Variation of PTV dose distribution on patient size in prostate VMAT and IMRT: a dosimetric evaluation using the PTV dose–volume factor

Dose Enhancement for the Flattening-Filter-Free and Flattening-Filter Photon Beams in Nanoparticle-Enhanced Radiotherapy: A Monte Carlo Phantom Study

Monte Carlo simulations were used to predict the dose enhancement ratio (DER) using the flattening-filter-free (FFF) and flattening-filter (FF) photon beams in prostate nanoparticle-enhanced radiotherapy, with multiple variables such as nanoparticle material, nanoparticle concentration, prostate size, pelvic size, and photon beam energy. A phantom mimicking the patient’s pelvis with various prostate and pelvic sizes was used. Macroscopic Monte Carlo simulation using the EGSnrc code was used to predict the dose at the prostate or target using the 6 MV FFF, 6 MV FF, 10 MV FFF, and 10 MV FF photon beams produced by a Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator (Varian Medical System, Palo Alto, CA, USA). Nanoparticle materials of gold, platinum, iodine, silver, and iron oxide with concentration varying in the range of 3–40 mg/ml were used in simulations. Moreover, the prostate and pelvic size were varied from 2.5 to 5.5 cm and 20 to 30 cm, respectively. The DER was defined as the ratio of the target dose with nanoparticle addition to the target dose without nanoparticle addition in the simulation. From the Monte Carlo results of DER, the best nanoparticle material with the highest DER was gold, based on all the nanoparticle concentrations and photon beams. Smaller prostate size, smaller pelvic size, and a higher nanoparticle concentration showed better DER results. When comparing energies, the 6 MV beams always had the greater enhancement ratio. In addition, the FFF photon beams always had a better DER when compared to the FF beams. It is concluded that gold nanoparticles were the most effective material in nanoparticle-enhanced radiotherapy. Moreover, lower photon beam energy (6 MV), FFF photon beam, higher nanoparticle concentration, smaller pelvic size, and smaller prostate size would all increase the DER in prostate nanoparticle-enhanced radiotherapy.

Dosimetric and radiobiological comparison of prostate VMAT plans optimized using the photon and progressive resolution algorithm

This study compared the dosimetric and radiobiological parameters of prostate volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans using different prescriptions optimized by the photon optimization (PO) and progressive resolution optimization (PRO) algorithm. A total of 20 prostate patients were selected retrospectively and divided into 2 groups of VMAT plans using prescriptions of 60 Gy/20 fx and 79 Gy/38 fx. Inverse treatment planning optimized by the PO and PRO algorithm based on the dual-arc technique was carried out by the Eclipse treatment planning system. The maximum dose, minimum dose, mean dose, dose-volume points, and dose-volume indices of the targets and organs at risk (OAR) were calculated from the plans. In addition, radiobiological parameters such as tumor control probability (TCP), normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), and equivalent uniform dose (EUD) of the targets and OAR were determined based on their dose-volume histograms (DVHs). A paired Student's t-test was carried out to compare the difference between mean dose-volume points, radiobiological parameters, and dose-volume indices. Two-tailed p < 0.05 was defined as having statistical difference. For prostate VMAT plans optimized by the PO algorithm, equal or slightly larger mean dose and TCP of the PTV (1% for 60 Gy/20 fx and 0.2% for 78 Gy/39 fx) were found by comparing to the PRO. These were followed by finding the slightly larger conformity index (CI; 0.927 vs 0.895 and 0.910 vs 0.904), larger or equal homogeneity index (HI; 0.054 vs 0.052 and 0.058 vs 0.058), and smaller gradient index (GI; 1.366 vs 2.288 and 1.585 vs 1.742) of the PTV using plans optimized by the PO vs PRO using prescriptions of 60 Gy/20 fx and 78 Gy/39 fx. For the OAR, we found that the mean doses, NTCPs, and EUDs of the rectum, bladder, and femur were slightly larger for plans optimized by the PO algorithm compared to the PRO, though both optimization algorithms satisfied all the dose-volume criteria and objectives in the inverse planning. Both the PO and PRO algorithm can generate prostate VMAT plans fulfilling the required dose-volume criteria. It is concluded that plans optimized by the PO algorithm can produce prostate plan with very similar quality compared to PRO.

Evaluation of plan optimisers in prostate VMAT using the dose distribution index

Purpose:

Dose distribution index (DDI) is a treatment planning evaluation parameter, reflecting dosimetric information of target coverage that can help to spare organs at risk (OARs) and remaining volume at risk (RVR). The index has been used to evaluate and compare prostate volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans using two different plan optimisers, namely photon optimisation (PO) and its predecessor, progressive resolution optimisation (PRO).

