Dosimetric Comparison of RapidArc with Fixed Gantry Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Treatment for Multiple Liver Metastases Radiotherapy

We wanted to compare the dosimetric difference and treatment efficiency of RapidArc and fixed gantry intensity-modulated radiotherapy treatment (IMRT) for multiple liver metastases. Computed tomography datasets of 10 patients were studied retrospectively. IMRT plans were generated using 5 fields and RapidArc using either 1 or 2 arcs. The dose distribution of planning target volume (PTV), organs at risk (OARs), and the normal tissue were compared. Monitor units and treatment time were scored to measure expected treatment efficiency. Both RapidArc and IMRT plans resulted in equivalent target coverage. There was no statistically significant difference for the maximum and the minimum dose of PTV. RapidArc plans achieved an improved conformity index compared with IMRT (RA1 = 1.68 ± 0.27, RA2 = 1.61 ± 0.25, IMRT = 1.80 ± 0.37). For OARs, all techniques respected planning objectives. RapidArc plans had a lower dose in V₄₀ of small bowel than IMRT, but were higher in mean dose of kidneys. Concerning the V₅, V₁₀, and V₁₅ of healthy tissue, RapidArc plans were higher than IMRT. However, the V₂₀, V₂₅, and V₃₀ of healthy tissue in RapidArc plans were lower than IMRT. Monitor units per fraction of RapidArc plans were about 40% or 46% of IMRT. Compared with IMRT plans, treatment time of RapidArc plans were reduced by 60% or 70%. All techniques respected planning objectives. RapidArc showed statistical improvements in conformity index and healthy tissue sparing with uncompromised target coverage. This, in combination with fewer monitor units and short delivery time, can lead to clinically significant advances for the treatment of multiple liver metastases.     

Dosimetric comparison of vaginal vault brachytherapy vs applicator-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy with volumetric modulated arc therapy and helical tomotherapy for endometrium cancer patients

We performed this dosimetric study to compare a nonstandard volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and helical tomotherapy (HT) techniques with high-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy (BRT) plan of vaginal vault in patients with postoperative endometrial cancer (EC). Twelve postoperative patients with early stage EC were included in this study. Three plans were performed for each patient; dosimetric and radiobiological comparisons were made using dose-volume histograms and equivalent dose for determining the planning target volume (PTV) coverages in brachytherapy and external beam radiotherapy, and organs-at-risk (OARs) doses between three different delivery techniques. All the plans achieved adequate dose coverage for PTV; however, the VMAT plan yielded better dose conformity, and the HT plan showed better homogeneity for target volume. With respect to the OARs, the bladder D_2cc was significantly lower in the BRT plan than in the VMAT and HT plans, with the highest bladder D_2cc value being observed in the HT plan. However, no difference was observed in the rectum D_2cc of the three plans. Other major advantages of the BRT plan over the VMAT and HT plans were the relatively lower body integral doses and femoral head doses as well as the fact that the integral doses were significantly lower in the BRT plan than in the VMAT and HT plans. This is the first dosimetric comparison of vaginal vault treatment for EC with BRT, VMAT, and HT plans. Our analyses showed the feasibility of stereotactic body radiotherapy technique as an alternative to HDR-BRT for postoperative management of EC patients.     

Three-dimensional treatment planning for vaginal cuff brachytherapy: Dosimetric effects on organs at risk according to patients position

PurposeAim of this study was to evaluate dose distribution within organs at risk (OARs) and planning target volume (PTV) based on three-dimensional treatment planning according to two different setup positions in endometrial carcinoma patients submitted to postoperative brachy-radiotherapy on vaginal vault.Methods and MaterialsPatients with endometrial cancer necessitating of adjuvant brachytherapy on vaginal vault were enrolled. Pelvic computed tomography studies were prospectively obtained in two different setup positions: extend legs (A position) and gynecological (B position). Contoured OARs were bladder, rectum, and small bowel. The PTV was identified as applicator's surface with an isotropic 5-mm margin expansion. Radiation dose delivered in 1 cc (D_1cc) and 2 cc (D_2cc) of OAR were calculated.ResultsCoverage of PTV and values of D_1cc and D_2cc obtained for bladder and small bowel were similar in the two positions. For rectum, both D_1cc and D_2cc had statistically significant lower values in A with respect to B position.ConclusionsBoth in A and B positions, radiation doses delivered do not exceed the dose constraints. However, A setup seems to significantly reduce doses to rectum while obtaining the same PTV coverage. The findings from our study provide evidence supporting the use of A position setup for delivering vaginal vault brachytherapy.     

