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.     

Evaluation of fully automated a priori MCO treatment planning in VMAT for head-and-neck cancer

PurposeAutomated planning techniques aim to reduce manual planning time and inter-operator variability without compromising the plan quality which is particularly challenging for head-and-neck (HN) cancer radiotherapy. The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of an a priori-multicriteria plan optimization algorithm on a cohort of HN patients.MethodsA total of 14 nasopharyngeal carcinoma (upper-HN) and 14 “middle-lower indications” (lower-HN) previously treated in our institution were enrolled in this study. Automatically generated plans (autoVMAT) were compared to manual VMAT or Helical Tomotherapy planning (manVMAT-HT) by assessing differences in dose delivered to targets and organs at risk (OARs), calculating plan quality indexes (PQIs) and performing blinded comparisons by clinicians. Quality control of the plans and measurements of the delivery times were also performed.ResultsFor the 14 lower-HN patients, with equivalent planning target volume (PTV) dosimetric criteria and dose homogeneity, significant decrease in the mean doses to the oral cavity, esophagus, trachea and larynx were observed for autoVMAT compared to manVMAT-HT. Regarding the 14 upper-HN cases, the PTV coverage was generally significantly superior for autoVMAT which was also confirmed with higher calculated PQIs on PTVs for 13 out of 14 patients, whereas PQIs calculated on OARs were generally equivalent. Number of MUs and total delivery time were significantly higher for autoVMAT compared to manVMAT. All plans were considered clinically acceptable by clinicians.ConclusionsOverall superiority of autoVMAT compared to manVMAT-HT plans was demonstrated for HN cancer. The obtained plans were operator-independent and required no post-optimization or manual intervention.     

Performance of the eclipse monitor unit objective tool utilizing volumetric modulated arc therapy for rectal cancer

AimTo assess the performance of the monitor unit (MU) Objective tool in Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) utilizing volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for rectal cancer.BackgroundEclipse VMAT planning module includes a tool to control the number of MUs delivered: the MU Objective tool. This tool could be utilized to reduce the total number of MUs in rectal cancer treatments.Materials and methods20 rectal cancer patients were retrospectively studied using VMAT and the MU Objective tool. The baseline plan for each patient was selected as the one with no usage of the MU Objective tool. The number of MUs of this plan was set to be the reference number of MUs (MU_ref). Five plans were re-optimized for each patient only varying the Max MU parameter. The selected values were 30%, 60%, 90%, 120% and 150% of MU_ref for each patient. Differences with respect to the baseline plan were evaluated regarding MU number and parameters for PTVs coverage evaluation, PTVs homogeneity and OARs doses assessment. A two-tailed, paired-samples t-test was used to quantify these differences.ResultsAverage relative differences in MU number obtained was 10% for Max MU values of 30% and 60% of MU_ref, respectively (p < 0.03). PTVs coverage and homogeneity were not compromised and discrepancies obtained with respect to baseline plans were not significant. Furthermore, maximum OARs doses deviations were also not significant.ConclusionsA 10% reduction in the MU number could be obtained without an alteration of PTV coverage and OARs doses for rectal cancer.     

VMAT-like plans for magnetic resonance guided radiotherapy: Addressing unmet needs

PurposeVMAT delivery technique is currently not applicable to Magnetic Resonance-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) hybrid systems. Aim of this study is to evaluate an innovative VMAT-like (VML) delivery technique.Material and methodsFirst, planning and dosimetric evaluation of the MRgRT VML treatment have been performed on 10 different disease sites and the results have been compared with the corresponding IMRT plans. Then, in the second phase, 10 of the most dosimetrically challenging locally advanced pancreas treatment plans have been retrospectively re-planned using the VML approach to explore the potentiality of this new delivery technique. Finally, VML robustness was evaluated and compared with the IMRT plans, considering a lateral positioning error of ± 5 mm.ResultsIn phase one, all VML plans were within constraint for all OARs. When PTV coverage is considered, in the 50% of the cases VML PTV coverage is equal or higher than in IMRT plan. In the remaining 50%, the highest target under coverage difference in comparison with IMRT plan is −1.71%. The mean and maximum treatment time differences (VML-IMRT) is 0.2 min and 3.1 min respectively. In phase two, the treatment time variation (VML-IMRT), shows a mean, maximum and minimum variations of 1.3, 4.6 and −0.6 min respectively. All VML plans have a better target coverage if compared with IMRT plans, keeping in any case the OARs constraints within tolerance. VML doesn’t increase plan robustness.ConclusionVMAT-like treatment approach appeared to be an efficient planning solution and it was decided to clinically implement it in daily practice, especially in the frame of hypo fractionated treatments.     

