Search

We aim to evaluate whether different definitions of esophagus (DEs) impact on the esophageal toxicity prediction for esophageal cancer (EC) patients administered intensity-modulated radiation therapy with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB-IMRT) vs. standard-dose IMRT (SD-IMRT). The esophagus for 21 patients diagnosed with primary EC were defined in the following four ways: the whole esophagus, including the tumor (ESO whole ); ESO whole within the treatment field (ESO infield ); ESO infield , excluding the tumor (ESO infield-tumor ) and ESO whole , excluding the tumor (ESO whole-tumor ). The difference in the dose variation, acute esophageal toxicity (AET) and late esophageal toxicity (LET) of four DEs were compared. We found that the mean esophageal dose for ESO whole , ESO infield , ESO infield-tumor and ESO whole-tumor were increased by 7.2 Gy, 10.9 Gy, 4.6 Gy and 2.0 Gy, respectively, in the SIB-IMRT plans. Radiobiological models indicated that a grade ≥ 2 AET was 2.9%, 3.1%, 2.2% and 1.6% higher on average with the Kwint model and 14.6%, 13.2%, 7.2% and 3.4% higher with the Wijsman model for the four DEs. A grade ≥ 3 AET increased by 4.3%, 7.2%, 4.2% and 1.2%, respectively. Additionally, the predicted LET increased by 0.15%, 0.39%, 1.2 × 10 -2 % and 1.5 × 10 -3 %. Our study demonstrates that different DEs influence the esophageal toxicity prediction for EC patients administered SIB-IMRT vs. SD-IMRT treatment.

This study aims to compare the radiobiological response of two stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) schedules for patients with stage I peripheral non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) using radiobiological modeling methods. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT)-based SBRT plans were designed using two dose schedules of 1 × 34 Gy (34 Gy in 1 fraction) and 4 × 12 Gy (48 Gy in 4 fractions) for 19 patients diagnosed with primary stage I NSCLC. Dose to the gross target volume (GTV), planning target volume (PTV), lung and chest wall (CW) were converted to biologically equivalent dose in 2 Gy fraction (EQD2) for comparison. Five different radiobiological models were employed to predict the tumor control probability (TCP) value. Three additional models were utilized to estimate the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) value for the lung and the modified equivalent uniform dose (mEUD) value to the CW. Our result indicates that the 1 × 34 Gy dose schedule provided a higher EQD2 dose to the tumor, lung and CW. Radiobiological modeling revealed that the TCP value for the tumor, NTCP value for the lung and mEUD value for the CW were 7.4% (in absolute value), 7.2% (in absolute value) and 71.8% (in relative value) higher on average, respectively, using the 1 × 34 Gy dose schedule., Competing Interests: No conflicts of interest from all participating authors.

Purpose: To study the dosimetric difference between fixed-jaw volumetric modulated radiotherapy (FJ-VMAT) and large-field volumetric modulated radiotherapy (LF-VMAT) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) with cervical lymph node metastasis., Methods: Computed tomography (CT) datasets of 10 NPC patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy were used to generate LF-VMAT and FJ-VMAT plans in the Eclipse version 10.0 treatment planning system. These two kinds of plans were then compared with respect to planning-target-volume (PTV) coverage, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), organ-at-risk sparing, monitor units (MUs) and treatment time (TT)., Results: The FJ-VMAT plans provided lower D2% of PGTVnd (PTV of lymph nodes), PTV1 (high-risk PTV) and PTV2 (low-risk PTV) than did the LF-VMAT plans, whereas no significant differences were observed in PGTVnx (PTV of primary nasopharyngeal tumor). The FJ-VMAT plans provided lower doses delivered to the planning organ at risk (OAR) volumes (PRVs) of both brainstem and spinal cord, both parotid glands and normal tissue than did the LF-VMAT plans, whereas no significant differences were observed with respect to the oral cavity and larynx. The MUs of the FJ-VMAT plans (683 ± 87) were increased by 22% ± 12% compared with the LF-VMAT plans (559 ± 62). In terms of the TT, no significant difference was found between the two kinds of plans., Conclusions: FJ-VMAT was similar or slightly superior to LF-VMAT in terms of PTV coverage and was significantly superior in terms of OAR sparing, at the expense of increased MUs.

