The effect of beam arrangements and the impact of non-coplanar beams on the treatment planning of stereotactic ablative radiation therapy for early stage lung cancer

Benchmarking MapRT and first clinical experience: A novel solution for collision-free non-coplanar treatment planning

In recent years, complex re-irradiations and stereotactic treatments have triggered the use of non-coplanar treatments for better dose conformality, entailing risks of collision between the machine and the patient, couch, or immobilization device. To ensure the plans deliverability without collisions, time-consuming actions are typically performed, including dry runs, in-room couch rotations, and beam configuration tests during planning. To overcome these challenges, a new tool called MapRT (VisionRT Ltd., London, UK) was developed. MapRT predicts a clearance map based on a patients' 3D model (acquired with dedicated cameras at the CT simulation) and pre-established machine models. This work evaluates the accuracy of MapRT using a 30 × 35 × 40 cm3 phantom and 64 gantry/couch collision coordinates on a Truebeam Linac (Varian, Palo Alto, USA). Collision coordinates were recorded for gantry and couch rotations. The agreement of real collision coordinates and MapRT's predictions was evaluated for different buffer margins around the couch/patient models customizable in MapRT. Results of the first clinical implementation of MapRT were also reported. With no buffer margin, MapRT's predictions and experimental collision coordinates showed small average differences but with large standard deviations for gantry (-0.5°±6.2°) and couch (-0.1°±4.8°) collision coordinates. When excluding the kV imaging components, these values were of -0.8°±3.5° for gantry and 0.4°±4.4° for couch. Finally, a 3 cm buffer margin allows for 100% accurate predictions by MapRT of gantry-to-phantom and gantry-to-couch collisions. Among the ∼900 treatment plans checked with MapRT, 22 collisions could be avoided while another 6 plans still incurred a collision but these are mainly due to users' oversights. MapRT easily predict collisions in complex treatment planning. This work demonstrated its reliability using a 3 cm buffer margin. MapRT is a promising tool for increasing security, time saving and workflow improvement.

Cardio-oncology concerns in radiotherapy: Heart and cardiac substructure toxicities from modern delivery techniques

Cardio-oncology is lately gaining more attention due to radiation-induced cardiac events reported by a very large number of studies. In view of this, the current overview of the literature aimed to encompass all studies from the past 15 years to assess changes in cardiac dose due to treatment evolution, as well as the changes in treatment planning customs to incorporate not only the heart as a whole but also cardiac substructures. Modern treatment techniques, particularly proton therapy, offers superior cardiac sparing compared to more established radiotherapy, for all evaluated tumor sites. Intensity modulation, particularly coupled with respiratory gating shows significant improvement in dose-volume parameters pertaining to the heart. While past studies considered mean heart dose as the only reference for cardiac toxicities, recommendations for the other cardiac substructures to be dosimetrically assessed during planning are becoming more common.

Dosimetric comparison of coplanar and noncoplanar beam arrangements for radiotherapy of patients with lung cancer: A meta-analysis

Purpose

Radiotherapy plays an important role in the treatment of lung cancer, and both coplanar beam arrangements (CBA) and noncoplanar beam arrangements (NCBA) are adopted in clinic practice. The aim of this study is to answer the question whether NCBA are dosimetrically superior to CBA.

Methods

Search of publications were performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochran Library till March 2020. The searching terms were as following: ((noncoplanar) or ("non coplanar") or ("4pi") or ("4π")) AND (("lung cancer") or ("lung tumor") or ("lung carcinoma")) AND ((radiotherapy) or ("radiation therapy")). The included studies and extracted data were manually screened. All forest and funnel plots were carried out with RevMan software, and the Egger’s regression asymmetry tests were conducted with STATA software.

Results

Nine studies were included and evaluated in the meta‐analysis and treatment plans were designed with both CBA and NCBA. For the planning target volumes (PTV), D98%, D2%, the conformity index (CI), and the gradient index (GI) had no statistically significant difference. For organs‐at‐risk (OAR), V20 of the whole lung and the maximum dose of the spinal cord were significantly reduced in NCBA plans compared with CBA ones. But V10, V5, and mean dose of the whole lung, the maximum dose of the heart, and the maximum dose of the esophagus exhibited no significant difference when the two types of beam arrangements were compared.

