Search

Purpose: In this article, the breath-hold and gating concepts were combined for application of lungcancerradiation treatment. The tumor movement was immobilized based on deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH), in which the breath-hold consistency and stability were monitored by infrared (IR) tracking and controlled by gating with a predefined threshold. The authors’ goal is to derive the benefits from both techniques, namely, the minimized treatment margin and the known advantages of deep inspiration. The efficacy of the technique in terms of tumor immobility and treatment setup accuracy was evaluated in the study. Methods: Fourteen patients who were diagnosed with non small cell lungcancer were included in this study. The control of tumor immobility was investigated interfractionally and intrafractionally. The intrabreath-hold tumor motion was devised based on the external marker movement, in which the tumor-marker correlation was studied. The margin of the planning target volume (PTV) was evaluated based on two factors: (1) The treatment setup error accounts for the patient setup and interbreath-hold variations and (2) the intrabreath-hold tumor motion in which the residual tumor motion during irradiation was studied. Results: As the result of the study, the group systematic error and group random error of treatment setup measured at the isocenter were 0.2 ( R ) ± 1.6 , 1.0 ( A ) ± 2.0 , and 0.3 ( S ) ± 1.5 mm in the left-right (LR), anterior-posterior (AP), and caudal-cranial (CC) directions, respectively. The Pearson correlation coefficient were 0.81 (LR), 0.76 (AP), and 0.85 (CC) mm and suggest tendency in linear correlation of tumor and marker movement. The intrabreath-hold tumor was small in all directions. The group PTV margins of 3.8 (LR), 4.6 (AP), and 4.8 (CC) mm were evaluated to account for both setup errors and residual tumor motion during irradiation. Conclusions: The study applies the DIBH technique in conjunction with IR positional tracking for tumor immobilization and treatment setup localization. The technique not only proved to be reliable in terms of good tumor immobility and accurate treatment positioning but also to be potentially useful for dose escalation treatment as regarding of the substantially reduced PTV margin and minimizing radiation toxicity from the fully expanded lung volume.

In this article, the breath-hold and gating concepts were combined for application of lung cancer radiation treatment. The tumor movement was immobilized based on deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH), in which the breath-hold consistency and stability were monitored by infrared (IR) tracking and controlled by gating with a predefined threshold. The authors' goal is to derive the benefits from both techniques, namely, the minimized treatment margin and the known advantages of deep inspiration. The efficacy of the technique in terms of tumor immobility and treatment setup accuracy was evaluated in the study.Fourteen patients who were diagnosed with non small cell lung cancer were included in this study. The control of tumor immobility was investigated interfractionally and intrafractionally. The intrabreath-hold tumor motion was devised based on the external marker movement, in which the tumor-marker correlation was studied. The margin of the planning target volume (PTV) was evaluated based on two factors: (1) The treatment setup error accounts for the patient setup and interbreath-hold variations and (2) the intrabreath-hold tumor motion in which the residual tumor motion during irradiation was studied.As the result of the study, the group systematic error and group random error of treatment setup measured at the isocenter were 0.2(R) +/- 1.6, 1.0(A) +/- 2.0, and 0.3(S) +/- 1.5 mm in the left-right (LR), anterior-posterior (AP), and caudal-cranial (CC) directions, respectively. The Pearson correlation coefficient were 0.81 (LR), 0.76 (AP), and 0.85 (CC) mm and suggest tendency in linear correlation of tumor and marker movement. The intrabreath-hold tumor was small in all directions. The group PTV margins of 3.8 (LR), 4.6 (AP), and 4.8 (CC) mm were evaluated to account for both setup errors and residual tumor motion during irradiation.The study applies the DIBH technique in conjunction with IR positional tracking for tumor immobilization and treatment setup localization. The technique not only proved to be reliable in terms of good tumor immobility and accurate treatment positioning but also to be potentially useful for dose escalation treatment as regarding of the substantially reduced PTV margin and minimizing radiation toxicity from the fully expanded lung volume.