This study aimed to investigate the dosimetric characteristics of an isocentrically shielded RapidArc (IS-RA) technique for treatment of locally recurrent nasopharyngeal cancer (lrNPC). In IS-RA, the isocenter was placed at the center of the pre-irradiated brainstem (BS)/spinal cord (SC) and the jaws were set to shield the BS/SC while ensuring the target coverage during the whole gantry rotation. For fifteen patients, the IS-RA plans were compared with the conventional RapidArc (C-RA) regarding target coverage, organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing and monitor units (MUs). The relationship between the dose reduction of BS/SC and some geometric parameters including the angle extended by the target with respect to the axis of BS/SC (Ang_BSSC), the minimum distance between the target and BS/SC (Dist_Min) and the target volume were evaluated. The IS-RA reduced the BS/SC doses by approximately 1-4 Gy on average over the C-RA, with more MUs. The IS-RA demonstrated similar target coverage and sparing of other OARs except for slightly improved sparing of optic structures. More dose reduction in the isocentric region was observed in the cases with larger Ang_BSSC or smaller Dist_Min. Our results indicated that the IS-RA significantly improves the sparing of BS/SC without compromising dosimetric requirements of other involved structures for lrNPC.

This study aimed to evaluate the dosimetric outcomes of a base-dose-plan-compensation (BDPC) planning method for improving intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for stage III lung cancer. For each of the thirteen included patients, three types of planning methods were applied to obtain clinically acceptable plans: (1) the conventional optimization method (CO); (2) a split-target optimization method (STO), in which the optimization objectives were set higher dose for the target with lung density; (3) the BDPC method, which compensated for the optimization-convergence error by further optimization based on the CO plan. The CO, STO and BDPC methods were then compared regarding conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI) of the target, organs at risk (OARs) sparing and monitor units (MUs). The BDPC method provided better HI/CI by 54%/7% on average compared to the CO method and by 38%/3% compared to the STO method. The BDPC method also spared most of the OARs by up to 9%. The average MUs of the CO, STO and BDPC plans were 890, 937 and 1023, respectively. Our results indicated that the BDPC method can effectively improve the dose distribution in IMRT for stage III lung cancer, at the expense of more MUs.

Purpose: To evaluate the dosimetric impacts of flattening filter-free (FFF) beams in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for sinonasal cancer., Methods: For fourteen cases, IMRT and VMAT planning was performed using 6-MV photon beams with both conventional flattened and FFF modes. The four types of plans were compared in terms of target dose homogeneity and conformity, organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing, number of monitor units (MUs) per fraction, treatment time and pure beam-on time., Results: FFF beams led to comparable target dose homogeneity, conformity, increased number of MUs and lower doses to the spinal cord, brainstem and normal tissue, compared with flattened beams in both IMRT and VMAT. FFF beams in IMRT resulted in improvements by up to 5.4% for sparing of the contralateral optic structures, with shortened treatment time by 9.5%. However, FFF beams provided comparable overall OAR sparing and treatment time in VMAT. With FFF mode, VMAT yielded inferior homogeneity and superior conformity compared with IMRT, with comparable overall OAR sparing and significantly shorter treatment time., Conclusions: Using FFF beams in IMRT and VMAT is feasible for the treatment of sinonasal cancer. Our results suggest that the delivery mode of FFF beams may play an encouraging role with better sparing of contralateral optic OARs and treatment efficiency in IMRT, but yield comparable results in VMAT.

This study aimed to determine the optimal fraction scheme (FS) in patients with small peripheral non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) undergoing stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) with the 4 × 12 Gy scheme as the reference. CT simulation data for sixteen patients diagnosed with primary NSCLC or metastatic tumor with a single peripheral lesion ≤3 cm were used in this study. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were designed based on ten different FS of 1 × 25 Gy, 1 × 30 Gy, 1 × 34 Gy, 3 × 15 Gy, 3 × 18 Gy, 3 × 20 Gy, 4 × 12 Gy, 5 × 12 Gy, 6 × 10 Gy and 10 × 7 Gy. Five different radiobiological models were employed to predict the tumor control probability (TCP) value. Three other models were utilized to estimate the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) value to the lung and the modified equivalent uniform dose (mEUD) value to the chest wall (CW). The 1 × 30 Gy regimen is recommended to achieve 4.2% higher TCP and slightly higher NTCP and mEUD values to the lung and CW compared with the 4 × 12 Gy schedule, respectively. This regimen also greatly shortens the treatment duration. However, the 3 × 15 Gy schedule is suggested in patients where the lung-to-tumor volume ratio is small or where the tumor is adjacent to the CW.

Purpose: To evaluate the dosimetric outcomes of a simple planning technique for improving intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC)., Methods: For 39 NPC cases, generally acceptable original plans were generated and were improved by the two planning techniques, respectively: (1) a basal-dose-compensation (BDC) technique, in which the treatment plans were re-optimized based on the original plans; (2) a local-dose-control (LDC) technique, in which the original plans were re-optimized with constraints for hot and cold spots. The BDC, original, and LDC plans were then compared regarding homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI) of planning target volumes (PTVs), organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing and monitor units (MUs) per fraction. The whole planning times were also compared between the BDC and LDC plans., Results: The BDC plans had superior HIs / CIs, by 13-24% / 3-243%, respectively, over the original plans. Compared to the LDC plans, the BDC plans provided better HIs only for PTVnx (the PTV of nasopharyngeal primary tumor) by 11% and better CIs for all PTVs by 2-134%. The BDC technique spared most OARs, by 1-9%. The average MUs of the BDC, original, and LDC plans were 2149, 2068 and 2179, respectively. The average whole planning times were 48 and 69 minutes for the BDC and LDC plans, respectively., Conclusions: For the IMRT of nasopharyngeal cancer, the BDC planning technique can improve target dose homogeneity, conformity and OAR sparing, with better planning efficiency.

