Tomotherapy-like versus VMAT-like treatments: a multicriteria comparison for a prostate geometry

Comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy and helical tomotherapy for prostate cancer using Pareto fronts

BACKGROUND

Studies comparing different radiotherapy treatment techniques-such as volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and helical tomotherapy (HT)-typically compare one treatment plan per technique. Often, some dose metrics favor one plan and others favor the other, so the final plan decision involves subjective preferences. Pareto front comparisons provide a more objective framework for comparing different treatment techniques. A Pareto front is the set of all treatment plans where improvement in one criterion is possible only by worsening another criterion. However, different Pareto fronts can be obtained depending on the chosen machine settings.

PURPOSE

To compare VMAT and HT using Pareto fronts and blind expert evaluation, to explain the observed differences, and to illustrate limitations of using Pareto fronts.

METHODS

We generated Pareto fronts for twenty-four prostate cancer patients treated at our clinic for VMAT and HT techniques using an in-house script that controlled a commercial treatment planning system. We varied the PTV under-coverage (100% - V95%) and the rectum mean dose, and fixed the mean doses to the bladder and femoral heads. In order to ensure a fair comparison, those fixed mean doses were the same for the two treatment techniques and the sets of objective functions were chosen so that the conformity indexes of the two treatment techniques were also the same. We used the same machine settings as are used in our clinic. Then, we compared the VMAT and HT Pareto fronts using a specific metric (clinical distance measure) and validated the comparison using a blinded expert evaluation of treatment plans on these fronts for all patients in the cohort. Furthermore, we investigated the observed differences between VMAT and HT and pointed out limitations of using Pareto fronts.

RESULTS

Both clinical distance and blind treatment plan comparison showed that VMAT Pareto fronts were better than HT fronts. VMAT fronts for 10 and 6 MV beam energy were almost identical. HT fronts improved with different machine settings, but were still inferior to VMAT fronts.

CONCLUSIONS

That VMAT Pareto fronts are better than HT fronts may be explained by the fact that the linear accelerator can rapidly vary the dose rate. This is an advantage in simple geometries that might vanish in more complex geometries. Furthermore, one should be cautious when speaking about Pareto optimal plans as the best possible plans, as their calculation depends on many parameters.

Clinical utility of RapidArc™ radiotherapy technology

RapidArc™ is a radiation technique that delivers highly conformal dose distributions through the complete rotation (360°) and speed variation of the linear accelerator gantry. This technique, called volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), compared with conventional radiotherapy techniques, can achieve high-target volume coverage and sparing damage to normal tissues. RapidArc delivers precise dose distribution and conformity similar to or greater than intensity-modulated radiation therapy in a short time, generally a few minutes, to which image-guided radiation therapy is added. RapidArc has become a currently used technology in many centers, which use RapidArc technology to treat a large number of patients. Large and small hospitals use it to treat the most challenging cases, but more and more frequently for the most common cancers. The clinical use of RapidArc and VMAT technology is constantly growing. At present, a limited number of clinical data are published, mostly concerning planning and feasibility studies. Clinical outcome data are increasing for a few tumor sites, even if only a little. The purpose of this work is to discuss the current status of VMAT techniques in clinical use through a review of the published data of planning systems and clinical outcomes in several tumor sites. The study consisted of a systematic review based on analysis of manuscripts retrieved from the PubMed, BioMed Central, and Scopus databases by searching for the keywords “RapidArc”, “Volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy”, and “Intensity-modulated radiotherapy”.

Modeling the dosimetry of organ-at-risk in head and neck IMRT planning: an intertechnique and interinstitutional study

PURPOSE

To build a statistical model to quantitatively correlate the anatomic features of structures and the corresponding dose-volume histogram (DVH) of head and neck (HN) Tomotherapy (Tomo) plans. To study if the model built upon one intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) technique (such as conventional Linac) can be used to predict anticipated organs-at-risk (OAR) DVH of patients treated with a different IMRT technique (such as Tomo). To study if the model built upon the clinical experience of one institution can be used to aid IMRT planning for another institution.

