Locoregional irradiation including internal mammary nodal region for left-sided breast cancer after breast conserving surgery: Dosimetric evaluation of 4 techniques

The present study aimed to compare 4 techniques in the planning of locoregional irradiation including internal mammary nodal region for left-sided breast cancer. Ten patients with left-sided breast cancer undergoing breast conservation surgery were enrolled. For each patient, 4 treatment plans were performed: a helical tomotherapy (HT) plan, a volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan, a static intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plan, and a hybrid IMRT plan, designed to encompass the whole breast, internal mammary, and supraclavicular nodal regions. The prescribed dose of radiation was 50 Gy in 25 fractions. The dosimetric parameters of the target and organs at risk, as well as the dose delivery time, were evaluated and compared using an independent-samples t-test. The HT and VMAT plans had the best conformity and homogeneity. For the HT, VMAT, IMRT, and hybrid IMRT plans, the mean conformity index (CI) and homogeneity index (HI) were 0.83, 0.82, 0.8, and 0.77 (p < 0.001); and 1.07, 1.11, 1.14, and 1.14 (p < 0.001), respectively. The corresponding V₅₅ values were 0.3%, 11.4%, 27.02%, and 23.29% (p < 0.001). The D_mean and V₂₀ of the left lung obtained using the HT plan were significantly lower than those of VMAT, IMRT, and hybrid IMRT plans (p = 0.002, p = 0.004). There were no significant differences in D max of LAD descending coronary artery, or the D_mean of the heart among the 4 types of plans. The HT and VMAT plans had a lower dose to other organ at risk (OARs) compared with the IMRT and hybrid IMRT plans. The mean delivery times were 1042 ± 33 seconds, 136 ± 12 seconds, 450 ± 65 seconds, and 451 ± 70 seconds for the HT, VMAT, IMRT, and hybrid IMRT plans, respectively (p < 0.001). For whole breast plus supraclavicular and internal mammary nodal irradiation in left-sided breast cancer, the VMAT technique is recommended considering both the dose distribution and the delivery time. Under circumstances in which dose distribution is a priority, the HT technique is a valid option.     

Improvement in plan quality after Implementation of clinical goals in a large network of cancer centers

Clinical Goals (CG) is a tool available in the Varian Eclipse planning system to objectively and visually evaluate the quality of treatment plans based upon user-defined dose-volume parameters. We defined a set of CG for Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS) and Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) based on published data and guidelines and implemented this in a network of cancer centers in India (American Institute of Oncology). A dosimetric study was performed to compare brain SRS and breast IMRT plan quality before and after CG implementation.The CG defined for SRS plans were target V_100% ≥ 98%, dose gradient measure (GM) ≤ 0.5 cm, conformity index (CI) 1.0 to 1.2. For breast IMRT plans, CG defined target V_100% ≥ 97%, V_95% ≥ 95%, V_107% ≤ 2%, V_105% ≤ 10%, and D_max ≤ 2.4 Gy. Dose limits to organs-at-risk (OAR) were summarize in supplemental materials. Twenty brain SRS and 10 breast IMRT treatment plans that were previously delivered on patients were selected and re-planned using CG. The pre and postoptimized plan parameters were compared using student t-tests.For brain SRS plans, the V₁₀₀, GM, and CI for the pre- and post-Clinical-Goals plans were 93.22% ± 7.2% vs 97.96% ± 0.29% (p = 0.009), 0.63 ± 0.16 vs 0.42 ± 0.05 (p < 0.001) and 1.07 ± 0.18 vs 1.06 ± 0.06 (p = 0.79), respectively. There were no differences in max dose to OARs. In breast IMRT plans, the target V_107% for pre and postimplemented plans were 16.50% ± 10.98% vs 0.32% ± 0.32%, respectively (p = 0.001). The average target V_105% were 44.00% ± 15.72% and 8.69% ± 4.53%, respectively (p < 0.001). No differences were found in the average target V_100% (p = 0.128) and V_95% (p = 0.205). The average target D_max were 112.28% ± 1.59% and 109.14% ± 0.73%, respectively (p < 0.001). There were only minor differences in doses to OARs.The implementation of CG in Varian Eclipse significantly improved SRS and IMRT plan quality with enhanced coverage, dose GM, and CI without increased dose to OARs.     

