Letter to the Editor on ‘Single-Arc IMRT?’

Dosimetric effect of collimator rotation on intensity modulated radiotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for rectal cancer radiotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) are the main radiotherapy techniques for treating and managing rectal cancer. Collimator rotation is one of the crucial parameters in radiotherapy planning, and its alteration can cause dosimetric variations. This study assessed the effect of collimator rotation on the dosimetric results of various IMRT and VMAT plans for rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Computed tomography (CT) images of 20 male patients with rectal cancer were utilized for IMRT and VMAT treatment planning with various collimator angles. Nine different IMRT techniques (5, 7, and 9 coplanar fields with collimator angles of 0°, 45°, and 90°) and six different VMAT techniques (1 and 2 full coplanar arcs with collimator angles of 0°, 45°, and 90°) were planned for each patient. The dosimetric results of various treatment techniques for target tissue (conformity index [CI] and homogeneity index [HI]) and organs at risk (OARs) sparing (parameters obtained from OARs dose-volume histograms [DVH]) as well as radiobiological findings were analyzed and compared.

RESULTS

The 7-fields IMRT technique demonstrated lower bladder doses (V40Gy, V45Gy), unaffected by collimator rotation. The 9-fields IMRT and 2-arcs VMAT (excluding the 90-degree collimator) had the lowest V35Gy and V45Gy. A 90-degree collimator rotation in 2-arcs VMAT significantly increased small bowel and bladder V45Gy, femoral head doses, and HI values. Radiobiologically, the 90-degree rotation had adverse effects on small bowel NTCP (normal tissue complication probability). No superiority was found for a 45-degree collimator rotation over 0 or 30 degrees in VMAT techniques.

CONCLUSION

Collimator rotation had minimal impact on dosimetric parameters in IMRT planning but is significant in VMAT techniques. A 90-degree rotation in VMAT, particularly in a 2-full arc technique, adversely affects PTV homogeneity index, bladder dose, and small bowel NTCP. Other evaluated collimator angles did not significantly affect VMAT dosimetrical or radiobiological outcomes.

Optimization of collimator angles in dual-arc volumetric modulated arc therapy planning for whole-brain radiotherapy with hippocampus and inner ear sparing

To optimize the collimator angles in dual-arc volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for whole-brain radiotherapy with hippocampus and inner ear sparing (HIS-WBRT). Two sets of dual-arc VMAT plans were generated for 13 small-cell lung cancer patients: (1) The collimator angles of arcs 1 and 2 (θ1/θ2) were 350°/10°, 350°/30°, 350°/45°, 350°/60°, and 350°/80°, i.e., the intersection angle of θ1 and θ2 (Δθ) increased. (2) θ1/θ2 were 280°/10°, 300°/30°, 315°/45°, 330°/60°, and 350°/80°, i.e., Δθ = 90°. The conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), monitor units (MUs), and dosimetric parameters of organs-at-risk were analyzed. Quality assurance for Δθ = 90° plans was performed. With Δθ increasing towards 90°, a significant improvement was observed for most parameters. In 350°/80° plans compared with 350°/10° ones, CI and HI were improved by 1.1% and 25.2%, respectively; MUs were reduced by 16.2%; minimum, maximum, and mean doses (D100%, Dmax, and Dmean, respectively) to the hippocampus were reduced by 5.5%, 6.3%, and 5.4%, respectively; Dmean to the inner ear and eye were reduced by 0.7% and 5.1%, respectively. With Δθ kept at 90°, the plan quality was not significantly affected by θ1/θ2 combinations. The gamma-index passing rates in 280°/10° and 350°/80° plans were relatively lower compared with the other Δθ = 90° plans. Δθ showed a significant effect on dual-arc VMAT plans for HIS-WBRT. With Δθ approaching 90°, the plan quality exhibited a nearly continuous improvement, whereas with Δθ = 90°, the effect of θ1/θ2 combination was insignificant.

Evaluation of fixed-jaw IMRT and tangential partial-VMAT radiotherapy plans for synchronous bilateral breast cancer irradiation based on a dosimetric study

PURPOSE

To investigate the fixed-jaw intensity-modulated radiotherapy (F-IMRT) and tangential partial volumetric modulated arc therapy (tP-VMAT) treatment plans for synchronous bilateral breast cancer (SBBC).

MATERIALS AND METHOD

Twelve SBBC patients with pTis-2N0M0 stages who underwent whole-breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery were planned with F-IMRT and tP-VMAT techniques prescribing 42.56 Gy (2.66 Gy*16f) to the breast. The F-IMRT used 8-12 jaw-fixed tangential fields with single (sF-IMRT) or two (F-IMRT) isocenters located under the sternum or in the center of the left and right planning target volumes (PTVs), and tP-VMAT used 4 tangential partial arcs with two isocenters located in the center of the left and right PTVs. Plan evaluation was based on dose-volume histogram (DVH) analysis. Dosimetric parameters were calculated to evaluate plan quality; total monitor units (MUs), and the gamma analysis for patient-specific quality assurance (QA) were also evaluated.

