Surveillance on interfacility differences in dose-prescription policy of intensity-modulated radiation therapy plans for prostate cancer

Difference in VMAT dose distribution for prostate cancer with/without rectal gas removal and/or adaptive replanning

We investigated differences in the volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) dose distribution in prostate cancer patients treated by rectal gas removal and/or adaptive replanning. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were performed daily for 22 treatments in eight prostate cancer patients with excessive rectal gas, and the CBCT images were analyzed. Rectal gas removal was performed, and irradiation was delivered after prostate matching. We compared dose-volume histograms for the daily CBCT images before and after rectal gas removal. Plan A was the original plan on CBCT images before rectal gas removal. Plan B was a single reoptimized plan on CBCT images before rectal gas removal. Plan C was the original plan on CBCT images after rectal gas removal. Plan D was a single reoptimized plan on CBCT images after rectal gas removal. D₉₅ of the planning target volume (PTV) minus the rectum of Plan C (94.7% ± 6.6%) was significantly higher than that of Plan A (88.5% ± 10.4%). All dosimetric parameters of Plan C were improved by rectal gas removal compared with Plan A, regardless of the initial rectal gas volume. Dosimetric parameters of PTV minus the rectum of Plan B were significantly improved compared with Plan C. Additionally, the V₇₈ of the rectal wall of Plan B (0.2% ± 0.5%) was significantly improved compared with Plan C (3.9% ± 6.3%, p = 0.003). The dosimetric parameters of Plan D were not significantly different from Plan B. The dose distribution of prostate VMAT was improved by rectal gas removal and/or adaptive replanning. An adaptive replanning on daily CBCT images might be a better method than rectal gas removal for prostate cancer patients with excessive rectal gas.

Target coverage of daily cone-beam computed tomography in breath-hold image-guided radiotherapy for gastric lymphoma

Objectives

We evaluated retrospectively the daily target coverage using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in breath-hold image-guided radiotherapy (BH-IGRT) for gastric lymphoma.

Methods

BH-IGRT was performed using a prescribed dose of 30.6 Gy in 17 fractions for the whole stomach. We assessed the target coverage of the whole stomach on daily CBCT images [daily clinical target volume (CTV)], which was delineated individually by two observers. We evaluated V_95% (percentage of volume receiving ≥95% of the prescribed dose) of daily CTV.

Results

In total, 102 fractions from 6 patients were assessed. The mean V_95% of daily CTV was 97.2%, which was over 95%. In two of six patients, the V_95% of daily CTV was over 95% for either observer in all fractions. One patient had significant interobserver variation (p = 0.013). In 95 fractions (93%), the V_95% of daily CTV was over 95% for either observer.

Conclusion

Daily target coverage for CTV in BH-IGRT for gastric lymphoma seems to be favorable, even when using CBCT.

Advances in knowledge

A previous study ascertained good daily target coverage in BH-IGRT for gastric lymphoma using in-room CT. Even when using CBCT in our study, daily target coverage for CTV in BH-IGRT for gastric lymphoma seems to be favorable.

Impact of treatment planning quality assurance software on volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans for prostate cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

Software that evaluates the quality of treatment plans (PlanIQ^TM) has become commercially available in recent years. It includes a feasibility assessment tool that provides the ideal dose volume histogram (DVH) for each organ at risk, based on the ideal dose falloff from the prescribed dose at the target boundary. It is important to investigate whether the PlanIQ^TM assessment tool (Feasibility DVH^TM) can assist treatment planners who have limited to no experience in treatment planning. Therefore, the present study aimed to evaluate this tool's usefulness for improving the quality of treatment plans.

MATERIALS & METHODS

This study included 5 patients with prostate cancer. The treatment planners were 2 graduate students, 2 undergraduate students, and one clinical planner. All students were radiological technology and medical physics students with no clinical experience. Two different volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were developed before and after Feasibility DVH^TM. The quality of each treatment plan was evaluated based on a scoring system implemented in PlanIQ^TM.

RESULTS

Of 5 patients included, 4 received improved treatment plans when Feasibility DVH^TM was used. Moreover, 4 of 5 treatment planners showed improvement in treatment planning using Feasibility DVH^TM.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that using the Feasibility DVH^TM tool may improve treatment plans for different planners and patients. However, planners at any level of experience should be trained to check the dose distribution in addition to checking the DVH, which depends on the adequacy of the contours.

