Investigation of pulsed low dose rate radiotherapy using dynamic arc delivery techniques

Dose-rate dependence and IMRT QA suitability of EBT3 radiochromic films for pulse reduced dose-rate radiotherapy (PRDR) dosimetry

BACKGROUND

Pulsed reduced dose rate (PRDR) is an emerging radiotherapy technique for recurrent diseases. It is pertinent that the linac beam characteristics are evaluated for PRDR dose rates and a suitable dosimeter is employed for IMRT QA.

PURPOSE

This study sought to investigate the pulse characteristics of a 6 MV photon beam during PRDR irradiations on a commercial linac. The feasibility of using EBT3 radiochromic film for use in IMRT QA was also investigated by comparing its response to a commercial diode array phantom.

METHODS

A plastic scintillator detector was employed to measure the photon pulse characteristics across nominal repetition rates (NRRs) in the 5-600 MU/min range. Film was irradiated with dose rates in the 0.033-4 Gy/min range to study the dose rate dependence. Five clinical PRDR treatment plans were selected for IMRT QA with the Delta4 phantom and EBT3 film sheets. The planned and measured dose were compared using gamma analysis with a criterion of 3%/3 mm. EBT3 film QA was performed using a cumulative technique and a weighting factor technique.

RESULTS

Negligible differences were observed in the pulse width and height data between the investigated NRRs. The pulse width was measured to be 3.15 ± 0.01μ s $\mu s$ and the PRF was calculated to be 3-357 Hz for the 5-600 MU/min NRRs. The EBT3 film was found to be dose rate independent within 3%. The gamma pass rates (GPRs) were above 99% and 90% for the Delta4 phantom and the EBT3 film using the cumulative QA method, respectively. GPRs as low as 80% were noted for the weighting factor EBT3 QA method.

CONCLUSIONS

Altering the NRRs changes the mean dose rate while the instantaneous dose rate remains constant. The EBT3 film was found to be suitable for PRDR dosimetry and IMRT QA with minimal dose rate dependence.

Pulsed-Reduced Dose Rate (PRDR) Radiotherapy for Recurrent Primary Central Nervous System Malignancies: Dosimetric and Clinical Results

PURPOSE

The objective was to describe PRDR outcomes and report EQD2 OAR toxicity thresholds.

METHODS

Eighteen patients with recurrent primary CNS tumors treated with PRDR at a single institution between April 2017 and September 2021 were evaluated. The radiotherapy details, cumulative OAR doses, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicities were collected.

RESULTS

The median PRDR dose was 45 Gy (range: 36-59.4 Gy); the median cumulative EQD2 prescription dose was 102.7 Gy (range: 93.8-120.4 Gy). The median cumulative EQD2 D_0.03cc for the brain was 111.4 Gy (range: 82.4-175.2 Gy). Symptomatic radiation necrosis occurred in three patients, for which the median EQD2 brain D_0.03cc was 115.9 Gy (110.4-156.7 Gy). The median PFS and OS after PRDR were 6.3 months (95%CI: 0.9-11.6 months) and 8.6 months (95%CI: 4.9-12.3 months), respectively. The systematic review identified five peer-reviewed studies with a median cumulative EQD2 prescription dose of 110.3 Gy. At a median follow-up of 8.7 months, the median PFS and OS were 5.7 months (95%CI: 2.1-15.4 months) and 6.7 months (95%CI: 3.2-14.2 months), respectively.

CONCLUSION

PRDR re-irradiation is a relatively safe and feasible treatment for recurrent primary CNS tumors. Despite high cumulative dose to OARs, the risk of high-grade, treatment-related toxicity within the first year of follow-up remains acceptable.

Retreatment of Recurrent or Second Primary Head and Neck Cancer After Prior Radiation: Executive Summary of the American Radium Society® (ARS) Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC): Expert Panel on Radiation Oncology - Head and Neck Cancer

BACKGROUND

Re-treatment of recurrent or second primary head and neck cancers occurring in a previously irradiated field is complex. Few guidelines exist to support practice.

METHODS

We performed an updated literature search of peer-reviewed journals in a systematic fashion. Search terms, key questions, and associated clinical case variants were formed by panel consensus. The literature search informed the committee during a blinded vote on the appropriateness of treatment options via the modified Delphi method.

