Immobilization devices for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)

A Simulation-Free Replacement Solution for Radiation Therapy Immobilization Devices Using Computer Numerical Control (CNC) -Milled Polystyrene Molds

Purpose

In radiation therapy (RT), if an immobilization device is lost or damaged, the patient may need to be brought back for resimulation, device fabrication, and treatment planning, causing additional imaging radiation exposure, inconvenience, cost, and delay. We describe a simulation-free method for replacing lost or damaged RT immobilization devices.

Methods and Materials

Replacement immobilization devices were fabricated using existing simulation scans as design templates by computer numerical control (CNC) milling of molds made from extruded polystyrene (XPS). XPS material attenuation and bolusing properties were evaluated, a standard workflow was established, and 12 patients were treated. Setup reproducibility was analyzed postfacto using Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and mean distance to agreement (MDA) calculations comparing onboard treatment imaging with computed tomography (CT) simulations.

Results

Results showed that XPS foam material had less dosimetric impact (attenuation and bolusing) than materials used for our standard immobilization devices. The average direct cost to produce each replacement mold was $242.17, compared with over $2000 for standard resimulation. Hands-on time to manufacture was 86.3 minutes, whereas molds were delivered in as little as 4 hours and mostly within 24 hours, compared with a week or more required for standard resimulation. Each mold was optically scanned after production and was measured to be within 2-mm tolerance (pointwise displacement) of design input. All patients were successfully treated using the CNC-milled foam mold replacements, and pretreatment imaging verified satisfactory clinical setup reproduction for each case. The external body contours from the setup cone beam CT and the original CT simulation with matching superior-inferior extent were compared by calculating the DSC and MDA. DSC average was 0.966 (SD, 0.011), and MDA average was 2.694 mm (SD, 0.986).

Conclusions

CNC milling of XPS foam is a quicker and more convenient solution than traditional resimulation for replacing lost or damaged RT immobilization devices. Satisfactory patient immobilization, low dosimetric impact compared with standard immobilization devices, and strong correlation of onboard contours with CT simulations are shown. We share our clinical experience, workflow, and manufacturing guide to help other clinicians who may want to adopt this solution.

MRgFUS ablation of a recurrent tenosynovial giant cell tumor in the foot using ExAblate 2100 system in combination with patient immobilization device

INTRODUCTION

Magnetic Resonance-guided Focused Ultrasound (MRgFUS) treatment for certain anatomy locations can be extremely challenging due to patient positioning and potential motion. This present study describes the treatment of a recurrent tenosynovial giant cell tumor of the plantar forefoot using the ExAblate 2100 system in combination with patient immobilization device.

METHODS

Prior to the treatment, several patient immobilization devices were investigated. Vacuum cushions were selected and tested for safety and compatibility with the treatment task and the MR environment.

RESULTS

During the treatment, one vacuum cushion immobilized the patient's right leg in knee flexion and allowed the bottom of the foot to be securely positioned on the treatment window. Another vacuum cushion supported the patient upper body extended outside the scanner bore. 19 sonications were successfully executed. The treatment was judged to be successful. No immediate complications were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

MRgFUS treatment of a recurrent tenosynovial giant cell tumor of the right plantar forefoot was successful with the use of patient immobilization vacuum cushions.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The immobilization system could be utilized to aid future MRgFUS treatment of lesions in challenging anatomic locations. Various sizes of the vacuum cushions are available to potentially better accommodate other body parts and treatment configurations.

Single patient learning for adaptive radiotherapy dose prediction

BACKGROUND

Throughout a patient's course of radiation therapy, maintaining accuracy of their initial treatment plan over time is challenging due to anatomical changes-for example, stemming from patient weight loss or tumor shrinkage. Online adaptation of their RT plan to these changes is crucial, but hindered by manual and time-consuming processes. While deep learning (DL) based solutions have shown promise in streamlining adaptive radiation therapy (ART) workflows, they often require large and extensive datasets to train population-based models.

