Dose-escalated volumetric modulated arc therapy for total marrow irradiation: A feasibility dosimetric study with 4DCT planning and simultaneous integrated boost

PurposeTo evaluate the planning feasibility of dose-escalated total marrow irradiation (TMI) with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) to the active bone marrow (ABM) using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and to assess the impact of using planning organs at risk (OAR) volumes (PRV) accounting for breathing motion in the optimization.MethodsFive patients underwent whole-body CT and thoraco-abdominal 4DCT. A planning target volume (PTV) including all bones and ABM was contoured on each whole-body CT. PRV of selected OAR (liver, heart, kidneys, lungs, spleen, stomach) were determined with 4DCT. Planning consisted of 9–10 full 6 MV photon VMAT arcs. Four plans were created for each patient with 12 Gy prescribed to the PTV, with or without an additional 4 Gy SIB to the ABM. Planning dose constraints were set on the OAR or on the PRV. Planning objective was a PTV D_mean < 110% of the prescribed dose, a PTV V_110% < 50%, and OAR D_mean ≤ 50–60%.ResultsPTV D_mean < 110% was accomplished for most plans (n = 18/20), while all achieved V_110%<50%. SIB plans succeeded to optimally cover the boost volume (median ABM D_mean = 16.3 Gy) and resulted in similar OAR sparing compared to plans without SIB (median OAR D_mean = 40–54% of the ABM prescribed dose). No statistically significant differences between plans optimized with constraints on OAR or PRV were found.ConclusionsAdding a 4 Gy SIB to the ABM for TMI is feasible with VMAT technique, and results in OAR sparing similar to plans without SIB. Setting dose constraints on PRV does not impair PTV dosimetric parameters.     

A comparison of a moderately hypofractionated IMRT planning technique used in a randomised UK external beam radiotherapy trial with an in-house technique for localised prostate cancer

AimTo compare the radiotherapy technique used in a randomised trial with VMAT and an in-house technique for prostate cancer.BackgroundTechniques are evolving with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) commonly used. The CHHiP trial used a 3 PTV forward planned IMRT technique (FP_CH). Our centre has adopted a simpler two PTV technique with locally calculated margins.Materials and methods25 patients treated with FP_CH to 60 Gy in 20 fractions were re-planned with VMAT (VMAT_CH) and a two PTV protocol (VMAT_60/52 and VMAT_60/48). Target coverage, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), monitor units (MU) and dose to the rectum, bladder, hips and penile bulb were compared.ResultsPTV coverage was high for all techniques. VMAT_CH plans had better CI than FP_CH (p ≤  0.05). VMAT_60/52/48 plans had better CI than VMAT_CH. FP_CH had better HI and fewer MU than VMAT (p ≤  0.05). More favourable rectum doses were found for VMAT _CH than FP_CH (V_48.6, V_52.8, V₅₇, p ≤  0.05) with less difference for bladder (p ≥  0.05). Comparing VMAT_CH to VMAT_60/52/48 showed little differences for the bladder and rectum but VMAT_CH had larger penile bulb doses (V_40.8, V_48.6, mean, D_2, p ≤  0.05). Femoral head doses (V_40.8) were similarly low for all techniques (p = ≥ 0.05).ConclusionVMAT produced more conformal plans with smaller rectum doses compared to FP_CH albeit worse HI and more MU. VMAT_60/52 and VMAT_60/48 plans had similar rectal and bladder doses to VMAT_CH but better CI and penile bulb doses which may reduce toxicity.     

Volumetric modulated arc therapy for synchronous bilateral whole breast irradiation – A case study

PurposeThe treatment planning of bilateral breast irradiation (BBI) is a challenging task. The overlapping of tangential fields is usually unavoidable without compromising the target coverage. The purpose of this study was to investigate the technical feasibility and benefits of a single isocentre volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in BBI.Methods and materialsTwo women with bilateral breast cancer were included in this case study. The first patient (Pat#1) underwent a bilateral breast-conserving surgery and sentinel lymph node biopsy. The second patient (Pat#2) underwent a bilateral ablation and axillary lymph node dissection. Planning target volumes (PTV) and organs at risk were delineated on CT images. VMAT plans were created with four (two for both sides, Pat#1) or two (one for each breast, Pat#2) separate VMAT fields. Subsequently, traditional tangential field plans were generated for each patient and the dosimetric parameters were compared.ResultsThe treatment times of the patients with VMAT were less than 15 min with daily CBCT imaging. When compared to the standard tangential field technique, the VMAT plans improved the PTV dose coverage and dose homogeneity with improved sparing of lungs and heart. With traditional field arrangement, the overlapping of the tangential fields was inevitable without significantly compromising the target coverage, whereas with VMAT the hotspots were avoided. The patients were treated with the VMAT technique and no acute skin toxicity was observed with either of the patients.ConclusionsA single isocentre VMAT technique has been implemented clinically for BBI. With the VMAT techniques, the dose delivery was quick and the hotspots in the field overlapping areas were avoided. The PTV dose coverage was superior in VMAT plans when compared with conventional tangential technique plans.     

