Multileaf Collimator Intensity-modulated Radiation Therapy Research Articles

Simple Electronic Portal Imager-Based Pretreatment Quality Assurance using Acuros XB: A Feasibility Study.

Objective:This study demonstrates a novel electronic portal imaging device (EPID)-based forward dosimetry approach for pretreatment quality assurance aided by a treatment planning system (TPS).Materials and Methods:Dynamic multileaf collimator intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans were delivered in EPID and fluence was captured on a beam-by-beam basis (FEPID). An open field having dimensions equal to those of the largest IMRT field was used in the TPS to obtain the transmitted fluence. This represented the patient-specific heterogeneity correction (Fhet). To obtain the resultant heterogeneity-corrected fluence, EPID measured fluence was corrected for the TPS generated heterogeneity (FResultant = FEPID × Fhet). Next, the calculated fluence per beam basis was collected from TPS (FTPS). Finally, FResultant and FTPS were compared using a 3% percentage dose difference (% DD)-3 mm distance to agreement [DTA] gamma analysis in an isocentric plane (two-dimensional [2D]) and multiple planes (quasi three-dimensional [3D]) orthogonal to the beam axis.Results:The 2D heterogeneity-corrected dose reconstruction revealed a mean γ passing of the pelvis, thorax, and head-and-neck cases of 96.3% ±2.0%, 96.3% ±1.8%, and 96.1% ±2.2%, respectively. Quasi-3D γ passing for the pelvis, thorax, and head-and-neck cases were 97.5% ±1.4%, 96.3% ±2.4%, and 97.5% ±1.0%, respectively.Conclusion:EPID dosimetry produced an inferior result due to no heterogeneity corrections for sites such as the lung and esophagus. Incorporating TPS-based heterogeneity correction improved the EPID dosimetry result for those sites with large heterogeneity.

Consideration of Dose Error in Dynamic MLC IMRT Using MLC Speed Control with Dose Rate Change.

In dynamic multi-leaf collimator (MLC) intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), the accuracy of delivered dose is influenced by the positional accuracy of the moving MLC. In order to assess the accuracy of the delivered dose during dynamic MLC IMRT, the delivered dose error in dynamic MLC IMRT using the MLC speed control with dose rate change was investigated. Sweeping gap sequence irradiation was performed with constant MLC leaf speed at 0.6 to 5 cm/s or changed MLC speed (4 steps). The positional accuracy of the moving MLC was evaluated from the trajectory log file. Absorbed dose measurements with sweeping field (Field size: 10 cm×10 cm, MLC leaf speed: 0.6 to 2.7 cm/s, MLC leaf gap width: 0.2 to 2.0 cm) were performed. The delivered dose error at each gap width was evaluated according to MLC leaf speed change. MLC positional errors and changes in delivered dose according to MLC leaf speed were within 0.07 mm and 0.6%, respectively, for all measurements. Beam hold-off did not occur under any conditions. We confirmed that TrueBeam can regulate MLC leaf speed below the maximum limit (2.5 cm/s) by changing the dose rate in real-time during irradiation in dynamic MLC IMRT. MLC gap error during irradiation was estimated within 0.2 mm at the maximum dose rate from the results of absolute dose measurements using dynamic MLC irradiation. In conclusion, TrueBeam can use the maximum dose rate for the treatment planning of dynamic MLC IMRT, which has an advantage of shorter treatment time.

Use of plan quality degradation to evaluate tradeoffs in delivery efficiency and clinical plan metrics arising from IMRT optimizer and sequencer compromises

