Automatic VMAT planning for post-operative prostate cancer cases using particle swarm optimization: A proof of concept study

ObjectiveTo investigate the potential of Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) for fully automatic VMAT radiotherapy (RT) treatment planning.Material and MethodsIn PSO a solution space of planning constraints is searched for the best possible RT plan in an iterative, statistical method, optimizing a population of candidate solutions. To identify the best candidate solution and for final evaluation a plan quality score (PQS), based on dose volume histogram (DVH) parameters, was introduced.Automatic PSO-based RT planning was used for N = 10 postoperative prostate cancer cases, retrospectively taken from our clinical database, with a prescribed dose of EUD = 66 Gy in addition to two constraints for rectum and one for bladder. Resulting PSO-based plans were compared dosimetrically to manually generated VMAT plans.ResultsPSO successfully proposed treatment plans comparable to manually optimized ones in 9/10 cases. The median (range) PTV EUD was 65.4 Gy (64.7–66.0) for manual and 65.3 Gy (62.5–65.5) for PSO plans, respectively. However PSO plans achieved significantly lower doses in rectum D_2% 67.0 Gy (66.5–67.5) vs. 66.1 Gy (64.7–66.5, p = 0.016). All other evaluated parameters (PTV D_98% and D_2%, rectum V_40Gy and V_60Gy, bladder D_2% and V_60Gy) were comparable in both plans. Manual plans had lower PQS compared to PSO plans with −0.82 (−16.43–1.08) vs. 0.91 (−5.98–6.25).ConclusionPSO allows for fully automatic generation of VMAT plans with plan quality comparable to manually optimized plans. However, before clinical implementation further research is needed concerning further adaptation of PSO-specific parameters and the refinement of the PQS.     

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.     

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.     

Photon beam energy dependent single-arc volumetric modulated arc optimization

PurposeThe purpose of this work was to present a new single-arc mixed photon (6&18MV) VMAT (SAMP) optimization framework that concurrently optimizes for two photon energies with corresponding partial arc lengths.Methods and materialsOwing to simultaneous optimization of energy dependent intensity maps and corresponding arc locations, the proposed model poses nonlinearity. Unique relaxation constraints based on McCormick approximations were introduced for linearization. Energy dependent intensity maps were then decomposed to generate apertures. Feasibility of the proposed framework was tested on a sample of ten prostate cancer cases with lateral separation ranging from 34 cm (case no.1) to 52 cm (case no.6). The SAMP plans were compared against single energy (6MV) VMAT (SE) plans through dose volume histograms (DVHs) and radiobiological parameters including normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) and equivalent uniform dose (EUD).ResultsThe contribution of higher energy photon beam optimized by the algorithm demonstrated an increase for cases with a lateral separation >40 cm. SAMP–VMAT notably improved bladder and rectum sparing in large size cases. Compared to single energy, SAMP–VMAT plans reduced bladder and rectum NTCP in cases with large lateral separation. With the exception of one case, SAMP–VMAT either improved or maintained femoral heads compared to SE–VMAT. SAMP–VMAT reduced the nontarget tissue integral dose in all ten cases.ConclusionsA single-arc VMAT optimization framework comprising mixed photon energy partial arcs was presented. Overall results underline the feasibility and potential of the proposed approach for improving OAR sparing in large size patients without compromising the target homogeneity and coverage.     

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.     

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.     

