A retrospective tomotherapy image-guidance study: analysis of more than 9,000 MVCT scans for ten different tumor sites

Imaging dose of megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) for treatment verification in the tomotherapy of breast cancer

Aim

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether significant difference exists on radiation dose delivered to organs at risks in megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) verification using three predefined scanning modes, namely fine (2 mm), normal (4 mm) and coarse (6 mm). This will provide information for the imaging protocol of tomotherapy for the left breast.

Materials and methods

Organ doses were measured using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD-100) placed within a female Rando phantom for MVCT imaging. Kruskal–Wallis test was conducted with p<0·05 to evaluate the significant difference between the three MVCT scanning modes.

Results

Statistically significant difference existed in organ absorbed dose between different scan mode selections (p<0·001). Relative to the normal scan selection (4 mm), the absorbed dose to the organs of interests can be scaled down by 0·7 and scaled up by 2·1 for coarse (6 mm) and fine scans (2 mm) respectively.

Conclusions

Optimisation of imaging protocols is of paramount importance to keep the radiation exposure ‘as low as reasonably achievable’. The recommendation of undergoing daily coarse mode for MVCT verification in breast tomotherapy not only mitigates the radiation exposure to normal tissues, but also trims the scan-acquisition time.

The heterogeneous CTV-PTV margins should be given for different parts of tumors during tomotherapy

Objective

The purpose of this study was to evaluate CTV-PTV margins of tumors for tomotherapy.

Methods

Setup errors were analyzed for 151 patients receiving helical tomotherapy treatment. 53 patients had head and neck tumors, 45 had thoracic tumors, 20 had abdominal tumors, and 33 had pelvic tumors. The setup errors were calculated in six directions, i.e. +X (left), -X (right), +Y (head), -Y (foot), +Z (ventral), and -Z (dorsal), after Megavoltage CT (MVCT) images were registered to simulation CT images. And then the CTV-PTV margins were calculated.

Results

The setup errors along the +Z direction were significantly higher than that along the –Z direction (p<0.05). The CTV-PTV margins on +X, -X, +Y, -Y, +Z, and -Z directions were asymmetric for all tumors, and the heterogeneity were more remarkable on the +Z and –Z directions. The CTV-PTV margins on +Z and –Z were 4.1 mm, 4.6 mm, 5.2 mm, and 8.4 mm; and 3.9 mm, 7.7 mm, 3.3 mm, and 7.7 mm for head and neck tumors, thoracic tumors, abdominal tumors, and pelvic tumors, respectively.

Conclusions

The CTV-PTV margins for patients with different types of tumors were heterogeneous during tomotherapy. The individual margins of six directions should be given for those patients who accept tomotherapy.

Evaluation of MVCT imaging dose levels during helical IGRT: comparison between ion chamber, TLD, and EBT3 films

The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the dose on megavoltage CT (MVCT) images required for tomotherapy. As imaging possibilities are often used before each treatment and usually used several times before the session, we tried to evaluate the dose delivered during the procedure. For each scanning mode (fine, normal, and coarse), we first established the relative variation of these doses according to different technical parameters (explored length, patient setup). These dose variations measured with the TomoPhant, also known as Cheese phantom, showed the expected variations (due to the variation of scattered radiation) of 15% according to the explored length and ± 5% according to the phantom setup (due to the variation of the point of measurement in the bore). In order to estimate patient doses, an anthropomorphic phantom was used for thermoluminescent and film dosimetry. The degree of agreement between the two methods was very satisfactory (the differences correspond to 5 mGy per imaging session) for the three sites studied (head & neck, thorax, and abdomen). These measurements allowed us to estimate the delivered dose of between 1 cGy and 4 cGy according to the site and imaging mode. Finally, we attempted to investigate a way to calculate this delivered dose in our patients from the study conducted on a cylindrical phantom and by taking into account data from the initial kV-CT scan. The results we obtained were close to our measurements, with discrepancies below 5 mGy per MVCT.

Chemoradiation for gastric cancer: controversies, updates and novel techniques

The INT0116 trial established the role of adjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) in the multidisciplinary approach to the management of locally advanced gastric cancer. However, whether adjuvant CRT is indispensable for patients undergoing D2 dissection remains undefined. The adjuvant chemoradiation therapy in stomach cancer (ARTIST) trial, which was designed to compare adjuvant chemotherapy to CRT, failed to demonstrate differences in disease-free and overall survival in the whole study group; however, subgroup analysis indicated that patients with lymph node metastasis may benefit from additional radiation. A follow-up ARTIST II trial is currently under way. The efficacy of adjuvant CRT remains controversial because of variation among studies in the inclusion criteria and treatment delivery methods; however, the identification of patients who would benefit from CRT is critical. Advanced radiotherapy techniques such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy protect normal tissues via motion management and decreased radiation-induced toxicity and contribute to plan optimization. Further studies integrating clinical and molecular factors as well as neoadjuvant CRT are warranted.