Plan degradation resulting from compromises made to enhance delivery efficiency is an important consideration for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment plans. IMRT optimization and/or multileaf collimator (MLC) sequencing schemes can be modified to generate more efficient treatment delivery, but the effect those modifications have on plan quality is often difficult to quantify. In this work, the authors present a method for quantitative assessment of overall plan quality degradation due to tradeoffs between delivery efficiency and treatment plan quality, illustrated using comparisons between plans developed allowing different numbers of intensity levels in IMRT optimization and/or MLC sequencing for static segmental MLC IMRT plans. A plan quality degradation method to evaluate delivery efficiency and plan quality tradeoffs was developed and used to assess planning for 14 prostate and 12 head and neck patients treated with static IMRT. Plan quality was evaluated using a physician's predetermined "quality degradation" factors for relevant clinical plan metrics associated with the plan optimization strategy. Delivery efficiency and plan quality were assessed for a range of optimization and sequencing limitations. The "optimal" (baseline) plan for each case was derived using a clinical cost function with an unlimited number of intensity levels. These plans were sequenced with a clinical MLC leaf sequencer which uses >100 segments, assuring delivered intensities to be within 1% of the optimized intensity pattern. Each patient's optimal plan was also sequenced limiting the number of intensity levels (20, 10, and 5), and then separately optimized with these same numbers of intensity levels. Delivery time was measured for all plans, and direct evaluation of the tradeoffs between delivery time and plan degradation was performed. When considering tradeoffs, the optimal number of intensity levels depends on the treatment site and on the stage in the process at which the levels are limited. The cost of improved delivery efficiency, in terms of plan quality degradation, increased as the number of intensity levels in the sequencer or optimizer decreased. The degradation was more substantial for the head and neck cases relative to the prostate cases, particularly when fewer than 20 intensity levels were used. Plan quality degradation was less severe when the number of intensity levels was limited in the optimizer rather than the sequencer. Analysis of plan quality degradation allows for a quantitative assessment of the compromises in clinical plan quality as delivery efficiency is improved, in order to determine the optimal delivery settings. The technique is based on physician-determined quality degradation factors and can be extended to other clinical situations where investigation of various tradeoffs is warranted.

Comparing dose in the build‐up region between compensator‐ and MLC‐based IMRT

The build‐up dose in the megavoltage photon beams can be a limiting factor in intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatments. Excessive surface dose can cause patient discomfort and treatment interruptions, while underdosing may lead to tumor repopulation and local failure. Dose in the build‐up region was investigated for IMRT delivery with solid brass compensator technique (compensator‐based IMRT) and compared with that of multileaf collimator (MLC)‐based IMRT. A Varian Trilogy linear accelerator equipped with an MLC was used for beam delivery. A special solid brass step‐wise compensator was designed and built for testing purposes. Two step‐and‐shoot MLC fields were programmed to produce a similar modulated step‐wise dose profile. The MLC and compensator dose profiles were measured and adjusted to match at the isocenter depth of 10 cm. Build‐up dose in the 1–5 mm depth range was measured with an ultrathin window, fixed volume parallel plate ionization chamber. Monte Carlo simulations were used to model the brass compensator and step‐and‐shoot MLC fields. The measured and simulated profiles for the two IMRT techniques were matched at the isocenter depth of 10 cm. Different component contributions to the shallow dose, including the MLC scatter, were quantified. Mean spectral energies for the open and filtered beams were calculated. The compensator and MLC profiles at 10 cm depth were matched better than ±1.5%. The build‐up dose was up to 7% lower for compensator IMRT compared to MLC IMRT due to beam hardening in the brass. Low‐energy electrons contribute 22% and 15% dose at 1 mm depth for compensator and MLC modalities, respectively. Compensator‐based IMRT delivers less dose in the build‐up region than MLC‐based IMRT does, even though a compensator is closer to the skin than the MLC.PACS number: 87.55.dk, 87.56.ng

Clinical applied study for cerrobase compensator intensity-modulated radiotherapy technique

