Coplanar Plans Research Articles

Impact of setup errors on the robustness of linac-based single-isocenter coplanar and non-coplanar VMAT plans for multiple brain metastases.

Patient setup errors have been a primary concern impacting the dose delivery accuracy in radiation therapy. A robust treatment plan might mitigate the effects of patient setup errors. In this reported study, we aimed to evaluate the impact of translational and rotational errors on the robustness of linac-based, single-isocenter, coplanar, and non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy treatment plans for multiple brain metastases. Fifteen patients were retrospectively selected for this study with a combined total of 49 gross tumor volumes (GTVs). Single-isocenter coplanar and non-coplanar plans were generated first with a prescribed dose of 40Gy in 5 fractions or 42Gy in 7 fractions to cover 95% of planning target volume (PTV). Next, four setup errors (+1 and +2mm translation, and +1° and +2° rotation) were applied individually to generate modified plans. Different plan quality evaluation metrics were compared between coplanar and non-coplanar plans. 3D gamma analysis (3%/2mm) was performed to compare the modified plans (+2mm and +2° only) and the original plans. Paired t-test was conducted for statistical analysis. After applying setup errors, variations of all plan evaluation metrics were similar (p>0.05). The worst case for V100% to GTV was 92.07%±6.13% in the case of +2mm translational error. 3D gamma pass rates were>90% for both coplanar (+2mm and +2°) and the +2mm non-coplanar groups but was 87.40%±6.89% for the +2° non-coplanar group. Translational errors have a greater impact on PTV and GTV dose coverage for both planning methods. Rotational errors have a greater negative impact on gamma pass rates of non-coplanar plans. Plan evaluation metrics after applying setup errors showed that both coplanar and non-coplanar plans were robust and clinically acceptable.

Dosimetrically motivated beam-angle optimization for non-coplanar arc radiotherapy with and without dynamic collimator rotation.

Non-coplanar techniques have shown to improve the achievable dose distribution compared to standard coplanar techniques for multiple treatment sites but finding optimal beam directions is challenging. Dynamic collimator trajectory radiotherapy (colli-DTRT) is a new intensity modulated radiotherapy technique that uses non-coplanar partial arcs and dynamic collimator rotation. To solve the beam angle optimization (BAO) problem for colli-DTRT and non-coplanar VMAT (NC-VMAT) by determining the table-angle and the gantry-angle ranges of the partial arcs through iterative 4π fluence map optimization (FMO) and beam direction elimination. BAO considers all available beam directions sampled on a gantry-table map with the collimator angle aligned to the superior-inferior axis (colli-DTRT) or static (NC-VMAT). First, FMO is performed, and beam directions are scored based on their contributions to the objective function. The map is thresholded to remove the least contributing beam directions, and arc candidates are formed by adjacent beam directions with the same table angle. Next, FMO and arc candidate trimming, based on objective function penalty score, is performed iteratively until a desired total gantry angle range is reached. Direct aperture optimization on the final set of colli-DTRT or NC-VMAT arcs generates deliverable plans. colli-DTRT and NC-VMAT plans were created for seven clinically-motivated cases with targets in the head and neck (two cases), brain, esophagus, lung, breast, and prostate. colli-DTRT and NC-VMAT were compared to coplanar VMAT plans as well as to class-solution non-coplanar VMAT plans for the brain and head and neck cases. Dosimetric validation was performed for one colli-DTRT (head and neck) and one NC-VMAT (breast) plan using film measurements. Target coverage and conformity was similar for all techniques. colli-DTRT and NC-VMAT plans had improved dosimetric performance compared to coplanar VMAT for all treatment sites except prostate where all techniques were equivalent. For the head and neck and brain cases, mean dose reduction-in percentage of the prescription dose-to parallel organs was on average 0.7% (colli-DTRT), 0.8% (NC-VMAT) and 0.4% (class-solution) compared to VMAT. The reduction in D2% for the serial organs was on average 1.7% (colli-DTRT), 2.0% (NC-VMAT) and 0.9% (class-solution). For the esophagus, lung, and breast cases, mean dose reduction to parallel organs was on average 0.2% (colli-DTRT) and 0.3% (NC-VMAT) compared to VMAT. The reduction in D2% for the serial organs was on average 1.3% (colli-DTRT) and 0.9% (NC-VMAT). Estimated delivery times for colli-DTRT and NC-VMAT were below 4 min for a full gantry angle range of 720°, including transitions between arcs, except for the brain case where multiple arcs covered the whole table angle range. These times are in the same order as the class-solution for the head and neck and brain cases. Total optimization times were 25%-107% longer for colli-DTRT, including BAO, compared to VMAT. We successfully developed dosimetrically motivated BAO for colli-DTRT and NC-VMAT treatment planning. colli-DTRT and NC-VMAT are applicable to multiple treatment sites, including body sites, with beneficial or equivalent dosimetric performances compared to coplanar VMAT and reasonable delivery times.

