Circumferential or sectored beam arrangements for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) of primary lung tumors: Effect on target and normal-structure dose-volume metrics

To compare 2 beam arrangements, sectored (beam entry over ipsilateral hemithorax) vs circumferential (beam entry over both ipsilateral and contralateral lungs), for static-gantry intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivery techniques with respect to target and organs-at-risk (OAR) dose-volume metrics, as well as treatment delivery efficiency. Data from 60 consecutive patients treated using stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for primary non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) formed the basis of this study. Four treatment plans were generated per data set: IMRT/VMAT plans using sectored (-s) and circumferential (-c) configurations. The prescribed dose (PD) was 60 Gy in 5 fractions to 95% of the planning target volume (PTV) (maximum PTV dose ~ 150% PD) for a 6-MV photon beam. Plan conformality, R₅₀ (ratio of volume circumscribed by the 50% isodose line and the PTV), and D_2 cm (D_max at a distance ≥2 cm beyond the PTV) were evaluated. For lungs, mean doses (mean lung dose [MLD]) and percent V₃₀/V₂₀/V₁₀/V₅ Gy were assessed. Spinal cord and esophagus D_max and D₅/D₅₀ were computed. Chest wall (CW) D_max and absolute V₃₀/V₂₀/V₁₀/V_5 Gy were reported. Sectored SBRT planning resulted in significant decrease in contralateral MLD and V₁₀/V_5 Gy, as well as contralateral CW D_max and V₁₀/V_5 Gy (all p < 0.001). Nominal reductions of D_max and D₅/D₅₀ for the spinal cord with sectored planning did not reach statistical significance for static-gantry IMRT, although VMAT metrics did show a statistically significant decrease (all p < 0.001). The respective measures for esophageal doses were significantly lower with sectored planning (p < 0.001). Despite comparable dose conformality, irrespective of planning configuration, R₅₀ significantly improved with IMRT-s/VMAT-c (p < 0.001/p = 0.008), whereas D_2 cm significantly improved with VMAT-c (p < 0.001). Plan delivery efficiency improved with sectored technique (p < 0.001); mean monitor unit (MU)/cGy of PD decreased from 5.8 ± 1.9 vs 5.3 ± 1.7 (IMRT) and 2.7 ± 0.4 vs 2.4 ± 0.3 (VMAT). The sectored configuration achieves unambiguous dosimetric advantages over circumferential arrangement in terms of esophageal, contralateral CW, and contralateral lung sparing, in addition to being more efficient at delivery.     

Interstitial brachytherapy vs. intensity-modulated radiation therapy for patients with cervical carcinoma not suitable for intracavitary radiation therapy

PurposeInterstitial brachytherapy (IBT) is the standard alternative treatment for patients with cervical carcinoma not suitable for intracavitary radiotherapy. There is an emerging belief that intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) has the potential to replace IBT. We aimed to compare the dosimetry achieved by IBT and IMRT in such patients.Methods and MaterialsThe CT imaging data, previously used for IBT planning of 12 patients with cervical carcinoma, were transferred to IMRT planning system to generate parallel IMRT plans. Prescribed dose to the planning target volume (PTV) was 20 Gy delivered in 2-weekly high-dose-rate fractions of 10 Gy each with IBT (biologically equivalent dose [BED₁₀] 40 Gy) and 33 Gy/13 fractions/2.5 wk with IMRT (BED₁₀ 41 Gy). For comparison, dose–volume parameters for target and organs at risk were recorded and expressed in terms of BED₁₀ and BED₃, respectively.ResultsFor PTV, the mean D₉₅ (dose received by 95% of PTV) was better with IBT (57.16 Gy vs. 41.47 Gy, p = 0.003). The mean conformity index was 0.94 and 0.90 with IBT and IMRT, respectively (p = 0.034). IBT delivered significantly reduced doses to 1.0 cc (D_max), 5.0 cc (D_{5 cc}), 50% (D₅₀), and 75% (D₇₅) of bladder volume as compared with IMRT. The mean rectal D_max was significantly better with IBT as compared with IMRT (54.64 Gy vs. 62.63 Gy, p = 0.02).ConclusionsIBT provides superior PTV coverage and organs at risk sparing to IMRT. Thus, IBT remains the standard treatment for patients with cervical carcinoma unsuitable for intracavitary radiotherapy.     

