Impact of different optimization strategies on the compatibility between planned and delivered doses during radiation therapy of cervical cancer

PurposeTo analyse the impact of different optimization strategies on the compatibility between planned and delivered doses during radiotherapy of cervical cancer.Material/methodsFour treatment plans differing in optimisation strategies were prepared for ten cervical cancer cases. These were: volumetric modulated arc therapy with (_OPT) and without optimization of the doses in the bone marrow and for two sets of margins applied to the clinical target volume that arose from image guidance based on the bones (IG(B)) and soft tissues (IG(ST)). The plans were subjected to dosimetric verification by using the ArcCHECK system and 3DVH software. The planned dose distributions were compared with the corresponding measured dose distributions in the light of complexity of the plans and its deliverability.ResultsThe clinically significant impact of the plans complexity on their deliverability is visible only for the gamma passing rates analysis performed in a local mode and directly in the organs. While more general analyses show statistically significant differences, the clinical relevance of them has not been confirmed. The analysis showed that IG(ST)_OPT and IG(B)_OPT significantly differ from IG(ST) and IG(B). The clinical acceptance of IG(ST)_OPT obtained for hard combinations of gamma acceptance criteria (2%/2 mm) confirm its satisfactory deliverability. In turn, for IG(B)_OPT in the case of the rectum, the combination of 2%/2 mm did not meet the criteria of acceptance.ConclusionDespite the complexity of the IG(ST)_OPT, the results of analysis confirm the acceptance of its deliverability when 2%/2 mm gamma acceptance criteria are used during the analysis.     

Determination of optimal planning target volume margins in patients with gynecological cancer

PurposeTo define optimal planning target volume (PTV) margins for intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) ± knee-heel support (KHS) in patients treated with adjuvant radiotherapy.MethodsComputed tomography (CT) scans ± KHS of 10 patients were taken before and at 3rd and 5th week of treatment, fused and compared with initial IMRT plans.ResultsA PTV margin of 15 mm in anteroposterior (AP) and superoinferior (SI) directions and 5 mm in lateral directions were found to be adequate without any difference between ± KHS except for the SI shifts in CTV-primary at the 3rd week. Five mm margin for iliac CTV was found to be inadequate in 10–20% of patients in SI directions however when 7 mm margin was given for iliac PTV, it was found to be adequate. For presacral CTV, it was found that the most striking shift of the target volume was in the direction of AP. KHS caused significantly less volume of rectum and bladder in the treated volume.ConclusionsPTV margin of 15 mm in SI and AP, and 5 mm in lateral directions for CTV-primary were found to be adequate. A minimum of 7 mm PTV margin should be given to iliac CTV. The remarkable shifting in presacral CTV was believed to be due to the unforeseen hip malposition of obese patients. The KHS seems not to provide additional beneficial effect in decreasing the shifts both in CTV-primary and lymphatic, however it may have a beneficial effect of decreasing the OAR volume in PTV margins.     

A comparative study of prostate PTV margins for patients using hydrogel spacer or rectal balloon in proton therapy

PurposeTo compare the planning target volume (PTV) margins needed for prostate patients who have used hydrogel spacer or rectal balloon during proton treatments.MethodTotal of 190 prostate patients treated with proton therapy during 2017 were selected for this study. Of these patients, 96 had hydrogel spacer injection and 94 patients had only rectal balloons insertion. All patients had implanted gold markers inside the prostate for daily target alignment. Post-treatment radigraphs were obtained to evaluate prostate intrafraction motion. The systematic and random components of patient setup residual error and prostate intrafraction motion error were obtained. PTV margins were calculated using the van Herk formula for both patient groups.ResultsFor setup residual error, the mean values in the superior-inferior (SI) direction and the variances in the left–right (LR) direction were statistically different between the two groups. For intrafraction motion, there were significant differences of the mean values in the SI direction and of the variances in both LR and anterior-posterior (AP) directions. The population PTV margins for hydrogel spacer group were 2.6 mm, 3.3 mm, and 1.6 mm in LR, SI, AP directions, respectively. For the rectal balloon group, the PTV margins were 2.1 mm, 3.1 mm, and 2.0 mm in LR, SI, AP directions, respectively.ConclusionStatistically significant differences were observed in the patient setup and prostate intrafraction motion errors of the two patient groups. However, under the current protocol of bladder preparation and daily marker-based x-ray image-guidance, population PTV margins were comparable between the two patient groups.     

