Hybrid Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Research Articles

Hybrid Treatment Planning for Chest Wall Irradiation Utilizing Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy (3DCRT), Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT), and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT): A Systematic Review.

Novel hybrid approaches for chest wall irradiation show promising outcomes regarding target coverage and sparing organs at risk (OARs). In this systematic review, we compared hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy (H-VMAT) or hybrid intensity-modulated radiotherapy (H-IMRT) techniques with non-hybrid techniques, such as three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), field-in-field (FIF), intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMRT), and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), for breast cancer patients with mastectomy. Our focus was the plan quality and dose distribution to the OARs. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist, we performed a systematic review and quality appraisal of primary studies evaluating hybrid therapy to the chest wall and the OARs. An extensive online search of PubMed and Scopus databases was conducted using appropriate keywords. The dose to the OARs (lung, heart, and contralateral breast), planning target volume (PTV), homogeneity index (HI), and conformity index (CI) were extracted. The data were then tabulated and compared for the outcomes between modalities among the studies.Nine studies that met the search criteria were selected to evaluate the PTV coverage and dosimetric results of hybrid and non-hybrid techniques. In terms of 95% PTV coverage, among nine reviewed studies, the largest difference between the two techniques was between VMAT (47.6 Gy) and H-VMAT (48.4 Gy); for the conformity index, the largest difference was noted between 3DCRT (0.58) and H-VMAT (0.79). In both cases, differences were statistically significant (P < 0.005). Two studies showed dose homogeneity improvement within the treatment target in H-VMAT (0.15 and 0.07) compared with 3DCRT (0.41 and 0.12), with a P value of <0.001. Two studies did not report on the homogeneity index, and three others observed no statistical difference. Regarding OARs, in the comparison of H-VMAT and VMAT, the largest significant change was in the volume receiving 5 Gy (V5Gy) of the ipsilateral lung and the V10Gy of the contralateral lung. For the ipsilateral lung, V5Gy was 90.7% with VMAT versus 51.45% with H-VMAT. For the contralateral lung, V10Gy was 54.9% with VMAT versus 50.5% with H-VMAT. In six studies, the mean dose of the contralateral breast was lower in hybrid techniques than in single modalities: VMAT (4.2%, 6.0%, 1.9%, 7.1%, 4.57%) versus H-VMAT (1.4%, 3.4%, 1.8%, 3.5%, 2.34%)and IMRT (9.1%) versus H-IMRT (4.69%). Although most studies did not report on monitor units and treatment time, those that included them showed that hybrids had lower monitor units and shorter treatment times.Hybridtechniques in radiotherapy, such as combining two modalities, can indeed facilitate lower doses to OARsfor patients with a high risk of toxicities. Prospective clinical studies are needed to determine the outcomes of breast cancer treated with hybrid techniques.

Hybrid planning techniques for early-stage left-sided breast cancer: dose distribution analysis and estimation of projected secondary cancer-relative risk

Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate three techniques of irradiation of left-sided breast cancer patients, three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), hybrid Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (h-IMRT), and hybrid Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy (h-VMAT, h-ARC), in terms of dose distribution in the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs). The second aim was to estimate the projected relative risk of radiation-induced secondary cancers for hybrid techniques. Materials and methods Three treatment plans were prepared in 3D-CRT, h-IMRT, and h-VMAT techniques for each of the 40 patients, who underwent CT simulation in deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH). For hybrid techniques, plans were created by combining 3D-CRT and dynamic fields with an 80%/20% dose ratio for 3D-CRT and IMRT or VMAT. Cumulative dose–volume histograms were used to compare dose distributions within the PTV and OARs (heart, left anterior descending coronary artery [LAD], left and right lung [LL, RL], right breast [RB]). Projected risk ratios for secondary cancers were estimated relative to 3D-CRT using the organ equivalent dose (OED) concept for the Schneider’s linear exponential, plateau, and full mechanistic dose–response model. Results All plans fulfilled the PTV criterium: V95%≥95%. Compared to 3D-CRT, both hybrid techniques showed significantly better target coverage (PTV: V95%>98%, p < 0.001), and the best conformality was achieved by h-ARC plans (CI: 1.18 ± 0.09, p < 0.001). Compared to 3D-CRT and h-ARC, h-IMRT increased the average sum of monitor units (MU) over 129.9% (p < 0.001). H-ARC increased the mean dose of contralateral organs and the LL V5Gy parameter (p < 0.001). Both hybrid techniques significantly reduced the D max of the heart by 5 Gy. Compared to h-IMRT, h-ARC increased secondary cancer projected relative risk ratios for LL, RL, and RB by 18, 152, and 81%, respectively. Conclusions The results confirmed that both hybrid techniques provide better target quality and OARs sparing than 3D-CRT. Hybrid VMAT delivers less MU compared to hybrid IMRT but may increase the risk of radiation-induced secondary malignancies.

