Search

Abstract We established a multi-institution model (big model) of knowledge-based treatment planning with over 500 treatment plans from five institutions in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for prostate cancer. This study aimed to clarify the efficacy of using a large number of registered treatment plans for sharing the big model. The big model was created with 561 clinically approved VMAT plans for prostate cancer from five institutions (A: 150, B: 153, C: 49, D: 60, and E: 149) with different planning strategies. The dosimetric parameters of planning target volume (PTV), rectum, and bladder for two validation VMAT plans generated with the big model were compared with those from each institutional model (single-institution model). The goodness-of-fit of regression lines (R2 and χ2 values) and ratios of the outliers of Cook’s distance (CD) > 4.0, modified Z-score (mZ) > 3.5, studentized residual (SR) > 3.0, and areal difference of estimate (dA) > 3.0 for regression scatter plots in the big model and single-institution model were also evaluated. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) of dosimetric parameters were as follows (big model vs. single-institution model): 79.0 ± 1.6 vs. 78.7 ± 0.5 (D50) and 0.13 ± 0.06 vs. 0.13 ± 0.07 (Homogeneity Index) for the PTV; 6.6 ± 4.0 vs. 8.4 ± 3.6 (V90) and 32.4 ± 3.8 vs. 46.6 ± 15.4 (V50) for the rectum; and 13.8 ± 1.8 vs. 13.3 ± 4.3 (V90) and 39.9 ± 2.0 vs. 38.4 ± 5.2 (V50) for the bladder. The R2 values in the big model were 0.251 and 0.755 for rectum and bladder, respectively, which were comparable to those from each institution model. The respective χ2 values in the big model were 1.009 and 1.002, which were closer to 1.0 than those from each institution model. The ratios of the outliers in the big model were also comparable to those from each institution model. The big model could generate a comparable VMAT plan quality compared with each single-institution model and therefore could possibly be shared with other institutions.

Abstract Background The use of total body irradiation (TBI) with linac-based volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) has been steadily increasing. Helical tomotherapy has been applied in TBI and total marrow irradiation to reduce the dose to critical organs, especially the lungs. However, the methodology of TBI with Halcyon™ linac remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate whether VMAT with Halcyon™ linac can be clinically used for TBI. Methods VMAT planning with Halcyon™ linac was conducted using a whole-body computed tomography data set. The planning target volume (PTV) included the body cropped 3 mm from the source. A dose of 12 Gy in six fractions was prescribed for 50% of the PTV. The organs at risk (OARs) included the lens, lungs, kidneys, and testes. Results The PTV D98%, D95%, D50%, and D2% were 8.9 (74.2%), 10.1 (84.2%), 12.6 (105%), and 14.2 Gy (118%), respectively. The homogeneity index was 0.42. For OARs, the Dmean of the lungs, kidneys, lens, and testes were 9.6, 8.5, 8.9, and 4.4 Gy, respectively. The V12Gy of the lungs and kidneys were 4.5% and 0%, respectively. The Dmax of the testes was 5.8 Gy. Contouring took 1–2 h. Dose calculation and optimization was performed for 3–4 h. Quality assurance (QA) took 2–3 h. The treatment duration was 23 min. Conclusions A planning study of TBI with Halcyon™ to set up VMAT-TBI, dosimetric evaluation, and pretreatment QA, was established.

