Intensity-modulated Radiation Therapy Delivery Research Articles

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.

Differential Response of Pelvic Bone Marrow Fluorodeoxyglucose Uptake in Patients Receiving Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy

AimsIrradiation of pelvic bone marrow (PBM) at the level of the typical low dose bath of intensity-modulated radiotherapy delivery (10–20 Gy) is associated with an increased risk of haematological toxicity, particularly when combined with concurrent chemotherapy. Although sparing of the whole of the PBM at a 10–20 Gy dose level is unachievable, it is known that PBM is divided into haematopoietically active and inactive regions that are identifiable based on the threshold uptake of [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) seen on positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT). In published studies to date, the definition of active PBM widely used is that of a standardised uptake value (SUV) greater than the mean SUV of the whole PBM prior to the start of chemoradiation. These studies include those looking at developing an atlas-based approach to contouring active PBM. Using baseline and mid-treatment FDG PET scans acquired as part of a prospective clinical trial we sought to determine the suitability of the current definition of active bone marrow as representative of differential underlying cell physiology. Materials and methodsActive and inactive PBM were contoured on baseline PET-CT and using deformable registration mapped onto mid-treatment PET-CT. Volumes were cropped to exclude definitive bone, voxel SUV extracted and the change between scans calculated. Change was compared using Mann–Whitney U testing. ResultsActive and inactive PBM were shown to respond differentially to concurrent chemoradiotherapy. The median absolute response of active PBM for all patients was –0.25 g/ml, whereas the median inactive PBM response was –0.02 g/ml. Significantly, the inactive PBM median absolute response was shown to be near zero with a relatively unskewed distribution (0.12). ConclusionsThese results would support the definition of active PBM as FDG uptake greater than the mean of the whole structure as being representative of underlying cell physiology. This work would support the development of atlas-based approaches published in the literature to contour active PBM based on the current definition as being suitable.

Quality and Safety Considerations in Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy: An ASTRO Safety White Paper Update

This updated report on intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is part of a series of consensus-based white papers previously published by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) addressing patient safety. Since the first white papers were published, IMRT went from widespread use to now being the main delivery technique for many treatment sites. IMRT enables higher radiation doses to be delivered to more precise targets while minimizing the dose to uninvolved normal tissue. Due to the associated complexity, IMRT requires additional planning and safety checks before treatment begins and, therefore, quality and safety considerations for this technique remain important areas of focus. ASTRO convened an interdisciplinary task force to assess the original IMRT white paper and update content where appropriate. Recommendations were created using a consensus-building methodology, and task force members indicated their level of agreement based on a 5-point Likert scale, from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree." A prespecified threshold of ≥75% of raters who select "strongly agree" or "agree" indicated consensus. This IMRT white paper primarily focuses on quality and safety processes in planning and delivery. Building on the prior version, this consensus paper incorporates revised and new guidance documents and technology updates. IMRT requires an interdisciplinary team-based approach, staffed by appropriately trained individuals as well as significant personnel resources, specialized technology, and implementation time. A comprehensive quality assurance program must be developed, using established guidance, to ensure IMRT is performed in a safe and effective manner. Patient safety in the delivery of IMRT is everyone's responsibility, and professional organizations, regulators, vendors, and end-users must work together to ensure the highest levels of safety.

Comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy with the 5-field technique, helical tomotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for localized prostate cancer.

The outcomes of three methods of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for localized prostate cancer were evaluated. Between 2010 and 2018, 308 D’Amico intermediate- or high-risk patients were treated with 2.2 Gy daily fractions to a total dose of 74.8 Gy in combination with hormonal therapy. Overall, 165 patients were treated with 5-field IMRT using a sliding window technique, 66 were then treated with helical tomotherapy and 77 were treated with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). The median age of patients was 71 years. The median follow-up period was 75 months. Five-year overall survival (OS) and biochemical or clinical failure-free survival (FFS) rates were 95.5 and 91.6% in the 5-field IMRT group, 95.1 and 90.3% in the tomotherapy group and 93.0 and 88.6% in the VMAT group, respectively, with no significant differences among the three groups. The 5-year cumulative incidence of late grade ≥2 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were 7.3 and 6.2%, respectively, for all patients. Late grade ≥2 gastrointestinal toxicities were less frequent in patients undergoing VMAT (0%) than in patients undergoing 5-field IMRT (7.3%) and those undergoing tomotherapy (11%) (P = 0.025), and this finding appeared to be correlated with the better rectal DVH parameters in patients undergoing VMAT. Other toxicities did not differ significantly among the three groups, although bladder dose-volume parameters were slightly worse in the tomotherapy group than in the other groups. Despite differences in the IMRT delivery methods, X-ray energies and daily registration methods, all modalities may be used as IMRT for localized prostate cancer.

