Helical tomotherapy with dynamic running-start-stop delivery compared to conventional tomotherapy delivery

Influence of the Planning Parameters of a New Algorithm on the Dosimetric Quality, Beam-On Time and Delivery Accuracy of Tomotherapy Plans

BACKGROUND

This work aimed to determine the optimum VOLOTM Ultra algorithm parameters for tomotherapy treatments.

METHODS

1056 treatment plans were generated with VOLOTM Ultra for 36 patients and six anatomical locations. The impact of varying four parameters was studied: the accelerated treatment (AT), leaf open/close time (LOT) cutoff, normal tissue objective (NTO) weight, and number of iterations. The beam-on time and dosimetric metrics were quantified for the target volumes and organs at risk (OARs). Delivery quality assurance measurements were obtained for 36 plans to assess the delivery accuracy.

RESULTS

The mean beam-on time for the helical tomotherapy and TomoDirect (TD) plans decreased by 26.6 ± 2.8% and 17.4 ± 4.3%, respectively, when the accelerated treatment parameter was increased from 0 to 10, at the expense of the planning target volume (PTV) coverage (2% lower D98%) and OAR dose (up to 15% increase). For TD plans, it seems preferable to systematically use an AT value of 10. Increasing the number of iterations beyond six seems unnecessary. In this study, an NTO weight of approximately 10 appears to be ideal and eliminates the need to use rings in the treatment plan. Finally, no correlation was found between the leaf open/close time cutoff and the delivery accuracy, while a leaf open/close cutoff of 60 ms seemed to degrade dosimetry quality.

CONCLUSION

Optimal values for the AT, LOT cutoff, NTO weight, and number of optimization rounds were identified and should help improve the management of patients whose tomotherapy treatments are planned with VOLOTM Ultra.

AAPM Task Group Report 306: Quality control and assurance for tomotherapy: An update to Task Group Report 148

Since the publication of AAPM Task Group (TG) 148 on quality assurance (QA) for helical tomotherapy, there have been many new developments on the tomotherapy platform involving treatment delivery, on-board imaging options, motion management, and treatment planning systems (TPSs). In response to a need for guidance on quality control (QC) and QA for these technologies, the AAPM Therapy Physics Committee commissioned TG 306 to review these changes and make recommendations related to these technology updates. The specific objectives of this TG were (1) to update, as needed, recommendations on tolerance limits, frequencies and QC/QA testing methodology in TG 148, (2) address the commissioning and necessary QA checks, as a supplement to Medical Physics Practice Guidelines (MPPG) with respect to tomotherapy TPS and (3) to provide risk-based recommendations on the new technology implemented clinically and treatment delivery workflow. Detailed recommendations on QA tests and their tolerance levels are provided for dynamic jaws, binary multileaf collimators, and Synchrony motion management. A subset of TPS commissioning and QA checks in MPPG 5.a. applicable to tomotherapy are recommended. In addition, failure mode and effects analysis has been conducted among TG members to obtain multi-institutional analysis on tomotherapy-related failure modes and their effect ranking.

Dosimetric comparison between VMAT plans using the fast-rotating O-ring linac with dual-layer stacked MLC and helical tomotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma

BACKGROUND

To compare the dosimetric profiles of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans using the fast-rotating O-ring linac (the Halcyon system) based on a dual-layer stacked multi-leaf collimator and helical tomotherapy (HT) for nasopharyngeal cancer (NPCa).

METHODS

For 30 NPCa patients, three sets of RT plans were generated, under the same policy of contouring and dose constraints: HT plan; Halcyon VMAT plan with two arcs (HL_2arc); and Halcyon VMAT plan with four arcs (HL_4arc), respectively. The intended dose schedule was to deliver 67.2 Gy to the planning gross target volume (P-GTV) and 56.0 Gy to the planning clinical target volume (P-CTV) in 28 fractions using the simultaneously integrated boost concept. Target volumes and organ at risks dose metrics were evaluated for all plans. Normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) for esophagus, parotid glands, spinal cord, and brain stem were compared.

