SU‐E‐T‐229: Craniospinal Radiotherapy Planning with VMAT, Two First Years Experience

Abstract

Purpose:To describe how we moved to VMAT in the craniospinal radiotherapy planning process, the actual procedure details, and the results for the patients treated.Methods:Twelve patients underwent craniospinal irradiation with the new procedure, based on the paper by Lee et al. (IJROBP 82, 2012), with some additional modifications. Patients were treated in supine position in Varian Clinac iX linacs with 6 MV RapidArc; prescription doses ranged from 23.4 to 40 Gy (13 to 20 fractions); depending on the PTV length, 2 or 3 isocenters were used, all coordinates being equal except the longitudinal one, setting a few centimeter‐long overlapping region; 2 arcs (RA) sharing isocentre for the cranial region, RA1 encompassing cranium and superior spinal region, and RA2 intended to improve conformity, only for cranium; for spine, 1 or 2 isocenters were employed; optimization was performed with Eclipse (V 13.0) using AAA algorithm, establishing sets of optimization parameters to give high conformity while sparing OAR. In pediatric patients, homogeneous irradiation of the vertebrae was also required.Conformity (CI) and heterogeneity (HI) indices (same as Lee et al.), and mean and maximum doses for OAR were calculated. Several pre‐treatment verification methods were used: Octavius4D (PTW) for each isocentre, point dose at the junction region, Portal Dosimetry (when possible), and independent MU verification software (Diamond, PTW).Results:CI median value was 1.02 (0.99–1.07) and HI, 1.07 (1.06–1.09); a great reduction was observed for CI and OAR mean doses with respect to Lee et al. data; median maximum eye lens dose was 7.3 Gy (4.0–12.0); mean LungV20Gy was 1.9%; in children, vertebrae were homogeneously irradiated (D95%=20.8 Gy, Dmean= 23.2 Gy).All pre‐treatment verifications were found within our action levels except for Portal Dosimetry.Conclusion:A RapidArc planning process for craniospinal axis irradiation has been implemented with significant advantages on conformity, homogeneity, feasibility and efficiency. and increase brain tissue sparing. Variations in volume decrease may be related to shape or location of the tumor.