PURPOSE

This study extends our prior research by introducing a minimalist approach to patient-specific adaptive dose prediction. In contrast to our prior method, which involved fine-tuning a pre-trained population model, this new method trains a model from scratch using only a patient's initial treatment data. This patient-specific dose predictor aims to enhance clinical accessibility, thereby empowering physicians and treatment planners to make more informed, quantitative decisions in ART. We hypothesize that patient-specific DL models will provide more accurate adaptive dose predictions for their respective patients compared to a population-based DL model.

METHODS

We selected 33 patients to train an adaptive population-based (AP) model. Ten additional patients were selected, and their respective initial RT data served as single samples for training patient-specific (PS) models. These 10 patients contained an additional 26 ART plans that were withheld as the test dataset to evaluate AP versus PS model dose prediction performance. We assessed model performance using Mean Absolute Percent Error (MAPE) by comparing predicted doses to the originally delivered ground truth doses. We used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test to determine statistically significant differences in terms of MAPE between the AP and PS model results across the test dataset. Furthermore, we calculated differences between predicted and ground truth mean doses for segmented structures and determined statistical significance in the differences for each of them.

RESULTS

The average MAPE across AP and PS model dose predictions was 5.759% and 4.069%, respectively. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test yielded two-tailed p-value = 2.9802 × 10 - 8 $2.9802\ \times \ {10}^{ - 8}$ , indicating that the MAPE differences between the AP and PS model dose predictions are statistically significant, and 95% confidence interval = [-2.1610, -1.0130], indicating 95% confidence that the MAPE difference between the AP and PS models for a population lies in this range. Out of 24 total segmented structures, the comparison of mean dose differences for 12 structures indicated statistical significance with two-tailed p-values < 0.05.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates the potential of patient-specific deep learning models in application to ART. Notably, our method streamlines the training process by minimizing the size of the required training dataset, as only a single patient's initial treatment data is required. External institutions considering the implementation of such a technology could package such a model so that it only requires the upload of a reference treatment plan for model training and deployment. Our single patient learning strategy demonstrates promise in ART due to its minimal dataset requirement and its utility in personalization of cancer treatment.

[Development of Novel Immobilization Adapter for Head and Neck Radiotherapy with Low-attenuation Material]

PURPOSE

The dosimetric error due to immobilization devices has been highlighted by the AAPM Task Group 176. We developed a novel low-radiation-absorbent immobilization adaptor (HMA), which can be used with a Styrofoam headrest for head and neck region in radiotherapy. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of the HMA on the dose distribution and compare with a commercially released plastic adapter.

METHODS

Computed tomography (CT) simulation and dose calculation on a treatment planning system (TPS) were performed by the use of HMA and the plastic adapter with a cylindrical phantom. Both the adapters were placed on the phantom upside and the attenuation rate was measured. Gantry angles were changed at every 1°interval from 0°to 50°for measurements. The measured dose was normalized by the value of 90°. The treatment equipment was TrueBeam (Varian medical systems); X-ray energies were set on 4, 6 and 10 MV, respectively. The measured attenuation rates were also compared with calculation results of TPS.

RESULTS

The highest differences on attenuation rate of both the adapters were observed at a gantry angle of 32.0°; the differences were 3.0% at 4 MV, 2.7% at 6 MV and 3.0% at 10 MV, respectively, and lower absorption was HMA. TPS calculation results of monitor unit for the HMA were within 1.0% in each energy.

CONCLUSION

The HMA was able to provide absorption dose and calculation errors lower than a commercially released adapter. It can also provide more accurate dose delivery for radiotherapy in head and neck because of the low absorption characteristics.