Evaluation of a proprietary software application for motion monitoring during stereotactic paraspinal treatment.

PurposeStereotactic paraspinal treatment has become increasingly popular due to its favorable clinical outcome. An often‐overlooked factor that compromises the effectiveness of such treatment is the patients’ involuntary intrafractional motion. This work introduces and validates a proprietary software application that quantifies such motion for accurate patient monitoring during treatment.MethodsThe software uses a separate full‐trajectory cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) after daily patient setup to establish reference projections. Once treatment starts, the software grabs the intrafraction motion review (IMR) image acquired by TrueBeam via the Varian iTools Capture software and compares it against the corresponding reference projection to instantly determine the 2D shifts of the vertebrae being monitored using the classical downhill simplex optimization method. To evaluate its performance, an anthropomorphic phantom was shifted 0, 0.6, 1.2, 1.8, 2.4, 3.0, and 5 mm in three orthogonal directions, immediately after the full‐trajectory CBCT but prior to treatment. Depending on the scenario of shift, a nine‐field fixed gantry intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plan and/or a four partial‐posterior‐arcs volume‐modulated radiation therapy (VMAT) plan were delivered. For the IMRT plan, three IMR images were acquired sequentially every 200 monitor units (MU) at each treatment angle. For the VMAT plan, one IMR image was acquired every 15° of each arc. For each IMR image, the software‐reported 2D shift was compared with the ground truth. Certain tests were repeated with 1°, 2°, and 3° of rotation, pitch, and roll, respectively. Some of these tests were also repeated independently on separate days.ResultsBased on the group of tests that involved only the IMRT delivery, the maximum standard deviation of the software‐reported shifts for each set of three IMR images was 0.16 mm, with 95th percentile at 0.02 mm. For translational shift, the maximum registration error was 0.44 mm, with 95th percentile at 0.23 mm. Left unaccounted for, rotation and pitch degraded the registration accuracy mainly in the longitudinal direction, while roll degraded it mainly in the lateral direction. The degradation of registration accuracy is positively related to the degree of rotation, pitch, and roll. The maximum registration errors under 3° rotation, pitch, and roll were 2.97, 1.44, 2.72 mm, respectively. Based on the group of tests that compared IMRT delivery with VMAT delivery, the registration errors slightly increased as magnitude of shifts increased; however, they were well under the 0.5‐mm threshold. No significant differences in registration errors were observed between IMRT and VMAT deliveries. In addition, the variation in registration errors among different days was limited for both IMRT and VMAT deliveries.ConclusionsOur proprietary software has high repeatability, both intrafractionally and interfractionally, and high accuracy in registering IMR images with the reference projections for motion monitoring, regardless of the magnitude of shifts or treatment delivery technique. Rotation, pitch, and roll degrade registration accuracy and need to be accounted for in the future work.