Purpose: To assess the plan robustness and safety margin in SRS from 4DMGDR in E2E QA based on clinical objectives. Methods: OCTAVIUS SRS 1000 detector array and 4D phantom (PTW, Freiburg, Germany) were used to measure 5 coplanar SRS plans with 1 and 2 mm planning target volume (PTV). 3 targets were clinical, and 2 were virtual simulated to be 1mm from the brainstem (BS), and between chiasm (CS) and optic nerve (ON). Planning was done on Monaco v5.0 (Elekta, Maryland Heights, MO) to achieve 95–99% PTV and 100% gross tumor volume (GTV) prescription dose coverage. CBCT setup of the 4D phantom by 6D robotic couch was performed as for real patient. 4D-MGDR in patient CT and dosimetric analysis were performed in PTW Verisoft v6.1. The safety margin that achieved 100% GTV coverage was determined, and doses to 2% (D2%) of BS, ON and CS were assessed from E2E QA. Results: 100% GTV coverage was achieved with 1mm margin for 2 plans and 2mm margin for all plans. 98.3% and 99.4% GTV coverage were found in E2E QA for 1mm PTVs that either had sharp changing contour, or was nearby CS and ON or BS, and had either low planned minimum GTV dose (∼101% of the prescribed dose vs.∼106%) or compromised PTV coverage (95% vs. 99%). D2% to CS obtained with 4D-MGDR for one virtual target were 18.8Gy for 1mm PTV and 19.2Gy for 2mm PTV, exceeding the planned tolerance of 18Gy/3 fractions for prescription dose of 24Gy. Conclusion: 1mm margin is generally sufficient for dose planning and machine delivery errors. Irregular GTV with just enough dose coverage to spare critical organs may need 2mm margin at the costs of possible higher organ doses. 4D MGDR in an E2E QA approach can put the treatment plan evaluation in clinical perspectives.

Purpose: To cross-validate the MGDR of COMPASS (IBA dosimetry, GmbH, Germany) and OCTAVIUS 4D system (PTW, Freiburg, Germany). Methods: Volumetric-modulated arc plans (5 head-and-neck and 3 prostate) collapsed to 40° gantry on the OCTAVIUS 4D phantom in QA mode on Monaco v5.0 (Elekta, CMS, Maryland Heights, MO) were delivered on a Elekta Agility linac. This study was divided into two parts: (1) error-free measurements by gantry-mounted EvolutionXX 2D array were reconstructed in COMPASS (IBA dosimetry, GmbH, Germany), and by OCTAVIUS 1500 array in Versoft v6.1 (PTW, Freiburg, Germany) to obtain the 3D doses (COM4D and OCTA4D). COM4D and OCTA4D were compared to the raw measurement (OCTA3D) at the same detector plane for which OCTAVIUS 1500 was perpendicular to 0° gantry axis while the plans were delivered at gantry 40°; (2) beam steering errors of energy (Hump=-2%) and symmetry (2T=+2%) were introduced during the delivery of 5 plans to compare the MGDR doses COM4D_Hump (COM4D_2T), OCTA4D_Hump (OCTA4D_2T), with raw doses OCTA3D_Hump (OCTA3D_2T) and with OCTA3D to assess the error reconstruction and detection ability of MGDR tools. All comparisons used Υ-criteria of 2%(local dose)/2mm and 3%/3mm. Results: Averaged Υ passing rates were 85% and 96% for COM4D,and 94% and 99% for OCTA4D at 2%/2mm and 3%/3mm criteria respectively. For error reconstruction, COM4D_Hump (COM4D_2T) showed 81% (93%) at 2%/2mm and 94% (98%) at 3%/3mm, while OCTA4D_Hump (OCTA4D_2T) showed 96% (96%) at 2%/2mm and 99% (99%) at 3%/3mm. For error detection, OCTA3D doses were compared to COM4D_Hump (COM4D_2T) showing Υ passing rates of 93% (93%) at 2%/2mm and 98% (98%), and to OCTA4D_Hump (OCTA4D _2T) showing 94% (99%) at 2%/2mm and 81% (96%) at 3%/3mm, respectively. Conclusion: OCTAVIUS MGDR showed better agreement to raw measurements in both error- and error-free comparisons. COMPASS MGDR deviated from the raw measurements possibly owing to beam modeling uncertainty.