Improved setup and positioning accuracy using a three-point customized cushion/mask/bite-block immobilization system for stereotactic reirradiation of head and neck cancer

The purpose of this study was to investigate the setup and positioning uncertainty of a custom cushion/mask/bite‐block (CMB) immobilization system and determine PTV margin for image‐guided head and neck stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (HN‐SABR). We analyzed 105 treatment sessions among 21 patients treated with HN‐SABR for recurrent head and neck cancers using a custom CMB immobilization system. Initial patient setup was performed using the ExacTrac infrared (IR) tracking system and initial setup errors were based on comparison of ExacTrac IR tracking system to corrected online ExacTrac X‐rays images registered to treatment plans. Residual setup errors were determined using repeat verification X‐ray. The online ExacTrac corrections were compared to cone‐beam CT (CBCT) before treatment to assess agreement. Intrafractional positioning errors were determined using prebeam X‐rays. The systematic and random errors were analyzed. The initial translational setup errors were −0.8±1.3 mm, −0.8±1.6 mm, and 0.3±1.9 mm in AP, CC, and LR directions, respectively, with a three‐dimensional (3D) vector of 2.7±1.4 mm. The initial rotational errors were up to 2.4° if 6D couch is not available. CBCT agreed with ExacTrac X‐ray images to within 2 mm and 2.5°. The intrafractional uncertainties were 0.1±0.6 mm, 0.1±0.6 mm, and 0.2±0.5 mm in AP, CC, and LR directions, respectively, and 0.0∘±0.5°, 0.0∘±0.6°, and −0.1∘±0.4∘ in yaw, roll, and pitch direction, respectively. The translational vector was 0.9±0.6 mm. The calculated PTV margins mPTV(90,95) were within 1.6 mm when using image guidance for online setup correction. The use of image guidance for online setup correction, in combination with our customized CMB device, highly restricted target motion during treatments and provided robust immobilization to ensure minimum dose of 95% to target volume with 2.0 mm PTV margin for HN‐SABR.

PACS number(s): 87.55.ne

A comparison of two systems of patient immobilization for prostate radiotherapy

BACKGROUND

Reproducibility of different immobilization systems, which may affect set-up errors, remains uncertain. Immobilization systems and their corresponding set-up errors influence the clinical target volume to planning target volume (CTV-PTV) margins and thus may result in undesirable treatment outcomes. This study compared the reproducibility of patient positioning with Hipfix system and whole body alpha cradle with respect to localized prostate cancer and investigated the existing CTV-PTV margins in the clinical oncology departments of two hospitals.

METHODS

Forty sets of data of patients with localized T1-T3 prostate cancer were randomly selected from two regional hospitals, with 20 patients immobilized by a whole-body alpha cradle system and 20 by a thermoplastic Hipfix system. Seven sets of the anterior-posterior (AP), cranial-caudal (CC) and medial-lateral (ML) deviations were collected from each patient. The reproducibility of patient positioning within the two hospitals was compared using a total vector error (TVE) parameter. In addition, CTV-PTV margins were computed using van Herk's formula. The resulting values were compared to the current CTV-PTV margins in both hospitals.

RESULTS

The TVE values were 5.1 and 2.8 mm for the Hipfix and the whole-body alpha cradle systems respectively. TVE associated with the whole-body alpha cradle system was found to be significantly less than the Hipfix system (p < 0.05). The CC axis in the Hipfix system attained the highest frequency of large (23.6%) and serious (7.9%) set-up errors. The calculated CTV to PTV margin was 8.3, 1.9 and 2.3 mm for the Hipfix system, and 2.1, 3.4 and 1.8 mm for the whole body alpha cradle in CC, ML and AP axes respectively. All but one (CC axis using Hipfix) margin calculated did not exceed the corresponding hospital protocol. The whole body alpha cradle system was found to be significantly better than the Hipfix system in terms of reproducibility (p < 0.05), especially in the CC axis.

CONCLUSIONS

The whole body alpha cradle system was more reproducible than the Hipfix system. In particular, the difference in CC axis contributed most to the results and the current CC margin for the Hipfix system might be considered as inadequate.