A dosimetric comparison of IMRT versus helical tomotherapy for brain tumors

Background and purposeHelical tomotherapy (HT) can deliver highly conformal, uniform doses to the target volume. However, HT can only be delivered in a coplanar mode.The purpose of this study was to perform a dosimetric comparison of HT versus coplanar (cIMRT) and non-coplanar (n-cIMRT) beam arrangements on a conventional linear accelerator in a diverse group of brain tumors.Materials and methodsA total of 45 treatment plans were calculated retrospectively for 15 cases. For each case, 3 different delivery techniques (n-cIMRT, cIMRT and HT) were used. The treatment plans were compared using the parameters of the target coverage (conformity index; CI) and homogeneity (HI) for the planning target volume (PTV) and the maximum and mean doses for organs at risk (OARs).ResultsMedian HI and CI were the best for HT plans and the worst for cIMRT. The largest reduction of maximum dose for lenses and mean dose for both eyes was achieved for n-cIMRT plans. Mean dose for chiasm and the ipsilateral optic nerve were the lowest for HT. The contralateral optic nerve was most spared with n-cIMRT. For D_1% in the brain stem, there was no significant difference between HT and the IMRT plans.ConclusionsBoth HT and n-cIMRT are capable of producing conformal and homogeneous treatment plans with a good sparing of OARs. However, due to the non-coplanar capabilities of IMRT, n-cIMRT led to a superior dose reduction to the lenses.     

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.     

Patient-specific quality assurance and plan dose errors on breast intensity-modulated proton therapy

PurposeTo investigate, in proton therapy, whether the Gamma passing rate (GPR) is related to the patient dose error and whether MU scaling can improve dose accuracy.MethodsAmong 20 consecutively treated breast patients selected for analysis, two IMPT plans were retrospectively generated: (1) the pencil-beam (PB) plan and (2) the Monte Carlo (MC) plan. Patient-specific QA was performed. A 3%/3-mm Gamma analysis was conducted to compare the TPS-calculated PB algorithm dose distribution with the measured 2D dose. Dose errors were compared between the plans that passed the Gamma testing and those that failed. The MU was then scaled to obtain a better GPR. MU-scaled PB plan dose errors were compared to the original PB plan.ResultsOf the 20 PB plans, 8 were passed Gamma testing (G_pass_group) and 12 failed (G_fail_group). Surprisingly, the G_pass_group had a greater dose error than the G_fail_group. The median (range) of the PTV DVH RMSE and PTV ΔDmean were 1.36 (1.00–1.91) Gy vs 1.18 (1.02–1.80) Gy and 1.23 (0.92–1.71) Gy vs 1.10 (0.87–1.49) Gy for the G_pass_group and the G_fail_group, respectively. MU scaling reduced overall dose error. However, for PTV D99 and D95, MU scaling worsened some cases.ConclusionFor breast IMPT, the PB plans that passed the Gamma testing did not show smaller dose errors compared to the plans that failed. For individual plans, the MU scaling technique leads to overall smaller dose errors. However, we do not suggest use of the MU scaling technique to replace the MC plans when the MC algorithm is available.     

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.     

In silico comparison of photons versus carbon ions in single fraction therapy of lung cancer

PurposeStereotactic body image guided radiation therapy (SBRT) shows good results for lung cancer treatment. Better normal tissue sparing might be achieved with scanned carbon ion therapy (PT). Therefore an in silico trial was conducted to find potential advantages of and patients suited for PT.MethodsFor 19 patients treated with SBRT, PT plans were calculated on 4D-CTs with simulated breathing motion. Prescribed single fraction dose was 24 Gy and OAR constraints used for photon planning were respected. Motion was mitigated by rescanning and range-adapted ITVs. Doses were compared to the original SBRT plans.ResultsCTV coverage was the same in SBRT and PT. The field-specific PTV including range margins for PT was 1.5 (median, 25–75% 1.3–2.1) times larger than for SBRT. Nevertheless, maximum point dose and mean dose in OARs were higher in SBRT by 2.8 (1.6–3.7) Gy and 0.7 (0.3–1.6) Gy, respectively. Patients with a CTV >2.5 cc or with multiple lung lesions showed larger differences in OAR doses in favor of PT.ConclusionsPatients receive less dose in critical OARs such as heart, spinal cord, esophagus, trachea and aorta with PT, while maintaining the same target coverage. Patients with multiple or larger lesions are particularly suited for PT.     

