Comparison of intensity-modulated tomotherapy with stereotactically guided conformal radiotherapy for brain tumors.

PURPOSE: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) offers the potential to more closely conform dose distributions to the target, and spare organs at risk (OAR). Its clinical value is still being defined. The present study aims to compare IMRT with stereotactically guided conformal radiotherapy (SCRT) for patients with medium size convex-shaped brain tumors. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Five patients planned with SCRT were replanned with the IMRT-tomotherapy method using the Peacock system (Nomos Corporation). The planning target volume (PTV) and relevant OAR were assessed, and compared relative to SCRT plans using dose statistics, dose-volume histograms (DVH), and the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) stereotactic radiosurgery criteria. RESULTS: The median and mean PTV were 78 cm3 and 85 cm3 respectively (range 62-119 cm3). The differences in PTV doses for the whole group (Peacock-SCRT +/-1 SD) were 2%+/-1.8 (minimum PTV), and 0.1%+/-1.9 (maximum PTV). The PTV homogeneity achieved by Peacock was 12.1%+/-1.7 compared to 13.9%+/-1.3 with SCRT. Using RTOG guidelines, Peacock plans provided acceptable PTV coverage for all 5/5 plans compared to minor coverage deviations in 4/5 SCRT plans; acceptable homogeneity index for both plans (Peacock = 1.1 vs. SCRT = 1.2); and comparable conformity index (1.4 each). As a consequence of the transaxial method of arc delivery, the optic nerves received mean and maximum doses that were 11.1 to 11.6%, and 10.3 to 15.2% higher respectively with Peacock plan. The maximum optic lens, and brainstem dose were 3.1 to 4.8% higher, and 0.6% lower respectively with Peacock plan. However, all doses remained below the tolerance threshold (5 Gy for lens, and 50 Gy for optic nerves) and were clinically acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: The Peacock method provided improved PTV coverage, albeit small, in this group of convex tumors. Although the OAR doses were higher using the Peacock plans, all doses remained within the clinically defined threshold and were clinically acceptable. Further improvements may be expected using other methods of IMRT planning that do not limit the treatment delivery to transaxial arcs. Each IMRT system needs to be individually assessed as the paradigm utilized may provide different outcomes.     

Skin-sparing radiation using intensity-modulated radiotherapy after conservative surgery in early-stage breast cancer: a planning study

PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility of skin-sparing by configuring it as an organ-at-risk (OAR) while delivering whole-breast intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in early breast cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Archival computed tomography scan images of 14 left-sided early-breast tumor patients who had undergone lumpectomy were selected for this study. Skin was contoured as a 4- to 5-mm strip extending from the patient outline to anterior margin of the breast planning target volume (PTV). Two IMRT plans were generated by the helical tomotherapy approach to deliver 50 Gy in 25 fractions to the breast alone: one with skin dose constraints (skin-sparing plan) and the other without (non-skin-sparing plan). Comparison of the plans was done using a two-sided paired Student t test. RESULTS: The mean skin dose and volume of skin receiving 50 Gy were significantly less with the skin-sparing plan compared with non-skin-sparing plan (42.3 Gy vs. 47.7 Gy and 12.2% vs. 57.8% respectively; p < 0.001). The reduction in skin dose was confirmed by TLD measurements in anthropomorphic phantom using the same plans. Dose-volume analyses for other OARs were similar in both plans. CONCLUSIONS: By configuring the skin as an OAR, it is possible to achieve skin dose reduction while delivering whole-breast IMRT without compromising dose profiles to PTV and OARs.     

Dose verification in clinical IMRT prostate incidents

PURPOSE: In view of the need for dose-validation procedures on each individual intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plan, dose-verification measurements by film, by ionization chamber, and by polymer gel-MRI dosimetry were performed for a prostate-treatment plan configuration. Treatment planning system (TPS) calculations were evaluated against dose measurements. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatments were planned on a commercial TPS. Kodak EDR-2 films were used for the verification of two-dimensional (2D) dose distributions at 1 coronal and 5 axial planes in a water-equivalent phantom. Full three-dimensional (3D) dose distributions were measured by use of a novel polymer gel formulation and a 3D magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) readout technique. Calculations were compared against measurements by means of isocontour maps, gamma-index maps (3% dose difference, 3-mm distance to agreement) and dose-volume histograms. RESULTS: A good agreement was found between film measurements and TPS predictions for points within the 60% isocontour, for all the examined plans (gamma-index <1 for 96% of pixels). Three-dimensional dose distributions obtained with the polymer gel-MRI method were adequately matched with corresponding TPS calculations, for measurements in a gel phantom covering the planning-target volume (PTV). CONCLUSIONS: Measured 2D and 3D dose distributions suggest that, for the investigated prostate IMRT plan configuration, TPS calculations provide clinically acceptable accuracy.     