RESULTS

The HT plan achieved the best dose homogeneity index for both P_GTV and P_CTV, followed by the HL_4arc and L_2arc plans. No significant difference in the dose conformity index (CI) for P_GTV was observed between the HT plan (0.80) and either the HL_2arc plan (0.79) or the HL_4arc plan (0.83). The HL_4arc plan showed the best CI for P_CTV (0.88), followed by the HL_2arc plan (0.83) and the HT plan (0.80). The HL_4arc plan (median, interquartile rage (Q1, Q3): 25.36 (22.22, 26.89) Gy) showed the lowest D_mean in the parotid glands, followed by the HT (25.88 (23.87, 27.87) Gy) and HL_2arc plans (28.00 (23.24, 33.99) Gy). In the oral cavity (OC) dose comparison, the HT (22.03 (19.79, 24.85) Gy) plan showed the lowest D_mean compared to the HL_2arc (23.96 (20.84, 28.02) Gy) and HL_4arc (24.14 (20.17, 27.53) Gy) plans. Intermediate and low dose regions (40-65% of the prescribed dose) were well fit to the target volume in HL_4arc, compared to the HT and HL_2arc plans. All plans met the dose constraints for the other OARs with sufficient dose margins. The between-group differences in the median NTCP values for the parotid glands and OC were < 3.47% and < 1.7% points, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The dosimetric profiles of Halcyon VMAT plans were comparable to that of HT, and HL_4arc showed better dosimetric profiles than HL_2arc for NPCa.

Volumetric modulated arc therapy versus tomotherapy for late T-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Purpose

To compare the dosimetric parameters and clinical outcomes between volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and tomotherapy for treating late T-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).

Methods

Patients with non-metastatic late T-stage NPC who received definitive radiotherapy with tomotherapy or VMAT were selected. 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was used to control the balance of confounding factors. The dosimetric parameters and clinical outcomes were compared.

Results

A total of 171 patients were enrolled before matching, with 61 patients in the VMAT group and 110 patients in the tomotherapy group. In the post-PSM cohort, 54 sub-pairs of 108 patients were included after matching. Tomotherapy was superior to VMAT in the dosimetric parameters of planning target volumes, brainstem, spinal cord, lenses, and parotid glands but inferior in the optic nerves and optic chiasm. The tomotherapy group had a lower incidence of grade ≥ 3 acute mucositis (22.2% vs. 40.7%, p = 0.038) and a higher rate of complete response (83.3% vs. 66.7%, p = 0.046) after radiotherapy. However, there were no significant differences in locoregional failure-free survival (p = 0.375), distant metastasis-free survival (p = 0.529), or overall survival (p = 0.975) between the two groups.

Conclusion

Tomotherapy is superior to VMAT in terms of most dosimetric parameters, with less acute mucositis and better short-term efficacy. There are no significant differences in the survival outcomes between the VMAT and tomotherapy groups.

Investigation of absolute dose calibration accuracy for TomoTherapy using real water

A systematic bias in TomoTherapy output calibration was reported by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Houston (IROC‐H) after analyzing intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) credentialing results from hundreds of TomoTherapy units. Multiple theories were developed to explain this observation. One theory was that the use of a solid water “cheese” phantom instead of real water in the calibration measurement was the culprit. A phantom filled with distilled water was built to investigate whether our TomoTherapy was miscalibrated due to the use of a solid water phantom. A miscalibration of −1.47% was detected on our TomoTherapy unit. It is found that despite following the vendor's updated recommendation on computed tomography (CT) number to density calibration, the cheese phantom was still mapped to a density of 1.028 g/cm³, rather than the 1.01 g/cm³ value reported in literature. When the density of the cheese phantom was modified to 1.01 g/cm³ in the treatment planning system, the measurement also indicated that our TomoTherapy machine was miscalibrated by −1.52%, agreeing with the real water phantom findings. Our single‐institution finding showed that the cheese phantom density assignment can introduce greater than 1% errors in the TomoTherapy absolute dose calibration. It is recommended that the absolute dose calibration for TomoTherapy be performed either in real water or in the cheese phantom with the density in TPS overridden as 1.01 g/cm³.

