Non-coplanar Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Research Articles

An Investigation of Non-Coplanar Volumetric Modulated Radiation Therapy for Locally Advanced Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer Using a Trajectory Optimization Method.

PurposeThis study was conducted in order to develop a trajectory optimization algorithm for non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and investigate the potential of organs at risk (OARs) sparing in locally advanced pancreatic cancer patients using non-coplanar VMAT.Methods and MaterialsFirstly, a cost map that represents the ray–OAR voxel intersections at each source position was generated using a ray-tracing algorithm. A graph search algorithm was then used to determine the least-cost path from the cost map. Lastly, full arcs or partial arcs were selected based on the least-cost path to generate the non-coplanar VMAT (ncVMAT) trajectories. Clinical coplanar VMAT (coVMAT) plans for 11 patients diagnosed with locally advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer (LAPC) receiving 45 to 70 Gy in 25 fractions were replanned using non-coplanar VMAT trajectories. Both coplanar and non-coplanar plans were normalized to cover 95% of the PTV45 Gy volume with a prescription dose of 45 Gy. The conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), PTV coverage, and dose to the OARs were compared between coVMAT and ncVMAT plans.ResultsWith ncVMAT, the mean coverage of PTV50 Gy, PTV54 Gy, PTV60 Gy, and PTV70 Gy increased significantly. The mean conformity index of PTV45 Gy, PTV54 Gy, and PTV70 Gy was also improved in the ncVMAT plans. Compared with coVMAT plans, the ncVMAT plans resulted in significantly lower doses to the spinal cord, bilateral kidneys, stomach, and duodenum. The maximum dose to the spinal cord decreased by 6.11%. The mean dose to the left and right kidneys decreased by an average of 5.52% and 11.71%, respectively. The D max, D mean, and D 15% of the stomach were reduced by an average of 7.45%, 15.82%, and 16.79%, separately. The D 15% and D mean of the duodenum decreased 6.38% and 5.64%, respectively.ConclusionA trajectory optimization algorithm was developed for non-coplanar VMAT. Compared with conventional coplanar VMAT, non-coplanar VMAT resulted in improved coverage and conformity to the targets. The sparing of OARs was significantly improved in non-coplanar VMAT compared with coVMAT plans for locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

Volumetric modulated arc radiosurgery for brain metastases from breast cancer: A single-center study

Background: Whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) are two treatment modalities commonly utilized to treat brain metastases (BMs). Aim: The purpose of this study is to analyse retrospectively the local control and survival of patients with BMs of breast cancer (BC) treated via radiosurgery using Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT-RS). Methods: 18 patients with 41 BMs of BC and treated by VMAT-RS were studied. They were classified according to the molecular subtype of BC and the modified breast graded prognostic assessment -GPA- index. Patients presented 1-4 BMs, which were treated with 5 non-coplanar VMAT arcs. The spatial distribution of BMs, the influence of receptor status on the location of the lesions and survival assessed via the Kaplan-Meier model were analyzed.Results: The median survival time (MST) was 19.7 months. Statistically significant differences were determined in the MST according to the Karnofsky performance status (p= 0.02) and the HER2 status (p= 0.004), being more prolonged in the HER2+ patients. Finally, our results showed that the cerebellum is the predominant site of breast cancer BMs, and also suggested that HER2+BMs had a predilection for some structures of the posterior circulation, such as the cerebellum, brainstem and occipital lobes (p= 0.048).Conclusions: The VMAT-RS is a technique with an overall survival comparable to other radiosurgery techniques. The baseline situation at the time of treatment, the modified breast-GPA and the molecular subtypes, are factors that significantly influence patient survival.

Automated Non-Coplanar VMAT for Dose Escalation in Recurrent Head and Neck Cancer Patients.

