Comparison Of Dose-volume Histograms Research Articles

Impact of a Low Transmission Multileaf Collimator on the Parotid Grand Dose in Head and Neck Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Planning: A Dose-Volume Histogram Comparison Between 2-Step Adaptive and Simultaneously Integrated Boost Techniques

Impact of a Low Transmission Multileaf Collimator on the Parotid Grand Dose in Head and Neck Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Planning: A Dose-Volume Histogram Comparison Between 2-Step Adaptive and Simultaneously Integrated Boost Techniques

SU-E-T-94: Daily Fraction Dose Recalculation Based On Rigid Registration Using Cone Beam CT

Purpose: To calculate the daily fraction dose for a CBCT recalculation based on rigid registration and compare it to the planned CT dose. Methods: For this study, 30 patients that were previously treated (10 SBRT lung, 10 prostate and 10 abdomen) were considered. The daily CBCT images were imported into the Pinnacle treatment planning system from Mosaic. The prescribing physician contoured the regions of interest (ROI) on each CBCT and then dose was computed on each CBCT. Each CBCT dose distribution was then compared against the plan. The evaluation was based on isodose line comparison and Dose Volume Histogram comparison. Results: In the case of lung patients the dose differences between daily dose and plan dose were considered small. The PTV coverage was not compromised and the dose to the organs at risk had negligible differences. Larger differences were observed for prostate and abdomen patients. In these cases, although the PTV doses did not change on a daily basis, the doses to the organs at risk had significant differences. For a prostate patient, the bladder dose at 35% volume was 2714.444 cGy for the CT plan and 2844.747, 2801.556, 3552.37, and 2970.968 cGy for subsequent CBCTs. For the PTV on a SBRT patient, however, the CT plan had a dose at 35% volume of 6917.71 cGy and 6815.385, 6892.5, 6896.25, and 6922.9 cGy for the CBCTs. Conclusion: Daily dose validation is feasible using CBCT and treatment planning system. It provides means to evaluate the course of treatment for the patient undergoing radiation therapy and can assist in the decision of the need of adaptation of the treatment plan.

SU-E-T-632: A Dosimetric Comparison of the 3D-CRT Planning of Chest Wall in Post-Mastectomy Breast Cancer Patients, with and Without Breast Board Setup

Purpose: Breast boards are used in breast radiation which increases normal lung and heart doses, when supraclavicular field is included. Therefore, in this study through dose volume histogram (DVHs), lung and heart doses comparison was done between two different setups i.e. with and without breast board, for the treatment of left chest wall and supraclavicular fossa in postmastectomy left breast cancer. Methods: In this study, CT-Simulation scans of ten breast cancer patients were done with and without breast board, at Shifa International Hospitals Islamabad, to investigate the differences between the two different setups of the irradiation of left chest wall in terms of lung and heart doses. For immobilization, support under the neck, shoulders and arms was used. Precise PLAN 2.15 treatment planning system (TPS) was used for 3D-CRT planning. The total prescribed dose for both the plans was 5000 cGy/25 fractions. The chest wall was treated with a pair of tangential photon fields and the upper supraclavicular nodal regions were treated with an anterior photon field. A mono-isocentric technique was used to match the tangential fields with the anterior field at the isocentre. The dose volume histogram was used to compare the doses of heart and ipsilateral lung. Results:more » Both the plans of each patient were generated and compared. DVH results showed that for the same PTV dose coverage, plans without breast board resulted in a reduction of lung and heart doses compared with the plans with breast board. There was significant reductions in V20, V<25 and mean doses for lung and V<9 and mean doses for heart. Conclusion: In comparison of both the plans, setup without breast board significantly reduced the dose-volume of the ipsilateral lung and heart in left chest wall patients. Waived registration request has been submitted.« less

SU‐E‐T‐525: Dose Volume Histograms (DVH) Analysis and Comparison with ICRU Point Doses in MRI Guided HDR Brachytherapy for Cervical Cancer