Assessment of a conventional volumetric-modulated arc therapy knowledge-based planning model applied to the new Halcyon© O-ring linac in locoregional breast cancer radiotherapy

IntroductionThe aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of a knowledge-based planning (KBP) model for breast cancer trained on plans performed on a conventional linac with 6 MV FF (flattening filter) beams and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for plans performed on the new jawless Halcyon© system with 6 MV FFF (flattening filter-free) beams.Materials and methodsBased on the RapidPlan© (RP) KBP optimization engine, a DVH Estimation Model was first trained using 56 VMAT left-sided breast cancer treatment plans performed on a conventional linac, and validated on another 20 similar cases (without manual intervention). To determine the capacity of the model for Halcyon©, an additional cohort of 20 left-sided breast cancer plans was generated with RP and analyzed for both TrueBeam© and Halcyon© machines. Plan qualities between manual vs RP (followed by manual intervention) Halcyon© plans set were compared qualitatively by blinded review by radiation oncologists for 10 new independent plans.ResultsHalcyon© plans generated with the VMAT model trained with conventional linac plans showed comparable target dose distribution compared to TrueBeam© plans. Organ sparing was comparable between the 2 devices with a slight decrease in heart dose for Halcyon© plans. Nine out of ten automatically generated Halcyon© plans were preferentially chosen by the radiation oncologists over the manually generated Halcyon© plans.ConclusionA VMAT KBP model driven by plans performed on a conventional linac with 6 MV FF beams provides high quality plans performed with 6 MV FFF beams on the new Halcyon© linac.     

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.     

Analysis of a volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) single phase prostate template as a class solution

AimTo assess a class solution template for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for prostate cancer using plan analysis software.BackgroundVMAT is a development of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with potential advantages for the delivery of radiotherapy (RT) in prostate cancer. Class solutions are increasingly used for facilitating RT planning. Plan analysis software provides an objective tool for evaluating class solutions.Materials and methodsThe class solution for VMAT was based on the current static field IMRT template. The plans of 77 prostate cancer patients were evaluated using a set of in-house plan quality metrics (scores) (PlanIQ™, Sun Nuclear Corporation). The metrics compared the class solution for VMAT planning with the IMRT template and the delivered clinical plan (CP). Eight metrics were associated with target coverage and ten with organs-at-risk (OAR). Individual metrics were summed and the combined scores were subjected to non-parametric analysis. The low-dose wash for both static IMRT and VMAT plans were evaluated using 40 Gy and 25 Gy isodose volumes.ResultsVMAT plans were of equal or better quality than the IMRT template and CP for target coverage (combined score) and OAR combined score. The 40 Gy isodose volume was marginally higher with VMAT than IMRT (4.9%) but lower than CP (−6.6%)(P = 0.0074). The 25 Gy volume was significantly lower with VMAT than both IMRT (−32.7%) and CP (−34.4%)(P < 0.00001).ConclusionsAutomated VMAT planning for prostate cancer is feasible and the plans are equal to or better than the current IMRT class solution and the delivered clinical plan.     

The effect of beam interruption during VMAT delivery on the delivered dose distribution

PurposeThe aim of this study is to investigate the effect of beam interruptions during delivery of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) on delivered dose distributions.MethodsTen prostate and ten head and neck (H&N) VMAT plans were retrospectively selected. Each VMAT plan was delivered using Trilogy™ without beam interruption, and with 4 and 8 intentional beam interruptions per a single arc. Two-dimensional global and local gamma evaluations with a diode array were performed with gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm, 1%/2 mm and 2%/1 mm for each VMAT plan with and without beam interruptions. The VMAT plans were reconstructed with log files recorded during delivery and the dose-volumetric parameters were calculated for each reconstructed plan. The differences among dose-volumetric parameters due to the beam interruptions were calculated.ResultsThe changes in global gamma passing rates with various gamma criteria were less than 1.6% on average, while the changes in local gamma passing rates were less than 5.3% on average. The dose-volumetric parameter changes for the target volumes of prostate and H&N VMAT plans due to beam interruptions were less than 0.72% and 1.5% on average, respectively.ConclusionThe delivered dose distributions with up to 8 beam interruptions per an arc were clinically acceptable, showing minimal changes in both gamma passing rates and dose-volumetric parameters.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Gamma index comparison of three VMAT QA systems and evaluation of their sensitivity to delivery errors

