Coplanar Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Research Articles

RADT-16. A RETROSPECTIVE COMPARISON OF OUTCOMES AFTER WHOLE BRAIN RADIOTHERAPY AND RAPID SIMPLE (RAPPLE) TARGETED THERAPY FOR BRAIN METASTASES IN MATCHED COHORTS OF PATIENTS WITH POOR PROGNOSIS

Abstract BACKGROUND For patients whose poor prognosis does not warrant stereotactic radiosurgery, we use the RAPPLE radiotherapy technique to treat multiple brain metastases. RAPPLE uses single-isocenter, coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy and a non-stereotactic head-shell with IntegraBite™. Brain metastasis are contoured in a single gross tumour volume and expanded by 3 mm to create a planning target volume, covered by 95-110% of 20 Gy in 5 fractions. Our study compares clinical outcomes after RAPPLE and whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT). METHODS From January 2017 to December 2021, we identified patients receiving a first course of RAPPLE and matched patients receiving a first course of WBRT. Cox regression was used to analyze overall survival and Fine-Gray analysis was used to analyze intracranial progression. For each cohort, we compared patient-reported fatigue before and 2-6 weeks after radiotherapy. RESULTS Each cohort had 137 patients whose median Karnofsky Performance Score was 70. The diagnoses were lung cancer (72%) and other cancers (28%). The median survival was 4.1 months for RAPPLE and 4.2 months for WBRT (log-rank p = 0.8). On multivariable analysis of survival, the radiotherapy technique was not predictive (HR = 0.96, 95%CI: 0.73-1.25, p = 0.7). On multivariable analysis, intracranial progression was more likely after RAPPLE (HR = 1.6, 95%CI: 1.1 – 2.3, p = 0.02). The 18-month risk of intracranial progression was 0.49 for RAPPLE and 0.37 for WBRT (p = 0.04). After RAPPLE, 17% of patients required more focal RT and 4% required salvage WBRT, while after WBRT, 3% required focal RT and 4% required repeat WBRT. After RAPPLE, mean patient-reported fatigue remained stable from baseline to first follow-up (2.18 vs. 2.27, p = 0.9), but after WBRT it worsened (1.95 vs. 2.63, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS Ninety-six percent of patients treated with RAPPLE avoided WBRT. Patients reported worse fatigue after WBRT.

Locoregional breast radiotherapy including IMN: optimizing the dose distribution using an automated non-coplanar VMAT-technique

Background Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) offers better conformity, homogeneity and sparing of the heart and ipsilateral lung for locoregional radiotherapy in left-sided breast cancer compared to three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT). However, conventional coplanar VMAT (cVMAT) can result in higher doses to the normal tissue on the contralateral side. This study investigates a non-coplanar VMAT-technique (ncVMAT) to mitigate this issue. Material and methods CT series of 20 left sided breast cancer patients were included for planning of locoregional breast radiotherapy including internal mammary nodes (IMN). Three treatment plans; 3D-CRT, cVMAT and ncVMAT, were generated for each patient with a prescription dose of 40.05 Gy in 15 fractions. Both VMAT-techniques consisted of a single arc in the axial plane, while ncVMAT included an additional arc in the sagittal plane. All plans were optimized to cover the clinical target volume (CTV) by 38.05 Gy for the breast and 36.05 Gy for lymph nodes, with as low as possible dose to organs at risk. Results Full CTV coverage was achieved for all plans. Both cVMAT and ncVMAT delivered more conformal and homogeneous target doses than 3D-CRT. Doses to the heart and ipsilateral lung were significantly lower with ncVMAT compared to both cVMAT and 3D-CRT. ncVMAT reduced doses to both the contralateral breast and lung compared to cVMAT and achieved levels similar to 3D-CRT for the contralateral breast and moderately higher doses for the contralateral lung. Delivery of high doses (>30 Gy) to the contralateral side was completely avoided with ncVMAT, contrary to the results for cVMAT and 3D-CRT. Conclusion ncVMAT reduced doses to the heart and ipsilateral lung as compared to both cVMAT and 3D-CRT. All contralateral dose metrics were reduced with the novel ncVMAT technique compared to cVMAT, and the mean contralateral breast doses were similar to 3D-CRT.