Comparison of Different Combinations of Irradiation Mode and Jaw Width in Helical Tomotherapy for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma

Purpose: To aid in the selection of a suitable combination of irradiation mode and jaw width in helical tomotherapy (HT) for the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).

Materials and Methods: Twenty patients with NPC who underwent radiotherapy were retrospectively selected. Four plans using a jaw width of 2.5 or 5-cm in dynamic jaw (DJ) or fix jaw (FJ) modes for irradiation were designed (2.5DJ, 2.5FJ, 5.0DJ, and 5.0FJ). The dose parameters of planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs) of the plans were compared and analyzed, as well as the beam on time (BOT) and monitor unit (MU). The plans in each group were ranked by scoring the doses received by the OARs and the superity was assessed in combination with the planned BOT and MU.

Results: The prescribed dose coverage of PTV met the clinical requirements for all plans in the four groups. The groups using a 2.5-cm jaw width or a DJ mode provided better protection to most OARs, particularly for those at the longitudinal edges of the PTV (P < 0.05). The 2.5DJ group had the best ranking for OAR-dose, followed by the 2.5FJ and 5.0DJ groups with a same score. The BOT and MU of the groups using a 5.0-cm jaw width reduced nearly 45% comparing to those of the 2.5-cm jaw groups.

Conclusion: 2.5DJ has the best dose distribution, while 5.0DJ has satisfactory dose distribution and less BOT and MU that related to the leakage dose. Both 2.5DJ or 5DJ were recommended for HT treatment plan for NPC based on the center workload.

Interfacility variation in treatment planning parameters in tomotherapy: field width, pitch, and modulation factor

Several studies have reported changes in dose distribution and delivery time based on the value of specific planning parameters [field width (FW), pitch, and modulation factor (MF)] in tomotherapy. However, the variation in the parameters between different facilities is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine standard values of the above parameters for cases of head and neck cancer (HNC) and prostate cancer (PC) in Japan. In this survey, a web-based questionnaire was sent to 48 facilities performing radiation therapy with tomotherapy in March 2016. The deadline for data submission was April 2016. In the questionnaire, the values of the planning parameters usually used were requested and 23 responses were received, representing a response rate of 48% (23/48). The FW selected was 2.5 cm in most facilities, and facilities with a tomoEDGE license used dynamic FW rather than fixed FW. Facilities changed the pitch based on FW, dose per fraction, or target offset more frequently in HNC than in PC. In contrast, >50% of the facilities used the magic number proposed by Kissick et al. Median preset MFs (range, min to max) in HNC and PC were 2.4 (1.8-2.8) and 2.0 (1.8-3.0), respectively, and MF values showed large variations between the facilities. Our results are likely to be useful to several facilities designing treatment plans in tomotherapy.

Dosimetric Comparisons of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy and Tomotherapy for Early T-Stage Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma

PURPOSE

To compare the dosimetric differences between volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and helical tomotherapy (HT) in treating early T-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).

METHOD

Ten patients with early T-stage NPC who received tomotherapy using simultaneously integrated boost (SIB) strategies were replanned with VMAT (RapidArc of Varian, dual-arc). Dosimetric comparisons between the RapidArc plan and the HT plan included the following: (1) D98, homogeneity, and conformity of PTVs; (2) sparing of organs at risk (OARs); (3) delivery time and monitor units (MUs).