Objective To study the using of cerrobase as the compensation material in the intensitymodulated radiation therapy (IMRT) implementation and impact factors.Methods With therapy planning system (TPS) exported the radiation field intensity file (Dicom RT),through measuring the attenuation coefficient of cerrobase,to calculate the processing depth of AUTIMO 3D CNC corresponding for Dicom RT files at each pixel,then using the processed foam casting of Cerrobase,produced the required IMRT compensator.Through the MATRIXX testing the IMRT compensator in clinical implementation.At the same time we compared the MU of using multi-leaf collimator (MLC) and Cerrobase IMRT compensator for 10patients.Results With cerrobase compensation IMRT can get similar dose or dose distribution to dose produced by TPS for point or plane dose,error is within 5％.To comparison with MLC,using cerrobase compensator has fewer treatment times ( (4.44±0.39) min:(5.71±0.57) min (t =10.82,P =0.000) )and fewer MU (462.5 ± 65.8) MU:(524.5±99.6) MU(t=3.14,P=0.012) ).Conclusions Comparison with MLC IMRT,the cerrobase compensation technique has an important application value with its unique advantages.This research provides an implemented method of IMRT radiotherapy for the primaryhospital. Key words: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy; Cerrobase compensator; Multi-leaf collimator

Impact of the number of control points has on isodose distributions in a dynamic multileaf collimator intensity-modulated radiation therapy delivery

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is a powerful technique in planning the delivery of dose. The most common IMRT delivery requires the use of moving multileaf collimators (MLCs) to deliver the requested fluence pattern. A dynamic delivery IMRT field file will contain several control points that are defined MLC shapes at a marked fraction of the delivered monitor units. The size of this file and the fidelity of the deliverable fluence are proportional to the number of control points defined. This study investigates the effect of reducing the number of control points has on the resultant dose distribution quality in complex IMRT in efforts to reduce transfer times, loading times, check sum times and file storage. Analysis was performed with 6 head and neck patients on an Eclipse version 8.5 treatment planning system (Varian, Palo Alto, CA). To ensure the quality of all treatments, Eclipse defines a minimum of 64 and a maximum of 320 control points per subfield (Eclipse Algorithms Reference guide). All 6 patients' plans were calculated with fixed 64, 166, and 320 control points using the sliding window technique. In addition, each plan was calculated in variable mode (Normal mode) in which the planning system determined the required number of control points. Each of the 4 plans for each patient was renormalized to provide the same mean planning target volume (PTV) 70 dose. Dose values for critical and target structures were examined for each patient. When examining the minimum, maximum, and mean doses to all target structures, it was noted that the greatest reduction in target dose coverage caused by reduced number of control points was 0.5%, which occurred for the minimum dose to the PTV56 structure in one plan.” Dose analysis for critical structures showed no clinically significant increase in dose when compared with the 320 control point plan.

Biological consequences of MLC calibration errors in IMRT delivery and QA

The purpose of this work is threefold: (1) to explore biological consequences of the multileaf collimator (MLC) calibration errors in intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) of prostate and head and neck cancers, (2) to determine levels of planning target volume (PTV) and normal tissue under- or overdose flagged with clinically used QA action limits, and (3) to provide biologically based input for MLC QA and IMRT QA action limits. Ten consecutive prostate IMRT cases and ten consecutive head and neck IMRT cases were used. Systematic MLC offsets (i.e., calibration error) were introduced for each control point of the plan separately for X1 and X2 leaf banks. Offsets were from - 2 to 2 mm with a 0.5 mm increment. The modified files were imported into the planning system for forward dose recalculation. The original plan served as the reference. The generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD) was used as the biological index for the targets, rectum, parotid glands, brainstem, and spinal cord. Each plan was recalculated on a CT scan of a 27 cm diameter cylindrical phantom with a contoured 0.6 cc ion chamber. Dose to ion chamber and 3D gamma analysis were compared to the reference plan. QA pass criteria: (1) at least 95% of voxels with a dose cutoff of 50% of maximum dose have to pass at 3 mm/3% and (2) dose to chamber within 2% of the reference dose. For prostate cases, differences in PTV and rectum gEUD greater than 2% were identified. However, a larger proportion of plans leading to greater than 2% difference in prostate PTV gEUD passed the ion chamber QA but not 3D gamma QA. A similar trend was found for the rectum gEUD. For head and neck IMRT, the QA pass criteria flagged plans leading to greater than 4% differences in PTV gEUD and greater than 5% differences in the maximum dose to brainstem. If pass criteria were relaxed to 90% for gamma and 3% for ion chamber QA, plans leading to a 5% difference in PTV gEUD and a 5%-8% difference in brainstem maximum dose would likely pass IMRT QA. A larger proportion of head and neck plans with greater than 2% PTV gEUD difference passed 3D gamma QA compared to ion chamber QA. For low modulation plans, there is a better chance to catch MLC calibration errors with 3D gamma QA rather than ion chamber QA. Conversely, for high modulation plans, there is a better chance to catch MLC calibration errors with ion chamber QA rather than with 3D gamma QA. Ion chamber and 3D gamma analysis IMRT QA can detect greater than 2% change in gEUD for PTVs and critical structures for low modulation treatment plans. For high modulation treatment plans, ion chamber and 3D gamma analysis can detect greater than 2% change in gEUD for PTVs and a 5% change in critical structure gEUD since either QA methods passes the QA criteria. For gEUD changes less than those listed above, either QA method has the same proportion of passing rate.

