significant potential of the proposed DP procedure as a promising treatment planning to achieve effective dose escalation and treatment for prostate cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

IRCT20181006041257N1; Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials, Registered: 23 October 2019, https://en.irct.ir/trial/34305 .

Evaluation of VMAT Planning Strategies for Prostate Patients with Bilateral Hip Prosthesis

Purpose: In this study, we investigate linac volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning strategies for bilateral hip prostheses prostate patients with respect to plan quality and deliverability, while limiting entrance dose to the prostheses. Methods: Three VMAT plans were retrospectively created for 20 patients: (1) partial arcs (PA), (2) 2 full arcs optimized with 500 cGy max prostheses dose (MD), and (3) 2 full arcs optimized with max dose-volume histogram (DVH) constraint of 500 cGy to 10% prostheses volume (MDVH). PA techniques contained 6 PA with beam angles that avoid entering each prosthesis. For each patient, other than prostheses constraints, the same Pinnacle VMAT optimization objectives were used. Plans were normalized with PTV D95% = 79.2 Gy prescription dose. Organ-at-risk DVH metrics, monitor units (MUs), conformality, gradient, and homogeneity indices were evaluated for each plan. Mean entrance prosthesis dose was determined in Pinnacle by converting each arc into static beams and utilizing only control points traversing each prosthesis. Plan deliverability was evaluated with SunNuclear ArcCheck measurements (gamma criteria 3%/2 mm) on an Elekta machine. Results: MD and MDVH had similar dosimetric quality, both improved DVH metrics for rectum and bladder compared to PA. Plan complexities among all plans were similar (average MUs: 441-518). Conformality, homogeneity, and gradient indices were significantly improved in MD and MDVH versus PA (P < .001). Gamma pass rates for MD (99.0 ± 1.2%) and MDVH (99.2 ± 0.99%) were comparable. A significant difference over PA was observed (96.8 ± 1.6%, P < .001). Field-by-field analysis demonstrated 12/20 PA plans resulted in fields with pass rates <95% versus 1/20 plans for MD and none for MDVH. Cumulative mean entrance doses to each prosthesis were 62.9 ± 17.7 cGy for MD plans and 83.4 ± 27.5 cGy for MDVH plans. Conclusion: MD and MDVH plans had improved dosimetric quality and deliverability over PA plans with minimal entrance doses (∼1% of prescription) to each prosthesis and are an improved alternative for bilateral prostheses prostate patients.

Bilateral metallic hip implants: Are avoidance sectors necessary for pelvic VMAT treatments?

PURPOSE

Metallic hip implants (MHI) are common in elderly patients. For pelvic cancers radiotherapy, conventional approaches consist of MHI avoidance during treatment planning, which leads, especially in case of bilateral MHI, to a decreased quality or increased complexity of the treatment plan. The aim of this study is to investigate the necessity of using avoidance sectors (AvSe) using a 2-arcs coplanar pelvic volumetric modulated arc-therapy (VMAT) planning.

METHODS

We evaluated: (1) The dose calculation error of a static 6MV open beam traversing a MHI; (2) The magnitude of an error's decrease within the planning target volume (PTV) for a 360° VMAT treatment without AvSe as compared to the static open beam; (3) The dosimetric influence of MHI misalignment generated by patient's repositioning rolls during image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT).

RESULTS

(1) In the static 6MV beam configuration, for distances between 0.5cm and 6cm from the MHI, the median (maximum, number of points) dose calculation error was -1.55% (-2.5%, 11); (2) Compared to the static open beam, in the 360° VMAT treatment without AvSe a simulated error was decreased by a factor of 4.4/2.4 (median/minimum); (3) MHI anterior-posterior misalignment exceeding 0.6cm, resulted in error at PTV surface of >2%.

CONCLUSIONS

A standard 2 coplanar arcs 360° VMAT treatment, with dedicated artifact reduction algorithms applied, decreased the error of static beam traversing MHI, in patients presenting a bilateral MHI and might be used to treat the pelvic region without MHI avoidance.