Purpose: We investigated the performance of the simplified knowledge-based plans (KBPs) in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) with volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for lung cancer. Materials and Methods: For 50 cases who underwent SBRT, only three structures were registered into knowledge-based model: total lung, spinal cord, and planning target volume. We performed single auto-optimization on VMAT plans in two steps: 19 cases used for the model training (closed-loop validation) and 16 new cases outside of training set (open-loop validation) for TrueBeam (TB) and Halcyon (Hal) linacs. The dosimetric parameters were compared between clinical plans (CLPs) and KBPs: CLPclosed, KBPclosed-TB and KBPclosed-Hal in closed-loop validation, CLPopen, KBPopen-TB and KBPopen-Hal in open-loop validation. Results: All organs at risk were comparable between CLPs and KBPs except for contralateral lung: V5 of KBPs was approximately 3%–7% higher than that of CLPs. V20 of total lung for KBPs showed comparable to CLPs; CLPclosed vs. KBPclosed-TB and CLPclosed vs. KBPclosed-Hal: 4.36% ± 2.87% vs. 3.54% ± 1.95% and 4.36 ± 2.87% vs. 3.54% ± 1.94% (P = 0.54 and 0.54); CLPopen vs. KBPopen-TB and CLPopen vs. KBPopen-Hal: 4.18% ± 1.57% vs. 3.55% ± 1.27% and 4.18% ± 1.57% vs. 3.67% ± 1.26% (P = 0.19 and 0.27). CI95 of KBPs with both linacs was superior to that of the CLP in closed-loop validation: CLPclosed vs. KBPclosed-TB vs. KBPclosed-Hal: 1.32% ± 0.12% vs. 1.18% ± 0.09% vs. 1.17% ± 0.06% (P < 0.01); and open-loop validation: CLPopen vs. KBPopen-TB vs. KBPopen-Hal: 1.22% ± 0.09% vs. 1.14% ± 0.04% vs. 1.16% ± 0.05% (P ≤ 0.01). Conclusions: The simplified KBPs with limited number of structures and without planner intervention were clinically acceptable in the dosimetric parameters for lung VMAT-SBRT planning.

Abstract Background An O-ring gantry-type linear accelerator (LINAC) with a 6-MV flattening filter-free (FFF) photon beam, Halcyon, includes a reference beam that contains representative information such as the percent depth dose, profile and output factor for commissioning and quality assurance. However, because it does not provide information about the field size, we proposed a method to determine all field sizes according to all depths for radiation therapy using simplified sigmoidal curve fitting (SCF). Methods After mathematical definition of the SCF using four coefficients, the defined curves were fitted to both the reference data (RD) and the measured data (MD). For good agreement between the fitting curve and the profiles in each data set, the field sizes were determined by identifying the maximum point along the third derivative of the fitting curve. The curve fitting included the field sizes for beam profiles of 2 × 2, 4 × 4, 6 × 6, 8 × 8, 10 × 10, 20 × 20 and 28 × 28 cm2 as a function of depth (at 1.3, 5, 10 and 20 cm). The field size results from the RD were compared with the results from the MD using the same condition. Results All fitting curves show goodness of fit, R2, values that are greater than 0.99. The differences in field size between the RD and the MD were within the range of 0 to 0.2 cm. The smallest difference in the field sizes at a depth of 10 cm, which is a surface-to-axis distance, was reported. Conclusion Application of the SCF method has been proven to accurately capture the field size of the preconfigured RD and the measured FFF photon beam data for the Halcyon system. The current work can be useful for beam commissioning as a countercheck methodology to determine the field size from RD in the treatment planning system of a newly installed Halcyon system and for routine quality assurance to ascertain the correctness of field sizes for clinical use of the Halcyon system.

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the influence of cleaned-up knowledge-based treatment planning (KBP) models on the plan quality for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) of prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: Thirty prostate cancer VMAT plans were enrolled and evaluated according to four KBP modeling methods as follows: (1) model not cleaned – trained by fifty other clinical plans (KBPORIG); (2) cases cleaned by removing plans that did not meet all clinical goals of the dosimetric parameters, derived from dose–volume histogram (DVH) (KBPC-DVH); (3) cases cleaned outside the range of ±1 standard deviation through the principal component analysis regression plots (KBPC-REG); and (4) cases cleaned using both methods (2) and (3) (KBPC-ALL). Rectal and bladder structures in the training models numbered 34 and 48 for KBPC-DVH, 37 and 33 for KBPC-REG, and 26 and 33 for KBPC-ALL, respectively. The dosimetric parameters for each model with one-time auto-optimization were compared. Results: All KBP models improved target dose coverage and conformity and provided comparable sparing of organs at risks (rectal and bladder walls). There were no significant differences in plan quality among the KBP models. Nevertheless, only the KBPC-ALLmodel generated no cases of >1% V78 Gy(prescribed dose) to the rectal wall, whereas the KBPORIG, KBPC-DVH, and KBPC-REG modelsincluded two, four, and three cases, respectively, which were difficult to overcome with KBP because the planning target volume (PTV) and rectum regions overlapped. Conclusions: The cleaned-up KBP model based on DVH and regression plots improved plan quality in the PTV–rectum overlap region.

