Clinical verification of treatment planning dose calculation in lung SBRT with GATE Monte Carlo simulation code

PurposeThis study aims to use GATE/Geant4 simulation code to evaluate the performance of dose calculations with Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) in the context of lung SBRT for complex treatments considering images of patients.MethodsFour cases of non-small cell lung cancer treated with SBRT were selected for this study. Irradiation plans were created with AAA and recalculated end to end using Monte Carlo (MC) method maintaining field configurations identical to the original plans. Each treatment plan was evaluated in terms of PTV and organs at risk (OARs) using dose-volume histograms (DVH). Dosimetric parameters obtained from DVHs were used to compare AAA and MC.ResultsThe comparison between the AAA and MC DVH using gamma analysis with the passing criteria of 3%/3% showed an average passing rate of more than 90% for the PTV structure and 97% for the OARs. Tightening the criteria to 2%/2% showed a reduction in the average passing rate of the PTV to 86%. The agreement between the AAA and MC dose calculations for PTV dosimetric parameters (V₁₀₀; V₉₀; Homogeneity index; maximum, minimum and mean dose; CI_Paddick and D_2cm) was within 18.4%. For OARs, the biggest differences were observed in the spinal cord and the great vessels.ConclusionsIn general, we did not find significant differences between AAA and MC. The results indicate that AAA could be used in complex SBRT cases that involve a larger number of small treatment fields in the presence of tissue heterogeneities.     

Clinical impact of dosimetric changes for volumetric modulated arc therapy in log file-based patient dose calculations

PurposeA log file-based method cannot detect dosimetric changes due to linac component miscalibration because log files are insensitive to miscalibration. Herein, clinical impacts of dosimetric changes on a log file-based method were determined.Methods and materialsFive head-and-neck and five prostate plans were applied. Miscalibration-simulated log files were generated by inducing a linac component miscalibration into the log file. Miscalibration magnitudes for leaf, gantry, and collimator at the general tolerance level were ±0.5 mm, ±1°, and ±1°, respectively, and at a tighter tolerance level achievable on current linac were ±0.3 mm, ±0.5°, and ±0.5°, respectively. Re-calculations were performed on patient anatomy using log file data.ResultsChanges in tumor control probability/normal tissue complication probability from treatment planning system dose to re-calculated dose at the general tolerance level was 1.8% on planning target volume (PTV) and 2.4% on organs at risk (OARs) in both plans. These changes at the tighter tolerance level were improved to 1.0% on PTV and to 1.5% on OARs, with a statistically significant difference.ConclusionsWe determined the clinical impacts of dosimetric changes on a log file-based method using a general tolerance level and a tighter tolerance level for linac miscalibration and found that a tighter tolerance level significantly improved the accuracy of the log file-based method.     

Novel knowledge-based treatment planning model for hypofractionated radiotherapy of prostate cancer patients

PurposeTo demonstrate the strength of an innovative knowledge-based model-building method for radiotherapy planning using hypofractionated, multi-target prostate patients.Material and methodsAn initial RapidPlan model was trained using 48 patients who received 60 Gy to prostate (PTV60) and 44 Gy to pelvic nodes (PTV44) in 20 fractions. To improve the model's goodness-of-fit, an intermediate model was generated using the dose-volume histograms of best-spared organs-at-risk (OARs) of the initial model. Using the intermediate model and manual tweaking, all 48 cases were re-planned. The final model, trained using these re-plans, was validated on 50 additional patients. The validated final model was used to determine any planning advantage of using three arcs instead of two on 16 VMAT cases and tested on 25 additional cases to determine efficacy for single-PTV (PTV60-only) treatment planning.ResultsFor model validation, PTV V_95% of 99.9% was obtained by both clinical and knowledge-based planning. D_1% was lower for model plans: by 1.23 Gy (PTV60, CI = [1.00, 1.45]), and by 2.44 Gy (PTV44, CI = [1.72, 3.16]). OAR sparing was superior for knowledge-based planning: ΔD_mean = 3.70 Gy (bladder, CI = [2.83, 4.57]), and 3.22 Gy (rectum, CI = [2.48, 3.95]); ΔD_2% = 1.17 Gy (bowel bag, CI = [0.64, 1.69]), and 4.78 Gy (femoral heads, CI = [3.90, 5.66]). Using three arcs instead of two, improvements in OAR sparing and PTV coverage were statistically significant, but of magnitudes < 1 Gy. The model failed at reliable DVH predictions for single PTV plans.ConclusionsOur knowledge-based model delivers efficient, consistent plans with excellent PTV coverage and improved OAR sparing compared to clinical plans.     