Dosimetric comparison of coplanar and noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy for hippocampal-sparing whole-brain radiation therapy

Whole brain radiation therapy with hippocampal-sparing (HS-WBRT) is a novel treatment of brain metastases, which can relieve symptoms reduce recurrence in the central nervous system, and spare the hippocampus without compromising target coverage. This study aims to find out the superior combination of the treatment planning system and linear accelerator between Eclipse (version 15.6) with TrueBeam and uRT-TPOIS (vision R001.4) with uRT-linac 506c in HS-WBRT. The coplanar and noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for HS-WBRT plans were evaluated and compared on both combinations, respectively. Twenty patients for HS-WBRT were retrospectively selected at Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH) from 2021 to 2022. The coplanar and noncoplanar HS-WBRT treatment plans were designed by Eclipse and uRT-TPOIS referring to RTOG 0933 dose criteria, and their dosimetry parameters were compared. In addition, the plan complexity, monitor units, and beam-on time were recorded for Eclipse plans delivered on TrueBeam and uRT-TPOIS plans delivered on uRT-linac 506c. The results demonstrated that the dosimetric criteria of 4 types of HS-WBRT plans could meet the requirements of RTOG 0933. In terms of target coverage, dosimetric indexes of Eclipse plans and uRT-TPOIS plans were comparable, and the former is slightly better. As for metrics of organs-at-risk protection, coplanar and noncoplanar plans conducted by uRT-TPOIS were greatly superior to those by Eclipse. For coplanar and noncoplanar plans designed by the same treatment planning system, most of the dosimetric indexes had no significant difference. The monitor units of uRT-TPOIS plans was higher than that of Eclipse plans, but the modulation complexity of them were close, and uRT-TPOIS with uRT-linac 506c significantly reduced beam-on-time consumption by 9% on average for coplanar plans and 26% for noncoplanar plans compared to Eclipse with TrueBeam. This study firstly compared the coplanar and noncoplanar HS-WBRT treatment plans between Eclipse with TrueBeam and uRT-TPOIS with uRT-linac 506c in terms of dosimetry indexes, modulation complexity, and time consumption. It is shown that the radiation treatment solution of uRT-TPOIS with uRT-linac 506c is comparable with Eclipse with TrueBeam in terms of planning design, and significantly reduced the delivery time, which can be applied in clinical practice and promoted as a treatment format.

Is noncoplanar plan more robust to inter-fractional variations than coplanar plan in treating bilateral HN tumors with pencil-beam scanning proton beams?

Noncoplanar plans (NCPs) are commonly used for proton treatment of bilateral head and neck (HN) malignancies. NCP requires additional verification setup imaging between beams to correct residual errors of robotic couch motion, which increases imaging dose and total treatment time. This study compared the quality and robustness of NCPs with those of coplanar plans (CPs). Under an IRB-approved study, CPs were created retrospectively for 10 bilateral HN patients previously treated with NCPs maintaining identical beam geometry of the original plan but excluding couch rotations. Plan robustness to the inter-fractional variation (IV) of both plans was evaluated through the Dose Volume Histograms (DVH) of weekly quality assurance CT (QACT) sets (39 total). In addition, delivery efficiency for both plans was compared using total treatment time (TTT) and beam-on time (BOT). No significant differences in plan quality were observed in terms of clinical target volume (CTV) coverage (D95) or organ-at-risk (OAR) doses (p>0.4 for all CTVs and OARs). No significant advantage of NCPs in the robustness to IV was found over CP, either. Changes in D95 of QA plans showed a linear correlation (slope=1.006, R2 >0.99) between NCP and CP for three CTV data points (CTV1, CTV2, and CTV3) in each QA plan (117 data points for 39 QA plans). NCPs showed significantly higher beam delivery time than CPs for TTT (539±50vs. 897±142s; p<0.001); however, no significant differences were observed for BOT. NCPs are not more robust to IV than CPs when treating bilateral HN tumors with pencil-beam scanning proton beams. CPs showed plan quality and robustness similar to NCPs while reduced treatment time (∼6min). This suggests that CPs may be a more efficient planning technique for bilateral HN cancer proton therapy.

Hippocampal Sparing Whole Brain Radiation Therapy: 2 Arc Coplanar and 4 Arc Noncoplanar Planning Comparison

Whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) has been shown to provide palliation but with negative neurocognitive effects associated with radiation-induced damage to the hippocampus. Sparing of the hippocampus has been shown to reduce the risk of neurocognitive deficit. Hippocampal sparing WBRT plan optimization is commonly done using 2 arc coplanar technique. The purpose of this work is to show that 4 arc noncoplanar plans will improve hippocampal sparing without compromising PTV coverage. Retrospective WBRT with hippocampal sparing using 2 arc coplanar and 4 arc noncoplanar VMAT technique were done on 10 patients previously treated for intracranial lesions. CT and MRI fused images were used to delineate the whole brain and hippocampus. Strictly following RTOG 0933 atlas guidelines, the hippocampus was manually delineated by a single Radiation Oncologist. Plans with prescription dose of 30 Gy in 10 fractions were generated using the 2 techniques. The 4 arc noncoplanar plan included 2 partial field arcs with couch angle at 90 degrees and 2 coplanar arcs. The 2 noncoplanar partial arcs consisted of a clockwise arc and a counterclockwise arc with gantry angles between 5 and 179 degrees. Lens were kept to < 7 Gy and pituitary gland to < 30 Gy. Dosimetric parameters from both techniques were compared by paired t-test. Radiation dose to the hippocampus was significantly reduced using 4 arc noncoplanar plan when compared to 2 arc coplanar plan. While hippocampus D100% were similar (7.25 Gy vs 7.32 Gy, p = 0.557), the mean dose (9.46 Gy vs 9.87 Gy, p = 0.003) and D0.03cc (12.48 Gy vs 12.94 Gy, p < 0.001) were significantly reduced with 4 arc noncoplanar plans. Whole brain PTV coverage remained at V100% = 95% for both techniques. However, the 4 arc noncoplanar plans showed significantly improved D2% (32.56 Gy vs 32.97 Gy, P = 0.003), D98% (28.11 Gy vs 27.91 Gy, P = 0.01), and homogeneity index (0.141 vs 0.159, P < 0.001). The 4 arc noncoplanar plans improved hippocampal sparing without compromising PTV coverage or compromise to other nearby organs at risk.

Applying mixed-integer linear programming to the non-coplanar beam angle optimization of intensity-modulated radiotherapy for liver cancer.

Currently, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is commonly used in radiotherapy clinics. However, designing a treatment plan with multiple beam angles depends on the experience of human planners, and is mostly achieved using a trial-and-error approach. It is preferrable but challenging to solve this issue automatically and mathematically using an optimization approach. The goal of this study is to develop a mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) approach for the beam angle optimization (BAO) of non-coplanar IMRT for liver cancer. MILP models for the BAO of both coplanar and non-coplanar IMRT treatment plans were developed. The beam angles of the IMRT plans were first selected by the MILP model built using mathematical optimization software. Next, the IMRT plans with the selected beam angles was created in a commercial treatment planning system. Finally, the fluence map and dose distribution of the IMRT plans were generated under pre-defined dose-volume constraints. The IMRT plans of 10 liver cancer patients previously treated at our institute were used to assessed the proposed MILP models. For each patient, both coplanar and non-coplanar IMRT plans with beam angles optimized by the MILP models were compared with the IMRT plan clinically approved by physicians. The MILP model-guided IMRT plans showed reduced doses for most of the organs at risk (OARs). Compared with the IMRT plans clinically approved by physicians, the doses for the spinal cord (28.5 vs. 36.1, P=0.001<0.05) and liver (27.6 vs. 29.1, P=0.005<0.05) decreased significantly in the IMRT plans with non-coplanar beams selected by the MILP models. The MILP model is an effective tool for the BAO in coplanar and non-coplanar IMRT treatment planning. It facilitates the automation of IMRT treatment planning for current high-precision radiotherapy.

Dosimetric Comparision of Coplanar versus Noncoplanar Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Treatment of Bilateral Breast Cancers.

The purpose of this study was to compare the dosimetric parameters of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment plans using coplanar and noncoplanar beams in patients with bilateral breast cancer/s (BBCs) in terms of organ at risk sparing and target volume coverage. The hypothesis was to test whether VMAT with noncoplanar beams can result in lesser dose delivery to critical organs such as heart and lung, which will result in lesser overall toxicity. Data of nine BBC cases treated at our hospital were retrieved. Computed tomography simulation data of these cases was used to generate noncoplanar VMAT plans and the parameters were compared with standard VMAT coplanar plans. Contouring was done using radiation therapy oncology group guidelines. Forty-five Gray in 25 fractions was planned followed by 10 Gy in five fractions boost in breast conservation cases. No significant difference in planning target volume (PTV) coverage was found for the right breast/chestwall (P = 0.940), left breast/chestwall (P = 0.872), and in the total PTV (P = 0.929). Noncoplanar beams resulted in better cardiac sparing in terms of Dmean heart. The difference in mean dose was >1 Gy (8.80 ± 0.28 - 7.28 ± 0.33, P < 0.001). The Dmean, V20 and V30 values for total lung slightly favor noncoplanar beams, although there was no statistically significant difference. The average monitor units (MUs) were similar for coplanar plans (1515 MU) and noncoplanar plans (1455 MU), but the overall treatment time was higher in noncoplanar plans due to more complex setup and beam arrangement. For noncoplanar VMAT plans, the mean conformity index was slightly better although the homogeneity indices were similar. VMAT plans with noncoplanar beam arrangements had significant dosimetric advantages in terms of sparing of critical organs, that is Dmean of heart doses with almost equivalent lung doses and equally good target coverage. Larger studies with clinical implications need to be considered to validate this data.