Volumetric-modulated arc therapy in postprostatectomy radiotherapy patients: A planning comparison study

The purpose of this study was to compare postprostatectomy planning for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with both single arc (SA) and double arcs (DA) against dynamic sliding window intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Ten cases were planned with IMRT, SA VMAT, and DA VMAT. All cases were planned to achieve a minimum dose of 68 Gy to 95% of the planning target volume (PTV) and goals to limit rectal volume >40 Gy to 35% and >65 Gy to 17%, and bladder volumes >40 Gy to 50% and >65 Gy to 25%. Plans were averaged across the 10 patients and compared for mean dose, conformity, homogeneity, rectal and bladder doses, and monitor units. The mean dose to the clinical target volume and PTV was significantly higher (p<0.05) for SA compared with DA or IMRT. The homogeneity index was not significantly different: SA = 0.09; DA = 0.08; and IMRT = 0.07. The rectal V40 was lowest for the DA plan. The rectal V20 was significantly lower (p<0.05) for both the VMAT plans compared with IMRT. There were no significant differences for bladder V40 or rectal and bladder V65. The IMRT plans required 1400 MU compared with 745 for DA and 708 for SA. This study shows that for equivalent dose coverage, SA and DA VMAT plans result in higher mean doses to the clinical target volume and PTV. This greater dose heterogeneity is balanced by improved low-range rectal doses and halving of the monitor units.     

3D-Conformal Versus Intensity-Modulated Postoperative Radiotherapy of Vaginal Vault: A Dosimetric Comparison

We evaluated a step-and-shoot IMRT plan in the postoperative irradiation of the vaginal vault compared with equispaced beam arrangements (3–5) 3D-radiotherapy (RT) optimized plans. Twelve patients were included in this analysis. Four plans for each patient were compared in terms of dose-volume histograms, homogeneity index (HI), and conformity index (CI): (1) 3 equispaced beam arrangement 3D-RT; (2) 4 equispaced beam arrangement 3D-RT; (3) 5 equispaced beam arrangement 3D-RT; (4) step-and-shoot IMRT technique. CI showed a good discrimination between the four plans. The mean scores of CI were 0.58 (range: 0.38–0.67) for the 3F-CRT plan, 0.58 (range: 0.41–0.66) for 4F-CRT, 0.62 (range: 0.43–0.68) for 5F-CRT and 0.69 (range: 0.58–0.78) for the IMRT plan. A significant improvement of the conformity was reached by the IMRT plan (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). As expected, the increment of 3D-CRT fields was associated with an improvement of target dose conformity and homogeneity; on the contrary, in the IMRT plans, a better conformity was associated to a worse target dose homogeneity. A significant reduction in terms of D_mean, V90%, V95%, V100% was recorded for rectal and bladder irradiation with the IMRT plan. Surprisingly, IMRT supplied a significant dose reduction also for rectum and bladder V30% and V50%. A significant dosimetric advantage of IMRT over 3D-RT in the adjuvant treatment of vaginal vault alone in terms of treatment conformity and rectum and bladder sparing is shown.     

