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.     

Monte Carlo dose verification of VMAT treatment plans using Elekta Agility 160-leaf MLC

In this study, we verified volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans in an Elekta Synergy system with an integrated Agility 160-leaf multileaf collimator (MLC) by comparing them with Monte Carlo (MC)-calculated dose distributions using the AAPM TG-119 structure sets. The head configuration of the linear accelerator with the integrated MLC was simulated with the EGSnrc/BEAMnrc code. Firstly, the dosimetric properties of the MLC were evaluated with the MC technique and film measurements. Next, VMAT plans were created with the Pinnacle³ treatment planning system (TPS) for four regions in the AAPM TG-119 structures. They were then verified by comparing them with MC-calculated dose distributions using dose volume histograms (DVHs) and three-dimensional (3D) gamma analysis. The MC simulations for the Agility MLC dosimetric properties were in acceptable agreement with measurements. TPS-VMAT plans using TG-119 structure sets agreed with MC dose distributions within 2% in the comparison of D₉₅ in planning target volumes (PTVs) evaluated from DVHs. In contrast, higher dose regions such as D₂₀, D₁₀, and D₅ in PTVs for TPS tended to be smaller than MC values. This tendency was particularly noticeable for mock head and neck with complicated structures. In 3D gamma analysis, the passing rates with 3%/3mm criteria in PTVs were ≥99%, except for mock head and neck (89.5%). All passing rates for organs at risk (OARs) were in acceptable agreement of >96%. It is useful to verify dose distributions of PTVs and OARs in TPS-VMAT plans by using MC dose calculations and 3D gamma analysis.     

A machine learning-based framework for delivery error prediction in proton pencil beam scanning using irradiation log-files

PurposeThis study aims to investigate the use of machine learning models for delivery error prediction in proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) delivery.MethodsA dataset of planned and delivered PBS spot parameters was generated from a set of 20 prostate patient treatments. Planned spot parameters (spot position, MU and energy) were extracted from the treatment planning system (TPS) for each beam. Delivered spot parameters were extracted from irradiation log-files for each beam delivery following treatment. The dataset was used as a training dataset for three machine learning models which were trained to predict delivered spot parameters based on planned parameters. K-fold cross validation was employed for hyper-parameter tuning and model selection where the mean absolute error (MAE) was used as the model evaluation metric. The model with lowest MAE was then selected to generate a predicted dose distribution for a test prostate patient within a commercial TPS.ResultsAnalysis of the spot position delivery error between planned and delivered values resulted in standard deviations of 0.39 mm and 0.44 mm for x and y spot positions respectively. Prediction error standard deviation values of spot positions using the selected model were 0.22 mm and 0.11 mm for x and y spot positions respectively. Finally, a three-way comparison of dose distributions and DVH values for select OARs indicates that the random-forest-predicted dose distribution within the test prostate patient was in closer agreement to the delivered dose distribution than the planned distribution.ConclusionsPBS delivery error can be accurately predicted using machine learning techniques.     

Integration of the M6 Cyberknife in the Moderato Monte Carlo platform and prediction of beam parameters using machine learning

PurposeThis work describes the integration of the M6 Cyberknife in the Moderato Monte Carlo platform, and introduces a machine learning method to accelerate the modelling of a linac.MethodsThe MLC-equipped M6 Cyberknife was modelled and integrated in Moderato, our in-house platform offering independent verification of radiotherapy dose distributions. The model was validated by comparing TPS dose distributions with Moderato and by film measurements. Using this model, a machine learning algorithm was trained to find electron beam parameters for other M6 devices, by simulating dose curves with varying spot size and energy. The algorithm was optimized using cross-validation and tested with measurements from other institutions equipped with a M6 Cyberknife.ResultsOptimal agreement in the Monte Carlo model was reached for a monoenergetic electron beam of 6.75 MeV with Gaussian spatial distribution of 2.4 mm FWHM. Clinical plan dose distributions from Moderato agreed within 2% with the TPS, and film measurements confirmed the accuracy of the model. Cross-validation of the prediction algorithm produced mean absolute errors of 0.1 MeV and 0.3 mm for beam energy and spot size respectively. Prediction-based simulated dose curves for other centres agreed within 3% with measurements, except for one device where differences up to 6% were detected.ConclusionsThe M6 Cyberknife was integrated in Moderato and validated through dose re-calculations and film measurements. The prediction algorithm was successfully applied to obtain electron beam parameters for other M6 devices. This method would prove useful to speed up modelling of new machines in Monte Carlo systems.     