Dosimetric feasibility of direct post-operative MR-Linac-based stereotactic radiosurgery for resection cavities of brain metastases

BackgroundPost-operative radiosurgery (SRS) of brain metastases patients is typically planned on a post-recovery MRI, 2–4 weeks after resection. However, the intracranial metastasis may (re-)grow in this period. Planning SRS directly on the post-operative MRI enables shortening this time interval, anticipating the start of adjuvant systemic therapy, and so decreasing the chance of extracranial progression. The MRI-Linac (MRL) allows the simultaneous execution of the post-operative MRI and SRS treatment. The aim of this work was investigating the dosimetric feasibility of MRL-based post-operative SRS. MethodsMRL treatments based on the direct post-operative MRI were simulated, including thirteen patients with resectable single brain metastases. The gross tumor volume (GTV) was contoured on the direct post-operative scans and compared to the post-recovery MRI GTV.Three plans for each patient were created: a non-coplanar VMAT CT-Linac plan (ncVMAT) and a coplanar IMRT MRL plan (cIMRT) on the direct post-operative MRI, and a ncVMAT plan on the post-recovery MRI as the current clinical standard. ResultsBetween the direct post-operative and post-recovery MRI, 15.5 % of the cavities shrunk by > 2 cc, and 46 % expanded by ≥ 2 cc. Although the direct post-operative cIMRT plans had a higher median gradient index (3.6 vs 2.7) and median V3Gy of the skin (18.4 vs 1.1 cc) compared to ncVMAT plans, they were clinically acceptable. ConclusionDirect post-operative MRL-based SRS for resection cavities of brain metastases is dosimetrically acceptable, with the advantages of increased patient comfort and logistics.Clinical benefit of this workflow should be investigated given the dosimetric plausibility.

Analysis of coplanar and non-coplanar intensity-modulated radiotherapy planning for esophageal cancer

Purpose: The analysis of coplanar intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and non-coplanar IMRT for the esophageal cancer. Methods: in my study 27 esophageal cancer cases, ten of them were cervical and upper thoracic (Group A) and seventeen were mid and lower thoracic (Group B). Gross target volume (GTV), clinical tumor volume (CTV), and organs at risk (OAR) were contoured by the oncologist in the eclipse treatment planning system. For every case, one coplanar plan &amp; two non-coplanar plans have been generated by the similar general objective function. A descriptive dose-volume histogram (DVH) equation between three plans was then taken out in a table form. Results: 1) In Group A cases 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 B cases, the conformity index (CI) for coplanar and two non-coplanar plans were 0.68 ± 0.15, 0.43 ± 0.14, and 0.69 ± 0.16, respectively. The V5, V10, V20, and the mean dose to the lung were less in the non-coplanar plans compared to ones in coplanar plan.

Automated multi-criterial planning with beam angle optimization to establish non-coplanar VMAT class solutions for nasopharyngeal carcinoma

PurposeComplexity in selecting optimal non-coplanar beam setups and prolonged delivery times may hamper the use of non-coplanar treatments for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Automated multi-criterial planning with integrated beam angle optimization was used to define non-coplanar VMAT class solutions (CSs), each consisting of a coplanar arc and additional 1 or 2 fixed, non-coplanar partial arcs. MethodsAutomated planning was used to generate a coplanar VMAT plan with 5 complementary computer-optimized non-coplanar IMRT beams (VMAT+5) for each of the 20 included patients. Subsequently, the frequency distribution of the 100 patient-specific non-coplanar IMRT beam directions was used to select non-coplanar arcs for supplementing coplanar VMAT. A second investigated CS with only one non-coplanar arc consisted of coplanar VMAT plus a partial arc at 90° couch angle (VMATCS90). Plans generated with the two VMATCSs were compared to coplanar VMAT. ResultsVMAT+5 analysis resulted in VMATCS60: two partial non-coplanar arcs at couch angles 60° and −60° to complement coplanar VMAT. Compared to coplanar VMAT, the non-coplanar VMATCS60 and VMATCS90 yielded substantial average dose reductions in OARs associated with xerostomia and dysphagia, i.e., parotids, submandibular glands, oral cavity and swallowing muscles (p < 0.05) for the same PTV coverage and without violating hard constraints. Impact of non-coplanar treatment and superiority of either VMACS60 and VMATCS90 was highly patient dependent. ConclusionsCompared to coplanar VMAT, dose to OARs was substantially reduced with a CS with one or two non-coplanar arcs. Preferences for coplanar or one or two additional arcs are highly patient-specific, balancing plan quality and treatment time.

Systematic end-to-end testing of multiple target treatments using the modular RUBY phantom

The RUBY head phantom in combination with the System QA insert MultiMet can be used for simultaneous point dose measurements at an isocentric and two off-axis positions. This study investigates the suitability of the system for systematic integral end-to-end testing of single-isocenter multiple target stereotactic treatments. Several volumetric modulated arc therapy plans were optimized on a planning CT of the phantom positioned in a stereotactic mask on the stereotactic treatment board. The plans were created for three artificial spherical target volumes centred around the measurement positions in the MultiMet insert. Target diameters between 5 and 40 mm were investigated. Coplanar and non-coplanar plans were optimized using the collapsed cone algorithm of the Oncentra Masterplan treatment planning system and recalculated with the Monte Carlo algorithm of the Monaco treatment planning system. Measurements were performed at an Elekta Synergy linear accelerator. The head phantom was positioned according to clinical workflow comprising immobilization and CBCT imaging. Simultaneous point dose measurements at all target positions were performed with three PinPoint 3D chambers (type 31022) as well as three microDiamond detectors (type 60019) and compared to the treatment planning system calculations. Furthermore, the angular dependence of the detector response was investigated to estimate the associated impact on the measured point dose values. Considering all investigated plans, PTV diameters and positions, the point doses calculated with the Monaco treatment planning system and the microDiamond measurements differed within 3.5%, whereas the PinPoint 3D showed differences of up to 6.9%. Point dose differences determined in comparison to the Oncentra Masterplan dose calculations were larger. The RUBY system was shown to be suitable for end-to-end testing of complex treatment scenarios such as single-isocenter multiple target plans.