Conclusion

After combining multicenter results, NCBA plans have significant advantages in reducing V20 of the whole lung and max dose of spinal cord.

A practical method for predicting patient-specific collision in radiotherapy

Purpose

To develop a practical method for predicting patient‐specific collision during the treatment planning process.

Materials and method

Based on geometry information of the accelerator gantry and the location of plan isocenter, the collision‐free space region could be determined. In this study, collision‐free space region was simplified as a cylinder. Radius of cylinder was equal to the distance from isocenter to the collimator cover. The collision‐free space was converted and imported into treatment planning system (TPS) in the form of region of interest (ROI) which was named as ROISS. Collision was viewed and evaluated on the fusion images of patient's CT and ROIs in TPS. If any points of patient's body or couch fell beyond the safety space, collision would occur. This method was implemented in the Pinnacle TPS. The impact of safety margin on accuracy was also discussed. Sixty‐five plans of clinical patients were chosen for the clinical validation.

Results

When the angle of couch is zero, the ROISS displays as a series of circles on the cross section of the patient's CT. When the couch angle is not zero, ROISS is a series of ellipses in the transverse view of patient's CT. The ROISS can be generated quickly within five seconds after a single mouse click in TPS. Adding safety margin is an effective measure in preventing collisions from being undetected. Safety margin could increase negative predictive value (NPV) of test cases. Accuracy obtained was 96.3% with the 3 cm safety margin with 100% true positive collision detection.

Conclusion

This study provides a reliable, accurate, and fast collision prediction during the treatment planning process. Potential collisions can be discovered and prevented early before delivering. This method can integrate with the current clinical workflow without any additional required resources, and contribute to improvement in the safety and efficiency of the clinic.

A dosimetric comparison of the use of equally spaced beam (ESB), beam angle optimization (BAO), and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in head and neck cancers treated by intensity modulated radiotherapy

Introduction

Previous studies have shown that the beam arrangement had significant influence on plan quality in intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). This study aimed to evaluate the dosimetric performance of beam arrangement methods by employing equally spaced beams (ESB), beam angle optimization (BAO), and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in the planning of five types of head and neck (H&N) cancers treated by IMRT.

Methods

Five plans of different beam arrangement methods were optimized for 119 H&N cancer patients with the prescription of 66–70 Gy for high‐risk planning target volume (PTV), 60 Gy for intermediate risk PTV, 54 Gy for low‐risk PTV using a simultaneously integrated boost method. The five‐beam arrangement methods were: ESB, coplanar BAO (BAOc), noncoplanar BAO (BAOnc), two‐arc VMAT (VMAT2), and three‐arc VMAT (VMAT3). The H&N cancers included cancers of nasopharynx, oral cavity, larynx, maxillary sinus, and parotid. Although the partial arc VMAT could be used in cases where the PTVs were situated at one side of the head such as the parotid, this arrangement was not included because it was intended to include only the beam arrangements that were applicable to all the types of head and neck cancers in the study. The plans were evaluated using a “figure‐of‐merit” known as uncomplicated target conformity index (UTCI). In addition, PTV conformation number and homogeneity index, normal tissue integral dose, and organ at risk (OAR) doses were also used. The mean values of these parameters were compared among the five plans.

Results

All treatment plans met the preset dose requirements for the target volumes and OARs. For nasopharyngeal cancer, VMAT3 and BAOnc demonstrated significantly higher UTCI. For cancer of oral cavity, most beam arrangement showed similar UTCI except ESB, which was relatively lower. For cancer of larynx, there was no significant difference in UTCI among the five‐beam arrangement methods. For cancers of maxillary sinus and parotid gland, the two BAO methods showed marginally higher UTCI among all the five methods.

Conclusion

Individual methods showed dosimetric advantages on certain aspects, and the UTCI of the BAO treatment plans are marginally greater in the case of maxillary sinus and parotid gland. However, if treatment time was included into consideration, VMAT plans would be recommended for cancers of the nasopharynx, oral cavity, and larynx.