Prostate radiotherapy in the setting of bilateral hip prostheses: All commonly used photon-based radiation approaches are feasible

The prevalence of hip prostheses is increasing. Prostate radiation delivery in the setting of hip prostheses is complicated by both imaging artifacts that interfere with volume delineation and dosimetric effects that must be addressed in the planning process. We hypothesized that with specialized planning, any photon-based definitive prostate radiotherapy approach may be utilized in patients with bilateral hip prostheses. Imaging data from sequential patients with prostate cancer and bilateral hip prostheses treated definitively with radiation were retrospectively reviewed. Bimodality imaging was used to define targets and organs at risk (OARs) along with specialized MRI sequences and/or orthopedic metal artifact reduction (OMAR) for MRI and CT artifact suppression, respectively. Multiple VMAT plans were generated for each set of patient images to include three fractionation schemes (conventional, hypofractionated, and SBRT), each with hip avoidance and with simulated normal hip. The ability to meet standard dose constraints was assessed for each plan type. Differences in target and OAR dosing between plans accounting for prosthetic hips via avoidance vs plans with simulated absence of prosthetic hip were also assessed. T-tests were used to compare dosimetric parameters. Ten patients with bilateral hip prostheses were identified, and 6 plans were created for each patient for a total of 60 radiation plans. Prosthetic hip avoidance did not result in failure to meet dose constraints for any patient. Hip avoidance resulted in minimal increases in high dose to the rectum and bladder (increases in mean V80%, V90%, and V95% ranged from 0.1% to 2.4%). Larger increases were seen at lower dose levels, with rectal V50% significantly increased in all three plan types with hip avoidance (conventional: 26.0% [standard deviation, SD 13.9] vs 16.9% [SD 10.2, p = 0.003]; hypofractionation: 26.4% [SD 13.3] vs 17.1% [SD 10.1, p = 0.002]; SBRT: 18.3% [SD 10.7] vs 10.5% [SD 6.9, p = 0.008]). Similarly, hip avoidance resulted in increases in bladder V50% to 31.7% (SD 16.8) vs 23.3% (SD 14.0, p = 0.001), 31.3% (SD 17.0) vs 23.3% (SD 13.8, p = 0.002), and 22.7% (SD 12.3) vs 16.5% (SD 12.6, p < 0.001) for conventional, hypofractionated, and SBRT plans, respectively. Hydrogel spacer resulted in reductions in rectal dose. For example, V70% for hip avoidance plans decreased with spacer presence to 8.3% (SD 6.7) vs 21.1% (SD 5.8, p = 0.021), 8.6% (SD 6.5) vs 21% (SD 5.7, p = 0.022), and 3.7% (SD 3.2) vs 15% (SD 8.2, p = 0.010) for conventional, hypofractionated, and SBRT plans, respectively. Any photon-based definitive prostate radiotherapy approach can be used with bimodality imaging for target and OAR definition and planning techniques to avoid dose attenuation effects of hip prostheses. Hydrogel spacer is a useful adjunct.

MRI only in a patient with prostate cancer with bilateral metal hip prostheses: case study

OBJECTIVE

To outline a practical method of performing prostate cancer radiotherapy in patients with bilateral metal hip prostheses with the standard resources available in a modern general hospital. The proposed workflow is based exclusively on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to avoid computed tomography (CT) artifacts.

CASE DESCRIPTION

This study concerns a 73-year-old man with bilateral hip prostheses with an elevated risk prostate cancer. Magnetic resonance images with assigned electron densities were used for planning purposes, generating a synthetic CT (sCT). Imaging acquisition was performed with an optimized Dixon sequence on a 1.5T MRI scanner. The images were contoured by autosegmentation software, based on an MRI database of 20 patients. The sCT was generated assigning averaged electron densities to each contour. Two volumetric modulated arc therapy plans, a complete arc and a partial one, where the beam entrances through the prostheses were avoided for about 50° on both sides, were compared. The feasibility of matching daily cone beam CT (CBCT) with MRI reference images was also tested by visual evaluations of different radiation oncologists.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of magnetic resonance images improved accuracy in targets and organs at risk (OARs) contouring. The complete arc plan was chosen because of 10% lower mean and maximum doses to prostheses with the same planning target volume coverage and OAR sparing. The image quality of the match between performed CBCTs and MRI was considered acceptable. The proposed method seems promising to improve radiotherapy treatments for this complex category of patients.