Volumetric-modulated arc therapy vs conventional fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy in a whole-ventricular irradiation: A planning comparison study

This study evaluated the dosimetric difference between volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and conventional fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (cIMRT) in whole-ventricular irradiation. Computed tomography simulation data for 13 patients were acquired to create plans for VMAT and cIMRT. In both plans, the same median dose (100% = 24 Gy) was prescribed to the planning target volume (PTV), which comprised a tumor bed and whole ventricles. During optimization, doses to the normal brain and body were reduced, provided that the dose constraints of the target coverage were satisfied. The dose-volume indices of the PTV, normal brain, and body as well as monitor units were compared between the 2 techniques by using paired t-tests. The results showed no significant difference in the homogeneity index (0.064 vs 0.065; p = 0.824) of the PTV and conformation number (0.78 vs 0.77; p = 0.065) between the 2 techniques. In the normal brain and body, the dose-volume indices showed no significant difference between the 2 techniques, except for an increase in the volume receiving a low dose in VMAT; the absolute volume of the normal brain and body receiving 1 Gy of radiation significantly increased in VMAT by 1.6% and 8.3%, respectively, compared with that in cIMRT (1044 vs 1028 mL for the normal brain and 3079.2 vs 2823.3 mL for the body; p<0.001). The number of monitor units to deliver a 2.0-Gy fraction was significantly reduced in VMAT compared with that in cIMRT (354 vs 873, respectively; p<0.001). In conclusion, VMAT delivers IMRT to complex target volumes such as whole ventricles with fewer monitor units, while maintaining target coverage and conformal isodose distribution comparable to cIMRT; however, in addition to those characteristics, the fact that the volume of the normal brain and body receiving a low dose would increase in VMAT should be considered.     

Volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy for pancreatic malignancies: Dosimetric comparison with sliding-window intensity-modulated radiotherapy and 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy

Volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) is an iteration of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), both of which deliver highly conformal dose distributions. Studies have shown the superiority of VMAT and IMRT in comparison with 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) in planning target volume (PTV) coverage and organs-at-risk (OARs) sparing. This is the first study examining the benefits of VMAT in pancreatic cancer for doses more than 55.8 Gy. A planning study comparing 3D-CRT, IMRT, and VMAT was performed in 20 patients with pancreatic cancer. Treatments were planned for a 25-fraction delivery of 45 Gy to a large field followed by a reduced-volume 8-fraction external beam boost to 59.4 Gy in total. OARs and PTV doses, conformality index (CI) deviations from 1.0, monitor units (MUs) delivered, and isodose volumes were compared. IMRT and VMAT CI deviations from 1.0 for the large-field and the boost plans were equivalent (large field: 0.032 and 0.046, respectively; boost: 0.042 and 0.037, respectively; p > 0.05 for all comparisons). Both IMRT and VMAT CI deviations from 1.0 were statistically superior to 3D-CRT (large field: 0.217, boost: 0.177; p < 0.05 for all comparisons). VMAT showed reduction of the mean dose to the boost PTV (VMAT: 61.4 Gy, IMRT: 62.4 Gy, and 3D-CRT: 62.3 Gy; p < 0.05). The mean number of MUs per fraction was significantly lower for VMAT for both the large-field and the boost plans. VMAT delivery time was less than 3 minutes compared with 8 minutes for IMRT. Although no statistically significant dose reduction to the OARs was identified when comparing VMAT with IMRT, VMAT showed a reduction in the volumes of the 100% isodose line for the large-field plans. Dose escalation to 59.4 Gy in pancreatic cancer is dosimetrically feasible with shorter treatment times, fewer MUs delivered, and comparable CIs for VMAT when compared with IMRT.     

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.     

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.     