Purpose: To assess the performance of a simple optimisation method for improving target coverage and organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for cervical oesophageal cancer., Methods: For 20 selected patients, clinically acceptable original IMRT plans (Original plans) were created, and two optimisation methods were adopted to improve the plans: 1) a base dose function (BDF)-based method, in which the treatment plans were re-optimised based on the original plans, and 2) a dose-controlling structure (DCS)-based method, in which the original plans were re-optimised by assigning additional constraints for hot and cold spots. The Original, BDF-based and DCS-based plans were compared with regard to target dose homogeneity, conformity, OAR sparing, planning time and monitor units (MUs). Dosimetric verifications were performed and delivery times were recorded for the BDF-based and DCS-based plans., Results: The BDF-based plans provided significantly superior dose homogeneity and conformity compared with both the DCS-based and Original plans. The BDF-based method further reduced the doses delivered to the OARs by approximately 1-3%. The re-optimisation time was reduced by approximately 28%, but the MUs and delivery time were slightly increased. All verification tests were passed and no significant differences were found., Conclusion: The BDF-based method for the optimisation of IMRT for cervical oesophageal cancer can achieve significantly better dose distributions with better planning efficiency at the expense of slightly more MUs.

Objective: To evaluate a simple optimization technique intended to improve planning target volume (PTV) dose coverage and organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) of advanced laryngeal cancer., Methods: Generally acceptable initial IMRT plans were generated for 12 patients and were improved individually by the following two techniques: (1) base dose function-based (BDF) technique, in which the treatment plans were reoptimized based on the initial IMRT plans; (2) dose-controlling structure-based (DCS) technique, in which the initial IMRT plans were reoptimized by adding constraints for hot and cold spots. The initial, BDF and DCS IMRT plans and additionally generated volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were compared concerning homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI) of PTVs prescribed at 70 Gy/60 Gy (PTV70/PTV60), OAR sparing, monitor units (MUs) per fraction and total planning time., Results: Compared with the initial IMRT and DCS IMRT plans, the BDF technique provided superior HI/CI, by approximately 19-37%/4-11%, and lower doses to most OARs, by approximately 1-7%, except for the comparable HI of PTV60 to DCS IMRT plans. Compared with VMAT plans, the BDF technique provided comparable HI, CI and most-OAR sparing, except for the superior HI of PTV70, by approximately 13%. The BDF technique produced more MUs and reduced the planning time., Conclusion: The BDF optimization technique for IMRT of advanced laryngeal cancer can improve target dose homogeneity and conformity, spare most OARs and is efficient., Advances in Knowledge: A novel optimization technique for improving IMRT was assessed and found to be effective and efficient.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to measure the mechanical position displacement of three types of electronic portal image device (EPID) panels at different gantry angles and evaluate the impact of positional displacement on intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) dose verification using an EPID., Methods: Three types of linear accelerators and EPIDs (aS500, aS1000 and iViewGT) were used. The portal images were taken every 10° within 360° range. The position coordinate difference between the panel center and the portal film center at different gantry angles was measured, then the mechanical position displacement of EPIDs dependent on the gantry angles was analyzed. For the three linear accelerators and EPIDs, five IMRT plans were measured using EPIDs at 0° gantry angel and at the actual treatment angles. The Gamma technique was used to evaluate the resulted dose difference before and after the corrections of the position displacement by a in-house software., Results: For aS500, aS1000 and iViewGT, the maximum mechanical position displacement was 2.9 ± 0.1 mm, 0.2 ± 0.1 mm and 0.1 ± 0.3 mm in the lateral direction and -4.2 ± 0.2 mm, -4.2 ± 0.1 mm and -2.2 ± 0.1 mm in the longitudinal direction, respectively. The position displacement in the longitudinal direction of the three EPIDs can be fitted well with a function. For aS500, aS1000 and iViewGT, the 3%/3 mm gamma pass rates were increased by 6.7%, 2.9% and 0.1% after displacement corrections; and while the 2%/2 mm gamma pass rates were increased by 11.2%, 8.1% and 1.6%. After the displacement correction, there was a slight gamma pass rate difference between the fixed zero degree gantry and the actual treatment angles., Conclusion: When the EPIDs were used for IMRT dose verification, there was occasionally large EPID mechanical position displacement, which should be corrected., (Copyright © 2013 Associazione Italiana di Fisica Medica. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)