Out-of-field dose and its constituent components for a 1.5 T MR-Linac

This study aims to quantify the relative contributions of phantom scatter, collimator scatter and head leakage to the out-of-field doses (OFDs) of both static fields and clinical intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatments in a 1.5 T MR-Linac. The OFDs of static fields were measured at increasing distances from the field edge in an MR-conditional water phantom. Inline scans at depths of dmax (14 mm), 50 and 100 mm were performed for static fields of 5 × 5, 10 × 10 and 15 × 15 cm2 under three different conditions: full scatter, with phantom scatter prevented, and head leakage only. Crossline scans at isocenter and offset positions were performed in full scatter condition. EBT3 radiochromic films were placed at 100 mm depth of solid water phantom to measure the OFD of clinical IMRT plans. All water tank data were normalized to Dmax of a 10 × 10 cm2 field and the film results were presented as a fraction of the target mean dose. The OFD in the inline direction varied from 3.5% (15 × 15 cm2, 100 mm depth, 50 mm distance) to 0.014% (5 × 5 cm2, dmax, 400 mm distance). For all static fields, the collimator scatter was higher than the phantom scatter and head leakage at a distance of 100–400 mm. Head leakage remained the smallest among the three components, except at long distances (>375 mm) with small field size. Compared to the inline scans, the crossline scans at the isocenter showed higher doses at distances longer than 80 mm. All crossline profiles at longitudinal offset positions showed a cone shape with laterally shifted maxima. The OFD of IMRT deliveries varied with different target size. For prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) treatment, the OFD decreased from 2% to 0.03% at a distance of 50–500 mm. The OFDs have been measured for a 1.5 T MR-Linac. The presented dosimetric data are valuable for radiation safety assessments on patients treated with the MR-Linac, such as evaluating carcinogenic risk and radiation exposure to cardiac implantable electronic devices.

Longitudinal Remote IMRT Training in Africa: A Prospective Cohort Study

<h3>Purpose/Objective(s)</h3> Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) can significantly enhance patient outcomes compared to 3D-conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), yet African patients' access to IMRT is sparse. Limited opportunities for continuing education and training for radiation oncology professionals has been identified as a significant problem. We aimed to evaluate a telehealth training curriculum for clinicians and medical physicists in low- and middle- income countries in Africa. <h3>Materials/Methods</h3> A 30-session remote training program on transitioning from 3D to IMRT was provided at no cost to radiation oncology centers in Africa and one sister institution in Pakistan. The program consisted of twice weekly 1-hour live video conferencing sessions for 4 months with interactive didactics and case-based learning utilizing a cloud-based contouring platform. 15 radiation oncology centers across Africa were invited to participate, of which 13 were transitioning to, or had recently began, IMRT programs. A Likert scale (1-5) confidence evaluation on 7 foundational domains of IMRT treatment planning and delivery, 8 physics-specific domains, and 3 physician-specific domains was electronically administered to enrolled individuals pre- and post- curriculum. Participation was tracked for each session. <h3>Results</h3> A total of 12 centers (9 public, 2 private, and 1 semi-private) formally enrolled in training. Of these, 4 began IMRT in the last 3 years and 8 had plans to transition from 3D-CRT to IMRT. 128 individuals participated: 47 medical physicists (36.7%), 21 radiation oncologists (16.4%), 16 radiation therapists (12.5%), 30 residents (23.4%), 9 medical physics trainees (7.0%), and 5 other staff (3.9%). Average participation per session was 31 (range 17–83, SD = 16.6), and 36 individuals attended 10 sessions or more. 30 respondents, who attended 12/30 sessions on average (range 4 to 21, SD = 5.2), completed both pre- and post- surveys and were eligible for paired analysis. Overall pre- and post-curriculum mean self-confidence scores were 2.51 (n = 142) and 4.1 (n = 30), respectively, out of a possible 5. Paired pre- vs. post- analysis for 30 individuals revealed statistically significantly (<i>P</i> < 0.05) higher scores for 7 of 7 foundational domains (n = 30), 5 of 8 physics-specific domains (n = 15), and 3 of 3 physician-specific domains (n = 13). Higher attendance rates significantly correlated with larger gains in confidence scores (<i>P</i> = 0.047). <h3>Conclusion</h3> Longitudinal telehealth training integrating cloud-based tools for radiation oncology professionals is a viable and efficient method for continuing education in Africa. Despite low attendance rates, this program significantly and comprehensively improved confidence in IMRT across multiple training domains, with confidence improving with greater course participation. Future work remains to facilitate and explore the efficacy of similar programs and to assess concordance of participant confidence with clinical knowledge and skill.

Dosimetric justification for the use of volumetric modulated arc therapy in head and neck cancer-A systematic review of the literature.