Dosimetry audit for a multi-centre IMRT head and neck trial

Background and purpose

PARSPORT was a multi-centre randomised trial in the UK which compared Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) and conventional radiotherapy (CRT) for patients with head and neck cancer. The dosimetry audit goals were to verify the plan delivery in participating centres, ascertain what tolerances were suitable for head and neck IMRT trials and develop an IMRT credentialing program.

Materials and methods

Centres enrolling patients underwent rigorous quality assurance before joining the trial. Following this each centre was visited for a dosimetry audit, which consisted of treatment planning system tests, fluence verification films, combined field films and dose point measurements.

Results

Mean dose point measurements were made at six centres. For the primary planning target volume (PTV) the differences with the planned values for the IMRT and CRT arms were −0.6% (1.8% to −2.4%) and 0.7% (2.0% to −0.9%), respectively. Ninety-four percent of the IMRT fluence films for individual fields passed gamma criterion of 3%/3 mm and 75% of the films for combined fields passed gamma criterion 4%/3 mm (no significant difference between dynamic delivery and step and shoot delivery).

Conclusions

This audit suggests that a 3% tolerance could be applied for PTV point doses. For dose distributions tolerances of 3%/3 mm on individual fields and 4%/3 mm for combined fields are proposed for multi-centre head and neck IMRT trials.     

Comparison of biologically equivalent dose–volume parameters for the treatment of prostate cancer with concomitant boost IMRT versus IMRT combined with brachytherapy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The two main modalities to deliver high dose to the prostate and prevent high doses to neighboring organs are intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or external beam radiotherapy combined with brachytherapy. Because of the different biological effectiveness the physical dose distributions were converted to 3-dimensional linear quadratic dose at 2 Gy per fraction (EQD(2)). From the latter, cumulative EQD(2)-volume histograms were determined for comparison of the modalities. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An IMRT plan was made on the contoured planning target volume (PTV1) and organs at risk (OAR) of 20 patients (IMRT-only). A dose of 70 Gy was prescribed on the PTV1 with a concomitant boost to a total of 76 Gy on a subvolume (PTV2). Also a 46 Gy IMRT plan was made combined with either a pulsed dose-rate (PDR) or a high dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy boost. The EQD(2) on the PTV1 of the combined IMRT-PDR and IMRT-HDR plans were made equivalent to the EQD(2) of the 70 Gy IMRT-only plan. The alpha/beta-ratio for prostate was set to 1.5 Gy and 10 Gy. For normal tissues an alpha/beta-ratio of 3.0 Gy was taken. Several EQD(2)-volume histogram parameters were calculated for comparison and analyzed by two-way ANOVA. RESULTS: The mean EQD(2) to 95% of the prostate volume was slightly higher for the IMRT-only plan than for the brachytherapy modalities (P<0.001), in contrast to the mean EQD(2) to 50% of the prostate volume in which the opposite was the case (P<0.001). Rectum and bladder doses for IMRT-only are significantly higher (P<0.001). The urethra dose for IMRT-HDR was much higher than the other modalities only when the alpha/beta-ratio for prostate was 10 Gy. CONCLUSION: Because of the high doses within an implant, the dose in 50% of the prostate volume is much higher with the brachytherapy modalities than IMRT-only which may have clinical consequences. With brachytherapy the doses to the OAR are lower or similar to IMRT-only. Dose escalation for prostate tumors is more easily achieved with brachytherapy than with IMRT alone. Therefore, brachytherapy might be the preferred modality to achieve further dose escalation.     