Set-up errors and planning margins in planar and CBCT image-guided radiotherapy using three different imaging systems: A clinical study for prostate and head-and-neck cancer

PurposeThe purpose of this work is to compare the positioning accuracy achieved by three different imaging techniques and planar vs. CBCT imaging for two common IGRT indications.MethodsA collective of prostate cancer and head-and-neck cancer patients treated at our institution during the year 2013 was retrospectively analyzed. For all treatment fractions (3078 in total), the kind of acquired set-up image and the performed couch shift before treatment were assessed. The distribution of couch corrections was compared for three different imaging systems available at our institution: the treatment beam line operating at 6 MV, a dedicated imaging beam line of nominally 1 MV, and the kVision system at 70–121 kV. Shifts were analyzed for planar and cone-beam CT images. Based on the set-up corrections, CTV to PTV expansion margins were calculated.ResultsThe difference in set-up corrections performed for the three energies and both techniques (planar vs. CBCT) was not significant for head-and-neck cancer patients. For prostate cancer all shifts had equal variance. Averages ranged from −0.7 to +0.7 mm. The set-up margins calculated on the basis of the observed shifts are 4.0 mm (AP) and 3.8 mm (SI, LR) for the head-and-neck PTV and 6.6 mm (SI), 6.7 mm (AP) and 7.9 mm (LR) for the prostate cancer patients.ConclusionsFor three different linac-based imaging energies and planar/CBCT imaging, no relevant differences in set-up shifts were observed. The suggested set-up margins for these indications are of the order of 4 mm for head-and-neck and 6–8 mm for prostate treatment.     

Prospective evaluation of the setup errors and its impact on safety margin for cervical cancer pelvic conformal radiotherapy

AimThe primary objective was to assess set-up errors (SE) and secondary objective was to determine optimal safety margin (SM)BackgroundTo evaluate the SE and its impact on the SM utilizing electronic portal imaging (EPI) for pelvic conformal radiotherapy.Material and methods20 cervical cancer patients were enrolled in this prospective study. Supine position with ankle and knee rest was used during CT simulation. The contouring was done using consensus guideline for intact uterus. 50 Gy in 25 fractions were delivered at the isocenter with ≥95% PTV coverage. Two orthogonal (Anterior and Lateral) digitally reconstructed radiograph (DRR) was constructed as a reference image. The pair of orthogonal [Anterior-Posterior and Right Lateral] single exposure EPIs during radiation was taken. The reference DRR and EPIs were compared for shifts, and SE was calculated in the X-axis, Y-axis, and Z-axis directions.Results320 images (40 DRRs and 280 EPIs) were assessed. The systematic error in the Z-axis (AP EPI), X-axis (AP EPI), and Y-axis (Lat EPI) ranged from -12.0 to 11.8 mm, -10.3 to 7.5 mm, and -8.50 to 9.70 mm, while the random error ranged from 1.60 to 6.15 mm, 0.59 to 4.93 mm, and 1.02 to –4.35 mm. The SM computed were 7.07, 6.36, and 7.79 mm in the Y-axis, X-axis, and Z-axis by Van Herk’s equation, and 6.0, 5.51, and 6.74 mm by Stroom’s equation.ConclusionThe computed SE helps defining SM, and it may differ between institutions. In our study, the calculated SM was approximately 8 mm in the Z-axis, 7 mm in X and Y axis for pelvic conformal radiotherapy.     