IntroductionRadiotherapy for head and neck cancer (HNC) has evolved rapidly in the past decades from conformal three‐dimensional technique (3D‐CRT) to intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT). This paper presents a dosimetric comparative study between VMAT and IMRT delivery based on current literature, while also presenting the potential challenges encountered with volumetric arc therapy.MethodsA systematic search of the scientific literature was conducted within Medline/Pubmed databases. A number of 13 papers fulfilled the search criteria which was based on the main objective to evaluate dosimetric characteristics of comparative treatment delivery with VMAT vs IMRT in HNC.ResultsOverall, from a dosimetric perspective, dose delivery via VMAT and IMRT present comparable results. Beside the delivery technique, target volume coverage also depends on the planner's expertise as well as the employed planning algorithm. At times, the superiority of VMAT emerges from the improved sparing of normal tissue, reduction of monitor units (MU) and of treatment delivery time. Similar to IMRT, one of the most important challenges of VMAT is the risk of developing secondary cancer due to the higher number of MUs compared to 3D‐CRT.ConclusionsBased on the comparative results with the more established IMRT, VMAT in HNC can be safely delivered either as a single treatment or combined with other techniques.

IMRT QA and gamma comparisons: The impact of detector geometry, spatial sampling, and delivery technique on gamma comparison sensitivity.

To separately quantify sensitivity differences in patient-specific quality assurance comparisons analyzed with the gamma comparison for different measurement geometries, spatial samplings, and delivery techniques [intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT)]. Error-free calculations for 20 IMRT and 20 VMAT cases were compared to calculations with known induced errors of varying magnitudes, using gamma comparisons. Five error types (MU scaling, three different MLC errors, and collimator errors) were induced in plan calculations on three different detector geometries - ArcCHECK, MapCHECK, and Delta 4. To study detector geometry sensitivity effects alone, gamma comparisons were made with 1mm error-free calculations compared to 1mm error-induced calculations for each device. Effects of spatial sampling were studied by making the same gamma comparisons, but down-sampling the error-induced calculations to the real spatial sampling of each device. Additionally, 1mm vs 1mm comparisons between the IMRT and VMAT cases were compared to investigate sensitivity differences between IMRT and VMAT using IMRT and VMAT cohorts with similar ranges of plan complexity and average aperture size. For each case, induced error type, and device, five different gamma criteria were studied to ensure sensitivity differences between devices, spatial sampling scenarios, and delivery technique were not gamma criterion specific, resulting in over 36,000 gamma comparisons. For IMRT cases, Delta4 and MapCHECK devices had similar error sensitivities for lagging leaf, bank shift, and MU errors, while the ArcCHECK had considerably lower sensitivity than the planar-type devices. For collimator errors and perturbational leaf errors the ArcCHECK had higher error sensitivity than planar-type devices. This behavior was independent of gamma parameters (percent dose difference, distance-to-agreement, and low dose threshold), though use of local normalization resulted in error sensitivites that were markedly similar between all three devices. Differences between detector geometries were less pronounced for VMAT deliveries. Error sensitivity for a given gamma criterion when comparing IMRT and VMAT deliveries on the same devices showed that VMAT plans were more sensitive to some specific error types and less sensitive to others, when compared to IMRT plans. For the ArcCHECK device, the sensitivity of IMRT and VMAT cases was quite similar, whereas this was not the case for the planar-type devices. When comparing error sensitivity between 1mm vs 1mm calculations and 1mm vs the real spatial sampling for each device, results showed that increased spatial sampling did not systematically increase error sensitivity. Noticeable differences in error sensitivity were observed for different detector geometries, but differences were dependent on induced error type, and a particular device geometry did not offer universal improvements in error sensitivity across studied error types. This study demonstrates that the sensitivity of the gamma comparison does not largely hinge on detector spatial sampling. VMAT deliveries were generally less sensitive to errors when compared to IMRT plans for the planar-type devices, while similar sensitivities were observed between delivery techniques for the ArcCHECK device. Results of this work suggest that a universal gamma criterion is inappropriate for IMRT QA and that the percent pixels passing is an insufficient metric for evaluating quality assurance checks in the clinic.