RESULTS

For PTVs, the three plans had similar Dmean and conformity index (CI) values. F-IMRT showed a slightly better target coverage according to the V100% values and demonstrated an obvious reduction in V105% and Dmax compared with the values observed for sF-IMRT and tP-VMAT. Compared with tP-VMAT, sF-IMRT was slightly better in terms of V100% , V105% and Dmax . In addition, F-IMRT achieved the best homogeneity index (HI) values for PTVs. Concerning healthy tissue, tP-VMAT had an advantage in minimizing the high dose volume. The MUs of the tP-VMAT plan were decreased approximately 1.45 and 1 times compared with the sF-IMRT and F-IMRT plans, respectively, and all plans passed QA. For the lungs, heart and liver, F-IMRT achieved the smallest values in terms of Dmean and showed a significant difference compared with tP-VMAT. Simultaneously, sF-IMRT was also superior to tP-VMAT. For the coronary artery, tP-VMAT achieved the lowest Dmean , while the value for F-IMRT was 2.24% lower compared with sF-IMRT. For all organs at risk (OARs), tP-VMAT was superior at the high dose level. In contrast, sF-IMRT and F-IMRT were obviously superior at the low dose level. The sF-IMRT and F-IMRT plans showed consistent trends.

CONCLUSION

All treatment plans for the provided techniques were of high quality and feasible for SBBC patients. However, we recommend F-IMRT with a single isocenter as a priority technique because of the tremendous advantage of local hot spot control in PTVs and the reduced dose to OARs at low dose levels. When the irradiated dose to the lungs and heart exceed the clinical restriction, two isocenter F-IMRT can be used to maximize OAR sparing. Additionally, tP-VMAT can be adopted for improving cold spots in PTVs or high-dose exposure to normal tissue when the interval between PTVs is narrow.

Variations in dosimetric distribution and plan complexity with collimator angles in hypofractionated volumetric arc radiotherapy for treating prostate cancer

Purpose

Hypofractionated radiotherapy can reduce treatment durations and produce effects identical to those of conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for treating prostate cancer. Volumetric arc radiotherapy (VMAT) can decrease the treatment machine monitor units (MUs). Previous studies have shown that VMAT with multileaf collimator (MLC) rotation exhibits better target dose distribution. Thus, VMAT with MLC rotation warrants further investigation.

Methods and materials

Ten patients with prostate cancer were included in this study. The prostate gland and seminal vesicle received 68.75 and 55 Gy, respectively, in 25 fractions. A dual‐arc VMAT plan with a collimator angle of 0° was generated and the same constraints were used to reoptimize VMAT plans with different collimator angles. The conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), gradient index (GI), normalized dose contrast (NDC), MU, and modulation complexity score (MCS_V) of the target were analyzed. The dose–volume histogram of the adjacent organs was analyzed. A Wilcoxon signed‐rank test was used to compare different collimator angles.

Results

Optimum values of CI, HI, and MCS_V were obtained with a collimator angle of 45°. The optimum values of GI, and NDC were observed with a collimator angle of 0°. In the rectum, the highest values of maximum dose and volume receiving 60 Gy (V_60 Gy) were obtained with a collimator angle of 0°, and the lowest value of mean dose (D_mean) was obtained with a collimator angle of 45°. In the bladder, high values of D_mean were obtained with collimator angles of 75° and 90°. In the rectum and bladder, the values of V_60 Gy obtained with the other tested angles were not significantly higher than those obtained with an angle of 0°.

Conclusion

This study found that MLC rotation affects VMAT plan complexity and dosimetric distribution. A collimator angle of 45° exhibited the optimal values of CI, HI, and MCSv among all the tested collimator angles. Late side effects of the rectum and bladder are associated with high‐dose volumes by previous studies. MLC rotation did not have statistically significantly higher values of V_60 Gy in the rectum and bladder than did the 0° angle. We thought a collimator angle of 45° was an optimal angle for the prostate VMAT treatment plan. The findings can serve as a guide for collimator angle selection in prostate hypofractionated VMAT planning.

Clinical decision tool for optimal delivery of liver stereotactic body radiation therapy: Photons versus protons

PURPOSE

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for treatment of liver tumors is often limited by liver dose constraints. Protons offer potential for more liver sparing, but clinical situations in which protons may be superior to photons are not well described. We developed and validated a treatment decision model to determine whether liver tumors of certain sizes and locations are more suited for photon versus proton SBRT.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Six spherical mock tumors from 1 to 6 cm in diameter were contoured on computed tomography images of 1 patient at 4 locations: dome, caudal, left medial, and central. Photon and proton plans were generated to deliver 50 Gy in 5 fractions to each tumor and optimized to deliver equivalent target coverage and maximal liver sparing. Using these plans, we developed a hypothesis-generating model to predict the optimal modality for maximal liver sparing based on tumor size and location. We then validated this model in 10 patients with liver tumors.

RESULTS

Protons spared significantly more liver than photons for dome or central tumors ≥3 cm (dome: 134 ± 21 cm(3), P = .03; central: 108 ± 4 cm(3), P = .01). Our model correctly predicted the optimal SBRT modality for all 10 patients. For patients with dome or central tumors ≥3 cm, protons significantly increased the volume of liver spared (176 ± 21 cm(3), P = .01) and decreased the mean liver dose (8.4 vs 12.2 Gy, P = .01) while offering no significant advantage for tumors <3 cm at any location or for caudal and left medial tumors of any size.