RAPid SimPLE (RAPPLE) Targeted Radiation Treatment vs. Whole Brain Radiotherapy: A Retrospective Study of Matched Patients with Brain Metastases and Poor Prognosis

Patients with brain metastases and poor prognosis are often treated with whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) which can cause a variety of side effects. Our institution devised a new brain-sparing radiotherapy technique to treat multiple brain metastasis for patients whose poor prognosis does not warrant SRS. This study compares the oncologic outcomes of matched patients treated with RAPPLE and WBRT. RAPPLE uses single-isocenter, coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy and a non-stereotactic head-shell with IntegraBite™. Brain metastasis were contoured in a single gross tumor volume and expanded by 3 mm to create a planning target volume, of which 99.5% was covered with 95-110% of 20 Gy in 5 fractions. Patients treated with a first course of RAPPLE from January 2017 to December 2021 were identified in an institutional database. Using age, cancer diagnosis, and treatment date, we identified a matched cohort of patients receiving a first course of WBRT with 20 Gy in 5 fractions. Overall survival (OS) was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and intracranial progression was calculated using cumulative incidence with a competing risk of death. Log-rank, Cox regression and Fine-Gray analyses were used for comparisons. Paired t-tests were used to compare patient-reported fatigue measured using 5-level Likert scales before and 2-6 weeks after radiotherapy. The RAPPLE and WBRT cohorts each had 137 patients. The matched median age was 69 years. Primary diagnoses were lung cancer (72%) and other cancers (28%). The minimum, median, and maximum numbers of metastases treated with RAPPLE were 1, 3, and 18, respectively. The median Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS) was 70 in both cohorts. The median survival was 4.1 months for RAPPLE and 4.2 months for WBRT, and the 18-month OS was 11% for RAPPLE and 12% for WBRT (log-rank p = 0.8). On multivariable analysis, KPS, diagnosis, extracranial disease, and use of systemic therapy before and after RT were predictive of OS, but use of RAPPLE vs. WBRT was not (HR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.75-1.25, p = 0.8). The 18-month cumulative incidence of intracranial progression was 0.49 for RAPPLE and 0.37 for WBRT (p = 0.04). After RAPPLE, 17% required more focal RT and 4% required salvage WBRT, while after WBRT, 3% required focal RT and 4% required repeat WBRT. After RAPPLE, mean patient-reported fatigue remained stable from baseline to first follow-up (2.18 vs. 2.27, p = 0.9), but, after WBRT, it worsened from baseline to first follow-up (1.95 vs. 2.63, p = 0.002). As expected, after RAPPLE, more targeted radiotherapy was required for intracranial progression, but there was no difference in OS between the RAPPLE and WBRT cohorts. Patients reported significantly worse fatigue after WBRT. Almost all patients (96%) treated with RAPPLE avoided WBRT.

Dosimetric evaluation of accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique

Purpose: Five-fraction radiation therapy treatment regimens for accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) using intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) have become increasingly used after several phase three trials demonstrated similar or reduced toxicity compared with whole breast irradiation. Improving the treatment efficiency of this technique could significantly improve delivery accuracy and tolerability, especially for treatment plans utilizing deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) technique. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal technique for APBI, with a focus on volumetric modulated arc therapy technique (VMAT) and flattening-filter free (FFF) delivery. Methods: Ten APBI cases, five cases each left and right breast, were randomly selected. Each case was contoured following guidelines included in the APBI-IMRT-Florence Trial and planned to use both non-coplanar static-field IMRT with standard flattened-filter (FF) beam and VMAT techniques with both FF and FFF beam. For each VMAT plan, two partial arcs were used with patient-specific start and stop angles. Arc extents emulated opposed tangential fields and were chosen based on target and organ at risk (OAR) locations. Evaluated OARs included the heart, ipsilateral and contralateral lung, and normal breast. All plans were generated using the Eclipse treatment planning system (Version 15.6). A prescription dose of 30Gy delivered in 5 fractions was used for all cases. Plans were compared and evaluated using several dose metrics as well as treatment time. Results: For targets, VMAT exhibited similar coverage (V95%) but higher Dmax compared to IMRT (105% (IMRT) v.s .111% (VMAT), p=0.002. VMAT provided similar OAR avoidance compared to IMRT for the heart (Dmean, V3Gy, V0.5Gy), ipsilateral lung (V10Gy), contralateral lung (V5Gy) and contralateral breast Dmax within 10cGy/2% (p~0.005). VMAT contributed slightly lower dose outside the target in the ipsilateral breast, with an average difference in V15Gy of approximately 8% (37% (IMRT) v.s. 29% (VMAT)). Finally, because IMRT delivery is non-coplanar, and typically requires at least 5 treatment fields, co-planar VMAT reduced the total treatment significantly. VMAT with FF beam energies also used fewer monitor unites compared to IMRT with FF beam energies. The utilization of FFF beam energies for VMAT further improved delivery time compared to IMRT. Overall, VMAT with FFF beam energies reduced treatment time by approximately 20% compared to IMRT with FF beam. Conclusions: Co-planar partial-arc FFF VMAT technique produced equivalent target coverage, improved efficiency, better normal tissue sparing, and shorter delivery time compared to non-coplanar IMRT technique. Shorter delivery time also assists in the reduction of patient motion associated with breath hold. VMAT technique with FFF delivery is a suitable replacement for IMRT in APBI.

A simplified non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy for the whole brain radiotherapy with hippocampus avoidance.