Gamma histograms for radiotherapy plan evaluation.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The technique known as the 'gamma evaluation method' incorporates pass-fail criteria for both distance-to-agreement and dose difference analysis of 3D dose distributions and provides a numerical index (gamma) as a measure of the agreement between two datasets. As the gamma evaluation index is being adopted in more centres as part of treatment plan verification procedures for 2D and 3D dose maps, the development of methods capable of encapsulating the information provided by this technique is recommended. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this work the concept of gamma index was extended to create gamma histograms (GH) in order to provide a measure of the agreement between two datasets in two or three dimensions. Gamma area histogram (GAH) and gamma volume histogram (GVH) graphs were produced using one or more 2D gamma maps generated for each slice of the irradiated volume. GHs were calculated for IMRT plans, evaluating the 3D dose distribution from a commercial treatment planning system (TPS) compared to a Monte Carlo (MC) calculation used as reference dataset. RESULTS: The extent of local anatomical inhomogenities in the plans under consideration was strongly correlated with the level of difference between reference and evaluated calculations. GHs provided an immediate visual representation of the proportion of the treated volume that fulfilled the gamma criterion and offered a concise method for comparative numerical evaluation of dose distributions. CONCLUSIONS: We have introduced the concept of GHs and investigated its applications to the evaluation and verification of IMRT plans. The gamma histogram concept set out in this paper can provide a valuable technique for quantitative comparison of dose distributions and could be applied as a tool for the quality assurance of treatment planning systems.     

Replacing pretreatment verification with in vivo EPID dosimetry for prostate IMRT

PURPOSE: To investigate the feasibility of replacing pretreatment verification with in vivo electronic portal imaging device (EPID) dosimetry for prostate intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Dose distributions were reconstructed from EPID images, inside a phantom (pretreatment) or the patient (five fractions in vivo) for 75 IMRT prostate plans. Planned and EPID dose values were compared at the isocenter and in two dimensions using the gamma index (3%/3 mm). The number of measured in vivo fractions required to achieve similar levels of agreement with the plan as pretreatment verification was determined. The time required to perform both methods was compared. RESULTS: Planned and EPID isocenter dose values agreed, on average, within +/-1% (1 SD) of the total plan for both pretreatment and in vivo verification. For two-dimensional field-by-field verification, an alert was raised for 10 pretreatment checks with clear but clinically irrelevant discrepancies. Multiple in vivo fractions were combined by assessing gamma images consisting of median, minimum and low (intermediate) pixel values of one to five fractions. The "low" gamma values of three fractions rendered similar results as pretreatment verification. Additional time for verification was approximately 2.5 h per plan for pretreatment verification, and 15 min +/- 10 min/fraction using in vivo dosimetry. CONCLUSIONS: In vivo EPID dosimetry is a viable alternative to pretreatment verification for prostate IMRT. For our patients, combining information from three fractions in vivo is the best way to distinguish systematic errors from non-clinically relevant discrepancies, save hours of quality assurance time per patient plan, and enable verification of the actual patient treatment.     

Treatment planning comparison of electron arc therapy and photon intensity modulated radiotherapy for Askin's tumor of chest wall.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A dosimetric study to quantitatively compare radiotherapy treatment plans for Askin's tumor using Electron Arc (EA) vs. photon Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five patients treated with EA were included in this study. Treatment plans were generated for each patient using EA and IMRT. Plans were compared using dose volume histograms (DVH) of the Planning Target Volume (PTV) and Organs at Risk (OAR). RESULTS: IMRT resulted in superior PTV coverage, and homogeneous dose distribution compared to EA. For EA, 92% of the PTV was covered to 85% of the dose compared to IMRT in which 96% was covered to 95% of the dose. V(107) that represents the hot spot within the PTV was more in IMRT compared to EA: 7.4(+/-2)% vs. 3(+/-0.5)%, respectively. With PTVs located close to the spinal cord (SC), the dose to SC was more with EA, whereas for PTVs located away from the SC, the dose to SC was more with IMRT. The cardiac dose profile was similar to that of SC. Ipsilateral lung received lower doses with IMRT while contralateral lung received higher dose with IMRT compared to EA. For non-OAR normal tissues, IMRT resulted in large volumes of low dose regions. CONCLUSIONS: IMRT resulted in superior PTV coverage and sparing of OAR compared to EA plans. Although IMRT seems to be superior to EA, one needs to keep in mind the volume of low dose regions associated with IMRT, especially while treating young children.     

