mARC vs. IMRT radiotherapy of the prostate with flat and flattening-filter-free beam energies

Modulated Arc Therapy for hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation therapy: planning comparison with intensity modulated Radiation Therapy

This study aimed to evaluate the modulated arc therapy (mARC) technique as a planning and treatment option for hippocampal sparing whole brain radiotherapy (HS-WBRT) following the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0933 dosimetric criteria. Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were selected retrospectively for 15 patients. Two types of plans were created for each patient, namely an intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and a mARC plan. IMRT and mARC plans were compared in terms of plan quality indices, absorbed dose to organs at risk (OARs), number of monitor units (MUs), and treatment time. All plans in both techniques were considered clinically acceptable for treatment. However, IMRT plans presented a higher conformity (p = 0.01) as well as a higher homogeneity as compared to mARC plans, but this difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). In terms of the preservation of the hippocampus, it was observed that the IMRT plans achieved significantly lower doses for both 100% of its volume and for its maximum dose (p < 0.001). The evaluation of the remaining OARs showed that the IMRT technique resulted in lower doses, and significant differences were observed for the following organs: left cochlea (p < 0.001), left eye (p < 0.001), right eye (p = 0.03), both lenses of the eye (p < 0.001), and right optic nerve (p = 0.02). Despite these differences, the absolute differences in all dosimetric parameters were low enough to bear any clinical relevance. A drastic (close to 65%) and significant (p < 0.001) decrease was observed in the number of MUs for the mARC plans. This resulted in a substantial decrease in treatment time (60.45%, p < 0.001). It is concluded that the mARC technique is a feasible planning and treatment solution for HS-WBRT that meets the RTOG 0933 criteria. The main advantage of using mARC over IMRT for HS-WBRT is the considerable reduction in MUs and treatment time.

Particle Swarm Optimisation Applied to the Direct Aperture Optimisation Problem in Radiation Therapy

Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is one of the most used techniques for cancer treatment. Using a linear accelerator, it delivers radiation directly at the cancerogenic cells in the tumour, reducing the impact of the radiation on the organs surrounding the tumour. The complexity of the IMRT problem forces researchers to subdivide it into three sub-problems that are addressed sequentially. Using this sequential approach, we first need to find a beam angle configuration that will be the set of irradiation points (beam angles) over which the tumour radiation is delivered. This first problem is called the Beam Angle Optimisation (BAO) problem. Then, we must optimise the radiation intensity delivered from each angle to the tumour. This second problem is called the Fluence Map Optimisation (FMO) problem. Finally, we need to generate a set of apertures for each beam angle, making the intensities computed in the previous step deliverable. This third problem is called the Sequencing problem. Solving these three sub-problems sequentially allows clinicians to obtain a treatment plan that can be delivered from a physical point of view. However, the obtained treatment plans generally have too many apertures, resulting in long delivery times. One strategy to avoid this problem is the Direct Aperture Optimisation (DAO) problem. In the DAO problem, the idea is to merge the FMO and the Sequencing problem. Hence, optimising the radiation's intensities considers the physical constraints of the delivery process. The DAO problem is usually modelled as a Mixed-Integer optimisation problem and aims to determine the aperture shapes and their corresponding radiation intensities, considering the physical constraints imposed by the Multi-Leaf Collimator device. In solving the DAO problem, generating clinically acceptable treatments without additional sequencing steps to deliver to the patients is possible. In this work, we propose to solve the DAO problem using the well-known Particle Swarm Optimisation (PSO) algorithm. Our approach integrates the use of mathematical programming to optimise the intensities and utilizes PSO to optimise the aperture shapes. Additionally, we introduce a reparation heuristic to enhance aperture shapes with minimal impact on the treatment plan. We apply our proposed algorithm to prostate cancer cases and compare our results with those obtained in the sequential approach. Results show that the PSO obtains competitive results compared to the sequential approach, receiving less radiation time (beam on time) and using the available apertures with major efficiency.

Measuring out-of-field dose to the hippocampus in common radiotherapy indications

BACKGROUND

The high susceptibility of the hippocampus region to radiation injury is likely the causal factor of neurocognitive dysfunctions after exposure to ionizing radiation. Repetitive exposures with even low doses have been shown to impact adult neurogenesis and induce neuroinflammation. We address the question whether the out-of-field doses during radiotherapy of common tumour entities may pose a risk for the neuronal stem cell compartment in the hippocampus.

METHODS

The dose to the hippocampus was determined for a single fraction according to different treatment plans for the selected tumor entities: Point dose measurements were performed in an anthropomorphic Alderson phantom and the out-of-field dose to the hippocampus was measured using thermoluminescence dosimeters.