Evaluating proton stereotactic body radiotherapy to reduce chest wall dose in the treatment of lung cancer

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) can produce excellent local control of several types of solid tumor; however, toxicity to nearby critical structures is a concern. We found previously that in SBRT for lung cancer, the chest wall (CW) volume receiving 20, 30, or 40 Gy (V₂₀, V₃₀, or V₄₀) was linked with the development of neuropathy. Here we sought to determine whether the dosimetric advantages of protons could produce lower CW doses than traditional photon-based SBRT. We searched an institutional database to identify patients treated with photon SBRT for lung cancer with tumors within < 2.5 cm of the CW. We found 260 cases; of these, chronic grade ≥ 2 CW pain was identified in 23 patients. We then selected 10 representative patients from this group and generated proton SBRT treatment plans, using the identical dose of 50 Gy in 4 fractions, and assessed potential differences in CW dose between the 2 plans. The proton SBRT plans reduced the CW doses at all dose levels measured. The median CW V₂₀ was 364.0 cm³ and 160.0 cm³ (p < 0.0001), V₃₀ was 144.6 cm³ vs 77.0 cm³ (p = 0.0012), V₃₅ was 93.9 cm³ vs 57.9 cm³ (p = 0.005), V₄₀ was 66.5 cm³ vs 45.4 cm³ (p = 0.0112), and mean lung dose was 5.9 Gy vs 3.8 Gy (p = 0.0001) for photons and protons, respectively. Coverage of the planning target volume (PTV) was comparable between the 2 sets of plans (96.4% for photons and 97% for protons). From a dosimetric standpoint, proton SBRT can achieve the same coverage of the PTV while significantly reducing the dose to the CW and lung relative to photon SBRT and therefore may be beneficial for the treatment of lesions closer to critical structures.     

A comparative dosimetric analysis of virtual stereotactic body radiotherapy to high-dose-rate monotherapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer

PurposeStereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is being used with increasing frequency as definitive treatment of early stage prostate cancer. Much of the justification for its adoption was derived from earlier clinical results using high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy. We determine whether HDR's dosimetry can be achieved by virtual SBRT.Methods and MaterialsPatients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer on a prospective trial evaluating the efficacy of HDR monotherapy treated to dose of 9.5 Gy × 4 fractions were used for this study. A total of 5 patients were used in this analysis. Virtual SBRT plans were developed to reproduce the planning target volume (PTV) HDR dose distributions. Both normal tissue– and PTV-prioritized plans were generated.ResultsFrom the normal tissue–prioritized plan, HDR and virtual SBRT achieved similar PTV V₁₀₀ (93.8% vs. 93.1%, p = 0.20) and V₁₅₀ (40.3% vs. 42.9%, p = 0.69) coverage. However, the PTV V₂₀₀ was not attainable with SBRT (15.2% vs. 0.0%, p < 0.001). The rectal D_max was significantly lower with HDR (94.2% vs. 99.42%, p = 0.05). The rectal D_{2 cc} was also lower (60.8% vs. 71.1%, p = 0.07). Difference in D_{1 cc} urethral dose was not significantly different (87.7% vs. 75.2%, p = 0.33). Comparing the PTV-prioritized plans, the rectal D_max (94.2% vs. 111.1%, p = 0.05) and mean dose (27.1% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.03) were significantly higher using SBRT, and the rectal D_{2 cc} was higher using SBRT (60.8% vs. 81.8%, p = 0.07).ConclusionsHDR achieves significantly higher intraprostatic doses while achieving a lower maximum rectal dose compared with our virtual SBRT treatment planning. Future studies should compare clinical outcomes and toxicity between these modalities.     

Differences in dose-volumetric data between the analytical anisotropic algorithm and the x-ray voxel Monte Carlo algorithm in stereotactic body radiation therapy for lung cancer