To evaluate the feasibility of using a simplified non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (NC-VMAT) and investigate its dosimetric advantages compared with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (C-VMAT) for hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation therapy (HA-WBRT). Ten patients with brain metastase (BM) were included for HA-WBRT. Three treatment plans were generated for each case using IMRT, C-VMAT, and NC-VMAT, respectively. The dosimetric results of the three techniques complied roughly with the RTOG 0933 criteria. After dose normalization, the V30Gy of whole brain planned target volume (WB-PTV) in all the plans was controlled at 95%. Homogeneity index (HI) of WB-PTV was significantly reduced in NC-VMAT (0.249 ± 0.017) over IMRT (0.265 ± 0.020, p=0.005) and C-VMAT (0.261 ± 0.014, p=0.020). In terms of conformity index (CI), NC-VMAT could provide a value of 0.821 ± 0.010, which was significantly superior to IMRT (0.788 ± 0.019, p<0.001). According to D2% of WB-PTV, NC-VMAT could provide a value of 35.62 ± 0.37Gy, significantly superior to IMRT (36.43 ± 0.65Gy, p<0.001). According to D50% of WB-PTV, NC-VMAT can achieve the lowest value of 33.18 ± 0.29Gy, significantly different from IMRT (33.47 ± 0.43, p=0.034) and C-VMAT (33.58 ± 0.37, p=0.006). Regarding D2%, D98%, and Dmean of hippocampus, NC-VMAT could control them at 15.57 ± 0.18Gy, 8.37 ± 0.26Gy and 11.71 ± 0.48Gy, respectively. D2% and Dmean of hippocampus for NC-VMAT was significantly lower than IMRT (D2%: 16.07 ± 0.29Gy, p=0.001 Dmean: 12.18 ± 0.33Gy, p<0.001) and C-VMAT (D2%: 15.92 ± 0.37Gy, p=0.009 Dmean: 12.21 ± 0.54Gy, p<0.001). For other organs-at-risk (OARs), according to D2% of the right optic nerves and the right lenses, NC-VMAT had the lowest values of 31.86 ± 1.11Gy and 7.15 ± 0.31Gy, respectively, which were statistically different from the other two techniques. For other organs including eyes and optic chiasm, NC-VMAT could achieve the lowest doses, different from IMRT statistically. The dosimetry of the three techniques for HA-WBRT could roughly comply with the proposals from RTOG 0933. After dose normalization (D95%=30Gy), NC-VMAT could significantly improve dose homogeneity and reduce the D50% in the brain. Besides, it can reduce the D2% of the hippocampus, optic nerves, and lens. With this approach, an efficient and straightforward plan was accomplished.

Hippocampal-sparing whole-brain radiotherapy under coplanar or noncoplanar VMAT.

Whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) can alleviate symptoms in patients with brain metastases. However, WBRT may damage the hippocampus. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) can achieve a suitable coverage of the target region and a more conforming dose distribution whereas decreasing the dose to organs-at-risk (OARs). Herein, we aimed to compare the differences between treatment plans utilizing coplanar VMAT and noncoplanar VMAT in hippocampal-sparing WBRT (HS-WBRT). Ten patients were included in this study. For each patient, the Eclipse A10 treatment planning system was used to generate 1 coplanar VMAT (C-VMAT) and 2 noncoplanar VMAT treatment plans with various beam angles (noncoplanar VMAT A [NC-A] and noncoplanar VMAT B [NC-B]) for HS-WBRT. The prescribed dose was 30 Gy in 12 fractions. Treatment plans were established based on the OAR dose constraints of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0933 (RTOG 0933). Parameters such as the global maximum dose, dose conformity, dose homogeneity of plans, and OAR doses were evaluated. The maximum biologically equivalent doses in 2-Gy fractions (EQD2) of OARs in C-VMAT were 9.17 ± 0.61, 42.79 ± 2.00, and 42.84 ± 3.52 Gy in the hippocampus, brain stem, and optic chiasm, respectively, which were the lowest among the 3 treatment plans. There was no significant difference in dose conformity among the 3 treatment plans. However, NC-A had a slightly better conformity than C-VMAT and NC-B. NC-A had the best homogeneity, and NC-B had the worst homogeneity (p = 0.042). NC-A and NC-B had the lowest and highest global dose maximum, respectively. Therefore, NC-A, which had an intermediate performance in terms of OAR doses, had the best quality parameters. We used the quality score table based on the p-value to evaluate the significant difference between each treatment technique from the multiparameter results. In terms of treatment plan parameters, only NC-A received a score of 2; for OAR doses, C-VMAT, NC-A, and NC-B received a score of 6, 3, and 5, respectively. For the overall evaluation, C-VMAT, NC-A, and NC-B received a total score of 6, 5, and 5, respectively. Rather than noncoplanar VMAT, 3 full-arc C-VMATs should be utilized in HS-WBRT. C-VMAT can simultaneously maintain treatment plan quality and decrease patient alignment time and total treatment time.