RESULTS

For carcinomas in the head and neck region the dose exposure to the hippocampal region for a single fraction ranged from to 37.4 to 154.8 mGy. The hippocampal dose was clearly different for naso-, oro- and hypopharynx, with maximal values for nasopharynx carcinoma. In contrast, hippocampal dose levels for breast and prostate cancer ranged between 2.7 and 4.1 mGy, and therefore significantly exceeded the background irradiation level.

CONCLUSION

The mean dose to hippocampus for treatment of carcinomas in the head and neck region is high enough to reduce neurocognitive functions. In addition, care must be taken regarding the out of field doses. The mean dose is mainly related to scattering effects, as is confirmed by the data from breast or prostate treatments, with a very different geometrical set-up but similar dosimetric results.

mARC preoperative rectal cancer treatments vs. 3D conformal radiotherapy. A dose distribution comparative study

PURPOSE

mARC (modulated arc) is the arc therapy technique provided by Siemens. The present study analyses the dose distributions and treatment times corresponding to preoperative rectal cancer mARC treatments. The results are compared to those corresponding to 3D-CRT plans.

METHODS

The plans of 30 patients, each having one mARC and one 3D-CRT plan, were evaluated. Every plan was calculated on a sequential two-phase treatment scheme with prescription doses of 45 Gy in the initial phase and 5.4 Gy in the boost phase. Dosimetric parameters and mean DVHs corresponding to the PTVs and OARs were assessed for both techniques.

RESULTS

All mARC plans were considered valid for treatment and yielded a highly significant improvement in the CI over 3D-CRT plans (p <0.001). They also showed statistically significant advantage on the parameters D98%, D95% and D2% of the high dose PTV. Regarding the OARs, mARC plans showed reductions in the mean dose of 3.5 Gy in the bladder and greater than 4 Gy in the femoral heads. Considering the small bowel, the mARC plans resulted in a 2.7 Gy mean reduction in the mean dose and lower irradiated volumes over the entire dose range.

CONCLUSIONS

Arc therapy plans with the mARC technique for preoperative rectal cancer treatment in a sequential two-phase treatment scheme provide important advantages in the PTVs and OARs. mARC plans show superior protection of the femoral heads, bladder and small bowel, similar to the results found with other more widespread arc therapy techniques.

Dosimetric comparison of flattened and flattening filter-free beams for liver stereotactic body irradiation in deep inspiration breath hold, and free breathing conditions

Aim

The aim of this study is to evaluate the influence of flattened and flattening filter-free (FFF) beam 6 MV photon beam for liver stereotactic body radiation therapy by using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique in deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) and free breathing condition.

Materials and methods

Eight liver metastasis patients (one to three metastasis lesions) were simulated in breath hold and free breathing condition. VMAT-based treatment plans were created for a prescription dose of 50 Gy in 10 fractions, using a 230° coplaner arc and 60° non-coplanar arc for both DIBH and free breathing study set. Treatment plans were evaluated for planning target volume (PTV) dose coverage, conformity and hot spots. Parallel and serial organs at risk were compared for average and maximum dose, respectively. Dose spillages were evaluated for different isodose volumes from 5 to 80%.

Result

Mean D98% (dose received by 98% target volume) for FFF in DIBH, flattened beam in DIBH, FFF in free breathing and flatten beam in free breathing dataset were 48·9, 47·81, 48·5 and 48·3 Gy, respectively. D98% was not statistically different between FFF and flatten beam (p = 0·34 and 0·69 for DIBH and free breathing condition). PTV V105% (volume receiving 105% dose) for the same set were 3·76, 0·25, 1·2 and 0·4%, respectively. Mean heterogeneity index for all study sets and beam models varies between 1·05 and 1·07. Paddik conformity index using unflattened and flattened beam in DIBH at 98% prescription dose were 0·91 and 0·79, respectively. Maximum variation of isodose volume was observed for I-5%, which was ranging between 2288·8 and 2427·2 cm3. Increase in isodose value shows a diminishing difference in isodose volumes between different techniques. DIBH yields a significant reduction in the chest wall dose compared with free breathing condition. Average monitor units for FFF beam in DIBH, flattened beam in DIBH, FFF beam in free breathing CT dataset and flattened beam in free breathing CT dataset were 1318·6 ± 265·1, 1940·3 ± 287·6, 1343·3 ± 238·1 and 2192·5 ± 252·6 MU.