CONCLUSIONS

When feasible, protons should be considered as the radiation modality of choice for dome and central tumors >3 cm to allow maximal liver sparing and potentially reduce radiation toxicity. Protons should also be considered for any tumor >5 cm if photon plans fail to achieve adequate coverage or exceed the mean liver threshold.

A dosimetric comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and non-coplanar intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for nasal cavity and paranasal sinus cancer

Background

To compare dosimetric parameters of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and non-coplanar intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for nasal cavity and paranasal sinus cancer with regard to the coverage of planning target volume (PTV) and the sparing of organs at risk (OAR).

Methods

Ten patients with nasal cavity or paranasal sinus cancer were re-planned by VMAT (two-arc) plan and non-coplanar IMRT (7-, 11-, and 15-beam) plans. Planning objectives were to deliver 60 Gy in 30 fractions to 95% of PTV, with maximum doses (D_max) of <50 Gy to the optic nerves, optic chiasm, and brainstem, <40 Gy to the eyes and <10 Gy to the lenses. The target mean dose (D_mean) to the parotid glands was <25 Gy, and no constraints were applied to the lacrimal glands. Planning was optimized to minimized doses to OAR without compromising coverage of the PTV. VMAT and three non-coplanar IMRT (7-, 11-, and 15-beam) plans were compared using the heterogeneity and conformity indices (HI and CI) of the PTV, D_max and D_mean of the OAR, treatment delivery time, and monitor units (MUs).

Results

The HI and CI of VMAT plan were superior to those of the 7-, 11-, and 15-beam non-coplanar IMRT. VMAT and non-coplanar IMRT (7-, 11-, and 15-beam) showed equivalent sparing effects for the optic nerves, optic chiasm, brainstem, and parotid glands. For the eyes and lenses, VMAT achieved equivalent or better sparing effects when compared with the non-coplanar IMRT plans. VMAT showed lower MUs and reduced treatment delivery time when compared with non-coplanar IMRT.

Conclusions

In 10 patients with nasal cavity or paranasal sinus cancer, a VMAT plan provided better homogeneity and conformity for PTV than non-coplanar IMRT plans, with a shorter treatment delivery time, while achieving equal or better OAR-sparing effects and using fewer MUs.

Generation of prostate IMAT plans adaptable to the inter-fractional changes of patient geometry

We present the results of 2-Step generation of adaptable IMAT plans for prostate carcinoma cases. The 2-Step IMAT plans show clinical and dosimetric equivalence to the reference SmartArc™-generated VMAT plans. The 2-Step plans are adapted to inter-fractional changes of prostate-rectum geometry using 2-Step adaptation rules for a cohort of ten adaptation cases. The adapted 2-Step IMAT plans show statistically significant improvement (Wilcoxon 1-tail p < 0.05) of target coverage and of rectum sparing when compared to isocenter relocated plans.

Assessment of potential jaw-tracking advantage using control point sequences of VMAT planning

This study aims to evaluate the potential jaw-tracking advantage using control point sequences of volume volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning. VMAT plans for patients with prostate and head and neck (H&amp;N) cancers were converted into new static arc (SA) plans. The SA plan consisted of a series of static fields at each control point of the VMAT plan. All other machine parameters of the SA plan were perfectly identical to those of the original VMAT plan. The jaw-tracking static arc (JTSA) plans were generated with fields that closed the jaws of each SA field into the multileaf collimators (MLCs) aperture. The dosimetric advantages of JTSA over SA were evaluated in terms of a dose-volume histogram (DVH) of organ at risk (OAR) after renormalizing both plans to make the same target coverage. Both plans were delivered to the MatriXX-based COMPASS system for 3D volume dose verification. The average jaw size reduction of the JTSA along the X direction was 3.1 ± 0.9 cm for prostate patients and 6.9 ± 1.9 cm for H&amp;N patients. For prostate patients, the organs far from the target showed larger sparing (3.7%-8.1% on average) in JTSA than the organs adjacent to the target (1.1%-1.5%). For the H&amp;N plans, the mean dose reductions for all organs ranged from 4.3% to 11.9%. The dose reductions were more significant in the dose regions of D80, D90, and D95 than the dose regions of D5, D10, and D20 for all patients. Likewise, the deliverability and reproducibility of jaw-tracking plan were validated. The measured dosimetric advantage of JTSA over SA coincided with the calculated one above.

Dosimetry Comparison between Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy with Rapid Arcand Fixed Field Dynamic IMRT for Local-Regionally Advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

A dosimetric study was performed to evaluate the performance of volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy with RapidArc on locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).

METHODS

The CT scan data sets of 20 patients of locally advanced NPC were selected randomly. The plans were managed using volumetric modulated arc with RapidArc and fixed nine-field coplanar dynamic intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for these patients. The dosimetry of the planning target volumes (PTV), the organs at risk (OARs) and the healthy tissue were evaluated. The dose prescription was set to 70 Gy to the primary tumor and 60 Gy to the clinical target volumes (CTV) in 33 fractions. Each fraction applied daily, five fractions per week. The monitor unit (MU) values and the delivery time were scored to evaluate the expected treatment efficiency.