旋转调强与固定野调强治疗肝癌的剂量学比较

目的 比较旋转调强(RapidArc)与固定野调强放疗(IMRT)在肝癌治疗计划中的剂量学差异。方法 选择10例肝癌患者的CT数据,分别设计IMRT计划与单弧(RA1)和双弧(RA2)计划,比较设计计划的靶区剂量分布、危及器官受量、正常组织受量、机器跳数以及治疗时间。结果 RA1和RA2计划靶区剂量的最大值都低于IMRT(Z=-2.090、-2.666,P＜0.05),计划90%的处方剂量的适形指数低于IMRT(Z=-2.805、-2.809,P＜0.05);危及器官胃与小肠的V40也比IMRT计划低。但IMRT左肾平均剂量低于RapidArc计划组(Z=-1.988、-2.191,P＜0.05);正常组织的V₅、V₁₀和V₁₅IMRT计划低于RapidArc计划组,V20、V25和V30IMRT计划高于RapidArc计划组。RapidArc计划机器跳数是IMRT计划的40%和46%,治疗时间是IMRT计划30%和40%。结论 两种技术设计的计划剂量分布均能满足临床要求,并且剂量分布基本一致。RapidArc计划的适形指数优于IMRT,危及器官剂量也比IMRT计划略有降低,正常组织的低剂量区RapidArc计划组与IMRT相比有先高后低的趋势,并且机器跳数少,治疗时间短。     

AAA and AXB algorithms for the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma using IMRT and RapidArc techniques

The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and 2 reporting systems (AXB-D_m and AXB-D_w) of Acuros XB algorithm (AXB) on clinical plans of nasopharyngeal patients using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and RapidArc (RA) techniques. Six plans of different algorithm-technique combinations are performed for 10 patients to calculate dose-volume histogram (DVH) physical parameters for planning target volumes (PTVs) and organs at risk (OARs). The number of monitor units (MUs) and calculation time are also determined. Good coverage is reported for all algorithm-technique combination plans without exceeding the tolerance for OARs. Regardless of the algorithm, RA plans persistently reported higher D_2% values for PTV-70. All IMRT plans reported higher number of MUs (especially with AXB) than did RA plans. AAA-IMRT produced the minimum calculation time of all plans. Major differences between the investigated algorithm-technique combinations are reported only for the number of MUs and calculation time parameters. In terms of these 2 parameters, it is recommended to employ AXB in calculating RA plans and AAA in calculating IMRT plans to achieve minimum calculation times at reduced number of MUs.     

三维适形、逆向调强和旋转调强放疗技术治疗胸段食管癌的剂量学比较

目的 比较胸段食管癌3种放疗技术( 3D-CRT、IMRT、RapidArc)的剂量学特点,并分析3种技术的优劣及应用特点.方法 15例胸段食管癌患者入组,依据CT图像,勾画靶区,针对患者的同一套CT图像的相同靶区分别制定3D-CRT、5野IMRT(IMRT5)、7野IMRT( IMRT7)、9野IMRT(IMRT9)、单弧Arc( Arc1)、双弧Arc( Arc2)共6套计划.PTV处方剂量为40 Gy分20次4周+19.6 Gy分14次7d.结果 3D-CRT计划各项靶区剂量学参数明显差于IMRT计划及RapidArc计划(t=5.77、3.52,P＜0.05),6套计划的PTV V95(％)分别为:3D-CRT (91.55 ±2.90),IMRT5(96.66±1.05),IMRT7 (96.87±1.23),IMRT (96.81±1.16),Arcl (94.98±1.41),Arc2 (95.93±1.32).RapidArc计划的靶区适形度(CI)最好(t=3.76,10.01,P＜0.05),IMRT计划的靶区均匀性(HI)最好(t =3.93、3.37,P＜0.05).危及器官参数RapidArc与IMRT各计划之间差异无统计学意义.3D-CRT和RapidArc计划的机器跳数明显少于IMRT计划,差异高达75％.结论 对于胸段食管癌患者,采用IMRT或RapidArc技术可以在保护正常组织的同时,涵盖临床必需的治疗靶区.3D-CRT计划对降低正常组织低剂量散射区方面优势明显.RapidArc计划靶区剂量学参数与IMRT计划比较未见明显优势.     