The objective of this study was to evaluate the differences in dose-volumetric data obtained using the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) vs the x-ray voxel Monte Carlo (XVMC) algorithm for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for lung cancer. Dose-volumetric data from 20 patients treated with SBRT for solitary lung cancer generated using the iPlan XVMC for the Novalis system consisting of a 6-MV linear accelerator and micro-multileaf collimators were recalculated with the AAA in Eclipse using the same monitor units and identical beam setup. The mean isocenter dose was 100.2% and 98.7% of the prescribed dose according to XVMC and AAA, respectively. Mean values of the maximal dose (D_max), the minimal dose (D_min), and dose received by 95% volume (D₉₅) for the planning target volume (PTV) with XVMC were 104.3%, 75.1%, and 86.2%, respectively. When recalculated with the AAA, those values were 100.8%, 77.1%, and 85.4%, respectively. Mean dose parameter values considered for the normal lung, namely the mean lung dose, V₅, and V₂₀, were 3.7 Gy, 19.4%, and 5.0% for XVMC and 3.6 Gy, 18.3%, and 4.7% for the AAA, respectively. All of these dose-volumetric differences between the 2 algorithms were within 5% of the prescribed dose. The effect of PTV size and tumor location, respectively, on the differences in dose parameters for the PTV between the AAA and XVMC was evaluated. A significant effect of the PTV on the difference in D₉₅ between the AAA and XVMC was observed (p = 0.03). Differences in the marginal doses, namely D_min and D₉₅, were statistically significant between peripherally and centrally located tumors (p = 0.04 and p = 0.02, respectively). Tumor location and volume might have an effect on the differences in dose-volumetric parameters. The differences between AAA and XVMC were considered to be within an acceptable range (<5 percentage points).     

Evaluation of bolus electron conformal therapy compared with conventional techniques for the treatment of left chest wall postmastectomy in patients with breast cancer

Postmastectomy radiation (PMRT) lowers local-regional recurrence risk and improves survival in selected patients with breast cancer. The chest wall and lower axilla are technically challenging areas to treat with homogenous doses and normal tissue sparing. This study compares several techniques for PMRT to provide data to guide selection of optimal treatment techniques. Twenty-five consecutive left-sided patients treated postmastectomy were contoured using Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) atlas guidelines then planned using 4 different PMRT techniques: opposed tangents with wedges (3-dimensional [3D] wedges), opposed tangents with field-in-field (FiF) modulation, 8-field intensity modulation radiotherapy (IMRT), and custom bolus electron conformal therapy (BolusECT, .decimal, Inc., Sanford, FL). Required planning target volume (PTV) coverage was held constant, and then dose homogeneity and normal tissue dose parameters were compared among the 4 techniques. BolusECT achieved clincally acceptable PTV coverage for 22 out of 25 cases. Compared with either tangential technique, IMRT and BolusECT provided the lowest heart V₂₅ doses (3.3% ± 0.9% and 6.6% ± 3.2%, respectively with p < 0.0001). FiF had the lowest mean total lung dose (7.3 ± 1.1 Gy, with p = 0.0013), IMRT had the lowest total lung V₂₀ (10.3% ± 1.6%, p < 0.0001), and BolusECT had the lowest mean heart dose (7.3 ± 2.0 Gy, p = 0.0002). IMRT provided the optimal dose homogeneity and normal tissue sparing compared with all other techniques for the cases in which BolusECT could not achieve acceptable PTV coverage. IMRT generally exposes contralateral breast and lung to slightly higher doses. Optimal PMRT technique depends upon patient anatomy. Patients whose maximal target volume depth is about 5.7 cm or less can be treated with BolusECT-assisted 12 or 15 MeV electron beams. At these energies, BolusECT has comparable dose-volume statistics as IMRT and lower heart V₂₅ than opposed tangential beams. Patients with larger depths are best treated with IMRT, which provides significant advantages in both dose homogeneity and normal tissue sparing compared with all other techniques.     

Superior liver sparing by combined coplanar/noncoplanar volumetric-modulated arc therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: A planning and feasibility study