Simple SummaryThe ability to escalate the radiation dose to head and neck tumors has been shown to offer improved local control, and consequently, survival for recurrent head and neck cancer (rHNC) patients. This study evaluates the HyperArc automated non-coplanar planning technique (originally developed for intracranial treatment) for 20 rHNC patients, and compares this technique to conventional planning methods. HyperArc enables significant tumor dose escalation, with average increases in mean target dose of over 11.5 Gy (26%), while maintaining clinically-equivalent doses to nearby organs. Our results show that the average probability of tumor control is 23% higher for HyperArc than conventional techniques.This study evaluates the potential for tumor dose escalation in recurrent head and neck cancer (rHNC) patients with automated non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) planning (HyperArc). Twenty rHNC patients are planned with conventional VMAT SBRT to 40 Gy while minimizing organ-at-risk (OAR) doses. They are then re-planned with the HyperArc technique to match these minimal OAR doses while escalating the target dose as high as possible. Then, we compare the dosimetry, tumor control probability (TCP), and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for the two plan types. Our results show that the HyperArc technique significantly increases the mean planning target volume (PTV) and gross tumor volume (GTV) doses by 10.8 ± 4.4 Gy (25%) and 11.5 ± 5.1 Gy (26%) on average, respectively. There are no clinically significant differences in OAR doses, with maximum dose differences of <2 Gy on average. The average TCP is 23% (± 21%) higher for HyperArc than conventional plans, with no significant differences in NTCP for the brainstem, cord, mandible, or larynx. HyperArc can achieve significant tumor dose escalation while maintaining minimal OAR doses in the head and neck—potentially enabling improved local control for rHNC SBRT patients without increased risk of treatment-related toxicities.

Comparison of a Hybrid IMRT/VMAT technique with non-coplanar VMAT and non-coplanar IMRT for unresectable olfactory neuroblastoma using the RayStation treatment planning system—EUD, NTCP and planning study

The purpose of this study was to compare hybrid intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (Hybrid IMRT/VMAT), with non-coplanar (nc) IMRT and nc-VMAT treatment plans for unresectable olfactory neuroblastoma (ONB). Hybrid IMRT/VMAT, nc-IMRT and nc-VMAT plans were optimized for 12 patients with modified Kadish C stage ONB. Dose prescription was 65 Gy in 26 fractions. Dose–volume histogram parameters, conformation number (CN), homogeneity index (HI), integral dose and monitor units (MUs) delivered per fraction were assessed. Equivalent uniform dose (EUD) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) based on the EUD model (NTCPLogit) and the Lyman–Kutcher–Burman model (NTCPLKB) were also evaluated. We found that the Hybrid IMRT/VMAT plan significantly improved the CN for clinical target volume (CTV) and planning treatment volume (PTV) compared with the nc-VMAT plan. In general, sparing of organs at risk (OARs) is similar with the three techniques, although the Hybrid IMRT/VMAT plan resulted in a significantly reduced Dmax to contralateral (C/L) optic nerve compared with the nc-IMRT plan. The Hybrid IMRT/VMAT plan significantly reduce EUD to the ipsilateral (I/L) and C/L optic nerve in comparison with the nc-IMRT plan and nc-VMAT plan, but the difference in NTCP between the three technique was <1%. We concluded that the Hybrid IMRT/VMAT technique can offer improvement in terms of target conformity and EUD for optic nerves, while achieving equal or better OAR sparing compared with nc-IMRT and nc-VMAT, and can be a viable radiation technique for treating unresectable ONB. However, the clinical benefit of these small differences in dosimetric data, EUD and NTCP of optic nerves may be minimal.

An automated treatment planning strategy for highly noncoplanar radiotherapy arc trajectories

AbstractRadiation therapy is a technology‐driven cancer treatment modality that has experienced significant advances over the last decades, due to multidisciplinary contributions that include engineering and computing. Recent technological developments allow the use of noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), one of the most recent photon treatment techniques, in clinical practice. In this work, an automated noncoplanar arc trajectory optimization framework designed in two modular phases is presented. First, a noncoplanar beam angle optimization algorithm is used to obtain a set of noncoplanar irradiation directions. Then, anchored in these directions, an optimization strategy is proposed to compute an optimal arc trajectory. The computational experiments considered a pool of twelve difficult head‐and‐neck tumor cases. It was possible to observe that, for some of these cases, the optimized noncoplanar arc trajectories led to significant treatment planning quality improvements, when compared with coplanar VMAT treatment plans. Although these experiments were done in a research environment treatment planning software (matRad), the conclusions can be of interest for a clinical setting: automated procedures can simplify the current treatment workflow, produce high‐quality treatment plans, making better use of human resources and allowing for unbiased comparisons between different treatment techniques.