Implementation of automated personalised breast radiotherapy planning techniques with scripting in Raystation.

Implement scripted automatic breast planning (AP) for breast techniques within Raystation. Manual plans (MPs) were re-planned and compared with AP plans for whole breast (WB), partial breast (PB), hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy simultaneous integrated boost (VMAT SIB) and VMAT nodal plans. WB AP plans took 7 min comparing well to MP. One WB AP failed a mandatory dose constraint. Small statistically significant differences showed improved coverage for AP at expense of slightly hotter plans, however absolute differences were small (mean differences < 1% or D 0.5cc<0.2 Gy). PB AP plans took 9 min, showing improved coverage (V 24.7Gy97.6 vs 96.4 %). One PB AP case failed a mandatory constraint. Other dosimetric differences were non-significant. SIB AP plans took 14 min with one case failing a mandatory constraint with minor differences compared with MP except larger V 42.8Gy (3 vs 1.5 %) and more MU. VMAT AP plans took 12 min and were hotter for PTVp_4000 but had higher nodal coverage. Contra_Lung V 2.5Gy was higher (8.8 %) than MP plans (6.5 %). Automatic planning of modern breast techniques has been successfully introduced using a commercial planning system. AP plans are very similar to MP, requiring little manual interaction for most cases with significant timesaving potential. Scripted breast plans produced within minutes for WB, PB, SIB and VMAT. Successfully introduced into large busy department. Plans similar to manual plans, requiring little manual interaction.

Integrated scoring approach to assess radiotherapy plan quality for breast cancer treatment.

BackgroundProposal of an integrated scoring approach assessing the quality of different treatment techniques in a radiotherapy planning comparison. This scoring method incorporates all dosimetric indices of planning target volumes (PTVs) as well as organs at risk (OARs) and provides a single quantitative measure to select an ideal plan.Materials and methodsThe radiotherapy planning techniques compared were field-in-field (FinF), intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), hybrid IMRT (H-IMRT), and hybrid VMAT (H-VMAT). These plans were generated for twenty-five locally advanced left-sided breast cancer patients. The PTVs were prescribed a hypofractionation dose of 40.5 Gy in 15 fractions. The integrated score for each planning technique was calculated using the proposed formula.ResultsAn integrated score value that is close to zero indicates a superior plan. The integrated score that incorporates all dosimetric indices (PTVs and OARs) were 1.37, 1.64, 1.72, 1.18, and 1.24 for FinF, IMRT, VMAT, H-IMRT, and H-VMAT plans, respectively.ConclusionThe proposed integrated scoring approach is scientific to select a better plan and flexible to incorporate the patient-specific clinical demands. This simple tool is useful to quantify the treatment techniques and able to differentiate the acceptable and unacceptable plans.

Evaluation of Hybrid VMAT Advantages and Robustness Considering Setup Errors Using Surface Guided Dose Accumulation for Internal Lymph Mammary Nodes Irradiation of Postmastectomy Radiotherapy

ObjectivesSetup error is a key factor affecting postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) and irradiation of the internal mammary lymph nodes is the most investigated aspect for PMRT patients. In this study, we evaluated the robustness, radiobiological, and dosimetric benefits of the hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy (H-VMAT) planning technique based on the setup error in dose accumulation using a surface-guided system for radiation therapy.MethodsWe retrospectively selected 32 patients treated by a radiation oncologist and evaluated the clinical target volume (CTV), including internal lymph node irradiation (IMNIs), and considered the planning target volume (PTV) margin to be 5 mm. Three different planning techniques were evaluated: tangential-VMAT (T-VMAT), intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and H-VMAT. The interfraction and intrafraction setup errors were analyzed in each field and the accumulated dose was evaluated as the patients underwent daily surface-guided monitoring. These parameters were included while evaluating CTV coverage, the dose required for the left anterior descending artery (LAD) and the left ventricle (LV), the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for the heart and lungs, and the second cancer complication probability (SCCP) for contralateral breast (CB).ResultsWhen the setup error was accounted for dose accumulation, T-VMAT (95.51%) and H-VMAT (95.48%) had a higher CTV coverage than IMRT (91.25%). In the NTCP for the heart, H-VMAT (0.04%) was higher than T-VMAT (0.01%) and lower than IMRT (0.2%). However, the SCCP (1.05%) of CB using H-VMAT was lower than that using T-VMAT (2%) as well as delivery efficiency. And T-VMAT (3.72) and IMRT (10.5).had higher plan complexity than H-VMAT (3.71).ConclusionsIn this study, based on the dose accumulation of setup error for patients with left-sided PMRT with IMNI, we found that the H-VMAT technique was superior for achieving an optimum balance between target coverage, OAR dose, complication probability, plan robustness, and complexity.