Dosimetric impact of uncorrected systematic yaw rotation in VMAT for peripheral lung SABR

AimThis study aimed to evaluate the dosimetric impact of uncorrected yaw rotational error on both target coverage and OAR dose metrics in this patient population.BackgroundRotational set up errors can be difficult to correct in lung VMAT SABR treatments, and may lead to a change in planned dose distributions.Materials and methodsWe retrospectively applied systematic yaw rotational errors in 1° degree increments up to −5° and +5° degrees in 16 VMAT SABR plans. The impact on PTV and OARs (oesophagus, spinal canal, heart, airway, chest wall, brachial plexus, lung) was evaluated using a variety of dose metrics. Changes were assessed in relation to percentage deviation from approved planned dose at 0 degrees.ResultsTarget coverage was largely unaffected with the largest mean and maximum percentage difference being 1.4% and 6% respectively to PTV D98% at +5 degrees yaw.Impact on OARs was varied. Minimal impact was observed in oesophagus, spinal canal, chest wall or lung dose metrics. Larger variations were observed in the heart, airway and brachial plexus. The largest mean and maximum percentage differences being 20.77% and 311% respectively at −5 degrees yaw to airway D0.1cc, however, the clinical impact was negligible as these variations were observed in metrics with minimal initial doses.ConclusionsNo clinically unacceptable changes to dose metrics were observed in this patient cohort but large percentage deviations from approved dose metrics in OARs were noted. OARs with associated PRV structures appear more robust to uncorrected rotational error.     

Adaptive volumetric modulated arc treatment planning for esophageal cancers using cone beam computed tomography

PurposeTo assess the potential of cone beam CT (CBCT) derived adaptive RapidArc treatment for esophageal cancers in reducing the dose to organs at risk (OAR).Methods and materialsTen patients with esophageal cancer were CT scanned in free breathing pattern. The PTV is generated by adding a 3D margin of 1 cm to the CTV as per ICRU 62 recommendations. The double arc RapidArc plan (Clin_RA) was generated for the PTV. Patients were setup using kV orthogonal images and kV-CBCT scan was acquired daily during first week of therapy, then weekly. These images were exported to the Eclipse TPS. The adaptive CTV which includes tumor and involved nodes was delineated in each CBCT image set for the length of the PTV. The composite CTV from first week CBCT was generated using Boolean union operator and 5 mm margin was added circumferentially to generate adaptive PTV (PTV1). Adaptive RapidArc plan (Adap_RA) was generated. NTCP and DVH of the OARs of the two plans were compared. Similarly, PTV2 was generated from weekly CBCT. PTV2 was evaluated for the coverage of 95% isodose of Adap_RA plan.ResultsThe PTV1 and PTV2 volumes covered by 95% isodose in adaptive plans were 93.51 ± 1.17% and 94.59 ± 1.43% respectively. The lung V_10Gy, V_20Gy and mean dose in Adap_RA plan was reduced by 17.43% (p = 0.0012), 34.64% (p = 0.0019) and 16.50% (p = 0.0002) respectively compared to Clin_RA. The Adap_RA plan reduces the heart D_35% and mean dose by 17.35% (p = 0.0011) and 17.16% (p = 0.0012). No significant reduction in spinal cord and liver doses were observed. NTCP for the lung (0.42% vs. 0.08%) and heart (1.39% vs. 0.090%) was reduced significantly in adaptive plans.ConclusionThe adaptive re-planning strategy based on the first week CBCT dataset significantly reduces the doses and NTCP to OARs.     

Static and rotational intensity modulated techniques for head-neck cancer radiotherapy: A planning comparison

PurposeTo compare helical Tomotherapy (HT), two volumetric-modulated arc techniques and conventional fixed-field intensity modulated techniques (S-IMRT) for head-neck (HN) cancers.Methods and materialsEighteen HN patients were considered. Four treatment plans were generated for each patient: HT, S-IMRT optimised with Eclipse treatment planning system and two volumetric techniques using Elekta–Oncentra approach (VMAT) and Varian-RapidArc (RA), using two full arcs. All techniques were optimised to simultaneously deliver 66Gy to PTV1 (GTV and enlarged nodes) and 54Gy to PTV2 (subclinical and electively treated nodes). Comparisons were assessed on several dosimetric parameters and, secondarily, on planned MUs and delivery time.ResultsConcerning PTV coverage, significantly better results were found for HT and RA. HT significantly improved the target coverage both compared to S-IMRT and VMAT. No significant differences were found between S-IMRT and volumetric techniques in terms of dose homogeneity. For OARs, all the techniques were able to satisfy all hard constraints; significantly better results were found for HT, especially in the intermediate dose range (15–30 Gy). S-IMRT reached a significantly better OARs sparing with respect to VMAT and RA. No significant differences were found for body mean dose, excepting higher values of V5–V10 for HT. A reduction of planned MUs and delivery treatment time was found with volumetric techniques.ConclusionsThe objectives of satisfying target coverage and sparing of critical structures were reached with all techniques. S-IMRT techniques were found more advantageous compared to RA and VMAT for OARs sparing. HT reached the best overall treatment plan quality.     