Purpose:Brachytherapy plays a crucial role in management of cervix cancer. MRI compatible applicators have made it possible to accurately delineate gross‐target‐volume(GTV) and organs‐at‐risk(OAR) volumes, as well as directly plan, optimize and adapt dose‐distribution for each insertion. We sought to compare DVH of tumor‐coverage and OARs to traditional Point‐A, ICRU‐38 bladder and rectum point‐doses for four different planning‐techniques.Methods:MRI based 3D‐planning was performed on Nucletron‐Oncentra‐TPS for 3 selected patients with varying tumor‐sizes and anatomy.GTV,high‐risk‐clinical‐target‐volume(HR‐CTV),intermediate‐risk‐clinical‐target‐volume(IR‐CTV) and OARs: rectum, bladder, sigmoid‐colon, vaginal‐mucosa were delineated. Three conventionally used techniques: mg‐Radium‐equivalent(RaEq),equal‐dwell‐weights(EDW),Medical‐College‐of‐Wisconsin proposed points‐optimization(MCWO) and a manual‐graphical‐optimization(MGO) volume‐coverage based technique were applied for each patient. Prescription was 6Gy delivered to point‐A in Conventional techniques (RaEq, EDW, MCWO). For MGO, goal was to achieve 90%‐coverage (D90) to HR‐CTV with prescription‐dose. ICRU point doses for rectum and bladder, point‐A doses, DVH‐doses for HR‐CTV‐D90,0.1cc‐volume(D0.1),1ccvolume(D1),2cc‐volume(D2) were collected for all plans and analyzed. Results:Mean D90 for HR‐CTV normalized to MGO were 0.89,0.84,0.9,1.0 for EDW, RaEq, MCWO, MGO respectively. Mean point‐A doses were 21.7% higher for MGO. Conventional techniques with Point‐A prescriptions under covered HR‐CTV‐D90 by average of 12% as compared to MGO. Rectum, bladder and sigmoid doses were highest in MGO‐plans for ICRU points as well as D0.1,D1 and D2 doses. Among conventional‐techniques, rectum and bladder ICRU and DVH doses(0.1,1,2cc) were not significantly different (within 7%).Rectum D0.1 provided good estimation of ICRU‐rectum‐point doses (within 3.9%),rectum D0.1 were higher from 0.8 to 3.9% while bladder D0.1 overestimated the bladder ICRU point dose up to 43% for conventional‐techniques.Bladder‐D2 provided a good estimation of ICRU bladder point‐doses(within 3.6%) for conventional‐techniques. This correlation is not observed for MGO plans perhaps due to steering of isodose line, leading to unpredictable dwell‐weighting.Conclusion:MRI based HDR‐planning provides accurate delineation of tumor volumes and normal structures, and optimized tumor‐coverage can be achieved with acceptable normal‐tissue doses. This study showed that for conventional techniques D0.1 rectum dose and D2 bladder dose are good representation of ICRU‐reference‐point doses.

Performance of dose calculation algorithms from three generations in lung SBRT: comparison with full Monte Carlo‐based dose distributions

The accuracy of dose calculation is a key challenge in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) of the lung. We have benchmarked three photon beam dose calculation algorithms — pencil beam convolution (PBC), anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA), and Acuros XB (AXB) — implemented in a commercial treatment planning system (TPS), Varian Eclipse. Dose distributions from full Monte Carlo (MC) simulations were regarded as a reference. In the first stage, for four patients with central lung tumors, treatment plans using 3D conformal radiotherapy (CRT) technique applying 6 MV photon beams were made using the AXB algorithm, with planning criteria according to the Nordic SBRT study group. The plans were recalculated (with same number of monitor units (MUs) and identical field settings) using BEAMnrc and DOSXYZnrc MC codes. The MC‐calculated dose distributions were compared to corresponding AXB‐calculated dose distributions to assess the accuracy of the AXB algorithm, to which then other TPS algorithms were compared. In the second stage, treatment plans were made for ten patients with 3D CRT technique using both the PBC algorithm and the AAA. The plans were recalculated (with same number of MUs and identical field settings) with the AXB algorithm, then compared to original plans. Throughout the study, the comparisons were made as a function of the size of the planning target volume (PTV), using various dose‐volume histogram (DVH) and other parameters to quantitatively assess the plan quality. In the first stage also, 3D gamma analyses with threshold criteria 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm were applied. The AXB‐calculated dose distributions showed relatively high level of agreement in the light of 3D gamma analysis and DVH comparison against the full MC simulation, especially with large PTVs, but, with smaller PTVs, larger discrepancies were found. Gamma agreement index (GAI) values between 95.5% and 99.6% for all the plans with the threshold criteria 3%/3 mm were achieved, but 2%/2 mm threshold criteria showed larger discrepancies. The TPS algorithm comparison results showed large dose discrepancies in the PTV mean dose (D50%), nearly 60%, for the PBC algorithm, and differences of nearly 20% for the AAA, occurring also in the small PTV size range. This work suggests the application of independent plan verification, when the AAA or the AXB algorithm are utilized in lung SBRT having PTVs smaller than 20‐25 cc. The calculated data from this study can be used in converting the SBRT protocols based on type ‘a’ and/or type ‘b’ algorithms for the most recent generation type ‘c’ algorithms, such as the AXB algorithm.PACS numbers: 87.55.‐x, 87.55.D‐, 87.55.K‐, 87.55.kd, 87.55.Qr