Dose reduction of hippocampus using HyperArc planning in postoperative radiotherapy for primary brain tumors.

To compare dosimetric parameters for the hippocampus, organs at risk (OARs), and targets of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), noncoplanar VMAT (NC-VMAT), and HyperArc (HA) plans in patients undergoing postoperative radiotherapy for primary brain tumors. For 20 patients, HA plans were generated to deliver 40.05 to 60 Gy for the planning target volume (PTV). In addition, doses for the hippocampus and OARs were minimized. The VMAT and NC-VMAT plans were retrospectively generated using the same optimization parameters as those in the HA plans. For the hippocampus, the equivalent dose to be administered in 2 Gy fractions (EQD2) was calculated assuming α/β = 2. Dosimetric parameters for the PTV, hippocampus, and OARs in the VMAT, NC-VMAT, and HA plans were compared. For PTV, the HA plans provided significantly lower Dmax and D1% than the VMAT and NC-VMAT plans (p < 0.05), whereas the D99% and Dmin were significantly higher (p < 0.05). For the contralateral hippocampus, the dosimetric parameters in the HA plans (8.1 ± 9.6, 6.5 ± 7.2, 5.6 ± 5.8, and 4.8 ± 4.7 Gy for D20%, D40%, D60% and D80%, respectively) were significantly smaller (p < 0.05) than those in the VMAT and NC-VMAT plans. Except for the optic chiasm, the Dmax in the HA plans (brainstem, lens, optic nerves, and retinas) was the smallest (p < 0.05). In addition, the doses in the HA plans for the brain and skin were the smallest (p < 0.05) among the 3 plans. HA planning, instead of coplanar and noncoplanar VMAT, significantly reduces the dosage to which the contralateral hippocampus as well as other OARs are exposed without compromising on target coverage.

COMPARISON OF COPLANAR AND NON- COPLANARVMAT FOR BRAIN CANCER BY USING THE DOSIMETRICAL AND RADIOBIOLOGICAL INDICES

Background: Recent techniques of radiotherapy such as volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) that delivered in Coplanar technique or non-coplanar technique allows to deliver high doses to the brain tumors, at the same time reducing the risk of normal tissues as compared with intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and the three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT). Aim: The aim of the current work is to compare dosimetrical and radiobiological indices of treatment plans for brain tumor using CO-VMAT and NC-VMAT techniques to choose the optimum technique for the treated cases. Patients and methods: Twenty-one cases with brain tumors were performed for the treatment planning study. The cases are planned by using the coplanar and non coplanar VMAT techniques and optimized to evaluate and compare dosimetrical and radiobiological parameters related to PTV dose coverage and sparing of organs at risk. The total dose of CO-VMAT and NC-VMAT plans is 60 Gray in 30 fractions during a single phase with a daily dose of 2 Gray. Results: In dosimetrical calculations, CO-VMAT and NC-VMAT techniques gave similar (homogeneity index HI, modified homogeneity index MHI, conformity index CI and quality factor QF) values for the PTV, while CO-VMAT was the higher in (target coverage index TCI, prescription isodose to target volume ratio PITV and conformity number CN) values and the lower in (gradient index GI, gradient measure GM) values, and NC-VMAT was the lower in Monitor units MUs values. In radiobiological calculations, equivalent uniform dose EUD values, tumor control probability TCP and complication free tumor control probability P+ were large in CO-VMAT and normal tissue complication probability NTCP was less in NC-VMAT. Conclusion: While the previous studies showed that CO-VMAT technique was used when the tumor is far from the organs at risk, the present work found CO-VMAT can be used when the tumor is near to or far from organs at risk (OARs) because it can achieve the target dose coverage and sparing of OARs together. We strongly recommend that NC-VMAT technique should be used when the OARs are located inside the tumor to be able to achieve more sparing of them.

Multi-Planar VMAT Plans for High-Grade Glioma and Glioblastoma Targeting the Hypothalamic-Pituitary Axis Sparing.