Improved treatment robustness of postoperative breast cancer radiotherapy including supraclavicular nodes.

A combination of a three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) plan with a dose gradient of the chest wall area and a volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan of the supraclavicular area might improve the dose distribution robustness in the junction. To investigate the impact of patient motion on the dose distribution, hybrid 3D-CRT and VMAT plans were recalculated by shifting the isocenter of the VMAT plan. Compared to the nominal plan, the target D98% for high- vs low-dose gradients decreased by 24% vs 12%. Hybrid VMAT with a low-dose gradient 3D-CRT plan was found to be robust towards patient motion.

Dosimetric and radiobiological comparison of simultaneous integrated boost radiotherapy for early stage right side breast cancer between three techniques: IMRT, hybrid IMRT and hybrid VMAT

PurposeThis study aimed at evaluating the clinical impact of full intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), hybrid IMRT (H-IMRT) and hybrid volumetric-modulated arc therapy (H-VMAT) for early-stage breast cancer with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB), in terms of plan quality and second cancer risk (SCR).MethodsThree different plans were designed in full IMRT, hybrid IMRT, and hybrid VMAT for each of twenty patients with early-stage breast cancer. Target quality, organs at risk (OARs) sparing, and SCR were compared among the three plans for each case.ResultsIn compared with H-IMRT, IMRT plans showed deterioration in terms of D2% of SIB, V10 of ipsilateral lung, and excess absolute risk (EAR) to contralateral lung (C-Lung) and esophagus. D2% and the homogeneity index (HI) of SIB, V5 of ipsilateral lung (I-Lung), the Dmean of the esophagus, the EAR to C-Lung and the esophagus with hybrid VMAT dramatically increased by 0.63%, 10%, 17.99%, 149.27%, 230.41%, and 135.29%, respectively (p = 0.024; 0.025; 0.046; 0.011; 0.000; 0.014). Dmean of the heart, the EAR to contralateral breast (C-Breast) and C-Lung by full IMRT was significantly decreased in comparison to the H-VMAT (4.67%, p = 0.033, 26.76%, p = 0.018; 48.05%, p = 0.036).ConclusionThe results confirmed that H-IMRT could achieve better target quality and OARs sparing than IMRT and H-VMAT for SIB radiotherapy of early-stage right breast cancer. H-IMRT was the best treatment option, while H-VMAT performed the worst among the three plans in terms of SCR to peripheral OARs.

Usability and necessity of a novel hybrid radiation therapy technique based on volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in stage III lung cancer treatment

PurposeIt is occasionally difficult to deliver a sufficient radiation dose using existing 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques in stage III lung cancer patients. To address this problem, we developed a new hybrid VMAT (hVMAT) technique. This study aimed to demonstrate the usability of the new hVMAT technique in stage III lung cancer treatment. Methods and materials32 consecutive patients with stage III lung cancer who had been treated with hVMAT were included. The hVMAT plan was made by adding two static beams to the original VMAT plan. To evaluate the superiority of the hVMAT plan, we compared the three techniques (3DCRT vs. VMAT vs. hVMAT) using the conformity index (CI), conformation number (CN), homogeneity index (HI), and the dosimetric parameters of organs at risk (OARs). ResultsThe mean V20 of the lung from the hVMAT plans (27.2%) was significantly lower than 3DCRT plans (40.5%) and VMAT plans (35.0%). Additionally, the hVMAT plans showed the best results for other lung dose parameters (V5, V10, mean lung dose) among the three plans, while maintaining an irradiated dose at an acceptable level for the spinal cord, esophagus, and heart. In addition, hVMAT also showed non-inferior results for CI, CN, and HI compared with the VMAT plans. ConclusionThis novel hybrid technique can improve all dosimetric parameters of lung while maintaining the acceptable dose for other OARs. Therefore, the new hVMAT could be a useful planning technique for treating stage III lung cancer and it might be a solution for patients who cannot receive a sufficient dose with the existing 3DCRT or VMAT plans.