Purpose: Investigating the relative sensitivity of Monte Carlo (MC) and Pencil Beam (PB) dose calculation algorithms to low-Z (titanium) metallic artifacts is important for accurate and consistent dose reporting in post¬operative spinal RS. Methods: Sensitivity analysis of MC and PB dose calculation algorithms on the Monaco v.3.3 treatment planning system (Elekta CMS, Maryland Heights, MO, USA) was performed using CT images reconstructed without (plain) and with Orthopedic Metal Artifact Reduction (OMAR; Philips Healthcare system, Cleveland, OH, USA). 6MV and 10MV volumetric-modulated arc (VMAT) RS plans were obtained for MC and PB on the plain and OMAR images (MC-plain/OMAR and PB-plain/OMAR). Results: Maximum differences in dose to 0.2cc (D0.2cc) of spinal cord and cord +2mm for 6MV and 10MV VMAT plans were 0.1Gy between MC-OMAR and MC-plain, and between PB-OMAR and PB-plain. Planning target volume (PTV) dose coverage changed by 0.1±0.7% and 0.2±0.3% for 6MV and 10MV from MC-OMAR to MC-plain, and by 0.1±0.1% for both 6MV and 10 MV from PB-OMAR to PB-plain, respectively. In no case for both MC and PB the D0.2cc to spinal cord was found to exceed the planned tolerance changing from OMAR to plain CT in dose calculations. Conclusion: Dosimetric impacts of metallic artifacts causedmore » by low-Z metallic spinal hardware (mainly titanium alloy) are not clinically important in VMAT-based spine RS, without significant dependence on dose calculation methods (MC and PB) and photon energy ≥ 6MV. There is no need to use one algorithm instead of the other to reduce uncertainty for dose reporting. The dose calculation method that should be used in spine RS shall be consistent with the usual clinical practice.« less

Purpose: To validate the MGDR of OCTAVIUS 4D system (PTW, Freiburg, Germany) for quality assurance (QA) of volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT). Methods: 4D-MGDR measurements were divided into two parts: 1) square fields from 2×2 to 25×25 cm2 at 0°, 10° and 45° gantry, and 2) 8 VMAT plans (5 nasopharyngeal and 3 prostate) collapsed to gantry 40° in QA mode in Monaco v5.0 (Elekta, CMS, Maryland Heights, MO) were delivered on the OCTAVIUS 4D phantom with the OCTAVIUS 1500 detector plane perpendicular to either the incident beam to obtain the reconstructed dose (OCTA4D) or the 0° gantry axis to obtain the raw doses (OCTA3D) in Verisoft 6.1 (PTW, Freiburg, Germany). Raw measurements of OCTA3D were limited to 0.5% variation of detector angular response with respect to 0° gantry as determined previously. Reconstructed OCTA4D and raw OCTA3D doses for all plans were compared at the same detector plane using γ criteria of 2% (local dose)/2mm and 3%/3mm criteria. Results: At gantry 0° and 10°, the γ results for all OCTA4D on detector plane coinciding with OCTA3D were over 90% at 2%/2mm except for the largest field (25×25 cm2 ) showing >88%. For square field at 45° gantry, γ passing rate is > 90% for fields smaller than 15x 15cm2 but < 80% for field size of 20 x20 cm2 upward. For VMAT, γ results showed 94% and 99% passing rate at 2%/2mm and 3%/3mm, respectively. Conclusion: OCTAVIUS 4D system has compromised accuracy in reconstructing dose away from the central beam axis, possibly due to the off-axis softening correction and errors of the percent depth dose data necessary as input for MGDR. Good results in VMAT delivery suggested that the system is relatively reliable for VMAT with small segments.