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.     

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.     

Four-dimensional carbon-ion pencil beam treatment planning comparison between robust optimization and range-adapted internal target volume for respiratory-gated liver and lung treatment

We investigated the dose differences between robust optimization-based treatment planning (4DRO) and range-adapted internal target volume (rITV). We used 4DCT dataset of 20 lung cancer and 20 liver cancer patients, respectively, who had been treated with respiratory-gated carbon-ion pencil beam scanning therapy. 4DRO and rITV plans were created with the same clinical target volume (CTV) and organs at risk (OAR) contours. Four-dimensional dose distribution was calculated using deformable image registration. Dose metrics (e.g. D95, V20) were analyzed. Statistical significance was assessed by the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. For the lung cases, the mean CTV-D95 value for the rITV plan (=98.5%) was same as that for the 4DRO plan (=98.5%, P = 0.106), while the mean D95 value for the CTV + setup margin contour for the rITV plan (=98.2%) was higher than that for the 4DRO plan (95.2%, P < 0.001). For the liver cases, the mean CTV-D95 value for the rITV plan (=98.1%) was slightly lower than that for the 4DRO plan (=98.5%, P < 0.01), while the mean D95 value for the CTV + setup margin contour for the rITV plan (=98.0%) was higher than that for the 4DRO plan (94.1%, P < 0.001). For the doses to the organs at risk (OARs), the ipsilateral lung-V20/liver-V20 values for the rITV plan (=10.1%/19.7%) was significantly higher than that for the 4DRO plan (=8.6%/17.6, P < 0.001). Although the target coverage for 4DRO plan may be worse than that for rITV plan in the presence of the setup error, the 4DRO plan can improve OAR dose while preserving acceptable target dose coverage.     

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.     

A convolution neural network for higher resolution dose prediction in prostate volumetric modulated arc therapy

PurposeThis study aims to investigate the feasibility of using convolutional neural networks to predict an accurate and high resolution dose distribution from an approximated and low resolution input dose.MethodsSixty-six patients were treated for prostate cancer with VMAT. We created the treatment plans using the Acuros XB algorithm with 2 mm grid size, followed by the dose calculated using the anisotropic analytical algorithm with 5 mm grid with the same plan parameters. U-net model was used to predict 2 mm grid dose from 5 mm grid dose. We investigated the two models differing for the training data used as input, one used just the low resolution dose (D model) and the other combined the low resolution dose with CT data (DC model). Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) was calculated to ascertain how well the shape of the dose-volume is matched. We conducted gamma analysis for the following: DVH from the two models and the reference DVH for all prostate structures.ResultsThe DSC values in the DC model were significantly higher than those in the D model (p < 0.01). For the CTV, PTV, and bladder, the gamma passing rates in the DC model were significantly higher than those in the D model (p < 0.002–0.02). The mean doses in the CTV and PTV for the DC model were significantly better matched to those in the reference dose (p < 0.0001).ConclusionsThe proposed U-net model with dose and CT image used as input predicted more accurate dose.     