Incorrect dosimetric leaf separation in IMRT and VMAT treatment planning: Clinical impact and correlation with pretreatment quality assurance

PurposeDynamic treatment planning algorithms use a dosimetric leaf separation (DLS) parameter to model the multi-leaf collimator (MLC) characteristics. Here, we quantify the dosimetric impact of an incorrect DLS parameter and investigate whether common pretreatment quality assurance (QA) methods can detect this effect.Methods16 treatment plans with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique for multiple treatment sites were calculated with a correct and incorrect setting of the DLS, corresponding to a MLC gap difference of 0.5 mm. Pretreatment verification QA was performed with a bi-planar diode array phantom and the electronic portal imaging device (EPID). Measurements were compared to the correct and incorrect planned doses using gamma evaluation with both global (G) and local (L) normalization. Correlation, specificity and sensitivity between the dose volume histogram (DVH) points for the planning target volume (PTV) and the gamma passing rates were calculated.ResultsThe change in PTV and organs at risk DVH parameters were 0.4–4.1%. Good correlation (>0.83) between the PTV_mean dose deviation and measured gamma passing rates was observed. Optimal gamma settings with 3%L/3 mm (per beam and composite plan) and 3%G/2 mm (composite plan) for the diode array phantom and 2%G/2 mm (composite plan) for the EPID system were found. Global normalization and per beam ROC analysis of the diode array phantom showed an area under the curve <0.6.ConclusionsA DLS error can worsen pretreatment QA using gamma analysis with reasonable credibility for the composite plan. A low detectability was demonstrated for a 3%G/3 mm per beam gamma setting.     

Sparing dysphagia/aspiration related structures using novel hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy

PurposeStudies using split field IMRT to spare dysphagia/aspiration related structures (DARS) have raised concern regarding dose uncertainty at matchline. This study explores the utility of hybrid VMAT in sparing the DARS and assesses matchline dose uncertainty in postoperative oral cavity cancer patients and compares it with VMAT.Methods & materialsTen postoperative oral cavity cancer patients were planned with h-VMAT and VMAT using the same planning CT dataset. PTV and DARS were contoured using standard delineation guidelines. In h-VMAT 80% of the neck dose was planned using AP/PA technique and then VMAT optimization was done for the total PTV by keeping the corresponding AP/PA plan as the base dose. Planning goal for PTV was V_95% ≥ 95% and for DARS, adequate sparing. Plans and dose volume histograms were analyzed using dosimetric indices. Absolute point and portal dose measurements were done for h-VMAT plans to verify dose at the matchline.ResultsCoverage in both the techniques was comparable. Significant differences were observed in mean doses to DARS (Larynx: 24.36 ± 2.51 versus 16.88 ± 2.41 Gy; p < 0.0006, Pharyngeal constrictors: 25.16 ± 2.41 versus 21.2 ± 2.1 Gy; p < 0.005, Esophageal inlet: 18.71 ± 2 versus 12.06 ± 0.79 Gy; p < 0.0002) favoring h-VMAT. Total MU in both the techniques was comparable. Average percentage variations in point dose measurements in h-VMAT done at +3.5 and −3.5 positions were (1.47 ± 1.48 and 2.28 ± 1.35%) respectively. Average gamma agreement for portal dose measured was 97.07%.Conclusionh-VMAT achieves better sparing of DARS with no matchline dose uncertainty. Since these patients have swallowing dysfunction post-operatively, attempts should be made to spare these critical structures as much as possible.     