Dosimetric comparison of flattened and unflattened beams for stereotactic ablative radiotherapy of stage I non‐small cell lung cancer

To compare contribution and accuracy of delivery for two flattening filter free (FFF) beams of the nominal energy 6 and 10 MV and a 6 MV flattened beam for early stage lung cancer. For each of 11 patients with stage I nonsmall cell lung cancer three volumetric modulated arc therapy plans were prepared utilizing a 6 MV flattened photon beam (X6FF) and two nonflattened beams of nominal energy 6 and 10 MV (X6FFF, X10FFF). Optimization constraints were set to produce dose distributions that meet the criteria of the RTOG-0915 protocol. The radiation schedule used for plan comparison in all patients was 50 Gy in five fractions. Dosimetric parameters of planning target volume (PTV) and organs-at-risk and delivery times were assessed and compared. All plans were subject to verification using Delta(4) unit (Scandidos, Sweden) and absolutely calibrated gafchromic films in a thorax phantom. All plans had a qualitatively comparable outcome. Obtained dose distributions were conformal (CI < 1.17) and exhibited a steep dose fall-off outside the PTV. The ratio of monitor units for FFF versus FF plans in the authors' study ranged from 0.95 to 1.21 and from 0.93 to 1.25 for X6FFF/X6FF and X10FFF/X6FF comparisons, respectively. The ratio systematically increased with increasing size of the PTV (up to +25% for 150 cm(3) PTV). Yet the integral dose to healthy tissue did not follow this trend. Comparison of cumulative dose volume histograms for a patient's body showed that X6FFF plans exhibit improved conformity and reduced the volume of tissue that received more than 50% of the prescription dose. Parameters related to dose gradient showed statistically significant improvement. CI50%, CI60%, CI80%, and CI100% were on average reduced by 4.6% (p < 0.001), 4.6% (p = 0.002), 3.1% (p = 0.002), and 1.2% (p = 0.039), respectively. Gradient measure was on average reduced by 4.2% (p < 0.001). Due to dose reduction in the surrounding lung tissue, the V20 Gy and V12.5 Gy were reduced by 5.5% (p = 0.002) and 4.5% (p < 0.001). These dosimetric improvements in the fall-off were not observed for the X10FFF plans. Differences in sparing of normal tissues were not found to be statistically significant for either of the two FFF beams. Mean beam-on times were 111 s (2SD = 11 s) for X10FFF, 128 s (2SD = 19 s) for X6FFF, and X6FF plans required on average 269 s (2SD = 71 s). While the mean dose rate was 1555 ± 264 and 1368 ± 63 MU/min, for X10FFF and X6FFF, plans using the conventional X6FF were delivered with the constant maximum dose rate of 600 MU/min. Verification of all plans showed acceptable and comparable results for all plans in homogeneous as well as heterogeneous phantoms. Mean GS (3%, 2 mm) using the Delta(4) phantom were 98.9% (2SD = 3.2%), 99.2% (2SD = 2.3%), and 99.2% (2SD = 2.3%) for X6FFF, X6FF, and X10FFF modalities. Verification using a thorax phantom showed GS > 98% in all cases. The use of FFF beams for stereotactic radiation therapy of nonsmall cell lung cancer patients yielded dose distributions qualitatively comparable to flattened beams and significantly reduced treatment delivery time. Utilizing the X6FFF beam improved conformity of dose distribution. On the other hand, X10FFF beam offered a slight improvement in treatment efficiency, and lower skin and peripheral dose. All effects were relatively small.