中心型肺癌快速旋转调强与固定射野动态调强放疗的剂量学比较

目的 比较快速旋转调强(RapidArc)与固定射野动态调强(dIMRT)两种调强放疗技术在中心型肺癌治疗计划中的剂量学差异。方法 利用瓦里安(Varian)计划系统(Eclipse 8.6)随机选取10例已行dIMRT治疗的中心型肺癌患者,采用容积调强(volumetric modulated arc therapy,VMAT)治疗技术设计RapidArc调强放疗计划。在满足靶区处方剂量要求(95%体积的PTV达到66 Gy)的情况下,通过剂量体积直方图DVH评价和比较两种类型治疗计划的PTV最大剂量 D_max、最小剂量 D _min和平均剂量 D_mean以及适形指数CI,危及器官的脊髓最大剂量 D _max,双肺的 V₅、V ₁₀、 V₂₀、 V₃₀,心脏 V₃₀,食管 V₅₀、V₆₀和平均剂量 D_mean,并比较两种治疗计划的总机器跳数(MU)和治疗时间。结果 在中心型肺癌治疗计划中,与dIMRT相比较,RapidArc靶区的 D _max、 D_min和 D_mean略有升高,但统计学差异无意义( P >0.05), 适形指数CI优于dIMRT,且差异具有统计学意义(t=-4.968,P=0.001)。双肺的 V₅、V₁₀有所上升, V₂₀、 V₃₀有所下降;心脏 V₃₀受照射体积也有不同程度降低,差异均具有统计学意义。RapidArc总MU减少32%,治疗时间为dIMRT的1/3。结论 两种治疗技术所设计的治疗计划剂量分布均能满足临床治疗需要。RapidArc靶区适形度更高,实际治疗时间明显缩短,同时MU的降低减少了治疗区域正常组织的不必要照射。     

Clinical and dosimetric evaluation of RapidArc versus standard sliding window IMRT in the treatment of head and neck cancer

Background

Several planning studies have already proven the substantial dosimetric advantages of RapidArc (RA) over standard intensity-modulated radiotherapy. We retrospectively compared RapidArc and standard sliding window IMRT (swIMRT) in locally advanced head and neck cancer, looking both at dosimetrics as well as toxicity and outcome.

Methods

CT datasets of 78 patients treated with swIMRT and 79 patients treated with RA were included. To compare the resulting dose distributions, the dose–volume parameters were evaluated for the planning target volumes (PTVs), clinical target volumes (CTVs), and organs at risk (OARs), and the number of MU were calculated. Acute toxicity was assessed by the Common Toxicity Criteria version 3.0.

Results

PTV coverage with the 95?% isodose was slightly better for RA. Dose distribution has proven to be significantly more homogenous with RA and led to a reduction of 62?% in MU with better OAR sparing. As for toxicity, more grade 3 mucositis and dysphagia was observed for swIMRT, though we observed more grade 3 dermatitis for RA.

Conclusion

In our retrospective analysis, RA had better target coverage and better sparing of the OAR. Overall, the grade of acute toxicity was lower for RA than for swIMRT for the same types of tumor locations, except for the grade of dermatitis.

     

A dosimetric comparison of RapidArc and IMRT with hypofractionated simultaneous integrated boost to the prostate for treatment of prostate cancer

Objective:

To compare the dosimetric results and treatment delivery efficiency among RapidArc® (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA), 7-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (7-f IMRT) and 9-field IMRT (9-f IMRT) with hypofractionated simultaneous integrated boost to the prostate.

