Clinical experience using Delta 4 phantom for pretreatment patient-specific quality assurance in modern radiotherapy

Purpose In advanced radiotherapy techniques such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), the quality assurance (QA) process is essential. The aim of the study was to assure the treatment planning dose delivered during delivery of complex treatment plans. The QA standard is to perform patient-specific comparisons between planned doses and doses measured in a phantom. Materials and method The Delta 4 phantom (Scandidos, Uppsala, Sweden) has been used in this study. This device consists of diode matrices in two orthogonal planes inserted in a cylindrical acrylic phantom. Each diode is sampled per beam pulse so that the dose distribution can be evaluated on segment-by-segment, beam-by-beam, or as a composite plan from a single set of measurements. Ninety-five simple and complex radiotherapy treatment plans for different pathologies, planned using a treatment planning system (TPS) were delivered to the QA device. The planned and measured dose distributions were then compared and analysed. The gamma index was determined for different pathologies. Results The evaluation was performed in terms of dose deviation, distance to agreement and gamma index passing rate. The measurements were in excellent agreement between with the calculated dose of the TPS and the QA device. Overall, good agreement was observed between measured and calculated doses in most cases with gamma values above 1 in >95% of measured points. Plan results for each test met the recommended dose goals. Conclusion The delivery of IMRT and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans was verified to correspond well with calculated dose distributions for different pathologies. We found the Delta 4 device is accurate and reproducible. Although Delta4 appears to be a straightforward device for measuring dose and allows measure in real-time dosimetry QA, it is a complex device and careful quality control is required before its use

Benefits and limitations of volumetric modulated arc therapy in treating bilateral breast cancer with regional lymph nodes

Purpose: The study was performed comparing dosimetric characteristics of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and field-in-field (FiF) techniques on a patient with synchronous bilateral breast carcinoma. Methods: The patients with bilateral breast cancer treatment were included in this study. A total dose of 40.05 Gy in 15 fractions was prescribed to the Planning Target Volume (PTV) of the whole bilateral breast cancer with the supraclavicular and infraclavicular nodes, with a complementary boost of 10 Gy in 4 fractions to the surgical bed (PTVboost). For both radiotherapy techniques, several VxGy parameters were analyzed for the PTVs, together with the Conformity index (CI), the Homogeneity index (HI) and the critical organs at risk (OARs), lungs and heart. Results: The patient was treated by the VMAT technique and the daily treatment time was less than 20 minutes with daily CBCT imaging. In the VMAT plan, the PTV 95% dose covered 38.89 ± 0.81 Gy, compared to 37.26 ± 1.02 Gy in the FiF technique. The VMAT plan improved the dose homogeneity index and lower dose in lung towards high dose region. Conclusion: The study demonstrates the viability of the VMAT technique in the treatment of bilateral breast cancer. The introduced single isocentric VMAT technique is fast to deliver and it increases the dose homogeneity of the target volume with some limitations. The treatment was well tolerated, without interruption of the treatment courses caused by treatmentrelated toxicities

Radiation-induced lung damage promotes breast cancer lung-metastasis through CXCR4 signaling

Radiotherapy is a mainstay in the postoperative treatment of breast cancer as it reduces the risks of local recurrence and mortality after both conservative surgery and mastectomy. Despite recent efforts to decrease irradiation volumes through accelerated partial irradiation techniques, late cardiac and pulmonary toxicity still occurs after breast irradiation. The importance of this pulmonary injury towards lung metastasis is unclear. Preirradiation of lung epithelial cells induces DNA damage, p53 activation and a secretome enriched in the chemokines SDF-1/CXCL12 and MIF. Irradiated lung epithelial cells stimulate adhesion, spreading, growth, and (transendothelial) migration of human MDA-MB-231 and murine 4T1 breast cancer cells. These metastasis-associated cellular activities were largely mimicked by recombinant CXCL12 and MIF. Moreover, an allosteric inhibitor of the CXCR4 receptor prevented the metastasis-associated cellular activities stimulated by the secretome of irradiated lung epithelial cells. Furthermore, partial (10%) irradiation of the right lung significantly stimulated breast cancer lung-specific metastasis in the syngeneic, orthotopic 4T1 breast cancer model. Our results warrant further investigation of the potential pro-metastatic effects of radiation and indicate the need to develop efficient drugs that will be successful in combination with radiotherapy to prevent therapy-induced spread of cancer cells

Gamma evaluation with Octavius 4D phantom for pretreatment of modern radiotherapy treatment techniques

Purpose: In modern radiotherapy techniques such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volume modulated arc therapy (VMAT), the quality assurance (QA) process is vital. The goal of the study was to verify the treatment planning dose delivered during delivery of complex treatment plans. The QA standard is to perform patient-specific comparisons between planned doses and doses measured in a phantom. Materials and Methods: Ninety-five complex IMRT and VMAT plans for different pathologies planned using Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS). The Octavius 4D phantom has been used to verify patient specific quality assurance of all VMAT plans calculating with different algorithms. Conclusion: Overall, good agreement was observed between measured and calculated doses in most cases with gamma values above 1 in >95% of measured points in volumetric 3D analysis and 1 in >90% in 2D analysis. The Octavius 4D phantom is an effective and efficient method for patient specific QA

A comparative analysis of Acuros XB and the analytical anisotropic algorithm for volumetric modulation arc therapy

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to verify the dosimetric impact of Acuros XB (AXB) (AXB, Varian Medical Systems Palo Alto CA, USA), a two model-based algorithm, in comparison with Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) calculations for prostate, head & neck and lung cancer treatment by volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), without primary modification to AAA. At present, the well-known and validated AAA algorithm is clinically used in our department for VMAT treatments of different pathologies. AXB could replace it without extra measurements. The treatment result and accuracy of the dose delivered depend on the dose calculation algorithm. MATERIALS AND METHOD: Ninety-five complex VMAT plans for different pathologies were generated using the Eclipse version 15.0.4 treatment planning system (TPS). The dose distributions were calculated using AAA and AXB (dose-to-water, AXBw and dose-to-medium, AXBm), with the same plan parameters for all VMAT plans. The dosimetric parameters were calculated for each planning target volume (PTV) and involved organs at risk (OAR). The patient specific quality assurance of all VMAT plans has been verified by Octavius®‐4D phantom for different algorithms. RESULTS: The relative differences among AAA, AXBw and AXBm, with respect to prostate, head & neck were less than 1% for PTV D95%. However, PTV D95% calculated by AAA tended to be overestimated, with a relative dose difference of 3.23% in the case of lung treatment. The absolute mean values of the relative differences were 1.1 ± 1.2% and 2.0 ± 1.2%, when comparing between AXBw and AAA, AXBm and AAA, respectively. The gamma pass rate was observed to exceed 97.4% and 99.4% for the measured and calculated doses in most cases of the volumetric 3D analysis for AAA and AXBm, respectively.   Conclusion: This study suggests that the dose calculated to medium using AXBm algorithm  is better than AAA and it could be used clinically. Switching the dose calculation algorithm from AAA to AXB does not require extra measurements