Improved biological dosimetric margin model for different PTV margins with stereotactic body radiation therapy in homogeneous and nonhomogeneous tumor regions

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to improve the biological dosimetric margin (BDM) corresponding to different planning target volume (PTV) margins in homogeneous and nonhomogeneous tumor regions using an improved biological conversion factor (BCF) model for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT).Materials and methodsThe PTV margin was 5–20 mm from the clinical target volume. The biologically equivalent dose (BED) was calculated using the linear–quadratic model. The biological parameters were α/β = 10 Gy, and the dose per fraction (DPF) was d = 3–20 Gy/fr. The isocenter was offset at intervals of 1 mm; 95% of the clinical target volume covered more than 90% of the prescribed physical dose, and BED was defined as biological and physical DMs. The BCF formula was defined as a function of the DPF.ResultsThe difference in the BCF caused by the DPF was within 0.05 for the homogeneous and nonhomogeneous phantoms. In the virtual nonhomogeneous phantom, the data with a PTV margin of 10–20 mm were not significantly different; thus, these were combined to fit the BCF. In the virtual homogeneous phantom, the BCF was fitted to each PTV margin.ConclusionsThe current study improved a scheme to estimate the BDM considering the size of the PTV margin and homogeneous and nonhomogeneous regions. This technique is expected to enable BED-based treatment planning using treatment systems based on physical doses for SBRT.     

Evaluation of set-up errors in head and neck radiotherapy using electronic portal imaging

IntroductionThe aim of this study was to evaluate three-dimensional (3D) set-up errors and propose optimum margins for planning target volume (PTV) coverage in head and neck radiotherapy.MethodsThirty-five patients were included in the study. The total number of portal images studied was 632. Population systematic (Σ) and random (σ) errors for the patients with head and neck cancer were evaluated based on the portal images in the caudocranial longitudinal (CC) and left-right lateral (LR) direction measured in the anterior-posterior (AP) field, as well as from the images in the caudocranial longitudinal (CC) and dorsoventral lateral (DV) direction measured in the lateral (LAT) field. The values for the clinical-to-planning target volume (CTV-PTV) margins were calculated using ICRU Report 62 recommendations, along with Stroom's and van Herk's formulae.ResultsThe standard deviations of systematic set-up errors (Σ) ranged from 1.51 to 1.93 mm while the standard deviations of random set-up (σ) errors fell in between 1.77 and 1.86 mm. The mean 3D vector length of displacement was 2.66 mm. PTV margins calculated according to ICRU, Stroom's and van Herk's models were comprised between 1.95 and 6.16 mm in the three acquisition directions.Discussion and conclusionsBased on our results we can conclude that a 6-mm extension of CTV to PTV margin, as the lower limit, is enough to ensure that 90% of the patients treated for head and neck cancer will receive a minimum cumulative CTV dose greater than or equal to 95% of the prescribed dose.     

Feasibility of intensity-modulated radiotherapy to treat gastric cancer

AimTo present a proposed gastric cancer intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment planning protocol for an institution that have not introduced volumetric modulated arc therapy in clinical practice. A secondary aim was to determine the impact of 2DkV set-up corrections on target coverage and organ at risk (OAR).Methods and MaterialsTwenty consecutive patients were treated with a specially-designed non-coplanar 7-field IMRT technique. The isocenter-shift method was used to estimate the impact of 2DkV-based set-up corrections on the original base plan (BP) coverage. An alternative plan was simulated (SP) by taking into account isocenter shifts. The SP and BP were compared using dose-volume histogram (DVH) plots calculated for the internal target volume (ITV) and OARs.ResultsBoth plans delivered a similar mean dose to the ITV (100.32 vs. 100.40%), with no significant differences between the plans in internal target coverage (5.37 vs. 4.96%). Similarly, no significant differences were observed between the maximal dose to the spinal cord (67.70 and 67.09%, respectively) and volume received 50% of the prescribed dose of: the liver (62.11 vs. 59.84%), the right (17.62 vs. 18.58%) and left kidney (29.40 vs. 30.48%). Set-up margins (SM) were computed as 7.80 mm, 10.17 mm and 6.71 mm in the left-right, cranio-caudal and anterior-posterior directions, respectively.ConclusionPresented IMRT protocol (OAR dose constraints with selected SM verified by 2DkV verification) for stomach treatment provided optimal dose distribution for the target and the critical organs. Comparison of DVH for the base and the modified plan (which considered set-up uncertainties) showed no significant differences.     