Non-coplanar VMAT plans for postoperative primary brain tumour to reduce dose to hippocampus, temporal lobe and cochlea: a planning study.

Objectives:This study aimed to compare radiotherapy plan quality of coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (CO-VMAT) and non-coplanar VMAT (NC-VMAT) for post-operative primary brain tumour.Methods:A total of 16 patients who were treated for primary brain tumours were retrospectively selected for this study. For each patient, identical CT sets with structures were used for both CO-VMAT and NC-VMAT planning. For CO-VMAT, one full arc and two coplanar half arcs were used. For NC-VMAT, one full coplanar and two non-coplanar half arcs with couch rotation of 315° or 45° were used. Dose constraints were adhered to the RTOG 0614, RTOG 0933 and TMH protocol. Dose volumetric parameters were collected for statistical analysis.Results:.NC-VMAT achieved significant dose reduction in contralateral hippocampus, both temporal lobes and cochleae, and other OARs while the plan qualities remained the same. In particular, NC-VMAT decreased contralateral hippocampus mean dose by 1.67Gy. Similarly, the NC-VMAT decreased temporal lobe mean dose by 6.29Gy and 2.8Gy for ipsilateral and contralateral side respectively. Furthermore, it decreased cochlea mean dose by 5.34Gy and 0.97Gy for ipsilateral and contralateral side respectively. Overall, there was a reduction of 5.4% of normal brain tissue volume receiving low dose irradiation.Conclusion:The proposed NC-VMAT showed more favourable plan quality than the CO-VMAT for primary brain tumours, in particular to hippocampus, temporal lobes, cochleae and OARs located to the contralateral side of tumours.Advances in knowledge:For primary brain tumours radiotherapy, NC-VMAT can reduce doses to the hippocampus, both temporal lobes, and cochleae, as well as OARs located to the contralateral side of tumours.

A new index for evaluating the fit of dose distribution to target volume: Dose distribution fix index.

To develop a new dose evaluation index, fit index (FI), to help evaluate the fit between isodose surfaces at different percentages of the prescription dose and the target volume. Two types of FI, differential and cumulative, were defined. The differential fit index (dFI) was defined as the ratio of the integral dose of volume occupied by an isodose surface to the integral dose of the planning target volume. The cumulative fit index (cFI) was defined as the integral of dFI from the minimum dose of clinical significance to the 100% prescription dose. Performance of the cFI was evaluated with virtual dose distributions. In addition, non-coplanar and coplanar VMAT plans of 20 brain metastasis cases were evaluated using the FI, and the results were compared with results from the dose gradient index (GI) and conformity index (CI). Correlations between cFI and GI, and between cFI and CI were studied and Pearson's correlation coefficients were calculated. dFI and cFI provided comprehensive and objective results in evaluating the dose fit between isodose surfaces at different percentages of the prescription dose and the target volume. Analysis showed a positive correlation between cFI and GI with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.928 (p < 0.01) and a negative correlation between cFI and CI with a Pearson correlation coefficient of -0.831 (p < 0.01). dFI and cFI were shown to be effective and convenient tools for evaluating the dose fit of a radiotherapy plan.

Clinical validation of ring-mounted halcyon linac for lung SBRT: comparison to SBRT-dedicated C-arm linac treatments.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) of lung tumors via the ring‐mounted Halcyon Linac, a fast kilovoltage cone beam CT‐guided treatment with coplanar geometry, a single energy 6MV flattening filter free (FFF) beam and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is a fast, safe, and feasible treatment modality for selected lung cancer patients. Four‐dimensional (4D) CT‐based treatment plans were generated using advanced AcurosXB algorithm with heterogeneity corrections using an SBRT board and Halcyon couch insert. Halcyon VMAT‐SBRT plans with stacked and staggered multileaf collimators produced highly conformal radiosurgical dose distribution to the target, lower intermediate dose spillage, and similar dose to adjacent organs at risks (OARs) compared to SBRT‐dedicated highly conformal clinical noncoplanar Truebeam VMAT plans following the RTOG‐0813 requirements. Due to low monitor units per fraction and less multileaf collimator (MLC) modulation, the Halcyon VMAT plan can deliver lung SBRT fractions with an overall treatment time of less than 15 min (for 50 Gy in five fractions), significantly improving patient comfort and clinic workflow. Higher pass rates of quality assurance results demonstrate a more accurate treatment delivery on Halcyon. We have implemented Halcyon for lung SBRT treatment in our clinic. We suggest others use Halcyon for lung SBRT treatments using abdominal compression or 4D CT‐based treatment planning, thus expanding the access of curative ultra‐hypofractionated treatments to other centers with only a Halcyon Linac. Clinical follow‐up results for patients treated on Halcyon Linac with lung SBRT is ongoing.