RESULTS

(1) Compared with RapidArc, HT achieved better dose conformity (CI of PGTVnx + nd: 0.861 versus 0.818, P = 0.004). (2) In terms of OAR protection, RapidArc exhibited significant superiority in sparing ipsilateral optic nerve (Dmax: 27.5Gy versus 49.1Gy, P < 0.001; D2: 23.5Gy versus 48.2Gy, P < 0.001), contralateral optic nerve (Dmax: 30.4Gy versus 49.2Gy, P < 0.001; D2: 26.2Gy versus 48.1Gy, P < 0.001), and optic chiasm (Dmax: 32.8Gy versus 48.3Gy, P < 0.001; D2: 30Gy versus 47.6Gy, P < 0.001). HT demonstrated a superior ability to protect the brain stem (D1cc: 43.0Gy versus 45.2Gy, P = 0.012), ipsilateral temporal lobe (Dmax 64.5Gy versus 66.4 Gy, P = 0.015), contralateral temporal lobe (Dmax: 62.8Gy versus 65.1Gy, P = 0.001), ipsilateral lens (Dmax: 4.27Gy versus 5.24Gy, P = 0.009; D2: 4.00Gy versus 5.05Gy, P = 0.002; Dmean: 2.99Gy versus 4.31Gy, P < 0.001), contralateral lens (Dmax: 4.25Gy versus 5.09Gy, P = 0.047; D2: 3.91Gy versus 4.92Gy, P = 0.005; Dmean: 2.91Gy versus 4.18Gy, P < 0.001), ipsilateral parotid (Dmean: 36.4Gy versus 41.1Gy, P = 0.002; V30Gy: 54.8% versus 70.4%, P = 0.009), and contralateral parotid (Dmean: 33.4Gy versus 39.1Gy, P < 0.001; V30Gy: 48.2% versus 67.3%, P = 0.005). There were no statistically significant differences in spinal cord or pituitary protection between the RapidArc plan and the HT plan. (3) RapidArc achieved a much shorter delivery time (3.8 min versus 7.5 min, P < 0.001) and a lower MU (618MUs versus 5646MUs, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our results show that RapidArc and HT are comparable in D98, dose homogeneity, and protection of the spinal cord and pituitary gland. RapidArc performs better in shortening delivery time, lowering MUs, and sparing the optic nerve and optic chiasm. HT is superior in dose conformity and protection of the brain stem, temporal lobe, lens, and parotid.

Converting Treatment Plans From Helical Tomotherapy to L-Shape Linac: Clinical Workflow and Dosimetric Evaluation

This work evaluated a commercial fallback planning workflow designed to provide cross-platform treatment planning and delivery. A total of 27 helical tomotherapy intensity-modulated radiotherapy plans covering 4 anatomical sites were selected, including 7 brain, 5 unilateral head and neck, 5 bilateral head and neck, 5 pelvis, and 5 prostate cases. All helical tomotherapy plans were converted to 7-field/9-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy and volumetric-modulated radiotherapy plans through fallback dose-mimicking algorithm using a 6-MV beam model. The planning target volume (PTV) coverage ( D₁, D₉₉, and homogeneity index) and organs at risk dose constraints were evaluated and compared. Overall, all 3 techniques resulted in relatively inferior target dose coverage compared to helical tomotherapy plans, with higher homogeneity index and maximum dose. The organs at risk dose ratio of fallback to helical tomotherapy plans covered a wide spectrum, from 0.87 to 1.11 on average for all sites, with fallback plans being superior for brain, pelvis, and prostate sites. The quality of fallback plans depends on the delivery technique, field numbers, and angles, as well as user selection of structures for organs at risk. In actual clinical scenario, fallback plans would typically be needed for 1 to 5 fractions of a treatment course in the event of machine breakdown. Our results suggested that <1% dose variance can be introduced in target coverage and/or organs at risk from fallback plans. The presented clinical workflow showed that the fallback plan generation typically takes 10 to 20 minutes per case. Fallback planning provides an expeditious and effective strategy for transferring patients cross platforms, and minimizing the untold risk of a patient missing treatment(s).