PurposeTo compare detectors for dosimetric verification before VMAT treatments and evaluate their sensitivity to errors.Methods and materialsMeasurements using three detectors (ArcCheck, 2d array 729 and EPID) were used to validate the dosimetric accuracy of the VMAT delivery. Firstly, performance of the three devices was studied. Secondly, to assess the reliability of the detectors, 59 VMAT treatment plans from a variety of clinical sites were considered. Thirdly, systematic variations in collimator, couch and gantry angle plus MLC positioning were applied to four clinical treatments (two prostate, two head and neck cases) in order to establish the detection sensitivity of the three devices. Measurements were compared with TPS computed doses via gamma analysis (3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm) with an agreement of at least 95% and 90% respectively in all pixels. Effect of the errors on the dose distributions was analyzed.ResultsRepeatability and reproducibility were excellent for the three devices. The average pass rate for the 59 cases was superior to 98% for all devices with 3%/3 mm criteria. It was found that for the plans delivered with errors, the sensitivity was quite similar for all devices. Devices were able to detect a 2 mm opened or closed MLC error with 3%/3 mm tolerance level. An error of 3° in collimator, gantry or couch rotation was detected by the three devices using 2%/2 mm criteria.ConclusionsAll three devices have the potential to detect errors with more or less the same threshold. Nevertheless, there is no guarantee that pretreatment QA will catch delivery errors.     

Evaluation of the ArcCHECK QA system for IMRT and VMAT verification

The purposes of this study were to perform tests for the ArcCHECK QA system, and to evaluate the suitability of this system for IMRT and VMAT verification. The device was tested for short term reproducibility, dose linearity, dose rate dependence, dose per pulse dependence, field size dependence, out of field dependence and directional dependence. Eight simple plans that each used four beams of different field sizes as well as IMRT and VMAT plans for various organs of 10 patients were measured by ArcCHECK. The phantom data was then compared with ion chamber measurements and planned results. The ArcCHECK diodes performed well for all tests except directional dependence, which varies from a minimum of ?4.9% (seen only when the beam is incident on the diode at 180°) to a maximum of 9.1% (approximately at 105°). For simple plan verification, the absolute dose pass rates of γ index (3%/3 mm) were almost identical. They had an average pass rate of 94.6% ± 1.3% when the field size was ≤20 cm in the X direction (right to left direction), but the pass rate fell rapidly when the field size was >20 cm in the X direction. For all patient-specific IMRT and VMAT QA, the pass rates exceeded 95% and 93%, respectively, and high reproducibility of these results has been observed from week to week. The comparative measurements show that the ArcCHECK QA system is completely suitable for clinical IMRT and VMAT verification.     

Assessment of daily dose accumulation for robustly optimized intensity modulated proton therapy treatment of prostate cancer

PurposeTo implement a daily CBCT based dose accumulation technique in order to assess ideal robust optimization (RO) parameters for IMPT treatment of prostate cancer.MethodsTen prostate cancer patients previously treated with VMAT and having daily CBCT were included. First, RO-IMPT plans were created with ± 3 mm and ± 5 mm patient setup and ± 3% proton range uncertainties, respectively. Second, the planning CT (pCT) was deformably registered to the CBCT to create a synthetic CT (sCT). Both daily and weekly sampling strategies were employed to determine optimal dose accumulation frequency. Doses were recalculated on sCTs for both ± 3 mm/±3% and ± 5 mm/±3% uncertainties and were accumulated back to the pCT. Accumulated doses generated from ± 3 mm/±3% and ± 5 mm/±3% RO-IMPT plans were evaluated using the clinical dose volume constraints for CTV, bladder, and rectum.ResultsDaily accumulated dose based on both ± 3mm/±3% and ±5 mm/±3% uncertainties for RO-IMPT plans resulted in satisfactory CTV coverage (RO-IMPT_3mm/3% CTV_V95 = 99.01 ± 0.87% vs. RO-IMPT_5mm/3% CTV_V95 = 99.81 ± 0.2%, P = 0.002). However, the accumulated dose based on ± 3 mm/3% RO-IMPT plans consistently provided greater OAR sparing than ±5 mm/±3% RO-IMPT plans (RO-IMPT_3mm/3% rectum_V65Gy = 2.93 ± 2.39% vs. RO-IMPT_5mm/3% rectum_V65Gy = 4.38 ± 3%, P < 0.01; RO-IMPT_3mm/3% bladder_V65Gy = 5.2 ± 7.12% vs. RO-IMPT_5mm/3% bladder_V65Gy = 7.12 ± 9.59%, P < 0.01). The gamma analysis showed high dosimetric agreement between weekly and daily accumulated dose distributions.ConclusionsThis study demonstrated that for RO-IMPT optimization, ±3mm/±3% uncertainty is sufficient to create plans that meet desired CTV coverage while achieving superior sparing to OARs when compared with ± 5 mm/±3% uncertainty. Furthermore, weekly dose accumulation can accurately estimate the overall dose delivered to prostate cancer patients.     