Quantification of residual dose estimation error on log file-based patient dose calculation

PurposeThe log file-based patient dose estimation includes a residual dose estimation error caused by leaf miscalibration, which cannot be reflected on the estimated dose. The purpose of this study is to determine this residual dose estimation error.Methods and materialsModified log files for seven head-and-neck and prostate volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans simulating leaf miscalibration were generated by shifting both leaf banks (systematic leaf gap errors: ±2.0, ±1.0, and ±0.5 mm in opposite directions and systematic leaf shifts: ±1.0 mm in the same direction) using MATLAB-based (MathWorks, Natick, MA) in-house software. The generated modified and non-modified log files were imported back into the treatment planning system and recalculated. Subsequently, the generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD) was quantified for the definition of the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risks.ResultsFor MLC leaves calibrated within ±0.5 mm, the quantified residual dose estimation errors that obtained from the slope of the linear regression of gEUD changes between non- and modified log file doses per leaf gap are in head-and-neck plans 1.32 ± 0.27% and 0.82 ± 0.17 Gy for PTV and spinal cord, respectively, and in prostate plans 1.22 ± 0.36%, 0.95 ± 0.14 Gy, and 0.45 ± 0.08 Gy for PTV, rectum, and bladder, respectively.ConclusionsIn this work, we determine the residual dose estimation errors for VMAT delivery using the log file-based patient dose calculation according to the MLC calibration accuracy.     

A new split arc VMAT technique for lymph node positive breast cancer

PurposeTo investigate different volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) field designs for lymph node positive breast cancer patients when compared to conventional static fields and standard VMAT designs.MethodsNineteen breast cancer patients with lymph node involvement (eleven left and eight right sided) were retrospectively analyzed with different arc designs. Proposed split arc designs with total rotations of 2 × 190° and 2 × 240° were compared to conventional field in field (FinF) and previously published non-split arc techniques with the same amount of total rotations.ResultsAll VMAT plans were superior in dose conformity, when compared to the FinF plans. Split arc design decreased significantly ipsilateral lung dose and heart V5Gy for both left and right sided cases, when compared to non-split VMAT designs. For left sided cases no significant differences were seen in contralateral lung mean dose or V5Gy between different VMAT designs. For right sided cases the contralateral lung dose V5Gy was significantly higher in split VMAT group, when compared to non-split VMAT designs. The contralateral breast dose V5Gy increased significantly for split VMAT plans for both sides, when compared to non-split VMAT designs or FinF plans.ConclusionsThe proposed split VMAT technique was shown to be superior to previously published non-split VMAT and conventional FinF techniques significantly reducing dose to the ipsilateral lung and heart. However, this came with the expense of an increase in the dose to the contralateral breast and for right-sided cases to the contralateral lung.     

A study on conventional IMRT and RapidArc treatment planning techniques for head and neck cancers

AimTo evaluate the performance of volumetric arc modulation with RapidArc against conventional IMRT for head and neck cancers.BackgroundRapidArc is a novel technique that has recently been made available for clinical use. Planning study was done for volumetric arc modulation with RapidArc against conventional IMRT for head and neck cancers.Materials and methodsTen patients with advanced tumors of the nasopharynx, oropharynx, and hypopharynx were selected for the planning comparison study. PTV was delineated for two different dose levels and planning was done by means of simultaneously integrated boost technique. A total dose of 70 Gy was delivered to the boost volume (PTV boost) and 57.7 Gy to the elective PTV (PTV elective) in 35 equal treatment fractions. PTV boost consisted of the gross tumor volume and lymph nodes containing visible macroscopic tumor or biopsy-proven positive lymph nodes, whereas the PTV elective consisted of elective nodal regions. Planning was done for IMRT using 9 fields and RapidArc with single arc, double arc. Beam was equally placed for IMRT plans. Single arc RapidArc plan utilizes full 360° gantry rotation and double arc consists of 2 co-planar arcs of 360° in clockwise and counter clockwise direction. Collimator was rotated from 35 to 45° to cover the entire tumor, which reduced the tongue and groove effect during gantry rotation. All plans were generated with 6 MV X-rays for CLINAC 2100 Linear Accelerator. Calculations were done in the Eclipse treatment planning system (version 8.6) using the AAA algorithm.ResultsDouble arc plans show superior dose homogeneity in PTV compared to a single arc and IMRT 9 field technique. Target coverage was almost similar in all the techniques. The sparing of spinal cord in terms of the maximum dose was better in the double arc technique by 4.5% when compared to the IMRT 9 field and single arc techniques. For healthy tissue, no significant changes were observed between the plans in terms of the mean dose and integral dose. But RapidArc plans showed a reduction in the volume of the healthy tissue irradiated at V_15 Gy (5.81% for single arc and 4.69% for double arc) and V_20 Gy (7.55% for single arc and 5.89% for double arc) dose levels when compared to the 9-Field IMRT technique. For brain stem, maximum dose was similar in all the techniques. The average MU (±SD) needed to deliver the dose of 200 cGy per fraction was 474 ± 80 MU and 447 ± 45 MU for double arc and single arc as against 948 ± 162 MU for the 9-Field IMRT plan. A considerable reduction in maximum dose to the mandible by 6.05% was observed with double arc plan. Double arc shows a reduction in the parotid mean dose when compared with single arc and IMRT plans.ConclusionRapidArc using double arc provided a significant sparing of OARs and healthy tissue without compromising target coverage compared to IMRT. The main disadvantage with IMRT observed was higher monitor units and longer treatment time.     