Conclusion

DIBH and FFF is a good combination to reduce the treatment time and to achieve better tumour conformity. No other dosimetric gain was observed for FFF in either DIBH or free breathing condition.

Monte-Carlo simulation of the Siemens Artiste linear accelerator flat 6 MV and flattening-filter-free 7 MV beam line

The aim of our work is to provide the up-to-now missing information on the Siemens Artiste FFF 7 MV beam line using a Monte-Carlo model fit to the realistic dosimetric measurements at the linear accelerator in clinical use at our department. The main Siemens Artiste 6MV and FFF 7MV beams were simulated using the Geant4 toolkit. The simulations were compared with the measurements with an ionization chamber in a water phantom to verify the validation of simulation and tuning the primary electron parameters. Hereafter, other parameters such as surface dose, spectrum, electron contamination, symmetry, flatness/unflatness, slope, and characteristic off-axis changes were discussed for both Flat and FFF mode. The mean electron energy for the FFF beam was 8.8 MeV and 7.5 MeV for Flat 6 MV, the spread energy and spot size of the selected Gaussian distribution source were 0.4 MeV and 1mm, respectively. The dose rate of the FFF beam was 2.8 (2.96) times higher than for the flattened beam for a field size of 10×10 (20×20) cm2. The electron contamination has significant contribution to the surface dose especially for the flattened beam. The penumbra, surface dose and the mean energy of photons decrease by removing the flattening filter. Finally, the results show that off-axis changes have no strong effect on the mean energy of FFF beams, while this effect was more considerable for the flattened beam.

The effect of beam shape on physical parameters of head and neck simultaneous-integrated boost intensity-modulated radiation therapy

Aim

To evaluate the influence of the beam shape created by X-rays with "flat beams" and without "flattening-filter-free [FFF] beams" a flattening filter, and the isocenter locations for FFF beams on the treatment of a large irradiated volume for tumours.

Background

The increase of dose rate and the decrease of out-of-field dose can be expected for FFF beams and lead to effective and safety radiotherapy. On the other hand, the bell-shaped dose profile is thought to be a factor of negating these advantages.

Materials and methods

Treatment plans for 15 patients with head and neck cancer were created using XiO (Elekta, Stockholm AB, Sweden) in fixed-gantry step-and-shoot delivery under the same dose constraints. Seven fields of FFF beams with 7 MV and flat beams with 6 MV were used with the technique of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). We compared the dose homogeneity and conformity of targets and dose constraints for organs as the plan quality and evaluated physical parameters: monitor unit (MU) values, number of segments and their locations from the isocenter in beam's-eye-view.

Results

No significant differences were found in the plan quality. The isocenter locations do not affect the physical parameters for FFF beams. It has been confirmed that the number of segments and MU values were 40% higher with FFF beams than with flat beams (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

This study demonstrates flat dose distribution is more suitable for IMRT with large and complex targets.

Volumetric-modulated arc therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment planning for prostate cancer with flattened beam and flattening filter free linear accelerators

This study on patients with localized prostate cancer was set up to investigate valuable differences using flattened beam (FB) and flattening filter free (FFF) mode in the application of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). For ten patients, four different plans were calculated with Oncentra planning system of Elekta, using Synergy machines: IMRT and VMAT, with and without flattening filter. Homogeneity and conformity indexes, dose to the organs at risk, and measurements of peripheral dose and dosimetric plan verification including record of the delivery times were analyzed and statistically evaluated. The indexes for homogeneity and conformity (CTV and PTV) are either advantageous or not significantly different for FFF compared to FB with one minor exception. Regarding the doses to the organs at risk and the measured peripheral dose, equivalent or lower doses were delivered for FFF than with FB. Furthermore, the delivery times were significantly shorter for FFF. VMAT compared to IMRT reveals benefits or at least equivalent values. VMAT-FFF combines the most advantageous plan quality parameters with the shortest delivery times and reduced peripheral dose and is therefore recommended for the given equipment and cancer localization.

Choice of appropriate beam model and gantry rotational angle for low-dose gradient-based craniospinal irradiation using volumetric-modulated arc therapy

Objectives

We aimed to assess the impact of advanced multileaf collimator (MLC) models and flattening filter-free (3F) beam in volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT)-based craniospinal irradiation (CSI).

Methods

CT scans of five medulloblastoma patients who previously received CSI at our hospital were used for the present study. Patients were planned for a prescription dose of 35 Gy to craniospinal axis. A three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) plan and a VMAT plan using 1 cm MLC leaf width were generated as the gold standard (reference arm). Test VMAT plans were generated using Agility MLC model (MLC leaf width 5 mm) for various combinations of flattened beam (F) and 3F beam for treating the brain and spine planning target volume (PTV). Organs at risks (OARs) were analysed for dose 5, 50, 75 and 90% volumes, mean dose and maximum dose.