Relations between doses cumulated in bone marrow and dose delivery techniques during radiation therapy of cervical and endometrial cancer

PurposeTo compare normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) and average doses in the bone marrow (BM), obtained for five different radiotherapy delivery and planning strategies of cervical and endometrial cancer.Material/methods50 patients were taken to analysis. For each case, 3 different dose delivery techniques were used: 4-field, X15MV, 3DCRT; 7-field, X6MV, IMRT; and 2-arc, X6MV, VMAT. Two optimization scenarios were used for the IMRT and VMAT plans generation: with (+) and without (−) the inclusion of the BM as an optimized structure. Average doses and dose-volume histogram parameters for the PTV, BM, bladder, rectum, bowels and femoral heads were compared. In addition, the BM doses were analyzed with respect to the PTV and/or volume of the BM, and NTCP for the BM were computed.ResultsThe dose in PTV for evaluated plans was similar. The worst doses in organs at risk were obtained for 3DCRT. Using the BM during the optimization of IMRT and VMAT reduces an average dose in BM without increasing the doses in the bladder, rectum and bowels. Differences between doses in BM for IMRT(+) and VMAT(+) plans were similar while NTCP was lower for VMAT(+). A correlation between average dose in BM and the volume ratio of BM and PTV was found for each technique.ConclusionUsing the BM during the optimization of the IMRT and VMAT plans effectively reduces the dose in BM without increasing the dose in the bladder, rectum and bowels. The VMAT(+) plans were characterized by the lowest NTCP.     

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.     

Influence of multi-leaf collimator leaf width in radiosurgery via volumetric modulated arc therapy and 3D dynamic conformal arc therapy

PurposeTo study the influence of Multileaf Collimator (MLC) leaf width in radiosurgery treatment planning for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) and 3D Dynamic Conformal Arc Therapy (3D-DCA).Material and methods16 patients with solitary brain metastases treated with radiosurgery via the non-coplanar VMAT were replanned for the 3D-DCA. For each planning technique two MLC leaf width sizes were utilized, i.e. 5 mm and 2.5 mm. These treatment plans were compared using dosimetric indices (conformity, gradient and mean dose for brain tissue) and the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP).ResultsAn improvement in planning quality for VMAT was observed versus 3D-DCA for any MLC leaf width, mainly with regards to dose conformity and to a lesser extent regards dose gradient. No significant difference was observed for any of both techniques using smaller leaf width. However, dose gradient was improved in favor of the 2.5 mm MLC for either of both techniques (15% VMAT and 10% 3D-DCA); being noticeable for lesions smaller than 10 cm³. Nonetheless, the NTCP index was not significantly affected by variations in the dose gradient index.ConclusionsThis, our present study, suggests that the use of an MLC leaf width of 2.5 mm via the noncoplanar VMAT and 3D-DCA techniques provides improvement in terms of dose gradient for small volumes, over those results obtained with an MLC leaf width of 5 mm. The 3D-DCA does also benefit from MLC leaf widths of a smaller size, mainly in terms of conformity.