Evaluation of TomoTherapy dose calculations with intrafractional motion and motion compensation

PURPOSE

Anatomical motion, both cyclical and aperiodic, can impact the dose delivered during external beam radiation. In this work, we evaluate the use of a research version of the clinical TomoTherapy^® dose calculator to calculate dose with intrafraction rigid motion. We also evaluate the feasibility of a method of motion compensation for helical tomotherapy using the jaws and MLC.

METHODS

Treatment plans were created using the TomoTherapy treatment planning system. Dose was recalculated for several simple rigid motion traces including a 4 mm step motion applied either longitudinally or transversely, and a sinusoidal motion. The calculated dose volumes were compared to dose measurements that were performed by translating the phantom with the same motion traces used in the calculations. Measurements were made using film and ion chambers. Finally, the delivery plans were modified to compensate for the motion by sweeping the jaws for longitudinal motion and shifting the MLC leaves for transverse motion, and the calculations and measurements were repeated.

RESULTS

A transverse step motion shifted the dose that was delivered after the step occurred, but otherwise did not impact the dose distribution. Film measurements agreed with dose calculations to within 2%/2 mm for 99% of dose points within the 50% isodose line. A shift in the MLC leaf delivery pattern successfully compensated for the step motion to within the 3 mm accuracy allowed by the finite leaf widths. A longitudinal step motion impacted the dose in the interior of the target volume to a degree that was dependent on the planning field width and step size. Film measurements agreed with dose calculations to within 2%/2 mm for 98% of dose points within the 50% isodose line. Shifts in the jaw position successfully compensated for the longitudinal step motion. Sinusoidal (breathing-like) motion was also studied, with similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

A research version of the clinical TomoTherapy dose calculator has been shown to accurately calculate the dose from treatment plans delivered in the presence of arbitrary rigid motion. Modifications to the delivery plan using jaw and MLC leaf shifts that follow the motion can successfully compensate for the target motion.

Dosimetric comparison of 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, volumetric modulated arc therapy, and helical tomotherapy for postoperative gastric cancer patients

PURPOSE

To compare dosimetric data for the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs) between 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and helical tomotherapy [1].

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The dosimetric data for 15 gastric cancer patients treated with 3DCRT, VMAT, or HT techniques were used. Cumulative dosimetric parameters, homogeneity index (HI), and conformal index (CI) were compared for the PTV and OARs.

RESULTS

The average maximum doses of PTV were significantly higher in VMAT plans than in 3DCRT (p = 0.04) and HT (p = 0.02) plans, whereas minimum dose values were significantly lower in 3DCRT plans compared with VMAT (p < 0.001) and HT (p = 0.02) plans. Liver mean dose (D _mean) and D _mean values for both kidneys were significantly lower in HT plans than in 3DCRT and VMAT plans. The doses in high dose regions (V30-V45) using 3DCRT plans were significantly higher compared to both VMAT and HT plans. The bowel V5-V30 and V45 was significantly less in HT plans compared to VMAT plans. There were no significant differences in dose sparing of the spinal cord.

CONCLUSIONS

The HT plans reduced the maximum dose applied to the target and improved the conformality and homogeneity of radiation, while providing sufficient PTV coverage.

Analysis of modulation factor to shorten the delivery time in helical tomotherapy

