Jaw Tracking Technique Research Articles

Dosimetrical assessment of jaw tracking technique in volumetric modulated arc therapy for a sample of patients with lateralised targets

Abstract Introduction: In modulated radiotherapy treatments with the jaw tracking technique (JTT), the collimator jaws can dynamically follow the multileaf collimator apertures and reduce radiation leakage. This reduction protects normal tissue from unwanted doses. Previous research has highlighted the importance of defining which patients will benefit most from JTT. Besides, some authors have expressed their concerns about possible increases in monitor units (MUs). Treatments of patients with peripheral targets and isocentre located in the patient’s midline are of particular interest. The current work assessed the effect of JTT on these cases. Methods: JTT plans for thirty-two patients were compared to plans with the static jaws technique. The volumes of normal tissue receiving 5 Gy (V5), 10 Gy (V10) and 20 Gy (V20), mean dose (Dmean), target coverage parameters D95, D2% and Paddick’s conformity index (PCI) were compared. MUs were also registered for comparisons. The decrease in the jaws opening with JTT was correlated to the decrease in dose values in normal tissue. Results: Small decreases were observed in D95 and in D2% values, without statistical significance. A 5% average decrease in PCI values was noticed as well as significant decreases in V5, V10 and Dmean values, 9% on average. A 3% decrease in V20 was also observed. The number of MUs decreased by 2%. A significant correlation was found between the reduction of the secondary collimation opening areas and the dose delivered to normal tissue. Conclusions: JTT technique improved normal tissue protection in volumetric modulated arc therapy treatments for the patients included in the present study.

Clinical implementation of HyperArc.

The aim of this study was to present our experience on clinical implementation of HyperArc including dosimetric comparison between VMAT and HyperArc plans and dosimetric verification of HyperArc. In this study, eleven previously treated cases of brain metastasis were selected from our brain stereotactic radiotherapy program. The cases were retrospectively planned using HyperArc technique and the plan quality was evaluated. In addition, dosimetric effects of HyperArc plan with different energies and using jaw tracking technique were evaluated. Furthermore, dosimetric verification of HyperArc plans was performed using ion chamber and radiochromic film. Our results of dosimetric comparison shows that HyperArc technique improved both conformity index and gradient index compared to VMAT plans. We also found that using 6MV flattening filter free (6MV-FFF) beam improves gradient index in HyperArc plans compared to using 6MV flattening filter beam. Furthermore, our results show that jaw tracking technique reduces the size of low dose volume while maintaining similar target coverage, conformity index, and gradient index. In our dosimetric verification study, results of ion chamber and film measurement indicate no significant difference between VMAT and HyperArc plans. In conclusion, HyperArc simplifies planning of stereotactic treatment for brain and improves the dosimetry in treatment plans. Additionally, HyperArc provides for a safe and efficient treatment delivery system for stereotactic treatments to brain.

Dosimetric Importance of Implementing Jaw Tracking Technique in Radiotherapy Treatment Plan Execution.

Objective: To study the dosimetric importance of Jaw tracking technique in reducing the doses to organs at risk (OAR) while achieving the optimal dose coverage for the target. Methods:We retrospectively selected ten Glioblastoma cases and for each patient, two plans were created namely Static Jaw Technique Dynamic Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy plan and Jaw Tracking Technique D-IMRT plan with 6 MV for Varian Truebeam™ STx machine using Eclipse Treatment planning system. Both plans were analyzed and compared based on various dosimetric parameters for Planning Target Volume (PTV) and OARs. The dose agreement between the Portal dose image prediction and the portal dosimetry measurement was also analysed using gamma analysis criteria of 3%/3mm, 2%/2mm and 1%/1mm of dose distance/distance-to-agreement. Results: The dosimetric parameters evaluated for both plans showed that most of the parameters gave significant P values, where D50% of PTV showed a mean difference (Δ) of 0.45 with significant P value, 0.0104. Similarly mean dose, D2%, D98%, D80% to PTV, Conformity Index and Conformation number showed Δ values of 0.45, 0.51, 0.41, 0.40, 0.02 and 0.01 with their significant P values as 0.0138, 0.0172, 0.0313, 0.0466, 0.0279, 0.0561 respectively. The Δ values and significant P values obtained among OARs are 0.54;0.0224 for brainstem, 0.54;0.0017 for RT optic nerve, 0.52;0.0001 for LT optic nerve, 0.59;0.0040 for optic chiasm and for the healthy tissues it showed the values with their mean dose, V5 and V30 parameters as 0.19;0.0115, 0.59;0.0067 and 0.25;0.0125 respectively. The JTT plans showed better passing results of gamma analysis criteria when compared to SJT plans. Conclusion: The findings in the studies emphasize the importance of using JTT technique in the radiotherapy treatment plans as it lowers the risk of acute or late toxicity and secondary radiogenic cancers in patients by reducing the OAR doses and achieves better tumor control.