Multicriteria optimization of the spatial dose distribution

Treatment planning for radiation therapy involves trade-offs with respect to different clinical goals. Typically, the dose distribution is evaluated based on few statistics and dose-volume histograms. Particularly for stereotactic treatments, the spatial dose distribution represents further criteria, e.g., when considering the gradient between subregions of volumes of interest. The authors have studied how to consider the spatial dose distribution using a multicriteria optimization approach. The authors have extended a stepwise multicriteria optimization approach to include criteria with respect to the local dose distribution. Based on a three-dimensional visualization of the dose the authors use a software tool allowing interaction with the dose distribution to map objectives with respect to its shape to a constrained optimization problem. Similarly, conflicting criteria are highlighted and the planner decides if and where to relax the shape of the dose distribution. To demonstrate the potential of spatial multicriteria optimization, the tool was applied to a prostate and meningioma case. For the prostate case, local sparing of the rectal wall and shaping of a boost volume are achieved through local relaxations and while maintaining the remaining dose distribution. For the meningioma, target coverage is improved by compromising low dose conformality toward noncritical structures. A comparison of dose-volume histograms illustrates the importance of spatial information for achieving the trade-offs. The results show that it is possible to consider the location of conflicting criteria during treatment planning. Particularly, it is possible to conserve already achieved goals with respect to the dose distribution, to visualize potential trade-offs, and to relax constraints locally. Hence, the proposed approach facilitates a systematic exploration of the optimal shape of the dose distribution.

Dose–Volume Histogram Comparison Between Static 5-field IMRT With 18-MX X-rays and Helical Tomotherapy With 6-MX X-rays

Dose–Volume Histogram Comparison Between Static 5-field IMRT With 18-MX X-rays and Helical Tomotherapy With 6-MX X-rays

Treatment planning of intracranial targets on MRI derived substitute CT data

BackgroundThe use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as a complement to computed tomography (CT) in the target definition procedure for radiotherapy is increasing. To eliminate systematic uncertainties due to image registration, a workflow based entirely on MRI may be preferable. In the present pilot study, we investigate dose calculation accuracy for automatically generated substitute CT (s-CT) images of the head based on MRI. We also produce digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) from s-CT data to evaluate the feasibility of patient positioning based on MR images. Methods and materialsFive patients were included in the study. The dose calculation was performed on CT, s-CT, s-CT data without inhomogeneity correction and bulk density assigned MRI images. Evaluation of the results was performed using point dose and dose volume histogram (DVH) comparisons, and gamma index evaluation. ResultsThe results demonstrate that the s-CT images improve the dose calculation accuracy compared to the method of non-inhomogeneity corrected dose calculations (mean improvement 2.0% points) and that it performs almost identically to the method of bulk density assignment. The s-CT based DRRs appear to be adequate for patient positioning of intra-cranial targets, although further investigation is needed on this subject. ConclusionThe s-CT method is very fast and yields data that can be used for treatment planning without sacrificing accuracy.

Independent calculation-based verification of IMRT plans using a 3D dose-calculation engine

Independent monitor unit verification of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans requires detailed 3-dimensional (3D) dose verification. The aim of this study was to investigate using a 3D dose engine in a second commercial treatment planning system (TPS) for this task, facilitated by in-house software. Our department has XiO and Pinnacle TPSs, both with IMRT planning capability and modeled for an Elekta-Synergy 6MV photon beam. These systems allow the transfer of computed tomography (CT) data and RT structures between them but do not allow IMRT plans to be transferred. To provide this connectivity, an in-house computer programme was developed to convert radiation therapy prescription (RTP) files as generated by many planning systems into either XiO or Pinnacle IMRT file formats. Utilization of the technique and software was assessed by transferring 14 IMRT plans from XiO and Pinnacle onto the other system and performing 3D dose verification. The accuracy of the conversion process was checked by comparing the 3D dose matrices and dose volume histograms (DVHs) of structures for the recalculated plan on the same system. The developed software successfully transferred IMRT plans generated by 1 planning system into the other. Comparison of planning target volume (TV) DVHs for the original and recalculated plans showed good agreement; a maximum difference of 2% in mean dose, − 2.5% in D95, and 2.9% in V95 was observed. Similarly, a DVH comparison of organs at risk showed a maximum difference of +7.7% between the original and recalculated plans for structures in both high- and medium-dose regions. However, for structures in low-dose regions (less than 15% of prescription dose) a difference in mean dose up to +21.1% was observed between XiO and Pinnacle calculations. A dose matrix comparison of original and recalculated plans in XiO and Pinnacle TPSs was performed using gamma analysis with 3%/3mm criteria. The mean and standard deviation of pixels passing gamma tolerance for XiO-generated IMRT plans was 96.1 ± 1.3, 96.6 ± 1.2, and 96.0 ± 1.5 in axial, coronal, and sagittal planes respectively. Corresponding results for Pinnacle-generated IMRT plans were 97.1 ± 1.5, 96.4 ± 1.2, and 96.5 ± 1.3 in axial, coronal, and sagittal planes respectively.