Comparison of three commercial dosimetric systems in detecting clinically significant VMAT delivery errors

AimTo study the sensitivity of three commercial dosimetric systems, Delta4, Multicube and Octavius4D, in detecting Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) delivery errors.MethodsFourteen prostate and head and neck (H&N) VMAT plans were considered for this study. Three types of errors were introduced into the original plans: gantry angle independent and dependent MLC errors, and gantry angle dependent dose errors. The dose matrix measured by each detector system for the no-error and error introduced delivery were compared with the reference Treatment Planning System (TPS) calculated dose matrix for no-error plans using gamma (γ) analysis with 2%/2 mm tolerance criteria. The ability of the detector system in identifying the minimum error in each scenario was assessed by analysing the gamma pass rates of no error delivery and error delivery using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The relative sensitivity of the system was assessed by determining the slope of the gamma pass line for studied error magnitude in each error scenario.ResultsIn the gantry angle independent and dependent MLC error scenario the Delta4, Multicube and Octavius4D systems detected a minimum 2 mm error. In the gantry angle dependent dose error scenario all studied systems detected a minimum 3% and 2% error in prostate and H&N plans respectively. In the studied detector systems Multicube showed relatively less sensitivity to the errors in the majority of error scenarios.ConclusionThe studied systems identified the same magnitude of minimum errors in all considered error scenarios.     

Dosimetric comparison of RapidPlan and manually optimized plans in volumetric modulated arc therapy for prostate cancer

PurposeThis study evaluated whether RapidPlan based plans (RP plans) created by a single optimization, are usable in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for patients with prostate cancer.MethodsWe used 51 previously administered VMAT plans to train a RP model. Thirty RP plans were created by a single optimization without planner intervention during optimization. Differences between RP plans and clinical manual optimization (CMO) plans created by an experienced planner for the same patients were analyzed (Wilcoxon tests) in terms of homogeneity index (HI), conformation number (CN), D_95%, and D_2% to planning target volume (PTV), mean dose, V_50Gy, V_70Gy, V_75Gy, and V_78Gy to rectum and bladder, monitor unit (MU), and multi-leaf collimator (MLC) sequence complexity.ResultsRP and CMO values for PTV D_95%, PTV D_2%, HI, and CN were significantly similar (p < 0.05 for all). RP mean dose, V_50Gy, and V_70Gy to rectum were superior or comparable to CMO values; RP V_75Gy and V_78Gy were higher than in CMO plans (p < 0.05). RP bladder dose-volume parameter values (except V_78Gy) were lower than in CMO plans (p < 0.05). MU values were RP: 730 ± 55 MU and CMO: 580 ± 37 MU (p < 0.05); and MLC sequence complexity scores were RP: 0.25 ± 0.02 and CMO: 0.35 ± 0.03 (p < 0.05).ConclusionsRP plans created by a single optimization were clinically acceptable in VMAT for patient with prostate cancer. Our simple model could reduce optimization time, independently of planner’s skill and knowledge.     