Background: This study aimed to identify the better arc configuration of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for high-grade glioma and glioblastoma, focusing on a dose reduction to the hypothalamic–pituitary axis through an analysis of dose-volumetric parameters, as well as a correlation analysis between the planned target volume (PTV) to organs at risk (OAR) distance and the radiation dose. Method: Twenty-four patients with 9 high-grade glioma and 15 glioblastomas were included in this study. Identical CT, MRI and structure sets of each patient were used for coplanar VMAT (CO-VMAT), dual planar VMAT (DP-VMAT) and multi-planar VMAT (MP-VMAT) planning. The dose constraints adhered to the RTOG0825 and RTOG9006 protocols. The dose-volumetric parameters of each plan were collected for statistical analysis. Correlation analyses were performed between radiation dose and PTV-OARs distance. Results: The DP-VMAT and MP-VMAT achieved a significant dose reduction to most nearby OARs when compared to CO-VMAT, without compromising the dose to PTV, plan homogeneity and conformity. For centrally located OARs, including the hypothalamus, pituitary, brain stem and optic chiasm, the dose reductions ranged from 2.65 Gy to 3.91 Gy (p < 0.001) in DP-VMAT and from 2.57 Gy to 4 Gy (p < 0.001) in MP-VMAT. Similar dose reduction effects were achieved for contralaterally located OARs, including the hippocampus, optic nerve, lens and retina, ranging from 1.06 Gy to 4.37 Gy in DP-VMAT and from 0.54 Gy to 3.39 Gy in MP-VMAT. For ipsilaterally located OARs, DP-VMAT achieved a significant dose reduction of 1.75 Gy to Dmax for the optic nerve. In the correlation analysis, DP-VMAT and MP-VMAT showed significant dose reductions to centrally located OARs when the PTV-OAR distance was less than 4 cm. In particular, DP-VMAT offered better sparing to the optic chiasm when it was located less than 2 cm from the PTV than that of MP-VMAT and CO-VMAT. DP-VMAT and MP-VMAT also showed better sparing to the contralateral hippocampus and retina when they were located 3–8 cm from the PTV. Conclusion: The proposed DP-VMAT and MP-VMAT demonstrated significant dose reductions to centrally located and contralateral OARs and maintained the high plan qualities to PTV with good homogeneity and conformity when compared to CO-VMAT for high-grade glioma and glioblastoma. The benefit in choosing DP-VMAT and MP-VMAT over CO-VMAT was substantial when the PTV was located near the hypothalamus, pituitary, optic chiasm, contralateral hippocampus and contralateral retina.

Treatment planning comparison between dynamic wave arc and volumetric modulated arc therapies for prostate-cancer treatment.

The aim of this study was to compare the quality of dynamic wave arc (DWA) and coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (co-VMAT) plans for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. The planning target volume (PTV)-rectum, a section of the PTV comprising the PTV minus that of the rectum, received 78 Gy in 39 fractions as the mean dose to the PTV-rectum. The DWA and co-VMAT plans were generated for each patient using the RayStation treatment planning system for the Vero4DRT system. The PTV-rectum dose (D95%: the percent dose irradiating 95% of the volume), homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), as well as doses to the bladder wall, rectum wall (V10-70 Gy: the percent volume receiving 10-70 Gy), and bilateral femoral heads of the DWA and co-VMAT plans were compared. The output monitor unit (MU) and delivery time obtained for each set of plans were also investigated. In terms of target coverage, the DWA plans provided an average D95% of 75.5 Gy, which was comparable to the co-VMAT-plan D95% of 75.2 Gy (p < 0.05). The HI was significantly better with the DWA. As for the DWA plans, the bladder-wall volume receiving 10, 20, 30, and 40 Gy (V10-40 Gy) was significantly smaller than that of the co-VMAT plans, and the volume of the rectal wall receiving 10 Gy (V10Gy) was significantly larger than that of the co-VMAT plans. The DWA plans yielded a reduced dose to the bilateral femoral heads compared with the co-VMAT plans (p < 0.05). The values of the CI and MU, and the delivery time exhibited no significant differences between the DWA and co-VMAT plans. The DWA plan is a feasible treatment option for prostate cancer radiotherapy.

Is Halcyon feasible for single thoracic or lumbar vertebral segment SBRT?