RESULTS

Both techniques had reached clinical treatment's requirement. The mean dose (Dmean), maximum dose (Dmax) and minimum dose (Dmin) in RapidArc and fixed field IMRT for PTV were 68.4±0.6 Gy, 74.8±0.9 Gy and 56.8±1.1 Gy; and 67.6±0.6 Gy, 73.8±0.4 Gy and 57.5±0.6 Gy (P<0.05), respectively. Homogeneity index was 78.85±1.29 in RapidArc and 80.34±0.54 (P<0.05) in IMRT. The conformity index (CI: 95%) was 0.78±0.01 for both techniques (P>0.05). Compared to IMRT, RapidArc allowed a reduction of Dmean to the brain stem, mandible and optic nerves of 14.1% (P<0.05), 5.6% (P<0.05) and 12.2% (P<0.05), respectively. For the healthy tissue and the whole absorbed dose, Dmean of RapidArc was reduced by 3.6% (P<0.05), and 3.7% (P<0.05), respectively. The Dmean to the parotids, the spinal cord and the lens had no statistical difference among them. The mean MU values of RapidArc and IMRT were 550 and 1,379. The mean treatment time of RapidArc and IMRT was 165 s and 447 s. Compared to IMRT, the delivery time and the MU values of RapidArc were reduced by 63% and 60%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

For locally advanced NPC, both RapidArc and IMRT reached the clinic requirement. The target volume coverage was similar for the different techniques. The RapidArc technique showed some improvements in OARs and other tissue sparing while using reduced MUs and delivery time.

Is RapidArc more susceptible to delivery uncertainties than dynamic IMRT?

PURPOSE

Rotational IMRT has been adopted by many clinics for its promise to deliver treatments in a shorter amount of time than other conventional IMRT techniques. In this paper, the authors investigate whether RapidArc is more susceptible to delivery uncertainties than dynamic IMRT using fixed fields.

METHODS

Dosimetric effects of delivery uncertainties in dose rate, gantry angle, and MLC leaf positions were evaluated by incorporating these uncertainties into RapidArc and sliding window IMRT (SW IMRT) treatment plans for five head-and-neck and five prostate cases. Dose distributions and dose-volume histograms of original and modified plans were recalculated and compared using Gamma analysis and dose indices of planned treatment volumes (PTV) and organs at risk (OAR). Results of Gamma analyses using passing criteria ranging from 1%-1 mm up to 5%-3 mm were reported.

RESULTS

Systematic shifts in MLC leaf bank positions of SW-IMRT cases resulted in 2-4 times higher average percent differences than RapidArc cases. Uniformly distributed random variations of 2 mm for active MLC leaves had a negligible effect on all dose distributions. Sliding window cases were much more sensitive to systematic shifts in gantry angle. Dose rate variations during RapidArc must be much larger than typical machine tolerances to affect dose distributions significantly; dynamic IMRT is inherently not susceptible to such variations.

CONCLUSIONS

RapidArc deliveries were found to be more tolerant to variations in gantry position and MLC leaf position than SW IMRT. This may be attributed to the fact that the average segmental field size or MLC leaf opening is much larger for RapidArc. Clinically acceptable treatments may be delivered successfully using RapidArc despite large fluctuations in dose rate and gantry position.

Searching standard parameters for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) of prostate cancer

Background

Since December 2009 a new VMAT planning system tool is available in Oncentra® MasterPlan v3.3 (Nucletron B.V.). The purpose of this study was to work out standard parameters for the optimization of prostate cancer.

Methods

For ten patients with localized prostate cancer plans for simultaneous integrated boost were optimized, varying systematically the number of arcs, collimator angle, the maximum delivery time, and the gantry spacing. Homogeneity in clinical target volume, minimum dose in planning target volume, median dose in the organs at risk, maximum dose in the posterior part of the rectum, and number of monitor units were evaluated using student’s test for statistical analysis. Measurements were performed with a 2D-array, taking the delivery time, and compared to the calculation by the gamma method.

Results

Plans with collimator 45° were superior to plans with collimator 0°. Single arc resulted in higher minimum dose in the planning target volume, but also higher dose values to the organs at risk, requiring less monitor units per fraction dose than dual arc. Single arc needs a higher value (per arc) for the maximum delivery time parameter than dual arc, but as only one arc is needed, the measured delivery time was shorter and stayed below 2.5 min versus 3 to 5 min. Balancing plan quality, dosimetric results and calculation time, a gantry spacing of 4° led to optimal results.

Conclusion

A set of parameters has been found which can be used as standard for volumetric modulated arc therapy planning of prostate cancer.