SU-GG-T-137: Similarities between Static and Rotational Intensity Modulated Plans

Purpose: To explore similarities between intensity modulated radiotherapy(IMRT) and intensity modulated arc therapy (IMAT) techniques in the context of the number of multi‐leaf collimator(MLC) segments required to achieve plan objectives, the major factor influencing plan quality. Materials and Methods: Three clinical cases with increasing complexity were studied: (a) prostate only, (b) prostate and seminal vesicles, (c) prostate and pelvic lymph nodes. Initial “gold‐standard” plans with the maximum possible organ‐at‐risk sparing were generated for all three cases. For each case, multiple IMRT and IMAT plans were generated with varying intensity levels (IMRT) and arc control points (IMAT), which translates to varying MLC segments in both modalities. The IMAT/IMRT plans were forced to mimic the organ‐at‐risk sparing and target coverage in the gold‐standard plans, thereby only allowing the target dose inhomogeneity to be variable. A higher target dose inhomogeneity (quantified as D5 — dose to the highest 5% of target volume) implies that the plan is less capable of modulation. Results: For each case, given a similar number of MLC segments, both IMRT and IMAT plans exhibit similar target dose inhomogeneity, indicating there is no difference in their ability to provide dose painting. Target dose inhomogeneity remained approximately constant with decreasing segments, but sharply increased below a specific critical number of segments (70, 100, 110 for cases a, b, c, respectively). Conclusions: For the cases studied, IMAT and IMRT plans are similar in their dependence on the number of MLC segments. A minimum critical number of segments is required to ensure adequate plan quality. Future studies are needed to establish the range of minimum critical number of segments for different treatment sites and target‐organ geometries. Acknowledgment: Research supported in part by a master research grant from Varian Medical Systems.

The effect of gantry and collimator angles on leaf limited velocity and position in dynamic multileaf collimator intensity-modulated radiation therapy

The purpose of the study is to evaluate the limiting velocity (LV) of a multileaf collimator and the leaf position in various collimator and gantry angles. Both leading leaves and trailing leaves began to move with a constant acceleration from 0 to 4 cm s−1. When the beam hold occurred, the leaf velocity was defined as the leaf LV. Dynamic irradiation was performed at eight gantry angles of every 45° with three different collimator angles. The analysis of the LV and the leaf position was performed with a log file from a leaf motion controller. The mean LVs for Varian Clinac 21EX (21EX) ranged from 2.51 to 3.10 cm s−1. The mean LVs for Clinac 600C ranged from 2.91 to 3.12 cm s−1. When only central 5 mm leaves of 21EX moved, LVs were significantly higher than those when all 60 pairs of leaf moved, while the leaf position inconsistencies of the two accelerators were within 1 mm at the leaf velocities from 0.5 to 2.0 cm s−1. It was recognized that the LV was affected by gravity. This measurement method can be utilized as routine quality assurance for a dynamic multileaf collimator (DMLC) is and easily reproducible.