容积旋转调强技术在全身放疗中运用的可行性研究

目的 探讨容积旋转调强技术（VMAT）应用于全身放疗（TBI）的剂量学特点,为临床应用提供技术参考。方法选取2012年8月至2015年1月于南京明基医院接受包含TBI清髓预处理方案的恶性血液系统疾病患者15例,采用瓦里安Eclipse 10.0计划系统,单弧360°多中心衔接的方法制定VMAT计划,处方剂量12 Gy／6f。通过分析剂量体积直方图（DVH）曲线,评估靶区、危及器官的剂量分布;通过估计治疗计划的总机器跳数、出束时间以及总治疗时间来评估计划的实施效率;最后采用MatrixX二维电离室矩阵进行剂量验证。结果 15例患者TBI计划的平均总机器跳数为（2308±210.7） MU,剂量率约400 cGy／min,计划平均实施时间为30 min。靶区平均剂量 （Dmean）为（12.58±0.45） Gy,最小剂量（Dmin）为（11.27±0.13） Gy,最大剂量（Dmax）为（15.35±0.65） Gy,并且危及器官受量较低。结论 在TBI治疗中,运用VMAT技术可以获得良好的靶区剂量均匀性及计划实施效率,同时正常组织受量较低,因此有着较好的临床应用价值。     

Comparing 3DCRT and inversely optimized IMRT planning for head and neck cancer: equivalence between step-and-shoot and sliding window techniques.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To investigate the feasibility and the advantages of using Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) for the treatment of head-and-neck cancer. Comparing different methods to deliver IMRT in this clinical setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven patients (four radical; three post-operative), treated on a 6MV Varian Linac (equipped with an 80 leaves MLC) in accordance with a routine 3DCRT plan, were replanned. Original treatment plans were computed to irradiate a primary Planning Target Volume (PTV1, 54 Gy) and then to perform a boost on a PTV2 (radical: 70.2 Gy; post-operative: 64.8 Gy). IMRT dose plans were inversely-optimized using appropriate constraints with the Helios tool on a Varian Eclipse system. Once the optimal fluences were calculated, different modalities to deliver IMRT were considered: Sliding Window (SW) and Step and Shoot (SS) techniques using a different number of intensity levels to approximate the optimal fluences (e.g. 5, 10 and 20). Mean dose, maximum dose and a number of dose-volume parameters regarding CTV1, CTV2, PTV1, PTV2, OARs (spinal and planning spinal cord, parotids, optical structures, brain and temporal mandibular joint) were considered to compare the five modalities (3DCRT, SW, SS5, SS10, SS20); the Conformity Index (CI), the Irradiated Volume (IV) and the Treated Volume (TV) were also considered in the comparison. RESULTS: A more uniform coverage of the PTV in the IMRT dose plans with respect to the 3DCRT plan was found (for PTV2: V90% = 94.3 for 3DCRT, 97.6 for SS5, 98 for SS10 and 98.1 for SW; V107% = 20.7 for 3DCRT, 5.9 for SS5, 2 for SS10 and 1.3 for SW). Concerning OARs, they all present a significant reduction of mean and/or maximum dose and dose-volume patterns assessed from DVHs: in particular the mean dose of parotids decrease on average of about 13.5Gy passing from 3DCRT to IMRT with an average reduction of NTCP ranging from about 20% to more than 40% for radically treated patients, depending on the chosen end-point. IV and TV are also slightly smaller with IMRT. The results obtained with SS techniques employing 10 or more intensity levels are comparable with those obtained with SW; no differences between SS10 and SW may be appreciated when considering the DVHs of PTV, CTV and OARs. On the other hand, in some cases SS5 may be slightly sub-effective with respect to SS10-SW when considering PTV coverage and Dmax of the spinal cord. CONCLUSIONS: With the Varian planning and delivery system, Step-and-shoot approximations of inversely optimised fluences in head-neck IMRT compare well with SW delivery, even with only five intensity levels. With a number of intensity level of 10 or more, no differences can be appreciated in PTV coverage/OAR sparing with respect to SW.     