Dosimetric comparison of 3D conformal,IMRT, and V-MAT techniques for accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI)

The purpose is to dosimetrically compare the following 3 delivery techniques: 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT), intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMRT), and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (V-MAT) in the treatment of accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI). Overall, 16 patients with T1/2N0 breast cancer were treated with 3D-CRT (multiple, noncoplanar photon fields) on the RTOG 0413 partial-breast trial. These cases were subsequently replanned using static gantry IMRT and V-MAT technology to understand dosimetric differences among these 3 techniques. Several dosimetric parameters were used in plan quality evaluation, including dose conformity index (CI) and dose-volume histogram analysis of normal tissue coverage. Quality assurance studies including gamma analysis were performed to compare the measured and calculated dose distributions. The IMRT and V-MAT plans gave more conformal target dose distributions than the 3D-CRT plans (p < 0.05 in CI). The volume of ipsilateral breast receiving 5 and 10 Gy was significantly less using the V-MAT technique than with either 3D-CRT or IMRT (p < 0.05). The maximum lung dose and the ipsilateral lung volume receiving 10 (V₁₀) or 20 Gy (V₂₀) were significantly less with both V-MAT and IMRT (p < 0.05). The IMRT technique was superior to 3D-CRT and V-MAT of low dose distributions in ipsilateral lung (p < 0.05 in V₅ and D₅). The total mean monitor units (MUs) for V-MAT (621.0 ± 111.9) were 12.2% less than those for 3D-CRT (707.3 ± 130.9) and 46.5% less than those for IMRT (1161.4 ± 315.6) (p < 0.05). The average machine delivery time was 1.5 ± 0.2 minutes for the V-MAT plans, 7.0 ± 1.6 minutes for the 3D-CRT plans, and 11.5 ± 1.9 minutes for the IMRT plans, demonstrating much less delivery time for V-MAT. Based on this preliminary study, V-MAT and IMRT techniques offer improved dose conformity as compared with 3D-CRT techniques without increasing dose to the ipsilateral lung. In terms of MU and delivery time, V-MAT is significantly more efficient for APBI than for conventional 3D-CRT and static-beam IMRT.     

Treatment and Dosimetric Advantages Between VMAT, IMRT, and Helical TomoTherapy in Prostate Cancer

We investigated the possible treatment and dosimetric advantage of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) over step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy (step-and-hhoot IMRT) and helical tomotherapy (HT). Twelve prostate cancer patients undergoing VMAT to the prostate were included. Three treatment plans (VMAT, step-and-shoot IMRT, HT) were generated for each patient. The doses to clinical target volume and 95% of planning target volume were both ≥78 Gy. Target coverage, conformity index, dose to rectum/bladder, monitor units (MU), treatment time, equivalent uniform dose (EUD), normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) of targets, and rectum/bladder were compared between techniques. HT provided superior conformity and significantly less rectal volume exposed to 65 Gy and 40 Gy, as well as EUD/NTCP of rectum than step-and-shoot IMRT, whereas VMAT had a slight dosimetric advantage over step-and-shoot IMRT. Notably, significantly lower MUs were needed for VMAT (309.7 ± 35.4) and step-and-shoot IMRT (336.1 ± 16.8) than for HT (3368 ± 638.7) (p < 0.001). The treatment time (minutes) was significantly shorter for VMAT (2.6 ± 0.5) than step-and-shoot IMRT (3.8 ± 0.3) and HT (3.8 ± 0.6) (p < 0.001). Dose verification of VMAT using point dose and film dosimetry met the accepted criteria. VMAT and step-and-shoot IMRT have comparable dosimetry, but treatment efficiency is significantly higher for VMAT than for step-and-shoot IMRT and HT.     

The dosimetric impact of daily setup error on target volumes and surrounding normal tissue in the treatment of prostate cancer with intensity-modulated radiation therapy