Risk of target coverage loss for stereotactic body radiotherapy treatment of synchronous lung lesions via single-isocenter volumetric modulated arc therapy.

Treating multiple lung lesions synchronously via single‐isocenter volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) improves treatment efficiency and patient compliance. However, aligning multiple lung tumors accurately on single pretreatment cone beam CTs (CBCTs) can be problematic. Tumors misaligned could lead to target coverage loss. To quantify this potential target coverage loss due to small, clinically realistic setup errors, a novel simulation method was developed. This method was used on 26 previously treated patients with two metastatic lung lesions. Patients were treated with 4D CT‐based, highly conformal noncoplanar VMAT plans (clinical VMAT) with 6MV‐flattening filter free (FFF) beam using AcurosXB dose calculation algorithm with heterogeneity corrections. A single isocenter was placed approximately between the lesions to improve patient convenience and clinic workflow. Average isocenter to tumor distance was 5.9 cm. Prescription dose was 54 Gy/50 Gy in 3/5 fractions. For comparison, a plan summation (simulated VMAT) was executed utilizing randomly simulated, clinically relevant setup errors, obtained from pretreatment setup, per treatment fraction, in Eclipse treatment planning system for each of the six degrees of freedom within ± 5.0 mm and ± 2°. Simulations yielded average deviations of 27.4% (up to 72% loss) (P < 0.001) from planned target coverage when treating multiple lung lesions using a single‐isocenter plan. The largest deviations from planned coverage and desired biological effective dose (BED10, with α/β = 10 Gy) were seen for the smallest targets (<10 cc), some of which received < 100 Gy BED10. Patient misalignment resulted in substantial decrease in conformity and increase in the gradient index, violating major characteristics of SBRT. Statistically insignificant differences were seen for normal tissue dose. Although, clinical follow‐up of these patients is ongoing, the authors recommend an alternative treatment planning strategy to minimize the probability of a geometric miss when treating small lung lesions synchronously with single‐isocenter VMAT SBRT plans.

PO-1514: Non-coplanar trajectory VMAT for treatment of spinal metastatic tumors

PO-1514: Non-coplanar trajectory VMAT for treatment of spinal metastatic tumors

Noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy for patient with optic nerve sheath meningioma: a case report and literature review

Noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy for patient with optic nerve sheath meningioma: a case report and literature review

Cost-effectiveness analysis of advanced radiotherapy techniques for post-mastectomy breast cancer patients

BackgroundPrior cost-effectiveness studies of post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) only compared conventional radiotherapy versus no radiotherapy and only considered tumor control. The goal of this study was to perform cost-effectiveness analyses of standard of care (SOC) and advanced PMRT techniques including intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), standard volumetric modulated arc therapy (STD-VMAT), non-coplanar VMAT (NC-VMAT), multiple arc VMAT (MA-VMAT), Tomotherapy (TOMO), mixed beam therapy (MIXED), and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT).MethodsUsing a Markov model, we estimated the cost-effectiveness of various techniques over 15 years. A cohort of women (55-year-old) was simulated in the model, and radiogenic side effects were considered. Transition probabilities, utilities, and costs for each health state were obtained from literature and Medicare data. Model outcomes include quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).ResultsFor the patient cohort, STD-VMAT has an ICER of $32,617/QALY relative to SOC; TOMO is dominated by STD-VMAT; IMRT has an ICER of $19,081/QALY relative to STD-VMAT; NC-VMAT, MA-VMAT, MIXED are dominated by IMRT; IMPT has an ICER of $151,741/QALY relative to IMRT. One-way analysis shows that the probability of cardiac toxicity has the most significant impact on the model outcomes. The probability sensitivity analyses show that all advanced PMRT techniques are more cost-effective than SOC at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000/QALY, while almost none of the advanced techniques is more cost-effective than SOC at a WTP threshold of $50,000/QALY.ConclusionAdvanced PMRT techniques are more cost-effective for breast cancer patients at a WTP threshold of $100,000/QALY, and IMRT might be a cost-effective option for PMRT patients.