METHODS

Forty-four Tomotherapy intensity modulate radiotherapy plans of HN cases (Tomo-IMRT) from Institution A were included in the study. A different patient group of 53 HN fixed gantry IMRT (FG-IMRT) plans was selected from Institution B. The analyzed OARs included the parotid, larynx, spinal cord, brainstem, and submandibular gland. Two major groups of anatomical features were considered: the volumetric information and the spatial information. The volume information includes the volume of target, OAR, and overlapped volume between target and OAR. The spatial information of OARs relative to PTVs was represented by the distance-to-target histogram (DTH). Important anatomical and dosimetric features were extracted from DTH and DVH by principal component analysis. Two regression models, one for Tomotherapy plan and one for IMRT plan, were built independently. The accuracy of intratreatment-modality model prediction was validated by a leave one out cross-validation method. The intertechnique and interinstitution validations were performed by using the FG-IMRT model to predict the OAR dosimetry of Tomo-IMRT plans. The dosimetry of OARs, under the same and different institutional preferences, was analyzed to examine the correlation between the model prediction and planning protocol.

RESULTS

Significant patient anatomical factors contributing to OAR dose sparing in HN Tomotherapy plans have been analyzed and identified. For all the OARs, the discrepancies of dose indices between the model predicted values and the actual plan values were within 2.1%. Similar results were obtained from the modeling of FG-IMRT plans. The parotid gland was spared in a comparable fashion during the treatment planning of two institutions. The model based on FG-IMRT plans was found to predict the median dose of the parotid of Tomotherapy plans quite well, with a mean error of 2.6%. Predictions from the FG-IMRT model suggested the median dose of the larynx, median dose of the brainstem and D2 of the brainstem could be reduced by 10.5%, 12.8%, and 20.4%, respectively, in the Tomo-IMRT plans. This was found to be correlated to the institutional differences in OAR constraint settings. Re-planning of six Tomotherapy patients confirmed the potential of optimization improvement predicted by the FG-IMRT model was correct.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors established a mathematical model to correlate the anatomical features and dosimetric indexes of OARs of HN patients in Tomotherapy plans. The model can be used for the setup of patient-specific OAR dose sparing goals and quality control of planning results.The institutional clinical experience was incorporated into the model which allows the model from one institution to generate a reference plan for another institution, or another IMRT technique.

Advantages and limitations of navigation-based multicriteria optimization (MCO) for localized prostate cancer IMRT planning

Efficacy of inverse planning is becoming increasingly important for advanced radiotherapy techniques. This study's aims were to validate multicriteria optimization (MCO) in RayStation (v2.4, RaySearch Laboratories, Sweden) against standard intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) optimization in Oncentra (v4.1, Nucletron BV, the Netherlands) and characterize dose differences due to conversion of navigated MCO plans into deliverable multileaf collimator apertures. Step-and-shoot IMRT plans were created for 10 patients with localized prostate cancer using both standard optimization and MCO. Acceptable standard IMRT plans with minimal average rectal dose were chosen for comparison with deliverable MCO plans. The trade-off was, for the MCO plans, managed through a user interface that permits continuous navigation between fluence-based plans. Navigated MCO plans were made deliverable at incremental steps along a trajectory between maximal target homogeneity and maximal rectal sparing. Dosimetric differences between navigated and deliverable MCO plans were also quantified. MCO plans, chosen as acceptable under navigated and deliverable conditions resulted in similar rectal sparing compared with standard optimization (33.7 ± 1.8 Gy vs 35.5 ± 4.2 Gy, p = 0.117). The dose differences between navigated and deliverable MCO plans increased as higher priority was placed on rectal avoidance. If the best possible deliverable MCO was chosen, a significant reduction in rectal dose was observed in comparison with standard optimization (30.6 ± 1.4 Gy vs 35.5 ± 4.2 Gy, p = 0.047). Improvements were, however, to some extent, at the expense of less conformal dose distributions, which resulted in significantly higher doses to the bladder for 2 of the 3 tolerance levels. In conclusion, similar IMRT plans can be created for patients with prostate cancer using MCO compared with standard optimization. Limitations exist within MCO regarding conversion of navigated plans to deliverable apertures, particularly for plans that emphasize avoidance of critical structures. Minimizing these differences would result in better quality treatments for patients with prostate cancer who were treated with radiotherapy using MCO plans.