Similarities between static and rotational intensity-modulated plans

The aim of this study was to explore similarities between intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT) techniques in the context of the number of multi-leaf collimator (MLC) segments required to achieve plan objectives, the major factor influencing plan quality. Three clinical cases with increasing complexity were studied: (a) prostate only, (b) prostate and seminal vesicles and (c) prostate and pelvic lymph nodes. Initial ‘gold-standard’ plans with the maximum possible organ-at-risk sparing were generated for all three cases. For each case, multiple IMRT and IMAT plans were generated with varying intensity levels (IMRT) and arc control points (IMAT), which translate into varying MLC segments in both modalities. The IMAT/IMRT plans were forced to mimic the organ-at-risk sparing and target coverage in the gold-standard plans, thereby only allowing the target dose inhomogeneity to be variable. A higher target dose inhomogeneity (quantified as D5—dose to the highest 5% of target volume) implies that the plan is less capable of modulation. For each case, given a similar number of MLC segments, both IMRT and IMAT plans exhibit similar target dose inhomogeneity, indicating that there is no difference in their ability to provide dose painting. Target dose inhomogeneity remained approximately constant with decreasing segments, but sharply increased below a specific critical number of segments (70, 100, 110 for cases a, b, c, respectively). For the cases studied, IMAT and IMRT plans are similar in their dependence on the number of MLC segments. A minimum critical number of segments are required to ensure adequate plan quality. Future studies are needed to establish the range of minimum critical number of segments for different treatment sites and target-organ geometries.

Evaluation of a commercial biologically based IMRT treatment planning system

A new inverse treatment planning system (TPS) for external beam radiation therapy with high energy photons is commercially available that utilizes both dose-volume-based cost functions and a selection of cost functions which are based on biological models. The purpose of this work is to evaluate quality of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans resulting from the use of biological cost functions in comparison to plans designed using a traditional TPS employing dose-volume-based optimization. Treatment planning was performed independently at two institutions. For six cancer patients, including head and neck (one case from each institution), prostate, brain, liver, and rectal cases, segmental multileaf collimator IMRT plans were designed using biological cost functions and compared with clinically used dose-based plans for the same patients. Dose-volume histograms and dosimetric indices, such as minimum, maximum, and mean dose, were extracted and compared between the two types of treatment plans. Comparisons of the generalized equivalent uniform dose (EUD), a previously proposed plan quality index (fEUD), target conformity and heterogeneity indices, and the number of segments and monitor units were also performed. The most prominent feature of the biologically based plans was better sparing of organs at risk (OARs). When all plans from both institutions were combined, the biologically based plans resulted in smaller EUD values for 26 out of 33 OARs by an average of 5.6 Gy (range 0.24 to 15 Gy). Owing to more efficient beam segmentation and leaf sequencing tools implemented in the biologically based TPS compared to the dose-based TPS, an estimated treatment delivery time was shorter in most (five out of six) cases with some plans showing up to 50% reduction. The biologically based plans were generally characterized by a smaller conformity index, but greater heterogeneity index compared to the dose-based plans. Overall, compared to plans based on dose-volume optimization, plans with equivalent target coverage obtained using the biologically based TPS demonstrate improved dose distributions for the majority of normal structures.