Cost-Effectiveness of Stereotactic Radiosurgery and Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy in Treating Brain Metastases

Single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is a highly used tool in managing brain metastases, alongside its multifraction counterpart – stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). These radiation therapy techniques have been associated with excellent clinical outcomes, such as decreased local recurrence, increased survival, and improved palliative effects. However, present literature concerning the cost-effectiveness of these techniques remain scarce. Based on the current procedure terminology codes involving services provided during radiation consultation, treatment, and follow-up in our institution, 3-fraction SBRT with a 3-dimensional plan and intensity modulated radiation therapy cost 27% and 17% more than SRS, respectively. A 32% and 34% price increase can, respectively, be seen in 5-fraction SBRT with 3-dimensional plan and intensity modulated radiation therapy delivery sessions relative to 3-fraction SBRT administration. Cost savings between these procedures were associated with the radiation therapy delivery sessions instead of the treatment planning process. These analyses indicate that SRS appears to be a less expensive and time-intensive option than SBRT in our institution. However, additional comparative analyses regarding SRS and SBRT are needed to explore the clinical and financial benefits of these radiation therapy techniques.

Estimation of monitor unit through analytical method for dynamic IMRT using control points as an effective parameter

AbstractIntroduction:The control points (CP) play a significant role in the delivery of segmented based Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) delivery, particularly in dynamic mode. The number of segments is determined by control points and these segments will transfer from one to the other either during beam ON called dynamic delivery or during beam OFF called static delivery or step and shoot. This study was aimed at indirect estimation of the total monitor units (MU) to be delivered per field by exploiting the control points and also to find the MUs at any nth segment.Materials and methods:This study was performed in the Eclipse treatment planning software version 13.8.0. The details of control points, metre set weight per segment, leaf positions for each segment, field size, etc. were taken into consideration.Results:TPS calculated MU value and analytically estimated MU value were compared and the percentage of difference was estimated. The overall mean percentage of deviation was 1·03% between the TPS calculated method and the analytical method. The paired sample t-test was performed and, p-value &lt;0·05, no significant difference was found. The analytical relationship determined to estimate the total number of MU delivered for any nth control point was also evaluated.Conclusion:The control points are a potential parameter in the conventional IMRT delivery. Through this study, we have addressed the indirect method to estimate the monitor units delivered per segment.

Volumetric-Modulated Arc Radiotherapy with Daily Image-Guidance Carries Better Toxicity Profile for Higher Risk Prostate Cancer.

Purpose:To compare radiotherapy-induced toxicity for localized prostate-cancer (PCa) treated with versus without daily image-guidance. Patients and Methods:We identified consecutive intermediate and high-risk localized PCa patients treated with definitive radiotherapy using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with variable duration of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) within 2015-2016 (Arm-A) and 2005-2007 (Arm-B). Arm-A cases received daily online imaging guidance (IGRT) using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) unlike Arm-B candidates with no daily IGRT. After reporting demographic, clinico-pathological features and treatment details, we compared acute (within 3 months post-therapy) and late RT-induced toxicities between study groups graded by RTOG/CTCAE criteria. Uni/multivariate analyses (UVA/MVA) were performed to identify independent predictors for RT-related side-effects. Results:We were able to identify 257 cases who met our inclusion criteria. Overall, median age was 73 years (48-85), 67% had intermediate-risk and 47% received ADT. Arm-A included 72 patients who received IMRT delivered using volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), whereas, Arm-B was formed of 185 cases who utilized step-and-shoot static IMRT. Clinico-pathological features and treatment details were non-different across study arms except that Arm-A had more Grade Group 3, higher median total dose (79.2 vs. 74 Gy) and more pelvic lymph-nodes RT (P<0.05). Although acute toxicity was similar across groups, Arm-B encountered higher late toxicity score, more intense late genitourinary side-effects (P=0.008), with non-different late lower-gastrointestinal toxicities. On MVA, lack of daily CBCT, African-American race and higher comorbidities were independently predictive for late toxicities. Conclusion:IMRT with daily CBCT permitted safe delivery of dose-escalated IMRT with improved toxicity profile for higher-risk prostate cancer.