Novel strategy with the automatic non-coplanar volumetric-modulated arc therapy for angiosarcoma of the scalp

BackgroundTotal scalp irradiation presents technical and dosimetric challenges. While reports suggest that HyperArc, a new stereotactic radiosurgery planning technique applied to non-coplanar volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique, is associated with high conformity and rapid dose fall-off, the performance of HyperArc for total scalp irradiation has not been explored. The current study aimed to compare the dosimetric performance of HyperArc plans with those of non-coplanar VMAT plans in angiosarcoma of the scalp.MethodsTen patients with angiosarcoma of the scalp were included in this study. The performance of three different plans administered using TrueBeam Edge were compared: non-coplanar VMAT using flattening filter (FF) beams (VMAT-FF), HyperArc using FF beams (HyperArc-FF), and HyperArc using flattening filter free (FFF) beams (HyperArc-FFF). The dose distribution, dosimetric parameters, and dosimetric accuracy for each of these plans were evaluated.ResultsThe three plans showed no statistically significant differences in target volume coverage, conformity, and homogeneity. The HyperArc-FF and HyperArc-FFF plans provided significantly lower mean brain doses (12.63 ± 3.31 Gy and 12.71 ± 3.40 Gy) than did the VMAT-FF plans (17.11 ± 5.25 Gy). There were almost no differences in sparing the organs at risk between the HyperArc-FF and HyperArc-FFF plans. The HyperArc-FF and HyperArc-FFF plans provided a shorter beam-on time than did the VMAT-FF plan. The 3%/2 mm gamma test pass rates were above 95% for all three plans.ConclusionsOur results suggest that the HyperArc plan can be potentially used for radiation therapy of target regions with large and complicated shapes, such as the scalp, and that there are no advantages of using FFF beams.

Dosimetric comparison of coplanar and non-coplanar volumetric-modulated arc therapy in head and neck cancer treated with radiotherapy.

PurposeTo evaluate the dosimetric variations in patients of head and neck cancer treated with definitive or adjuvant radiotherapy using optimized non-coplanar (ncVMAT) beams with coplanar (cVMAT) beams using volumetric arc therapy.Materials and MethodsTwenty-two patients of head and neck cancer that had received radiotherapy using VMAT in our department were retrospectively analyzed. Each of the patients was planned using coplanar and non-coplanar orientations using an optimized couch angle and fluences. We analyzed the Conformity Index (CIRTOG), Dose Homogeneity Index (DHI), Heterogeneity Index (HIRTOG), low dose volume, target and organs-at-risk coverage in both the plans without changing planning optimization parameters. ResultsThe prescription dose ranged from 60 Gy to 70 Gy. Using ncVMAT, CIRTOG, DHI and HIRTOG, and tumor coverage (ID95%) had improved, low dose spillage volume in the body V5Gy was increased and V10Gy was reduced. Integral dose and intensity-modulated radiation therapy factor had increased in ncVMAT. In the case of non-coplanar beam arrangements, maximum dose (Dmax) of right and left humeral head were reduced significantly whereas apex of the right and left lung mean dose were increased.ConclusionThe use of ncVMAT produced better target coverage and sparing of the shoulder and soft tissue of the neck as well as the critical organ compared with the cVMAT in patients of head and neck malignancy.

The potential of an optical surface tracking system in non-coplanar single isocenter treatments of multiple brain metastases.

