Clinical Impact of Couch Top and Rails on IMRT and Arc Therapy

Purpose: To evaluate the clinical impact of the Varian Exact Couch on dose and volume coverage to targets and critical structures and tumor control probability (TCP) for 6-MV IMRT and Arc Therapy. Methods: Five clinical prostate patients were planned with both, 6-MV 8-field IMRT and 6-MV 2-field RapidArc using the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS). These plans neglected treatment couch attenuation, as is standard clinical practice. Dose distributions were then recalculated in Eclipse with the inclusion of the Varian Exact Couch (imaging couch top) and the rails in varying configurations. The changes in dose and coverage were evaluated using the DVHs from each plan iteration. We used a tumor control probability (TCP) model to calculate losses in tumor control resulting from not accounting for the couch top and rails. We also verified dose measurements in a phantom. Results: Failure to account for the treatment couch and rails resulted in clinically unacceptable dose and volume coverage losses to the target for both IMRT and RapidArc. The couch caused average dose losses (relative to plans that ignored the couch) to the prostate of 4.2% and 2.0% for IMRT with the rails out and in, respectively, and 3.2% and 2.9% for RapidArc with the rails out and in, respectively. On average, the percentage of the target covered by the prescribed dose dropped to 35% and 84% for IMRT (rails out and in, respectively) and to 18% and 17% for RapidArc (rails out and in, respectively). The TCP was also reduced by as much as 10.5% (6.3% on average). Dose and volume coverage losses for IMRT plans were primarily due to the rails, while the imaging couch top contributed most to losses for RapidArc. Both the couch top and rails contribute to dose and coverage losses that can render plans clinically unacceptable. A follow-up study we performed found that the less attenuating unipanel mesh couch top available with the Varian Exact couch does not cause a clinically impactful loss of dose or coverage for IMRT but still causes an unacceptable loss for RapidArc. Conclusions: Both the imaging couch top and rails contribute to dose and coverage loss to a degree that, if included, would prevent the plan from meeting clinical planning criteria. Therefore, the imaging and mesh couch tops and rails should be accounted for in Arc Therapy and the imaging couch and rails only in IMRT treatment planning

2D vs 3D gamma analysis: Establishment of comparable clinical action limits

Purpose: As clinics begin to use 3D metrics for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance; these metrics will often produce results different from those produced by their 2D counterparts. 3D and 2D gamma analyses would be expected to produce different values, because of the different search space available. We compared the results of 2D and 3D gamma analysis (where both datasets were generated the same way) for clinical treatment plans.                    Methods: 50 IMRT plans were selected from our database and recalculated using Monte Carlo. Treatment planning system-calculated (“evaluated”) and Monte Carlo-recalculated (“reference”) dose distributions were compared using 2D and 3D gamma analysis. This analysis was performed using a variety of dose-difference (5%, 3%, 2%, and 1%) and distance-to-agreement (5, 3, 2, and 1 mm) acceptance criteria, low-dose thresholds (5%, 10%, and 15% of the prescription dose), and data grid sizes (1.0, 1.5, and 3.0 mm). Each comparison was evaluated to determine the average 2D and 3D gamma and percentage of pixels passing gamma.Results: Average gamma and percentage of passing pixels for each acceptance criterion demonstrated better agreement for 3D than for 2D analysis for every plan comparison. Average difference in the percentage of passing pixels between the 2D and 3D analyses with no low-dose threshold ranged from 0.9% to 2.1%. Similarly, using a low-dose threshold resulted in a differences ranging from 0.8% to 1.5%. No appreciable differences in gamma with changes in the data density (constant difference: 0.8% for 2D vs. 3D) were observed.Conclusion: We found that 3D gamma analysis resulted in up to 2.9% more pixels passing than 2D analysis.  Factors such as inherent dosimeter differences may be an important additional consideration to the extra dimension of available data that was evaluated in this study.------------------------------------Cite this article as: Pulliam KB, Huang JY, Bosca R, Followill D, Kry SF. 2D vs. 3D gamma analysis: Establishment of comparable clinical action limits. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol 2014; 2(2):020231. DOI: 10.14319/ijcto.0202.3

2D vs 3D gamma analysis: Establishment of comparable clinical action limits

Purpose: As clinics begin to use 3D metrics for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance; these metrics will often produce results different from those produced by their 2D counterparts. 3D and 2D gamma analyses would be expected to produce different values, because of the different search space available. We compared the results of 2D and 3D gamma analysis (where both datasets were generated the same way) for clinical treatment plans.                    Methods: 50 IMRT plans were selected from our database and recalculated using Monte Carlo. Treatment planning system-calculated (“evaluated”) and Monte Carlo-recalculated (“reference”) dose distributions were compared using 2D and 3D gamma analysis. This analysis was performed using a variety of dose-difference (5%, 3%, 2%, and 1%) and distance-to-agreement (5, 3, 2, and 1 mm) acceptance criteria, low-dose thresholds (5%, 10%, and 15% of the prescription dose), and data grid sizes (1.0, 1.5, and 3.0 mm). Each comparison was evaluated to determine the average 2D and 3D gamma and percentage of pixels passing gamma.Results: Average gamma and percentage of passing pixels for each acceptance criterion demonstrated better agreement for 3D than for 2D analysis for every plan comparison. Average difference in the percentage of passing pixels between the 2D and 3D analyses with no low-dose threshold ranged from 0.9% to 2.1%. Similarly, using a low-dose threshold resulted in a differences ranging from 0.8% to 1.5%. No appreciable differences in gamma with changes in the data density (constant difference: 0.8% for 2D vs. 3D) were observed.Conclusion: We found that 3D gamma analysis resulted in up to 2.9% more pixels passing than 2D analysis.  Factors such as inherent dosimeter differences may be an important additional consideration to the extra dimension of available data that was evaluated in this study.------------------------------------Cite this article as: Pulliam KB, Huang JY, Bosca R, Followill D, Kry SF. 2D vs. 3D gamma analysis: Establishment of comparable clinical action limits. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol 2014; 2(2):020231. DOI: 10.14319/ijcto.0202.31</p