Dosimetric impact of intrafraction prostate rotation and accuracy of gating, multi-leaf collimator tracking and couch tracking to manage rotation: An end-to-end validation using volumetric film measurements

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Both gating and tracking can mitigate the deteriorating dosimetric impact of intrafraction translation during prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). However, their ability to manage intrafraction rotation has not yet been thoroughly investigated. The dosimetric accuracy of gating, MLC tracking and couch tracking to manage intrafraction prostate rotation was investigated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Treatment plans for end-to-end tests of prostate SBRT with focal boosting were generated for a dynamic anthropomorphic pelvis phantom. The phantom applied internal lateral rotation (up to 25°) and coupled vertical and longitudinal translation of a radiochromic film stack that was used for dose measurements. Dose was delivered for each plan while the phantom applied motion according to three typical prostate motion traces without compensation (i), with gating (ii), with MLC tracking (iii) or with couch tracking (iv). Measured doses for the four motion compensation strategies were compared with the planned dose in terms of γ-index analysis, target coverage and organs at risk (OAR) sparing.

RESULTS

Intrafraction rotation reduced the 3%(global)/2mm γ-index passing rate (γPR) for the prostate target volume by median (range) -33.2% (-68.6%, -4.1%) when no motion compensation was applied. The use of motion compensation improved the γPR by 13.2% (-0.4%, 32.9%) for gating, by 6.0% (-0.8%, 27.7%) for MLC tracking and by 11.1% (1.2%, 22.9%) for couch tracking. The three compensation techniques improved the target coverage in most cases. Gating showed better OAR sparing than MLC tracking or couch tracking.

CONCLUSIONS

Compensation of intrafraction prostate rotation with gating, MLC tracking and couch tracking was investigated experimentally for the first time. All three techniques improved the dosimetric accuracy, but residual motion-related dose errors remained due to the lack of rotation correction.

Pre-treatment 2D and 3D dosimetric verification of volumetric arc therapy. A correlation study between gamma index passing rate and clinical dose volume histogram

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate methods for the pre-treatment verification of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) based on the percentage gamma passing rate (%GP) and its correlation and sensitivity with percentage dosimetric errors (%DE).

METHODS

A total of 25 patients with prostate cancer and 15 with endometrial cancer were analysed. The %GP values of 2D and 3D verifications with different acceptance criteria (1%/1 mm, 2%/2 mm, and 3%/3 mm) were obtained using OmniPro and Compass. The %DE was calculated using a planned dose volume histogram (DVH) created in Monaco's treatment planning system (TPS), which relates radiation dose to tissue and the patient's predicted dose volume histogram in Compass. Statistical correlation between %GP and %DE was verified using Pearson's correlation coefficient. Sensitivity was calculated based on the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve. Plans were calculated using Collapsed Cone Convolution and the Monte Carlo algorithm.

RESULTS

The t-test results of the planned and estimated DVH showed that the mean values were comparable (P > 0.05). For the 3%/3 mm criterion, the average %GP was acceptable for the prostate and endometrial cancer groups, with average rates of 99.68 ± 0.49% and 99.03 ± 0.59% for 2D and 99.86 ± 0.39% and 99.53 ± 0.44% for 3D, respectively. The number of correlations was poor for all analysed data. The mean Pearson's R-values for prostate and endometrial cancer were < 0.45 and < 0.43, respectively. The area under the ROC curve for the prostate and endometrial cancer groups, was lower than 0.667.

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of the %GP versus %DE values revealed only weak correlations between 2D and 3D verifications. DVH results obtained using the Compass system will be helpful in confirming that the analysed plans respect dosimetric constraints.