3D dose reconstruction for clinical evaluation of IMRT pretreatment verification with an EPID.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Pretreatment verification with an electronic portal imaging device is an important part of our patient-specific quality assurance program for advanced treatment techniques. Up to now, this verification has been performed for over 400 IMRT patient plans. For every treatment field, a 2D portal dose image (PDI) is measured and compared with a predicted PDI. Often it is not straightforward to interpret dose deviations found in these 2D comparisons in terms of clinical implications for the patient. Therefore, a method to derive the 3D patient dose based on the measured PDIs was implemented. METHODS AND MATERIALS: For reconstruction of the 3D patient dose, the actual fluences delivered by the accelerator are derived from measured portal dose images using an iterative method. The derived fluence map for each beam direction is then used as input for the treatment planning system to generate an adapted 3D patient dose distribution. The accuracy of this method was assessed by measurements in a water phantom. Clinical evaluation of the 3D dose reconstruction was performed for 17 IMRT patients with different tumor sites. Dose differences with respect to the original treatment plan were evaluated in individual CT slices using dose difference maps and a 3D gamma analysis and by comparing dose-volume histograms (DVHs). RESULTS: The measurements indicated that the accuracy of the 3D dose reconstruction was within 2%/2mm. For the patients observed dose differences with respect to the original plan were generally within 2%, except at the field edges and in the sharp dose gradients around the planning target volume (PTV). Gamma analysis showed that the dose differences were within 2%/2mm for more than 95% of the points in all cases. Differences in DVH parameters for the PTV and organs at risk were also within 2% in nearly all cases. CONCLUSION: A method to derive actual delivered fluence maps from measured PDIs and to use them to reconstruct the 3D patient dose was implemented. The reconstruction eases the estimation of the clinical relevance of observed dose differences in the pretreatment measurements.     

Dynamic intensity-modulated non-coplanar arc radiotherapy (INCA) for head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To define the potential advantages of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) applied using a non-coplanar dynamic arc technique for the treatment of head and neck cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) was planned in ten patients with head and neck cancer using coplanar IMRT and non-coplanar arc techniques, termed intensity modulated non-coplanar arc EBRT (INCA). Planning target volumes (PTV1) of first order covered the gross tumor volume and surrounding clinical target volume treated with 68-70 Gy, whereas PTV2 covered the elective lymph nodes with 54-55 Gy using a simultaneous internal boost. Treatment plan comparison between IMRT and INCA was carried out using dose-volume histogram and "equivalent uniform dose" (EUD). RESULTS: INCA resulted in better dose coverage and homogeneity of the PTV1, PTV2, and reduced dose delivered to most of the organs at risk (OAR). For the parotid glands, a reduction of the mean dose of 2.9 (+/- 2.0) Gy was observed (p = 0.002), the mean dose to the larynx was reduced by 6.9 (+/- 2.9) Gy (p = 0.003), the oral mucosa by 2.4 (+/- 1.1) Gy (p < 0.001), and the maximal dose to the spinal cord by 3.2 (+/- 1.7) Gy (p = 0.004). The mean dose to the brain was increased by 3.0 (+/- 1.4) Gy (p = 0.002) and the mean lung dose increased by 0.2 (+/- 0.4) Gy (p = 0.87). The EUD suggested better avoidance of the OAR, except for the lung, and better coverage and dose uniformity were achieved with INCA compared to IMRT. CONCLUSION: Dose delivery accuracy with IMRT using a non-coplanar dynamic arc beam geometry potentially improves treatment of head and neck cancer.     

Dosimetric Comparison between Single and Dual Arc-Volumetric Modulated Arc Radiotherapy and Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Using a Simultaneous Integrated Boost Technique