Comparison of geometric uncertainties between alpha cradle and thermoplastic ray cast immobilisation in abdominopelvic radiotherapy: a prospective study

Context: Setup error significantly affects the accuracy of treatment and outcome in high precision radiotherapy.

Aims: To determine total, systematic, random error and clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume (PTV) margin with alpha cradle (VL) and ray cast (RC) immobilisation in abdominopelvic region.

Methods and material: Setup error was compared by using digitally reconstructed radiograph (DRR) as reference image with electronic portal image (EPI) taken during the treatment. Statistical analysis used: The total errors in mediolateral (ML), craniocaudal (CC) and anteroposterior (AP) directions were compared by t-test. For systematic and random errors variance ratio test (F-statistics) was used. Margins were calculated using International Commission of Radiation Units (ICRU), Stroom’s and van Herk’s formula.

Results: A total number of 306 portal images were analysed with 144 images in RC group and 162 images in VL group. For VL, in ML, CC, AP directions systematic errors were, in cm, (0.45, 0.29, 0.41), random errors (0.48, 0.32, 0.58), CTV to PTV margins (1.24, 0.80, 1.25), respectively. For RC, systematic errors were (0.25, 0.37, 0.80), random error (0.46, 0.80, 0.33), CTV to PTV margins (0.82, 1.30, 1.08), respectively. The difference of random error in CC and AP directions were statistically significant.

Conclusions: Geometric errors and CTV to PTV margins are different in different directions. For abdomen and pelvis in VL immobilisation, the margin ranged from 8 mm to 12.4 mm and for RC it was 8.2 mm to 13 mm. Therefore, a margin of 10 mm with online correction would be adequate.

Feasibility of intrafraction whole-body motion tracking for total marrow irradiation

With image-guided tomotherapy, highly targeted total marrow irradiation (TMI) has become a feasible alternative to conventional total body irradiation. The uncertainties in patient localization and intrafraction motion of the whole body during hour-long TMI treatment may pose a risk to the safety and accuracy of targeted radiation treatment. The feasibility of near-infrared markers and optical tracking system (OTS) is accessed along with a megavoltage scanning system of tomotherapy. Three near-infrared markers placed on the face of a rando phantom are used to evaluate the capability of OTS in measuring changes in the markers' positions as the rando is moved in the translational direction. The OTS is also employed to determine breathing motion related changes in the position of 16 markers placed on the chest surface of human volunteers. The maximum uncertainty in locating marker position with the OTS is 1.5 mm. In the case of normal and deep breathing motion, the maximum marker position change is observed in anterior-posterior direction with the respective values of 4 and 12 mm. The OTS is able to measure surface changes due to breathing motion. The OTS may be optimized to monitor whole body motion during TMI to increase the accuracy of treatment delivery and reduce the radiation dose to the lungs.

A randomized crossover study evaluating two immobilization devices for prostate cancer treatment

Purpose: To compare the Combifix® immobilization device with a conventional double-leg cushion in terms of patient comfort, therapist feedback and systematic/random error outcomes.

Materials and Methods: This prospective block-randomised crossover study enrolled 18 high-risk prostate cancer patients who received whole pelvic plus prostate radiotherapy. Treatment consisted of a prostate boost with one immobilization device followed by whole pelvic radiation using the other device. Our primary endpoints were device ease-of-use and patient comfort. Secondary endpoints included treatment time and systematic/random error assessments.

Results: While our patients found both devices equally comfortable and easy to use, the therapists preferred the leg cushion for ease of set-up (p = 0.04). Patient treatment time was similar for the two devices. In terms of electronic portal imaging (EPID)-based isocentre shifts, statistically, but not clinically, significant differences in systematic and random errors between the two devices exist in the superior–inferior directions (p ≤ 0.05).

Conclusions: No clinically important advantage was seen with the Combifix® device versus our standard double-leg cushion in terms of patient/therapist preference, patient comfort, and bony pelvic immobilization. However, this research project confirmed the feasibility of mounting a small single-institution randomised crossover technology assessment related to a practical radiotherapy issue.