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of daily setup error and interfraction organ motion on the overall dosimetric radiation treatment plans. Twelve patients undergoing definitive intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatments for prostate cancer were evaluated in this institutional review board–approved study. Each patient had fiducial markers placed into the prostate gland before treatment planning computed tomography scan. IMRT plans were generated using the Eclipse treatment planning system. Each patient was treated to a dose of 8100 cGy given in 45 fractions. In this study, we retrospectively created a plan for each treatment day that had a shift available. To calculate the dose, the patient would have received under this plan, we mathematically “negated” the shift by moving the isocenter in the exact opposite direction of the shift. The individualized daily plans were combined to generate an overall plan sum. The dose distributions from these plans were compared with the treatment plans that were used to treat the patients. Three-hundred ninety daily shifts were negated and their corresponding plans evaluated. The mean isocenter shift based on the location of the fiducial markers was 3.3 ± 6.5 mm to the right, 1.6 ± 5.1 mm posteriorly, and 1.0 ± 5.0 mm along the caudal direction. The mean D95 doses for the prostate gland when setup error was corrected and uncorrected were 8228 and 7844 cGy (p < 0.002), respectively, and for the planning target volume (PTV8100) was 8089 and 7303 cGy (p < 0.001), respectively. The mean V95 values when patient setup was corrected and uncorrected were 99.9% and 87.3%, respectively, for the PTV8100 volume (p < 0.0001). At an individual patient level, the difference in the D95 value for the prostate volume could be >1200 cGy and for the PTV8100 could approach almost 2000 cGy when comparing corrected against uncorrected plans. There was no statistically significant difference in the D35 parameter for the surrounding normal tissue except for the dose received by the penile bulb and the right hip. Our dosimetric evaluation suggests significant underdosing with inaccurate target localization and emphasizes the importance of accurate patient setup and target localization. Further studies are needed to evaluate the impact of intrafraction organ motion, rotation, and deformation on doses delivered to target volumes.     

Dosimetric comparison of different multileaf collimator leaves in treatment planning of intensity-modulated radiotherapy for cervical cancer

To study the effect of multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf widths (standard MLC [sMLC] width of 10 mm and micro-MLC [mMLC] width of 4 mm) on intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for cervical cancer. Between January 2010 and August 2010, a retrospective analysis was conducted on 12 patients with cervical cancer. The treatment plans for all patients were generated with the same machine setup parameters and optimization methods in a treatment planning system (TPS) based on 2 commercial Elekta MLC devices. The dose distribution for the planning tumor volume (PTV), the dose sparing for organs at risk (OARs), the monitor units (MUs), and the number of IMRT segments were evaluated. For the delivery efficiency, the MUs were significantly higher in the sMLC-IMRT plan than in the mMLC-IMRT plan (802 ± 56.9 vs 702 ± 56.7; p < 0.05). The number of segments in the plans were 58.75 ± 1.8 and 59 ± 1.04 (p > 0.05). For the planning quality, the conformity index (CI) between the 2 paired IMRT plans with the mMLC and the sMLC did not differ significantly (average: 0.817 ± 0.024 vs 0.810 ± 0.028; p > 0.05). The differences of the homogeneity index (HI) between the 2 paired plans were statistically significant (average: 1.122 ± 0.010 vs 1.132 ± 0.014; p < 0.01). For OARs, the rectum, bladder, small intestine, and bony pelvis were evaluated in terms of V₁₀, V₂₀, V₃₀, and V₄₀, percentage of contoured OAR volumes receiving 10, 20, 30, and 40 Gy, respectively, and the mean dose (D_mean) received. The IMRT plans with the mMLC protected the OARs better than the plans with the sMLC. There were significant differences (p < 0.05) in evaluated parameters between the 2 paired IMRT plans, except for V₃₀ and V₄₀ of the rectum and V₁₀, V₂₀, V₄₀, and D_mean of the bladder. IMRT plans with the mMLC showed advantages over the plans with the sMLC in dose homogeneity for targets, dose sparing of OARs, and fewer MUs in cervical cancer.     

