Dosimetric comparison of coplanar and noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy for hippocampal-sparing whole-brain radiation therapy

Whole brain radiation therapy with hippocampal-sparing (HS-WBRT) is a novel treatment of brain metastases, which can relieve symptoms reduce recurrence in the central nervous system, and spare the hippocampus without compromising target coverage. This study aims to find out the superior combination of the treatment planning system and linear accelerator between Eclipse (version 15.6) with TrueBeam and uRT-TPOIS (vision R001.4) with uRT-linac 506c in HS-WBRT. The coplanar and noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for HS-WBRT plans were evaluated and compared on both combinations, respectively. Twenty patients for HS-WBRT were retrospectively selected at Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH) from 2021 to 2022. The coplanar and noncoplanar HS-WBRT treatment plans were designed by Eclipse and uRT-TPOIS referring to RTOG 0933 dose criteria, and their dosimetry parameters were compared. In addition, the plan complexity, monitor units, and beam-on time were recorded for Eclipse plans delivered on TrueBeam and uRT-TPOIS plans delivered on uRT-linac 506c. The results demonstrated that the dosimetric criteria of 4 types of HS-WBRT plans could meet the requirements of RTOG 0933. In terms of target coverage, dosimetric indexes of Eclipse plans and uRT-TPOIS plans were comparable, and the former is slightly better. As for metrics of organs-at-risk protection, coplanar and noncoplanar plans conducted by uRT-TPOIS were greatly superior to those by Eclipse. For coplanar and noncoplanar plans designed by the same treatment planning system, most of the dosimetric indexes had no significant difference. The monitor units of uRT-TPOIS plans was higher than that of Eclipse plans, but the modulation complexity of them were close, and uRT-TPOIS with uRT-linac 506c significantly reduced beam-on-time consumption by 9% on average for coplanar plans and 26% for noncoplanar plans compared to Eclipse with TrueBeam. This study firstly compared the coplanar and noncoplanar HS-WBRT treatment plans between Eclipse with TrueBeam and uRT-TPOIS with uRT-linac 506c in terms of dosimetry indexes, modulation complexity, and time consumption. It is shown that the radiation treatment solution of uRT-TPOIS with uRT-linac 506c is comparable with Eclipse with TrueBeam in terms of planning design, and significantly reduced the delivery time, which can be applied in clinical practice and promoted as a treatment format.

Lung SBRT treatment planning: a study of VMAT arc selection guided by collision check software

To evaluate the effects of arc geometry on lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) plan quality, using collision check software to select safe beam angles. Thirty lung SBRT cases were replanned 10Gy x 5 using 4 volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) geometries: coplanar lateral (cpLAT), coplanar oblique (cpOBL), noncoplanar lateral (ncpLAT) and noncoplanar oblique (ncpOBL). Lateral arcs spanned 180° on the affected side whereas the 180° oblique arcs crossed midline to spare healthy tissues. Couch angles were separated by 30° on noncoplanar plans. Clearance was verified with Radformation CollisionCheck software. Optimization objectives were the same across the four plans for each case. Planning target volume (PTV) coverage was set to 95% and then plans were evaluated for dose conformity, healthy tissue doses, and monitor units. Clinically treated plans were used to benchmark the results. The volumes of the 25%, 50% and 75% isodoses were smaller with noncoplanar than coplanar arcs. The volume of the 50% isodose line relative to the PTV (CI50%) was as follows: clinical 3.75±0.72, cpLAT 3.39 ± 0.37, cpOBL 3.36 ± 0.34, ncpLAT 3.02 ± 0.21 and ncpOBL 3.02 ± 0.22. The Wilcoxon signed rank test with Bonferroni correction showed p < 0.005 in all CI50% comparisons except between the cpLat and cpObl arcs and between the ncpLat and ncpObl arcs. The best lung sparing was achieved using ncpObl arcs, which was statistically significant (p < 0.001) compared with the other four plans at V12.5Gy, V13.5Gy and V20Gy. Chest wall V30Gy was significantly better using noncoplanar arcs in comparison to the other plan types (p < 0.001). The best heart sparing at V10Gy from the ncpOBL arcs was significant compared with the clinical and cpLat plans (p < 0.005). Arc geometry has a substantial effect on lung SBRT plan quality. Noncoplanar arcs were superior to coplanar arcs at compacting the dose distribution at the 25%, 50% and 75% isodose levels, thereby reducing the dose to healthy tissues. Further healthy tissue sparing was achieved using oblique arcs that minimize the pathlength through healthy tissues and avoid organs at risk. The dosimetric advantages of the noncoplanar and oblique arcs require careful beam angle selection during treatment planning to avoid collisions during treatment, which may be facilitated by commercial software.