Automated hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy (HVMAT) for whole-breast irradiation with simultaneous integrated boost to lumpectomy area : Atreatment planning study.

To develop anautomated treatment planning approach for whole breast irradiation with simultaneous integrated boost using an automated hybrid VMAT class solution (HVMAT). Twenty-five consecutive patients with left breast cancer received 50 Gy (2 Gy/fraction) to the whole breast and an additional simultaneous 10 Gy (2.4 Gy/fraction) to the tumor cavity. Ipsilateral lung, heart, and contralateral breast were contoured as main organs-at-risk. HVMAT plans were inversely optimized by combining two open fields with aVMAT semi-arc beam. Open fields were setup to include the whole breast with a2 cm flash region and to carry 80% of beams weight. HVMAT plans were compared with three tangential techniques: conventional wedged-field tangential plans (SWF), field-in-field forward planned tangential plans (FiF), and hybrid-IMRT plans (HMRT). Dosimetric differences among the plans were evaluated using Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance. Dose accuracy was validated using the PTW Octavius-4D phantom together with the 15002D-array. No significant differences were found among the four techniques for both targets coverage. HVMAT plans showed consistently better PTVs dose contrast, conformity, and homogeneity (p < 0.001 for all metrics) and statistically significant reduction of high-dose breast irradiation. V55 and V60 decreased by 30.4, 26.1, and 20.8% (p < 0.05) and 12.3, 9.9, and 6.0% (p < 0.05) for SWF, FIF, and HMRT, respectively. Pretreatment dose verification reported agamma pass-rate greater than the acceptance threshold of 95% for all HVMAT plans. In addition, HVMAT reduced the time for full planning optimization to about 20 min. HVMAT plans resulted in superior target dose conformity and homogeneity compared to other tangential techniques. Due to fast planning time HVMAT can be applied for all patients, minimizing the impact on human or departmental resources.

Comparison of whole breast dosimetry techniques - From 3DCRT to VMAT and the impact on heart and surrounding tissues.

IntroductionVarious techniques for whole breast radiation therapy (WBRT) have been reported to increase dose to contralateral tissues. Heart dose is of critical importance as there is no apparent dose threshold below which there is no risk. The aim of this study was to compare planning techniques for WBRT that achieves the best target dosimetry and lowest organ at risk (OAR) dose.MethodsThirty early‐stage whole breast patient datasets, 15 each left‐ and right‐sided cases, were retrospectively selected. Five techniques were generated for each data set: three‐dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), hybrid intensity modulated radiation therapy (HYI), hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) – (HYV), reduced arc VMAT – bowtie (BT), and BT flattening filter free (FFF) – (BTFFF). Plan goals and OARs were evaluated and compared between techniques.ResultsBT had the highest median conformity index (CI) values (0.82, IQR: 0.80–0.85 left and 0.83, IQR 0.80–0.86 right). BT recorded lower mean heart doses (median value 1.19Gy, IQR: 0.90–1.55), and BTFFF recorded lower heart V2.5 Gy, V5 Gy; median 3.96% (IQR: 2.90–6.80) and 0.90% (IQR: 0.50–1.50) respectively for left‐sided patients. There was a statistically significant difference in all ipsilateral lung measures, (p < 0.001) with BTFFF producing significantly lower doses across all measures: mean, V5 Gy, V10 Gy and V20 Gy.ConclusionOverall BT and BTFFF techniques produced lower OAR doses and equivalent PTV coverage for WBRT. BT and BTFFF techniques increased contralateral lung and breast doses; however, these were within prescribed tolerances and comparable to results published in the literature.