The evaluation of the feasibility of carotid sparing intensity modulated radiation therapy technique for comprehensive breast irradiation

PurposeTo investigate the feasibility of carotid sparing intensity modulated radiation therapy (CS-IMRT) to minimize the radiation dose to carotid arteries for comprehensive irradiation of breast cancer patients who have risk factors for atherosclerosis. The dose distribution of CS-IMRT technique and the conventional irradiation technique were also compared.Patients and methodsTen patients who were previously treated with comprehensive three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) were selected. DICOM data were used to contour the carotid artery and to create the virtual CS-IMRT plans for each patient. 3DCRT and CS-IMRT plans were compared in terms of conformity index, homogeneity index, and the doses to organ at risk and carotid arteries.ResultsThe homogeneity and conformity indices were better with CS-IMRT plans compared to 3DCRT plan. The homogeneity index was 1.13 vs 1.11 (p = 0.007) for 3DCRT and CS-IMRT and the conformity index was 0.96 vs 0.97 (p = 0.006) for 3DCRT and CS-IMRT. The radiation dose to the carotid arteries were reduced by applying CS-IMRT without compromising the target volume coverage. When the carotid artery was considered as organ at risk for CS-IMRT planning, the median of V50 was decreased to 0% from 12.5% compared to 3DCRT plans (p = 0.017). The median of the maximum dose to the carotid artery was decreased under 50 Gy with CS-IMRT.ConclusionsCS-IMRT can significantly reduce the unnecessary radiation dose to the carotid arteries compared with conventional 3DCRT technique while maintaining target volume coverage. CS-IMRT technique can be considered for breast cancer patient with high risk of atherosclerosis.     

Multi-institutional comparison of simulated treatment delivery errors in ssIMRT,manually planned VMAT and autoplan-VMAT plans for nasopharyngeal radiotherapy

PurposeTo quantify the impact of simulated errors for nasopharynx radiotherapy across multiple institutions and planning techniques (auto-plan generated Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (ap-VMAT), manually planned VMAT (mp-VMAT) and manually planned step and shoot Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (mp-ssIMRT)).MethodsTen patients were retrospectively planned with VMAT according to three institution’s protocols. Within one institution two further treatment plans were generated using differing treatment planning techniques. This resulted in mp-ssIMRT, mp-VMAT, and ap-VMAT plans. Introduced treatment errors included Multi Leaf Collimator (MLC) shifts, MLC field size (MLCfs), gantry and collimator errors. A change of more than 5% in most selected dose metrics was considered to have potential clinical impact. The original patient plan total Monitor Units (MUs) were correlated to the total number of dose metrics exceeded.ResultsThe impact of different errors was consistent, with ap-VMAT plans (two institutions) showing larger dose deviations than mp-VMAT created plans (one institution). Across all institutions’ VMAT plans the significant errors included; ±5° for the collimator angle, ±5 mm for the MLC shift and +1, ±2 and ±5 mm for the MLC field size. The total number of dose metrics exceeding tolerance was positively correlated to the VMAT total plan MUs (r = 0.51, p < 0.001), across all institutions and techniques.ConclusionsDifferences in VMAT robustness to simulated errors across institutions occurred due to planning method differences. Whilst ap-VMAT was most sensitive to MLC errors, it also produced the best quality treatment plans. Mp-ssIMRT was most robust to errors. Higher VMAT treatment plan complexity led to less robust plans.     

Volumetric modulated arc therapy in prostate cancer patients with metallic hip prostheses in a UK centre

AimThis study aimed to investigate whether IMRT using VMAT is a viable and safe solution in dose escalated RT in these patients.BackgroundAn increasing number of prostate cancer patients are elderly and have hip prostheses. These implants pose challenges in radiotherapy treatment planning. Although intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is commonly used, there is a lack of clinical studies documenting its efficacy and toxicities in this subgroup of patients.Materials and methodsThe data from 23 patients with hip prostheses and non-metastatic prostate cancer treated with VMAT (volumetric modulated arc therapy) between 2009 and 2011, were retrospectively analyzed. Baseline characteristics, treatment details and outcome data were collected on all patients. The median follow up was 40.9 months. MRI-CT image fusion was performed and the treatment plans were created using RapidArc™ (RA) techniques utilizing 1 or 2 arcs and 10 MV photon beams.Results96% of patients were treated with a dose of 72 Gy/32 fractions over 44 days. 21/23 plans met the PTV targets. The mean homogeneity index was 1.07. 20/23 plans met all OAR constraints (rectum, bladder). Two plans deviated from rectal constraints, four from bladder constraints; all were classed as minor deviations. One patient experienced late grade 3 genitourinary toxicity. Three other patients experienced late grade 2 or lower gastrointestinal toxicity. One patient had biochemical failure and one had a non-prostate cancer related death.ConclusionsVMAT provides an elegant solution to deliver dose escalated RT in patients with unilateral and bilateral hip replacements with minimal acute and late toxicities.     

