IMRT Plans Research Articles

Automatic Treatment Planning for Radiation Therapy: A Cross-Modality and Protocol Study

PurposeThis study investigates the applicability of 3D dose predictions from a model trained on one modality to a cross-modality automated planning workflow. Additionally, we explore the impact of integrating a multi-criteria optimizer (MCO) on adapting predictions to different clinical preferences. Methods and MaterialsUsing a previously created three-stage UNet in-house model trained on the 2020 AAPM OpenKBP challenge dataset (340 head and neck plans, all planned using 9-field static IMRT), we retrospectively generated dose predictions for 20 patients. These dose predictions were in turn used to generate deliverable IMRT, VMAT, and Tomotherapy plans using the fallback plan functionality in Raystation. The deliverable plans were evaluated against the dose predictions based on primary clinical goals. A new set of plans was also generated using MCO-based optimization with predicted dose values as constraints. Delivery QA was performed on a subset of the plans to assure clinical deliverability. ResultsThe mimicking approach accurately replicated the predicted dose distributions across different modalities, with slight deviations in spinal cord and external contour maximum doses. MCO optimization significantly reduced doses to OARs prioritized by our institution while maintaining target coverage. All tested plans met clinical deliverability standards, evidenced by a gamma analysis passing rate above 98%. ConclusionsOur findings show that a model trained only on IMRT plans can effectively contribute to planning across various modalities. Additionally, integrating predictions as constraints in an MCO-based workflow, rather than direct dose mimicking, enables a flexible, warm-start approach for treatment planning, though the benefit is reduced when the training set differs significantly from an institution's preference. Together, these approaches have the potential to significantly decrease plan turnaround time and quality variance, both at high resource medical centers that can train in-house models, and smaller centers that can adapt a model from another institution with minimal effort.

Dosimetric Evaluation of Hippocampus Sparing Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy in Patients With Stage T1-T2 and Stage T3-T4 Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma

PurposeTo compare the hippocampus (HPC) dose reduced by HPC-sparing IMRT plans between nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients of stages T1-T2 and T3-T4, and to investigate the correlation between the dose of the hippocampus and the volume of PTVnx70 (the planning target volume of the primary tumor in the nasopharynx received 70 Gy). Methods and MaterialsFifty-eight NPC patients were retrospectively evaluated. HPC non-sparing IMRT or sparing IMRT for each patient was designed according to the protocol for NPC. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) was used to evaluate the IMRT plans for each patient. The difference values of HPC parameters (e.g., Dmin[NS] - Dmin[S]) between HPC sparing and non-sparing plans in stage T1-T2 Group and stage T3-T4 Group were compared. The correlations between the dose of the hippocampus and the volume of PTVnx70 were analyzed. ResultsThere was no significance between HPC-sparing and non-sparing IMRT plans. Compared with the HPC non-sparing plans, the HPC sparing plans significantly decreased both dosimetric and volumetric parameters for the HPC (P < 0.05), except for Dmin, D98%, and V5. The medians of Dmedian[NS] - Dmedian[S], Dmean[NS] - Dmean[S], D40%[NS] - D40%[S], V30[NS] - V30[S], V40[NS] - V40[S] and V50[NS] - V50[S] in the T1-T2 Group were significantly lower than in the T3-T4 Group (P < 0.05), respectively. Both dosimetric and volumetric parameters for the HPC were positively correlated with the volume of PTVnx70 in HPC-sparing and non-sparing plans (P < 0.05). The volume of PTVnx70 was positively correlated with Dmedian[NS] - Dmedian[S], Dmean[NS] - Dmean[S], D40%[NS] - D40%[S], V40[NS] - V40[S] and V50[NS] - V50[S] (P < 0.05). ConclusionsHPC-sparing IMRT plans may play a more significant role in decreasing Dmedian, Dmean, D40%, and V30 ∼ V50 of HPC in NPC patients with stages T3-T4 than those in stages T1-T2. PTVnx70 volume of NPC patients are positively correlated with all dosimetric and volumetric parameters of HPC and the reduction of specific dosage parameters by HPC-sparing IMRT plans.