Critical appraisal of the accuracy of Acuros-XB and Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm compared to measurement and calculations with the compass system in the delivery of RapidArc clinical plans

BackgroundThe accuracy of the two dose calculation engines available for RapidArc planning (both released for clinical use) is investigated in comparison to the COMPASS data.MethodsTwo dose calculation algorithms (Acuros-XB and Anisotropic Analytic Algorithm (AAA)) were used to calculate RA plans and compared to calculations with the Collapsed Cone Convolution algorithm (CC) from the COMPASS system (IBA Dosimetry). CC calculations, performed on patient data, are based on experimental fluence measurements with a 2D array of ion chambers mounted on the linac head. The study was conducted on clinical cases treated with RA. Five cases for each of the following groups were included: Brain, Head and Neck, Thorax, Pelvis and stereotactic body radiation therapy for hypo-fractionated treatments with small fields. COMPASS measurements were performed with the iMatrixx-2D array. RapidArc plans were optimized for delivery using 6MV photons from a Clinac-iX (Varian, Palo Alto, USA).Accuracy of the RA calculation was appraised by means of: 1) comparison of Dose Volume histograms (DVH) metrics; 2) analysis of differential dose distributions and determination of mean dose differences per organ; 3) 3D gamma analysis with distance-to-agreement and dose difference thresholds set to 3%/3 mm or 2%/2 mm for targets, organs at risks and for the volumes encompassed by the 50 and 10% isodoses.ResultsFor almost all parameters, the better agreement was between Acuros-XB and COMPASS independently from the anatomical site and fractionation. The same result was obtained from the mean dose difference per organ with Acuros-CC average differences below 0.5% while for AAA-CC data, average deviations exceeded 0.5% and in the case of the pelvis 1%. Relevance of observed differences determined with the 3D gamma analysis resulted in a pass rate exceeding 99.5% for Acuros-CC and exceeding 97.5% for AAA-CC.ConclusionsThis study demonstrated that i) a good agreement exists between COMPASS-CC calculations based on measured fluences with respect to dose distributions obtained with both Acuros-XB and AAA algorithms; ii) 3D dose distributions reconstructed from actual delivery coincide very precisely with the planned data; iii) a slight preference in favor of Acuros-XB was observed suggesting the preference for this algorithm in clinical applications.

Study of the feasibility and precision in dose calculation with the method of bulk density assignment

Objective To study investigate the dose accuracy that can be achieved with the method of bulk density assignment.Methods Sixteen cases of nasopharyngeal cancer patients and nineteen cases of esophageal cancer patients who accept radiotherapy in our department were selected.The planning CT images with bulk density assignment to different classes of tissues were applied to calculate the dose distributions,and then the resulting dose volume histograms (DVH) of the tumor and organs of risk were compared with the original treatment plan.The paired t-test was taken for dose comparison between two plans.Results The DVH comparison based on the planning CT and the bulk density assignment CT showed good agreements.With nasopharyngeal cancer patients,differences between the two plans about target and normal tissue were less than 1％.With esophageal cancer patients,the dose differences were less than 2％.Conclusion Preliminary results confirm that the bulk density assignment method can be applied to calculate the dose distributions. Key words: Bulk density assignment; Dosimetry ; Nasopharyngeal neoplasms ; Esophageal neoplasms

Dosimetric analysis of radiation therapy oncology group 0321: The importance of urethral dose