The robustness of prostate radiotherapy for patients with hip prosthesis

The aim of this study was to investigate prostate radiotherapy techniques for the patients with hip prosthesis in 4 different field setups. Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) technique was used in 4 different cases: (1) using full VMAT arcs (VMAT_F); (2) same arcs as in case 1 but with avoidance sectors (VMAT_ASEC); (3) as case 2 but with the addition of a lateral static field through the prosthesis (VMAT_ASEC+STAT); (4) as in case 1 but with an automated structure avoidance option to avoid irradiation through the prosthesis (VMAT_ASTR). Fifteen previously treated prostate patients were retrospectively selected to this study. Treatment plans were created for all patients using all 4 techniques. The potential prosthesis misalignment in the treatment setup was modeled by moving the prosthesis 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 cm ventrally and dorsally and recalculating the plans in each case. For VMAT_ASEC, the dose parameters for organs at risk were the highest and the dose coverage of the target volume was the poorest when compared to the other techniques. For VMAT_ASEC+STAT, the movement of the prosthesis changed the target dose distribution the most. VMAT_F and VMAT_ASTR fulfilled the planning criteria the best, even when the prosthesis was misaligned. VMAT_F radiated through the prosthesis more than VMAT_ASTR and increased the dose near the prosthesis surface when compared to VMAT_ASTR. VMAT_ASTR and VMAT_F were the most robust techniques for the patients with the hip prosthesis considering plan quality and the effect of positioning errors. The increased prosthesis surface dose with VMAT_F and possible dose calculation uncertainties favors the use of VMAT_ASTR.

Evaluation of geometrical uncertainties on localized prostate radiotherapy of patients with bilateral metallic hip prostheses using 3D-CRT, IMRT and VMAT: A planning study

OBJECTIVE

Since most radiation treatment plans are based on computed tomography (CT) images, which makes it difficult to define the targeted tumor volume located near a metal implant, this study aims to evaluate and compare three treatment plans in order to optimally reduce geometrical uncertainty in external radiation treatment of localized prostate cancer.

METHODS

Experimental subjects were three prostate patients with bilateral hip prosthesis who had undergone radical radiotherapy. The treatment plans were five-field three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT), fixed 5-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using similar gantry angles, and single-arc volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). The monitor units (MUs), dose volume histograms (DVHs), the dose indices of planning target volume (PTV), clinical target volume (CTV) and rectum were compared among the three techniques. The geometrical uncertainties were evaluated by shifting the iso-center (2- 10 mm in the anterior, posterior, left, right, superior, and inferior directions). The CTV and rectum dose indexes with and without the iso-center shifts were compared in each plan.

RESULTS

The Conformity Index of PTV were 1.35 in 3D-CRT, 1.12 in IMRT, and 1.04 in VMAT, respectively. The rectum doses in 3D-CRT are also higher than those in IMRT and VMAT. The iso-center shift little affected the CTV dose when smaller than the margin size. The rectum dose increased especially after a posterior shift. Additionally, this dose increase was larger in the VMAT plan than in the 3D- CRT plan. However, the VMAT achieved a superior rectum DVH to that of 3D- CRT, and this effect clearly exceeded the rectum-dose increase elicited by the iso-center shift.

CONCLUSION

For radiotherapy treatment of localized prostate cancer in patients with hip prosthesis, the dose distribution was better in the VMAT and Metal Artifact Reduction (MAR)-CT image methods than the conventional methods. Because the anatomical structure of the male pelvic region is relatively constant among individuals, we consider that VMAT is a valid treatment plan despite analyzing just three cases.