Evaluation of Inverse Planned and Forward Planned Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy Techniques in Breast Cancer

Introduction: The objective of this study is to compare the dosimetric parameters of radiation to the whole breast between the two intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IP IMRT) techniques, i.e. Inverse planned IMRT (IP IMRT) and Forward Planned IMRT (FP IMRT) with regard to target coverage (PTV) and irradiation of organs at risk (OAR). Material and Methods: Plain and Contrast enhanced computed tomography (CECT) datasets were created for 41 patients treated with whole breast radiation therapy. CT simulation and treatment is performed using deep inspiratory breath hold technique (DIBH). Radiotherapy treatment Planning is done using Eclipse Treatment Planning System (version 13.7) with a prescription dose of 40 Gy in 15#. The developed treatment plans were subjected to objective comparison of PTV and OARs using dose volume histograms (DVH). Results: IP IMRT plans provided better coverage (99.5% vs 97.6%), comparable though higher maximum dose (Dmax 45.0 VS 44.1 Gy), higher hot spot (PTV105% 49.2 vs 33), lower volumes receiving 20, 25, 30 Gy (V20, V25, V30) for heart, more homogeneous (homogeneity index 0.10 vs. 0.14) and conformal dose distribution (conformity Index 1.0 vs 0.98) compared to FP IMRT. Regarding OAR dosimetry it is observed that FP IMRT showed reduced mean dose to Coronary artery (LADCA), Contralateral Lung (CL), Contralateral breast (CB) along with reduction in low dose region (V5) to all OARs under study. It was also observed that Monitor units used and planning time were lower for FP IMRT. Conclusion: On weighing different dosimetric factors, both the techniques have displayed their own advantages and disadvantages. Choosing a planning technique needs to be customized taking into consideration various factors such as breast topography, size and volumes of breast, availability of expertise planning skills and resources.

2821: Dosimetric comparison between whole breast IMRT plans calculated on planning-CT and on daily CBCT.

2821: Dosimetric comparison between whole breast IMRT plans calculated on planning-CT and on daily CBCT.

Technical note: A software tool to extract complexity metrics from radiotherapy treatment plans.

Complexity metrics are mathematical quantities designed to quantify aspects of radiotherapy treatment plans that may affect both their deliverability and dosimetric accuracy. Despite numerous studies investigating their utility, there remains a notable absence of shared tools for their extraction. This study introduces UCoMX (Universal Complexity Metrics Extractor), a software package designed for the extraction of complexity metrics from the DICOM-RT plan files of radiotherapy treatments. UCoMX is developed around two extraction engines: VCoMX (VMAT Complexity Metrics Extractor) for VMAT/IMRT plans, and TCoMX (Tomotherapy Complexity Metrics Extractor) tailored for Helical Tomotherapy plans. The software, built using Matlab, is freely available in both Matlab-based and stand-alone versions. More than 90 complexity metrics, drawn from relevant literature, are implemented in the package: 43 for VMAT/IMRT and 51 for Helical Tomotherapy. The package is designed to read DICOM-RT plan files generated by most commercially available Treatment Planning Systems (TPSs), across various treatment units. A reference dataset containing VMAT, IMRT, and Helical Tomotherapy plans is provided to serve as a reference for comparing UCoMX with other in-house systems available at other centers. UCoMX offers a straightforward solution for extracting complexity metrics from radiotherapy plans. Its versatility is enhanced through different versions, including Matlab-based and stand-alone, and its compatibility with a wide range of commercially available TPSs and treatment units. UCoMX presents a free, user-friendly tool empowering researchers to compute the complexity of treatment plans efficiently.

Improving the performance of deep learning models in predicting and classifying gamma passing rates with discriminative features and a class balancing technique: a retrospective cohort study