PurposeHalcyon linear accelerators employ intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) techniques. The Halcyon offers translational, but not rotational, couch correction, which only allows a 3 degrees of freedom (3‐DOF) correction. In contrast, the TrueBeam (TB) linear accelerator offers full 6‐DOF corrections. This study aims to evaluate the difference in treatment plan quality for single thoracic or lumbar vertebral segment SBRT between the Halcyon and TB linear accelerators. In addition, this study will also investigate the effect of patient rotational setup errors on the final plan quality.MethodsWe analyzed 20 patients with a single‐level spine metastasis located between the T7 and L5 vertebrae near the spinal canal. The median planning target volume was 52.0 cm3 (17.9–138.7 cm3). The median tumor diameter in the axial plane was 4.6 cm (range 1.7–6.8 cm), in the sagittal plane was 3.3 cm (range 2–5 cm). The prescription doses were either 12–16 Gy in 1 fraction or 18–24 Gy in 3 fractions. All patients were treated on the TB linear accelerator with a 2.5 mm Multi‐Leaf Collimator (MLC) leaf width. Treatment plans were retrospectively created for the Halcyon, which has a 5 mm effective MLC leaf width. The 20 patients had a total of 50 treatments. Analysis of the 50 cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans showed average rotational setup errors of 0.6°, 1.2°, and 0.8° in pitch, yaw, and roll, respectively. Rotational error in roll was not considered in this study, as the original TB plans used a coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique, and each 1° of roll will contribute an error of 1/360. If a plan has 3 arcs, the contribution from errors in roll will be < 0.1%. To simulate different patient setup errors, for each patient, 12 CT image datasets were generated in Velocity AI with different rotational combinations at a pitch and yaw of 1°, 2°, and 3°, respectively. We recalculated both the TB and Halcyon plans on these rotated images. The dosimetric plan quality was evaluated based on the percent tumor coverage, the Conformity Index (CI), Gradient Index (GI), Homogeneity index (HI), the maximum dose to the cord/cauda, and the volume of the cord/cauda receiving 8, 10, and 12 Gy (V8Gy, V10Gy and V12Gy). Paired t‐tests were performed between the original and rotated plans with a significance level of 0.05.ResultsThe Eclipse based VMAT plans on Halcyon achieved a similar target coverage (92.3 ± 3.0% vs. 92.4 ± 3.3%, p = 0.82) and CI (1.0 ± 0.1 vs. 1.1 ± 0.2, p = 0.12) compared to the TB plans. The Gradient index of Halcyon is higher (3.96 ±0.8) than TB (3.85 ±0.7), but not statistically significant. The maximum dose to the spinal cord/cauda was comparable (11.1 ± 2.8 Gy vs. 11.4 ± 3.6 Gy, p = 0.39), as were the V8Gy, V10Gy and V12Gy to the cord/cauda. The dosimetric influence of patient rotational setup error was statistically insignificant for rotations of up to 1° pitch/yaw (with similar target coverage, CI, max cord/cauda dose and V8Gy, V10Gy, V12Gy for cord/cauda). The total number of monitor units (MUs) for Halcyon (4998 ± 1688) was comparable to that of TB (5463 ± 2155) (p = 0.09).ConclusionsThe Halcyon VMAT plans for a single thoracic or lumbar spine metastasis were dosimetrically comparable to the TB plans. Patient rotation within 1° in the pitch and yaw directions, if corrected by translation, resulted in insignificant dosimetric effects. The Halcyon linear accelerator is an acceptable alternative to TB for the treatment of single thoracic or lumbar spinal level metastasis, but users need to be cautious about the patient rotational setup error. It is advisable to select patients appropriately, including only those with the thoracic or lumbar spine involvement and keeping at least 2 mm separation between the target and the cord/cauda. More margin is needed if the distance between the isocenter and cord/cauda is larger. It is advisable to place the planning isocenter close to the spinal canal to further mitigate the rotational error.SummaryWe simulated various scenarios of patient setup errors with different rotational combinations of pitch and yaw with 1°, 2°, and 3°, respectively. Rotation was corrected with translation only to mimic the Halcyon treatment scenario. Using the Halcyon for treating a tumor in a single thoracic or lumbar vertebral segment is feasible, but caution should be noted in patients requiring rotational corrections of > 1° in the absence of 6‐DOF correction capabilities.

Non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy for locoregional radiotherapy of left-sided breast cancer including internal mammary nodes.

BackgroundNon-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (ncVMAT) is proposed to reduce toxicity in heart and lungs for locoregional radiotherapy of left-sided breast cancer, including internal mammary nodes (IMN).Patients and methodsThis retrospective study included 10 patients with left-sided breast cancer who underwent locoregional radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery. For each patient, the ncVMAT plan was designed with four partial arcs comprising two coplanar arcs and two non-coplanar arcs, with a couch rotating to 90°. The prescribed dose was normalized to cover 95% of planning target volume (PTV), with 50 Gy delivered in 25 fractions. For each ncVMAT plan, dosimetric parameters were compared with the coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (coV-MAT) plan.ResultsT here were improvements in conformity index, homogeneity index and V55 of total target volume (PTVall) comparing ncVMAT to coVMAT (p < 0.001). Among the organs at risk, the average V30, V20, V10, V5, and mean dose (Dmean) of the heart decreased significantly (p < 0.001). Furthermore, ncVMAT significantly reduced the mean V20, V10, V5, and Dmean of left lung and the mean V10 and V5 and Dmean of contralateral lung (p < 0.001). An improved sparing of the left anterior descending coronary artery and right breast were also observed with ncVMAT (p < 0.001).ConclusionsCompared to coVMAT, ncVMAT provides improved conformity and homogeneity of whole P TV, better dose sparing of the heart, bilateral lungs, left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD), and right breast for locoregional radiotherapy of left-sided breast cancer with IMN, potentially reducing the risk of normal tissue damage.

Dosimetric comparison among dynamic conformal arc therapy, coplanar and non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy for single brain metastasis.