To evaluate the accuracy of a commercial optical surface tracking (OST) system and to demonstrate how it can be implemented to monitor patient positioning during non‐coplanar single isocenter stereotactic treatments of brain metastases. A 3‐camera OST system was used (Catalyst HD™, C‐RAD) on a TruebeamSTx with a 6DoF couch. The setup accuracy and agreement between the OST system, and CBCT and kV‐MV imaging at couch angles 0° and 270°, respectively, were examined. Film measurements at 3 depths in the Rando‐Alderson phantom were performed using a single isocenter non‐coplanar VMAT plan containing 4 brain lesions. Setup of the phantom was performed with CBCT at couch 0° and subsequently monitored by OST at other couch angles. Setup data for 7 volunteers were collected to evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of the OST system at couch angles 0°, 45°, 90°, 315°, and 270°. These results were also correlated to the couch rotation offsets obtained by a Winston‐Lutz (WL) test. The Rando‐Alderson phantom, as well as volunteers, were fixated using open face masks (Orfit). For repeated tests with the Rando‐Alderson phantom, deviations between rotational and translational isocenter corrections for CBCT and OST systems are always within 0.2° (pitch, roll, yaw), and 0.1mm and 0.5mm (longitudinal, lateral, vertical) for couch positions 0° and 270°, respectively. Dose deviations between the film and TPS doses in the center of the 4 lesions were −1.2%, −0.1%, −0.0%, and −1.9%. Local gamma evaluation criteria of 2%/2 mm and 3%/1 mm yielded pass rates of 99.2%, 99.2%, 98.6%, 89.9% and 98.8%, 97.5%, 81.7%, 78.1% for the 4 lesions. Regarding the volunteers, the mean translational and rotational isocenter shift values were (0.24 ± 0.09) mm and (0.15 ± 0.07) degrees. Largest isocenter shifts were found for couch angles 45˚ and 90˚, confirmed by WL couch rotation offsets. Patient monitoring during non‐coplanar VMAT treatments of brain metastases is feasible with submillimeter accuracy.

Dosimetric characteristics of a 2D silicon diode array for stereotactic radiotherapy end-to-end patient-specific QA

The measurement accuracy of stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) patient-specific quality assurance (QA) is challenging as small-field dosimetry contains lateral charge disequilibrium, partial blocking of the beam source, and limitations based on the detector size. The aim of this study was to investigate the dosimetric characteristics of a two-dimensional high-resolution silicon diode array for SRT end-to-end patient-specific QA.The dosimetric characteristics of the diode array, delivered to an end-to-end QA phantom, were evaluated for 6 MV, with a flattening filter (FF) and flattening filter-free (FFF), and 10 MV FFF photon beams. Dose linearity, dose rate dependence, dose-per-pulse dependence, field size dependence, angular dependence, and beam directivity were investigated for all photon beams. A total of 27 clinical plans were selected to evaluate the SRT end-to-end patient-specific QA for treatment delivery using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT).For all beam qualities, the differences of dose and dose rate linearity of the diode array were below 0.7% (10–1400 MU range) and 0.6% (100–2400 MU/min range), respectively. The diodes had a decrease in sensitivity of about 4% for the 21-fold decrease in dose-per-pulse. Output factors were in good agreement for field size down to 2 × 2 cm2 (<0.6% for both 6 MV FF and FFF beams, <1.6% for the 10 MV FFF beam), while the field size down to 0.6 × 0.6 cm2 had an under-response (<4% for all beam qualities). Angular dependence was within ±2% and ±4%, for coplanar and non-coplanar beams, respectively. However, this was not the case for the beam direction nearly parallel to the diode array plane. Beam directivity response on both sides of the array was in excellent agreement. For the end-to-end patient-specific QA, the average gamma passing rate (GPR) with a 2%/1 mm criterion was 96.8% and the minimum value was 93.0%. There was no significant difference in the GPRs between coplanar and non-coplanar VMAT plans.The diode array, with several corrections, demonstrated good dosimetric characteristics for SRT QA. The GPRs of end-to-end patient-specific QA for non-coplanar and multiple metastases were as high as that for coplanar and single-target, and a gamma criterion of 2%/1 mm would be suitable for SRT QA when using the array.