Comparison of treatment plans between static jaw and jaw tracking techniques in postmastectomy intensity-modulated radiation therapy.

This study reports a dosimetric comparison between treatment plans using static jaw and jaw tracking techniques in intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). Seventeen patients treated for left-sided breast cancer with implant-based reconstruction were subjected to IMRT plans. Another group of 22 patients treated for left-sided breast cancer without reconstruction was also subjected to IMRT plans. The plans were generated using the Eclipse treatment planning system with static jaw and jaw tracking techniques. The dose-volume histograms and dosimetric indices, such as mean dose (Dmean), V20 Gy, V10 Gy, and V5 Gy (volumes receiving 20, 10, and 5Gy at the least, respectively), and generalized equivalent uniform dose for organs at risk (OARs) were analyzed. A significant difference in the value of the dosimetric indices between the static jaw and jaw tracking plans was observed. For jaw tracking plans,the Dmean of the heart for the patients with implant-based reconstruction reduced from 11.6 ± 1.1Gy to 10.0 ± 1.8Gy, whereas the V5 Gy reduced from 92.0 ± 4.5% to 85.1 ± 8.4%. The Dmean of the heart for patients without reconstruction reduced from 11.0 ± 2.3Gy to 9.8 ± 2.6Gy, whereas the V5 Gy reduced from 81.4 ± 13.6% to 66.7 ± 17.4%. The dosimetric indices of OARs in the jaw tracking plans were significantly lower than those of the OARs in the static jaw plans. The jaw tracking technique was more effective for patients without reconstruction than for those with implant-based reconstruction.

Dosimetric comparison of jaw tracking in intensity modulated and volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy for carcinoma of cervix

Abstract Aim: To study the dosimetric advantages of the jaw tracking technique in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) for carcinoma of cervix patients. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively selected ten previously treated cervix patients in this study. All the ten patients underwent CT simulation along with immobilization and positional devices. Targets and organ at risks (OARs) were delineated slice by slice for all the patients. All the patients were planned for IMRT and VMAT with intend to deliver 50 Gy in 25 fractions. All the plans were planned with 6 MV photon beam using millennium-120 multi leaf collimator (MLC) using the TrueBeam linear accelerator. IMRT and VMAT plans were performed with jaw tracking (JT) and with static jaw (SJ) techniques by keeping the same constraints and priorities for the target volumes and critical structures for a particular patient. For standardization, all the plans were normalized to the target mean of the planning target volume. All the plans were accepted with the criteria of bladder mean dose < 40 Gy and rectum mean dose < 40 Gy without compromising the target volumes. Target conformity, dose to the critical structures and low dose volumes were recorded and analyzed for IMRT and VMAT plans with and without jaw tracking for all the patients. Results: The conformity index average of all patients followed by standard deviation (̄x± σ̄x) for JT-IMRT, SJ-IMRT, JT-VMAT and SJ-VMAT were 1.176 ± 0.139, 1.175 ± 0.139, 1.193 ± 0.220 and 1.228 ± 0.192 and homogeneity index were 0.089 ± 0.022, 0.085 ± 0.024, 0.102 ± 0.016 and 0.101 ± 0.016. In low dose volume J,T-IMRT shows a 5.4% (p-value < 0.001) overall reduction in volume receiving at least 5 Gy (V5) compared to SJ-IMRT, whereas 1.2% reduction was observed in V5 volume in JT-VMAT compared to SJ-VMAT. JT-IMRT showed mean reduction in rectum and bladder of 1.34% (p-value < 0.001) and 1.46% (p-value < 0.001) compared to SJ-IMRT, while only 0.30% and 0.03% reduction were observed between JT-VMAT and SJ-VMAT. JT-IMRT plans also showed considerable dose reduction to inthe testine, right femoral head, left femoral head and cauda compared to the SJ-IMRT plans. Conclusion: Jaw tracking resulted in decreased dose to critical structures in IMRT and VMAT plans. But significant dose reductions were observed for critical structures in the JT-IMRT compared to SJ-IMRT technique. In JT-VMAT plans dose reduction to the critical structures were not significant compared to the JT-IMRT due to relatively lesser monitor units in the VMAT plans.