A new column-generation-based algorithm for VMAT treatment plan optimization

We study the treatment plan optimization problem for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). We propose a new column-generation-based algorithm that takes into account bounds on the gantry speed and dose rate, as well as an upper bound on the rate of change of the gantry speed, in addition to MLC constraints. The algorithm iteratively adds one aperture at each control point along the treatment arc. In each iteration, a restricted problem optimizing intensities at previously selected apertures is solved, and its solution is used to formulate a pricing problem, which selects an aperture at another control point that is compatible with previously selected apertures and leads to the largest rate of improvement in the objective function value of the restricted problem. Once a complete set of apertures is obtained, their intensities are optimized and the gantry speeds and dose rates are adjusted to minimize treatment time while satisfying all machine restrictions. Comparisons of treatment plans obtained by our algorithm to idealized IMRT plans of 177 beams on five clinical prostate cancer cases demonstrate high quality with respect to clinical dose-volume criteria. For all cases, our algorithm yields treatment plans that can be delivered in around 2 min. Implementation on a graphic processing unit enables us to finish the optimization of a VMAT plan in 25-55 s.

On the role of the optimization algorithm of RapidArc(®) volumetric modulated arc therapy on plan quality and efficiency

PURPOSE

The RapidArc volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning process is based on a core engine, the so-called progressive resolution optimizer (PRO). This is the optimization algorithm used to determine the combination of field shapes, segment weights (with dose rate and gantry speed variations), which best approximate the desired dose distribution in the inverse planning problem. A study was performed to assess the behavior of two versions of PRO. These two versions mostly differ in the way continuous variables describing the modulated arc are sampled into discrete control points, in the planning efficiency and in the presence of some new features. The analysis aimed to assess (i) plan quality, (ii) technical delivery aspects, (iii) agreement between delivery and calculations, and (iv) planning efficiency of the two versions.

METHODS

RapidArc plans were generated for four groups of patients (five patients each): anal canal, advanced lung, head and neck, and multiple brain metastases and were designed to test different levels of planning complexity and anatomical features. Plans from optimization with PRO2 (first generation of RapidArc optimizer) were compared against PRO3 (second generation of the algorithm). Additional plans were optimized with PRO3 using new features: the jaw tracking, the intermediate dose and the air cavity correction options.

RESULTS

Results showed that (i) plan quality was generally improved with PRO3 and, although not for all parameters, some of the scored indices showed a macroscopic improvement with PRO3. (ii) PRO3 optimization leads to simpler patterns of the dynamic parameters particularly for dose rate. (iii) No differences were observed between the two algorithms in terms of pretreatment quality assurance measurements and (iv) PRO3 optimization was generally faster, with a time reduction of a factor approximately 3.5 with respect to PRO2.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that PRO3 is either clinically beneficial or neutral in terms of dosimetric quality while it showed significant advantages in speed and technical aspects.

Intensity modulated radiation therapy with field rotation--a time-varying fractionation study

This paper proposes a novel mathematical approach to the beam selection problem in intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) planning. The approach allows more beams to be used over the course of therapy while limiting the number of beams required in any one session. In the proposed field rotation method, several sets of beams are interchanged throughout the treatment to allow a wider selection of beam angles than would be possible with fixed beam orientations. The choice of beamlet intensities and the number of identical fractions for each set are determined by a mixed integer linear program that controls jointly for the distribution per fraction and the cumulative dose distribution delivered to targets and critical structures. Trials showed the method allowed substantial increases in the dose objective and/or sparing of normal tissues while maintaining cumulative and fraction size limits. Trials for a head and neck site showed gains of 25%-35% in the objective (average tumor dose) and for a thoracic site gains were 7%-13%, depending on how strict the fraction size limits were set. The objective did not rise for a prostate site significantly, but the tolerance limits on normal tissues could be strengthened with the use of multiple beam sets.

Implementing RapidArc into clinical routine: a comprehensive program from machine QA to TPS validation and patient QA

PURPOSE

With the increased commercial availability of intensity modulated arc therapy (IMAT) comes the need for comprehensive QA programs, covering the different aspects of this newly available technology. This manuscript proposes such a program for the RapidArc (RA) (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto) IMAT solution.

METHODS

The program was developed and tested out for a Millennium120 MLC on iX Clinacs and a HighDefinition MLC on a Novalis TX, using a variety of measurement equipment including Gafchromic film, 2D ion chamber arrays (Seven29 and StarCheck, PTW, Freiburg, Germany) with inclinometer and Octavius phantom, the Delta4 systam (ScandiDos, Uppsala, Sweden) and the portal imager (EPID). First, a number of complementary machine QA tests were developed to monitor the correct interplay between the accelerating/decelerating gantry, the variable dose rate and the MLC position, straining the delivery to the maximum allowed limits. Second, a systematic approach to the validation of the dose calculation for RA was adopted, starting with static gantry and RA specific static MLC shapes and gradually moving to dynamic gantry, dynamic MLC shapes. RA plans were then optimized on a series of artificial structures created within the homogeneous Octavius phantom and within a heterogeneous lung phantom. These served the double purpose of testing the behavior of the optimization algorithm (PRO) as well as the precision of the forward dose calculation. Finally, patient QA on a series of clinical cases was performed with different methods. In addition to the well established in-phantom QA, we evaluated the portal dosimetry solution within the Varian approach.