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to improve the deep learning (DL) model performance in predicting and classifying IMRT gamma passing rate (GPR) by using input features related to machine parameters and a class balancing technique.MethodsA total of 2348 fields from 204 IMRT plans for patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma were retrospectively collected to form a dataset. Input feature maps, including fluence, leaf gap, leaf speed of both banks, and corresponding errors, were constructed from the dynamic log files. The SHAP framework was employed to compute the impact of each feature on the model output for recursive feature elimination. A series of UNet++ based models were trained on the obtained eight feature sets with three fine-tuning methods including the standard mean squared error (MSE) loss, a re-sampling technique, and a proposed weighted MSE loss (WMSE). Differences in mean absolute error, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity were compared between the different models.ResultsThe models trained with feature sets including leaf speed and leaf gap features predicted GPR for failed fields more accurately than the other models (F(7, 147) = 5.378, p < 0.001). The WMSE loss had the highest accuracy in predicting GPR for failed fields among the three fine-tuning methods (F(2, 42) = 14.149, p < 0.001), while an opposite trend was observed in predicting GPR for passed fields (F(2, 730) = 9.907, p < 0.001). The WMSE_FS5 model achieved a superior AUC (0.92) and more balanced sensitivity (0.77) and specificity (0.89) compared to the other models.ConclusionsMachine parameters can provide discriminative input features for GPR prediction in DL. The novel weighted loss function demonstrates the ability to balance the prediction and classification accuracy between the passed and failed fields. The proposed approach is able to improve the DL model performance in predicting and classifying GPR, and can potentially be integrated into the plan optimization process to generate higher deliverability plans.Trial registration: This clinical trial was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry on March 26th, 2020 (registration number: ChiCTR2000031276). https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/ChiCTR2000031276

Quantification of Dosimetry Improvement With or Without Patient Surface Guidance

PurposeNon-coplanar beams and arcs are routinely used to improve dosimetry for intracranial cases but their application for extra-cranial cases has been hampered by the risk of collision. This has led to conservative beam selection whose impact on plan dosimetry has not been previously studied. Methods and materialA full-body 3D patient surface was acquired using optical cameras for a single lung patient at the time of CT simulation. Eight SBRT plans were created for the patient, with varying degrees of non-coplanarity and deliverability. The plans included VMAT and IMRT plans ranging from simple, coplanar arcs to multiple non-coplanar arcs and IMRT beams. There was a total of 70 fields created across the 8 plans, of which 21 fields were undeliverable with a 5cm buffer. OAR metrics including R50, Dmax 2 cm from the PTV, lung V20 and chest wall V30 were evaluated. Five expert SBRT dosimetrists from five institutions evaluated field deliverability, with or without the guidance of the clearance map. ResultsIn the dosimetry evaluation, a clear trend in increasing dosimetric compactness and OAR sparing is observed with increasing plan non-coplanarity. R50, Dmax 2cm, lung V20, and chest wall V30 decreased 41%, 39%, 43%, 57%, respectively, from plan 1 (two coplanar partial arcs) to plan 8 (19 non-coplanar IMRT beams). In the observer tests, the expert dosimetrists’ ability to accurately discern beam deliverability due to collision significantly increases with the clearance map. The errors in predicting colliding fields were eliminated using the whole-body surface and clearance map, and the user was able to select fields based on plan quality and patient comfort instead of being overly conservative. ConclusionThe study shows that incorporating a personalized, whole-body clearance map in the treatment planning workflow can facilitate the adoption of non-coplanar beams or arcs that benefit the SBRT plan dosimetry.

An automation of Monte Carlo workflow for dosimetry study of an Elekta LINAC delivery system in radiotherapy

PurposeThis study aims to automate the Monte Carlo (MC) workflow utilized for radiotherapy dosimetry, focusing on an Elekta LINAC delivery system. It addresses the challenge of integrating MC simulations into routine clinical practice, making this accurate yet complex method more accessible and efficient for radiotherapy dosimetry. Methods and MaterialsWe developed a user-friendly software featuring a graphical user interface (GUI) that integrates EGSnrc for MC simulations. The software streamlines the process from retrieving Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) data to executing dose calculations and comparing dose distributions. To validate our proposed tool, we compared its computed doses for IMRT and VMAT plans from the Pinnacle TPS for an Elekta Versa HD linear accelerator against MC simulation results. This comparison utilized our in-house software and GUI as the tool, covering various treatment sites and prescriptions. ResultsThe automated MC workflow demonstrated high accuracy in dose calculations and streamlined integration with clinical workflows. The comparison between the MC-simulated and TPS-calculated doses revealed excellent agreement, highlighting the reliability of MC for independent dose verification in complex treatment scenarios. ConclusionsThe automated MC workflow developed represents a substantial improvement in the practicality and efficiency of MC simulations in radiotherapy. This advancement not only simplifies the dosimetry process but also ensures high accuracy, establishing it as a valuable tool for routine patient-specific quality assurance and the development of specialized treatment procedures.

Assessment of the Dosimetric Index from IMRT and Rapid arc Plan for Oropharyngeal Cancer with Simultaneous Integrated Boost (SIB) Technique in Combination with EUD-based NTCP and TCP Radiobiological Models.