The new SRS/FSRT technique HyperArc for benign brain lesions: a dosimetric analysis

To evaluate the potential benefit of HyperArc (HA) fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT) for the benign brain lesion. Sixteen patients with a single deep-seated, centrally located benign brain lesion treated by CyberKnife (CK, G4 cone-based model) were enrolled. Treatment plans for HA with two different optimization algorithms (SRS NTO and ALDO) and coplanar RapidArc (RA) were generated for each patient to meet the corresponding treatment plan criteria. These four FSRT treatment plans were divided into two groups—the homogeneous delivery group (HA-SRS NTO and coplanar RA) and the inhomogeneous delivery group (HA-ALDO and cone-based CK)—to compare for dosimetric outcomes. For homogeneous delivery, the brain V5, V12, and V24 and the mean brainstem dose were significantly lower with the HA-SRS NTO plans than with the coplanar RA plans. The conformity index, high and intermediate dose spillage, and gradient radius were significantly better with the HA-SRS NTO plans than with the coplanar RA plans. For inhomogeneous delivery, the HA-ALDO exhibited superior PTV coverage levels to the cone-based CK plans. Almost all the doses delivered to organs at risk and dose distribution metrics were significantly better with the HA-ALDO plans than with the cone-based CK plans. Good dosimetric distribution makes HA an attractive FSRT technique for the treatment of benign brain lesions.

Feasibility of Single Non-Coplanar Models for Stereotactic Radiosurgery of Brain Metastases

To compare the dosimetry differences between coplanar and non-coplanar modes and analyze the feasibility of single non-coplanar mode in the stereotactic radiosurgery of brain metastases.Retrospective analysis were made on the 14 patients with brain metastases and all the plans take the VMAT and FFF technology with the prescription of 25 Gy. The distinction between plans which used coplanar and single non-coplanar and multiple non-coplanar were compared in the study, including the dose distribute of targets, Conformal index (CI), Gradient index (GI50, GI25), brain tissue exposure, beam-on time and execution efficiency.There was no significant difference in beam-on time and conformal index (CI) of target between coplanar and non-coplanar plan (P>0.05). All plans met clinically requirements, but differences were observed in the dosimetric parameters. The value of GI50 and GI25 in coplanar plan (GI50 = 4.84 ± 0.52, GI25 = 16.13 ± 2.73) was much higher than that in single non-coplanar (GI50 = 3.66 ± 0.44, GI25 = 9.94 ± 1.41) and multiple non-coplanar plan (GI50 = 3.73 ± 0.42, GI25 = 9.32 ± 1.23). In the meantime, the dose of brain tissue (V10 = 11.46 ± 3.47, V5 = 35.25 ± 11.79) in coplanar plan exceed the dose of brain tissue in single non-coplanar (V10 = 10.44 ± 3.16, V5 = 28.55 ± 9.62) and multiple non-coplanar plan (V10 = 10.61 ± 3.40, V5 = 25.37 ± 9.04). There was no obvious difference in beam-on time, conformal index (CI) of target and GI50 between Single non-coplanar and multiple non-coplanar plan (P > 0.05). However, multiple non-coplanar plans could achieve drop dose in low dose area. The value of V5 in brain tissue of multiple non-coplanar plans was much lower than that in single non-coplanar plan (P = 0).Compared with non-coplanar plans, coplanar plans which have the shortest time and the highest execution efficiency in the whole process can achieve the similar prescription dose distribution without increasing the beam-on time. However, the non-coplanar plans can achieve faster out-of-target dose drop and protect the brain tissue better. The quality of single non-coplanar plans was similar to that of multiple non-coplanar plans. Multiple non-coplanar plans have significant advantages at low doses at the cost of prolong treatment time and negate delivery efficiency. The use of single-group non-coplanar models may be preferred in clinical practice.M. Liu: None. J. Wu: None. X. Yao: None. K. Yuan: None. D. Zhang: None. B. Tang: None. J. Yin: None.