Methods:

RapidArc, 7-f IMRT and 9-f IMRT plans were created for 21 consecutive patients treated for high-risk prostate cancer using the Eclipse™ treatment planning system (Varian Medical Systems). All plans were designed to deliver 70.0 Gy in 28 fractions to the prostate planning target volume (PTV) while simultaneously delivering 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions to the pelvic nodal PTV. Target coverage and sparing of organs at risk (OARs) were compared across techniques. The total number of monitor units (MUs) and the treatment time were used to assess treatment delivery efficiency.

Results:

RapidArc resulted in slightly superior conformity and homogeneity of prostate PTV, whereas all plans were comparable with respect to dose to the nodal PTV. Although OARs sparing for RapidArc and 7-f IMRT plans were almost equivalent, 9-f IMRT achieved better sparing of the rectum and bladder than RapidArc and 7-f IMRT. RapidArc provided the highest treatment delivery efficiency with the lowest MUs and shortest treatment time.

Conclusion:

RapidArc resulted in similar OAR sparing to 7-f IMRT, whereas 9-f IMRT provided the best OAR sparing. Treatment delivery efficiency is significantly higher for RapidArc.

Advances in knowledge:

This study validated the feasibility and limitations of RapidArc in the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer with complex pelvic target volumes.Radiotherapy has played an important role in the treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer. Several randomised controlled trials have demonstrated that high-dose radiotherapy improves prostate-specific antigen control, and a recently published meta-analysis [1] showed that high-dose radiotherapy is superior to conventional-dose radiotherapy in preventing biochemical or clinical failure and prostate cancer-specific death. However, dose escalation has been limited by toxicity in conventional techniques. Therefore, prostate cancer is one of the most common tumour sites treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), which enables the delivery of highly conformal dose distribution to the target while reducing the dose to critical organs. IMRT also has the ability to produce inhomogeneous dose distribution, which allows for simultaneous differential dose delivery to multiple tumour targets (simultaneous integrated boost). Despite the obvious benefits of IMRT, there are some disadvantages. The potential downsides of IMRT include the increased time required for radiotherapy delivery and increased monitor units (MUs) needed compared with conventional three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy.Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is a relatively new rotational radiation therapy technique based on the idea of delivering IMRT with continuous dynamic modulation of the dose rate, field aperture and gantry speed. Compared with IMRT, the potential benefit of VMAT is the increase in delivery efficiency, including a shorter treatment time and a lower number of MUs.Several recent studies have compared VMAT with IMRT for prostate radiotherapy [2–13]. Although shortened treatment time is a common finding, there are inconsistencies in the dosimetric outcome. Many studies considering relatively simple target volumes that included prostate only or prostate with seminal vesicles found that VMAT achieved equal or better normal tissue sparing over IMRT [2,3,5,6,8–10,12]. However, very few studies have focused on more complex pelvic target volumes, including the prostate, seminal vesicles and pelvic lymph nodes [4,7,11,13]. Some of these studies found largely equivalent sparing of organs at risk (OARs) between VMAT and IMRT [7,13]. However, other planning studies have reported contradictory results. Yoo et al [4] noted superior OARs sparing with IMRT to VMAT. Myrehaug et al [11] found VMAT to have no consistent dosimetric advantage over IMRT. Thus, those studies have yielded mixed results. Our study aims to expand such studies to quantitatively evaluate VMAT for prostate cancer cases with complex pelvic target volumes and simultaneous integrated boost techniques.RapidArc® is one of the VMAT techniques implementing the progressive resolution optimisation algorithm in the Eclipse™ planning system by Varian Medical Systems (Palo Alto, CA). In the present study, we compare the performance of RapidArc, 7-field IMRT (7-f IMRT) and 9-field IMRT (9-f IMRT) with hypofractionated simultaneous integrated boost to the prostate for patients with high-risk prostate cancer. This study focused on the evaluation of the dosimetric results and treatment delivery efficiency.     