Abstract Background This study clarified the mechanical performance of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for prostate cancer generated with a commercial knowledge-based treatment planning (KBP) and whether KBP system could be applied clinically without any major problems with mechanical performance. Methods Thirty consecutive prostate cancer patients who underwent VMAT using extant clinical plans were evaluated. The mechanical performance and dosimetric accuracy of the single optimized KBPs, which were trained with other 51 clinical plans, were compared with the clinical plans. The mechanical performance metrics were mean field area (MFA), mean asymmetry distance (MAD), cross-axis score (CAS), closed leaf score (CLS), small aperture score (SAS), leaf travel (LT), modulation complexity score (MCSv), and monitor unit (MU). The γ passing rates were evaluated with ArcCheck and EBT3 film. Results The mean mechanical performance metrics (clinical plan vs. KBP) were as follows: 18.28 cm2 vs. 17.25 cm2 (MFA), 21.08 mm vs. 20.47 mm (MAD), 0.54 vs. 0.55 (CAS), 0.040 vs. 0.051 (CLS), 0.20 vs. 0.23 (SAS5mm), 458.5 mm vs. 418.8 mm (LT), 0.27 vs. 0.27 (MCSv), and 618.2 vs. 622.1 (MU), respectively. Significant differences were observed for CLS and LT. The average γ passing rates (clinical plan vs. KBP) were as follows: 99.0% vs. 99.1% (3%/3 mm) and 92.4% vs. 92.5% (2%/2 mm) with ArcCHeck, and 99.5% vs. 99.4% (3%/3 mm) and 95.2% vs. 95.4% (2%/2 mm) with EBT3 film, respectively. Conclusions The KBP used lower multileaf collimator (MLC) travel and more closed or small MLC apertures than the clinical plan. The KBP system of VMAT for the prostate cancer was acceptable for clinical use without any major problems.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204721.].

BackgroundFour-dimensional computed tomography (4D-CT) ventilation is an emerging imaging modality. Functional avoidance of regions according to 4D-CT ventilation may reduce lung toxicity after radiation therapy. This study evaluated associations between 4D-CT ventilation-based dosimetric parameters and clinical outcomes.MethodsPre-treatment 4D-CT data were used to retrospectively construct ventilation images for 40 thoracic cancer patients retrospectively. Fifteen patients were treated with conventional radiation therapy, 6 patients with hyperfractionated radiation therapy and 19 patients with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Ventilation images were calculated from 4D-CT data using a deformable image registration and Jacobian-based algorithm. Each ventilation map was normalized by converting it to percentile images. Ventilation-based dosimetric parameters (Mean Dose, V5 [percent lung volume receiving ≥5 Gy], and V20 [percent lung volume receiving ≥20 Gy]) were calculated for highly and poorly ventilated regions. To test whether the ventilation-based dosimetric parameters could be used predict radiation pneumonitis of ≥Grade 2, the area under the curve (AUC) was determined from the receiver operating characteristic analysis.ResultsFor Mean Dose, poorly ventilated lung regions in the 0-30% range showed the highest AUC value (0.809; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.663-0.955). For V20, poorly ventilated lung regions in the 0-20% range had the highest AUC value (0.774; 95% [CI], 0.598-0.915), and for V5, poorly ventilated lung regions in the 0-30% range had the highest AUC value (0.843; 95% [CI], 0.732-0.954). The highest AUC values for Mean Dose, V20, and V5 were obtained in poorly ventilated regions. There were significant differences in all dosimetric parameters between radiation pneumonitis of Grade 1 and Grade ≥2.ConclusionsPoorly ventilated lung regions identified on 4D-CT had higher AUC values than highly ventilated regions, suggesting that functional planning based on poorly ventilated regions may reduce the risk of lung toxicity in radiation therapy.