A New Benchmark of the Sharpest Dose Fall-Off for Hypo-Fractionated Radiosurgery of Large Single Target Brain Lesions

Previous studies have characterized dose gradient patterns for various hypo-fractionated brain radiosurgery (hSRS) treatment platforms. The Gamma Knife Icon (GKI) has consistently exhibited either superior or non-inferior peripheral dose fall-off and normal brain sparing characteristics when compared to other Linac-based hSRS treatment platforms. Given the prevalence of Linac-based treatments, identifying planning techniques to optimize treatment parameters is desirable. In this study, we investigated a novel Linac-based treatment approach that aimed to create the sharpest dose fall-off for hSRS of large brain lesions.A cohort of patient cases (n = 10) with single brain lesions (volume 27.6+/-8.1 mL, range 20.-42.1 mL) treated with GKI at our institution were selected as sample test cases for our study. A non-coplanar unconstrained VMAT (NCU-VMAT) treatment planning approach was developed, and its script was implemented on a commercial treatment planning system for clinical Linac treatment equipped with the latest high-definition multi-leaf collimators (MLCs). Treatment plans produced via the NCU-VMAT approach were then compared against further optimized treatment plans from GKI, as well as conventional coplanar and non-coplanar VMAT treatment planning approaches. The comparison was carried out using DVH-derived parameters including target volume coverage, target dose conformity, modified dose fall-off index defined as the volume of 50% prescribed target dose divided by the target volume (PIV50).For each case studied, NCU-VMAT achieved practically identical target coverage (0.98 ± 0.01) and Paddick dose conformity index (0.87 ± 0.02) compared to optimized GKI treatments. The mean PIV50 values were 2.99 ± 0.14, 3.77 ± 0.22, and 3.36 ± 0.19 for optimized GKI, conventional coplanar, and non-coplanar VMAT treatment plans, respectively. These results were in excellent agreement with previously published studies. However, the NCU-VMAT technique yielded a mean PIV50 of 2.41 ± 0.07. This represents an improvement of approximately 40% (P < 0.001, paired two-tailed Student t-test) over all existing approaches including GKI. Further analyses revealed that PIV50 of NCU-VMAT approached the theoretical minimum for all the studied cases.Our results demonstrate that in treatment of large brain tumors, a treatment planning approach using Bremsstrahlung x-ray based Linacs can achieve superior dose fall-off for intracranial hSRS compared to GKI. We dispel the myth that physical characteristics of Cobalt γ-rays are needed to create the sharpest dose fall-off. Given the prevalence of Linac-based treatments compared to GKI, we present a novel optimized planning technique that achieves a new benchmark of sharpest dose fall-off.T. Nano: None. O. Morin: None. B.P. Ziemer: None. D. Raleigh: None. L. Boreta: None. J.L. Nakamura: None. S.E. Fogh: Independent Contractor; Accuray. P.K. Sneed: None. S. Hervey-Jumper: None. P.V. Theodosopoulos: None. S.E. Braunstein: Advisory Board; Radiation Oncology Questions, LLC.L. Ma: Patent/License Fees/Copyright; University of California Regents.

An Investigation of Non-Coplanar Volumetric Modulated Radiation Therapy for Locally Advanced Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer Using a Trajectory Optimization Method.

PurposeThis study was conducted in order to develop a trajectory optimization algorithm for non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and investigate the potential of organs at risk (OARs) sparing in locally advanced pancreatic cancer patients using non-coplanar VMAT.Methods and MaterialsFirstly, a cost map that represents the ray–OAR voxel intersections at each source position was generated using a ray-tracing algorithm. A graph search algorithm was then used to determine the least-cost path from the cost map. Lastly, full arcs or partial arcs were selected based on the least-cost path to generate the non-coplanar VMAT (ncVMAT) trajectories. Clinical coplanar VMAT (coVMAT) plans for 11 patients diagnosed with locally advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer (LAPC) receiving 45 to 70 Gy in 25 fractions were replanned using non-coplanar VMAT trajectories. Both coplanar and non-coplanar plans were normalized to cover 95% of the PTV45 Gy volume with a prescription dose of 45 Gy. The conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), PTV coverage, and dose to the OARs were compared between coVMAT and ncVMAT plans.ResultsWith ncVMAT, the mean coverage of PTV50 Gy, PTV54 Gy, PTV60 Gy, and PTV70 Gy increased significantly. The mean conformity index of PTV45 Gy, PTV54 Gy, and PTV70 Gy was also improved in the ncVMAT plans. Compared with coVMAT plans, the ncVMAT plans resulted in significantly lower doses to the spinal cord, bilateral kidneys, stomach, and duodenum. The maximum dose to the spinal cord decreased by 6.11%. The mean dose to the left and right kidneys decreased by an average of 5.52% and 11.71%, respectively. The D max, D mean, and D 15% of the stomach were reduced by an average of 7.45%, 15.82%, and 16.79%, separately. The D 15% and D mean of the duodenum decreased 6.38% and 5.64%, respectively.ConclusionA trajectory optimization algorithm was developed for non-coplanar VMAT. Compared with conventional coplanar VMAT, non-coplanar VMAT resulted in improved coverage and conformity to the targets. The sparing of OARs was significantly improved in non-coplanar VMAT compared with coVMAT plans for locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

Dosimetric study of hippocampal protective whole brain radiotherapy based on Varian accelerator