RapidArc combined with the active breathing coordinator provides an effective and accurate approach for the radiotherapy of hepatocellular carcinoma

Purpose

The goal of this research was to investigate the feasibility of volumetric modulated arc therapy, RapidArc (RA), in association with the active breathing coordinator (ABC) for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with radiotherapy.

Patients and materials

A total of 12?patients with HCC, after receiving transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) treatment, underwent three-dimensional computer tomography (3D-CT) scanning associated with ABC using end inspiration hold (EIH), end expiration hold (EEH), and free breathing (FB) techniques. The three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and RA plans (three 135° arcs) were designed on different CT images, respectively. The liver volume, gross tumor volume (GTV), and planning target volume (PTV) of the three breath status and the dosimetric differences of the different plans were compared.

Results

There were no significant differences in the volumes of live and GTV between the three breathing techniques (p?>?0.05); the PTV in FB was greater than in the EEH and EIH (p?20, V₃₀, and V₄₀ of normal liver compared to 3D-CRT, while the V₅ and V₁₀ in RA were higher than in IMRT. The mean values in mean dose, V₁₀, V₂₀, V₃₀, and V₄₀ of the normal liver were reduced from 13.12?Gy, 46%, 24%, 13%, and 8% in RA_FB to 10.23?Gy, 35%, 16%, 8%, and 5% in RA_EEH and 9.23?Gy, 32%, 16%, 8%, and 5% in RA_EIH?, respectively. In addition, the treatment time of RA was equal to 3D-CRT, which was significantly shorter than IMRT.

Conclusion

RA in conjunction with ABC for the treatment of HCC with radiotherapy can achieve better dose delivery and ensure the accuracy of the target volume, which spares more organs at risk, uses fewer monitor units, and shortens treatment time.     

保乳术后固定野动态调强与容积调强放疗的剂量学比较

目的 比较早期乳腺癌保乳术后固定野动态调强与容积调强放疗治疗靶区和危及器官的剂量学差异.方法 20例左侧乳腺癌患者(均女性,24～75岁)保乳术后接受放疗,在同一患者CT影像上分别进行2野共面动态调强和容积调强(RapidArc)两种治疗计划设计.在剂量-体积直方图中读取两种计划的靶区剂量分布参数,心脏、双侧肺及对侧乳腺受照剂量和体积,对各参数的均数进行比较;并比较两者平均机器跳数和平均治疗时间的差异.结果 RapidArc较IMRT计划CTV V95%增加了0.65%(t=5.16,P=0.001),V105%下降了10.96%(t=-2.05,P=0.055),V110%下降了1.48%(t=-1.33,P=0.197).RapidArc计划的适形指数(CI)和均匀性指数(HI)均优于IMRT治疗计划,分别为0.88±0.02 vs 0.74±0.03(t=18.54,P＜0.001),1.11±0.01 Vs 1.12±0.02(t=-2.44,P=0.025).两种计划中左肺V20和Dmax比较差异无统计学意义,但在RapidArc计划中V10、V5、Dmix、Dmean明显增高,V5增高了接近30%.心脏V30和Dmax在两计划中无明显差异,而RapidArc计划的V10增加了18%,V5增加50%.RapidArc计划的右乳V5和右肺V5较IMRT分别增加了9.33%(t=9.31,P＜0.001)和3.04%(t=5.64,P＜0.001).RapidArc和IMRT平均机器跳数分别是608和437 MU(t=10.86,P＜0.001),平均治疗时间111.3和103.6 s(t=3.57,P=0.002).结论 早期乳腺癌保乳术后全乳腺RapidAre放疗与2野动态调强放疗相比,能明显改善靶区剂量分布均匀性.对于危及器官,高剂量区两种治疗计划之间无明显差异,低剂量区RapidArc的照射范围明显增加.与2野动态调强相比,RapidArc放疗机器跳数增加,治疗时间延长.