Evaluation of treatment plan quality for head and neck IMRT: a multicenter study

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment planning for head and neck cancer is challenging and complex due to many organs at risk (OAR) in this region. The experience and skills of planners may result in substantial variability of treatment plan quality. This study assessed the performance of IMRT planning in Malaysia and observed plan quality variation among participating centers. The computed tomography dataset containing contoured target volumes and OAR was provided to participating centers. This is to control variations in contouring the target volumes and OARs by oncologists. The planner at each center was instructed to complete the treatment plan based on clinical practice with a given prescription, and the plan was analyzed against the planning goals provided. The quality of completed treatment plans was analyzed using the plan quality index (PQI), in which a score of 0 indicated that all dose objectives and constraints were achieved. A total of 23 plans were received from all participating centers comprising 14 VMAT, 7 IMRT, and 2 tomotherapy plans. The PQI indexes of these plans ranged from 0 to 0.65, indicating a wide variation of plan quality nationwide. Results also reported 5 out of 21 plans achieved all dose objectives and constraints showing more professional training is needed for planners in Malaysia. Understanding of treatment planning system and computational physics could also help in improving the quality of treatment plans for IMRT delivery.

Isotoxic Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy in Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Feasibility Study

PurposeNot all patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are suitable for concurrent chemoradiation therapy (CRT). Local failure rate is high for sequential concurrent CRT. As such, there is a rationale for treatment intensification.Methods and MaterialsIsotoxic intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is a multicenter feasibility study that combines different intensification strategies including hyperfractionation, acceleration, and dose escalation facilitated by IMRT. Patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) of 0 to 2, and unsuitable for concurrent CRT were recruited. A minimum of 2 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy was compulsory before starting radiation therapy (RT). Radiation dose was increased until a maximum dose of 79.2 Gy was reached or 1 or more of the organs at risk met predefined constraints. RT was delivered in 1.8-Gy fractions twice daily, and an RT quality assurance program was implemented. The primary objective was the delivery of isotoxic IMRT to a dose >60 Gy equivalent dose in 2-Gy fractions (EQD2 assuming an α/β ratio of 10 Gy for acute reacting tissues).ResultsThirty-seven patients were recruited from 7 UK centers. Median age was 69.9 years (range, 46-86 years). The male-to-female ratio was 17:18. ECOG PS was 0 to 5 in 14.2% of patients; PS was 1 to 27 in 77.1% of patients; PS was 2 to 3 in 8.6% of patients. Stage IIIA:IIIB ratio was 22:13 (62.9%:37.1%). Of 37 patients, 2 (5.4%) failed to achieve EQD2 > 60 Gy. Median prescribed tumor dose was 77.4 Gy (range, 61.2-79.2 Gy). A maximum dose of 79.2Gy was achieved in 14 patients (37.8%). Grade 3 esophagitis was reported in 2 patients, and no patients developed grade 3 to 4 pneumonitis. There were 3 grade 5 events: acute radiation pneumonitis, bronchopulmonary hemorrhage, and acute lung infection. Median follow-up at time of analysis was 25.4 months (range, 8.0-44.2) months for 11 of 35 survivors. The median survival was 18.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.9-30.6), 2-year overall survival was 33.6% (95% CI, 17.9-50.1), and progression-free survival was 23.9% (95% CI, 11.3-39.1).ConclusionsIsotoxic IMRT is a well-tolerated and feasible approach to treatment intensification.

Dose-Distribution-Driven PET Image-Based Outcome Prediction (DDD-PIOP): A Deep Learning Study for Oropharyngeal Cancer IMRT Application.

PurposeTo develop a deep learning-based AI agent, DDD-PIOP (Dose-Distribution-Driven PET Image Outcome Prediction), for predicting 18FDG-PET image outcomes of oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) in response to intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT).MethodsDDD-PIOP uses pre-radiotherapy 18FDG-PET/CT images and the planned spatial dose distribution as the inputs, and it predicts the 18FDG-PET image outcomes in response to the planned IMRT delivery. This AI agent centralizes a customized convolutional neural network (CNN) as a deep learning approach, and it incorporates a few designs to enhance prediction accuracy. 66 OPC patients who received IMRT treatment on a sequential boost regime (2 Gy/daily fraction) were studied for DDD-PIOP development. 61 patients were used for AI agent training/validation, and the remaining five were used as independent tests. To evaluate the developed AI agent’s performance, the predicted mean standardized uptake values (SUVs) of gross tumor volume (GTV) and clinical target volume (CTV) were compared with the ground truth values. Overall SUV distribution accuracy was evaluated by gamma test passing rates under different criteria.ResultsThe developed DDD-PIOP successfully generated 18FDG-PET image outcome predictions for five test patients. The predicted mean SUV values of GTV/CTV were 3.50/1.41, which were close to the ground-truth values of 3.57/1.51. In 2D-based gamma tests, the average passing rate was 92.1% using 5%/10 mm criteria, which was improved to 95.9%/93.2% when focusing on GTV/CTV regions. 3D gamma test passing rates were 98.7% using 5%/10 mm criteria, and the corresponding GTV/CTV results were 99.8%/99.4%.ConclusionThe reported results suggest that the developed AI agent DDD-PIOP successfully predicted 18FDG-PET image outcomes with high quantitative accuracy. The generated voxel-based image outcome predictions could be used for treatment planning optimization prior to radiation delivery for the best individual-based outcome.