Leaf transmission reduction using moving jaws for dynamic MLC IMRT

The aim of this work is to investigate to what extent it is possible to use the secondary collimator jaws to reduce the transmitted radiation through the multileaf collimator (MLC) during an intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). A method is developed and introduced where the jaws follow the open window of the MLC dynamically (dJAW method). With the aid of three academic cases (Closed MLC, Sliding-gap, and Chair) and two clinical cases (prostate and head and neck) the feasibility of the dJAW method and the influence of this method on the applied dose distributions are investigated. For this purpose the treatment planning system Eclipse and the Research-Toolbox were used as well as measurements within a solid water phantom were performed. The transmitted radiation through the closed MLC leads to an inhomogeneous dose distribution. In this case, the measured dose within a plane perpendicular to the central axis differs up to 40% (referring to the maximum dose within this plane) for 6 and 15 MV. The calculated dose with Eclipse is clearly more homogeneous. For the Sliding-gap case this difference is still up to 9%. Among other things, these differences depend on the depth of the measurement within the solid water phantom and on the application method. In the Chair case, the dose in regions where no dose is desired is locally reduced by up to 50% using the dJAW method instead of the conventional method. The dose inside the chair-shaped region decreased up to 4% if the same number of monitor units (MU) as for the conventional method was applied. The undesired dose in the volume body minus the planning target volume in the clinical cases prostate and head and neck decreased up to 1.8% and 1.5%, while the number of the applied MU increased up to 3.1% and 2.8%, respectively. The new dJAW method has the potential to enhance the optimization of the conventional IMRT to a further step.

A Dosimetric Comparison of Electronic Compensation, Conventional Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy, and Tomotherapy in Patients With Early-Stage Carcinoma of the Left Breast

Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has been shown to significantly reduce dose to normal tissue while maintaining coverage of the clinical target volume (CTV) in patients with intact breast cancer. We compared delivery of whole breast irradiation utilizing three techniques: electronic tissue compensation (ECOMP), inverse-planned dynamic multileaf collimation IMRT (DMLC), and tomotherapy (TOMO). Ten patients with early stage, left-sided breast cancer were selected for planning. CTV was defined as breast encompassed in a standard tangent field minus the superficial 5 mm from the skin edge. Normal tissue contours included the heart, lungs, and contralateral breast. Plans included delivery of 45 Gy in 25 fractions and were normalized to ensure > or =95% coverage of the CTV. Isodose distributions and dose-volume histograms for CTV and normal tissue were compared between plans. The time it took to plan each patient excluding contouring, as well as number of monitor units (MUs) required to execute each plan were additionally tabulated. The TOMO plans resulted in significantly greater heterogeneity (CTV V(115)) versus ECOMP (p = 0.0029). The ECOMP plans resulted in significantly lower doses to heart, lung, and contralateral breast when compared with TOMO plans. The ECOMP plans were generated in the shortest time (12 min) and resulted in the lowest number of MUs when compared with DMLC (p = 0.002, p < 0.0001) and TOMO (p = 0.0015, p < 0.0001). The ECOMP plans produced superior dose distributions in both the CTV and normal tissue when compared with TOMO or DMLC plans. In addition, ECOMP plans resulted in the lowest number of MUs and labor cost.

SU‐FF‐T‐323: MLC IMRT Vs. Solid Compensators Based IMRT — Comparison of Various Clinical Cases

Purpose: To compare multileaf collimator (MLC) intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with solid compensator based IMRT in order to demonstrate the feasibility and accuracy of solid compensator based IMRT. Method and Materials: Using the CMS radiotherapy planning system a sequence of two separate IMRT plans were prepared using superposition algorithm. First plan in each sequence delivered IMRT by means of the MLC, whereas the second one delivered IMRT by means of solid compensator. Quality Assurance (QA) IMRT was performed on a 2100CD Varian linear accelerator for both plans. For the QA measurements we utilized a 120‐leaf Millennium MLC with 0.5 cm resolution and brass compensators (milled by DECIMAL INC.). Cases for different sites, e.g. head and neck, chest, abdomen, pelvis were investigated using 6 or 16 MV photons. Number of delivered monitor units, intensity map shapes and the dose distributions for GTV, CTV and OAR were compared for both plans. Results: Preliminary results indicate that solid compensator plans use significantly less monitor units and deliver smaller dose to the OAR as compared to the MLC plans. Moreover, solid compensators offer generally better resolution of intensity maps than MLC. Finally, in the process of segmentation, MLC IMRT changes DVH. In contrast, solid compensators by avoiding segmentation process of intensity maps, leave DVH unchanged between original, optimized plan and deliverable plan. Conclusion: The presented comparison demonstrates that solid compensator based IMRT is feasible. In addition, solid compensator based IMRT can provide clinical advantage over MLC IMRT for some treatments.