Lower neck organs at risk sparing in nasopharyngeal carcinoma using hybrid volumetric-modulated arc therapy (hybrid-VMAT): a case report

AbstractIntroduction:Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is a prevalent disease in Southern China. Radiation therapy remains the primary treatment modality for NPC due to its high radiation sensitivity. Conventional volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) can achieve excellent target volume coverage and superior conformal dose distributions while sparing organs at risk (OARs). However, VMAT may also produce substantial volume of low-dose region in the surrounding normal tissue. Our oncology centre has incorporated the concept of anterior cervical field with VMAT in clinical practice of NPC treatment planning. The purpose of this treatment-comparison case study is to demonstrate the lower neck OARs sparing ability of hybrid volumetric-modulated arc therapy (hybrid-VMAT) over conventional VMAT for NPC.Methods:Four patients diagnosed with NPC of different clinical lymph node staging (N staging) were enrolled for this treatment-comparison case study. Planning target volumes and OARs were delineated with reference to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0225/0615. Additional OARs from lower neck region, including thyroid, trachea, cervical spine and pharyngeal constrictor muscles (PCMs), were also delineated. Two treatment techniques, hybrid-VMAT and VMAT, were created for each patient’s dataset.Results and findings:Both treatment techniques produced adequate target coverage and reduced radiation dose to the OARs as suggested in RTOG 0225/0615. Hybrid-VMAT plans achieved superior dose reduction in larynx, oesophagus, middle PCM, inferior PCM, cervical spine and trachea comparing with VMAT plans. Hence, the clinical usability and functional outcome of hybrid-VMAT should be further investigated for NPC radiation therapy.

Hybrid Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy With Deep Inspiration Breath Hold for Hypofractionated Bilateral Breast Irradiation: Coming Together is a Beginning

Purpose of the present study was to explore the benefits of hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy (H-VMAT) & deep inspiratory breath hold (DIBH) for synchronous bilateral breast cancer patients. Six patients diagnosed with bilateral breast cancer were planned for H–VMAT and dual Isocenter VMAT. On the planning CT data set planning target volume (PTV) & organs at risk (OARs) like lungs, heart, liver, celiac plexus with gastro-esophageal junction (GEJCP), left anterior descending artery (LAD), right coronary artery (RCA) were delineated using standard delineation guidelines. Dose prescribed was 40.5 Gy in 15 fractions to bilateral breast. PTV & OARs dosimetric parameters were compared using non-parametric Mann Whitney test. The monitor units (MU) and beam-on time were used as an objective measure to evaluate delivery efficiency. Coverage, conformity index, and homogeneity index in both techniques were comparable. However, H-VMAT achieved better sparing of heart & lung at low dose regions (V5Gy to heart was 23.4+10.1 & 39.5+16.3; p<0.01), V5Gy to lungs was 41.3+8.7 & 59.9+6.9; p<0.01). In addition, V20Gy to lungs and Dmean to GEJCP were better with H-VMAT (9.4+3.7 & 14.3+3.9; 1.9+1.4 & 2.9+2.1, respectively). There were no significant differences in relatively high and intermediate dose regions in both techniques for OARs (LAD, RCA, heart, liver). MU was comparable, while beam-on time was higher in H-VMAT. Overall, H-VMAT reduces low dose bath and is comparable in terms of high and intermediate dose to OARs. These dosimetric benefits have the potential to reduce not just late radiation toxicity but acute toxicities like radiation induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) and pneumonitis in the setting of hypofractionation.

Hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy for hypofractionated radiotherapy of breast cancer: a\xa0treatment planning study

PurposeThis study aims to evaluate the best possible practice using hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy (H-VMAT) for hypofractionated radiation therapy of breast cancer. Different combinations of H‑VMAT—a combination of three-dimensional radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and VMAT—were analyzed regarding planning target volume (PTV), dose coverage, and exposure to organs at risk (OAR).MethodsPlanning computed tomography scans were acquired in deep-inspiration breath-hold. A total of 520 treatment plans were calculated and evaluated for 40 patients, comprising six different H‑VMAT plans and a 3D-CRT plan as reference. H‑VMAT plans consisted of two treatment plans including 3D-CRT and VMAT. During H‑VMAT planning, the use of hard wedge filters (HWF) and beam energies were varied. The reference plans were planned with mixed beam energies and the inclusion/omission of HWF.ResultsCompared to the reference treatment plans, all H‑VMAT plans showed consistently better PTV dose coverage, conformity, and homogeneity. Additionally, OAR protection was significantly improved with several H‑VMAT combinations (p < 0.05). The comparison of different H‑VMAT combinations showed that inclusion of HWF in the base plan had a negative impact on PTV dose coverage, conformity, and OAR exposure. It also increased the planned monitor units and beam-on time. Advantages of using lower beam energies (6-MV photons) in both the base plan and in the VMAT supplementary dose were observed.ConclusionThe H‑VMAT technique is an effective possibility for generating homogenous and conformal dose distributions. With the right choice of H‑VMAT combination, superior OAR protection is achieved compared to 3D-CRT.