[Radiotherapy after tumour prostheses-status, indication, coordination]

BACKGROUND

Patients with complex tumour prostheses often require radiotherapy or radiochemotherapy.

OBJECTIVES

Possible tumour diagnoses, indications, planning and therapy procedures, and prognosis of radiotherapy in the context of an interdisciplinary treatment for bone sarcomas are reviewed, including interactions of metal prostheses with radiation and possible subsequent complications.

METHODS

Literature search, summary of personal experience.

RESULTS

Complex prosthetic procedures are usually applied to patients suffering from Ewing sarcoma or osteosarcoma. In patients with Ewing sarcoma, radiotherapy is an integral part of multimodal treatment, while in patients with osteosarcoma radiotherapy is indicated in special situations. Planning and implementation of radiotherapy treatment can be impaired by metal implants within the target volume (artefacts in the planning computerized tomography, interaction of metal with the therapeutic beam). However, it is-to our knowledge-a point of debate whether radiotherapy after implantation of a prosthesis could impair healing or prosthesis fixation to bone. The data available in the literature suggest that prostheses implanted after radiotherapy entail a higher rate of complications. Multidisciplinary treatment improves the prognosis for these patients markedly.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with sarcomas of the bone undergoing interdisciplinary treatment consisting of surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy have a favourable prognosis and an acceptable functionality of the limb can be expected.

Verification of the Elekta Monaco TPS Monte Carlo in modelling radiation transmission through metals in a water equivalent phantom

Many studies have performed dosimetric studies using various metal implants however these are difficult to translate to other implants of a different geometry or material (Rijken and Colyer, J Appl Clin Med Phys 18:5:301-306, 2017; Ade and du Plessis, J Appl Clin Med Phys 18:5:162-173, 2017; Prabhakar et al. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 18:209-213, 2013; Ng et al. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 20:273-277, 2015; Reft et al. Med Phys 30:1162-1182, 2003; Sasaki et al., Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi 72(9):735-745, 2016). In this study, the ability of the Monaco Monte Carlo algorithm (Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden) to model radiation transport through different types of metals was evaluated. Investigation of the capabilities and limitations of the algorithm is required for the potential use of Monaco for planning radiotherapy treatments when avoidance of metal implants is clinically undesirable. A MapCHECK 2 diode array (Sun Nuclear Corp, Melbourne, USA) and a PTW 30013 Farmer chamber was used to measure the dose at depth, downstream of 1 cm × 5 cm × 5 cm metal blocks of three known compositions; stainless steel, aluminium and MCP96. The setup was imaged using a CT scanner and imported into the Monaco TPS where the beam arrangement was replicated. The density of the metals was overridden using the known electron density of each (IMPAC Medical Systems Inc, Monaco dose calculation technical reference. IMPAC Medical Systems, Sunnydale, CA, 2013). The differences between the dose measured using the ion chamber and calculated using Monaco downstream of the 1 cm metal blocks were respectively: - 1.2%, - 2.2% and 9.5% when irradiated using a 6 MV beam, and - 0.9%, - 1.3% and 14%, when irradiated using a 15 MV beam. This was then repeated using 2 cm and 3 cm of each metal type giving similar results for aluminium and stainless steel and increased discrepancy for MCP96. Discrepancies between treatment planning software and measurements at depth have been shown to give uncertainties between 5 and 23% in previous studies (Rijken and Colyer, J Appl Clin Med Phys 18:5:301-306, 2017; Ade and du Plessis, J Appl Clin Med Phys 18:5:162-173, 2017; Prabhakar et al. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 18:209-213, 2013; Ng et al. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 20:273-277, 2015; Reft et al. Med Phys 30:1162-1182, 2003; Sasaki et al., Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi 72(9):735-745, 2016). This study uses basic shapes providing results that remove the uncertainties in geometry and can therefore be applied to any shape. This will help determine whether errors in dose calculations are due to the TPS particle transport algorithms or due to other effects, such as inaccurate contouring or incorrect densities. Thus giving the planner an additional degree of freedom in their planning and decision making process.