RESULTS

The final number of citations retained for review was 274. These informed five key questions, which focused on patient selection, adjuvant re-irradiation, definitive re-irradiation, stereotactic body radiation (SBRT), and re-irradiation to treat non-squamous cancer. Results of the consensus voting are presented along with discussion of the most current evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

This provides updated evidence-based recommendations and guidelines for the re-treatment of recurrent or second primary cancer of the head and neck.

Pulsed low dose-rate radiotherapy: radiobiology and dosimetry

Pulsed low dose-rate radiotherapy (PLDR) relies on two radiobiological findings, the hyper-radiosensitivity of tumor cells at small doses and the reduced normal tissue toxicity at low dose rates. This is achieved by delivering the daily radiation dose of 2 Gy in 10 sub-fractions (pulses) with a 3 min time interval, resulting in an effective low dose rate of 0.067 Gy min−1. In vitro cell studies and in vivo animal experiments demonstrated the therapeutic potential of PLDR treatments and provided useful preclinical data. Various treatment optimization strategies and delivery techniques have been developed for PLDR on existing linear accelerators. Preliminary results from early clinical studies have shown favorable outcomes for various treatment sites especially for recurrent cancers. This paper reviews the experimental findings of PLDR and dosimetric requirements for PLDR treatment planning and delivery, and summarizes major clinical studies on PLDR cancer treatments.

Large volume re-irradiation for recurrent meningioma with pulsed reduced dose rate radiotherapy

PURPOSE

Meningiomas comprise up to 30% of primary brain tumors. The majority of meningioma patients enjoy high rates of control after conventional therapies. However, patients with recurrent disease previously treated with radiotherapy have few options for salvage treatment, and systemic interventions have proven largely ineffective. The aim of this study was to determine whether pulsed reduced dose rate radiotherapy (PRDR) was well tolerated in a small cohort of patients with recurrent meningioma.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified eight patients with recurrent intracranial meningioma treated with PRDR from April 2013 to August of 2017 at a single institution. All patients had radiographic and/or pathologic evidence of progression prior to treatment and had previously completed conventional radiotherapy. Acute and late toxicities were graded based on CTCAE 4.0.

RESULTS

Of eight patients, six had histologically confirmed atypical meningiomas upon recurrence. All patients were re-treated with IMRT at an apparent dose rate of 0.0667 Gy/min. Median time between radiation courses was 7.7 years. Median PRDR dose was 54 Gy in 27 fractions to a median volume of 261.6 cm³. Two patients (25%) had in field failure with a median follow up of 23.3 months. PFS at 6 months was 100%. All but one (87.5%) patient was still alive at last follow up. No patient experienced grade ≥ 2 acute or late toxicities.

CONCLUSIONS

PRDR re-irradiation was well tolerated and appeared effective for a small cohort of patients with recurrent meningioma previously treated with radiotherapy. A phase II trial to assess this prospectively is in development.

Local Control and Toxicity of External Beam Reirradiation With a Pulsed Low-dose-rate Technique

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of external beam reirradiation using a pulsed low-dose-rate (PLDR) technique.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We evaluated patients treated with PLDR reirradiation from 2009 to 2016 at a single institution. Toxicity was graded using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0, and local control was assessed using the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors, version 1.1. On univariate analysis (UVA), the χ2 and Fisher exact tests were used to assess the toxicity outcomes. Competing risk analysis using cumulative incidence function estimates were used to assess local progression.

RESULTS

A total of 39 patients were treated to 41 disease sites with PLDR reirradiation. These patients had a median follow-up time of 8.8 months (range 0.5-64.7). The targets were the thorax, abdomen, and pelvis, including 36 symptomatic sites. The median interval from the first radiation course and reirradiation was 26.2 months; the median dose of the first and second course of radiation was 50.4 Gy and 50 Gy, respectively. Five patients (13%) received concurrent systemic therapy. Of the 39 patients, 9 (23%) developed grade ≥2 acute toxicity, most commonly radiation dermatitis (5 of 9). None developed grade ≥4 acute or subacute toxicity. The only grade ≥2 late toxicity was late skin toxicity in 1 patient. On UVA, toxicity was not significantly associated with the dose of the first course of radiation or reirradiation, the interval to reirradiation, or the reirradiation site. Of the 41 disease sites treated with PLDR reirradiation, 32 had pre- and post-PLDR scans to evaluate for local control. The local progression rate was 16.5% at 6 months and 23.8% at 12 months and was not associated with the dose of reirradiation, the reirradiation site, or concurrent systemic therapy on UVA. Of the 36 symptomatic disease sites, 25 sites (69%) achieved a symptomatic response after PLDR, including 6 (17%) with complete symptomatic relief.