Dosimetric comparison of dynamic conformal arc integrated with segment shape optimization and variable dose rate versus volumetric modulated arc therapy for liver SBRT

AimThe aim is a dosimetric comparison of dynamic conformal arc integrated with the segment shape optimization and variable dose rate (DCA_SSO_VDR) versus VMAT for liver SBRT and interaction of various treatment plan quality indices with PTV and degree of modulation (DoM) for both techniques.BackgroundThe DCA is the state-of-the-art technique but overall inferior to VMAT, and the DCA_SSO_VDR technique was not studied for liver SBRT.Materials and methodsTwenty-five patients of liver SBRT treated using the VMAT technique were selected. DCA_SSO_VDR treatment plans were also generated for all patients in Monaco TPS using the same objective constraint template and treatment planning parameters as used for the VMAT technique. For comparison purpose, organs at risk (OARs) doses and treatment plans quality indices, such as maximum dose of PTV (D_max%), mean dose of PTV (D_mean%), maximum dose at 2 cm in any direction from the PTV (D_2cm%), total monitor units (MU’s), gradient index R_50%, degree of modulation (DoM), conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), and healthy tissue mean dose (HTMD) were compared.ResultsSignificant dosimetric differences were observed in several OARs doses and lowered in VMAT plans. The D_2cm%, R_50%, CI, HI and HTMD are dosimetrically inferior in DCA_SSO_VDR plans. The higher DoM results in poor dose gradient and better dose gradient for DCA_SSO_VDR and VMAT treatment plans, respectively.ConclusionsFor liver SBRT, DCA_SSO_VDR treatment plans are neither dosimetrically superior nor better alternative to the VMAT delivery technique. A reduction of 69.75% MU was observed in DCA_SSO_VDR treatment plans. For the large size of PTV and high DoM, DCA_SSO_VDR treatment plans result in poorer quality.     

Comparison of two different EPID-based solutions performing pretreatment quality assurance: 2D portal dosimetry versus 3D forward projection method

PurposeThe aim of this paper is to characterize two different EPID-based solutions for pre-treatment VMAT quality assurance, the 2D portal dosimetry and the 3D projection technique. Their ability to catch the main critical delivery errors was studied.MethodsMeasurements were performed with a linac accelerator equipped with EPID aSi1000, Portal Dose Image Prediction (PDIP), and PerFRACTION softwares. Their performances were studied simulating perturbations of a reference plan through systematic variations in dose values and micromultileaf collimator position. The performance of PDIP, based on 2D forward method, was evaluated calculating gamma passing rate (%GP) between no-error and error-simulated measurements. The impact of errors with PerFRACTION, based on 3D projection technique, was analyzed by calculating the difference between reference and perturbed DVH (%ΔD). Subsequently pre-treatment verification with PerFRACTION was done for 27 patients of different pathologies.ResultsThe sensitivity of PerFRACTION was slightly higher than sensitivity of PDIP, reaching a maximum of 0.9. Specificity was 1 for PerFRACTION and 0.6 for PDIP. The analysis of patients’ DVHs indicated that the mean %ΔD was (1.2 ± 1.9)% for D2%, (0.6 ± 1.7)% for D95% and (−0.0 ± 1.2)% for Dmean of PTV. Regarding OARs, we observed important discrepancies on DVH but that the higher dose variations were in low dose area (<10 Gy).ConclusionsThis study supports the introduction of the new 3D forward projection method for pretreatment QA raising the claim that the visualization of the delivered dose distribution on patient anatomy has major advantages over traditional portal dosimetry QA systems.     