RESULTS

For routine machine QA, the "Snooker Cue" test on the EPID proved to be the most sensitive to overall problem detection. It is also the most practical one. The "Twinkle" and "Sunrise" tests were useful to obtain well differentiated information on the individual treatment delivery components. The AAA8.9 dose calculations showed excellent agreement with all corresponding measurements, except in areas where the 2.5 mm fixed fluence resolution was insufficient to accurately model the tongue and groove effect or the dose through nearly closed opposing leafs. Such cases benefited from the increased fluence resolution in AAA10.0. In the clinical RA fields, these effects were smeared out spatially and the impact of the fluence resolution was considerably less pronounced. The RA plans on the artificial structure sets demonstrated some interesting characteristics of the PRO8.9 optimizer, such as a sometimes unexpected dependence on the collimator rotation and a suboptimal coverage of targets within lung tissue. Although the portal dosimetry was successfully validated, we are reluctant to use it as a sole means of patient QA as long as no gantry angle information is embedded.

CONCLUSIONS

The all-in validation program allows a systematic approach in monitoring the different levels of RA treatments. With the systematic approach comes a better understanding of both the capabilities and the limits of the used solution. The program can be useful for implementation, but also for the validation of major upgrades.

Conversion of helical tomotherapy plans to step-and-shoot IMRT plans--Pareto front evaluation of plans from a new treatment planning system

PURPOSE

The resulting plans from a new type of treatment planning system called SharePlan have been studied. This software allows for the conversion of treatment plans generated in a TomoTherapy system for helical delivery, into plans deliverable on C-arm linear accelerators (linacs), which is of particular interest for clinics with a single TomoTherapy unit. The purpose of this work was to evaluate and compare the plans generated in the SharePlan system with the original TomoTherapy plans and with plans produced in our clinical treatment planning system for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) on C-arm linacs. In addition, we have analyzed how the agreement between SharePlan and TomoTherapy plans depends on the number of beams and the total number of segments used in the optimization.

METHODS

Optimized plans were generated for three prostate and three head-and-neck (H&N) cases in the TomoTherapy system, and in our clinical treatment planning systems (TPS) used for IMRT planning with step-and-shoot delivery. The TomoTherapy plans were converted into step-and-shoot IMRT plans in SharePlan. For each case, a large number of Pareto optimal plans were created to compare plans generated in SharePlan with plans generated in the Tomotherapy system and in the clinical TPS. In addition, plans were generated in SharePlan for the three head-and-neck cases to evaluate how the plan quality varied with the number of beams used. Plans were also generated with different number of beams and segments for other patient cases. This allowed for an evaluation of how to minimize the number of required segments in the converted IMRT plans without compromising the agreement between them and the original TomoTherapy plans.

RESULTS

The plans made in SharePlan were as good as or better than plans from our clinical system, but they were not as good as the original TomoTherapy plans. This was true for both the head-and-neck and the prostate cases, although the differences between the plans for the latter were small. The evaluation of the head-and-neck cases also showed that the plans generated in SharePlan were improved when more beams were used. The SharePlan Pareto front came close to the front for the TomoTherapy system when a sufficient number of beams were added. The results for plans generated with varied number of beams and segments demonstrated that the number of segments could be minimized with maintained agreement between SharePlan and TomoTherapy plans when 10-19 beams were used.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed (using Pareto front evaluation) that the plans generated in Share-Plan are comparable to plans generated in other TPSs. The evaluation also showed that the plans generated in SharePlan could be improved with the use of more beams. To minimize the number of segments needed in a plan with maintained agreement between the converted IMRT plans and the original TomoTherapy plans, 10-19 beams should be used, depending on target complexity. SharePlan has proved to be useful and should thereby be a time-saving complement as a backup system for clinics with a single TomoTherapy system installed alongside conventional C-arm linacs.

Single-arc volumetric-modulated arc therapy can provide dose distributions equivalent to fixed-beam intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostatic irradiation with seminal vesicle and/or lymph node involvement

OBJECTIVES

Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is becoming an increasingly utilised modality for treating a variety of anatomical sites. However, the efficacy of single-arc VMAT to treat prostate cancer suspicious for extraprostatic extension was heretofore unknown. In this work, we report our institutional experience with single-arc VMAT and fixed-beam intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer patients treated for seminal vesicle and/or lymph node involvement.

METHODS

Single-arc VMAT and 7- or 9-field IMRT treatment plans were compared for 10 prostate cancer patients treated for seminal vesicle involvement and/or lymph node involvement. All treatment plans were constructed using the Philips Pinnacle treatment planning system (v.9.0, Fitchburg, WI) and delivered on an Elekta Infinity radiotherapy accelerator (Crawley, UK). Resulting plans were compared using metrics that characterised dosimetry and delivery efficiency.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences in target coverage, target homogeneity or normal tissue doses were noted between the plans (p>0.05). For prostate patients treated for seminal vesicle involvement, VMAT plans were delivered in 1.4±0.1 min (vs 9.5±2.4 min for fixed-beam IMRT) (p<0.01) and required approximately 20% fewer monitor units (p=0.01). For prostate patients treated for lymph node involvement, VMAT plans were delivered in 1.4±0.1 min (vs 11.7±1.3 min for fixed-beam IMRT) (p<0.01) and required approximately 45% fewer monitor units (p<0.01).

CONCLUSION

Single-arc VMAT plans were dosimetrically equivalent to fixed-beam IMRT plans with significantly improved delivery efficiency.