PurposeRadiation Therapy Oncology Group 0321 is the first multi-institutional cooperative group high-dose-rate (HDR) prostate brachytherapy trial with complete digital brachytherapy dosimetry data. This is a descriptive report of the data and an analysis of toxicity. Methods and MaterialsPatients are treated with external beam radiation therapy at 45 Gy and 1 HDR implant with 19 Gy in 2 fractions. Implants are done with transrectal ultrasound guidance, and computed tomography (CT)-compatible nonmetallic catheters. HDR planning is done on ≤3-mm-thick CT slices. The “mean DVH” (dose–volume histogram) of the planning target volume (PTV), implanted volume (IP), and organs at risk are calculated. This includes the mean and standard deviation (SD) of the volume at 10-percentage-point intervals from 10% to 200% of the prescribed dose. The conformal index (COIN), homogeneity index (HI), catheters per implant, and patients per institution are calculated. Multivariate analysis and hazard ratios calculation of all the variables against reported grade ≥2 (G2+) genitourinary (GU) adverse events (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3) are performed. ResultsDosimetry data are based on 122 eligible patients from 14 institutions. The mean of PTV, IP, catheters per implant, and patients per institution are 54 cc, 63 cc, 19 and 9, respectively. The mean of %V100PTV, V80Bladder, V80Rectum, and V120Urethra were 94%, 0.40 cc, 0.15 cc, and 0.25 cc, respectively. There are too few G2+ gastrointestinal adverse event (GI AE) for correlative analysis; thus, the analysis has been performed on the more common G2+ GU AE. There are positive correlations noted between both acute and late G2+ GU AE and urethral dose at multiple levels. Positive correlations with late AE are seen with PTV and IP at high-dose levels. A negative correlation is seen between HI and acute AE. A higher patient accrual rate is associated with a lower rate of G2+ acute and late AE. ConclusionsHigher urethral dose, larger high-dose volumes, and lower dose homogeneity are associated with greater toxicities. A mean dose–volume histogram comparison at all dose levels should be used for quality control and future research comparison.

Dosimetric Study of Coplanar and Non-Coplanar Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy Planning for Esophageal Carcinoma

Purpose: To compare the dosimetric impact of coplanar intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and non-coplanar IMRT for the esophageal carcinoma. Methods: There are forty-five esophageal carcinoma patients, fifteen of whom were cervical and upper thoracic (Group 1) and thirty were middle and lower thoracic (Group 2). Gross tumor volume (GTV), clinical target volume (CTV), and organs at risk (OAR) were contoured by the chief physician in the CMS-XiO treatment planning system. For each patient, one coplanar plan and two non-coplanar plans have been created using the same physical objective function. A detailed dose-volume histogram (DVH) comparison among three plans was then carried out in a tabulated format. Results: 1) In Group 1 patients with PTV volume less than 100cc, the mean dose and dose gradient of non-coplanar plan were much better than those in coplanar plan. 2) In Group 2 patients, the conformity index (CI) for coplanar and two non-coplanar plans were 0.69 ± 0.13, 0.41 ± 0.13, and 0.68 ± 0.15, respectively. The V5, V10, V20, and the mean dose to the lung were lower in the non-coplanar plans compared to ones in coplanar plan. However, the non-coplanar plans resulted in an increase in a dose to the heart, but the dose was still within heart toxicity tolerance. Conclusion: For Group 1 patients, the non-coplanar IMRT plan had less dose gradient and better mean dose than the coplanar IMRT plan. For Group 2 patients, the non-coplanar IMRT could the decrease dose to the lung tissue, thus lowering the probability of radiation pneumonia to esophageal cancer patients. The drawback of non-coplanar IMRT is that, even within toxicity tolerance, it could deliver a higher dose to the heart and spinal cord compared to the coplanar plan. Therefore, for patients with cardiology and neurology concern, non-coplanar IMRT should be used with caution.