Effect of accounting for interfractional CTV shape variations in PTV margins on prostate cancer radiation treatment plans

PurposeThe aim of this study was to account for interfractional clinical target volume (CTV) shape variation and apply this to the planning target volume (PTV) margin for prostate cancer radiation treatment plans.MethodsInterfractional CTV shape variations were estimated from weekly cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images using statistical point distribution models. The interfractional CTV shape variation was taken into account in the van Herk’s margin formula. The PTV margins without and with the CTV shape variation, i.e., standard (PTV_ori) and new (PTV_shape) margins, were applied to 10 clinical cases that had weekly CBCT images acquired during their treatment sessions. Each patient was replanned for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk CTVs, using both margins. The dose indices (D98 and V70) of treatment plans with the two margins were compared on weekly pseudo-planning computed tomography (PCT) images, which were defined as PCT images registered using a deformable image registration technique with weekly CBCT images, including contours of the CTV, rectum, and bladder.ResultsThe percentage of treatment fractions of patients who received CTV D98 greater than 95% of a prescribed dose increased from 80.3 (PTV_ori) to 81.8% (PTV_shape) for low-risk CTVs, 78.8 (PTV_ori) to 87.9% (PTV_shape) for intermediate-risk CTVs, and 80.3 (PTV_ori) to 87.9% (PTV_shape) for high-risk CTVs. In most cases, the dose indices of the rectum and bladder were acceptable in clinical practice.ConclusionThe results of this study suggest that interfractional CTV shape variations should be taken into account when determining PTV margins to increase CTV coverages.     

Cone-beam CT-based inter-fraction localization errors for tumors in the pelvic region

PurposeTo evaluate inter-fraction tumor localization errors (TE) in the RapidArc® treatment of pelvic cancers based on CBCT. Appropriate CTV-to PTV margins in a non-IGRT scenario have been proposed.MethodsData of 928 patients with prostate, gynecological, and rectum/anal canal cancers were retrospectively analyzed to determine systematic and random localization errors. Two protocols were used: daily online IGRT (d-IGRT) and weekly IGRT. The latter consisted in acquiring a CBCT for the first 3 fractions and subsequently once a week. TE for patients who underwent d-IGRT protocol were calculated using either all CBCTs or the first 3.ResultsThe systematic (and random) TE in the AP, LL, and SI direction were: for prostate bed 2.7(3.2), 2.3(2.8) and 1.9(2.2) mm; for prostate 4.2(3.1), 2.9(2.8) and 2.3(2.2) mm; for gynecological 3.0(3.6), 2.4(2.7) and 2.3(2.5) mm; for rectum 2.8(2.8), 2.4(2.8) and 2.3(2.5) mm; for anal canal 3.1(3.3), 2.1(2.5) and 2.2(2.7) mm. CTV-to-PTV margins determined from all CBCTs were 14 mm in the AP, 10 mm in the LL and 9–9.5 mm in the SI directions for the prostate and the gynecological groups and 9.5–10.5 mm in AP, 9 mm in LL and 8–10 mm in the SI direction for the prostate bed and the rectum/anal canal groups. If assessed on the basis of the first 3 CBCTs, the calculated CTV-to-PTV margins were slightly larger.Conclusionswithout IGRT, large CTV-to-PTV margins up to 15 mm are required to account for inter-fraction tumor localization errors. Daily IGRT should be used for all hypo-fractionated treatments to reduce margins and avoid increased toxicity to critical organs.     