A case study of evaluating bilateral lung dose for VMAT treatment planning using a partial sagittal arc

Radiation pneumonitis (RP) is a potential toxic side effect of thoracic radiotherapy. Optimal planning techniques must maintain tumor coverage while limiting dose to normal lung tissue to reduce the risk of patients developing RP. The addition of a noncoplanar arc may be beneficial by increasing treatment angles and providing an ideal dose distribution for tumor coverage while decreasing dose to organs at risk (OAR). The purpose of this research was to compare the effects on the normal bilateral lung tissue receiving 20 Gy, 10 Gy and 5 Gy (V20, V10, V5) and the mean lung dose (MLD) values when medial lung tumors are treated with 3 partial coplanar arcs vs 2 partial coplanar arcs combined with a partial sagittal arc. Researchers hypothesized that a beam arrangement of 2 partial coplanar arcs and 1 partial sagittal arc would reduce V20, V10, V5, and MLD values when compared to a 3 partial coplanar arc plan. In a retrospective study of 5 patients with bulky, medial right lung lesions without nodal involvement, cases were planned with both a noncoplanar and a coplanar arc geometry. Results were evaluated using a two-tailed t-test to determine the statistical significance (p < 0.05) of changes to total lung volume analyzation metrics when a noncoplanar sagittal arc was incorporated compared to the standard lung treatment using only coplanar arcs. Although some patient cases showed minor improvement in the V₂₀, V₁₀, V₅, and MLD metrics, the study results were not statistically significant and showed no advantage with the introduction of an anterior sagittal arc over a coplanar beam arrangement.

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy, coplanar volumetric-modulated arc, therapy, and noncoplanar volumetric-modulated arc therapy in, glioblastoma: A dosimetric comparison

OBJECTIVE

Advanced techniques such as volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) may reduce radiation damage and improve the quality of life for patients.We performed a study comparing dose distributions to the planning target volumes(PTVs) and other organs at risk (OARs) of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT),coplanar VMAT (coVMAT), and non-coplanar VMAT (ncVMAT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

13 patients with GBM who had undergone postoperative radiotherapy were enrolled. Three plans for each patient were created, namely, IMRT, coVMAT, and ncVMAT. Prescription doses and normal-tissue constraints were identical for these three plans. The dosimetric differences of target dose distribution, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), the gradient index (GI), dose of OARs, monitor units (MUs) and beam-on times among these three plans were investigated.

RESULTS

These three techniques resulted in comparable maximum, minimum, and mean PTV doses. Small but insignificant differences were observed in GI,CI, and HI. Compared with IMRT, VMAT plans showed statistically significant reductions in the mean doses to the optic chiasm (P < 0.05). Compared with IMRT, VMAT techniques significantly reduced the number of MUs and less beam-on time than IMRT techniques (P ＜ 0.05). However, calculation times were significantly longer for ncVMAT and coVMAT plans at 12 and 12.3 min, versus 2.6 min for IMRT. Our study showed that IMRT or VMAT planning is feasible and efficient for patients with GBM.Compared to IMRT plans, ncVMAT or coVMAT plans showed similar PTV coverage and comparable OARs sparing. VMAT plans significantly reduces the mean doses to the optic chiasm than IMRT plans.

CONCLUSION

There was no obvious superiority of ncVMAT over coVMAT in target coverage and sparing of OARs.Compared with IMRT, VMAT techniques significantly reduced the number of MUs and beam-on time but extended the calculation times.