Analysis of prostate intensity- and volumetric-modulated arc radiation therapy planning quality with PlanIQTM

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to assess the quality of treatment planning using the PlanIQ^TM software and to investigate whether it is possible to improve the quality of treatment planning using the “Feasibility dose‐volume histogram (DVH)^TM” implemented in the PlanIQ^TM software.

Methods

Using the PlanIQ^TM software, we retrospectively analyzed the learning curve regarding the quality of the treatment plans for 148 patients of prostate intensity‐modulated radiation therapy and volumetric‐modulated radiation therapy performed at our institution over the past eight years. We also sought to examine the possibility of improving treatment planning quality by re‐planning in 47 patients where the quality of the target dose and the dose limits for organs at risk (OARs) were inadequate. The re‐planning treatment plans referred to the Feasibility DVH^TM implemented in the PlanIQ^TM software and modified the treatment planning system based on the target dose and OAR constraints.

Results

Analysis of the learning curve of the treatment plans quality using PlanIQ^TM software retrospectively showed a trend of improvement in the treatment plan quality from year to year. The improvement in the treatment plans quality was more influenced by dose reduction in the OARs than by target coverage.

In all cases where re‐planning was performed, the improvement in the treatment plan's quality resulted in a better treatment plan than the one adopted for delivery to patients in the clinical plan.

Conclusions

The PlanIQ^TM provided insights into the quality of the treatment plans at our institution and identified problems and areas for improvement in the treatment plans, allowing for the development of appropriate treatment plans for specific patients.

Modalities and techniques used for stereotactic radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and image-guided radiotherapy: A 2018 survey by the Japan Society of Medical Physics

Over the last several decades, there have been great advances in radiotherapy with the development of new technologies and modalities, and radiotherapy trends have changed rapidly. To comprehend the current state of radiotherapy in Japan, the QA/QC 2016-2017 Committee of the Japan Society of Medical Physics set up an intensity-modulated radiotherapy/image-guided radiotherapy (IMRT/IGRT) working group and performed a Web-based survey to show the current status of radiotherapy in Japan. The Web-based questionnaire, developed using Google Forms, contained 42 items: 7 on stereotactic radiotherapy implementation, 4 on IMRT, 24 on IGRT, and 7 on respiratory motion management. The survey was conducted from 17 January to 9 March of 2018; in total, 335 institutions provided data. The results show that volumetric modulated arc therapy was used at a level comparable to that of static gantry IMRT. For IGRT, machine-integrated computed tomography (CT), including kilovoltage or megavoltage cone-beam CT and megavoltage CT, was used at many institutions in conjunction with target-based image registration. For respiratory motion management, breath holding was the most commonly used technique. Our hope is that multi-institutional surveys such as this one will be conducted periodically to elucidate the current status of radiotherapy and emerging developments in this field. If our questionnaire was distributed worldwide, in the same format, then global trends in radiotherapy could be better understood.

Dose-volume histogram comparison between static 5-field IMRT with 18-MV X-rays and helical tomotherapy with 6-MV X-rays

We treated prostate cancer patients with static 5-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using linac 18-MV X-rays or tomotherapy with 6-MV X-rays. As X-ray energies differ, we hypothesized that 18-MV photon IMRT may be better for large patients and tomotherapy may be more suitable for small patients. Thus, we compared dose-volume parameters for the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs) in 59 patients with T1-3 N0M0 prostate cancer who had been treated using 5-field IMRT. For these same patients, tomotherapy plans were also prepared for comparison. In addition, plans of 18 patients who were actually treated with tomotherapy were analyzed. The evaluated parameters were homogeneity indicies and a conformity index for the PTVs, and D2 (dose received by 2% of the PTV in Gy), D98, Dmean and V10-70 Gy (%) for OARs. To evaluate differences by body size, patients with a known body mass index were grouped by that index ( <21; 21-25; and >25 kg/m(2)). For the PTV, all parameters were higher in the tomotherapy plans compared with the 5-field IMRT plans. For the rectum, V10 Gy and V60 Gy were higher, whereas V20 Gy and V30 Gy were lower in the tomotherapy plans. For the bladder, all parameters were higher in the tomotherapy plans. However, both plans were considered clinically acceptable. Similar trends were observed in 18 patients treated with tomotherapy. Obvious trends were not observed for body size. Tomotherapy provides equivalent dose distributions for PTVs and OARs compared with 18-MV 5-field IMRT. Tomotherapy could be used as a substitute for high-energy photon IMRT for prostate cancer regardless of body size.