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for the treatment of pediatric cancer patients

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is a novel form of radiotherapy, which has the potential to reduce the amount of radiation unintentionally delivered to normal tissues while maintaining a high radiation dose to the tumor in comparison with standard radiation techniques. In adults, this technology has been implemented in a number of tumor sites, but in children it has been little used. This article will review the current studies in which IMRT has been used in children. It will also discuss possible future applications for IMRT, and anticipated problems with its use.

Immobilization effect of air-injected blanket (AIB) for abdomen fixation

A new device for reducing the amplitude of breathing motion by pressing a patient's abdomen using an air-injected blanket (AIB) for external beam radiation treatments has been designed and tested. The blanket has two layers sealed in all four sides similar to an empty pillow made of urethane. The blanket is spread over the patient's abdomen with both ends of the blanket fixed to the sides of the treatment couch or a baseboard. The inner side, or patient side, of the blanket is thinner and expands more than the outer side. When inflated, the blanket balloons and effectively puts an even pressure on the patient's abdomen. Fluoroscopic observation was performed to verify the usefulness of AIB for patients with lung, breast cancer, or abdominal cancers. Internal organ movement due to breathing was monitored and measured with and without AIB. With the help of AIB, the average range of diaphragm motion was reduced from 2.6 to 0.7 cm in the anterior-to-posterior direction and from 2.7 to 1.3 cm in the superior-to-inferior direction. The motion range in the right-to-left direction was negligible, for it was less than 0.5 cm. These initial testing demonstrated that AIB is useful for reducing patients' breathing motion in the thoracic and abdominal regions comfortably and consistently.

Compensation for respiratory motion by gated radiotherapy: an experimental study

Respiratory organ motion is known to be one of the largest intrafractional organ motions. Therefore, it is important to investigate the potential benefit of gated dose delivery approaches which aim to account for the respective dose uncertainties. In this study respiration is simulated by a moving lung phantom; the movement is not restricted to a normal sinusoidal progression and simulates the one of the embedded lung tumour in the cranial-caudal direction. An IMRT plan with a total of 29 beam segments was designed for the treatment of this tumour. It was irradiated in its resting position-which is the position at exhalation-and during movement. Furthermore the irradiation was triggered using different amplitude thresholds, which means that the irradiation only proceeded if the deviation of the tumour's position from its resting position is smaller than the given threshold. We determined the gating-related increase of the treatment time for various gating procedures. We also measured the resulting dose distribution in specific slices of the phantom perpendicular to the direction of the movement using film dosimetry and compared it to the dose distribution of the static case. Since these film measurements cannot be done inside the whole tumour, additionally the movement and gating was simulated using the planning software to calculate the 3D dose distribution inside the tumour and to generate dose volume histograms for different treatment modalities. The total treatment time was observed to increase by 20%-100% depending on the individual gating threshold and can be calculated easily. The analysis of the films showed that irradiation without gating leads to significant underdosages up to 33%, especially at the edge of the tumour. With gating it is possible to considerably reduce this underdosage down to 9% depending on the trigger threshold. The calculation of the dose volume histograms makes it possible to find a reasonable compromise between the improvement of the dose distribution and the increase of the treatment time.

An immobilization system for claustrophobic patients in head-and-neck intensity-modulated radiation therapy

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness of an immobilization treatment system used for claustrophobic patients in head-and-neck intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Instead of the thermoplastic facemask, the Vac Fix (S & S Par Scientific, Odense, Denmark) mold is used for immobilization of claustrophobic patients at the University of Florida in head-and-neck IMRT. The immobilization procedure combines the use of commercial stereotactic infrared (IR) ExacTrac camera system (BrainLAB, Inc., Westchester, IL) for patient setup and monitoring. The Vac Fix mold is placed on the headrest and folded up as needed to provide support before the mold is hardened. For the camera system, a frame referred to as a "tattoo-free immobilization accessory" is fabricated, on which the IR markers can be placed. A patient-specific dental impression is made with the bite tray. The movement of the markers, connected through the dental impression of the patient, accurately represents the overall patient motion. Patient movement is continuously monitored and repositioning is performed whenever patient movement exceeds the predefined tolerance limit. Monitored patient movements are recorded at a certain frequency. Recorded data are analyzed and compared with those of patients immobilized with the thermoplastic facemask plus the camera system that is the standard immobilization system in our clinic.