Comparison of Multiple Treatment Planning Techniques for High-Grade Glioma Tumors Near to Critical Organs

AIM

The purpose of this study was to compare 6 treatment planning methods (5-beam coplanar intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), 7-beam coplanar IMRT, 7-beam noncoplanar IMRT, 2 full arc coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), 2 half partial arc coplanar VMAT, and 2 half partial arc noncoplanar VMAT) for high-grade gliomas with planning target volumes (PTVs) overlapping the optic pathway and/or brainstem.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

27 previously-treated patients with high-grade gliomas were replanned for treatment with IMRT5, IMRT7, IMRT7-non, VMAT2f, VMAT2h, and VMAT2h-non. In order to perform a comparative study of the treatment outcomes, 3 tumor localizations (right-sided, left-sided, and central tumors) were selected. Patients were administered a PTV dose of 60 Gy in 30 fractions with a maximum permitted dose of 110%.

RESULTS

Comparison of the 3 IMRT plans and 3 VMAT plans was performed for all 27 patients. The median conformity index was significantly higher (p < 0.05) in all IMRT plans compared to all VMAT plans in the case of right sided tumors. Significant differences were also observed between coplanar and noncoplanar plans in IMRT and VMAT in right-sided tumors (p < 0.05). Differences in brainstem mean doses were only found to be significant between coplanar and noncoplanar plans in centrally-located tumors. In right- and left-sided tumors, the VMAT2f plans demonstrated higher values than all IMRT plans in their mean values for radiation doses to the ipsilateral optic nerves, contralateral optic nerves, ipsilateral lens, ipsilateral eye, contralateral lens, contralateral eye, and contralateral optic nerves, as well in the maximums for the optic chiasm and contralateral optic nerves. Significantly faster treatment times were achieved with all VMAT plans compared to IMRT plans.

CONCLUSION

IMRT techniques provided better target coverage than VMAT plans. However, VMAT techniques reduced treatment delivery time more than IMRT techniques. Technique selection for tumors located in 3 different localizations should be individualized in accordance with patients' specific parameters.

Superior liver sparing by combined coplanar/noncoplanar volumetric-modulated arc therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a planning and feasibility study

Compared with step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiotherapy (sIMRT) and tomotherapy, volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) allows additional arc configurations in treatment planning and noncoplanar (NC) delivery. This study was first to compare VMAT planning with sIMRT planning, and the second to evaluate the toxicity of coplanar (C)/NC-VMAT treatment in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Fifteen patients with HCC (7 with left-lobe and 8 with right-lobe tumors) were planned with C-VMAT, C/NC-VMAT, and sIMRT. The median total dose was 49Gy (range: 40 to 56Gy), whereas the median fractional dose was 3.5Gy (range: 3 to 8Gy). Different doses/fractionations were converted to normalized doses of 2Gy per fraction using an α/β ratio of 2.5. The mean liver dose, volume fraction receiving more than 10Gy (V10), 20Gy (V20), 30Gy (V30), effective volume (Veff), and equivalent uniform dose (EUD) were compared. C/NC-VMAT in 6 patients was evaluated for delivery accuracy and treatment-related toxicity. Compared with sIMRT, both C-VMAT (p = 0.001) and C/NC-VMAT (p = 0.03) had significantly improved target conformity index. Compared with C-VMAT and sIMRT, C/NC-VMAT for treating left-lobe tumors provided significantly better liver sparing as evidenced by differences in mean liver dose (p = 0.03 and p = 0.007), V10 (p = 0.003 and p = 0.009), V20 (p = 0.006 and p = 0.01), V30 (p = 0.02 and p = 0.002), Veff (p = 0.006 and p = 0.001), and EUD (p = 0.04 and p = 0.003), respectively. For right-lobe tumors, there was no difference in liver sparing between C/NC-VMAT, C-VMAT, and sIMRT. In all patients, dose to more than 95% of target points met the 3%/3mm criteria. All 6 patients tolerated C/NC-VMAT and none of them had treatment-related ≥ grade 2 toxicity. The C/NC-VMAT can be used clinically for HCC and provides significantly better liver sparing in patients with left-lobe tumors.