Non-coplanar VMAT combined with non-uniform dose prescription markedly reduces lung dose in breath-hold lung SBRT

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

In this retrospective treatment planning study, the effect of a uniform and non-uniform planning target volume (PTV) dose coverage as well as a coplanar and non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivery approach for lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) were compared.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For 46 patients with lesions in the peripheral lungs, three different treatment plans were generated: First, a coplanar 220° VMAT sequence with a uniform PTV dose prescription (UC). Second, a coplanar 220° VMAT treatment plan with a non-uniform dose distribution in the PTV (nUC). Third, a non-coplanar VMAT dose delivery with four couch angles (0°, ±35°, 90°) and a non-uniform prescription (nUnC) was used. All treatment plans were optimized for pareto-optimality with respect to PTV coverage and ipsilateral lung dose. Treatment sequences were delivered on a flattening-filter-free linear accelerator and beam-on times were recorded. Dosimetric comparison between the three techniques was performed.

RESULTS

For the three scenarios (UC, nUC, nUnC), median gross tumor volume (GTV) doses were 63.4 ± 2.5, 74.4 ± 3.6, and 77.9 ± 3.8 Gy, and ipsilateral V10Gy lung volumes were 15.7 ± 6.1, 13.9 ± 4.7, and 12.0 ± 5.1%, respectively. Normal tissue complication probability of the ipsilateral lung was 3.9, 3.1, and 2.8%, respectively. The number of monitor units were 5141 ± 1174, 4104 ± 786, and 3657 ± 710 MU and the corresponding beam-on times were 177 ± 54, 143 ± 29, and 148 ± 26 s.

CONCLUSION

For SBRT treatments in DIBH, a non-uniform dose prescription in the PTV, combined with a non-coplanar VMAT arc arrangement, significantly spares the ipsilateral lung while increasing dose to the GTV without major treatment time increase.

Frontiers in planning optimization for lung SBRT

Emerging data are showing the safety and the efficacy of Stereotactic Body Radiation therapy (SBRT) in lung cancer management. In this context, the very high doses delivered to the Planning Target Volume, make the planning phase essential for achieving high dose levels conformed to the shape of the target in order to have a good prognosis for tumor control and to avoid an overdose in relevant healthy adjacent tissue. In this non-systematic review we analyzed the technological and the physics aspects of SBRT planning for lung cancer. In particular, the aims of the study were: (i) to evaluate prescription strategies (homogeneous or inhomogeneous), (ii) to outline possible geometrical solutions by comparing the dosimetric results (iii) to describe the technological possibilities for a safe and effective treatment, (iv) to present the issues concerning radiobiological planning and the automation of the planning process.

A Comparison of Non-coplanar Three-dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy, Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy, and Volumetric Modulated Radiation Therapy for the Delivery of Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy to Peripheral Lung Cancer

AIM

The objective of the study was to compare three noncoplanar delivery techniques (three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy [3DCRT], intensity-modulated radiation therapy [IMRT], and volumetric-modulated arc therapy [VMAT]) for the delivery of lung stereotactic ablative radiation therapy to peripheral lung tumours.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The plans were compared by assessing the planning target volume coverage, doses to organs at risk, high and intermediate dose constraints (D_2cm and R_50%) and delivery times using analysis of variance for repeated measurements or Friedman's test when appropriate.

RESULTS

Mean PTV54 Gy coverage was found to be 95.6%, 95.7%, and 95.6% for the 3DCRT, IMRT, and VMAT techniques, respectively. No deviations to the intermediate dose constraints were found in 65%, 65%, and 85% of the patients for the 3DCRT, IMRT, and VMAT plans, respectively. Mean treatment times (excluding setup and imaging) were 20.0 minutes (±1.67), 25.2 minutes (±2.15), and 11.7 (±2.0) minutes respectively for 3DCRT, IMRT, and VMAT.