Clinical evaluation of photon optimizer (PO) MLC algorithm for stereotactic,single-dose of VMAT lung SBRT

Recently implemented photon optimizer (PO) MLC optimization algorithm is mandatory for RapidPlan modeling in Eclipse. This report quantifies and compares the dosimetry and treatment delivery parameters of PO vs its predecessor progressive resolution optimizer (PRO) algorithm for a single-dose of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Clinical SBRT treatment plans for 12 early-stage non–small-cell lung cancer patients receiving 30 Gy in 1 fraction using PRO-VMAT were re-optimized using the PO-VMAT MLC algorithm with identical planning parameters and objectives. Average planning target volume derived from the 4D CT scans was 13.6 ± 12.0 cc (range: 4.3 to 41.1 cc) Patients were treated with 6 MV flattening filter free beam using Acuros-based calculations and 2.5 mm calculation grid-size (CGS). Both treatment plans were normalized to receive same target coverage and identical CGS to isolate effects of MLC positioning optimizers. Original PRO and re-optimized PO plans were compared via RTOG–0915 protocol compliance criteria for target conformity, gradient indices, dose to organs at risks and delivery efficiency. Additionally, PO-VMAT plans with a 1.25 mm CGS were evaluated. Both plans met RTOG protocol requirements. Conformity indices showed no statistical difference between PO 2.5 mm CGS and PRO 2.5 mm CGS plans. Gradient index (p = 0.03), maximum dose to 2 cm away from planning target volume in any direction (D_2cm) (p < 0.05), and gradient distance (p < 0.05) presented statistically significant differences for both plans with 2.5 mm CGS. Some organs at risks showed statistically significant differences for both plans calculated with 2.5 mm CGS; however, no clinically significant dose differences were observed between the plans. Beam modulation factor was statistically significant for both PO 1.25 mm CGS (p = 0.001) and PO 2.5 mm CGS (p < 0.001) compared to clinical PRO 2.5 mm CGS plans. PO-VMAT plans provided decreased beam-on time by an average of 0.2 ± 0.1 minutes (up to 1.0 minutes) with PO 2.5 mm and 1.2 ± 0.39 minutes (maximum up to 3.22 minutes) with PO 1.25 mm plans compared to PRO 2.5 mm plans. PO-VMAT single-dose of VMAT lung SBRT plans showed slightly increased intermediate-dose spillage but boasted overall similar plan quality with less beam modulation and hence shorter beam-on time. However, PO 1.25 mm CGS had less intermediate-dose spillage and analogous plan quality compared to clinical PRO-VMAT plans with no additional cost of plan optimization. Further investigation into peripheral targets with PO-MLC algorithm is warranted. This study indicates that PO 1.25 mm CGS plans can be used for RapidPlan modeling for a single dose of lung SBRT patients. PO-MLC 1.25 mm algorithm is recommended for future clinical single-dose lung SBRT plan optimization.     

High-dose radiotherapy in inoperable nonsmall cell lung cancer: Comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy,dynamic IMRT and 3D conformal radiotherapy

Conformal 3D radiotherapy (3D-CRT) combined with chemotherapy for inoperable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to the preferable high dose is often not achievable because of dose-limiting organs. This reduces the probability of regional tumor control. Therefore, the surplus value of using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) techniques, specifically volumetric modulated arc therapy (RapidArc [RA]) and dynamic IMRT (d-IMRT) has been investigated. RA and d-IMRT plans were compared with 3D-CRT treatment plans for 20 patients eligible for concurrent high-dose chemoradiotherapy, in whom a dose of 60 Gy was not achievable. Comparison of dose delivery in the target volume and organs at risk was carried out by evaluating 3D dose distributions and dose-volume histograms. Quality of the dose distribution was assessed using the inhomogeneity and conformity index. For most patients, a higher dose to the target volume can be delivered using RA or d-IMRT; in 15% of the patients a dose ≥60 Gy was possible. Both IMRT techniques result in a better conformity of the dose (p < 0.001). There are no significant differences in homogeneity of dose in the target volume. IMRT techniques for NSCLC patients allow higher dose to the target volume, thus improving regional tumor control.     

Will weight loss cause significant dosimetric changes of target volumes and organs at risk in nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy?