Pareto-optimal plans as ground truth for validation of a commercial system for knowledge-based DVH-prediction

PurposeTreatment plans manually generated in clinical routine may suffer from variations and inconsistencies in quality. Using such plans for validating a DVH prediction algorithm might obscure its intrinsic prediction accuracy. In this study we used a recently published large database of Pareto-optimal prostate cancer plans to assess the prediction accuracy of a commercial knowledge-based DVH prediction algorithm, RapidPlan. The database plans were consistently generated with automated planning using an independent optimizer, and can be considered as aground truth of plan quality.MethodsPrediction models were generated using training sets with 20, 30, 45, 55 and 114 Pareto-optimal plans. Model-20 and Model-30 were built using 5 groups of randomly selected training patients. For 60 independent Pareto-optimal validation plans, predicted and database DVHs were compared.ResultsFor model-114, differences between predicted and database mean doses of more than ± 10% in rectum, anus and bladder, occurred for 23.3%, 55.0%, and 6.7% of the validation plans, respectively. For rectum V_65Gy and V_75Gy, differences outside the ±10% range were observed in 21.7% and 70.0% of validation plans, respectively. For 61.7% of validation plans, inaccuracies in predicted rectum DVHs resulted in a deviation in predicted NTCP for rectal bleeding outside ±10%. With smaller training sets the DVH prediction performance deteriorated, showing dependence on the selected training patients.ConclusionEven when analysed with Pareto-optimal plans with highly consistent quality, clinically relevant deviations in DVH predictions were observed. Such deviations could potentially result in suboptimal plans for new patients. Further research on DVH prediction models is warranted.     

Is volumetric modulated arc therapy with constant dose rate a valid option in radiation therapy for head and neck cancer patients?

Background

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) improves dose distribution in head and neck (HN) radiation therapy. Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), a new form of IMRT, delivers radiation in single or multiple arcs, varying dose rates (VDR-VMAT) and gantry speeds, has gained considerable attention. Constant dose rate VMAT (CDR-VMAT) associated with a fixed gantry speed does not require a dedicated linear accelerator like VDR-VMAT. The present study explored the feasibility, efficiency and delivery accuracy of CDR-VMAT, by comparing it with IMRT and VDR-VMAT in treatment planning for HN cancer.

The robustness of dual isocenter VMAT radiation therapy for bilateral lymph node positive breast cancer

PurposeTo investigate the use of dual isocenters for VMAT planning in patients with lymph node positive synchronous bilateral breast cancer (BBC) compared to a single isocenter option.MethodsTreatment plans of 11 patients with lymph node positive BBC were retrospectively analyzed using two different VMAT planning techniques: dual-isocenter split-arc VMAT plans (Iso2) were compared with mono-isocenter VMAT plans (Iso1). For Iso2 plans, PTV dose was investigated after introducing ±2 and ±5 mm couch shift errors between the two isocenters in the lateral, longitudinal and vertical direction.ResultsFor both techniques the planning aims for PTV coverage and OARs were met. The mean dose for the bilateral lungs and heart was reduced from 11.3 Gy and 3.8 Gy to 10.9 Gy (p < .05) and 3.6 Gy (p < .05), respectively, for Iso2 plans when compared to Iso1 plans. Positive statistically significant correlation (rho = 0.76, p = .006) was found between PTV volume and D2cc_PTV for Iso1 plans. No clinically significant change was seen in the D98_CTV or D2cc_PTV after the 2 and 5 mm errors were introduced between isocenters for Iso2 plans.ConclusionsThe split arc method was shown to be a feasible treatment technique in the case of synchronous BBC for both mono and dual isocenter techniques. The dose parameters were slightly favoring dual-isocenter option instead of mono-isocenter. The dual-isocenter method was shown to be a robust treatment option in the presence of ≤5 mm errors in the shifts between the two isocenters.     

Impact of interfractional changes in head and neck cancer patients on the delivered dose in intensity modulated radiotherapy with protons and photons

PurposeTo investigate the influence of interfractional changes on the delivered dose of intensity modulated proton (IMPT) and photon plans (IMXT).Methods and materialsFive postoperative head and neck cancer patients, previously treated with tomotherapy at our institute, were analyzed. The planning study is based on megavoltage (MV) control images. For each patient one IMPT plan and one IMXT plan were generated on the first MV-CT and recalculated on weekly control MV-CTs in the actual treatment position. Dose criteria for evaluation were coverage and conformity of the planning target volume (PTV), as well as mean dose to parotids and maximum dose to spinal cord.ResultsConsiderable dosimetric changes were observed for IMPT and IMXT plans. Proton plans showed a more pronounced increase of maximum dose and decrease of minimum dose with local underdosage occurring even in the center of the PTV (worst IMPT vs. IMXT coverage: 66.7% vs. 85.0%). The doses to organs at risk (OARs) increased during the treatment period. However, the OAR doses of IMPT stayed below corresponding IMXT values at any time. For both modalities treatment plans did not necessarily worsen monotonically throughout the treatment.ConclusionsAlthough absolute differences between planned and reconstructed doses were larger in IMPT plans, doses to OARs were higher in IMXT plans. Tumor coverage was more stable in IMXT plans; IMPT dose distributions indicated a high risk for local underdosage during the treatment course.     