Abstract：

Objective To compare the dosimetric difference between volumetric are modulation with RapidArc and fixed field dynamic IMRT for breast cancer radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery.Methods Twenty patients with early left-sided breast cancer received radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery.After target definition,treatment planning was performed by RapidAre and two fixed fields dynamic IMRT respectively on the same CT scan.The target dose distribution,homogeneity of the breast,and the irradiation dose and volume for the lungs,heart,and eontralateral breast were read in the dosevolume histogram (DVH) and compared between RapidAre and IMRT.The treatment delivery time and monitor units were also compared.Results In comparison with the IMRT planning,the homogeneity of clinical target volume (CTV) ,the volume proportion of 95% prescribed dose (V95%) was significantly higher by 0.65% in RapidAre (t =5.16,P = 0.001) ,and the V105% and V110% were lower by 10.96% and 1.48 % respectively,however,without statistical significance (t =-2.05 ,P =0.055 and t =-1.33 ,P =0.197).The conformal index of planning target volume (PTV) by the Rap~dAre planning was (0.88±0.02),significantly higher than that by the IMRT planning [(0.74±0.03),t = 18.54,P < 0.001].The homogeneity index (HI) of PTV by the RapidArc planning was 1.11±0.01,significantly lower than that by the IMRT planning (1.12±0.02,t =-2.44,P =0.02).There were no significant differences in the maximum dose (Dmax) and V20 for the ipsilateral lung between the RapidArc and IMRT planning,but the values of V10,V5 ,Dmin and Dmean by RapidArc planning were all significantly higher than those by the IMRT planning (all P < 0.01).The values of max dose and V30 for the heart were similar by both techniques,but the values of V10 and V5 by the RapidArc planning were significantly higher (by 18% and 50% ,respectively).The V5 of the contralateral breast and lung by the RapidArc planning were increased by 9.33% and 3.04% respectively compared to the IMRT planning.The mean MU of the RapidArc was 608 MU,significantly higher than that by the IMRT planning (437 MU,t = 10.86,P < 0.001).The treatment time by the RapidArc planning was 111.3 s,significantly longer than that by IMRT planning (103.6 s,t = 3.57,P = 0.002).Conclusions The RapidArc planning improves the dose distribution of CTV and homogeneity of PTV for breast cancer radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery.However,it significantly enlarges the volume of normal tissues irradiated in low dose areas,prolongs the treatment delivery time,and increases the MU value in comparison with IMRT.     

旋转调强与固定野逆向调强放疗在颅脑多发转移瘤中的剂量学比较研究

目的 比较旋转调强(RapidArc)与固定野调强(IMRT)放疗在颅脑多发转移瘤中的剂量学差异。方法 针对10例多发脑转移瘤患者分别设计3种放疗计划:固定野逆向调强(IMRT),RapidArc单弧旋转调强(RA1),双弧旋转调强(RA2)。在保证计划均满足临床要求前提下,分别比较3种计划的靶区剂量分布、危及器官及靶区外正常组织的受照剂量、机器跳数以及治疗时间,探讨其剂量学差异。结果 3种计划均满足临床要求,在靶区适形度和均匀性方面,RA2计划优于IMRT(Z＝-2.803、-2.094,P<0.05)和RA1(Z＝-2.448、-2.191,P＜0.05),RA1计划与IMRT计划差别不大。RA1、RA2计划中的双侧晶体、双侧眼球、脑干的最大剂量均显著低于IMRT(Z＝-2.803～-2.191,P <0.05)。RA2计划评估的双侧视神经最大剂量均显著低于IMRT(Z＝-2.293、-2.701,P<0.05)。RA1、RA2计划中的机器跳数相对于IMRT平均分别减少了43%和24%,缩短了治疗时间。结论 单弧和双弧旋转调强计划均可达到或优于IMRT计划的靶区剂量分布,能更好地降低部分危及器官的受照剂量,同时可以显著降低机器跳数和治疗实施时间。     

Chest wall radiotherapy with volumetric modulated arcs and the potential role of flattening filter free photon beams

Purpose

The goal of the work was to assess the role of RapidArc treatments in chest wall irradiation after mastectomy and determine the potential benefit of flattening filter free beams.