Hybrid volumetric-modulated arc therapy for postoperative breast cancer including regional lymph nodes: the advantage of dosimetric data and safety of toxicities.

ABSTRACTTo improve the homogeneity and conformity of the irradiation dose for postoperative breast cancer including regional lymph nodes, we planned Hybrid volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), which combines conventional tangential field mainly for the chest area and VMAT mainly for the supraclavicular area and marginal zone. In this study, we compared the dosimetric impact between traditional 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) and Hybrid VMAT and observed toxicities following Hybrid VMAT. A total of 70 patients indicated between October 2016 and December 2017 were included. The prescribed dose was 50 Gy/25 fractions. For the dosimetric impact, 3DCRT and Hybrid VMAT plans were compared in each patient with respect to the dosimetric parameters. Toxicities were followed using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. The median follow-up duration was 319 days. For the dosimetric impact, the homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI) of PTV were significantly improved in the Hybrid VMAT plan compared with that in the 3DCRT plan (HI, 0.15 ± 0.07 in Hybrid VMAT vs 0.41 ± 0.19 in 3DCRT, P < 0.001; CI, 1.61 ± 0.44 in Hybrid VMAT vs 2.10 ± 0.56 in 3DCRT, P < 0.001). The mean irradiated ipsilateral lung dose was not significantly different in both plans (12.0 ± 2.4 Gy in Hybrid VMAT vs 11.8 ± 2.8 Gy in 3DCRT, P < 0.533). Regarding toxicity, there were no patients who developed ≥grade 3 acute toxicity and ≥grade 2 pneumonitis during the follow-up. Hybrid VMAT for postoperative breast cancer including regional lymph nodes was a reasonable technique that improved the homogeneity and conformity of the irradiation dose to the planning target volume while keeping the irradiation dose to organs at risk to a minimum.

Dosimetric comparison between volumetric-modulated arc therapy and a hybrid volumetric-modulated arc therapy and segmented field-in-field technique for post-mastectomy chest wall and regional lymph node irradiation

Dosimetric comparison between volumetric-modulated arc therapy and a hybrid volumetric-modulated arc therapy and segmented field-in-field technique for post-mastectomy chest wall and regional lymph node irradiation

Hybrid planning techniques for hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation using flattening filter-free beams.

The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of flattening filter-free (FFF) photon beams in hybrid intensity-modulated radiation therapy (H-IMRT) and hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy (H-VMAT) for left-sided whole-breast radiation therapy with aboost volume (RT) using ahypofractionated dose regimen. RT plans of 25patients with left-sided early-stage breast cancer were created with H‑IMRT and H‑VMAT techniques under breath-hold conditions using 6‑MV FFF beams. In hybrid techniques, three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) plans were kept as base-dose plans for the VMAT and IMRT plans. In addition, H‑IMRT in step-and-shoot mode was also calculated to assess its achievability with FFF beams. All hybrid plans achieved the expected target coverage. H‑VMAT showed better coverage and homogeneity index results for the boost target (p < 0.002), while H‑IMRT presented better results for the whole-breast target (p < 0.001). Mean doses to normal tissues were comparable between both plans, while H‑IMRT reduced the low-dose levels to heart and ipsilateral lung (p < 0.05). H‑VMAT revealed significantly better results with regard to monitor units (MU) and treatment time (p < 0.001). The 6‑MV FFF beam technique is feasible for large-field 3DCRT-based hybrid planning in whole-breast and boost planning target volume irradiation. For breath-hold patients, the H‑VMAT plan is superior to H‑IMRT for hypofractionated dose regimens, with reduced MU and treatment delivery time.