大荔颅骨的测量研究

本文报道大荔颅骨的一系列测量数据, 并且将其与中国, 欧洲和非洲的中更新世人类的相应数据进行比较, 发现大荔颅骨的测量数据大多没有超出中国和欧洲/非洲中更新世人的变异范围, 有的与中国中更新世人接近, 有的与欧洲和/或非洲标本更加接近。本文将这些结果与大荔颅骨的与中国古人类共同具有的其他测量和观察特征进行综合考虑, 建议大荔人群属于中国古人类连续进化链中的一员, 并且表现出中国古人类与欧洲和非洲古人类之间基因交流的形态证据。     

CBCT引导放疗摆位误差对中上段食管癌患者受照射剂量的影响

摘要 目的：探究锥形束CT（CBCT）引导放疗摆位误差对中上段食管癌患者受照射剂量的影响。方法：选取2017年5月～2019年5月于我院收治的60例中上段食管癌患者为研究对象,所有患者均行CBCT图像、计划CT图像采集。在患者放疗前进行CBCT扫描,将CBCT图像与计划CT图像匹配,得到左右（x轴）、头脚（y轴）、前后（z轴）三个方向的线性误差,分析出现的误差及误差的分布规律。利用模拟实际照射系统,进行模拟计划,得到实际照射靶区及正常组织受照射剂量,将其与治疗前计划比较,研究摆位误差对患者受照剂量的影响。结果：患者整体摆位误差为x轴（2.91±2.20）mm,y轴（3.89±2.17）mm,z轴（2.44±1.64）mm,x轴的MPTV为4.054 mm,y轴的MPTV为8.183 mm,z轴的MPTV为3.482 mm。模拟计划的CI、PTV的Dmin、Dmean、D95%均低于标准计划差异显著（P均＜0.05）,而模拟计划的HI低于标准计划（P＜0.05）。模拟计划的脊髓Dmax高于标准计划（P＜0.05）,而标准计划与模拟计划的双肺V20、Dmean,心脏V40差异比较无统计学意义（P均＞0.05）。结论：CBCT引导放疗摆位误差对中上段食管癌患者影响较小,提高PTV受照射剂量及治疗准确程度,对脊髓有保护效果。摆位误差对心、肺的剂量分布无明显影响。     

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.     

Assessment and clinical validation of margins for adaptive simultaneous integrated boost in neo-adjuvant radiochemotherapy for rectal cancer

PurposeAn adaptive concomitant boost (ACB) for the neo-adjuvant treatment of rectal cancer was clinically implemented. In this study population margins M(90,90) considering rectal deformation were derived for 10 consecutive patients treated at 18 × 2.3 Gy with Helical Tomotherapy (HT) and prospectively validated on 20 additional patients treated with HT, delivering ACB in the last 6 fractions.MethodsSectorial margins M(90,90) of the whole and second treatment parts were assessed for 90% population through a method combining the 90% coverage probability maps of rectal positions (CPC90%) with 3D local distance measurements between the CPC90% and a reference rectal contour. M(90,90) were compared with the margins M(90,90)^95%/99%, ensuring CPC90% coverage with 95%/99% confidence level. M(90,90) of the treatment second part were chosen as ACB margins which were clinically validated for each patient by means of %volume missing of CPC5/6 excluded by the ACB margins.ResultsThe whole treatment M(90,90) ranged between 1.9 mm and 9 mm in the lower-posterior and upper-anterior sectors, respectively. Regarding ACB, M(90,90) were 7 mm in the anterior direction and <5 mm elsewhere. M(90,90)^95%/99% did not significantly differ from M(90,90). The %volume excluded by the ACB margin was<2% for all male and <5% for 9/10 female patients. The dosimetry impact on R_adapt for the patients with the largest residual error was negligible.ConclusionsLocal deformation measurements confirm an anisotropic motion of rectum once set-up error is rigidly corrected. Margins of 7 mm anterior and 5 mm elsewhere are adequate for ACB. Female patients show a slightly larger residual error.     

Effects of remedies made in patient setup process on residual setup errors and margins in head and neck cancer radiotherapy based on 2D image guidance