Backround: Plan quality and performance of dual arc (DA) volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) , single arc (SA) VMAT and nine field (9F) intensity modulated radiotherapy were compared using a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique. Methods: Twelve patients treated in Elekta Synergy Platform (mlci2) by 9F-IMRT were replanned with SA/DA-VMAT using a CMS Monaco Treatment Planning System (TPS) with Monte Carlo simulation. Target delineation was conducted as per Radiation Therapy Oncology Protocols (RTOG0225 and 0615). A 70Gy dose prescribed to PTV70 and 61Gy to PTV61 in 33 fractions was applied for the SIB technique. The conformity index (CI) and homogeneity index (HI) for targets and the mean dose and maximum dose for OAR’s, treatment delivery time (min), monitor units (MUs) per fraction, normal tissue integral dose and patient specific quality assurance were analysed. Results: Acceptable target coverage was achieved for PTV70 and PTV61 with all the planning techniques. No significant differences were observed except for D98 (PTV61), CI(PTV70) and HI(PTV61). Maximum dose (Dmax) to the spinal cord was lower in DA-VMAT than 9F-IMRT (p=0.002) and SA-VMAT (p=0.001). D50 (%) of parotid glands was better controlled by 9F-IMRT (p=0.001) and DA-VMAT (p=0.001) than SA-VMAT. A lower mean dose to the larynx was achieved with 9F-IMRT (P=0.001) and DA-VMAT (p=0.001) than with SA-VMAT. DA-VMAT achieved higher CI of PTV70 (P= 0.005) than SA-VMAT. For PTV61, DA-VMAT (P=0.001) and 9F-IMRT (P=0.001) achieved better HI than SA-VMAT. The average treatment delivery times were 7.67mins, 3.35 mins, 4.65 mins for 9F- IMRT, SA-VMAT and DA-VMAT, respectively. No significant difference were observed in MU/fr (p=0.9) and NTID (P=0.90) and the patient quality assurance pass rates were >95% (gamma analysis Ґ3mm, 3%). Conclusion: DA-VMAT showed better conformity over target dose and spared the OARs better or equal to IMRT. SA-VMAT could not spare the OARs well. DA-VMAT offered shorter delivery time than IMRT without compromising the plan quality.     

A prospective trial of volumetric intensity-modulated arc therapy vs conventional intensity modulated radiation therapy in advanced head and neck cancer

AIM: To prospectively compare volumetric intensity-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and conventional intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in coverage of planning target volumes and avoidance of multiple organs at risk (OARs) in patients undergoing definitive chemoradiotherapy for advanced (stage III or IV) squamous cell cancer of the head and neck.METHODS: Computed tomography scans of 20 patients with advanced tumors of the larynx, naso-, oro- and hypopharynx were prospectively planned using IMRT (7 field) and VMAT using two arcs. Calculated doses to planning target volume (PTV) and OAR were compared between IMRT and VMAT plans. Dose-volume histograms (DVH) were utilized to obtain calculated doses to PTV and OAR, including parotids, cochlea, spinal cord, brainstem, anterior tongue, pituitary and brachial plexus. DVH’s for all structures were compared between IMRT and VMAT plans. In addition the plans were compared for dose conformity and homogeneity. The final treatment plan was chosen by the treating radiation oncologist.RESULTS: VMAT was chosen as the ultimate plan in 18 of 20 patients (90%) because the plans were thought to be otherwise clinically equivalent. The IMRT plan was chosen in 2 of 20 patients because the VMAT plan produced concentric irradiation of the cord which was not overcome even with an avoidance structure. For all patients, VMAT plans had a lower number of average monitor units on average (MU = 542.85) than IMRT plans (MU = 1612.58) (P < 0.001). Using the conformity index (CI), defined as the 95% isodose volume divided by the PTV, the IMRT plan was more conformal with a lower conformity index (CI = 1.61) than the VMAT plan (CI = 2.00) (P = 0.003). Dose homogeneity, as measured by average standard deviation of dose distribution over the PTV, was not different with VMAT (1.45 Gy) or IMRT (1.73 Gy) (P = 0.069). There were no differences in sparing organs at risk.CONCLUSION: In this prospective study, VMAT plans were chosen over IMRT 90% of the time. Compared to IMRT, VMAT plans used only one third of the MUs, had shorter treatment times, and similar sparing of OAR. Overall, VMAT provided similar dose homogeneity but less conformity in PTV irradiation compared to IMRT. This difference in conformity was not clinically significant.     