Comparison of conventional and advanced radiotherapy techniques for left-sided breast cancer after breast conserving surgery

Whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT) after breast conserving surgery is the standard treatment to prevent recurrence and metastasis of early stage breast cancer. This study aims to compare seven WBRT techniques including conventional tangential, field-in-field (FIF), hybrid intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), IMRT, standard volumetric modulated arc therapy (STD-VMAT), noncoplanar VMAT (NC-VMAT), and multiple arc VMAT (MA-VMAT). Fifteen patients who were previously diagnosed with left-sided early stage breast cancer and treated in our clinic were selected for this study. WBRT plans were created for these patients and were evaluated based on target coverage and normal tissue toxicities. All techniques produced clinically acceptable WBRT plans. STD-VMAT delivered the lowest mean dose (1.1 ± 0.3 Gy) and the lowest maximum dose (7.3 ± 4.9 Gy) to contralateral breast, and the second lowest lifetime attributable risk (LAR) (4.1 ± 1.4%) of secondary contralateral breast cancer. MA-VMAT delivered the lowest mean dose to lungs (4.9 ± 0.9 Gy) and heart (5.5 ± 1.2 Gy), exhibited the lowest LAR (1.7 ± 0.3%) of secondary lung cancer, normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) (1.2 ± 0.2%) of pneumonitis, risk of coronary events (RCE) (10.3 ± 2.7%), and LAR (3.9 ± 1.3%) of secondary contralateral breast cancer. NC-VMAT plans provided the most conformal target coverage, the lowest maximum lung dose (46.2 ± 4.1 Gy) and heart dose (41.1 ± 5.4 Gy), and the second lowest LAR (1.8 ± 0.4%) of secondary lung cancer and RCE (10.5 ± 2.8%). MA-VMAT and NC-VMAT could be the preferred techniques for early stage breast cancer patients after breast conserving surgery.

FFF-VMAT for SBRT of lung lesions: Improves dose coverage at tumor-lung interface compared to flattened beams.

PurposeTo quantify the differences in dosimetry as a function of ipsilateral lung density and treatment delivery parameters for stereotactic, single dose of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) delivered with 6X flattening filter free (6X‐FFF) beams compared to traditional flattened 6X (6X‐FF) beams.Materials/methodsThirteen consecutive early stage I–II non‐small‐cell‐lung cancer (NSCLC) patients were treated with highly conformal noncoplanar VMAT SBRT plans (3–6 partial arcs) using 6X‐FFF beam and advanced Acuros‐based dose calculations to a prescription dose of 30 Gy in one fraction to the tumor margin. These clinical cases included relatively smaller tumor (island tumors) sizes (2.0–4.2 cm diameters) and varying average ipsilateral lung densities between 0.14 g/cc and 0.34 g/cc. Treatment plans were reoptimized with 6X‐FF beams for identical beam/arc geometries and planning objectives. For same target coverage, the organs‐at‐risk (OAR) dose metrics as a function of ipsilateral lung density were compared between 6X‐FFF and 6X‐FF plans. Moreover, monitor units (MU), beam modulation factor (MF) and beam‐on time (BOT) were evaluated.ResultsBoth plans met the RTOG‐0915 protocol compliance. The ipsilateral lung density and the tumor location heavily influenced the treatment plans with 6X‐FFF and 6X‐FF beams, showing differences up to 12% for the gradient indices. For similar target coverage, 6X‐FFF beams showed better target conformity, lower intermediate dose‐spillage, and lower dose to the OAR. Additionally, BOT was reduced by a factor of 2.3 with 6X‐FFF beams compared to 6X‐FF beams.ConclusionWhile prescribing dose to the tumor periphery, 6X‐FFF VMAT plans for stereotactic single‐dose lung SBRT provided similar target coverage with better dose conformity, superior intermediate dose‐spillage (improved dose coverage at tumor interface), and improved OAR sparing compared to traditional 6X‐FF beams and significantly reduced treatment time. The ipsilateral lung density and tumor location considerably affected dose distributions requiring special attention for clinical SBRT plan optimization on a per‐patient basis. Clinical follow up of these patients for tumor local‐control rate and treatment‐related toxicities is in progress.