Methods and material

Planning CT scans of 10?women requiring post-mastectomy chest wall radiotherapy were included in the study. A dose of 50?Gy in 2?Gy fractions was prescribed. Organs at risk (OARs) delineated were heart, lungs, contralateral breast, and spinal cord. Dose–volume metrics were defined to quantify the quality of concurrent treatment plans assessing target coverage and sparing of OARs. Plans were designed for conformal 3D therapy (3DCRT) or for RapidArc with double partial arcs (RA). RapidArc plans were optimized for both conventional beams as well as for unflattened beams (RAF). The goal for this planning effort was to cover 100% of the planning target volume (PTV) with ≥?90% of the prescribed dose and to minimize the volume inside the PTV receiving >?105% of the dose. The mean ipsilateral lung dose was required to be lower than 15?Gy and V_20?Gy?Results All techniques met planning objectives for PTV and for lung (3DCRT marginally failed for V_20?Gy). RA plans showed superiority compared to 3DCRT in the medium to high dose region for the ipsilateral lung. Heart irradiation was minimized by RAF plans with ~4.5?Gy and ~15?Gy reduction in maximum dose compared to RA and 3DCRT, respectively. RAF resulted in superior plans compared to RA with respect to contralateral breast and lung with a reduction of ~1.7?Gy and 1.0?Gy in the respective mean doses.

Conclusion

RapidArc treatment resulted in acceptable plan quality with superior ipsilateral tissue sparing compared to traditional techniques. Flattening filter free beams, recently made available for clinical use, might provide further healthy tissue sparing, particularly in contralateral organs, suggesting their applicability for large and complex targets.     

Image-guided brachytherapy for cervical cancer: Analysis of D2 cc hot spot in three-dimensional and anatomic factors affecting D2 cc hot spot in organs at risk

PurposeTo analyze the D_{2 cc} hot spot in three-dimensional CT and anatomic factors affecting the D_{2 cc} hot spot in organs at risk (OARs).Methods and MaterialsThirty-one patients underwent pelvic CT scan after insertion of the applicator. High-dose-rate treatment planning was performed with standard loading patterns. The D_{2 cc} structures in OARs were generated in three dimensional if the total equivalent dose in 2 Gy exceeded our defined dose limits (hot spot). The location of D_{2 cc} hot spot was defined as the center of the largest D_{2 cc} fragment. The relationship between the hot spot and the applicator position was reported in Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine coordinates.ResultsThe location of sigmoid, small bowel, and bladder D_{2 cc} hot spots was around the endocervix: The mean location of sigmoid hot spot for lateral view was 1.6 cm posteriorly and 2.3 cm superiorly (Y, 1.6 and Z, 2.3), small bowel was 1.6 cm anteriorly and 2.7 cm superiorly (Y, −1.6 and Z, 2.7). The mean location of bladder hot spot was 1.6 cm anteriorly and 1.6 cm superiorly (Y, −1.6 and Z, 1.6). These hot spots were near the plane of Point A (X, 2.0 or −2.0; Y, 0; and Z, 2.0). The mean location of rectal hot spot was 1.6 cm posteriorly and 1.9 cm inferiorly (Y, 1.6 and Z, −1.9). D_{2 cc} hot spot was affected by uterine wall thickness, uterine tandem position, fibroids, bladder fullness, bowel gas, and vaginal packing.ConclusionsBecause of the location of the D_{2 cc} hot spots, larger tumors present a challenge for adequate tumor coverage with a conventional brachytherapy applicator without an interstitial implant. Additionally, anatomic factors were identified which affect the D_{2 cc} hot spot in OARs.     

RapidArc radiotherapy planning for prostate cancer: Single-arc and double-arc techniques vs. intensity-modulated radiotherapy