CONCLUSION

Reirradiation with PLDR is effective and well-tolerated. The risk of late toxicity and the durability of local control were limited by the relatively short follow-up duration in the present cohort.

Critical appraisal of the role of volumetric modulated arc therapy in the radiation therapy management of breast cancer

Background

The aim of this review is the critical appraisal of the current use of volumetric modulated arc therapy for the radiation therapy management of breast cancer. Both clinical and treatment planning studies were investigated.

Material and methods

A Pubmed/MEDLINE search of the National Library of Medicine was performed to identify VMAT and breast related articles. After a first order rejection of the irrelevant findings, the remaining articles were grouped according to two main categories: clinical vs. planning studies and to some sub-categories (pointing to significant technical features). Main areas of application, dosimetric and clinical findings as well as areas of innovations were defined.

Results

A total of 131 articles were identified and of these, 67 passed a first order selection. Six studies reported clinical results while 61 treatment dealed with treatment planning investigations. Among the innovation lines, the use of high intensity photon beams (flattening filter free), altered fractionation schemes (simultaneous integrated boost, accelerated partial breast irradiation, single fraction), prone positioning and modification of standard VMAT (use of dynamic trajectories or hybrid VMAT methods) resulted among the main relevant fields of interest. Approximately 10% of the publications reported upon respiratory gating in conjunction with VMAT.

Conclusions

The role of VMAT in the radiation treatment of breast cancer seems to be consolidated in the in-silico arena while still limited evidence and only one phase II trial appeared in literature from the clinical viewpoint. More clinical reports are needed to fully proove the expected dosimetric benefits demonstrated in the planning investigations.

Tissue TGF-β expression following conventional radiotherapy and pulsed low-dose-rate radiation

The release of inflammatory cytokines has been implicated in the toxicity of conventional radiotherapy (CRT). Transforming growth factor β (TGF-β) has been suggested to be a risk marker for pulmonary toxicity following radiotherapy. Pulsed low-dose rate radiotherapy (PLDR) is a technique that involves spreading out a conventional radiotherapy dose into short pulses of dose with breaks in between to reduce toxicities. We hypothesized that the more tolerable toxicity profile of PLDR compared with CRT may be related to differential expression of inflammatory cytokines such as TGF-β in normal tissues. To address this, we analyzed tissues from mice that had been subjected to lethal doses of CRT and PLDR by histology and immunohistochemistry (IHC). Equivalent physical doses of CRT triggered more cellular atrophy in the bone marrow, intestine, and pancreas when compared with PLDR as indicated by hematoxylin and eosin staining. IHC data indicates that TGF-β expression is increased in the bone marrow, intestine, and lungs of mice subjected to CRT as compared with tissues from mice subjected to PLDR. Our in vivo data suggest that differential expression of inflammatory cytokines such as TGF-β may play a role in the more favorable normal tissue late response following treatment with PLDR.

Intensity modulated radiation therapy with pulsed reduced dose rate as a reirradiation strategy for recurrent central nervous system tumors: An institutional series and literature review

BACKGROUND

Pulsed reduced dose rate (PRDR) is a reirradiation technique that potentially overcomes volume and dose limitations in the setting of previous radiation therapy for recurrent central nervous system (CNS) tumors. Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has not yet been reported as a PRDR delivery technique. We reviewed our IMRT PRDR outcomes and toxicity and reviewed the literature of available PRDR series for CNS reirradiation.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A total of 24 patients with recurrent brain tumors received PRDR reirradiation between August 2012 and December 2014. Twenty-two patients were planned with IMRT. Linear accelerators delivered an effective dose rate of 0.0667 Gy/minute. Data collected included number of prior interventions, diagnosis, tumor grade, radiation therapy dose and fractionation, normal tissue dose, radiation therapy planning parameters, time to progression, overall survival, and adverse events.