In the delivery of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) by linear accelerator (LINAC), dynamic conformal arc therapy (DCAT) with non-coplanar beams is conventionally used. However, volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) can improve target conformity, thereby decreasing the dose to organs at risk by inversed planning methods, but few studies have directly compared DCAT and VMAT with and without non-coplanar beams in patients with single brain metastasis. We therefore conducted a planning study to compare the dose distribution in DCAT, VMAT using only a coplanar arc (CoVMAT) and VMAT with non-coplanar arcs (NcVMAT) in the treatment of single brain metastasis. DCAT, CoVMAT and NcVMAT plans were created for 15 patients. The three modalities were compared in terms of target conformity, target coverage, the dose to normal brain tissue, monitor units (MUs) and beam-on time. Both conformity indices (RTOG-CI and IP-CI) as well as the D98% of the gross target volume (GTV) were significantly better in the NcVMAT plans than in the DCAT plans. Comparisons of the doses to normal brain tissue revealed that the V20Gy, V15Gy, V12Gy, V10Gy and V5Gy were significantly smaller in the NcVMAT plans than in the plans based on the other two modalities. The MUs of the DCAT and NcVMAT plans were larger than those of the CoVMAT plans, and the beam-on time was longer in the NcVMAT and CoVMAT plans than in the DCAT plans. Compared to the CoVMAT and DCAT plans, NcVMAT plans significantly improved target conformity and reduced the doses to normal brain tissue at V20Gy, V15Gy, V12Gy, V10Gy and V5Gy.

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.

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.

Non-coplanar VMAT plans for postoperative primary brain tumour to reduce dose to hippocampus, temporal lobe and cochlea: a planning study.

Objectives:This study aimed to compare radiotherapy plan quality of coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (CO-VMAT) and non-coplanar VMAT (NC-VMAT) for post-operative primary brain tumour.Methods:A total of 16 patients who were treated for primary brain tumours were retrospectively selected for this study. For each patient, identical CT sets with structures were used for both CO-VMAT and NC-VMAT planning. For CO-VMAT, one full arc and two coplanar half arcs were used. For NC-VMAT, one full coplanar and two non-coplanar half arcs with couch rotation of 315° or 45° were used. Dose constraints were adhered to the RTOG 0614, RTOG 0933 and TMH protocol. Dose volumetric parameters were collected for statistical analysis.Results:.NC-VMAT achieved significant dose reduction in contralateral hippocampus, both temporal lobes and cochleae, and other OARs while the plan qualities remained the same. In particular, NC-VMAT decreased contralateral hippocampus mean dose by 1.67Gy. Similarly, the NC-VMAT decreased temporal lobe mean dose by 6.29Gy and 2.8Gy for ipsilateral and contralateral side respectively. Furthermore, it decreased cochlea mean dose by 5.34Gy and 0.97Gy for ipsilateral and contralateral side respectively. Overall, there was a reduction of 5.4% of normal brain tissue volume receiving low dose irradiation.Conclusion:The proposed NC-VMAT showed more favourable plan quality than the CO-VMAT for primary brain tumours, in particular to hippocampus, temporal lobes, cochleae and OARs located to the contralateral side of tumours.Advances in knowledge:For primary brain tumours radiotherapy, NC-VMAT can reduce doses to the hippocampus, both temporal lobes, and cochleae, as well as OARs located to the contralateral side of tumours.

Dosimetric Comparison of Noncoplanar and Coplanar Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Plans for Esophageal Cancer

Dosimetric Comparison of Noncoplanar and Coplanar Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Plans for Esophageal Cancer

Significant Correlation Between Overall Survival and Mean Lung Dose in Lung Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT).

BackgroundAfter stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for medically inoperable stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), more patients die of comorbidities, particularly severe pulmonary insufficiency, than of tumor progression. The aim of this study was to evaluate correlation between lung biologically effective dose (BED) with an α/β ratio of 3 Gy (BED3) and overall survival (OS) for these patients.MethodsFrom 2012 to 2017, we have developed a prospectively updated institutional database for all first 100 consecutively treated patients with inoperable Stage 1 (T1T2N0M0) NSCLC. All SBRT were conducted on a Novalis Tx® LINAC with two coplanar dynamic conformal arcs (84%) or with coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) (16%). Mean GTV and PTV were 8.6 cc and 50.8 cc, respectively. The marginal dose prescribed to the PTV was the 80% isodose line (IDL), i.e., 54 Gy in 3 fractions for 76 patients (BED10 = 126 Gy) and 50 Gy in 5 fractions for 24 patients (BED10 = 83.3 Gy). Pulmonary heterogeneity has been taken into account by using Monte Carlo or AAA algorithms. Median follow-up was 25 months.ResultsAt 1, 2, 3 and 5 years, local control (LC) was respectively 100, 98.2, 98.2, and 77.7%, and OS was respectively 83, 71.2, 58.1, and 33.2% (median OS was 49 months). Significant OS prognostic factors in univariate and multivariate analysis were mean lung BED3 (HR = 1.14, p = 0.01) and PTV volume (HR = 1.01, p = 0.004). A mean lung BED3 ≤ 5 Gy was significantly associated with a doubling of median OS from 29 months to more than 60 months (not achieved, p = 0.0068). For patients with a forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) ≤ 40%, a mean lung BED3 ≤ 4 Gy was significantly associated with a doubling of median OS from 23 to 46 months (p = 0.019).ConclusionMean lung BED3 is strongly and significantly associated with OS in SBRT for inoperable Stage I NSCLC. For all treated patients, a mean lung BED3 ≤ 5 Gy lead to a doubling of median OS. This threshold value should be reduced to 4 Gy for patients with FEV1 ≤ 40%.