The current research compared radiobiological and dosimetric results for simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) plans employing RapidArc and IMRT planning procedures in oropharyngeal cancer from head-and-neck cancer (HNC) patients. The indigenously developed Python-based software was used in this study for generation and analysis. Twelve patients with forty-eight total plans with SIB were planned using Rapid arc (2 and 3 arcs) and IMRT (7 and 9 fields) and compared with radiobiological models Lyman, Kutcher, Burman (LKB) and EUD (Equivalent Uniform Dose) along with physical index such as homogeneity index(HI), conformity index(CI) of target volumes. These models' inputs are the dose-volume histograms (DVHs) calculated by the treatment planning system (TPS). The values obtained vary from one model to the other for the same technique and patient. The maximum dose to the brainstem and spinal cord and the mean dose to the parotids were analysed both dosimetrically and radiobiologically, such as the LKB model effective volume, equivalent uniform dose, EUD-based normal tissue complication probability, and normal tissue integral dose. The mean and max dose to target volume with conformity, homogeneity index, tumor control probability compared with treatment times, and monitor units. Rapid arc (3 arcs) resulted in significantly better OAR sparing, dose homogeneity, and conformity. The findings indicate that the rapid arc plan has improved dose distribution in the target volume compared with IMRT, but the tumor control probability obtained for the two planning methods, Rapid arc (3 arcs) and IMRT (7 fields), are similar. The treatment time and monitor units for the Rapid arc (3 arcs) were superior to other planning methods and considered to be standard in head & neck radiotherapy.

A feasibility study to predict 3D dose delivery accuracy for IMRT using DenseNet with log files.

This study aims to explore the feasibility of DenseNet in the establishment of a three-dimensional (3D) gamma prediction model of IMRT based on the actual parameters recorded in the log files during delivery. A total of 55 IMRT plans (including 367 fields) were randomly selected. The gamma analysis was performed using gamma criteria of 3% /3 mm (Dose Difference/Distance to Agreement), 3% /2 mm, 2% /3 mm, and 2% /2 mm with a 10% dose threshold. In addition, the log files that recorded the gantry angle, monitor units (MU), multi-leaf collimator (MLC), and jaws position during delivery were collected. These log files were then converted to MU-weighted fluence maps as the input of DenseNet, gamma passing rates (GPRs) under four different gamma criteria as the output, and mean square errors (MSEs) as the loss function of this model. Under different gamma criteria, the accuracy of a 3D GPR prediction model decreased with the implementation of stricter gamma criteria. In the test set, the mean absolute error (MAE) of the prediction model under the gamma criteria of 3% /3 mm, 2% /3 mm, 3% /2 mm, and 2% /2 mm was 1.41, 1.44, 3.29, and 3.54, respectively; the root mean square error (RMSE) was 1.91, 1.85, 4.27, and 4.40, respectively; the Sr was 0.487, 0.554, 0.573, and 0.506, respectively. There was a correlation between predicted and measured GPRs (P < 0.01). Additionally, there was no significant difference in the accuracy between the validation set and the test set. The accuracy in the high GPR group was high, and the MAE in the high GPR group was smaller than that in the low GPR group under four different gamma criteria. In this study, a 3D GPR prediction model of patient-specific QA using DenseNet was established based on log files. As an auxiliary tool for 3D dose verification in IMRT, this model is expected to improve the accuracy and efficiency of dose validation.

Dosimetric Advantage of Combined IMRT for Whole Lung and Abdomen Irradiation for Wilms Tumor