RESULTS

The median time to PRDR from completion of initial radiation therapy was 47.8 months (range, 11-389.1 months). The median PRDR dose was 54 Gy (range, 38-60 Gy). The mean planning target volume was 369.1 ± 177.9 cm³. The median progression-free survival and 6-month progression-free survival after PRDR treatment was 3.1 months and 31%, respectively. The median overall survival and 6-month overall survival after PRDR treatment was 8.7 months and 71%, respectively. Fifty percent of patients had ≥4 chemotherapy regimens before PRDR. Toxicity was similar to initial treatment, including no cases of radiation necrosis.

CONCLUSION

IMRT PRDR reirradiation is a feasible and appropriate treatment strategy for large volume recurrent CNS tumors resulting in acceptable overall survival with reasonable toxicity in our patients who were heavily pretreated. Prospective studies are necessary to determine the optimal timing of PRDR reirradiation, the role of concurrent systemic agents, and the ideal patient population who would receive the maximal benefit from this treatment approach.

SUMMARY

Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has not yet been reported as a pulsed reduced dose rate (PRDR) delivery technique for recurrent brain tumors and may allow for safe and comprehensive reirradiation for large volume tumors. We reviewed our IMRT PRDR outcomes and toxicity and reviewed the literature of available PRDR series for recurrent central nervous system tumors. We conclude that IMRT PRDR reirradiation is a feasible and appropriate treatment strategy for large volume recurrent brain tumors resulting in acceptable overall survival with reasonable toxicity in our patients who were heavily pretreated.

Local Tumor Control and Normal Tissue Toxicity of Pulsed Low-Dose Rate Radiotherapy for Recurrent Lung Cancer: An In Vivo Animal Study

OBJECTIVES

This study investigates (1) local tumor control and (2) normal tissue toxicity of pulsed low-dose rate radiotherapy (PLDR) for recurrent lung cancer.

METHODS

For study 1, nude mice were implanted with A549 tumors and divided into the following 3 groups: (1) control (n = 10), (2) conventional radiotherapy (RT; n = 10), and (3) PLDR (n = 10). Tumor-bearing mice received 2 Gy daily dose for 2 consecutive days. Weekly magnetic resonance imaging was used for tumor growth monitoring. For study 2, 20 mice received 8 Gy total body irradiation either continuously (n = 10) or 40 × 0.2 Gy pulses with 3-minute intervals (n = 10).

RESULTS

For study 1, both conventional RT and PLDR significantly inhibited the growth of A549 xenografts compared with the control group (>35% difference in the mean tumor volume; P < .05). The PLDR results were slightly better than conventional RT (8% difference in the mean tumor volume; P > .05). For study 2, the average weight was 20.94 ± 1.68 g and 25.69 ± 1.27 g and the survival time was 8 days and 12 days for mice treated with conventional RT and PLDR (P < .05), respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that PLDR could control A549 tumors as effectively as conventional RT, and PLDR induced much less normal tissue toxicity than conventional RT. Thus, PLDR would be a good modality for recurrent lung cancers.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

This article reports our results of an in vivo animal investigation of PLDR for the treatment of recurrent cancers, which may not be eligible for treatment because of the dose limitations on nearby healthy organs that have been irradiated in previous treatments. This was the first in vivo study to quantify the tumor control and normal tissue toxicities of PLDR using mice with implanted tumors, and our findings provided evidence to support the clinical trials that employ PLDR treatment techniques.