A critical literature review on the use of bellyboard devices to control small bowel dose for pelvic radiotherapy.

Delivering curative radiotherapy doses for rectal and gynaecological tumours has historically been complicated by the dose tolerance of the small bowel. Acute radiation-induced small bowel toxicity includes side effects such as abdominal pain, nausea and diarrhoea. With the advent of new treatment delivery modalities, such as IMRT (Intensity modulated radiotherapy) and VMAT (Volumetric modulated Arc radiotherapy), there has been an expectation that small bowel doses can be better controlled with the use of these technologies. These capabilities enable the creation of treatment plans that can better avoid critical radiosensitive organs. The purpose of this review is to look beyond advances in linear accelerator technology in seeking improvements to small bowel dose and toxicity. This review examines whether an alternative prone patient positioning approach using a bellyboard device in conjunction with IMRT and VMAT treatment delivery can reduce small bowel doses further than using these technologies with the patient in a traditional supine position.

Comparative Study of Fast Superposition, Superposition Algorithm in Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy Techniques for Prostate Cancer

This study aims to compare the dosimetric coverage of the Planning Target Volume (PTV) and the dose to main organs at risk (OARs) between two different algorithms fast superposition (FSUP), superposition (SUP) using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) techniques for prostate cancer. Ten patients with prostate cancer were selected for this study. For each patient, IMRT plans were created with 6 MV photon beam quality using CMS XiO treatment planning system. The delivery of IMRT was carried out using the step and shoot techniques. The dose coverage for each patient was designated to an ICRU report 62 reference point in the PTV, medium coverage of the planned target volume to be 95% of the prescribed dose while the maximum dose in the target volume to be not greater than 107% of the prescribed dose. A hypofractionated prescription dose of 70 Gy/28# at 2.5 Gy per fraction was used. Besides we compared the number of MUs and OARs dose to D15%, D25%, D35%, D50% on both algorithm planning sets. For target, this evaluation was made with comparing the conformity index (CI) and homogeneity index (HI). In our study, the results show the OARs got less dose from the SUP algorithm compared to FSUP algorithms. Statistically not significant difference was observed in V107% of PTV, MU/CC, conformity Index (p = 0.057, p = 0.215, p = 0.370) and 95% PTV Volume received prescription dose from both Plans. But Homogeneity Index for both algorithms was statistically significant (p = 0.000, p = 0.001). For prostate cancer, the superposition algorithm showed better results in the IMRT plan compared to the fast superposition algorithm.

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy in head-and-neck carcinomas: Potential beyond sparing the parotid glands.

Head-and-neck cancer (HNC) is in close proximity to several critical structures. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has the potential of generating highly conformal and concave dose distributions around complex target and is ideally suited for HNC treatment. Conventionally, the focus of IMRT for HNC patients has been on prevention of radiation-induced parotid dysfunction. In the present article, we review the potential of IMRT to reduce the risk of posttreatment aspiration and dysphagia and spare submandibular gland. We also discuss the impact of IMRT on overall survival and quality of life (QoL) for HNC patients. Small retrospective and prospective studies show that reducing dose to adjoining organs at risks is feasible and decreases the risk of posttreatment dysphagia and aspiration without compromising local control. IMRT is associated with improved QoL in several important domains including swallowing, dry mouth, sticky saliva, social eating, and opening of the mouth; however, improvement in global QoL is inconsistent. Delivery of IMRT for HNC is associated with improved survival at nasopharyngeal subsite. Small studies demonstrate improved treatment outcomes with swallowing-sparing IMRT. These results now need validation within the prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial setting.