Simultaneous trajectory generation and volumetric modulated arc therapy optimization.

Trajectory-based treatment planning involves the combination of a gantry-couch trajectory with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment plan optimization. This work presents the implementation of an optimization methodology that generates a trajectory simultaneous with treatment plan optimization (simTr-VMAT). The optimization algorithm is based on the column generation approach, in which a treatment plan is iteratively constructed through the solution of a subproblem called the "pricing problem." The property of the pricing problem to rank candidate apertures based on their associated price is leveraged to select an optimal aperture while simultaneously determining the trajectory path. A progressively increasing gantry-couch grid resolution is used to provide an initial coarse sampling of the angular solution space while maintaining fine control point spacing with the final treatment plan. The trajectory optimization was applied and compared to coplanar VMAT treatment plans for a lung patient, a glioblastoma patient, and a prostate patient. Algorithm validation was performed through the generation of 5000 random trajectories and optimization using column generation VMAT for each patient case, representing the solution space for the trajectory optimization problem. The simTr-VMAT trajectories were compared against these random trajectories based on a quality metric that prefers trajectories with few control points and low objective function value over long, inefficient trajectories. For the lung patient, the simTr-VMAT plan resulted in a decrease of the mean dose of 1.5 and 1.0Gy to the heart and ipsilateral lung, respectively. For the glioblastoma patient, the simTr-VMAT plan resulted in improved planning target volume coverage with a decrease in mean dose to the eyes, lens, nose, and contralateral temporal lobe between 2 and 7Gy. The prostate patient showed no clinically relevant dosimetric improvement. The simTr-VMAT treatment plans ranked at the 99.6, 96.3, and 99.4 percentiles compared to the distribution of randomly generated trajectories for the lung, glioblastoma, and prostate patients, respectively. The simTr-VMAT optimization methodology resulted in treatment plans with equivalent or improved dosimetric outcomes compared to coplanar VMAT treatment plans, with the trajectories resulting from the optimization ranking among the optimal trajectories for each patient case.

Dosimetric characteristics of a 2D silicon diode array for stereotactic radiotherapy end-to-end patient-specific QA

The measurement accuracy of stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) patient-specific quality assurance (QA) is challenging as small-field dosimetry contains lateral charge disequilibrium, partial blocking of the beam source, and limitations based on the detector size. The aim of this study was to investigate the dosimetric characteristics of a two-dimensional high-resolution silicon diode array for SRT end-to-end patient-specific QA.The dosimetric characteristics of the diode array, delivered to an end-to-end QA phantom, were evaluated for 6 MV, with a flattening filter (FF) and flattening filter-free (FFF), and 10 MV FFF photon beams. Dose linearity, dose rate dependence, dose-per-pulse dependence, field size dependence, angular dependence, and beam directivity were investigated for all photon beams. A total of 27 clinical plans were selected to evaluate the SRT end-to-end patient-specific QA for treatment delivery using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT).For all beam qualities, the differences of dose and dose rate linearity of the diode array were below 0.7% (10–1400 MU range) and 0.6% (100–2400 MU/min range), respectively. The diodes had a decrease in sensitivity of about 4% for the 21-fold decrease in dose-per-pulse. Output factors were in good agreement for field size down to 2 × 2 cm2 (<0.6% for both 6 MV FF and FFF beams, <1.6% for the 10 MV FFF beam), while the field size down to 0.6 × 0.6 cm2 had an under-response (<4% for all beam qualities). Angular dependence was within ±2% and ±4%, for coplanar and non-coplanar beams, respectively. However, this was not the case for the beam direction nearly parallel to the diode array plane. Beam directivity response on both sides of the array was in excellent agreement. For the end-to-end patient-specific QA, the average gamma passing rate (GPR) with a 2%/1 mm criterion was 96.8% and the minimum value was 93.0%. There was no significant difference in the GPRs between coplanar and non-coplanar VMAT plans.The diode array, with several corrections, demonstrated good dosimetric characteristics for SRT QA. The GPRs of end-to-end patient-specific QA for non-coplanar and multiple metastases were as high as that for coplanar and single-target, and a gamma criterion of 2%/1 mm would be suitable for SRT QA when using the array.