DEMAT: A multi-institutional dosimetry audit of rotational and static intensity-modulated radiotherapy

PurposeStatic beam intensity-modulated-radiation-therapy (IMRT) and/or Volumetric-Modulated-Arc-Therapy (VMAT) are now available in many regional radiotherapy departments. The aim of this multi-institutional audit was to design a new methodology based on radiochromic films to perform an independent quality control.MethodsA set of data were sent to all participating centres for two clinical localizations: prostate and Head and Neck (H&N) cancers. The agreement between calculations and measurements was verified in the Octavius phantom (PTW) by point measurements using ionization chambers and by 2D measurements using EBT3 radiochromic films. Due to uncertainties in the whole procedure, criteria were set to 5% and 3% in local dose and 3 mm in distance excluding doses lower than 10% of the maximum doses. No normalization point or area was used for the quantitative analysis.Results13 radiotherapy centres participated in this audit involving 28 plans (12 IMRT, 16 VMAT). For point measurements, mean errors were −0.18 ± 1.54% and 0.00 ± 1.58% for prostate and H&N cases respectively. For 2D measurements with 5%/3 mm criteria, gamma map analysis showed a pixel pass rate higher than 95% for prostate and H&N. Mean gamma index was lower than 0.4 for prostate and 0.5 for H&N. Both techniques yielded similar results.ConclusionThis study showed the feasibility of an independent quality control by peers for conventional IMRT and VMAT. Results from all participating centres were found to be in good agreement. This regional study demonstrated the feasibility of our new methodology based on radiochromic films without dose normalization on a specific point.     

Characterization of robust optimization for VMAT plan for liver cancer

PurposeWe investigated the feasibility of robust optimization for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for liver cancer in comparison with planning target volume (PTV)-based optimized plans. Treatment plan quality, robustness, complexity, and accuracy of dose delivery were assessed.MethodsTen liver cancer patients were selected for this study. PTV-based optimized plans with an 8-mm PTV margin and robust optimized plans with an 8-mm setup uncertainty were generated. Plan perturbed doses were evaluated using a setup error of 8 mm in all directions from the isocenter. The dosimetric comparison parameters were clinical target volume (CTV) doses (D_98%, D_50%, and D_2%), liver doses, and monitor unit (MU). Plan complexity was evaluated using the modulation complexity score for VMAT (MCSv).ResultsThere was no significant difference between the two optimizations with respect to CTV doses and MUs. Robust optimized plans had a higher liver dose than did PTV-based optimized plans. Plan perturbed dose evaluations showed that doses to the CTV for the robust optimized plans had small variations. Robust optimized plans were less complex than PTV-based optimized plans. Robust optimized plans had statistically significant fewer leaf position errors than did PTV-based optimized plans.ConclusionsComparison of treatment plan quality, robustness, and plan complexity of both optimizations showed that robust optimization could be feasibile for VMAT of liver cancer.     

Advanced optimization methods for whole pelvic and local prostate external beam therapy

PurposeRadiation treatment planning inherently involves multiple conflicting planning goals, which makes it a suitable application for multicriteria optimization (MCO). This study investigates a MCO algorithm for VMAT planning (VMAT–MCO) for prostate cancer treatments including pelvic lymph nodes and uses standard inverse VMAT optimization (sVMAT) and Tomotherapy planning as benchmarks.MethodsFor each of ten prostate cancer patients, a two stage plan was generated, consisting of a stage 1 plan delivering 22 Gy to the prostate, and a stage 2 plan delivering 50.4 Gy to the lymph nodes and 56 Gy to the prostate with a simultaneous integrated boost. The single plans were generated by three planning techniques (VMAT–MCO, sVMAT, Tomotherapy) and subsequently compared with respect to plan quality and planning time efficiency.ResultsPlan quality was similar for all techniques, but sVMAT showed slightly better rectum (on average D_mean −7%) and bowel sparing (D_mean −17%) compared to VMAT–MCO in the whole pelvic treatments. Tomotherapy plans exhibited higher bladder dose (D_mean +42%) in stage 1 and lower rectum dose (D_mean −6%) in stage 2 than VMAT–MCO. Compared to manual planning, the planning time with MCO was reduced up to 12 and 38 min for stage 1 and 2 plans, respectively.ConclusionMCO can generate highly conformal prostate VMAT plans with minimal workload in the settings of prostate-only treatments and prostate plus lymph nodes irradiation. In the whole pelvic plan manual VMAT optimization led to slightly improved OAR sparing over VMAT–MCO, whereas for the primary prostate treatment plan quality was equal.