CONCLUSION

A noncoplanar VMAT technique was found to provide superior intermediate dose sparing with comparable prescription dose coverage when compared with noncoplanar 3DCRT or IMRT. In addition, VMAT was found to reduce the treatment times of stereotactic ablative radiation therapy delivery for peripheral lung tumours.

Technical know-how in stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR)

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is an addition to the armamentarium against cancer. The technical requirements for SABR are very stringent, given its very narrow therapeutic window. However, when the principles are strictly followed, it is possible to deliver SABR to extracranial tumours safely and effectively.

The effect of beam arrangements and the impact of non-coplanar beams on the treatment planning of stereotactic ablative radiation therapy for early stage lung cancer

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to compare various coplanar and non-coplanar 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) beam arrangements for the delivery of stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) to patients with early stage lung cancer, based on the dosimetric criteria from the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 1021 protocol.

METHODS

Ten medically inoperable lung cancer patients eligible for SABR were re-planned using three different coplanar and three different non-coplanar beam arrangements. The plans were compared by assessing planning target volume (PTV) coverage, doses to normal tissues, the high-dose conformity (conformity index) and intermediate dose spillage as defined by the D2cm, (the dose at any point 2 cm away from the PTV), and the R50% (the ratio of the volume of half the prescription dose to the volume of the PTV).

RESULTS

Sixty plans in total were assessed. Mean PTV coverage with the prescription isodose was similar between coplanar (95.14%) and non-coplanar (95.26%) techniques (P = 0.47). There was significant difference between all coplanar and all non-coplanar fields for the R50% (P < 0.0001) but none for the D2cm (P = 0.19). The seven and nine field beam arrangements with two non-coplanar fields had less unacceptable protocol deviations (10 and 7) than the seven and nine field plans with only coplanar fields (13 and 8). The 13 field coplanar fields did not improve protocol compliance with eight unacceptable deviations. The 10 field non-coplanar beam arrangement achieved best compliance with the RTOG 1021 dose criteria with only one unacceptable deviation (maximum rib dose).

CONCLUSION

A 3DCRT planning technique using 10 fields with ≥6 non-coplanar beams best satisfied high and intermediate dose constraints stipulated in the RTOG 1021 trial. Further investigations are required to determine if minor protocol deviations should be balanced against efficiency with the extended treatment times required to deliver non-coplanar fields and if treatment times can be improved using novel intensity modulated techniques.

A comparison of three different VMAT techniques for the delivery of lung stereotactic ablative radiation therapy

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to investigate coplanar and non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivery techniques for stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) to the lung.

METHODS

For ten patients who had already completed a course of radiation therapy for early stage lung cancer, three new SABR treatment plans were created using (1) a coplanar full arc (FA) technique, (2) a coplanar partial arc technique (PA) and (3) a non-coplanar technique utilising three partial arcs (NCA). These plans were evaluated using planning target volume (PTV) coverage, dose to organs at risk, and high and intermediate dose constraints as incorporated by radiation therapy oncology group (RTOG) 1021.

RESULTS

When the FA and PA techniques were compared to the NCA technique, on average the PTV coverage (V 54Gy) was similar (P = 0.15); FA (95.1%), PA (95.11%) and NCA (95.71%). The NCA resulted in a better conformity index (CI) of the prescription dose (0.89) when compared to the FA technique (0.88, P = 0.23) and the PA technique (0.83, P = 0.06). The NCA technique improved the intermediate dose constraints with a statistically significant difference for the D 2cm and R 50% when compared with the FA (P < 0.03 and <0.0001) and PA (P < 0.04 and <0.0001) techniques. The NCA technique reduced the maximum spinal cord dose by 2.72 and 4.2 Gy when compared to the PA and FA techniques respectively. Mean lung doses were 4.09, 4.31 and 3.98 Gy for the FA, PA and NCA techniques respectively.

CONCLUSION

The NCA VMAT technique provided the highest compliance to RTOG 1021 when compared to coplanar techniques for lung SABR. However, single FA coplanar VMAT was suitable for 70% of patients when minor deviations to both the intermediate dose and organ at risk (OAR) constraints were accepted.