Application of an independent dose calculation software for estimating the impact of inter-fractional setup shifts in Helical Tomotherapy treatments

The purpose of this study is to validate the capability of in-house independent point dose calculation software to be used as a second check for Helical Tomotherapy treatment plans. The software performed its calculations in homogenous conditions (using the Cheese phantom, which is a cylindrical phantom with radius 15 cm and length 18 cm) using a factor-based algorithm. Fifty patients, who were treated for pelvic (10), prostate (14), lung (10), head & neck (12) and brain (4) cancers, were used. Based on the individual patient kVCT images and the pretreatment MVCT images for each treatment fraction, the corresponding daily patient setup shifts in the IEC-X, IEC-Y, and IEC-Z directions were registered. For each patient, the registered fractional setup shifts were grouped into systematic and random shifts. The average systematic dosimetric variations showed small dose deviation for the different cancer types (1.0%-3.0%) compared to the planned dose. Of the fifty patients, only three had percent differences larger than 5%. The average random dosimetric variations showed relatively small dose deviations (0.2%-1.1%) compared to the planned dose. None of the patients had percent differences larger than 5%. By examining the individual fractions of each patient, it is observed that only in 31 out of 1358 fractions the percent differences exceeded the border of 5%. These results indicate that the overall dosimetric impact from systematic and random variations is small and that the software is a capable platform for independent point dose validation for the Helical Tomotherapy modality.

The potential of helical tomotherapy in the treatment of head and neck cancer

A decade after its first introduction into the clinic, little is known about the clinical impact of helical tomotherapy (HT) on head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment. Therefore, we analyzed the basics of this technique and reviewed the literature regarding HT's potential benefit in HNC. The past two decades have been characterized by a huge technological evolution in photon beam radiotherapy (RT). In HNC, static beam intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) has shown superiority over three-dimensional conformal RT in terms of xerostomia and is considered the standard of care. However, the next-generation IMRT, the rotational IMRT, has been introduced into the clinic without any evidence of superiority over static beam IMRT other than being substantially faster. Of these rotational techniques, HT is the first system especially developed for IMRT in combination with image-guided RT. HT is particularly promising for the treatment of HNC because its sharp dose gradients maximally spare the many radiosensitive organs at risk nearby. In addition, HT's integrated computed tomography scan assures a very precise dose administration and allows for some adaptive RT. Because HT is specifically developed for IMRT in combination with (integrated) image-guidance, it allows for precise dose distribution ("dose painting"), patient setup, and dose delivery. As such, it is an excellent tool for difficult HNC irradiation. The literature on the clinical results of HT in HNC all show excellent short-term (≤2 years) results with acceptable toxicity profiles. However, properly designed trials are still warranted to further substantiate these results.

Sensitivity study to evaluate the dosimetric impact of off-axis ratio profiles misalignment on TomoTherapy second dose validation

Accurate dose planning and delivery are very important in the intensity modulated radiation therapy. For helical TomoTherapy dose validation, a TomoTherapy second check software, called MU-Tomo, has been developed using archived patient documents, initial coordinates and planned dose of the point of calculation, and common dosimetric functions. Based on this software, sensitivity studies on 50 patient cases have been evaluated to show the impact of off-axis ratio profile misalignment on point dose calculation. Off-axis ratio is defined as the dose profile normalized to its maximum dose value. Sensitivity studies were done for three scenarios: oscillating the fluctuation regions of two off-axis profiles, shifting the profiles, and rotating the profiles. The result of the oscillation trial is linear along the change of longitudinal off-axis ratio (OARy), while oscillating the lateral off-axis ratio (OARx) has little influence on the dose calculation. For shifting, the variation in the percentage difference from the non-shifting value is about 15 times larger in OARy modification than in OARx modification. Rotating OARx by +/- 6' gave less than 1.5% +/- 0.20% difference compared to the non-rotating value. Rotating OARy by +/- 1' changes the result more than 5% +/- 2.69%. Therefore, for helical TomoTherapy dose validation, commissioned OARy profiles are more sensitive than OARx to oscillation, shifting and rotating. As a result, different tolerances for OARx and OARy may be required for annual quality assurance.

Evaluation of megavoltage CT imaging protocols in patients with lung cancer

Currently, megavoltage CT studies in most centres with tomotherapy units are performed prior to every treatment for patient set-up verification and position correction. However, daily imaging adds to the total treatment time, which may cause patient discomfort as well as results in increased imaging dose. In this study, four alternative megavoltage CT imaging protocols (images obtained: during the first five fractions, once per week, alternating fractions and daily on alternative weeks) were evaluated retrospectively using the daily position correction data for 42 patients with lung cancer. The additional uncertainty introduced by using a specific protocol with respect to the daily imaging, or residual uncertainty, was analysed on a patient and population bases. The impact of less frequent imaging schedules on treatment margin calculation was also analysed. Systematic deviations were reduced with increased imaging frequency, while random deviations were largely unaffected. Mean population systematic errors were small for all protocols evaluated. In the protocol showing the greatest error, the treatment margins necessary to accommodate residual errors were 1.2, 1.3 and 1.7 mm larger in the left-right, superior-inferior and anterior-posterior directions, respectively, compared with the margins calculated using the daily imaging data. The increased uncertainty because of the use of less frequent imaging protocols may be acceptable when compared with other sources of uncertainty in lung cancer cases, such as target volume delineation and motion because of respiration. Further work needs to be carried out to establish the impact of increased residual errors on dose distribution.