Objective The purpose of this study is to provide a reference for the selection of clinical radiotherapy plan by comparing the difference of dosimetry between coplanar dynamic intensity modulation dIMRT and coplanar VMAT plan in hippocampal protective whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT). Methods 10 patients were selected whose hippocampal were protected by WBRT, dIMRT and VMAT plans were designed for each patient, the differences of target dose, organ-endangering dose and machine hop count were compared between the two groups. Results The two technical plans PTV V 30 Gy , D 98% and D 2% all meet the standard of RTOG 0933, which is better than the dIMRT group for the PTV HI VMAT group ( P = 0.04), The hippocampal dose of dIMRT group was better than that of VMAT group, but it did not meet the standard of RGOT 0933. The average D max of hippocampus in dIMRT group and VMAT group was 18.44 Gy and 19.30 Gy, respectively ( P = 0.004). The average value of hippocampal D min was 10.03 Gy and 10.77 Gy, respectively ( P = 0.013), and the mean value of hippocampal D mean was 14.20 Gy and 15.12 Gy, respectively ( P = 0.002). The doses of lens, eyeball and optic nerve all met the standard of RTOG0933, and the dose of dIMRT group was significantly better than that of VMAT group ( P = 0.000). The treatment time in VMAT group was significantly lower than that in dIMRT group. The treatment time in VMAT group was significantly lower than that in dIMRT group. Conclusion Varian dIMRT has more advantages in controlling hippocampal dose and protecting lens than VMAT, but PTV HI and treatment efficiency are higher in VMAT group. 摘要： 目的 通过比较 Varian 加速器共面动态调强 dIMRT 与共面 VMAT 计划在海马保护全脑放疗 (WBRT) 中剂量 学差异, 为临床放疗计划选择提供一种依据。 方法 10 例海马保护 WBRT 患者, 每名患者均设计 dIMRT 与 VMAT 计划, 比较两者靶区剂量、危及器官剂量和机器跳数的差异;。 结果 2 种技术计划 PTV V 30 Gy 、 D 98% 和 D 2% 均 符合 RTOG 0933 标准, 对于 PTV HI VMAT 组优于 dIMRT 组 ( P = 0.004)。海马剂量 dIMRT 组优于 VMAT 组, 但均 未达到 RGOT 0933 标准: dIMRT 组与 VMAT 组海马 D max 均值分别为 18.44 Gy 和 19.30 Gy, 有统计学差异 ( P = 0.04); 海马 D min 均值分别为 10.03 Gy 和 10.77 Gy, 有统计学差异 ( P = 0.013); 海马 D mean 均值分别为 14.20 Gy 和 15.12 Gy, 有统计学差异 ( P = 0.002)。晶体、眼球和视神经剂量均符合 RTOG 0933 标准, dIMRT 组也明显优于 VMAT 组, 均 P = 0.000。VMAT 组治疗时间低于 dIMRT 组。 结论 Varian dIMRT 相比 VMAT 控制海马剂量和保护 晶体更有优势, 但 VMAT 组 PTV HI 和治疗效率更高。

Complementing Prostate SBRT VMAT With a Two-Beam Non-Coplanar IMRT Class Solution to Enhance Rectum and Bladder Sparing With Minimum Increase in Treatment Time.

PurposeEnhance rectum and bladder sparing in prostate SBRT with minimum increase in treatment time by complementing dual-arc coplanar VMAT with a two-beam non-coplanar IMRT class solution (CS).MethodsFor twenty patients, an optimizer for automated multi-criterial planning with integrated beam angle optimization (BAO) was used to generate dual-arc VMAT plans, supplemented with five non-coplanar IMRT beams with individually optimized orientations (VMAT+5). In all plan generations, reduction of high rectum dose had the highest priority after obtaining adequate PTV coverage. A CS with two most preferred directions in VMAT+5 and largest rectum dose reductions compared to dual-arc VMAT was then selected to define VMAT+CS. VMAT+CS was compared with automatically generated i) dual-arc coplanar VMAT plans (VMAT), ii) VMAT+5 plans, and iii) IMRT plans with 30 patient-specific non-coplanar beam orientations (30-NCP). Plans were generated for a 4 x 9.5 Gy fractionation scheme. Differences in PTV doses, healthy tissue sparing, and computation and treatment delivery times were quantified.ResultsFor equal PTV coverage, VMAT+CS, consisting of dual-arc VMAT supplemented with two fixed, non-coplanar IMRT beams with fixed Gantry/Couch angles of 65°/30° and 295°/-30°, significantly reduced OAR doses and the dose bath, compared to dual-arc VMAT. Mean relative differences in rectum Dmean, D1cc, V40GyEq and V60GyEq were 19.4 ± 10.6%, 4.2 ± 2.7%, 34.9 ± 20.3%, and 39.7 ± 23.2%, respectively (all p<0.001). There was no difference in bladder D1cc, while bladder Dmean reduced by 17.9 ± 11.0% (p<0.001). Also, the clinically evaluated urethra D5%, D10%, and D50% showed small, but statistically significant improvements. All patient VX with X = 2, 5, 10, 20, and 30 Gy were reduced with VMAT+CS, with a maximum relative reduction for V10Gy of 19.0 ± 7.3% (p<0.001). Total delivery times with VMAT+CS only increased by 1.9 ± 0.7 min compared to VMAT (9.1 ± 0.7 min). The dosimetric quality of VMAT+CS plans was equivalent to VMAT+5, while optimization times were reduced by a factor of 25 due to avoidance of individualized BAO. Compared to VMAT+CS, the 30-NCP plans were only favorable in terms of dose bath, at the cost of much enhanced optimization and delivery times.ConclusionsThe proposed two-beam non-coplanar class solution to complement coplanar dual-arc VMAT resulted in substantial plan quality improvements for OARs (especially rectum) and reduced irradiated patient volumes with minor increases in treatment delivery times.