RESULTS

For three patients treated with the Vac Fix mold plus the camera system, on average, the histogram-based uncertainties, U(95)(5), U(95)(20), and mean displacement, R(mean) (mm) were 1.03, 1.08, and 0.60, respectively. These values are close to those obtained with the mask plus the camera system. The Vac Fix mold plus the camera system often requires more beam interruptions because of repositioning than the mask plus the camera system (on average, the Vac Fix mold plus the camera system required repositioning 7.7 times and the mask plus the camera system required repositioning 1.8 times during 20 treatments).

CONCLUSION

The Vac Fix mold immobilization procedure plus the camera monitoring system has been set up for patients who are claustrophobic or cannot tolerate a mask during head-and-neck IMRT. Although this system causes more frequent beam delivery interruptions, it is as effective as the mask plus the camera system in immobilizing patients within the tolerance limit.

Guidance document on delivery, treatment planning, and clinical implementation of IMRT: report of the IMRT Subcommittee of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) represents one of the most significant technical advances in radiation therapy since the advent of the medical linear accelerator. It allows the clinical implementation of highly conformal nonconvex dose distributions. This complex but promising treatment modality is rapidly proliferating in both academic and community practice settings. However, these advances do not come without a risk. IMRT is not just an add-on to the current radiation therapy process; it represents a new paradigm that requires the knowledge of multimodality imaging, setup uncertainties and internal organ motion, tumor control probabilities, normal tissue complication probabilities, three-dimensional (3-D) dose calculation and optimization, and dynamic beam delivery of nonuniform beam intensities. Therefore, the purpose of this report is to guide and assist the clinical medical physicist in developing and implementing a viable and safe IMRT program. The scope of the IMRT program is quite broad, encompassing multileaf-collimator-based IMRT delivery systems, goal-based inverse treatment planning, and clinical implementation of IMRT with patient-specific quality assurance. This report, while not prescribing specific procedures, provides the framework and guidance to allow clinical radiation oncology physicists to make judicious decisions in implementing a safe and efficient IMRT program in their clinics.

Clinical experience with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer with the use of rectal balloon for prostate immobilization

The implementation of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is the result of advances in imaging, radiotherapy planning technologies, and computer-controlled linear accelerators. IMRT allows both conformal treatment of tumors and conformal avoidance of the surrounding normal structures. The first patient treated with Peacock IMRT at Baylor College of Medicine took place in March 1994. To date, more than 1500 patients have been treated with IMRT; more than 700 patients were treated for prostate cancer. Our experience in treating prostate cancer with IMRT was reviewed. Patient and prostate motions are important issues to address in delivering IMRT. The Vac-Lok bag-and-box system, as well as rectal balloon for immobilization of patient and prostate gland, respectively, are employed. Treatment planning also plays a very important role. IMRT as a boost after conventional external beam radiotherapy is not our treatment strategy. To derive maximal benefits with this new technology, all patients received full course IMRT. Three separate groups of patients receiving (1) primary IMRT, (2) combined radioactive seed implant and IMRT, and (3) post-prostatectomy IMRT were addressed. Overall, toxicity profiles in these patients were very favorable. IMRT has the potential to improve treatment outcome with dose escalation while minimizing treatment-related toxicity.