Materials and methods:

Twenty prostate VMAT treatment plans were created using the PO and PRO in this retrospective study. The 6 MV photon beams and a dose prescription of 78 Gy/39 fractions were used in plans with the same dose–volume criteria for plan optimisation. Dose–volume histograms (DVHs) of the planning target volume (PTV), as well as of OARs such as the rectum, bladder, left and right femur were determined in each plan. DDIs were calculated and compared for plans created by the PO and PRO based on DVHs of the PTV and all OARs.

Results:

The mean DDI values were 0·784 and 0·810 for prostate VMAT plans created by the PO and PRO, respectively. It was found that the DDI of the PRO plan was about 3·3% larger than the PO plan, which means that the dose distribution of the target coverage and sparing of OARs in the PRO plan was slightly better. Changing the weighting factors in different OARs would vary the DDI value by ∼7%. However, for plan comparison based on the same set of dose–volume criteria, the effect of weighting factor can be neglected because they were the same in the PO and PRO.

Conclusions:

Based on the very similar DDI values calculated from the PO and PRO plans, with the DDI value in the PRO plan slightly larger than that of the PO, it may be concluded that the PRO can create a prostate VMAT plan with slightly better dose distribution regarding the target coverage and sparing of OARs. Moreover, we found that the DDI is a simple and comprehensive dose–volume parameter for plan evaluation considering the target, OARs and RVR.

Dosimetric variations in calculation grid size in prostate VMAT: a dose-volume histogram analysis using the Gaussian error function

Background

Varying the calculation grid size can change the results of dose-volume and radiobiological parameters in a treatment plan, and therefore has an impact on the treatment planning quality assurance.

Purpose

This study investigated the dosimetric influence of the calculation grid size variation in the prostate volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan.

Methods and materials

Dose distributions of 10 prostate VMAT plans were acquired using calculation grid sizes of 1–5 mm. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) analysis was carried out to determine the dose-volume variation corresponding to the grid size change using the Gaussian error function (GEF). At the same time, dose-volume points, dose-volume parameters and radiobiological parameters were calculated based on DVHs of targets and organs at risk (OARs) for each grid size.

Results

Comparing percentage variations of GEF parameters between the planning target volume (PTV) and clinical target volume (CTV), GEF parameters of the PTV were found varied more significantly than the CTV. This resulted in larger variations of dose-volume (%ΔCI=40·02 versus 13·55%, %ΔHI=12·45 versus 2·93% and %ΔGI=0·22 versus 0·06%) and radiobiological parameters (%ΔTCP=0·61 versus 0·25% and %ΔEUD=2·11 versus 0·26%) of the PTV compared with CTV. For OARs, the rectal wall showed a larger dose-volume variation than the rectum. However, similar dose-volume variation due to grid size change was not found in the bladder, bladder wall and femur.

Conclusions

Knowing the dosimetric variation in this study is important to the radiotherapy staff in the quality assurance for the prostate VMAT planning.

Dosimetric comparison between the prostate intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans using the planning target volume (PTV) dose–volume factor

Background

We demonstrated that our proposed planning target volume (PTV) dose–volume factor (PDVF) can be used to evaluate the PTV dose coverage between the intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans based on 90 prostate patients.

Purpose

PDVF were determined from the prostate IMRT and VMAT plans to compare their variation of PTV dose coverage. Comparisons of the PDVF with other plan evaluation parameters such as D5%, D95%, D99%, Dmean, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), gradient index (GI) and prostate tumour control probability (TCP) were carried out.

Methods and materials

Prostate IMRT and VMAT plans using the 6 MV photon beams were created from 40 and 50 patients, respectively. Dosimetric indices (CI, HI and GI), dose–volume points (D5%, D95%, D99% and Dmean) and prostate TCP were calculated according to the PTV dose–volume histograms (DVHs) of the plans. All PTV DVH curves were fitted using the Gaussian error function (GEF) model. The PDVF were calculated based on the GEF parameters.

Results

From the PTV DVHs of the prostate IMRT and VMAT plans, the average D99% of the PTV for IMRT and VMAT were 74·1 and 74·5 Gy, respectively. The average prostate TCP were 0·956 and 0·958 for the IMRT and VMAT plans, respectively. The average PDVF of the IMRT and VMAT plans were 0·970 and 0·983, respectively. Although both the IMRT and VMAT plans showed very similar prostate TCP, the dosimetric and radiobiological results of the VMAT technique were slightly better than IMRT.

Conclusion

The calculated PDVF for the prostate IMRT and VMAT plans agreed well with other dosimetric and radiobiological parameters in this study. PDVF was verified as an alternative of evaluation parameter in the quality assurance of prostate treatment planning.