A fast radiotherapy paradigm for anal cancer with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT)

Background/Purpose: Radiotherapy (RT) volumes for anal cancer are large and of moderate complexity when organs at risk ( OAR) such as testis, small bowel and bladder are at least partially to be shielded. Volumetric intensity modulated arc therapy (VMAT) might provide OAR-shielding comparable to step-and-shoot intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for this tumor entity with better treatment efficiency. Materials and methods: Based on treatment planning CTs of 8 patients, we compared dose distributions, comformality index (CI), homogeneity index ( HI), number of monitor units (MU) and treatment time (TTT) for plans generated for VMAT, 3D-CRT and step-and-shoot-IMRT (optimized based on Pencil Beam (PB) or Monte Carlo ( MC) dose calculation) for typical anal cancer planning target volumes (PTV) including inguinal lymph nodes as usually treated during the first phase (0-36 Gy) of a shrinking field regimen. Results: With values of 1.33 +/- 0.21/1.26 +/- 0.05/1.3 +/- 0.02 and 1.39 +/- 0.09, the CI's for IMRT (PB-Corvus/PB-Hyperion/MC-Hyperion) and VMAT are better than for 3D-CRT with 2.00 +/- 0.16. The HI's for the prescribed dose (HI36) for 3D-CRT were 1.06 +/- 0.01 and 1.11 +/- 0.02 for VMAT, respectively and 1.15 +/- 0.02/1.10 +/- 0.02/1.11 +/- 0.08 for IMRT (PB-Corvus/PB-Hyperion/MCHyperion). Mean TTT and MU's for 3D-CRT is 220s/225 +/- 11MU and for IMRT (PB-Corvus/PBHyperion/MC-Hyperion) is 575s/1260 +/- 172MU, 570s/477 +/- 84MU and 610s748 +/- 193MU while TTT and MU for two-arc-VMAT is 290s/268 +/- 19MU. Conclusion: VMAT provides treatment plans with high conformity and homogeneity equivalent to step-and-shoot-IMRT for this mono-concave treatment volume. Short treatment delivery time and low primary MU are the most important advantages

On the performances of different IMRT treatment planning systems for selected paediatric cases

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the performance of seven different TPS (Treatment Planning Systems: Corvus, Eclipse, Hyperion, KonRad, Oncentra Masterplan, Pinnacle and PrecisePLAN) when intensity modulated (IMRT) plans are designed for paediatric tumours. METHODS: Datasets (CT images and volumes of interest) of four patients were used to design IMRT plans. The tumour types were: one extraosseous, intrathoracic Ewing Sarcoma; one mediastinal Rhabdomyosarcoma; one metastatic Rhabdomyosarcoma of the anus; one Wilm's tumour of the left kidney with multiple liver metastases. Prescribed doses ranged from 18 to 54.4 Gy. To minimise variability, the same beam geometry and clinical goals were imposed on all systems for every patient. Results were analysed in terms of dose distributions and dose volume histograms. RESULTS: For all patients, IMRT plans lead to acceptable treatments in terms of conformal avoidance since most of the dose objectives for Organs At Risk (OARs) were met, and the Conformity Index (averaged over all TPS and patients) ranged from 1.14 to 1.58 on primary target volumes and from 1.07 to 1.37 on boost volumes. The healthy tissue involvement was measured in terms of several parameters, and the average mean dose ranged from 4.6 to 13.7 Gy. A global scoring method was developed to evaluate plans according to their degree of success in meeting dose objectives (lower scores are better than higher ones). For OARs the range of scores was between 0.75 ± 0.15 (Eclipse) to 0.92 ± 0.18 (Pinnacle(3 )with physical optimisation). For target volumes, the score ranged from 0.05 ± 0.05 (Pinnacle(3 )with physical optimisation) to 0.16 ± 0.07 (Corvus). CONCLUSION: A set of complex paediatric cases presented a variety of individual treatment planning challenges. Despite the large spread of results, inverse planning systems offer promising results for IMRT delivery, hence widening the treatment strategies for this very sensitive class of patients

Determination of depth and field size dependence of multileaf collimator transmission in intensity‐modulated radiation therapy beams

Intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans for the treatment of large and complex volumes may contain a relatively large contribution from multileaf collimator (MLC) transmission. In such cases, comprehensive characterization of direct and scatter MLC transmission is important. We designed a set of tests (open beam, closed static MLC, and dynamic MLC gap) to determine dosimetric MLC properties as a function of field size and depth at the central axis. We developed a generalized model of MLC transmission to account for direct MLC transmission, MLC scatter, beam hardening, and leaf‐end transmission (dosimetric gap). The model is consistent with the beam model used in IMRT optimization. We tested the model for extreme asymmetric fields relevant for large targets and for split IMRT fields. We applied our MLC scatter estimation formula to clinically relevant cases and showed that MLC scatter is contributing an undesired background dose. This contribution is relatively large, especially in low‐dose regions. (For instance, a uniform extra dose may dramatically increase normal‐lung toxicity in thorax treatment.) For complex IMRT of large‐volume targets, we found direct MLC transmission dose to be as high as 30%, and MLC scatter, up to 10% within the target volume for the selected cases. We identified that the dose discrepancies between the IMRT planning system [Eclipse (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA)] and ionization chamber measurements (inside and outside of the field) are attributable to an inadequate model of MLC transmission in the planning system (constant‐value model). In the present study, we measured MLC transmission properties for Varian 6EX (6 MV) and 21EXs (6 and 10 MV) linear accelerators; however, the experimental method and theoretical model are more general. PACS number: 87.53.‐

radiation

Determination of depth and field size dependence of multileaf collimator transmission in intensity-modulate