Influence of organ motion on conformal vs. intensity-modulated pelvic radiotherapy for prostate cancer

PURPOSE: To compare an intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) planning approach for prostate pelvic RT with a conformal RT (CRT) approach taking into account the influence of organ-at-risk (OAR) motion. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 20 male patients, each with one planning computed tomography scan and five to eight treatment computed tomography scans, were used for simulation of IMRT and CRT for delivery of a prescribed dose of 50 Gy to the prostate, seminal vesicles, and pelvic lymph nodes. Planning was done in Eclipse without correcting for OAR motion. Evaluation was performed using the CRT and IMRT dose matrices and the planning and treatment OAR outlines. The generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD) was calculated for 894 OAR volumes using a volume-effect parameter of 4, 12, and 8 for bowel, rectum and bladder, respectively. For the bowel, the gEUD was normalized to a reference volume of 200 cm(3). For each patient and each OAR, an average of the treatment gEUDs (gEUD(treat)) was calculated for CRT and IMRT. The paired t test was used to compare IMRT with CRT and gEUD(treat) with gEUD(plan). RESULTS: The mean gEUD(treat) was reduced from 43 to 40 Gy, 47 to 46 Gy, and 48 to 45 Gy with IMRT for the bowel, rectum, and bladder, respectively (p < 0.001). Differences between the gEUD(plan) and gEUD(treat) were not significant (p > 0.05) for any OAR but was >6% for the bowel in 6 of 20 patients. CONCLUSION: Intensity-modulated RT reduced the bowel, rectum, and bladder gEUDs also under influence of OAR motion. Neither CRT nor IMRT was robust against bowel motion, but IMRT was not less robust than CRT.     

A quantitative evaluation of IMRT dose distributions: refinement and clinical assessment of the gamma evaluation.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is a step forward in comparison to conventional, static beam delivery, quality assurance is more complex and labour intensive, demanding detailed two-dimensional dosimetric verification. Regardless of the technique used for measuring the dose distribution, what is essential to the implementation of routine verification of IMRT fields is the efficient and accurate comparison of the measured versus desired dose distribution. In order to achieve a fast, yet accurate quantitative measure of the correspondence between measured and calculated dose, the theoretical concept of the gamma evaluation method presented by Low et al. (Med. Phys., 25 (1998) 656) was converted into a calculation algorithm, taking into account practical considerations related to the discrete nature of the data.MATERIALS AND METHODS: A filter cascade of multiple levels was designed to obtain fast and accurate comparison of the two dose distributions under evaluation. The actual comparison consists of classification into accepted or rejected datapoints with respect to user-defined acceptance criteria (dose difference and distance to agreement). The presented algorithm was tested on dosimetric images calculated and/or acquired by means of a liquid filled portal imaging device during the course of intensity modulated treatments of prostate cancer, including pre-treatment verification as well as verification during treatment. To assess its ability to intercept possible errors in dose delivery, clinically relevant errors were deliberately introduced into the dose distributions.RESULTS: The developed gamma filter method proves successful in the efficient comparison of calculated versus measured IMRT dose distribution. Secondly, intercomparison of dosimetric images acquired during different treatment sessions illustrate its potential to highlight variations in the dosimetric images. The simulated errors were unmistakably intercepted.CONCLUSIONS: The readily obtained gamma evaluation images are an easy tool for quality control of IMRT fields. To reduce the artefacts related to the discrete nature and limited resolution of the data, a fast and accurate filter cascade was developed, offering the possibility to use the gamma method for day to day evaluation of patient dosimetric portal images with or without comparison to a predicted portal dose distribution.     

利用0.13cc电离室对头颈部肿瘤调强放疗计划的剂量学验证

目的:利用0.13cc电离室对头颈部肿瘤调强适形放射治疗(IMRT)计划进行剂量学验证.方法:将20例头颈部肿瘤患者的IMRT计划分别移植到经过CT扫描的调强体模,生成验证计划,将0.13cc电离室放置到调强体模中在加速器下执行验证计划,在治疗计划系统中算出电离室所在区域的吸收剂量为计划剂量,按验证计划照射测量到的电离室吸收剂量为实测剂量,将二者进行比较得出误差.相对误差=(计划剂量-实测剂量)/实测剂量.百分误差超过±5％,说明计划在执行中剂量误差过大,计划需要修正.结果:20例患者中有17例患者验证的误差在±5％以内,表明计划通过;有3例患者误差超过±5％以内,计划需重新修改,计划通过率为85％.结论:剂量学验证确定IMRT治疗剂量的置信度,保证治疗计划的准确实施,提供了临床评价治疗计划的依据.     