Effect of inhomogeneity in a patient's body on the accuracy of the pencil beam algorithm in comparison to Monte Carlo

The pencil beam algorithm (PBA) is reasonably accurate and fast. It is, therefore, the primary method used in routine clinical treatment planning for proton radiotherapy; still, it needs to be validated for use in highly inhomogeneous regions. In our investigation of the effect of patient inhomogeneity, PBA was compared with Monte Carlo (MC). A software framework was developed for the MC simulation of radiotherapy based on Geant4. Anatomical sites selected for the comparison were the head/neck, liver, lung and pelvis region. The dose distributions calculated by the two methods in selected examples were compared, as well as a dose volume histogram (DVH) derived from the dose distributions. The comparison of the off-center ratio (OCR) at the iso-center showed good agreement between the PBA and MC, while discrepancies were seen around the distal fall-off regions. While MC showed a fine structure on the OCR in the distal fall-off region, the PBA showed smoother distribution. The fine structures in MC calculation appeared downstream of very low-density regions. Comparison of DVHs showed that most of the target volumes were similarly covered, while some OARs located around the distal region received a higher dose when calculated by MC than the PBA.

How important is dosimetrist experience for intensity modulated radiation therapy? A comparative analysis of a head and neck case

PurposeTreatment planning for IMRT is a complex process that requires additional training and expertise. The aim of this study was to compare and analyze IMRT plans generated by dosimetrists with varying levels of IMRT planning experience. Methods and MaterialsThe computed tomography (CT) data of a patient previously treated with IMRT for left tonsillar carcinoma were used. The patient's preexisting planning target volumes (PTVs) and all organs at risk were provided with the CT data set. Six dosimetrists with variable IMRT planning experience generated IMRT plans according to the department's protocol. Plan analysis included visual inspection and comparison of dose-volume histogram, conformity indices, treatment delivery efficiency, and dose delivery accuracy. ResultsVisual review of the dose distribution showed that the 6 plans were comparable. However, only the 2 most experienced dosimetrists were able to meet the strict PTV aims and critical structure constraints. The least experienced dosimetrist had the worst planning outcome. Comparison of delivery efficiency showed that the number of segments, total monitor units, and treatment time increased as the IMRT planning experience decreased. ConclusionsDosimetrists with higher levels of IMRT planning experience produced a better quality head and neck IMRT plan. Different planning experience may need to be considered when organizing appropriate departmental resources.

SU-E-T-646: Feasibility Study of Proton Arc Therapy for the Treatment of Para-Aortic Lymph Node Tumor.

To test feasibility of proton arc therapy (PAT) in the treatment of para-aortic lymph node tumor and compare its dosimetric properties with advanced radiotherapy techniques such as intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and conventional 3D conformal proton beam therapy (PBT). The treatment plans for para-aortic lymph node tumor were planned for 9 patients treated at our institution using IMRT, PBT, and PAT. Feasibility test and dosimetric evaluation were based on comparisons of dose volume histograms (DVHs) which reveal mean dose, D30%, D60%, D90%, V30%, V60%, V90%, organ equivalent doses (OEDs), normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI). The average doses delivered by PAT to the liver, kidney, small bowel, duodenum, stomach were 7.6%, 3%, 17.3%, 26.7%, and 14.4%, of the prescription dose (PD), respectively, which is higher than the doses delivered by IMRT (0.4%, 7.2%, 14.2%, 15.9%, and 12.8%, respectively) and PBT (4.9%, 0.5%, 14.12%, 16.1% 9.9%, respectively). The average homogeneity index and conformity index of tumor using PAT were 12.1 and 1.21, respectively which were much better than IMRT (21.5 and 1.47, respectively) and comparable to PBT (13.1 and 1.23, respectively). The Result shows that both NTCP and OED of PAT are generally lower than IMRT and PBT. This study demonstrates that PAT is better in target conformity and homogeneity than IMRT and PBT but worse than IMRT and PBT for most of dosimetric factor which indicate that PAT is not recommended for the treatment of para-aortic lymph node tumor.

SU-E-T-439: First Experience of Three Dimensional Conformai Radiotherapy (3DCRT) Planning with Helical Tomotherapy.