Two-step intensity modulated arc therapy (2-step IMAT) with segment weight and width optimization

Background

2-step intensity modulated arc therapy (IMAT) is a simplified IMAT technique which delivers the treatment over typically two continuous gantry rotations. The aim of this work was to implement the technique into a computerized treatment planning system and to develop an approach to optimize the segment weights and widths.

Methods

2-step IMAT was implemented into the Prism treatment planning system. A graphical user interface was developed to generate the plan segments automatically based on the anatomy in the beam's-eye-view. The segment weights and widths of 2-step IMAT plans were subsequently determined in Matlab using a dose-volume based optimization process. The implementation was tested on a geometric phantom with a horseshoe shaped target volume and then applied to a clinical paraspinal tumour case.

Results

The phantom study verified the correctness of the implementation and showed a considerable improvement over a non-modulated arc. Further improvements in the target dose uniformity after the optimization of 2-step IMAT plans were observed for both the phantom and clinical cases. For the clinical case, optimizing the segment weights and widths reduced the maximum dose from 114% of the prescribed dose to 107% and increased the minimum dose from 87% to 97%. This resulted in an improvement in the homogeneity index of the target dose for the clinical case from 1.31 to 1.11. Additionally, the high dose volume V₁₀₅ was reduced from 57% to 7% while the maximum dose in the organ-at-risk was decreased by 2%.

Conclusions

The intuitive and automatic planning process implemented in this study increases the prospect of the practical use of 2-step IMAT. This work has shown that 2-step IMAT is a viable technique able to achieve highly conformal plans for concave target volumes with the optimization of the segment weights and widths. Future work will include planning comparisons of the 2-step IMAT implementation with fixed gantry intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and commercial IMAT implementations.

Whole abdomen radiation therapy in ovarian cancers: a comparison between fixed beam and volumetric arc based intensity modulation

Purpose

A study was performed to assess dosimetric characteristics of volumetric modulated arcs (RapidArc, RA) and fixed field intensity modulated therapy (IMRT) for Whole Abdomen Radiotherapy (WAR) after ovarian cancer.

Methods and Materials

Plans for IMRT and RA were optimised for 5 patients prescribing 25 Gy to the whole abdomen (PTV_WAR) and 45 Gy to the pelvis and pelvic nodes (PTV_Pelvis) with Simultaneous Integrated Boost (SIB) technique. Plans were investigated for 6 MV (RA6, IMRT6) and 15 MV (RA15, IMRT15) photons. Objectives were: for both PTVs V_90% > 95%, for PTV_Pelvis: D_max < 105%; for organs at risk, maximal sparing was required. The MU and delivery time measured treatment efficiency. Pre-treatment Quality assurance was scored with Gamma Agreement Index (GAI) with 3% and 3 mm thresholds.

Results

IMRT and RapidArc resulted comparable for target coverage. For PTV_WAR, V_90% was 99.8 ± 0.2% and 93.4 ± 7.3% for IMRT6 and IMRT15, and 98.4 ± 1.7 and 98.6 ± 0.9% for RA6 and RA15. Target coverage resulted improved for PTV_Pelvis. Dose homogeneity resulted slightly improved by RA (Uniformity was defined as U_5-95% = D_5%-D_95%/D_mean). U₅-_95% for PTV_WAR was 0.34 ± 0.05 and 0.32 ± 0.06 (IMRT6 and IMRT15), 0.30 ± 0.03 and 0.26 ± 0.04 (RA6 and RA15); for PTV_Pelvis, it resulted equal to 0.1 for all techniques. For organs at risk, small differences were observed between the techniques. MU resulted 3130 ± 221 (IMRT6), 2841 ± 318 (IMRT15), 538 ± 29 (RA6), 635 ± 139 (RA15); the average measured treatment time was 18.0 ± 0.8 and 17.4 ± 2.2 minutes (IMRT6 and IMRT15) and 4.8 ± 0.2 (RA6 and RA15). GAI_IMRT6 = 97.3 ± 2.6%, GAI_IMRT15 = 94.4 ± 2.1%, GAI_RA6 = 98.7 ± 1.0% and GAI_RA15 = 95.7 ± 3.7%.

Conclusion

RapidArc showed to be a solution to WAR treatments offering good dosimetric features with significant logistic improvements compared to IMRT.

Arc-modulated radiation therapy based on linear models

This paper reports an inverse arc-modulated radiation therapy planning technique based on linear models. It is implemented with a two-step procedure. First, fluence maps for 36 fixed-gantry beams are generated using a linear model-based intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) optimization algorithm. The 2D fluence maps are decomposed into 1D fluence profiles according to each leaf pair position. Second, a mixed integer linear model is used to construct the leaf motions of an arc delivery that reproduce the 1D fluence profile previously derived from the static gantry IMRT optimization. The multi-leaf collimator (MLC) sequence takes into account the starting and ending leaf positions in between the neighbouring apertures, such that the MLC segments of the entire treatment plan are deliverable in a continuous arc. Since both steps in the algorithm use linear models, implementation is simple and straightforward. Details of the algorithm are presented, and its conceptual correctness is verified with clinical cases representing prostate and head-and-neck treatments.