A low modulation factor (MF) maintaining a good dose distribution contributes to the shortening of the delivery time and efficiency of the treatment plan in helical tomotherapy. The purpose of this study was to reduce the delivery time using initial values and the upper limit values of MF. First, patients with head and neck cancer (293 cases) or prostate cancer (181 cases) treated between June 2011 and July 2015 were included in the analysis of MF values. The initial MF value (MF_initial ) was defined as the average MF_actual value, and the upper limit of the MF value (MF_UL ) was defined according the following equation: MF_UL = 2 × standard deviation of MF_actual value + the average MF_actual Next, a treatment plan was designed for patients with head and neck cancer (62 cases) and prostate cancer (13 cases) treated between December 2015 and June 2016. The average MF_actual value for the nasopharynx, oropharynx, hypopharynx, and prostate cases decreased from 2.1 to 1.9 (p = 0.0006), 1.9 to 1.6 (p < 0.0001), 2.0 to 1.7 (p < 0.0001), and 1.8 to 1.6 (p = 0.0004) by adapting the MF_initial and the MF_UL values, respectively. The average delivery time for the nasopharynx, oropharynx, hypopharynx, and prostate cases also decreased from 19.9 s cm^-1 to 16.7 s cm^-1 (p < 0.0001), 15.0 s cm^-1 to 13.9 s cm^-1 (p = 0.025), 15.1 s cm^-1 to 13.8 s cm^-1 (p = 0.015), and 23.6 s cm^-1 to 16.9 s cm^-1 (p = 0.008) respectively. The delivery time was shortened by the adaptation of MF_initial and MF_UL values with a reduction in the average MF_actual for head and neck cancer and prostate cancer cases.

Fast Helical Tomotherapy in a head and neck cancer planning study: is time priceless?

Background

The last few years, in radiotherapy there has been a growing focus on speed of treatment delivery (largely driven by economical and commercial interests). This study investigates the influence of treatment time on plan quality for helical tomotherapy (HT), using delivery times with Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT; Rapid Arc [RA]) as reference.

Methods

In a previous study, double arc RA (Eclipse) and standard HT plans (TomoHD™) were created for five oropharyngeal cancer patients and reported according to ICRU 83 guidelines. By modifying the beam width from 2.5 to 5.0 cm, elevating the pitch and lowering the modulation factor, “TomoFast” (TF) plans were generated with treatment times equal to RA plans. To quantify the impact of TF’s craniocaudal gradient, similar plans were generated on TomoEdge^TM (TomoEdgeFast;TEF). The homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), mean dose, D_near-max (D2) and D_near-min (D98) of the PTVs were analyzed as well as the mean dose, specific critical doses and volumes of 26 organs at risk (OARs). Data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA.

Results

With a mean treatment time of 3.05 min (RA), 2.89 min (TF) and 2.95 min (TEF), PTV_therapeutic coverage was more homogeneous with TF (HI.07;SE.01) and TEF (HI.08;SE.01) compared to RA (HI.10;SE.01), while PTV_prophylactic was most homogeneous with RA. Mean doses to parotid glands were comparable for RA, TF, TEF: 25.62, 25.34, 23.09 Gy for contralateral and 32.02, 31.96, 30.01 Gy for ipsilateral glands, respectively. OARs’ mean doses varied between different approaches not favoring a particular technique. TF’s higher dose to OARs at the cranial-caudal edges of the PTVs and its higher integral dose, both due to the extended cranial-caudal gradient, seems to be solved by the new TomoEdge™ software. However, all these faster techniques lose part of standard TomoHD’s OAR sparing capacity

Conclusion

It is possible to treat oropharyngeal cancer patients using HT (TF/TEF) within time-frames observed for RA maintaining comparable target coverage and sparing of OARs. This study indicates that treatment time is not technology specific, rather an operator’s decision on balancing efficiency and quality.

Dosimetric verification and quality assurance of running-start-stop (RSS) delivery in tomotherapy