Background/Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the mechanical performance and the effect on dose distribution and deliverability of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for prostate cancer created with the commercial knowledge-based planning (KBP) system (RapidPlan™). Materials and Methods: Three institutions, A, B, and C were enrolled in this study. Each institution established and trained a KBP model with their own cases. CT data and structures for 45 patients at institution B were utilized to validate the dose-volume parameters (D2(%), D95(%), and D98(%) for target, and V50(%), V75(%), and V90(%) for rectum and bladder), and the following mechanical performance parameters and gamma passing rates of each KBP model: leaf sequence variability (LSV), aperture area variability (AAV), total monitor unit (MU), modulation complexity score for VMAT (MCSv), MU/control point (CP), aperture area (AA)/CP, and MUxAA/CP. Results: Significant differences (p<0.01) in dosimetric parameters such as D2 and D98 for target and V50, V75, and V90 for bladder were observed among the three institutions. The means and standard deviations of MCSv were 0.31±0.03, 0.29±0.02, and 0.32±0.03, and the angles of maximum and minimum MUxAA/CP were 269° and 13°, 269° and 13°, and 273° and 153° at institutions A, B, and C, respectively. The mean gamma passing rate (1%/1 mm.) was >95% for all cases in each institution. Dose distribution and mechanical performance significantly differed between the three models. Conclusion: Each KBP model had different dose distributions and mechanical performance but could create an acceptable plan for deliverability regardless of mechanical performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the performance of the RapidPlan (RP) using models registered pseudostructures, and to determine how many structures are required for automatic optimization of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for postoperative uterine cervical cancer. Materials and methods: Pseudo-structures around the PTV were retrospectively contoured for patients who had completed treatment at five institutions. For 22 common patients, plans were generated with a single optimization for models with two (RP_2), four (RP_4), and five (RP_5) registered structures, and the dosimetric parameters of these models were compared with a clinical plan with several optimizations. Results: Most dosimetric parameters showed no major differences between each RP model. In particular, the rectum Dmax, V50Gy, and V40Gy with RP_2, RP_4, and RP_5 were not significantly different, and were lower than those of the clinical plan. The average proportions of plans achieving acceptable criteria for dosimetric parameters were close to 100% for all models. Using RP_2, the average time for the VMAT planning was reduced by 88 minutes compared with the clinical plan. Conclusion: The RapidPlan model with two registered pseudo-structures could generate clinically acceptable plans while saving time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Aim: We evaluated the dosimetric profiles of manually generated volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans and performance of a commercial knowledge-based planning system (KBP) in treating breast cancer. Materials and Methods: We defined the manually generated VMAT plan as the manual plan (MP). Twenty MPs were generated for left-sided breast cancer patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery and used to develop a KBP training set. The other five patients were used for validation. The dosimetric parameters among MPs, tangential irradiation plans (TPs), and KBP-VMAT plans (KBP-Ps) were compared. Results: D95 and homogeneity of the planning target volume (PTV) were significantly higher and greater in MPs and KBP-Ps than in TPs. Lung V20, V40. The Dmean for the left anterior descending artery was lower in MPs and KBP-Ps than in TPs. KBP could save time in generating VMAT plans. Conclusion: MPs and KBP-Ps could ensure higher dose uniformity of PTV than TPs. KBP could faster generate comparable MPs for breast cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Electron grid therapy is expected to be a valid treatment for bulky superficial tumors. It is difficult, however, to fit irradiation fields to bulky superficial tumor shapes for conventional electron grid therapy with a cerrobend grid collimator. In this study, we investigated whether a grid collimator using tungsten functional paper (TFP), with its radiation shielding ability, could be used for electron grid therapy. Dose distributions were measured using 9 MeV electron grid beams from a cerrobend grid collimator. For the simulation study, the same grid irradiation fields were shaped using a TFP grid collimator (thicknesses of 0.15, 0.3, 0.6, 0.9, and 1.2 cm) by laying them on a phantom. We then determined the dose distributions using Monte Carlo calculations and compared the cerrobend and TFP electron grid beams regarding dose distributions, including the depths of the maximum dose (dmax), 90% dose (d90), and 80% dose (d80), and the ratios of the doses in the areas with and without shielding (valley to peak ratios). The equivalent dosimetric thickness was obtained with the TFP grid collimator that was equivalent to the dose distribution of the cerrobend grid collimator. For the cerrobend electron grid beams, the dmax, d90, and d80 were 1.0, 2.1, and 2.5 cm, respectively, and the valley to peak ratios at those depths were 0.48, 0.66, and 0.73, respectively. The equivalent dosimetric thickness of TFP was 0.52 cm. The dmax, d90, and d80 for the 0.52 cm thick TFP electron grid beams were 1.1, 1.9, and 2.3 cm, respectively, and the valley to peak ratios at those depths were 0.49, 0.63, and 0.71, respectively. The TFP grid collimator flexibly delivered excellent dose distributions by simply attaching it to the patient’s skin. It could thus be used for electron grid therapy instead of the cerrobend grid collimator. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]