In patients with Wilms tumor with lung metastases, a cardiac-sparing intensity modulated radiation therapy (CS-IMRT) technique is increasingly being adopted for whole lung irradiation. However, the standard technique for flank and whole abdomen radiation remains 2-dimensional anterioposterior (AP), and overlap at the junction between the whole lung CS-IMRT and abdominal AP fields can result in overdose to normal organs. Here, we compared the dosimetry of patients who received whole lung irradiation and flank or abdominal radiation therapy with CS-IMRT with AP abdominal field (IMRT-AP) versus CS-IMRT with IMRT abdominal field (combined IMRT). We retrospectively reviewed the radiation plans of 2 patients with Wilms tumor who received CS-IMRT and flank or whole abdomen irradiation with a combined IMRT approach. Comparison IMRT-AP plans were generated with equivalent target coverage of 95% receiving the prescribed dose. Maximum doses to normal organs were compared at the junctional overlap. Overlap at the junction between CS-IMRT and abdominal fields resulted in a significantly lower dose with combined IMRT plans compared with IMRT-AP plan. Differences in maximum doses (in cGy) to normal organs between combined IMRT versus IMRT-AP plans were most significant in the vertebral body (patient 1 = 1277 vs 2065; patient 2 = 1334 vs 2287), lungs (patient 1 = 1298 vs 2081; patient 2 = 1234 vs 1820), spinal cord (patient 1 = 1235 vs 1975; patient 2 = 1345 vs 2253), stomach (patient 1 = 1264 vs 1977; patient 2 = 1118 vs 2062), and liver (patient 1 = 1297 vs 1889; patient 2 = 1334 vs 2237). The combined IMRT approach for Wilms patients who require whole lung and abdomen irradiation can provide more uniform dose distribution in the junction area and significantly lower doses to normal organs at the junctional overlap.

Study of PRESAGE® dosimeter for end-to-end 3D radiotherapy verification using an anthropomorphic phantom with bespoke dosimeter insert.

Modern radiotherapy techniques have advanced and become more sophisticated. End-to-end 3D verification of the complex radiotherapy dose distribution in an anthropomorphic phantom can ensure the accuracy of the treatment delivery. The phantoms commonly used for dosimetry are homogeneous solid water phantom which lacks the capability to measure the 3D dose distribution for heterogeneous tissues necessary for advanced radiotherapy techniques. Therefore, we developed an end-to-end 3D radiotherapy dose verification system based on MAX-HD anthropomorphic phantom (Integrated Medical Technologies Inc., Troy, New York) with bespoke intracranial insert for PRESAGE® dosimeter. In this study, several advanced radiotherapy treatment techniques of various levels of complexity; 3D-CRT, IMRT and VMAT treatment, were planned for a 20mm diameter of a spherical target in the brain region and delivered to the phantom. The dosimeters were read out using an in-house developed optical computed tomography (OCT) imaging system known as 3DmicroHD-OCT. It was found that the measured dose distribution of the PRESAGE® when compared with the measured dose distribution of EBT film and Monaco TPS has a maximum difference of less than 3% for 3D-CRT, IMRT and VMAT treatment plans. The gamma analysis results of PRESAGE® in comparison to EBT film and Monaco TPS show pass rates of more than 95% for the criteria of 3% dose difference and 3mm distance-to-agreement. This study proves the capability of PRESAGE® and bespoke MAX-HD phantom in conjunction with the 3DmicroHD-OCT system to measure 3D dose distribution for end-to-end dosimetry verification.

Comparative Dosimetric Analysis of IMRT and VMAT in Head and Neck Cancers

Purpose: The aim of study was to dosimetrically evaluate and compare IMRT and VMAT plans for irradiation of local head and neck cancers focusing on target coverage, conformity index, homogeneity index and dose perceived by the organs at risk (OAR). Methods: Prospective study conducted on 50 patients selected randomly and divided in two groups in which one group receive IMRT plan and another received VMAT plan. Results: PTV coverage was similar for both the techniques. The conformity index was higher for VMAT in comparison to IMRT which is statistically significant. The homogeneity index was also better in VMAT plans as compared to IMRT except for higher PTV volume where IMRT had better plans. The mean dose to parotid were significantly lesser in parotid glands in VMAT plans. Also, the point max dose to spinal cord, brainstem, vestibulocochlear nerve was lesser. There was no significant difference in dose received by spinal cord in both arms. Conclusion: VMAT provides better dose conformity, more homogenous target coverage and OAR sparing in comparison to IMRT.

An IMRT planning technique for treating whole breast or chest wall with regional lymph nodes on Halcyon and Ethos.