Comparison of prostate IMRT and VMAT biologically optimised treatment plans

Recently, a new radiotherapy delivery technique has become clinically available--volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). VMAT is the delivery of IMRT while the gantry is in motion using dynamic leaf motion. The perceived benefit of VMAT over IMRT is a reduction in delivery time. In this study, VMAT was compared directly with IMRT for a series of prostate cases. For 10 patients, a biologically optimized seven-field IMRT plan was compared with a biologically optimized VMAT plan using the same planning objectives. The Pinnacle RTPS was used. The resultant target and organ-at-risk dose-volume histograms (DVHs) were compared. The normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for the IMRT and VMAT plans was calculated for 3 model parameter sets. The delivery efficiency and time for the IMRT and VMAT plans was compared. The VMAT plans resulted in a statistically significant reduction in the rectal V25Gy parameter of 8.2% on average over the IMRT plans. For one of the NTCP parameter sets, the VMAT plans had a statistically significant lower rectal NTCP. These reductions in rectal dose were achieved using 18.6% fewer monitor units and a delivery time reduction of up to 69%. VMAT plans resulted in reductions in rectal doses for all 10 patients in the study. This was achieved with significant reductions in delivery time and monitor units. Given the target coverage was equivalent, the VMAT plans were superior.

Simultaneous integrated boost radiotherapy for bilateral breast: a treatment planning and dosimetric comparison for volumetric modulated arc and fixed field intensity modulated therapy

Purpose

A study was performed comparing dosimetric characteristics of volumetric modulated arcs (RapidArc, RA) and fixed field intensity modulated therapy (IMRT) on patients with bilateral breast carcinoma.

Materials and methods

Plans for IMRT and RA, were optimised for 10 patients prescribing 50 Gy to the breast (PTVII, 2.0 Gy/fraction) and 60 Gy to the tumour bed (PTVI, 2.4 Gy/fraction). Objectives were: for PTVs V_90%>95%, D_max<107%; Mean lung dose MLD<15 Gy, V_{20 Gy}<22%; heart involvement was to be minimised. The MU and delivery time measured treatment efficiency. Pre-treatment dosimetry was performed using EPID and a 2D-array based methods.

Results

For PTVII minus PTVI, V_90% was 97.8 ± 3.4% for RA and 94.0 ± 3.5% for IMRT (findings are reported as mean ± 1 standard deviation); D_5%-D_95% (homogeneity) was 7.3 ± 1.4 Gy (RA) and 11.0 ± 1.1 Gy (IMRT). Conformity index (V_95%/V_PTVII) was 1.10 ± 0.06 (RA) and 1.14 ± 0.09 (IMRT). MLD was <9.5 Gy for all cases on each lung, V_{20 Gy} was 9.7 ± 1.3% (RA) and 12.8 ± 2.5% (IMRT) on left lung, similar for right lung. Mean dose to heart was 6.0 ± 2.7 Gy (RA) and 7.4 ± 2.5 Gy (IMRT). MU resulted in 796 ± 121 (RA) and 1398 ± 301 (IMRT); the average measured treatment time was 3.0 ± 0.1 minutes (RA) and 11.5 ± 2.0 (IMRT). From pre-treatment dosimetry, % of field area with γ <1 resulted 98.8 ± 1.3% and 99.1 ± 1.5% for RA and IMRT respectively with EPID and 99.1 ± 1.8% and 99.5 ± 1.3% with 2D-array (ΔD = 3% and DTA = 3 mm).

Conclusion

RapidArc showed dosimetric improvements with respect to IMRT, delivery parameters confirmed its logistical advantages, pre-treatment dosimetry proved its reliability.

Some considerations concerning volume-modulated arc therapy: a stepping stone towards a general theory

In this paper it is formally shown that the dynamic multileaf collimator (MLC) IMRT delivery technique remains valid if the MLC is supported on a 1D moving platform. It is also shown that, in such circumstances, it is always time preferable to deliver overlapping modulating fields as a single swept field rather than as separate fields. The most general formulism is presented and then related to simpler equations in limiting cases. The paper explains in detail how a 'small-arc approximation' can be invoked to relate the 1D linear theory to the MLC-on-moving-platform-(gantry) delivery technique involving rotation therapy and known as volume-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). It is explained how volume-modulated arc therapy delivered with open unmodulated fields and which can deliver conformal dose distributions can be interpreted as an IMRT delivery. The (Elekta adopted) term VMAT will be used in a generic sense to include a similar (Varian) method known as RapidArc. Approximate expressions are derived for the 'amount of modulation' possible in a VMAT delivery. This paper does not discuss the actual VMAT planning but gives an insight at a deep level into VMAT delivery. No universal theory of VMAT is known in the sense that there is no theory that can predict precisely the performance of a VMAT delivery in terms of the free parameters available (variable gantry speed, variable fluence-delivery rate, set of MLC shapes, MLC orientation, number of arcs, coplanarity versus non-coplanarity, etc). This is in stark contrast to the situation with several other IMRT delivery techniques where such theoretical analyses are known. In this paper we do not provide such a theory; the material presented is a stepping stone on the path towards this.