The influence of Acuros XB on dose volume histogram metrics and tumour control probability modelling in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer

PurposeRadiation therapy plans are assessed using dose volume metrics derived from clinical toxicity and outcome data. In this study, plans for patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) are examined in the context of the implementation of the Acuros XB (AXB) dose calculation algorithm focussing on the impact on common metrics. Methods: Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were generated for twenty patients, using the Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA) and recalculated with AXB for both dose to water (D_w) and dose to medium (D_m). Standard dose volume histogram (DVH) metrics for both targets and organs-at-risk (OARs) were extracted, in addition to tumour control probability (TCP) for targets. Results: Mean dose to the planning target volume (PTV) was not clinically different between the algorithms (within ±1.1 Gy) but differences were seen in the minimum dose, D_99% and D_98% as well as for conformity and homogeneity metrics. A difference in TCP was seen for AXB_Dm plans versus both AXB_Dw and AAA plans. No clinically relevant differences were seen in the lung metrics. For point doses to spinal cord and oesophagus, the AXB_Dm values were lower than AXB_Dw, by up to 1.0 Gy. Conclusion: Normalisation of plans to the mean/median dose to the target does not need to be adjusted when moving from AAA to AXB. OAR point doses may decrease by up to 1 Gy with AXB_Dm, which can be accounted for in clinical planning. Other OAR metrics do not need to be adjusted.     

Critical Structure Sparing in Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for Central Lung Lesions: Helical Tomotherapy vs. Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy

Background

Helical tomotherapy (HT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) are both advanced techniques of delivering intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Here, we conduct a study to compare HT and partial-arc VMAT in their ability to spare organs at risk (OARs) when stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is delivered to treat centrally located early stage non-small-cell lung cancer or lung metastases.

Methods

12 patients with centrally located lung lesions were randomly chosen. HT, 2 & 8 arc (Smart Arc, Pinnacle v9.0) plans were generated to deliver 70 Gy in 10 fractions to the planning target volume (PTV). Target and OAR dose parameters were compared. Each technique’s ability to meet dose constraints was further investigated.

Results

HT and VMAT plans generated essentially equivalent PTV coverage and dose conformality indices, while a trend for improved dose homogeneity by increasing from 2 to 8 arcs was observed with VMAT. Increasing the number of arcs with VMAT also led to some improvement in OAR sparing. After normalizing to OAR dose constraints, HT was found to be superior to 2 or 8-arc VMAT for optimal OAR sparing (meeting all the dose constraints) (p = 0.0004). All dose constraints were met in HT plans. Increasing from 2 to 8 arcs could not help achieve optimal OAR sparing for 4 patients. 2/4 of them had 3 immediately adjacent structures.

Conclusion

HT appears to be superior to VMAT in OAR sparing mainly in cases which require conformal dose avoidance of multiple immediately adjacent OARs. For such cases, increasing the number of arcs in VMAT cannot significantly improve OAR sparing.     

Dosimetric impact of different multileaf collimators on prostate intensity modulated treatment planning

AimThe main purpose of this study is to perform a dosimetric comparison on target volumes and organs at risks (OARs) between prostate intensity modulated treatment plans (IMRT) optimized with different multileaf collimators (MLCs).BackgroundThe use of MLCs with a small leaf width in the IMRT optimization may improve conformity around the tumor target whilst reducing the dose to normal tissues.Materials and methodsTwo linacs mounting MLCs with 5 and 10 mm leaf-width, respectively, implemented in Pinnacle³ treatment planning system were used for this work. Nineteen patients with prostate carcinoma undergoing a radiotherapy treatment were enrolled. Treatment planning with different setup arrangements (7 and 5 beams) were performed for each patient and each machine. Dose volume histograms (DVHs) cut-off points were used in the treatment planning comparison.ResultsComparable planning target volume (PTV) coverage was obtained with 7- and 5-beam configuration (both with 5 and 10 mm MLC leaf-width). The comparison of bladder and rectum DVH cut-off points for the 5-beam arrangement shows that 52.6% of the plans optimized with a larger leaf-width did not satisfy at least one of the OARs’ constraints. This percentage is reduced to 10.5% for the smaller leaf-width. If a 7-beam arrangement is used the value of 52.6% decreases to 21.1% while the value of 10.5% remains unchanged.ConclusionMLCs collimators with different widths and number of leaves lead to a comparable prostate treatment planning if a proper adjustment is made of the number of gantry angles.     

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.     

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.