Field size limitations on Halcyon and Ethos treatment machines largely preclude use of the conventional monoisocentric three-field technique for breast/chest wall and regional lymph nodes. We present an alternative, IMRT-based planning approach that facilitates treatment on Halcyon and Ethos while preserving plan quality. Eight breast and regional node cases (four left-sided, four right-sided) were planned for an Ethos machine using a 15-17 field IMRT technique. Institutional plan quality metrics for CTV and PTV coverage and OAR sparing were assessed. Five plans (four right-sided, one left-sided) were also planned using a hybrid 3D multisocenter technique. CTV coverage and OAR sparing were compared to the IMRT plans. Eclipse scripting tools were developed to aid in beam placement and plan evaluation through a set of dosimetric scorecards, and both are shared publicly. On average, the IMRT plans achieved breast CTV and PTV coverage at 50Gy of 97.9% and 95.7%, respectively. Supraclavicular CTV and PTV coverages at 45Gy were 100% and 95.5%. Axillary lymph node CTV and PTV coverages at 45Gy were 100% and 97.1%, and IMN CTV coverage at 45Gy was 99.2%. Mean ipsilateral lung V20 Gy was 19.3%, and average mean heart dose was 1.6Gy for right-sided cases and 3.0Gy for left-sided. In comparison to the hybrid 3D plans, IMRT plans achieved higher breast and supraclavicular CTV coverage (99.9%vs. 98.6% and 99.9%vs. 93.4%), higher IMN coverage (99.6%vs. 78.2%), and lower ipsilateral lung V20 Gy (19.6%vs. 28.2%). Institutional plan quality benchmarks were achieved for all eight cases using the IMRT-based planning approach. The IMRT-based planning approach offered superior conformity and OAR sparing than a competing hybrid 3D approach.

Cardiac segments dosimetric benefit from deep inspiration breath hold technique for left-sided breast cancer radiotherapy.

The objective was to compare dosimetry in left-sided breast cancer (LSBC) patients receiving deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) radiotherapy (RT) with free-breathing (FB) treatment plans. Voluntary DIBH with a spirometer-based video-assisted system and CT-simulation were performed under FB and DIBH conditions on 40 LSBC patients, segmented according Duane's atlas. IMRT plans kept the same dosimetric goals on FB and DIBH conditions. Target, lungs and heart volumes were measured. Planning target volume (PTV) dose distribution, organs at risk (OARs) dose/volume parameters, including cardiac substructures, were calculated. Lungs and left-lung volumes increased in DIBH conditions (ΔV = 1637.8 ml ± 555.3 and 783.5 ml ± 286.4, respectively). Heart volume slightly decreased in apnea (p = 0.04), but target volumes, CTV and PTV were similar in FB or DIBH plans. PTV dose coverage was similar irrespective of respiratory conditions (median D50% = 41.1 Gy vs 41.0 Gy, p = 0.665; V95% = 96.9% vs. 97%). Mean dose for the whole heart (MHD), left ventricle (LV), and LV segments were significantly reduced in DIBH plans. V20 values for heart subvolumes were significantly different only for those that received considerable doses (apical and anterior). DIBH plans provided significantly smaller doses (Dmax, D2%, and V20) to the LAD artery. Important dosimetric improvements can be achieved with DIBH technique for LSBC patients, reducing the dose to the LAD artery and heart, particularly to the segments closer to the chest wall. Apical/anterior LV segments, should be considered as separate organ at risk in breast RT.

Evaluation of Heart Substructures as a Function of Dose and Radiation-Induced Toxicities in Left-Sided Breast Cancer Radiotherapy

Background. A group of cardiopathies (ischemic, arrhythmic, and pericardial cardiac events) were shown to be associated with doses received by heart substructures following radiotherapy, alerting about the importance of dosimetric evaluation of cardiac structures besides the heart. The aim of this study was to assess the dosimetry of heart and heart substructures of left-sided breast cancer radiotherapy to evaluate possible radiation-induced complications. Methods and Materials. The study enrolled 20 patients treated with 3D-conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), while intensity-modulated (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) plans were simulated for comparative purposes. The organs at risk (OARs) of interest were the heart, ascending aorta, descending aorta, left ventricle, left atrium, right ventricle, right atrium, superior vena cava, inferior vena cava, and pulmonary artery. Results. The percentage of left ventricle included in the radiation field was &gt;5% for all plans (8.92% 3DCRT, 8.30% IMRT, and 6.84% VMAT). A strong correlation between mean heart dose and the percentage of left ventricle overlapping with the radiation fields was observed in 3DCRT (r = 0.784) and IMRT (r = 0.755) plans, and a moderate correlation was shown between tumor volume and the percentage of left ventricle included in the radiation field for all plans. A moderate correlation was observed between body mass index and cardiac structures for the mean dose to the right ventricle (r = 0.640) in conformal plans and V5 of heart (r = 0.528) and left ventricle (r = 0.669) in volumetric-modulated plans. Additionally, moderate to strong correlations were found between maximum heart distance and heart dose in both conformal and modulated plans. Conclusions. Considering possible occurrences of cardiac events during or postradiotherapy, monitoring the heart and its substructures and setting dosimetric thresholds for healthy tissues must be a priority to achieve a personalized and effective treatment.