Volumetric-modulated arc therapy for oropharyngeal carcinoma: a dosimetric and delivery efficiency comparison with static-field IMRT

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the treatment plan adequacy and delivery efficiency among volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with one or two arcs and the conventional static-field dynamic multileaf collimator (dMLC) intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in patients undergoing oropharyngeal carcinoma. Fifteen patient cases were included in this investigation. Each of the cases was planned using step-and-shoot IMRT, VMAT with a single arc (Arc1) and VMAT with double arcs (Arc2). A two-dose level prescription for planning target volumes (PTVs) was delivered with 70 Gy/56 Gy in 30 fractions. Comparisons were performed of the dose-volume histograms (DVH) for PTVs, the DVH for organs at risk (OARs), the monitor units per fraction (MU/fx), and delivery time. IMRT and Arc2 achieved similar target coverage, but superior to Arc1. Apart from the oral cavity, Arc1 showed no advantage in sparing of OARs compared with IMRT, while Arc2 obtained equivalent or better sparing of OARs among the three techniques. VMAT reduced MU/fx and shortened delivery time remarkably compared with IMRT. Our results demonstrated that for oropharyngeal cases, Arc2 can achieve superior target coverage and normal tissue sparing, as well as a significant reduction in treatment time.

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for pancreatic and prostate cancer using pulsed low-dose rate delivery techniques

Reirradiation of patients who were previously treated with radiotherapy is vastly challenging. Pulsed low-dose rate (PLDR) external beam radiotherapy has the potential to reduce normal tissue toxicities while providing significant tumor control for recurrent cancers. This work investigates treatment planning techniques for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)-based PLDR treatment of various sites, including cases with pancreatic and prostate cancer. A total of 20 patients with clinical recurrence were selected for this study, including 10 cases with pancreatic cancer and 10 with prostate cancer. Large variations in the target volume were included to test the ability of IMRT using the existing treatment planning system and optimization algorithm to deliver uniform doses in individual gantry angles/fields for PLDR treatments. Treatment plans were generated with 10 gantry angles using the step-and-shoot IMRT delivery technique, which can be delivered in 3-minute intervals to achieve an effective low dose rate of 6.7cGy/min. Instead of dose constraints on critical structures, ring structures were mainly used in PLDR-IMRT optimization. In this study, the PLDR-IMRT plans were compared with the PLDR-3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) plans and the PLDR-RapidArc plans. For the 10 cases with pancreatic cancer that were investigated, the mean planning target volume (PTV) dose for each gantry angle in the PLDR-IMRT plans ranged from 17.6 to 22.4cGy. The maximum doses ranged between 22.9 and 34.8cGy. The minimum doses ranged from 8.2 to 17.5cGy. For the 10 cases with prostate cancer that were investigated, the mean PTV doses for individual gantry angles ranged from 18.8 to 22.6cGy. The maximum doses per gantry angle were between 24.0 and 34.7cGy. The minimum doses per gantry angle ranged from 4.4 to 17.4cGy. A significant reduction in the organ at risk (OAR) dose was observed with the PLDR-IMRT plan when compared with that using the PLDR-3DCRT plan. The volume receiving an 18-Gy (V18) dose for the left and right kidneys was reduced by 10.6% and 12.5%, respectively, for the pancreatic plans. The volume receiving a 45-Gy (V45) dose for the small bowel decreased from 65.3% to 45.5%. For the cases with prostate cancer, the volume receiving a 40-Gy (V40) dose for the bladder and the rectum was reduced significantly by 25.1% and 51.2%, respectively. When compared with the RapidArc technique, the volume receiving a 30-Gy (V30) dose for the left and the right kidneys was lower in the IMRT plans. For most OARs, no significant differences were observed between the PLDR-IMRT and the PLDR-RapidArc plans. These results clearly demonstrated that the PLDR-IMRT plan was suitable for PLDR pancreatic and prostate cancer treatments in terms of the overall plan quality. A significant reduction in the OAR dose was achieved with the PLDR-IMRT plan when compared with that using the PLDR-3DCRT plan. For most OARs, no significant differences were observed between the PLDR-IMRT and the PLDR-RapidArc plans. When compared with the PLDR-3DCRT plan, the PLDR-IMRT plan could provide superior target coverage and normal tissue sparing for PLDR reirradiation of recurrent pancreatic and prostate cancers. The PLDR-IMRT plan is an effective treatment choice for recurrent cancers in most cancer centers.