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy in high-grade gliomas: Clinical and dosimetric results

To report preliminary clinical and dosimetric data from intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for malignant gliomas. Fifty-eight consecutive high-grade gliomas were treated between January 2001 and December 2003 with dynamic multileaf collimator IMRT, planned with the inverse approach. A dose of 59.4-60 Gy at 1.8-2.0 Gy per fraction was delivered. A total of three to five noncoplanar beams were used to cover at least 95% of the target volume with the prescription isodose line. Glioblastoma accounted for 70% of the cases, and anaplastic oligodendroglioma histology (pure or mixed) was seen in 15% of the cases. Surgery consisted of biopsy only in 26% of the patients, and 80% received adjuvant chemotherapy. With a median follow-up of 24 months, 85% of the patients have relapsed. The median progression-free survival time for anaplastic astrocytoma and glioblastoma histology was 5.6 and 2.5 months, respectively. The overall survival time for anaplastic glioma and glioblastoma was 36 and 9 months, respectively. Ninety-six percent of the recurrences were local. No Grade IV/V late neurologic toxicities were noted. A comparative dosimetric analysis revealed that regardless of tumor location, IMRT did not significantly improve target coverage compared with three-dimensional planning. However, IMRT resulted in a decreased maximum dose to the spinal cord, optic nerves, and eye by 16%, 7%, and 15%, respectively, owing to its improved dose conformality. The mean brainstem dose also decreased by 7%. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy delivered with a limited number of beams did not result in an increased dose to the normal brain. It is unlikely that IMRT will improve local control in high-grade gliomas without further dose escalation compared with conventional radiotherapy. However, it might result in decreased late toxicities associated with radiotherapy.

The effect on IMRT conformality of elastic tissue movement and a practical suggestion for movement compensation via the modified dynamic multileaf collimator (dMLC) technique

A major remaining problem in delivering radiotherapy, specifically intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), is the need to accommodate and correct for intrafraction movement. The developing availability of 4D computed tomographic images can potentially form the basis of the new field of image-guided IMRT. It is important to understand the effects on delivered dose of the patient breathing during IMRT and this paper models the effect which applies whether there is or is not a time component to the IMRT delivery method. It then goes on to suggest a practical correction strategy. The ‘stretch-and-shift-the-planned-modulations’ strategy is proposed and a practical method to deliver this is explained. This practical strategy is based on a modification of the dynamic multileaf collimator IMRT method whereby the leaves are arranged to ‘breath’ in tandem with the breathing of the patient. Some examples are also given from a study of mismatching the patient and leaf-correction motions.

Investigation of secondary neutron dose for dynamic MLC IMRT delivery

Secondary neutron doses from the delivery of 18 MV conventional and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment plans were compared. IMRT was delivered using dynamic multileaf collimation (MLC). Additional measurements were made with static MLC using a primary collimated field size of 10 x 10 cm2 and MLC field sizes of 0 x 0, 5 x 5, and 10 x 10 cm2. Neutron spectra were measured and effective doses calculated. The IMRT treatment resulted in a higher neutron fluence and higher dose equivalent. These increases were approximately the ratio of the monitor units. The static MLC measurements were compared to Monte Carlo calculations. The actual component dimensions and materials for the Varian Clinac 2100/2300C including the MLC were modeled with MCNPX to compute the neutron fluence due to neutron production in and around the treatment head. There is excellent agreement between the calculated and measured neutron fluence for the collimated field size of 10 x 10 cm2 with the 0 x 0 cm2 MLC field. Most of the neutrons at the detector location for this geometry are directly from the accelerator head with a small contribution from room scatter. Future studies are needed to investigate the effect of different beam energies used in IMRT incorporating the effects of scattered photon dose as well as secondary neutron dose.