An automated treatment planning strategy for highly noncoplanar radiotherapy arc trajectories

AbstractRadiation therapy is a technology‐driven cancer treatment modality that has experienced significant advances over the last decades, due to multidisciplinary contributions that include engineering and computing. Recent technological developments allow the use of noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), one of the most recent photon treatment techniques, in clinical practice. In this work, an automated noncoplanar arc trajectory optimization framework designed in two modular phases is presented. First, a noncoplanar beam angle optimization algorithm is used to obtain a set of noncoplanar irradiation directions. Then, anchored in these directions, an optimization strategy is proposed to compute an optimal arc trajectory. The computational experiments considered a pool of twelve difficult head‐and‐neck tumor cases. It was possible to observe that, for some of these cases, the optimized noncoplanar arc trajectories led to significant treatment planning quality improvements, when compared with coplanar VMAT treatment plans. Although these experiments were done in a research environment treatment planning software (matRad), the conclusions can be of interest for a clinical setting: automated procedures can simplify the current treatment workflow, produce high‐quality treatment plans, making better use of human resources and allowing for unbiased comparisons between different treatment techniques.

Whole brain radiotherapy with hippocampal sparing using Varian HyperArc.

The purpose of this work was to evaluate using Varian HyperArc as a planning and treatment solution for whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) with hippocampal sparing following Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0933 dosimetric criteria. Ten patients previously treated for intracranial lesions were retrospectively planned for WBRT with hippocampal sparing using HyperArc and a 2-arc coplanar VMAT technique. The whole brain and hippocampus were delineated on fused MRI and CT datasets. The planning target volume (PTV), defined as the whole brain excluding the hippocampal avoidance region, was prescribed 30 Gy in 10 fractions. Plans were evaluated using dosimetric parameters which included the volume of 105% of the prescription dose (V105%) and the maximum dose to the PTV, and the minimum dose to the hippocampus. The planning time, delivery time, and delivery quality assurance (QA) results were also evaluated. Statistical significance was performed between the HyperArc and coplanar VMAT metrics using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test with a significance level of 0.05. All plans met RTOG 0933 dosimetric criteria. HyperArc plans demonstrated significant improvements in PTV dosimetric quality which included a reduced V105% of 6 ± 7% and decreased maximum dose of 1.3 ± 0.3 Gy, compared to coplanar VMAT. Significant OAR sparing was also found for HyperArc plans that included a decreased minimum dose to the hippocampus of 0.3 ± 0.3 Gy. Coplanar VMAT plans resulted in significantly shorter planning and delivery times, compared to HyperArc, by 2.4 minutes and 1.5 minutes, respectively. No significant difference was found between the delivery QA results. This study demonstrated using Varian HyperArc as a planning and treatment solution for WBRT with hippocampal sparing following RTOG 0933 dosimetric criteria. The primary advantages of WBRT with hippocampal sparing using HyperArc, compared to coplanar VMAT, are the gains in OAR sparing and reduced high dose volumes to the PTV.

A new index for evaluating the fit of dose distribution to target volume: Dose distribution fix index.

To develop a new dose evaluation index, fit index (FI), to help evaluate the fit between isodose surfaces at different percentages of the prescription dose and the target volume. Two types of FI, differential and cumulative, were defined. The differential fit index (dFI) was defined as the ratio of the integral dose of volume occupied by an isodose surface to the integral dose of the planning target volume. The cumulative fit index (cFI) was defined as the integral of dFI from the minimum dose of clinical significance to the 100% prescription dose. Performance of the cFI was evaluated with virtual dose distributions. In addition, non-coplanar and coplanar VMAT plans of 20 brain metastasis cases were evaluated using the FI, and the results were compared with results from the dose gradient index (GI) and conformity index (CI). Correlations between cFI and GI, and between cFI and CI were studied and Pearson's correlation coefficients were calculated. dFI and cFI provided comprehensive and objective results in evaluating the dose fit between isodose surfaces at different percentages of the prescription dose and the target volume. Analysis showed a positive correlation between cFI and GI with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.928 (p < 0.01) and a negative correlation between cFI and CI with a Pearson correlation coefficient of -0.831 (p < 0.01). dFI and cFI were shown to be effective and convenient tools for evaluating the dose fit of a radiotherapy plan.