Evaluation of organ-at-risk dose reduction with jaw tracking technique in flattening filter-free beams in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy

Purpose(i) to investigate the capability of organ-at-risk (OAR) dose reduction with the jaw tracking (JT) technique in flattening filter-free (FFF) beams in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), (ii) to propose a novel metric to quantify the jaw movements during JT, and (iii) to examine the relationships between the quantified jaw movements and reduction rate of OAR doses. MethodsThe individual SBRT plans with volumetric modulated arc therapy using the JT technique (JT-VMAT) and VMAT plans with a fixed jaw (FJ-VMAT) were created for 15 patients, and dosimetric parameters were compared. A jaw tracking complexity score (JTCS) was defined and compared with the multi-leaf collimator (MLC) modulation complexity score (MCS). The correlations between the JTCS and reduction rate of OAR doses were examined. ResultsThe decrease of OARs doses was statistically significant in the JT-VMAT plans (1.2% in V20 of the lung and <1% in all other OARs). The correlations between the JTCS and MCS were not significant. There were significant correlations between the JTCS and the reduction rates in V20, V2.5, and Dmean of the lung, D1% of the spinal cord, and D90% of the body. ConclusionsA significant decrease of dosimetric parameters of OARs was found with JT-VMAT in FFF beams. This reduction is very small and probably not clinically relevant. JTCS, a novel metric to quantify the jaw movements during JT, was proposed, and the complexity of jaw movements did not correlate with that of the movements of MLC leaves. There were significant correlations between the JTCS and some dosimetric parameters of OARs.

Dosimetric Comparison Between Jaw Tracking and No Jaw Tracking in Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy.

Purpose:This article compares the dosimetric differences between jaw tracking and no jaw tracking technique in static intensity-modulated radiation therapy plans of large and small tumors.Methods:Eight plans with large tumor (nasopharyngeal carcinoma, volume range: 510.9 to 768.0 cm3) and 8 plans with small tumor (single brain metastasis, volume range: 5.3 to 9.9 cm3) treated with jaw tracking on Varian EDGE LINAC were chosen and recalculated with no jaw tracking to study the dosimetric differences. We compared the differences of organ-at-risk doses (Dmax, Dmean), monitor units, and γ passing rate of plan verification (3mm/3%, threshold 10%; 2mm/2%, threshold 10%) between the 2 techniques.Results:The organ-at-risk doses of nasopharyngeal carcinoma cases having jaw tracking are all less than those with no jaw tracking. The Dmax and Dmean of organ-at-risks reduced 0.61% to 17.65% and 2.17% to 19.32%, P < .05, respectively. In cases with single brain metastasis, the organ-at-risk doses with jaw tracking were also lower than no jaw tracking. The Dmax and Dmean of organ-at-risk doses reduced 0.84% to 1.52% and 0.90% to 1.86%, P < .05, respectively. The monitor units for the large tumor and small tumor were increased by 2.41% and 1.1%, respectively. The γ passing rates (3mm/3%, th10%; 2mm/2%, th10%) of nasopharyngeal carcinoma plans are 99.89% ± 0.06% (jaw tracking) versus 99.56% ± 0.19% (no jaw tracking; P = .127); 97.15% ± 0.98% (jaw tracking) versus 91.90% ± 1.40% (no jaw tracking; P = .000), and the γ passing rates (3mm/3%, th10%; 2mm/2%, th10%) of brain metastasis plans are 99.97% ± 0.05% (jaw tracking) versus 99.44% ± 1.24% (no jaw tracking; P = .251), 98.65% ± 1.27% (jaw tracking) versus 93.35% ± 2.72% (no jaw tracking; P = .000).Conclusion:Jaw tracking can reduce the dose of organ-at-risks compared to no jaw tracking, and the effect is more significant for plans with large tumor. The γ passing rate of plans with jaw tracking is also higher than the plans with no jaw tracking. Although the monitor units in plans of jaw tracking will increase slightly, it is recommended to use jaw tracking in static intensity-modulated radiation therapy both in large and in small tumors.

