Non-coplanar inverse planning IMRT using the MIMiC system: clinical significance in choice of 2-cm/1-cm mode and single couch vs. multiple couch angles

Quantification of Dosimetry Improvement With or Without Patient Surface Guidance

Purpose

Noncoplanar beams and arcs are routinely used to improve dosimetry for intracranial cases, but their application for extracranial cases has been hampered by the risk of collision. This has led to conservative beam selection whose impact on plan dosimetry has not been previously studied.

Methods and Materials

A full-body 3-dimensional patient surface was acquired using optical cameras for a single lung patient at the time of computed tomography simulation. Eight stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) plans were created for the patient, with varying degrees of noncoplanarity and deliverability. The plans included volumetric modulated arc therapy and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans ranging from simple, coplanar arcs to multiple noncoplanar arcs and IMRT beams. A total of 70 fields were created across the 8 plans, of which 21 fields were undeliverable with a 5-cm buffer. Organs-at-risk (OARs) metrics including R50, Dmax 2 cm from the PTV, lung V20, and chest wall V30 were evaluated. Five expert SBRT dosimetrists from 5 institutions evaluated field deliverability, with or without the guidance of the clearance map.

Results

In the dosimetry evaluation, a clear trend in increasing dosimetric compactness and OAR sparing is observed with increasing plan noncoplanarity. R50, Dmax 2 cm, lung V20, and chest wall V30 decreased 41%, 39%, 43%, and 57%, respectively, from plan 1 (2 coplanar partial arcs) to plan 8 (19 noncoplanar IMRT beams). In the observer tests, the expert dosimetrists' ability to accurately discern beam deliverability because of collision significantly increases with the clearance map. The errors in predicting colliding fields were eliminated using the whole-body surface and clearance map, and the user was able to select fields based on plan quality and patient comfort instead of being overly conservative.

Conclusion

The study shows that incorporating a personalized, whole-body clearance map in the treatment planning workflow can facilitate the adoption of noncoplanar beams or arcs that benefit the SBRT plan dosimetry.

[Serial tomotherapy vs. MLC-IMRT (multileaf collimator intensity modulated radiotherapy) for simultaneous boost treatment large intracerebral lesions]

INTRODUCTION

Recent data suggest that a radiosurgery boost treatment for up to three brain metastases in addition to whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) is beneficial. Sequential treatment of multiple metastatic lesions is time-consuming and optimal normal tissue sparing is not trivial for larger metastases when separate plans are created and are only superimposed afterwards. Sequential Tomotherapy (see image I) with noncoplanar arcs and Multi-field IMRT may streamline the process and enable easy simultaneous treatment. We compared plans for 2-3 intracerebral targets calculated with Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) based on treatment with MLC or sequential Tomotherapy using the Peacock-System (see image II). Treatment time was not to exceed 90 min on a linac with standard dose rate. MIMiC plans without treatment-time restrictions were created as a benchmark.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Calculations are based on a Siemens KD2 linac with a dose rate of 200 MU/min. Step-and-Shoot IMRT is performed with a standard MLC (2 x 29 leaves, 1 cm), serial Tomotherapy with the Multivane-Collimator MIMiC (NOMOS Inc. USA) (see image II). Treatment plans are created with Corvus 5.0. To create plans with good conformity we chose a noncoplanar beam- and arc geometry for each approach (IMRT 4-, MIMiC 5-couch angles). The benchmark MIMiC plans with maximally steep dose gradients had 9 couch angles. For plan comparison reasons, 10 Gy were prescribed to 90% of the PTV. Steepness of dose gradients, homogeneity and conformity were assessed by the following parameters: Volume encompassed by certain isodoses outside the target as well as homogeneity and conformity as indicated by Homogeneity- and Conformity-Index.

RESULTS

Plans without treatment-time restrictions had slightest dose to organ at risk (OAR), normal tissue and least Conformity-index. MIMiC- and MLC-IMRT based plans can be treated within the intended period of 90 min, all plans met the required dose (see Table 2). MLC based plans resulted in higher dose to organs at risk (OAR) (see table 1) and dose to tissue outside the targets (see table 3), as indicated by a higher CI (see image III). The HI was similar for all calculated plans (see image IV).

DISCUSSION

When treatment plans resulting in a similar treatment time were compared, serial Tomotherapy showed minor advantages over MLC based IMRT with regard to conformity, OAR sparing, and steepness of dose gradients. Both methods are inferior to serial Tomotherapy with ideal plan quality disregarding treatment efficiency. Treating multiple metastases in less than 1 h would therefore be possible on a LINAC with high dose rate and bidirectional rotation with minor compromises on gradient steepness.

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.