Dosimetric Impact of Interfractional Variations for Post-prostatectomy Radiotherapy to the Prostatic Fossa-Relevance for the Frequency of Position Verification Imaging and Treatment Adaptation.

Background and purpose: To analyze divergences between the planned and applied treatment doses for post-prostatectomy radiotherapy to the prostatic fossa on a voxel-by-voxel basis based on interfractional anatomic variations and imaging frequency.Materials and methods: For 10 patients receiving intensity-modulated postoperative radiotherapy to the prostatic fossa, position verification was carried out by daily in-room CT imaging in treatment position (340 fraction CTs). Applied fraction doses were recalculated on daily CT scans, and treatment doses were accumulated on a voxel-by-voxel basis after deformable image registration. To simulate weekly imaging, derived weekly position correction vectors were used to rigidly register all daily scans of the respective treatment week onto the planning CT before dose accumulation. Detailed dose statistics of the prescribed and applied treatment doses were compared in relation to the frequency of position verification imaging. Derived NTCP and Pinjury values were calculated for the rectum and bladder.Results: Despite a large variability in the pelvic anatomy, daily CT-based patient repositioning resulted in largely negligible deviations of the analyzed dose-volume, conformity, and uniformity parameters from the planned doses for post-prostatectomy radiotherapy, and only the bladder exhibited significant increases in the accumulated mean and median doses. Derived NTCP for the applied doses to the rectum and bladder and Pinjury values did not significantly deviate from the treatment plan. In contrast, weekly CT-based repositioning resulted in significant decreases of the PTV coverage and dose conformity as well as large deviations of the applied doses to the rectum and bladder from the planned doses. Consecutively, NTCP for the rectum and Pinjury were found falsely reduced for weekly patient repositioning.Conclusions: Our data indicate for the first time in a voxel-by-voxel analysis that daily imaging is required for reliable adaptive delivery of intensity-modulated radiotherapy to the prostatic fossa. This work will help guiding adaptive treatment strategies for post-prostatectomy radiotherapy.

Early clinical experience with varian halcyon V2 linear accelerator: Dual-isocenter IMRT planning and delivery with portal dosimetry for gynecological cancer treatments.

PurposeVarian Halcyon linear accelerator version 2 (The Halcyon 2.0) was recently released with new upgraded features. The aim of this study was to report our clinical experience with Halcyon 2.0 for a dual‐isocenter intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) planning and delivery for gynecological cancer patients and examine the feasibility of in vivo portal dosimetry.MethodsTwelve gynecological cancer patients were treated with extended‐field IMRT technique using two isocenters on Halcyon 2.0 to treat pelvis and pelvic/or para‐aortic nodes region. The prescription dose was 45 Gy in 25 fractions (fxs) with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) dose of 55 or 57.5 Gy in 25 fxs to involved nodes. All treatment plans, pretreatment patient‐specific QA and treatment delivery records including daily in vivo portal dosimetry were retrospectively reviewed. For in vivo daily portal dosimetry analysis, each fraction was compared to the reference baseline (1st fraction) using gamma analysis criteria of 4 %/4 mm with 90% of total pixels in the portal image planar dose.ResultsAll 12 extended‐field IMRT plans met the planning criteria and delivered as planned (a total of 300 fractions). Conformity Index (CI) for the primary target was achieved with the range of 0.99–1.14. For organs at risks, most were well within the dose volume criteria. Treatment delivery time was from 5.0 to 6.5 min. Interfractional in vivo dose variation exceeded gamma analysis threshold for 8 fractions out of total 300 (2.7%). These eight fractions were found to have a relatively large difference in small bowel filling and SSD change at the isocenter compared to the baseline.ConclusionHalcyon 2.0 is effective to create complex extended‐field IMRT plans using two isocenters with efficient delivery. Also Halcyon in vivo dosimetry is feasible for daily treatment monitoring for organ motion, internal or external anatomy, and body weight which could further lead to adaptive radiation therapy.