AimPatient setup errors were aimed to be reduced in radiotherapy (RT) of head-and-neck (H&N) cancer. Some remedies in patient setup procedure were proposed for this purpose.BackgroundRT of H&N cancer has challenges due to patient rotation and flexible anatomy. Residual position errors occurring in treatment situation and required setup margins were estimated for relevant bony landmarks after the remedies made in setup process and compared with previous results.Materials and methodsThe formation process for thermoplastic masks was improved. Also image matching was harmonized to the vertebrae in the middle of the target and a 5 mm threshold was introduced for immediate correction of systematic errors of the landmarks. After the remedies, residual position errors of bony landmarks were retrospectively determined from 748 orthogonal X-ray images of 40 H&N cancer patients. The landmarks were the vertebrae C1–2, C5–7, the occiput bone and the mandible. The errors include contributions from patient rotation, flexible anatomy and inter-observer variation in image matching. Setup margins (3D) were calculated with the Van Herk formula.ResultsSystematic residual errors of the landmarks were reduced maximally by 49.8% (p ≤ 0.05) and the margins by 3.1 mm after the remedies. With daily image guidance the setup margins of the landmarks were within 4.4 mm, but larger margins of 6.4 mm were required for the mandible.ConclusionsRemarkable decrease in the residual errors of the bony landmarks and setup margins were achieved through the remedies made in the setup process. The importance of quality assurance of the setup process was demonstrated.     

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 accuracy of dual isocenter irradiation in low magnetic field resonance guided radiotherapy system for extended abdominal tumours

PurposeDue to limited field size of Magnetic Resonance Linear Accelerators (MR-Linac), some treatments could require a dual-isocenter planning approach to achieve a complete target coverage and thus exploit the benefits of the online adaptation. This study evaluates the dosimetric accuracy of the dual-isocenter intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) delivery technique for MR-Linac.Material and MethodsDual-isocenter multi leaf collimator (MLC) and couch accuracy tests have been performed to evaluate the delivery accuracy of the system. A mono-isocenter plan delivered in clinical practice has then been retrospectively re-planned with dual-isocenter technique. The dual-isocenter plan has been re-calculated and delivered on a 3-dimensional (3D) ArcCHECK phantom and 2-dimensional (2D) films to assess its dosimetric accuracy in terms of gamma analysis. Clinical and planning target volume (CTV and PTV respectively) coverage robustness was then investigated after the introduction of ± 2 mm and ± 5 mm positioning errors by shifting the couch.ResultsMLC and couch accuracy tests confirmed the system accuracy in delivering a dual-isocenter irradiation.2D/3D gamma analysis results occurred always to be above 95% if considered a gamma criteria 1%/2 mm and 1%/1 mm respectively for the 2D and 3D analysis.The mean variations for CTV D98% and PTV V95% were 0.2% and 1.1% respectively when positioning error was introduced separately in each direction, while the maximum observed variations were 0.9% (CTV) and 3.7% (PTV).ConclusionThe dosimetric accuracy of dual-isocenter irradiation has been verified for MR-Linac, achieving accurate and robust treatment strategy and improving dose conformality also in presence of targets whose extension exceeds the nominal maximum field size.     

Multi-institutional evaluation using the end-to-end test for implementation of dynamic techniques of radiation therapy in Thailand

AimIn this study, an accuracy survey of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric arc radiation therapy (VMAT) implementation in radiotherapy centers in Thailand was conducted.BackgroundIt is well recognized that there is a need for radiotherapy centers to evaluate the accuracy levels of their current practices, and use the related information to identify opportunities for future development.Materials and methodsAn end-to-end test using a CIRS thorax phantom was carried out at 8 participating centers. Based on each center's protocol for simulation and planning, linac-based IMRT or VMAT plans were generated following the IAEA (CRP E24017) guidelines. Point doses in the region of PTVs and OARs were obtained from 5 ionization chamber readings and the dose distribution from the radiochromic films. The global gamma indices of the measurement doses and the treatment planning system calculation doses were compared.ResultsThe large majority of the RT centers (6/8) fulfilled the dosimetric goals, with the measured and calculated doses at the specification points agreeing within ±3% for PTV and ±5% for OARS. At 2 centers, TPS underestimated the lung doses by about 6% and spinal cord doses by 8%. The mean percentage gamma pass rates for the 8 centers were 98.29 ± 0.67% (for the 3%/3 mm criterion) and 96.72 ± 0.84% (for the 2%/2 mm criterion).ConclusionsThe 8 participating RT centers achieved a satisfactory quality level of IMRT/VMAT clinical implementation.