The Use of Photon Beams of a Flattening Filter-free Linear Accelerator for Hypofractionated Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy in Localized Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE: To evaluate the potential usage of flattening filter-free (FFF) photon beams in the treatment of prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment planning was performed for 7 patients using TrueBeam(®) linear accelerator and photon beams with (X6, X10) and without (X6FFF, X10FFF) flattening filter. Prescribed dose was 19 × 3 Gy = 57 Gy. One or two 360° arcs with dose rate of 600 MU/min for flattened beams, and 1,200 MU/min for FFF beams were used. RESULTS: No difference was detected between the four beams in PTV coverage, conformity, and homogeneity. Mean body dose and body volume receiving 50% of the prescribed dose decreased with increasing mean energy (r(2) = 0.8275, p < 0.01). X6FFF delivered 3.6% more dose compared with the X6 (p < 0.01). X10FFF delivered 3.0% (p < 0.01), and the X10 5.8% (p < 0.01) less mean body dose compared with X6. There was a significant increase in the mean dose to the rectum for the X10 compared with X6 (2.6%, p < 0.01). Mean dose to the bladder increased by 1.3% for X6FFF and decreased by 2.3% for X10FFF. Using a single arc and FFF, treatment time was reduced by 35% (2 SD = 10%). CONCLUSION: FFF beams resulted in dose distributions similar to flattened beams. X10FFF beam provided the best solution, sparing rectum and bladder and minimizing whole-body dose. FFF beams lead to a time efficient treatment delivery, particularly when combined with hypofractionated VMAT

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma after extrapleural pleuropneumonectomy

Radiotherapy reduces the local relapse rate after pleuropneumonectomy of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). The optimal treatment technique with photons remains undefined. Comparative planning for intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) was performed. Six MPM patients with significant postoperative intrathoracic air cavities were planned with IMRT and VMAT. A dose comparison for the targets and organ at risks (OAR) was performed. Robustness was assessed in respect to the variation of target dose with change in volume of air cavities. VMAT reduced the dose to the contralateral lung by reducing the volume covered by 13 Gy and 20 Gy by a factor 1.8 and 2.8, in respect to IMRT (p = 0.02). Dose distribution with VMAT was the most stable technique in regard to postsurgical air cavity variation. For IMRT, V90, V95, and the minimal target dose decreased by 40%, 64%, and 12% compared to 29%, 47%, and 7% with VMAT when air cavity decreased. Two arcs compared to one arc decreased the dose to all the organs at risk (OAR) while leaving PTV dose coverage unchanged. Increasing the number of arcs from two to three did not reduce the dose to the OAR further, but increased the beam-on time by 50%. Using partial arcs decreased the beam-on time by 43%. VMAT allows a lower lung dose and is less affected by the air cavity variation than IMRT. The best VMAT plans were obtained with two partial arcs. VMAT seems currently the most suitable technique for the treatment of MPM patients when air cavities are remaining and no adaptive radiotherapy is performed