Evaluation of clinical benefits achievable by using different optimization algorithms during real-time prostate brachytherapy

Background and purposeHigh dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy is a clinically used procedure in prostate cancer treatment. The purpose of this study was to present the influence of using different optimization algorithms in 3D-CBRT planning on the treatment plan quality.Materials and methodsTreatment plans were calculated for 15 patients – three plans for each patient using: geometrical optimization (GO), inverse optimization (IO) and blind inverse optimization (BIO). For each patient, PTV and OAR volumes, number of needles and geometry of the implant were set equal. Differences between dose distributions were tracked using: D90, V100, V200, Dmax (for prostate); D10, Dmax (for urethra); D10, V100, Dmax (for rectum).ResultsThe analysis of mean values of D90 and V100 in the prostate showed that inverse algorithms gave the best results (mean D90 was 12.1% for BIO and 9.3% for IO better than for GO, mean V100 was 8.2% for BIO and 6.3% for IO better than for GO). From a clinical point of view, GO diminished the doses in the PTV and urethra in all analyzed parameters. The lowest mean doses in the rectum were achieved for plans optimized with IO and BIO (mean D10: 61.2% for GO, 58.1% for IO, 58.0% for BIO; mean Dmax: 92.8% for GO, 85.1% for IO, 83.6% for BIO).ConclusionsApplication of the blind inverse optimization (BIO) algorithm led to clinically best dose parameters for PTV and the rectum. Use of geometrical optimization (GO) led to smaller doses in the urethra, which was however associated with a certain dose decrease also in PTV.     

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.     

CyberKnife versus multicatheter interstitial brachytherapy for accelerated partial breast irradiation: a dosimetrical assessment with focus on organs at risk

BackgroundThe purpose of the study was to dosimetrically compare multicatheter interstitial brachytherapy (MIBT) and stereotactic radiotherapy with CyberKnife (CK) for accelerated partial breast irradiation with special focus on dose to organs at risk (OARs).Materials and methodsTreatment plans of thirty-one patients treated with MIBT were selected and additional CK plans were created on the same CT images. The OARs included ipsilateral non-target and contralateral breast, ipsilateral and contralateral lung, skin, ribs, and heart for left sided cases. The fractionation was identical (4 × 6.25 Gy). Dose-volume parameters were calculated for both techniques and compared.ResultsThe D90 of the PTV for MIBT and CK were similar (102.4% vs. 103.6%, p = 0.0654), but in COIN the MIBT achieved lower value (0.75 vs. 0.91, p < 0.001). Regarding the V100 parameter of non-target breast CK performed slightly better than MIBT (V100: 1.1% vs. 1.6%), but for V90, V50 and V25 MIBT resulted in less dose. Every examined parameter of ipsilateral lung, skin, ribs and contralateral lung was significantly smaller for MIBT than for CK. Protection of the heart was slightly better with MIBT, but only the difference of D2cm³ was statistically significant (17.3% vs. 20.4%, p = 0.0311). There were no significant differences among the dose-volume parameters of the contralateral breast.ConclusionThe target volume can be properly irradiated by both techniques with high conformity and similar dose to the OARs. MIBT provides more advantageous plans than CK, except for dose conformity and the dosimetry of the heart and contralateral breast. More studies are needed to analyze whether these dosimetrical findings have clinical significance.     

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.     

Hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy for chest wall irradiation: For a good plan,get the right mixture

PurposeTo find the optimal dose weighting for hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy (H-VMAT), a combination of conventional 3DCRT and VMAT plans for left sided chest wall and supraclavicular radiation therapy.Methods & materials20 left-sided breast cancer patients who received adjuvant radiotherapy were considered for this study. To find the optimal weighting, 5 H-VMAT plans were generated for each study case by combining different dose proportions of 3DCRT and VMAT plans including: 90% 3DCRT/10% VMAT, 80% 3DCRT/20% VMAT, 70% 3DCRT/30% VMAT, 60% 3DCRT/40% VMAT, 50% 3DCRT/50% VMAT. Further field-in-field, optimal H-VMAT and VMAT alone plans were compared.ResultsAll H-VMAT plans achieved the expected target coverage. A higher conformity index was achieved for 50% 3DCRT/50% VMAT plan, while better homogeneity index was achieved for 80% 3DCRT/20% VMAT plan. Mean and low doses were less in 90% 3DCRT/10% VMAT plan. Compared with other proportions, 80% 3DCRT/20% VMAT and 70% 3DCRT/30% VMAT weighted H-VMAT plans achieved balanced results for PTVs and OARs.ConclusionThe optimal dose mixture for H-VMAT technique is 70% to 80% for 3DCRT and 20% to 30% for VMAT. The optimal H-VMAT achieved balanced results for the PTVs and OARs compared with field-in-field and VMAT alone plans.     

Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy vs. c-IMRT for the Treatment of Upper Thoracic Esophageal Cancer

Objective

To compare plans using volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with conventional sliding window intensity-modulated radiation therapy (c-IMRT) to treat upper thoracic esophageal cancer (EC).

Methods

CT datasets of 11 patients with upper thoracic EC were identified. Four plans were generated for each patient: c-IMRT with 5 fields (5F) and VMAT with a single arc (1A), two arcs (2A), or three arcs (3A). The prescribed doses were 64 Gy/32 F for the primary tumor (PTV64). The dose-volume histogram data, the number of monitoring units (MUs) and the treatment time (TT) for the different plans were compared.

Results

All of the plans generated similar dose distributions for PTVs and organs at risk (OARs), except that the 2A- and 3A-VMAT plans yielded a significantly higher conformity index (CI) than the c-IMRT plan. The CI of the PTV64 was improved by increasing the number of arcs in the VMAT plans. The maximum spinal cord dose and the planning risk volume of the spinal cord dose for the two techniques were similar. The 2A- and 3A-VMAT plans yielded lower mean lung doses and heart V₅₀ values than the c-IMRT. The V₂₀ and V₃₀ for the lungs in all of the VMAT plans were lower than those in the c-IMRT plan, at the expense of increasing V₅, V₁₀ and V₁₃. The VMAT plan resulted in significant reductions in MUs and TT.

Conclusion

The 2A-VMAT plan appeared to spare the lungs from moderate-dose irradiation most effectively of all plans, at the expense of increasing the low-dose irradiation volume, and also significantly reduced the number of required MUs and the TT. The CI of the PTVs and the OARs was improved by increasing the arc-number from 1 to 2; however, no significant improvement was observed using the 3A-VMAT, except for an increase in the TT.     

Comparison between two treatment planning systems for volumetric modulated arc therapy optimization for prostate cancer

PurposeTo investigate the performances of two commercial treatment planning systems (TPS) for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) optimization regarding prostate cancer. The TPS were compared in terms of dose distributions, treatment delivery parameters and quality control results.Materials and methodsFor ten patients, two VMAT plans were generated: one with Monaco TPS (Elekta) and one with Pinnacle TPS (Philips Medical Systems). The total prescribed dose was 78 Gy delivered in one 360° arc with a Synergy^® linear accelerator equipped with a MLCi2^®.ResultsVMAT with Monaco provided better homogeneity and conformity indexes but lower mean dose to PTVs than Pinnacle. For the bladder wall (p = 0.019), the femoral heads (p = 0.017), and healthy tissues (p = 0.005), significantly lower mean doses were found using Monaco. For the rectal wall, VMAT with Pinnacle provided a significantly (p = 0.047) lower mean dose, and lower dose into 50% of the volume (p = 0.047) compared to Monaco. Despite a greater number of monitor units (factor 1.5) for Monaco TPS, the total treatment time was equivalent to that of Pinnacle. The treatment delivery parameter analysis showed larger mean MLC area for Pinnacle and lower mean dose rate compared to Monaco. The quality control results gave a high passing rate (>97.4%) for the gamma index for both TPS but Monaco provided slightly better results.ConclusionFor prostate cancer patients, VMAT treatment plans obtained with Monaco and Pinnacle offered clinically acceptable dose distributions. Further investigations are in progress to confirm the performances of the two TPS for irradiating more complex volumes.