A four-dimensional CT-based evaluation of techniques for gastric irradiation

PURPOSE: To evaluate three-dimensional conformal (3D-CRT), intensity-modulated (IMRT) and respiration-gated radiotherapy (RGRT) techniques for gastric irradiation for target coverage and minimization of renal doses. All techniques were four-dimensional (4D)-CT based, incorporating the intrafractional mobility of the target volume and organs at risk (OAR). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The stomach, duodenal C-loop, and OAR (kidneys, liver, and heart) were contoured in all 10 phases of planning 4D-CT scans for five patients who underwent abdominal radiotherapy. Planning target volumes (PTVs) encompassing all positions of the stomach (PTV(all phases)) were generated. Three respiratory phases for RGRT in inspiration and expiration were identified, and corresponding PTV(inspiration) and PTV(expiration) and OAR volumes were created. Landmark-based fields recommended for the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 99-04 study protocol were simulated to assess PTV coverage. IMRT and 3D-CRT planning with and without additional RGRT planning were performed for all PTVs, and corresponding dose volume histograms were analyzed. RESULTS: Use of landmark-based fields did not result in full geometric coverage of the PTV(all phases) in any patient. IMRT significantly reduced mean renal doses compared with 3D-CRT (15.0 Gy +/- 0.9 Gy vs. 20.1 Gy +/- 9.3 Gy and 16.6 Gy +/- 1.5 Gy vs. 32.6 Gy +/- 7.1 Gy for the left and right kidneys, respectively; p = 0.04). No significant increase in renal sparing was seen when adding RGRT to either 3D-CRT or IMRT. Tolerance doses to the other OAR were not exceeded. CONCLUSIONS: Individualized field margins are essential for gastric irradiation. IMRT plans significantly reduce renal doses, but the benefits of RGRT in gastric irradiation appear to be limited.     

Micro ionization chamber dosimetry in IMRT verification: clinical implications of dosimetric errors in the PTV.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Absolute dose measurements for Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) beamlets is difficult due to the lack of lateral electron equilibrium. Recently we found that the absolute dosimetry in the penumbra region of the IMRT beamlet, can suffer from significant errors (Capote et al., Med Phys 31 (2004) 2416-2422). This work has the goal to estimate the error made when measuring the Planning Target Volume's (PTV) absolute dose by a micro ion chamber (microIC) in typical IMRT treatment. The dose error comes from the assumption that the dosimetric parameters determining the absolute dose are the same as for the reference conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two IMRT treatment plans for common prostate carcinoma case, derived by forward and inverse optimisation, were considered. Detailed geometrical simulation of the microIC and the dose verification set-up was performed. The Monte Carlo (MC) simulation allows us to calculate the delivered dose to water and the dose delivered to the active volume of the ion chamber. However, the measured dose in water is usually derived from chamber readings assuming reference conditions. The MC simulation provides needed correction factors for ion chamber dosimetry in non reference conditions. RESULTS: Dose calculations were carried out for some representative beamlets, a combination of segments and for the delivered IMRT treatments. We observe that the largest dose errors (i.e. the largest correction factors) correspond to the smaller contribution of the corresponding IMRT beamlets to the total dose delivered in the ionization chamber within PTV. CONCLUSION: The clinical impact of the calculated dose error in PTV measured dose was found to be negligible for studied IMRT treatments.     

RapidArc在前列腺癌放疗中的应用

目的:探讨RapidArc在前列腺癌放疗中的适用性。方法:对6例前列腺癌患者设计双弧RapidArc计划,处方剂量为7600cGy。用COMPASS系统验证剂量。利用剂量体积直方图分析临床靶区、危及器官OARs的各评价指标。结果:CTV的HI、CI分别为1.08±0.03、0.87±0.06,有较好的均匀性和适合度。PTV的HI、CI稍差。膀胱和直肠的V40仅为（18.98±4.82）%和（20.50±3.03）%,平均剂量也较低,在3000cGy左右。股骨头D5%也在4000cGy以内。COMPASS剂量验证所得CTV和PTV各指标差异在4%以内,危及器官评价指标差异在5%以内。等中心处绝对剂量准确率达（99.08±0.66）%,靶区和各危及器官的γ通过率达96%、98%以上。结论:RapidArc能够满足前列腺癌放疗的临床剂量学要求。