Results

All 3DCRT plans and VMAT plans were aimed to cover 95% of PTV by at least 95% prescription dose. VMAT demonstrated lesser dose spillage than 3DCRT to body volume minus PTV (NTID: non tumor integral dose) for a dose threshold above 7·5 Gy. For the low-dose range (1–7 Gy), variation between the dose coverage between all VMAT plans (for either spine or brain PTV) was <1%. Intra-VMAT plan dose variation for all OAR’s for all tested parameters was <1 Gy. Average monitor unit (MU) difference among different VMAT plans ranged between 1·52 and 2·13 when normalised to 3DCRT MU. For VMAT plans, flat beam with 1 cm MLC showed the highest MU, whereas Agility MLC with 3F beam had the least MU values for intra-VMAT plans. No statistical significance variation (p) was observed in between reference arm and test arm plans except for mean dose and V107% for PTV spine. When compared between reference arm 3DCRT and test arm VMAT plans. For OAR’s, no statistical difference was observed between reference and test arm VMAT plans.

Conclusions

Reference arm plans and test arm plans exhibit no statistically significant difference. However, as compared with 3DCRT, VMAT plans are more conformal and produce lesser dose to OAR at the cost of higher delivered MU. 3F beams or finer width MLC’s (width <5 mm) have no advantage over the conventional 1 cm MLC and flat beam except that 3F beams have a shorter beam delivery time. This study demonstrate a significantly lesser spillage dose to NTID/body that of the reported literature, which is attributed to limited rotational arc length used for VMAT plans.

mARC Treatment of Hypopharynx Carcinoma with Flat and Flattening-Filter-Free Beam Energies - A Planning Study

BACKGROUND

The recently implemented mARC-rotation-technique is capable to deliver high dose rate bursts. For the case of hypopharynx cancer plans we evaluate whether the mARC can achieve an advantage in treatment time in comparison to IMRT. These plans consider two arcs with flat and flattening filter free (FFF) beam energies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For 8 hypopharynx-cancer patients step-and-shoot-IMRT and mARC plans were created retrospectively using flat and FFF beam energy. The comparison of the plan scenarios considered measures of quality for PTV coverage and sparing of organs at risk. All plans were irradiated on an anthromorphic phantom equipped with thermoluminescent dosimeters to measure scattered dose and treatment times.

RESULTS

A visual comparison of the dose distribution did not show a marked preference for either technique or energy. The statistical evaluation yielded significant differences in favor of the mARC technique and the FFF energy. Scattered dose could be decreased markedly by the use of the mARC technique. Treatment times could be reduced up to 3 minutes with the use of mARC in comparison to IMRT. The high dose rate energy results in another time advantage of about 1 minute.

CONCLUSIONS

All four plan scenarios yielded equally good quality plans. A combination of the mARC technique with FFF 7 MV high dose rate resulted in a decrease of treatment times from about 9 minutes to 5-6 minutes in comparison to 6 MV IMRT.

Clinical experience with planning, quality assurance, and delivery of burst-mode modulated arc therapy

“Burst‐mode” modulated arc therapy (hereafter referred to as “mARC”) is a form of volumetric‐modulated arc therapy characterized by variable gantry rotation speed, static MLCs while the radiation beam is on, and MLC repositioning while the beam is off. We present our clinical experience with the planning techniques and plan quality assurance measurements of mARC delivery. Clinical mARC plans for five representative cases (prostate, low‐dose‐rate brain, brain with partial‐arc vertex fields, pancreas, and liver SBRT) were generated using a Monte Carlo–based treatment planning system. A conventional‐dose‐rate flat 6 MV and a high‐dose‐rate non‐flat 7 MV beam are available for planning and delivery. mARC plans for intact‐prostate cases can typically be created using one 360° arc, and treatment times per fraction seldom exceed 6 min using the flat beam; using the nonflat beam results in slightly higher MU per fraction, but also in delivery times less than 4 min and with reduced mean dose to distal organs at risk. mARC also has utility in low‐dose‐rate brain irradiation; mARC fields can be designed which deliver a uniform 20 cGy dose to the PTV in approximately 3‐minute intervals, making it a viable alternative to conventional 3D CRT. For brain cases using noncoplanar arcs, delivery time is approximately six min using the nonflat beam. For pancreas cases using the nonflat beam, two overlapping 360° arcs are required, and delivery times are approximately 10 min. For liver SBRT, the time to deliver 800 cGy per fraction is at least 12 min. Plan QA measurements indicate that the mARC delivery is consistent with the plan calculation for all cases. mARC has been incorporated into routine practice within our clinic; currently, on average approximately 15 patients per day are treated using mARC; and with the exception of LDR brain cases, all are treated using the nonflat beam.

