Stereotactic body radiation therapy for liver tumours using flattening filter free beam: dosimetric and technical considerations

Purpose: To report the initial institute experience in terms of dosimetric and technical aspects in stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) delivered using flattening filter free (FFF) beam in patients with liver lesions.Methods and Materials: From October 2010 to September 2011, 55 consecutive patients with 73 primary or metastatic hepatic lesions were treated with SBRT on TrueBeam using FFF beam and RapidArc technique. Clinical target volume (CTV) was defined on multi-phase CT scans, PET/CT, MRI, and 4D-CT. Dose prescription was 75 Gy in 3 fractions to planning target volume (PTV). Constraints for organs at risk were: 700 cc of liver free from the 15 Gy isodose, D max < 21 Gy for stomach and duodenum, D max < 30 Gy for heart, D 0.1 cc < 18 Gy for spinal cord, V 15 Gy < 35% for kidneys. The dose was downscaled in cases of not full achievement of dose constraints. Daily cone beam CT (CBCT) was performed.Results: Forty-three patients with a single lesion, nine with two lesions and three with three lesions were treated with this protocol. Target and organs at risk objectives were met for all patients. Mean delivery time was 2.8 ± 1.0 min. Pre-treatment plan verification resulted in a Gamma Agreement Index of 98.6 ± 0.8%. Mean on-line co-registration shift of the daily CBCT to the simulation CT were: -0.08, 0.05 and -0.02 cm with standard deviations of 0.33, 0.39 and 0.55 cm in, vertical, longitudinal and lateral directions respectively.Conclusions: SBRT for liver targets delivered by means of FFF resulted to be feasible with short beam on time. © 2012 Mancosu et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

Flattening filter-free accelerators: a report from the AAPM Therapy Emerging Technology Assessment Work Group.

This report describes the current state of flattening filter-free (FFF) radiotherapy beams implemented on conventional linear accelerators, and is aimed primarily at practicing medical physicists. The Therapy Emerging Technology Assessment Work Group of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) formed a writing group to assess FFF technology. The published literature on FFF technology was reviewed, along with technical specifications provided by vendors. Based on this information, supplemented by the clinical experience of the group members, consensus guidelines and recommendations for implementation of FFF technology were developed. Areas in need of further investigation were identified. Removing the flattening filter increases beam intensity, especially near the central axis. Increased intensity reduces treatment time, especially for high-dose stereotactic radiotherapy/radiosurgery (SRT/SRS). Furthermore, removing the flattening filter reduces out-of-field dose and improves beam modeling accuracy. FFF beams are advantageous for small field (e.g., SRS) treatments and are appropriate for intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). For conventional 3D radiotherapy of large targets, FFF beams may be disadvantageous compared to flattened beams because of the heterogeneity of FFF beam across the target (unless modulation is employed). For any application, the nonflat beam characteristics and substantially higher dose rates require consideration during the commissioning and quality assurance processes relative to flattened beams, and the appropriate clinical use of the technology needs to be identified. Consideration also needs to be given to these unique characteristics when undertaking facility planning. Several areas still warrant further research and development. Recommendations pertinent to FFF technology, including acceptance testing, commissioning, quality assurance, radiation safety, and facility planning, are presented. Examples of clinical applications are provided. Several of the areas in which future research and development are needed are also indicated

Revisiting fetal dose during radiation therapy: evaluating treatment techniques and a custom shield

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/135233/1/acm20001i.pd

Correcting radiation survey data to account for increased leakage during intensity modulated radiotherapy treatments

Purpose\ud \ud Intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatments require more beam-on time and produce more linac head leakage to deliver similar doses to conventional, unmodulated, radiotherapy treatments. It is necessary to take this increased leakage into account when evaluating the results of radiation surveys around bunkers that are, or will be, used for IMRT. The recommended procedure of 15 applying a monitor-unit based workload correction factor to secondary barrier survey measurements, to account for this increased leakage when evaluating radiation survey measurements around IMRT bunkers, can lead to potentially-costly over estimation of the required barrier thickness. This study aims to provide initial guidance on the validity of reducing the value of the correction factor when applied to different radiation barriers (primary barriers, doors, maze walls and other walls) by 20 evaluating three different bunker designs.\ud \ud Methods\ud \ud Radiation survey measurements of primary, scattered and leakage radiation were obtained at each of five survey points around each of three different radiotherapy bunkers and the contribution of leakage to the total measured radiation dose at each point was evaluated. Measurements at each survey point were made with the linac gantry set to 12 equidistant positions from 0 to 330o, to 25 assess the effects of radiation beam direction on the results.\ud \ud Results\ud \ud For all three bunker designs, less than 0.5% of dose measured at and alongside the primary barriers, less than 25% of the dose measured outside the bunker doors and up to 100% of the dose measured outside other secondary barriers was found to be caused by linac head leakage.\ud \ud Conclusions\ud \ud Results of this study suggest that IMRT workload corrections are unnecessary, for 30 survey measurements made at and alongside primary barriers. Use of reduced IMRT workload correction factors is recommended when evaluating survey measurements around a bunker door, provided that a subset of the measurements used in this study are repeated for the bunker in question. Reduction of the correction factor for other secondary barrier survey measurements is not recommended unless the contribution from leakage is separetely evaluated