Compared with step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiotherapy (sIMRT) and tomotherapy, volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) allows additional arc configurations in treatment planning and noncoplanar (NC) delivery. This study was first to compare VMAT planning with sIMRT planning, and the second to evaluate the toxicity of coplanar (C)/NC-VMAT treatment in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Fifteen patients with HCC (7 with left-lobe and 8 with right-lobe tumors) were planned with C-VMAT, C/NC-VMAT, and sIMRT. The median total dose was 49 Gy (range: 40 to 56 Gy), whereas the median fractional dose was 3.5 Gy (range: 3 to 8 Gy). Different doses/fractionations were converted to normalized doses of 2 Gy per fraction using an α/β ratio of 2.5. The mean liver dose, volume fraction receiving more than 10 Gy (V10), 20 Gy (V20), 30 Gy (V30), effective volume (V_eff), and equivalent uniform dose (EUD) were compared. C/NC-VMAT in 6 patients was evaluated for delivery accuracy and treatment-related toxicity. Compared with sIMRT, both C-VMAT (p = 0.001) and C/NC-VMAT (p = 0.03) had significantly improved target conformity index. Compared with C-VMAT and sIMRT, C/NC-VMAT for treating left-lobe tumors provided significantly better liver sparing as evidenced by differences in mean liver dose (p = 0.03 and p = 0.007), V10 (p = 0.003 and p = 0.009), V20 (p = 0.006 and p = 0.01), V30 (p = 0.02 and p = 0.002), V_eff (p = 0.006 and p = 0.001), and EUD (p = 0.04 and p = 0.003), respectively. For right-lobe tumors, there was no difference in liver sparing between C/NC-VMAT, C-VMAT, and sIMRT. In all patients, dose to more than 95% of target points met the 3%/3 mm criteria. All 6 patients tolerated C/NC-VMAT and none of them had treatment-related ≥ grade 2 toxicity. The C/NC-VMAT can be used clinically for HCC and provides significantly better liver sparing in patients with left-lobe tumors.     

Volumetric tumor burden and its effect on brachial plexus dosimetry in head and neck intensity-modulated radiotherapy

To determine the effect of gross tumor volume of the primary (GTV-P) and nodal (GTV-N) disease on planned radiation dose to the brachial plexus (BP) in head and neck intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Overall, 75 patients underwent definitive IMRT to a median total dose of 69.96 Gy in 33 fractions. The right BP and left BP were prospectively contoured as separate organs at risk. The GTV was related to BP dose using the unpaired t-test. Receiver operating characteristics curves were constructed to determine optimized volumetric thresholds of GTV-P and GTV-N corresponding to a maximum BP dose cutoff of > 66 Gy. Multivariate analyses were performed to account for factors associated with a higher maximal BP dose. A higher maximum BP dose (> 66 vs ≤ 66 Gy) correlated with a greater mean GTV-P (79.5 vs 30.8 cc; p = 0.001) and ipsilateral GTV-N (60.6 vs 19.8 cc; p = 0.014). When dichotomized by the optimized nodal volume, patients with an ipsilateral GTV-N ≥ 4.9 vs < 4.9 cc had a significant difference in maximum BP dose (64.2 vs 59.4 Gy; p = 0.001). Multivariate analysis confirmed that an ipsilateral GTV-N ≥ 4.9 cc was an independent predictor for the BP to receive a maximal dose of > 66 Gy when adjusted individually for BP volume, GTV-P, the use of a low anterior neck field technique, total planned radiation dose, and tumor category. Although both the primary and the nodal tumor volumes affected the BP maximal dose, the ipsilateral nodal tumor volume (GTV-N ≥ 4.9 cc) was an independent predictor for high maximal BP dose constraints in head and neck IMRT.     

Dosimetric comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy for pancreatic malignancies

Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) has been previously evaluated for several tumor sites and has been shown to provide significant dosimetric and delivery benefits when compared with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). To date, there have been no published full reports on the benefits of VMAT use in pancreatic patients compared with IMRT. Ten patients with pancreatic malignancies treated with either IMRT or VMAT were retrospectively identified. Both a double-arc VMAT and a 7-field IMRT plan were generated for each of the 10 patients using the same defined tumor volumes, organs at risk (OAR) volumes, dose, fractionation, and optimization constraints. The planning tumor volume (PTV) maximum dose (55.8 Gy vs. 54.4 Gy), PTV mean dose (53.9 Gy vs. 52.1 Gy), and conformality index (1.11 vs. 0.99) were statistically similar between the IMRT and VMAT plans, respectively. The VMAT plans had a statistically significant reduction in monitor units compared with the IMRT plans (1109 vs. 498, p < 0.001). In addition, the doses to the liver, small bowel, and spinal cord were comparable between the IMRT and VMAT plans. However, the VMAT plans demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in the mean left kidney V₂₅ (9.4 Gy vs. 2.3 Gy, p = 0.018), mean right kidney V₁₅ (53.4 Gy vs. 45.9 Gy, p = 0.035), V₂₀ (32.2 Gy vs. 25.5 Gy, p = 0.016), and V₂₅ (21.7 Gy vs. 14.9 Gy, p = 0.001). VMAT was investigated in patients with pancreatic malignancies and compared with the current standard of IMRT. VMAT was found to have similar or improved dosimetric parameters for all endpoints considered. Specifically, VMAT provided reduced monitor units and improved bilateral kidney normal tissue dose. The clinical relevance of these benefits in the context of pancreatic cancer patients, however, is currently unclear and requires further investigation.     