This study aimed to quantify dosimetric effects of weight loss for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Overall, 25 patients with NPC treated with IMRT were enrolled. We simulated weight loss during IMRT on the computer. Weight loss model was based on the planning computed tomography (CT) images. The original external contour of head and neck was labeled plan 0, and its volume was regarded as pretreatment normal weight. We shrank the external contour with different margins (2, 3, and 5 mm) and generated new external contours of head and neck. The volumes of reconstructed external contours were regarded as weight during radiotherapy. After recontouring outlines, the initial treatment plan was mapped to the redefined CT scans with the same beam configurations, yielding new plans. The computer model represented a theoretical proportional weight loss of 3.4% to 13.7% during the course of IMRT. The dose delivered to the planning target volume (PTV) of primary gross tumor volume and clinical target volume significantly increased by 1.9% to 2.9% and 1.8% to 2.9% because of weight loss, respectively. The dose to the PTV of gross tumor volume of lymph nodes fluctuated from −2.0% to 1.0%. The dose to the brain stem and the spinal cord was increased (p < 0.001), whereas the dose to the parotid gland was decreased (p < 0.001). Weight loss may lead to significant dosimetric change during IMRT. Repeated scanning and replanning for patients with NPC with an obvious weight loss may be necessary.     

Dosimetric comparison between intensity-modulated radiotherapy and standard wedged tangential technique for whole-breast radiotherapy in Asian women with relatively small breast volumes

We sought to investigate whether intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) has a dosimetric advantage compared to the standard wedged tangential technique (SWT) for whole-breast radiotherapy (WBRT) in Asian women with relatively small breast volume. Computed tomography images of 25 Asian patients with early-stage breast cancer (right 15, left 10) used for WBRT planning were examined. After contouring the target volumes and bilateral lungs and, for left-side treatment, the heart, 4 plans were made for each patient: namely, SWT, tangential-field IMRT (T-IMRT), 3-field IMRT (3F-IMRT), and 4-field IMRT (4F-IMRT). The prescribed dose was 5000 cGy. The median planning target volume (PTV) for WBRT was 552.6 cc (range 288.8–1518.4 cc). Compared to SWT, (1) T-IMRT achieved significant improvement for dose homogeneity in the PTV (p < 0.001) and the dose received by 2 % (D2) of the PTV (p < 0.001). T-IMRT also reduced the bilateral lung mean dose (p < 0.001) and the ipsilateral lung volume which received more than 20 Gy (V20) (p = 0.01). (2) 3F-IMRT resulted in a significant increase in the mean dose to the ipsilateral lung (p < 0.001) and to the contralateral lung (p < 0.001). (3) 4F-IMRT also resulted in a significant increase in the mean dose to the ipsilateral lung (p < 0.001) and to the contralateral lung (p < 0.001). Tangential-field IMRT provided an improved dose distribution compared with SWT for WBRT in Asian women with a relatively small breast volume.     

VMAT partial arc technique decreases dose to organs at risk in whole pelvic radiotherapy for prostate cancer when compared to full arc VMAT and IMRT

Whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) can sterilize microscopic lymph node metastases in treatment of prostate cancer. WPRT, compared to prostate only radiotherapy (PORT), is associated with increased acute gastrointestinal, and hematological toxicities. To further explore minimizing normal tissue toxicities associated with WPRT in definitive IMRT for prostate cancer, this planning study compared dosimetric differences between static 9-field-IMRT, full arc VMAT, and mixed partial-full arc VMAT techniques. In this retrospective study, 12 prostate cancer patients who met the criteria for WPRT were randomly selected for this study. The initial volume, PTV46, included the prostate, seminal vesicles, and pelvic nodes with margin and was prescribed to 4600 cGy. The cone-down volume, PTV78, included the prostate and proximal seminal vesicles with margin to a total dose of 7800 cGy. For each CT image set, 3 plans were generated for each of the PTVs: an IMRT plan, a full arc (FA) VMAT plan, and a mixed partial-full arc (PFA) VMAT plan, using 6MV photons energy. According to RTOG protocols none of the plans had a major Conformity Index (CI) violation by any of the 3 planning techniques. PFA plan had the best mean CI index of 1.00 and significantly better than IMRT (p = 0.03) and FA (p = 0.007). For equivalent PTV coverage, the average composite gradient index of the PFA plans was better than the IMRT and the FA plans with values 1.92, 2.03, and 2.01 respectively. The defference was statistically significant between PFA/IMRT and PFA/FA, with p- values of < 0.001. The IMRT plans and the PFA plans provided very similar doses to the rectum, bladder, sigmoid colon, and femoral heads, which were lower than the dose in the FA plans. There was a significant decrease in the mean dose to the rectum from 4524 cGy with the FA to 4182 cGy with the PFA and 4091 cGy with IMRT (p < 0.001). The percent of rectum receiving 4000 cGy was also the highest with FA at 66.1% compared to 49.9% (PFA) and 47.5% (IMRT). There was a significant decrease in the mean dose to the bladder from 3922 cGy (FA) to 3551 cGy (PFA) and 3612 cGy (IMRT) (p < 0.001). The percent of bladder receiving 4000 cGy was also the highest with FA at 45.4% compared to 36.6% (PFA) and 37.4% (IMRT). The average mean dose to the sigmoid colon decreased from 4177 cGy (FA) to 3893 cGy (PFA) and 3819 cGy (IMRT). The average mean dose to the femoral heads decreased from 2091 cGy (FA) to 2026 cGy (PFA) and 1987 cGy (IMRT). Considering the improvement in plan quality indices recorded in this study including the dose gradient and the dose to organs at risk, mixed partial-full arc plans may be the preferred VMAT treatment technique over full arc plans for prostate cancer treatments that include nodal volumes.     

A fixed-jaw method to protect critical organs during intensity-modulated radiotherapy

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plays an important role in cancer radiotherapy. For some patients being treated with IMRT, the extremely low tolerances of critical organs (such as lens, ovaries, and testicles) cannot be met during treatment planning. The aim of this article is to introduce a new planning method to overcome that problem. In current planning practice, jaw positions are automatically set to cover all target volumes by the planning system (e.g., Pinnacle³ system). Because of such settings, critical organs may be fully blocked by the multileaf collimator (MLC), but they still sit in the field that is shaped by collimator jaws. These critical organs receive doses from the transmission and leakage of MLC leaves. We manually fixed jaw positions to block them to further reduce such doses. This method has been used for different treatment sites in our clinic, and it was thoroughly evaluated in patients with radical hysterectomy plus ovarian transposition after surgery. For each patient, 2 treatment plans were designed with the same optimization parameters: the original plan with automatically chosen jaw positions (called O-plan) and the plan with fixed-jaw positions (named F-plan). In the F-plan, the jaws were manually fixed to block the ovaries. For target coverage, the mean conformity index (CI) of the F-plan (1.28 ± 0.02) was remarkably lower than that of the O-plan (1.53 ± 0.09) (p < 0.05). The F-plan and the O-plan performed similarly in target dose homogeneity. Meanwhile, for the critical organ sparing, the mean dose of both ovaries were much lower in the F-plan than that in the O-plan (p < 0.05). The V₂₀, V₃₀, and V₄₀ of bladder were also lower in the F-plan (93.57 ± 1.98, 73.99 ± 5.76, and 42.33 ± 3.7, respectively) than those in the O-plan (97.98 ± 1.11, 85.07 ± 4.04, and 49.71 ± 3.63, respectively) (p < 0.05). The maximum dose to the spinal cord planning organ at risk (OAR) volume (PRV) in the O-plan (3940.24 ± 102.8) was higher than that in the F-plan (3628.18 ± 131.45) with significant differences (p < 0.01). For other OARs, there were no significant differences in doses between these 2 plans except that the high-dose regions of the rectum were higher for V₄₀ in the O-plan than that in the F-plan (p < 0.01). But the monitor units (MUs) in the F-plan were 1.4 times as much as that in the O-plan. Thus the treatment time could be longer by using the F-plan. As it results in more MUs in spite of better plan quality, it is recommended to be used only in situations in which clinical requirements to critical organs cannot be met with the regular method.