Applying a commercial atlas-based synthetic Computed Tomography algorithm to patients with hip prostheses for prostate Magnetic Resonance-only radiotherapy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Magnetic Resonance (MR)-only prostate radiotherapy has recently been clinically implemented using commercial synthetic Computed Tomography (sCT) algorithms. However patients with hip prostheses have been excluded from all MR-only research to date and assumed to require dedicated sCT algorithms. This study aimed to investigate the dosimetric accuracy of applying a commercial sCT algorithm, based on an atlas of patients without hip prostheses, to patients with prostheses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

18 patients with unilateral hip prostheses received MR and CT scans in the radiotherapy position. sCTs were generated from the MR using a commercial algorithm. The clinical Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) plan, consisting of partial arcs which avoided the prosthesis, was recalculated using the sCT and the dose distribution compared.

RESULTS

The mean isocentre dose difference was ΔD = (-0.4 ± 0.2)% (mean ± standard error of the mean (sem), range - 1.9%, 1.1%) and the mean differences in Planning Target Volume, bladder and rectum mean doses were ≤0.3%. The 3D global gamma pass rate with dose difference 1% and distance to agreement 1 mm within the body was Γ_Body^1/1 = (95.0 ± 0.5)% (sem) and within the 50% isodose volume, which excluded the prosthesis, was Γ_50%^1/1 = (98.5 ± 0.4)% (sem). The pass rate within the PTV was Γ_PTV^2/2 ≥ 99.7% for all patients, although for PTVs close (≤3.5 cm) to the prosthesis Γ_PTV^1/1 < 85% for three patients. The sCT did not accurately represent the prosthesis with a mean difference in radiological isocentre depth near the prosthesis of Δd_Outside^Rad = (15.8 ± 2.6) mm (sem). However inside the treatment plan arc the difference was Δd_Inside^Rad = (-1.8 ± 0.5) mm (sem).

CONCLUSIONS

Using a commercial prostate sCT algorithm for patients with unilateral hip prostheses is dosimetrically accurate (<0.5%) as long as the routine prosthesis-avoidance treatment planning approach is used and the PTV is >3.5 cm from the prosthesis. This suggests MR-only prostate radiotherapy can be extended to patients with hip prostheses without requiring a specific sCT algorithm.

VMAT Optimization and Dose Calculation in the Presence of Metallic Hip Prostheses

INTRODUCTION

This research quantifies and compares the effect of hip prostheses on dose distributions calculated using collapsed cone convolution superposition and Monte Carlo (with and without correcting for the density of the implant and surrounding tissues). The use of full volumetric modulated arc therapy arcs versus volumetric modulated arc therapy arcs avoiding the hip implants (skip arcs) was also studied.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Six prostate patients with hip prostheses were included in this study. The hip prostheses and the streaking artifacts on the computed tomography images were contoured by a single physician, and full volumetric modulated arc therapy arcs were created in the Pinnacle3 TPS. Copies of each plan were made, and the doses were recalculated with the densities of the prostheses and surrounding tissues overridden. The plans were then exported to Monaco and recalculated using a Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm, with and without densities of the prosthesis and surrounding tissues overridden.

RESULTS

With density overrides, Pinnacle3 had a 4.4% error for ion chamber measurements. Monaco was within 0.2% of ion chamber measurement when density overrides were used. On average, when density overrides were used in Pinnacle3 for patient dose calculations, the planning target volume D95 value dropped from 99.3% to 82.7%. Monaco also showed decreased planning target volume coverage when plans were recalculated with correct density information. Full arc plans (with density overrides) for the patient with a bilateral prosthesis provided significant bladder sparing and some rectal sparing compared to skip arc plans.

CONCLUSION

When planning for prostate patients with hip prostheses, correct density information for implants and surrounding tissues should be used to optimize the plan and ensure optimal accuracy. If available, a Monte Carlo algorithm should be used as a second check. Full arcs could be used to spare dose to organs at risk, while maintaining adequate planning target volume coverage, when using a Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm.

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.