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for the spine at the University of California, Irvine

Radiation treatment of malignant diseases of the spine poses unique challenges to the radiation oncology treatment team. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) offers the capability of delivering high doses to targets near the spine while respecting spinal cord tolerance. At the University of California, Irvine, 8 patients received a total of 10 courses to the spine for a variety of primary and metastatic malignant conditions. This paper discusses anatomical considerations, spinal cord radiation myelopathy, and treatment planning issues as it relates to the treatment of spinal cord lesions. Between October 1997 and August 2001, a total of 8 patients received 10 courses of IMRT for primary or metastatic disease of the spine. Cancers treated included metastatic lung, renal, adrenocortical cancers, and primary sarcomas and giant cell tumor. Five cases had 6 courses given for re-irradiation of symptomatic disease and 3 cases had 4 courses of IMRT as primary management of their spinal lesions. Although 3 courses were given postoperatively, these were for grossly residual disease. For the re-irradiation patients, the mean follow-up interval was 4 months. The local control was estimated at 14%. Of the patients treated with primary intent, the mean follow-up was 9 months and the local control rate 75%. No patients developed spinal cord complications.

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy in the treatment of children

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is a relatively new method of conformal radiotherapy delivery that is rapidly being incorporated in clinical practice. Of all patients treated with conformal techniques, children are the most likely to benefit as normal, developing structures can be minimized in the radiation field. The advantages of IMRT, including increased conformality and possible dose escalation, are discussed in this review. Possible disadvantages of IMRT in children are also discussed, such as lack of dose homogeneity in the target volume, increased dose to nontarget tissues, reliability of treatment setup, increased anesthesia time in younger children, and prolonged treatment planning. The issue of increased risk of second malignancy in this very young population is important, as many of these children will be long-term survivors with current multimodality therapy.

Clinical implementation of intensity-modulated radiation therapy

The clinical implementation of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is a complex process because of the introduction of new treatment planning algorithms and beam delivery systems compared to conventional 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) and the lack of established national performance protocols. IMRT uses an inverse-planning algorithm to create nonuniform fields that are only deliverable through a newly designed beam-modulating delivery system. The intent of this paper is to describe our experience and to elucidate the new clinical procedures that must be executed to have a successful IMRT program. Patients who undergo IMRT at our institution are immobilized and simulated before proceeding to computed tomography scan for patient data acquisition. Treatment planning involves the use of different prescription dose formats and different planning techniques compared to 3D-CRT. The desired dose goals for the target and sensitive structures must be specified before initiating the planning process, which is computer intensive. After the plan is completed, the delivery instructions are transferred to the delivery system via either a floppy disk for MIMiC-based IMRT or through the network for MLC-based IMRT. Target localizations are carried out using orthogonal radiographs. Ultrasound imaging system (BAT) is used to localize the prostate. Dose validation is performed using films, ion chambers or dose-calculation-based techniques.

Commissioning and quality assurance for MLC-based IMRT

The commissioning and quality assurance (QA) associated with the implementation of linear accelerator multileaf collimator (MLC)-based intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) at the University of Nebraska Medical Center are described. Our MLC-based IMRT is implemented using the PRIMUS linear accelerator interface through the IMPAC record and verification system to the CORVUS treatment planning system. The "step-and-shoot" technique is used for this MLC-based IMRT. Commissioning process requires the verification of predefined parameters available on the CORVUS and the collection of some machine data. The machine data required are output factor in air and output factor in phantom, and percent depth dose for a number of field sizes. In addition, inplane and crossplane dose profiles of 4 x 4 cm and 20 x 20 cm field sizes and diagonal dose profiles of a large field size have to be measured. Validation of connectivity and dose model includes the use of uniform intensity bar strips, triangular-shaped nonuniform intensity bar strip, and N-shaped target. QA procedure follows the recommendation of the AAPM Task Group No. 40 report. In addition, the leaf position accuracy and reproducibility of the MLC should be checked at regular intervals. The dose validation is implemented through the hybrid plan where the patient beam parameters are applied to a flat phantom. Independent dose calculation method is used to confirm the dose delivery plan and data input to the CORVUS.