Dosimetric superiority of IMRT with jaw tracking technique for whole esophagus and T-shaped field radiotherapy in advanced esophageal cancer.

PurposeFor whole esophagus and T-shaped field radiotherapy using intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) technique in advanced esophageal cancer, lower absorbed doses to lung and heart remains a challenge. The aim of this study was to investigate the dosimetric superiority in IMRT plans with jaw tracking technique for whole esophagus radiotherapy.Methods and materialsThirty-two patients with esophageal cancer were subjected to IMRT treatment plans using Eclipse treatment planning system. For every patient, four different plans were generated with six gantry angles: six large fields IMRT plans with fixed jaw (6F-IMRT), six large fields IMRT plans with jaw tracking technique (6F-IMRT-T), twelve small fields IMRT plans with fixed jaw (12F-IMRT), and twelve small fields IMRT plans with jaw tracking technique (12F-IMRT-T). Dosimetric evaluation was assessed for all plans.ResultsFor every technique, there were no differences in planning target volume (PTV) coverage and conformity. 6F-IMRT-T plans could significantly reduce lung irradiation with 7.9% (P<0.001) reduction in V5lung and 2.5% (P<0.001) reduction in V20 lung respectively compared to 6F-IMRT plans. 12F-IMRT-T plans resulted in superior plans compared to 12-IMRT plans with a reduction of 2.9% (P<0.001) in V5lung and 0.9% (P<0.001) in V20 lung, respectively. For heart irradiation, 6F-IMRT-T and 12F-IMRT-T plans were slightly superior to 6F-IMRT and 12-IMRT plans respectively with a reduction of 1.1 Gy and 0.5 Gy in the respective mean doses.ConclusionsBy the use of jaw tracking technique, the IMRT plans resulted in further lung and heart sparing compared to fixed jaw plans for radiotherapy in esophageal cancer.

Influence of jaw tracking in intensity-modulated and volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy for head and neck cancers: a dosimetric study.

PurposeTo Study the dosimetric advantage of the Jaw tracking technique in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for Head and Neck Cancers.Materials and MethodsWe retrospectively selected 10 previously treated head and neck cancer patients stage (T1/T2, N1, M0) in this study. All the patients were planned for IMRT and VMAT with simultaneous integrated boost technique. IMRT and VMAT plans were performed with jaw tracking (JT) and with static jaw (SJ) technique by keeping the same constraints and priorities for a particular patient. Target conformity, dose to the critical structures and low dose volumes were recorded and analyzed for IMRT and VMAT plans with and without JT for all the patients.ResultsThe conformity index average of all patients followed by standard deviation ( ± ) of the JT-IMRT, SJ-IMRT, JT-VMAT, and SJ-VMAT were 1.72 ± 0.56, 1.67 ± 0.57, 1.83 ± 0.65, and 1.85 ± 0.64, and homogeneity index were 0.059 ± 0.05, 0.064 ± 0.05, 0.064 ± 0.04, and 0.064 ± 0.05. JT-IMRT shows significant mean reduction in right parotid and left parotid shows of 7.64% (p < 0.001) and 7.45% (p < 0.001) compare to SJ-IMRT. JT-IMRT plans also shows considerable dose reduction to thyroid, inferior constrictors, spinal cord and brainstem compared to the SJ-IMRT plans.ConclusionSignificant dose reductions were observed for critical structure in the JT-IMRT compared to SJ-IMRT technique. In JT-VMAT plans dose reduction to the critical structure were not significant compared to the SJ-IMRT due to relatively lesser monitor units.

Influence of the jaw tracking technique on the dose calculation accuracy of small field VMAT plans.

PurposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate experimentally the accuracy of the dose calculation algorithm AcurosXB in small field highly modulated Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT).MethodThe 1000SRS detector array inserted in the rotational Octavius 4D phantom (PTW) was used for 3D dose verification of VMAT treatments characterized by small to very small targets. Clinical treatment plans (n = 28) were recalculated on the phantom CT data set in the Eclipse TPS. All measurements were done on a Varian TrueBeamSTx, which can provide the jaw tracking technique (JTT). The effect of disabling the JTT, thereby fixing the jaws at static field size of 3 × 3 cm2 and applying the MLC to shape the smallest apertures, was investigated for static fields between 0.5 × 0.5−3 × 3 cm2 and for seven VMAT patients with small brain metastases. The dose calculation accuracy has been evaluated by comparing the measured and calculated dose outputs and dose distributions. The dosimetric agreement has been presented by a local gamma evaluation criterion of 2%/2 mm.ResultsRegarding the clinical plans, the mean ± SD of the volumetric gamma evaluation scores considering the dose levels for evaluation of 10%, 50%, 80% and 95% are (96.0 ± 6.9)%, (95.2 ± 6.8)%, (86.7 ± 14.8)% and (56.3 ± 42.3)% respectively. For the smallest field VMAT treatments, discrepancies between calculated and measured doses up to 16% are obtained. The difference between the 1000SRS central chamber measurements compared to the calculated dose outputs for static fields 3 × 3, 2 × 2, 1 × 1 and 0.5 × 0.5 cm2 collimated with MLC whereby jaws are fixed at 3 × 3 cm2 and for static fields shaped with the collimator jaws only (MLC retracted), is on average respectively, 0.2%, 0.8%, 6.8%, 5.7% (6 MV) and 0.1%, 1.3%, 11.7%, 21.6% (10 MV). For the seven brain mets patients was found that the smaller the target volumes, the higher the improvement in agreement between measured and calculated doses after disabling the JTT.ConclusionFixing the jaws at 3 × 3 cm2 and using the MLC with high positional accuracy to shape the smallest apertures in contrast to the JTT is currently found to be the most accurate treatment technique.

Impact of Jaw Position Accuracy on Dose Variation in Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Using Jaw Tracking.

The technique of jaw tracking can be used in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). In this technique, jaw tracks apertures of the multi leaf collimator (MLC) during irradiation. It is reported that dose variation is occurred by the changing accuracy of MLC position in VMAT and IMRT. Though jaw moves dynamically in the irradiation by using this technique, the influence of the jaw position accuracy on dose variation is not examined. The purpose of this study is to verify the influence of jaw position accuracy on dose variation in VMAT using jaw tracking. We appended intentional errors on jaw position in digital image communication in medicine-radiation therapy (DICOM-RT) plans created using jaw tracking technique. These plans were irradiated on the phantom that was inserted ion chamber, and we measured dose variation by changing the intentional error. The dose variation in planning target volume (PTV) was enlarged by increasing the error, and agreed with the variation of a collimator scatter factor within 0.03%. In clinical case of oropharyngeal cancer, the maximum dose variations in parotid gland were 0.179% and 1.23% when the errors were 1 mm and 10 mm, respectively. Dose variation in parotid gland was larger than the variation in PTV and spinal cord because of increasing MLC transmission. The dose variation caused by jaw position error was smaller than it caused by MLC position error. So, we can keep the dose error slightly that is related to jaw position error in VMAT by maintaining jaw position accuracy correctly.

Dosimetric Impact of the Jaw-Tracking Technique in Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy

Objective: The jaw-tracking technique has been developed to reduce the radiation beam transmission in the regions blocked by multileaf collimator (MLC). The aim of this study is the dosimetric evaluation of the jaw-tracking technique in Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT). Material and Methods: 31 VMAT cases treated with the jaw-tracking technique were employed and re-planned with fixed jaw to analyze the dosimetric influences of the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs) volume. The treatment sites were liver, lung, and pancreas. All plans were optimized and calculated under jawtracking and fixed jaw conditions to cover the prescription dose to 95% of PTV (D95%) using the treatment planning system. The dosimetric verification of the treatment plans, the uniformity of the target dose distributions, the partial volume doses in OARs, and the low-dose volume were evaluated to verify the dosimetric impact of the jaw-tracking. Results: The jaw-tracking technique appeared to be able to provide some clinical advantages compared to the fixed-jaw technique. The dose uniformities in targets were similar between in jaw-tracking technique and in fixed jaw. It appeared that the jaw-tracking technique could significantly reduce the partial volume dose of OARs, for the kidney (p=0.008) and duodenum (p=0.028) in liver cancer cases, for the esophagus (p=0.015) in the lung cancer cases, and for the normal liver (p=0.005) and kidney (p=0.005) in the pancreatic cancer cases. The low-dose volumes with the jaw tracking technique were calculated to be smaller than those with fixed jaw setup when the effective maximum field dimension were 1.5 cm larger than the equivalent spherical diameter of the PTVs. Conclusions: The partial volume dose of OARs and the low-dose volume could be significantly reduced by application of the jaw-tracking technique without any adverse effect of the dosimetric parameter for targets in VMAT.