Dosimetric comparison between volumetric-modulated arc therapy and a hybrid volumetric-modulated arc therapy and segmented field-in-field technique for postmastectomy chest wall and regional lymph node irradiation

Decreasing radiotoxicity to the heart, lungs, and contralateral breast has proven to lower the risk of secondary malignancy and improve overall outcomes when treating chest wall (CW) and regional lymph nodes in postmastectomy breast cancer patients. In this retrospective study, 11 postmastectomy patients were selected and planned with a novel hybrid treatment method and a traditional volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) approach for comparison. This hybrid technique was able to optimize tangential beams to minimize heart dose and the VMAT contribution to improve dose conformity around the planning target volume (PTV). Overall, this hybrid technique produced more homogenous target dose coverage and demonstrated a decrease of integral dose to organs at risk (OAR), while the VMAT technique demonstrated a higher affinity for maintaining dose conformity. Further observation of dose distributions also revealed that the hybrid plans were more effective in sparing low-dose spread to healthy tissue in both right- and left-sided cases. This observation was made evident by the reduction in heart V5 and Dmean, decreases in all parameters regarding the contralateral lung, as well as all values other than the V20 of the ipsilateral lung. This unique hybrid planning technique could present an alternative to standard intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) planning when treating postmastectomy CW and regional lymph nodes, as it has shown the capacity to decrease cardiac, lung, and contralateral breast toxicity while maintaining quality PTV coverage.

EP-1824 Hybrid-Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy in the Upper Thoracic Esophageal Cancer: A Planning Study

EP-1824 Hybrid-Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy in the Upper Thoracic Esophageal Cancer: A Planning Study

Hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy for chest wall irradiation: For a good plan, get the right mixture

PurposeTo find the optimal dose weighting for hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy (H-VMAT), a combination of conventional 3DCRT and VMAT plans for left sided chest wall and supraclavicular radiation therapy. Methods & materials20 left-sided breast cancer patients who received adjuvant radiotherapy were considered for this study. To find the optimal weighting, 5 H-VMAT plans were generated for each study case by combining different dose proportions of 3DCRT and VMAT plans including: 90% 3DCRT/10% VMAT, 80% 3DCRT/20% VMAT, 70% 3DCRT/30% VMAT, 60% 3DCRT/40% VMAT, 50% 3DCRT/50% VMAT. Further field-in-field, optimal H-VMAT and VMAT alone plans were compared. ResultsAll H-VMAT plans achieved the expected target coverage. A higher conformity index was achieved for 50% 3DCRT/50% VMAT plan, while better homogeneity index was achieved for 80% 3DCRT/20% VMAT plan. Mean and low doses were less in 90% 3DCRT/10% VMAT plan. Compared with other proportions, 80% 3DCRT/20% VMAT and 70% 3DCRT/30% VMAT weighted H-VMAT plans achieved balanced results for PTVs and OARs. ConclusionThe optimal dose mixture for H-VMAT technique is 70% to 80% for 3DCRT and 20% to 30% for VMAT. The optimal H-VMAT achieved balanced results for the PTVs and OARs compared with field-in-field and VMAT alone plans.

Sparing dysphagia/aspiration related structures using novel hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy

PurposeStudies using split field IMRT to spare dysphagia/aspiration related structures (DARS) have raised concern regarding dose uncertainty at matchline. This study explores the utility of hybrid VMAT in sparing the DARS and assesses matchline dose uncertainty in postoperative oral cavity cancer patients and compares it with VMAT. Methods & materialsTen postoperative oral cavity cancer patients were planned with h-VMAT and VMAT using the same planning CT dataset. PTV and DARS were contoured using standard delineation guidelines. In h-VMAT 80% of the neck dose was planned using AP/PA technique and then VMAT optimization was done for the total PTV by keeping the corresponding AP/PA plan as the base dose. Planning goal for PTV was V95%≥95% and for DARS, adequate sparing. Plans and dose volume histograms were analyzed using dosimetric indices. Absolute point and portal dose measurements were done for h-VMAT plans to verify dose at the matchline. ResultsCoverage in both the techniques was comparable. Significant differences were observed in mean doses to DARS (Larynx: 24.36±2.51 versus 16.88±2.41Gy; p<0.0006, Pharyngeal constrictors: 25.16±2.41 versus 21.2±2.1Gy; p<0.005, Esophageal inlet: 18.71±2 versus 12.06±0.79Gy; p<0.0002) favoring h-VMAT. Total MU in both the techniques was comparable. Average percentage variations in point dose measurements in h-VMAT done at +3.5 and −3.5 positions were (1.47±1.48 and 2.28±1.35%) respectively. Average gamma agreement for portal dose measured was 97.07%. Conclusionh-VMAT achieves better sparing of DARS with no matchline dose uncertainty. Since these patients have swallowing dysfunction post-operatively, attempts should be made to spare these critical structures as much as possible.