A three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) has been recently introduced to helical tomotherapy, allowing the user to plan and treat patients that do not require sophisticated IMRT planning and delivery. This study aims to test treatment planning on this modality and evaluate its performance by comparing to conventional LINAC-based 3DCRT planning. Four clinical cases (whole brain, extremity, lung, and partial breast irradiation) were retrospectively selected from a Pinnacle planning system (Philips Medical System, Fitchburg, WI) and planned on Tomotherapy (Accuray Inc., Sunnyvale, CA). Computed tomography (CT) images together with contours of target and critical structures were exported from Pinnacle to the Tomotherapy planning station. The same prescription and fractionation scheme was adopted. The pitch factor for all clinical cases was set to 0.287. A 2.5 cm jaw was employed except in the lung case the field size was set to 1.0 cm for better dose conformity. The dose grid size was chosen to be half of that of the planning CT images. On Pinnacle 100% prescription dose was delivered to the treatment isocenter while onTomotherapy it was stipulated that at least 95% of the target volume received the prescribed dose. Comparison between two planning strategies was performed, in terms of dose volume histograms (DVH), dosimetric and radiobiological parameters, for plan quality assessment. Comparison of DVHs reveals that up to 25% healthy tissue sparing in volume can be accomplished with Tomotherapy 3DCRT while the same target coverage is ensured. Dosimetric and radiobiological indices between Tomotherapy and Pinnacle planning agree to within 3.0%. Additional beam modifiers and non-coplanar beams associated with LINAC-based 3DCRT are not needed on Tomotherapy, making it more favorable. Tomotherapy 3DCRT has similar dosimetric performance when compared to conventional LINAC-based 3DCRT while it is substantially easier to use.

SU-E-J-177: Characterization of the Effect of 'Lung Detail' CT Reconstruction Algorithm on Radiation Therapy Dose Calculation.

Precise tumor delineation is important in thoracic radiation therapy planning, and using a 'lung detail' computed tomography (CT) reconstruction algorithm can assist in visualizing the tumor. We seek to determine the dosimetric impact of utilizing a lung detail algorithm versus a standard algorithm on calculated dose in radiation treatment planning. Ten patients, with 12 tumors, were analyzed in this study. Two CT scans, one reconstructed using a standard algorithm and one using a lung detail algorithm, were generated for each of 12 lung tumors. Treatment plans were calculated for each CT scan, with 7 tumors receiving stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) and 5 receiving intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). The Hounsfield unit (HU) and dose values for each voxel of the planning tumor volume (PTV), esophagus, spinal cord, and contralateral lung in both the CT and dose images were exported to MATLAB. For each contour, the voxel-by-voxel differences in the HU and dose distributions between the two scans were analyzed along with dose-volume histogram (DVH) data. Despite changes in HU values, the voxel-by-voxel analysis showed a negligible shift in dose values. The mean differences in dose for PTV, esophagus, spinal cord, and contralateral lung ranged from -12.12 to 22.57, -2.21 to 7.40, -0.50 to 5.93, and -1.12 to 7.41 cGy, respectively. DVH comparisons demonstrated no meaningful difference between plans. The mean PTV, esophagus, spinal cord, and contralateral lung doses measured from the DVH shifted between plans an average of 3.5, 2.93, -0.6 and -0.35 cGy, respectively. These dose differences are all less than 1% of the dose prescribed to the tumor and are not measurable by current technology. The lung detail reconstruction algorithm, when applied to thoracic radiation treatment planning CT scans, can help precisely delineate tumor with negligible dosimetric impact.

Development and current status of proton therapy for lung cancer in Korea.

The aim of this study was to examine the current status of proton therapy in Korea and to review the dosimetric benefits of proton beam therapy (PBT) over intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for lung cancer treatment. Data from patients treated between March 2007 and February 2011 in Korea using proton therapy were analyzed retrospectively. For comparison, IMRT and PBT in the scattering mode were planned for lung cancer patients. Dosimetric benefits and organ-specific radiation-induced cancer risks were based on comparisons of dose volume histograms (DVH) and secondary radiation doses, respectively. On average, the doses delivered by PBT to the lung, esophagus and spinal cord were 17.4%, 2.5% and 43.6% of the prescription dose, respectively, which were lower than the doses delivered by IMRT (31.5%, 11.8% and 45.3%, respectively). Although the average doses delivered by PBT to the lung and spinal cord were significantly lower than those by IMRT, these differences were reduced in the esophagus. While the average secondary dose from PBT (measured at 20-50 cm from the isocenter) was 1.33-0.86 mSv/Gy, the average secondary dose from IMRT was 3.3-1.0 mSv/Gy. Compared with IMRT techniques, PBT showed improvements in most dosimetric parameters for lung cancer patients, with lower secondary radiation doses.