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the dosimetric profiles and delivery accuracy of running-start-stop (RSS) delivery in tomotherapy and to present initial quality assurance (QA) results on the accuracy of the dynamic jaw motion, dosimetric penumbrae of the RSS dynamic jaw and the static jaw were measured by radiographic films. Delivery accuracy of the RSS was evaluated by gamma analysis on film measurements of 12 phantom plans. Consistency in the performance of RSS was evaluated by QA procedures over the first nine months after the installation of the feature. These QA were devised to check: 1) positional accuracy of moving jaws; 2) consistency of relative radiation output collimated by discrete and continuously sweeping jaws; 3) consistency of field widths and profiles. In the longitudinal direction, the dose penumbra in RSS delivery was reduced from 17.3mm to 10.2 mm for 2.5 cm jaw, and from 33.2 mm to 9.6 mm for 5 cm jaw. Gamma analysis on the twelve plans revealed that over 90% of the voxels in the proximity of the penumbra region satisfied the gamma criteria of 2% dose difference and 2 mm distance-to-agreement. The initial QA results during the first nine months after installation of the RSS are presented. Jaw motion was shown to be accurate with maximum encoder error less than 0.42 mm. The consistency of relative output for discrete and continuously sweeping jaws was within 1.2%. Longitudinal radiation profiles agreed to the reference profile with maximum gamma < 1 and field width error < 1.8%. With the same jaw width, RSS showed better dose penumbrae compared to those from static jaw delivery. The initial QA results on the accuracy of moving jaws, reproducibility of dosimetric output and profiles were satisfactory.

Evaluation of the optimal combinations of modulation factor and pitch for Helical TomoTherapy plans made with TomoEdge using Pareto optimal fronts

Background

Modulation factor (MF) and pitch have an impact on Helical TomoTherapy (HT) plan quality and HT users mostly use vendor-recommended settings. This study analyses the effect of these two parameters on both plan quality and treatment time for plans made with TomoEdge planning software by using the concept of Pareto optimal fronts.

Methods

More than 450 plans with different combinations of pitch [0.10–0.50] and MF [1.2–3.0] were produced. These HT plans, with a field width (FW) of 5 cm, were created for five head and neck patients and homogeneity index, conformity index, dose-near-maximum (D2), and dose-near-minimum (D98) were analysed for the planning target volumes, as well as the mean dose and D2 for most critical organs at risk. For every dose metric the median value will be plotted against treatment time. A Pareto-like method is used in the analysis which will show how pitch and MF influence both treatment time and plan quality.

Results

For small pitches (≤0.20), MF does not influence treatment time. The contrary is true for larger pitches (≥0.25) as lowering MF will both decrease treatment time and plan quality until maximum gantry speed is reached. At this moment, treatment time is saturated and only plan quality will further decrease.

Conclusion

The Pareto front analysis showed optimal combinations of pitch [0.23–0.45] and MF > 2.0 for a FW of 5 cm. Outside this range, plans will become less optimal. As the vendor-recommended settings fall within this range, the use of these settings is validated.

Dosimetric evaluation of intensity-modulated radiotherapy, volumetric modulated arc therapy, and helical tomotherapy for hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiotherapy

Background

Whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) is a vital tool in radiation oncology and beyond, but it can result in adverse health effects such as neurocognitive decline. Hippocampal Avoidance WBRT (HA-WBRT) is a strategy that aims to mitigate the neuro-cognitive side effects of whole brain radiotherapy treatment by sparing the hippocampi while delivering the prescribed dose to the rest of the brain. Several competing modalities capable of delivering HA-WBRT, include: Philips Pinnacle step-and-shoot intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), Varian RapidArc volumetric modulated arc therapy (RapidArc), and helical TomoTherapy (TomoTherapy).

Methods

In this study we compared these methods using 10 patient datasets. Anonymized planning CT (computerized tomography) scans and contour data based on fused MRI images were collected. Three independent planners generated treatment plans for the patients using three modalities, respectively. All treatment plans met the RTOG 0933 criteria for HA-WBRT treatment.

Results

In dosimetric comparisons between the three modalities, TomoTherapy has a significantly superior homogeneity index of 0.15 ± 0.03 compared to the other two modalities (0.28 ± .04, p < .005 for IMRT and 0.22 ± 0.03, p < .005 for RapidArc). RapidArc has the fastest average delivery time of 2.5 min compared to the other modalities (15 min for IMRT and 18 min for TomoTherapy).

Conclusion

TomoTherapy is considered to be the preferred modality for HA-WBRT due to its superior dose distribution. When TomoTherapy is not available or treatment time is a concern, RapidArc can provide sufficient dose distribution meeting RTOG criteria and efficient treatment delivery.