Results and DVH analysis of late rectal bleeding in patients treated with 3D-CRT or IMRT for localized prostate cancer

In patients undergoing radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer, dose-volume histograms and clinical variables were examined to search for correlations between radiation treatment planning parameters and late rectal bleeding. We analyzed 129 patients with localized prostate cancer who were managed from 2002 to 2010 at our institution. They were treated with 3D conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT, 70 Gy/35 fractions, 55 patients) or intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT, 76 Gy/38 fractions, 74 patients). All radiation treatment plans were retrospectively reconstructed, dose-volume histograms of the rectum were generated, and the doses delivered to the rectum were calculated. Time to rectal bleeding ranged from 9-53 months, with a median of 18.7 months. Of the 129 patients, 33 patients had Grade 1 bleeding and were treated with steroid suppositories, while 25 patients with Grade 2 bleeding received argon plasma laser coagulation therapy (APC). Three patients with Grade 3 bleeding required both APC and blood transfusion. The 5-year incidence rate of Grade 2 or 3 rectal bleeding was 21.8% for the 3D-CRT group and 21.6% for the IMRT group. Univariate analysis showed significant differences in the average values from V65 to V10 between Grades 0-1 and Grades 2-3. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that patients with V65 ≥ 17% had a significantly increased risk (P = 0.032) of Grade 2 or 3 rectal bleeding. Of the 28 patients of Grade 2 or 3 rectal bleeding, 17 patients (60.7%) were cured by a single session of APC, while the other 11 patients required two sessions. Thus, none of the patients had any further rectal bleeding after the second APC session.

Toxicity and efficacy of three dose-fractionation regimens of intensity-modulated radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer

Outcomes of three protocols of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for localized prostate cancer were evaluated. A total of 259 patients treated with 5-field IMRT between 2005 and 2011 were analyzed. First, 74 patients were treated with a daily fraction of 2.0 Gy to a total of 74 Gy (low risk) or 78 Gy (intermediate or high risk). Then, 101 patients were treated with a 2.1-Gy daily fraction to 73.5 or 77.7 Gy. More recently, 84 patients were treated with a 2.2-Gy fraction to 72.6 or 74.8 Gy. The median patient age was 70 years (range, 54-82) and the follow-up period for living patients was 47 months (range, 18-97). Androgen deprivation therapy was given according to patient risk. The overall and biochemical failure-free survival rates were, respectively, 96 and 82% at 6 years in the 2.0-Gy group, 99 and 96% at 4 years in the 2.1-Gy group, and 99 and 96% at 2 years in the 2.2-Gy group. The biochemical failure-free rate for high-risk patients in all groups was 89% at 4 years. Incidences of Grade ≥ 2 acute genitourinary toxicities were 9.5% in the 2.0-Gy group, 18% in the 2.1-Gy group, and 15% in the 2.2-Gy group (P = 0.29). Cumulative incidences of Grade ≥ 2 late gastrointestinal toxicity were 13% in the 2.0-Gy group at 6 years, 12% in the 2.1-Gy group at 4 years, and 3.7% in the 2.2-Gy group at 2 years (P = 0.23). So far, this stepwise shortening of treatment periods seems to be successful.

[A comparison of four commercial radiation treatment planning systems for prostate intensity modulated radiation therapy]

At present, every manufacturer of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) equipment uses multi-leaf collimators (MLCs); however, each company's intensity modulation methods and dose calculation algorithms differ. This study used four typical radiation treatment planning systems (RTPSs) employed domestically for prostate IMRT plans to carry out 15 case studies by one planner based on the dose limits at this clinic. The results were used to compare the differences, if any, in RTPS treatment plans. With prostate IMRT plans, an overlap area exists between the PTV and the rectum. For this reason, while observing dose limits of 60-75 Gy (within the dose tolerated by the rectum), securing uniformity and concentration of dose is essential to create the most appropriate treatment plan for the PTV and other targets. Although each RTPS uses different planning methods, it was generally possible to observe this clinic's dose limits by adjusting the parameter values. When identical beam data is used, it is possible to create similar treatment plans.