A class solution for volumetric-modulated arc therapy planning in postprostatectomy radiotherapy

This study is aimed to test a postprostatectomy volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning class solution. The solution applies to both the progressive resolution optimizer algorithm version 2 (PRO 2) and the algorithm version 3 (PRO 3), addressing the effect of an upgraded algorithm. A total of 10 radical postprostatectomy patients received 68 Gy to 95% of the planning target volume (PTV), which was planned using VMAT. Each case followed a set of planning instructions; including contouring, field setup, and predetermined optimization parameters. Each case was run through both algorithms only once, with no user interaction. Results were averaged and compared against Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0534 end points. In addition, the clinical target volume (CTV) D₁₀₀, PTV D₉₉, and PTV mean doses were recorded, along with conformity indices (CIs) (95% and 98%) and the homogeneity index. All cases satisfied PTV D₉₅ of 68 Gy and a maximum dose < 74.8 Gy. The average result for the PTV D₉₉ was 64.1 Gy for PRO 2 and 62.1 Gy for PRO 3. The average PTV mean dose for PRO 2 was 71.4 Gy and 71.5 Gy for PRO 3. The CTV D₁₀₀ average dose was 67.7 and 68.0 Gy for PRO 2 and PRO 3, respectively. The mean homogeneity index for both algorithms was 0.08. The average 95% CI was 1.17 for PRO 2 and 1.19 for PRO 3. For 98%, the average results were 1.08 and 1.12 for PRO 2 and PRO 3, respectively. All cases for each algorithm met the RTOG organs at risk dose constraints. A successful class solution has been established for prostate bed VMAT radiotherapy regardless of the algorithm used.     

The use of RapidArc volumetric-modulated arc therapy to deliver stereotactic radiosurgery and stereotactic body radiotherapy to intracranial and extracranial targets

Twenty-three targets in 16 patients treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) or stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) were analyzed in terms of dosimetric homogeneity, target conformity, organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing, monitor unit (MU) usage, and beam-on time per fraction using RapidArc volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) vs. multifield sliding-window intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Patients underwent computed tomography simulation with site-specific immobilization. Magnetic resonance imaging fusion and optical tracking were incorporated as clinically indicated. Treatment planning was performed using Eclipse v8.6 to generate sliding-window IMRT and 1-arc and 2-arc RapidArc plans. Dosimetric parameters used for target analysis were RTOG conformity index (CI_RTOG), homogeneity index (HI_RTOG), inverse Paddick Conformity Index (PCI), D_mean and D5–D95. OAR sparing was analyzed in terms of D_max and D_mean. Treatment delivery was evaluated based on measured beam-on times delivered on a Varian Trilogy linear accelerator and recorded MU values. Dosimetric conformity, homogeneity, and OAR sparing were comparable between IMRT, 1-arc RapidArc and 2-arc RapidArc plans. Mean beam-on times ± SD for IMRT and 1-arc and 2-arc treatments were 10.5 ± 7.3, 2.6 ± 1.6, and 3.0 ± 1.1 minutes, respectively. Mean MUs were 3041, 1774, and 1676 for IMRT, 1-, and 2-arc plans, respectively. Although dosimetric conformity, homogeneity, and OAR sparing were similar between these techniques, SRS and SBRT fractions treated with RapidArc were delivered with substantially less beam-on time and fewer MUs than IMRT. The rapid delivery of SRS and SBRT with RapidArc improved workflow on the linac with these otherwise time-consuming treatments and limited the potential for intrafraction organ and patient motion, which can cause significant dosimetric errors. These clinically important advantages make image-guided RapidArc useful in the delivery of SRS and SBRT to intracranial and extracranial targets.