PACS number(s): 87.55.D‐, 87.55.K‐, 87.53.Ay. 87.56.N‐

Comparison of VMAT-SABR treatment plans with flattening filter (FF) and flattening filter-free (FFF) beam for localized prostate cancer

The purpose of this study is to investigate the feasibility of using a flattening filter-free (FFF) beam with an endorectal balloon for stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) of clinically localized prostate cancer. We assessed plans of SABR with volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) that used a flattening filter (FF) beam and an FFF beam and compared the verification results of dosimetric quality assurance for all pretreatment plans. A total of 20 patients with prostate cancer were enrolled in the study. SABR plans using VMAT with two full arcs were optimized in the Eclipse treatment planning system. All plans prescribed 42.7 Gy in 7 fractions of 6.1 Gy each. Four SABR plans were computed for each patient: two with FF beams and two with FFF beams of 6 and 10 MV. For all plans, the cumulative dose-volume histograms (DVHs) for the target volumes and organs at risk (OARs) were recorded and compared. Pretreatment quality assurance (QA) was performed using the I'mRT MatriXX system and radiochromic EBT3 film to verify treatment delivery, and gamma analysis was used to quantify the agreement between calculations and measurements. In addition, total monitor units (MUs) and delivery time were investigated as technical parameters of delivery. All four plans achieved adequate dose conformity to the target volumes and had comparable dosimetric data. The DVHs of all four plans for each patient were very similar. All plans were highly conformal with CI < 1.05 and CN > 0.90, and the doses were homogeneous (HI = 0.08-0.15). Sparing for the bladder and rectum was slightly better with the 10 MV FF and FFF plans than with the 6 MV FF and FFF plans, but the difference was negligible. However, there was no significant difference in sparing for the other OARs. The mean agreement with the 3%/3 mm criterion was higher than 97% for verifying all plans. For the 2%/2 mm criterion, the corresponding agreement values were more than 90%, which showed that the plans were acceptable. The mean MUs and delivery time used were 1701 ± 101 and 3.02 ± 0.17 min for 6 MV FF, 1870 ± 116 and 2.01 ± 0.01 min for 6 MV FFF, 1471 ± 86 and 2.68 ± 0.14 min for 10 MV FF, and 1619 ± 101 and 2.00 ± 0.00 min for 10MV FFF, respectively. In the current study, the dose distributions of the prostate SABR plans using 6 and 10 MV FFF beams were similar to those using 6 and 10 MV FF beams. However, this study confirmed that SABR treatment using an FFF beam had an advantage with respect to delivery time. In addition, all pretreatment plans were verified as acceptable and their results were comparable. Therefore, the results of this study suggest that the use of an FFF beam for prostate SABR is a feasible and efficient technique, if carefully applied.

VMAT to arclet plan conversion in a treatment planning system : Feasibility and dosimetric relationship between VMAT, arclet, and stationary fields

AIM

The aim of this study was to make dynamic rotation treatment with mARC available for the non-dedicated Philips Pinnacle treatment planning system by converting SmartArc plans, offering insight into the relationship between SmartArc, mARC, and stationary field irradiation.

METHODS

A scripting solution is presented that can be run in the Pinnacle system. This allows for the conversion of SmartArc plans into mARC format. The dose distribution of the converted mARC plan can be evaluated both in the form of a "real" mARC plan with arclets and-as is generally done in treatment planning systems certified for mARC planning-by approximating the arclets as stationary fields. We present the proof of principle and dosimetric comparisons.

RESULTS

The converted plans were irradiated without problems. For the measured 3D dose distributions, on average over 90 % points agreed with the calculated dose distributions (mARC and stationary field plans) within the gamma criteria of 3 % deviation in the local dose, 3-mm distance to agreement, for all dose values above 10 % of the maximum. The agreement between the three calculated dose distributions (SmartArc with both converted plans) was above 87 % (above 92 % when comparing mARC with stationary fields).

CONCLUSION

Our solution offers the possibility of mARC planning in Pinnacle. The dose comparisons furthermore prove that the dosimetric differences between SmartArc and mARC, when appropriately translated, are minor.