Dosimetric comparison of analytic anisotropic algorithm and Acuros XB algorithm in VMAT plans for high-grade glioma

PurposeTo investigate the dosimetric impact between the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and the Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm in volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for high-grade glioma (HGG).MethodsWe used a heterogeneous phantom to quantify the agreement between the measured and calculated doses from the AAA and from the AXB. We then analyzed 14 patients with HGG treated by VMAT, using the AAA. We newly created AXB plans for each corresponding AAA plan under the following conditions: (1) re-calculation for the same number of monitor units with an identical beam and leaf setup, and (2) re-optimization under the same conditions of dose constraints. The dose coverage for the planning target volume (PTV) was evaluated by dividing the coverage into the skull, air, and soft-tissue regions.ResultsCompared to the results obtained with the AAA, the AXB results were in good agreement with the measured profiles. The dose differences in the PTV between the AAA and re-calculated AXB plans were large in the skull region contained in the target. The dose difference in the PTV in both types of plan was significantly correlated with the volume of the skull contained in the target (r = 0.71, p = 0.0042). A re-optimized AXB plan's dose difference was lower vs. the re-calculated AXB plan's.ConclusionsWe observed dose differences between the AAA and AXB plans, in particular in the cases in which the skull region of the target was large. Considering the phantom measurement results, the AXB algorithm should be used in VMAT plans for HGG.     

Virtual Tangential-fields Arc Therapy (ViTAT) for whole breast irradiation: Technique optimization and validation

PurposeTo test the performances of a volumetric arc technique named ViTAT (Virtual Tangential-fields Arc Therapy) mimicking tangential field irradiation for whole breast radiotherapy.MethodsViTAT plans consisted in 4 arcs whose starting/ending position were established based on gantry angle distribution of clinical plans for right and left-breast. The arcs were completely blocked excluding the first and last 20°. Different virtual bolus densities and thicknesses were preliminarily evaluated to obtain the best plan performances. For 40 patients with tumor laterality equally divided between right and left sides, ViTAT plans were optimized considering the clinical DVHs for OARs (resulting from tangential field manual planning) to constrain them: ViTAT plans were compared with the clinical tangential-fields in terms of DVH parameters for both PTV and OARs.ResultsDistal angle values were suggested in the ranges [220°,240°] for the right-breast and [115°,135°] for the left-breast cases; medial angles were [60°,40°] for the right side and [295°,315°] for the left side, limiting the risk of collision. The optimal virtual bolus had −500 HU density and 1.5 cm thickness. ViTAT plans generated dose distributions very similar to the tangential-field plans, with significantly improved PTV homogeneity. The mean doses of ipsilateral OARs were comparable between the two techniques with minor increase of the low-dose spread in the range 2–15 Gy (few % volume); contralateral OARs were slightly better spared with ViTAT.ConclusionViTAT dose distributions were similar to tangential-fields. ViTAT should allow automatic plan optimization by developing knowledge-based DVH prediction models of patients treated with tangential-fields.     

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.     

Dosimetric evaluation of irregular surface compensator and intensity-modulated radiotherapy in breast radiotherapy

BackgroundThis dosimetric study aims to evaluate the dosimetric advantage of the irregular surface compensator (ISC) compared with the intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT).Materials and methodsTen patients with whole breast irradiation were planned with the ISC and IMRT techniques. Six different beam directions were selected for IMRT and ISC plans. The treatment plans were evaluated with respect to planning target coverage, dose homogeneity index (DHI) and organs at risk (OARs) sparing. Monitor units (MUs) and the delivery time were analysed for treatment efficiency.ResultsThe ISC technique provides a better coverage of the PTV and statistically significantly better homogeneity of the dose distribution. For the ipsilateral lung and heart, ISC and IMRT techniques deliver almost the same dose in all plans. However, MU counts and delivery time were significantly lower with the IMRT technique (p < 0.05).ConclusionFor breast radiotherapy, when the ISC method was compared to the IMRT method, ISC provided better dose distribution for the target.     

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.     

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.     