Investigation of pulsed IMRT and VMAT for re-irradiation treatments: dosimetric and delivery feasibilities

Many tumor cells demonstrate hyperradiosensitivity at doses below ~50 cGy. Together with the increased normal tissue repair under low dose rate, the pulsed low dose rate radiotherapy (PLDR), which separates a daily fractional dose of 200 cGy into 10 pulses with 3 min interval between pulses (~20 cGy/pulse and effective dose rate 6.7 cGy min−1), potentially reduces late normal tissue toxicity while still providing significant tumor control for re-irradiation treatments. This work investigates the dosimetric and technical feasibilities of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT)-based PLDR treatments using Varian Linacs. Twenty one cases (12 real re-irradiation cases) including treatment sites of pancreas, prostate, pelvis, lung, head-and-neck, and breast were recruited for this study. The lowest machine operation dose rate (100 MU min−1) was employed in the plan delivery. Ten-field step-and-shoot IMRT and dual-arc VMAT plans were generated using the Eclipse TPS with routine planning strategies. The dual-arc plans were delivered five times to achieve a 200 cGy daily dose (~20 cGy arc−1). The resulting plan quality was evaluated according to the heterogeneity and conformity indexes (HI and CI) of the planning target volume (PTV). The dosimetric feasibility of retaining the hyperradiosensitivity for PLDR was assessed based on the minimum and maximum dose in the target volume from each pulse. The delivery accuracy of VMAT and IMRT at the 100 MU min−1 machine operation dose rate was verified using a 2D diode array and ion chamber measurements. The delivery reproducibility was further investigated by analyzing the Dynalog files of repeated deliveries. A comparable plan quality was achieved by the IMRT (CI 1.10–1.38; HI 1.04–1.10) and the VMAT (CI 1.08–1.26; HI 1.05–1.10) techniques. The minimum/maximum PTV dose per pulse is 7.9 ± 5.1 cGy/33.7 ± 6.9 cGy for the IMRT and 12.3 ± 4.1 cGy/29.2 ± 4.7 cGy for the VMAT. Six out of the 186 IMRT pulses (fields) were found to exceed 50 cGy maximum PTV dose per pulse while the maximum PTV dose per pulse was within 40 cGy for all the VMAT pulses (arcs). However, for VMAT plans, the dosimetric quality of the entire treatment plan was less superior for the breast cases and large irregular targets. The gamma passing rates for both techniques at the 100 MU min−1 dose rate were at least 94.1% (3%/3 mm) and the point dose measurements agreed with the planned values to within 2.2%. The average root mean square error of the leaf position was 0.93 ± 0.83 mm for IMRT and 0.53 ± 0.48 mm for VMAT based on the Dynalog file analysis. The RMS error of the leaf position was nearly identical for the repeated deliveries of the same plans. In general, both techniques are feasible for PLDR treatments. VMAT was more advantageous for PLDR with more uniform target dose per pulse, especially for centrally located tumors. However, for large, irregular and/or peripheral tumors, IMRT could produce more favorable PLDR plans. By taking the biological benefit of PLDR delivery and the dosimetric benefit of IMRT and VMAT, the proposed methods have a great potential for those previously-irradiated recurrent patients.

Optimization strategies for pulsed low-dose-rate IMRT of recurrent lung and head and neck cancers

Pulsed low‐dose‐rate radiotherapy (PLDR) has been proven to be a valid method of reirradiation. Previous studies of recurrent cancer radiotherapy were mainly based on conventional 3D CRT and VMAT delivery techniques. There are difficulties in IMRT planning using existing commercial treatment planning systems (TPS) to meet the PLDR protocol. This work focuses on PLDR using ten‐field IMRT and a commercial TPS for two specific sites: recurrent lung cancers and head and neck cancers. Our PLDR protocol requires that the maximum dose to the PTV be less than 0.4 Gy and the mean dose to be 0.2 Gy per field. We investigated various planning strategies to meet the PLDR requirements for 20 lung and head and neck patients. The PTV volume for lung cases ranged from 101.7 to 919.4 cm³ and the maximum dose to the PTV ranged from 0.22 to 0.39 Gy. The PTV volume for head and neck cases ranged from 66.2 to 282.1 cm³ and the maximum dose to the PTV ranged from 0.21 to 0.39 Gy. With special beam arrangements and dosimetry parameters, it is feasible to use a commercial TPS to generate quality PLDR IMRT plans for lung and head and neck reirradiation.

PACS number: 87.55.D‐