Dosimetric and radiobiological comparison of IMRT, VMAT, and helical tomotherapy planning techniques in hippocampal sparing whole brain radiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost for multiple brain metastases.

To compare treatment planning and dosimetric outcomes for hippocampal sparing whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) with the simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) in brain metastasis (BM) patients using tumour control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) formalism between IMRT, VMAT, and HT techniques. In this retrospective study, the treatment data of 20 BM patients who typically received whole brain radiation with SIB treatment were used. Prescription doses of 30Gy and 36Gy was delivered in 10 fractions for WBRT and SIB, respectively. Niemierko and LKB models were applied for calculating TCP and NTCP. All the plans were evaluated for the RTOG 0933 protocol criteria and found acceptable. Additionally, the homogeneity of the PTV boost is 0.07 ± 0.01, 0.1 ± 0.04, and 0.08 ± 0.02 for IMRT, VMAT, and HT, respectively (P < 0.05). The percentage of TCP for the PTV boost was 99.99 ± 0.003, 99.98 ± 0.004, and 99.99 ± 0.002 of IMRT, VMAT, and HT, respectively, (P < 0.005). The NTCP value of the lenses was higher with the VMAT plan as compared to IMRT and HT Plans. The hippocampal NTCP values are equal in all three planning proficiencies. The techniques like IMRT, VMAT, and HT can reduce the dose received by hippocampus to the dosimetric threshold during the delivery of WBRT with hippocampal sparing and can simultaneously boost multiple metastases. Overall, the high-quality dose distribution, TCP, and NTCP comparison between all three planning techniques show that the HT technique has better results when compared to the VMAT and IMRT techniques.

Dosimetric Comparison of Hippocampal Sparing Whole Brain Radiotherapy by Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy, Linac-based Intensity-modulated Radiation Therapy and 3-D Conformal Radiation Therapy: A Cross-sectional Study

Introduction: Brain metastases are treated with Whole-Brain Radiotherapy (WBRT) using the 3-D Conformal Radiation Therapy (3DCRT) technique. Attempts have been made to perform dosimetric analysis of WBRT with hippocampal sparing using 3DCRT, Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT), and Linac-based Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (linac-based IMRT), anticipating technical challenges during contouring and treatment planning. Aim: To perform a dosimetric analysis and comparison ofhippocampal sparing cranial irradiation by 3DCRT, VMAT, and IMRT treatment plans in brain metastases patients. Materials and Methods: The analytical cross-sectional dosimetric study was conducted from November 2022 to September 2023 at Government Medical College, Kottayam, Kerala, India. Ten patients treated for brain metastases with WBRT using 3DCRT were considered for dosimetric analysis. The Planning Target Volume (PTV) dosimetry and hippocampal dosimetry were studied for all ten patients. The important dosimetric parameters included volume receiving 100% dose, Target Coverage (TC), Homogeneity Index (HI) in PTV dosimetry, the mean hippocampal dose, and maximal hippocampal dose in hippocampal dosimetry. The hippocampus and hippocampal avoidance volume were contoured. Treatment plans for 3DCRT, VMAT, and Linac-based IMRT were generated for each patient’s prescription dose of 30 Gy in 10 fractions. The non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test was used for data analysis. Results: The mean whole brain Planned Target Volume (PTV) was 1190 cm3 . The mean hippocampal avoidance volume was 30 cm3 , which occupied 2.5% of the whole brain PTV. The average median dose received by the hippocampus was 30.05 Gy, 17.1 Gy, and 17.5 Gy for 3DCRT, Linac-based IMRT, and VMAT, respectively. The mean dose for the hippocampus was 31.03 Gy, 17.7 Gy, and 17.5 Gy for 3DCRT, Linac-based IMRT, and VMAT, respectively (p&lt;0.001). VMAT offered better hippocampal sparing compared to IMRT and 3DCRT. On average, VMAT offered a 2% improvement, and 3DCRT offered a 5% improvement in TC compared to IMRT. The HI of 3DCRT was 0.09, IMRT 0.199, and VMAT 0.150. Conclusion: VMAT and LINAC-based IMRT permit hippocampal-sparing WBRT with adequate target volume coverage and acceptable homogeneity when compared to 3DCRT plans. Thus, the dosimetric study suggests that modern radiotherapy techniques should be advocated for hippocampal-sparing WBRT.