Interinstitutional Plan Quality Assessment of 2 Linac-Based, Single-Isocenter, Multiple Metastasis Radiosurgery Techniques

PurposeInterest and application of stereotactic radiosurgery for multiple brain metastases continue to increase. Various planning systems are available for linear accelerator (linac)–based single-isocenter multiple metastasis radiosurgery. Two of the most advanced systems are BrainLAB Multiple Metastases Elements (MME), a dynamic conformal arc (DCA) approach, and Varian RapidArc (RA), a volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) approach. In this work, we systematically compared plan quality between the 2 techniques. Methods and MaterialsThirty patients with 4 to 10 metastases (217 total; median 7.5; Vmin = 0.014 cm3; Vmax = 17.73 cm3) were planned with both Varian RA and MME at 2 different institutions with extensive experience in each respective technique. All plans had a single isocenter and used Varian linac equipped with high-definition multileaf collimator. RA plans used 2 to 4 noncoplanar VMAT arcs with 10 MV flattening filter-free beam. MME plans used 4 to 9 noncoplanar DCAs and 6 MV flattening filter-free beam, (minimum planning target volume [PTVmin] = 0.49 cm3; PTVmax = 27.32 cm3; PTVmedian = 7.05 cm3). Prescriptions were 14 to 24 Gy in a single fraction. Target coverage goal was 99% of volume receiving prescription dose (D99% ≥ 100%). Plans were evaluated by Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/Paddick conformity index (CI) score, 12 Gy volume (V12Gy), V8Gy, V5Gy, mean brain dose (Dmean), and beam-on time. ResultsConformity was favorable among RA plans (median: MME CIRTOG = 1.38; RA CIRTOG = 1.21; P < .0001). V12Gy and V8Gy were lower for RA plans (median: MME V12 = 23.7 cm3; RA V12 = 19.2 cm3; P = .0001; median: MME V8Gy = 53.6 cm3; RA V8Gy = 44.1 cm3; P = .024). V5Gy was lower for MME plans (median: MME V5Gy = 141.4 cm3; RA V5Gy = 142.8 cm3; P = .009). Mean brain was lower for MME plans (median: MME Dmean = 2.57 Gy; RA Dmean = 2.76 Gy; P < .0001). ConclusionsFor linac-based multiple metastasis stereotactic radiosurgery, RapidArc VMAT facilitates favorable conformity and V12Gy/V8Gy volume compared with the MME DCA plan. MME planning facilitates reduced dose spill at levels ≤V5Gy.

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy, coplanar volumetric-modulated arc, therapy, and noncoplanar volumetric-modulated arc therapy in, glioblastoma: A dosimetric comparison

ObjectiveAdvanced techniques such as volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) may reduce radiation damage and improve the quality of life for patients.We performed a study comparing dose distributions to the planning target volumes(PTVs) and other organs at risk (OARs) of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT),coplanar VMAT (coVMAT), and non-coplanar VMAT (ncVMAT). Patients and methods13 patients with GBM who had undergone postoperative radiotherapy were enrolled. Three plans for each patient were created, namely, IMRT, coVMAT, and ncVMAT. Prescription doses and normal-tissue constraints were identical for these three plans. The dosimetric differences of target dose distribution, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), the gradient index (GI), dose of OARs, monitor units (MUs) and beam-on times among these three plans were investigated. ResultsThese three techniques resulted in comparable maximum, minimum, and mean PTV doses. Small but insignificant differences were observed in GI,CI, and HI. Compared with IMRT, VMAT plans showed statistically significant reductions in the mean doses to the optic chiasm (P < 0.05). Compared with IMRT, VMAT techniques significantly reduced the number of MUs and less beam-on time than IMRT techniques (P ＜ 0.05). However, calculation times were significantly longer for ncVMAT and coVMAT plans at 12 and 12.3 min, versus 2.6 min for IMRT. Our study showed that IMRT or VMAT planning is feasible and efficient for patients with GBM.Compared to IMRT plans, ncVMAT or coVMAT plans showed similar PTV coverage and comparable OARs sparing. VMAT plans significantly reduces the mean doses to the optic chiasm than IMRT plans. ConclusionThere was no obvious superiority of ncVMAT over coVMAT in target coverage and sparing of OARs.Compared with IMRT, VMAT techniques significantly reduced the number of MUs and beam-on time but extended the calculation times.