Clinical implications of different calculation algorithms in breast radiotherapy: A comparison between pencil beam and collapsed cone convolution

BackgroundThis investigation focused on the clinical implications of the use of the Collapsed Cone Convolution algorithm (CCC) in breast radiotherapy and investigated the dosimetric differences as respect to Pencil Beam Convolution algorithm (PBC).Material and methods15 breast treatment plans produced using the PBC algorithm were re-calculated using the CCC algorithm with the same MUs. In a second step, plans were re-optimized using CCC algorithm with modification of wedges and beam weightings to achieve optimal coverage (CCCr plans). For each patient, dosimetric comparison was performed using the standard tangential technique (SWT) and a forward-planned IMRT technique (f-IMRT).ResultsThe CCC algorithm showed significant increased dose inhomogeneity. Mean and minimum PTV doses decreased by 1.4% and 2.8% (both techniques). Mean V95% decreased to 83.7% and 90.3%, respectively for the SWT and f-IMRT. V95% was correlated to the ratio of PTV and lung volumes into the treatment field. The re-optimized CCCr plans achieved similar target coverage, but high-dose volume was significantly larger (V107%: 7.6% vs 2.3% (SWT), 7.1% vs 2.1% (f-IMRT). There was a significantly increase in the ipsilateral lung volume receiving low doses (V5 Gy: 31.3% vs 26.2% in SWT, 27.0% vs 23.0% in f-IMRT). MUs needed for PTV coverage in CCCr plans were higher by 3%.ConclusionsThe PBC algorithm overestimated PTV coverage in terms of all important dosimetric metrics. If previous clinical experience are based on the use of PBC model, especially needed is discussion between medical physicists and radiation oncologists to fully understand the dosimetric changes.     

Integral dose based inverse optimization objective function promises lower toxicity in head-and-neck

PurposeThe voxels in a CT data sets contain density information. Besides its use in dose calculation density has no other application in modern radiotherapy treatment planning. This work introduces the use of density information by integral dose minimization in radiotherapy treatment planning for head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).Materials and methodsEighteen HNSCC cases were studied. For each case two intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans were created: one based on dose-volume (DV) optimization, and one based on integral dose minimization (Energy hereafter) inverse optimization. The target objective functions in both optimization schemes were specified in terms of minimum, maximum, and uniform doses, while the organs at risk (OAR) objectives were specified in terms of DV- and Energy-objectives respectively. Commonly used dosimetric measures were applied to assess the performance of Energy-based optimization. In addition, generalized equivalent uniform doses (gEUDs) were evaluated. Statistical analyses were performed to estimate the performance of this novel inverse optimization paradigm.ResultsEnergy-based inverse optimization resulted in lower OAR doses for equivalent target doses and isodose coverage. The statistical tests showed dose reduction to the OARs with Energy-based optimization ranging from ∼2% to ∼15%.ConclusionsIntegral dose minimization based inverse optimization for HNSCC promises lower doses to nearby OARs. For comparable therapeutic effect the incorporation of density information into the optimization cost function allows reduction in the normal tissue doses and possibly in the risk and the severity of treatment related toxicities.     

Dosimetric impact of statistical uncertainty on Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm in volumetric modulated arc therapy using Monaco TPS for three different clinical cases

AimTo study the dosimetric impact of statistical uncertainty (SU) per plan on Monte Carlo (MC) calculation in Monaco? treatment planning system (TPS) during volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for three different clinical cases.BackgroundDuring MC calculation SU is an important factor to decide dose calculation accuracy and calculation time. It is necessary to evaluate optimal acceptance of SU for quality plan with reduced calculation time.Materials and methodsThree different clinical cases as the lung, larynx, and prostate treated using VMAT technique were chosen. Plans were generated with Monaco? V5.11 TPS with 2% statistical uncertainty. By keeping all other parameters constant, plans were recalculated by varying SU, 0.5%, 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, and 5%. For plan evaluation, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), dose coverage to PTV, organ at risk (OAR) dose, normal tissue receiving dose ≥5 Gy and ≥10 Gy, integral dose (NTID), calculation time, gamma pass rate, calculation reproducibility and energy dependency were analyzed.ResultsCI and HI improve as SU increases from 0.5% to 5%. No significant dose difference was observed in dose coverage to PTV, OAR doses, normal tissue receiving dose ≥5 Gy and ≥10 Gy and NTID. Increase of SU showed decrease in calculation time, gamma pass rate and increase in PTV max dose. No dose difference was seen in calculation reproducibility and dependent on energy.ConclusionFor VMAT plans, SU can be accepted from 1% to 3% per plan with reduced calculation time without compromising plan quality and deliverability by accepting variations in point dose within the target.