A Comparison of 3D Conformal and Deep Inspiratory Breath Holding vs. 4D-CT Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy for Patients with Left Breast Cancer.

Multimodality is required for the treatment of breast cancer. Surgery, radiation (RT), and systemic therapy were traditionally used. Pharmacotherapy includes different drug mechanisms, such as chemotherapy, hormone therapy, and targeted therapies, alone or in combination with radiotherapy. While radiation offers numerous benefits, it also has certain harmful risks. such as cardiac and pulmonary toxicity, lymphedema, and secondary cancer. Modern radiation techniques have been developed to reduce organs at risk (OAR) doses. This study is a prospective feasibility trial conducted at the Fayium Oncology Center on patients with left breast cancer receiving adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy after either breast conservative surgery (BCS) or modified radical mastectomy (MRM). This study aimed to assess the proportion of patients who are fit both physically and intellectually to undergo breast radiotherapy using the deep inspiratory breath-holding (DIBH) technique, comparing different dosimetric outcomes between the 3D dimensional conformal with DIBH and 4D-CT IMRT plans of the same patient. D95 of the clinical target volume (CTV) of the target is significantly higher in the 3D DIBH plan than in the IMRT plan, with an average of 90.812% vs. 86.944%. The dosimetry of the mean heart dose (MHD) in the 4D-CT IMRT plan was significantly lower than in the 3D conformal with the DIBH plan (2.6224 vs. 4.056 Gy, p < 0.0064), and no significant difference between the two plans regarding mean left anterior descending artery (LAD) (14.696 vs. 13.492 Gy, p < 0.58), maximum LAD (39.9 vs. 43.5 Gy, p < 0.35), and V20 of the ipsilateral lung (18.66% vs. 16.306%, p < 0.88) was observed. Internal mammary chain (IMC) irradiation was better in the 4D-CT IMRT plan. Radiotherapy of the breast and chest wall with the 4D-CT IMRT technique appears not to be inferior to the 3D conformal with the DIBH technique and can be used as an alternative to the 3D conformal with the DIBH technique in patients meeting the exclusion criteria for performing the DIBH maneuver concerning coverage to target volumes or unacceptably high doses to OAR.

Evaluation of complexity and deliverability of IMRT treatment plans for breast cancer

This study aimed to predict the outcome of patient specific quality assurance (PSQA) in IMRT for breast cancer using complexity metrics, such as MU factor, MAD, CAS, MCS. Several breast cancer plans were considered, including LBCS, RBCS, LBCM, RBCM, left breast, right breast and the whole breast for both Edge and TrueBeam LINACS. Dose verification was completed by Portal Dosimetry (PD). The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was employed to determine whether the treatment plans pass or failed. The area under the curve (AUC) was used to assess the classification performance. The correlation of PSQA and complexity metrics was examined using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (Rs). For LINACS, the most suitable complexity metric was found to be the MU factor (Edge Rs = − 0.608, p < 0.01; TrueBeam Rs = − 0.739, p < 0.01). Regarding the specific breast cancer categories, the optimal complexity metrics were as follows: MAD (AUC = 0.917) for LBCS, MCS (AUC = 0.681) for RBCS, MU factor (AUC = 0.854) for LBCM and MAD (AUC = 0.731) for RBCM. On the Edge LINAC, the preferable method for breast cancers was MCS (left breast, AUC = 0.938; right breast, AUC = 0.813), while on the TrueBeam LINAC, it became MU factor (left breast, AUC = 0.950) and MCS (right breast, AUC = 0.806), respectively. Overall, there was no universally suitable complexity metric for all types of breast cancers. The choice of complexity metric depended on different cancer types, locations and treatment LINACs. Therefore, when utilizing complexity metrics to predict PSQA outcomes in IMRT for breast cancer, it was essential to select the appropriate metric based on the specific circumstances and characteristics of the treatment.