RapidArc is a novel technique using arc radiotherapy aiming to achieve intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT)-quality radiotherapy plans with shorter treatment time. This study compared the dosimetric quality and treatment efficiency of single-arc (SA) vs. double-arc (DA) and IMRT in the treatment of prostate cancer. Fourteen patients were included in the analysis. The planning target volume (PTV), which contained the prostate gland and proximal seminal vesicles, received 76 Gy in 38 fractions. Seven-field IMRT, SA, and DA plans were generated for each patient. Dosimetric quality in terms of the minimum PTV dose, PTV hotspot, inhomogeneity, and conformity index; and sparing of rectum, bladder, and femoral heads as measured by V70, V-40, and V20 (% of volume receiving >70 Gy, 40 Gy, and 20 Gy, respectively), treatment efficiency as assessed by monitor units (MU) and treatment time were compared. All plan objectives were met satisfactorily by all techniques. DA achieved the best dosimetric quality with the highest minimum PTV dose, lowest hotspot, and the best homogeneity and conformity. It was also more efficient than IMRT. SA achieved the highest treatment efficiency with the lowest MU and shortest treatment time. The mean treatment time for a 2-Gy fraction was 4.80 min, 2.78 min, and 1.30 min for IMRT, DA, and SA, respectively. However, SA also resulted in the highest rectal dose. DA could improve target volume coverage and reduce treatment time and MU while maintaining equivalent normal tissue sparing when compared with IMRT. SA achieved the greatest treatment efficiency but with the highest rectal dose, which was nonetheless within tolerable limits. For busy units with high patient throughput, SA could be an acceptable option.     

容积旋转调强与固定野调强在晚期宫颈癌放疗的剂量学比较及疗效观察

目的 比较容积旋转调强（RapidArc）和固定野调强（IMRT）技术在宫颈癌根治性放疗的剂量学参数、急性不良反应发生率及疗效。方法 回顾性分析43例局部晚期（II_b~IV）宫颈癌患者,其中22例行容积旋转调强放疗,21例行固定野调强放疗,处方剂量50.4 Gy/28次,比较两组靶区剂量适形度、均匀性、靶区及危及器官的剂量、机器跳数及治疗时间;对比两组患者治疗期间的急性肠道及膀胱反应发生率;对比两组患者的完全缓解率和有效率。结果 与IMRT计划相比,RapidArc计划的靶区适形性指数CI略好,但差异无统计学意义（P > 0.05）;两组计划的靶区均匀性指数HI比较,差异无统计学意义（P > 0.05）。RapidArc计划中膀胱的V₄₀、V₅₀以及直肠的V₃₀、V₄₀、V₅₀均低于IMRT计划（t=-2.386、-2.397、-5.525、-2.883、-2.686,P < 0.05）,RapidArc计划中股骨头的平均剂量低于IMRT计划（t=-2.395,P < 0.05）。RapidArc较IMRT平均MU减少了53.15%,治疗所需平均时间缩短了62.14%。两组患者肠道、膀胱急性反应发生率相近。两组患者完全缓解率和有效率相近。结论 晚期宫颈癌根治性放疗中,采用RapidArc技术可以降低危及器官受量,缩短患者的治疗时间。     

容积旋转调强与固定野动态调强在宫颈癌术后放疗的剂量学比较

目的 比较容积旋转调强（RapidArc）与固定野动态调强（IMRT）两种宫颈癌术后放疗的剂量学参数及急性不良反应发生率,为临床治疗技术的选择提供参考依据。方法 选取35例宫颈癌术后盆腔预防放疗患者,其中,17例接受RapidArc,18例接受IMRT,处方剂量50 Gy,共25次。比较两组治疗计划的剂量-体积直方图（DVH）、靶区剂量适形度、均匀性、靶区及危及器官的剂量、机器跳数及治疗时间;对比两组患者治疗期间的急性肠道及膀胱反应发生率。结果 与IMRT相比,RapidArc靶区剂量适形度较高（t=3.13,P<0.05）,但均匀性略低（t=-4.25,P<0.05）;RapidArc计划中股骨头V₂₀、V₃₀均低于IMRT（t=2.56、2.34,P<0.05）;RapidArc计划机器跳数减少了52.1%,治疗所需时间缩短了46.8%。两组患者肠道、膀胱急性不良反应发生率相近。结论 对于宫颈癌术后盆腔预防放疗患者,采用RapidArc或IMRT技术均可达到靶区的剂量要求及保护危及器官的目的。RapidArc计划靶区剂量学参数、急性不良反应发生率与IMRT计划比较未见明显优势,但机器跳数与出束时间明显优于IMRT计划,实现了治疗效率的大幅提高。