Dosimetric and radiobiological comparison of prostate VMAT plans optimized using the photon and progressive resolution algorithm

This study compared the dosimetric and radiobiological parameters of prostate volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans using different prescriptions optimized by the photon optimization (PO) and progressive resolution optimization (PRO) algorithm. A total of 20 prostate patients were selected retrospectively and divided into 2 groups of VMAT plans using prescriptions of 60 Gy/20 fx and 79 Gy/38 fx. Inverse treatment planning optimized by the PO and PRO algorithm based on the dual-arc technique was carried out by the Eclipse treatment planning system. The maximum dose, minimum dose, mean dose, dose-volume points, and dose-volume indices of the targets and organs at risk (OAR) were calculated from the plans. In addition, radiobiological parameters such as tumor control probability (TCP), normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), and equivalent uniform dose (EUD) of the targets and OAR were determined based on their dose-volume histograms (DVHs). A paired Student's t-test was carried out to compare the difference between mean dose-volume points, radiobiological parameters, and dose-volume indices. Two-tailed p < 0.05 was defined as having statistical difference. For prostate VMAT plans optimized by the PO algorithm, equal or slightly larger mean dose and TCP of the PTV (1% for 60 Gy/20 fx and 0.2% for 78 Gy/39 fx) were found by comparing to the PRO. These were followed by finding the slightly larger conformity index (CI; 0.927 vs 0.895 and 0.910 vs 0.904), larger or equal homogeneity index (HI; 0.054 vs 0.052 and 0.058 vs 0.058), and smaller gradient index (GI; 1.366 vs 2.288 and 1.585 vs 1.742) of the PTV using plans optimized by the PO vs PRO using prescriptions of 60 Gy/20 fx and 78 Gy/39 fx. For the OAR, we found that the mean doses, NTCPs, and EUDs of the rectum, bladder, and femur were slightly larger for plans optimized by the PO algorithm compared to the PRO, though both optimization algorithms satisfied all the dose-volume criteria and objectives in the inverse planning. Both the PO and PRO algorithm can generate prostate VMAT plans fulfilling the required dose-volume criteria. It is concluded that plans optimized by the PO algorithm can produce prostate plan with very similar quality compared to PRO.

Dose-volume and radiobiological dependence on the calculation grid size in prostate VMAT planning

This study evaluated the effects of dose-volume and radiobiological dependence on the calculation grid size in prostate volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning. Ten patients with prostate cancer were selected for this retrospective treatment planning study. Prostate VMAT plans were created for the patients using the 6 MV photon beam produced by a Varian TrueBEAM linac with the calculation grid size equal to 1, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, and 5 mm. Dose-volume histograms (DVHs) of targets and organs at risk were generated for different grid sizes. We calculated the radiobiological parameters of the tumor control probability (TCP) of clinical target volume (CTV) and planning target volume (PTV), and the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) of organs at risk (rectal wall, rectum, bladder wall, bladder, left femur, and right femur). The homogeneity, conformity, and gradient indexes of CTV and PTV were calculated for different grid sizes. The TCP of PTV was found decreasing with a rate of 0.06%/mm when the calculation grid size increased from 1 to 5 mm. On the other hand, both NTCPs of rectal wall and rectum were found decreasing with rates of 0.03%/mm and 0.05%/mm, respectively, with an increase of grid size. The homogeneity index of PTV increased with a rate of 0.57/mm of the calculation grid size, whereas the conformity index of PTV decreased with a rate of 0.0075/mm. The gradient index of PTV was found increasing with a rate equal to 0.05/mm. In prostate VMAT planning, variations of dose-volume and radiobiological parameters with calculation grid size on PTV, rectal wall, and rectum were more significant than those of CTV and other organs at risk such as bladder wall, bladder, and femurs. Results in this study are important in the treatment planning quality assurance when the calculation grid size is varied to compromise a shorter dose computing time.

[Interobserver variability study for daily cone beam computed tomography registration of prostate volumetric modulated arc therapy]

PURPOSE

This work evaluated the interobserver variability in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) registration for prostate cancers treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twelve technologists realized 286 CBCT/CT registrations (bone registration followed by prostate to prostate registration). The registration results were compared to those obtained by two radiation oncologists (reference). Each technologist reported the shifts calculated by the software in all three axes. A statistical analysis allowed us to calculate the minimum threshold under which 95% of the observers found similar values. A variance analysis followed by the post hoc test were used to find differences in interobserver registration variability and determine whether any individual users performed registrations which differed significantly from those of the other users.

RESULTS

The registration differences compared to the reference in the three directions in terms of 95th percentile are: 2.1mm left-right, 3.5mm target-gun, 7.3mm anterior-posterior. In the posterior direction, 4% of the observers have found differences superior to 8mm, margin used in routine without the use of a daily CBCT. The variance test revealed a P-value <0.05 only for target-gun and for all observers there was no significant difference compared to the reference.

CONCLUSION

This study confirmed the interest of a 3D tissue registration for prostate treatments. The registration study showed a good interobserver reproducibility. This showed the importance of a daily CBCT/CT registration in prostate treatment with the possibility of a planning target volume margin reduction in the three directions. An evaluation of a partial delegation of registration to technologists should be done by the radiation oncologists.

Comparison of dosimetric variation between prostate IMRT and VMAT due to patient's weight loss: Patient and phantom study

AIM

This study compared the dosimetric impact between prostate IMRT and VMAT due to patient's weight loss.

BACKGROUND

Dosimetric variation due to change of patient's body contour is difficult to predict in prostate IMRT and VMAT, since a large number of small and irregular segmental fields is used in the delivery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Five patients with prostate volumes ranging from 32.0 to 86.5 cm(3) and a heterogeneous pelvis phantom were used for prostate IMRT and VMAT plans using the same set of dose-volume constraints. Doses in IMRT and VMAT plans were recalculated with the patient's and phantom's body contour reduced by 0.5-2 cm to mimic size reduction. Dose coverage/criteria of the PTV and CTV and critical organs (rectum, bladder and femoral heads) were compared between IMRT and VMAT.

RESULTS

In IMRT plans, increases of the D99% for the PTV and CTV were equal to 4.0 ± 0.1% per cm of reduced depth, which were higher than those in VMAT plans (2.7 ± 0.24% per cm). Moreover, increases of the D30% of the rectum and bladder per reduced depth in IMRT plans (4.0 ± 0.2% per cm and 3.5 ± 0.5% per cm) were higher than those of VMAT (2.2 ± 0.2% per cm and 2.0 ± 0.6% per cm). This was also true for the increase of the D5% for the right femoral head in a patient or phantom with size reduction due to weight loss.

CONCLUSIONS

VMAT would be preferred to IMRT in prostate radiotherapy, when a patient has potential to suffer from weight loss during the treatment.