Intensity modulated radiotherapy in high grade gliomas: Clinical and dosimetric results

1532 Background: Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) is an emerging treatment for brain tumors, but there is very little clinical or dosimetric data on doses and outcomes from IMRT treatment for malignant gliomas. This study reports the preliminary data with IMRT in these tumors. Methods: Sixty six consecutive high grade gliomas were treated between January 2001 and December 2003 with dynamic multileaf collimator IMRT with inverse planning. A dose of 59.4–60Gy using 1.8–2.0 Gy per fraction was delivered. 3–5 non-coplanar beams were used for the IMRT plan to cover at least 95% of the target volume with the prescription isodose line. Glioblastoma accounted for 62% of the cases and oligodendroglioma histology (pure or mixed) was seen in 16.7% of the cases. Surgery was restricted to biopsy only in 26% of the patients. 80% of the patients received adjuvant chemotherapy. Results: With a median follow-up of 18 months, 85% of the patients have relapsed. The median disease free survival for anaplastic glioma and glioblastoma were 5.6 and 2.5 months. The median overall survival for the anaplastic glioma and glioblastoma histologies were 16.5 and 10.6 months respectively. 96% of the recurrences were local. No grade IV delayed neurological toxicities were noted. A comparative dosimetric analysis revealed that regardless of tumor location, IMRT did not improve target coverage compared to conventional 3-dimensional treatment planning. However, the use of IMRT resulted in a decreased dose to spinal cord, optic chiasm and brain stem by 19%, 4.5% and 8% respectively due to its improved dose conformality. Use of IMRT did not result in an increase of the dose received by the normal brain. Conclusions: Use of IMRT did not increase either the disease free survival or the overall survival in patients with malignant gliomas when compared to historical controls. It is unlikely that IMRT will improve the local control in high grade gliomas without further dose escalation. However, it may result in decreased late toxicities associated with radiation therapy. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

The delivery of IMRT with a single physical modulator for multiple fields: a feasibility study for paranasal sinus cancer

PurposeThis study describes a new intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) delivery method that utilizes a single modulator to deliver multiple fields (“multifield modulator”). This technique reduces the treatment time and manufacturing costs typically associated with modulator-IMRT. Technical feasibility was evaluated for treating paranasal sinus cancers. Methods and materialsTechnical feasibility was measured by three criteria: The dose distributions of the multifield modulator–IMRT plans should offer improvements over those produced by 3D conformal plans and be equivalent to those of step-and-shoot multileaf collimator (MLC) IMRT plans, the manufactured modulators should meet quality assurance specifications, and the effort required to use this technology should not substantially exceed the effort required for current IMRT practice. Seven paranasal cancer cases were examined. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used for statistical analysis. ResultsMultifield modulator–IMRT plans can improve target coverage while reducing critical structure doses compared to 3D conformal plans. Multifield modulator–IMRT plans are at least equivalent to the corresponding step-and-shoot MLC–IMRT plans. Multifield modulators can be constructed to meet design specifications in quality assurance tests. The time required for manufacturing, quality assurance, and treatment delivery using multifield modulators was measured and found to be only slightly greater than that for current IMRT treatment methods. ConclusionsIMRT treatments using multifield modulators for paranasal sinus tumors are feasible. Clinics may find it worthwhile to commit the minimal extra time for quality assurance and treatment to benefit from the improved dose distribution and lack of interplay between MLC leaf motion and internal target motion.

Current ICRU definitions of volumes: limitations and future directions

Volume definitions used in radiation treatment planning of 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) play and important role in advancing these treatment modalities. IMRT is now recognized to be more sensitive to geometric uncertainties than 3DCRT and conventional radiation therapy because of its characteristic sharper dose gradients around target volumes and organs at risk. This article reviews the current state of the art in specifying volumes for 3DCRT and IMRT and discusses some of the limitations and potential pitfalls with the current International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) Reports 50 and 62 recommendations, particularly in regard to issues of organ motion when irradiated by a time-dependent irradiation modality such as dynamic multileaf collimation IMRT or other methods that have a time component in beam delivery.