Volumetric modulated arc therapy versus step-and-shoot intensity modulated radiation therapy in the treatment of large nerve perineural spread to the skull base: a comparative dosimetric planning study

A feasibility study of deep learning prediction model for VMAT patient-specific QA

Purpose

This study introduces a deep learning (DL) model that leverages doses calculated from both a treatment planning system (TPS) and independent dose verification software using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations, aiming to predict the gamma passing rate (GPR) in VMAT patient-specific QA more accurately.

Materials and method

We utilized data from 710 clinical VMAT plans measured with an ArcCHECK phantom. These plans were recalculated on an ArcCHECK phantom image using Pinnacle TPS and MC algorithms, and the planar dose distributions corresponding to the detector element surfaces were utilized as input for the DL model. A convolutional neural network (CNN) comprising four layers was employed for model training. The model's performance was evaluated through multiple predictive error metrics and receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves for various gamma criteria.

Results

The mean absolute errors (MAE) between measured GPR and predicted GPR are 1.1%, 1.9%, 1.7%, and 2.6% for the 3%/3mm, 3%/2mm, 2%/3mm, and 2%/2mm gamma criteria, respectively. The correlation coefficients between predicted GPR and measured GPR are 0.69, 0.72, 0.68, and 0.71 for each gamma criterion. The AUC (Area Under the Curve) values based on ROC curve for the four gamma criteria are 0.90, 0.92, 0.93, and 0.89, indicating high classification performance.

Conclusion

This DL-based approach showcases significant potential in enhancing the efficiency and accuracy of VMAT patient-specific QA. This approach promises to be a useful tool for reducing the workload of patient-specific quality assurance.

Predictive gamma passing rate of 3D detector array-based volumetric modulated arc therapy quality assurance for prostate cancer via deep learning

To predict the gamma passing rate (GPR) of the three-dimensional (3D) detector array-based volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) quality assurance (QA) for prostate cancer using a convolutional neural network (CNN) with the 3D dose distribution. One hundred thirty-five VMAT plans for prostate cancer were selected: 110 plans were used for training and validation, and 25 plans were used for testing. Verification plans were measured using a helical 3D diode array (ArcCHECK). The dose distribution on the detector element plane of these verification plans was used as input data for the CNN model. The measured GPR (mGPR) values were used as the training data. The CNN model comprises eighteen layers and predicted GPR (pGPR) values. The mGPR and pGPR values were compared, and a cumulative frequency histogram of the prediction error was created to clarify the prediction error tendency. The correlation coefficients of pGPR and mGPR were 0.67, 0.69, 0.66, and 0.73 for 3%/3-mm, 3%/2-mm, 2%/3-mm, and 2%/2-mm gamma criteria, respectively. The respective mean±standard deviations of pGPR-mGPR were -0.87±2.18%, -0.65±2.93%, -0.44±2.53%, and -0.71±3.33%. The probabilities of false positive error cases (pGPR < mGPR) were 72%, 60%, 68%, and 56% for each gamma criterion. We developed a deep learning-based prediction model of the 3D detector array-based VMAT QA for prostate cancer, and evaluated the accuracy and tendency of prediction GPR. This model can provide a proactive estimation for the results of the patient-specific QA before the verification measurement.

[Study of Stability and Sensitivity of Three-dimensional Diode Array Detector]

PURPOSE

Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has become a widely accepted and efficient treatment technique for many types of cancers. Patient's specific quality assurance (QA) should be performed with QA devices. Stability and sensitivity tests conducted on the ArcCHECK (AC) 3D diode array were performed.

METHODS

Set-up error test with AC was performed. The set-up position moved to lateral (mm), longitudinal (mm) and rotational (°) were 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0, respectively. Sensitivity change test of diode array with AC through 230 days was also performed. Same array calibration data was applied to all measurements of volumetric-modulated arc therapy benchmark test through 230 days. Gamma method (2 mm/2% criteria) was performed to analyze the result of all measurements.

RESULTS

In the results of positional error, gamma pass rate become degenerate according to positional error became larger. With 0.5 mm or 0.5° positional error, decreasing rate of the pass rate of lateral, longitudinal and rotational were 1.0%, 2.5% and 4.2%, respectively. In the sensitivity change test, the gamma pass rate decreased 2.2%/100 days with same calibration data.

CONCLUSION

AC has highly sensitivity against positional error. Sensitivity of AC has been changed and pass rate was decreased 2.2%/100 days through 230 days. Array calibration should be performed in consideration of change of sensitivity.

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.

The Role of Postoperative Radiotherapy for Large Nerve Perineural Spread of Cancer of the Head and Neck

Large nerve perineural spread (LNPNS) is an uncommon but serious sequelae of cutaneous and salivary gland malignancies arising in the head and neck. This distinct clinical entity is caused by malignant cell spread along the course of larger (named) cranial nerves in a bidirectional pattern of spread toward the origins of the nerve in the brainstem and/or its most distal branches residing in the dermis. Untreated, LNPNS causes multiple cranial neuropathies that significantly impact on quality of life and ultimately is fatal. Curative treatment involves en bloc surgical resection of all known involved sites of gross disease followed by risk-adapted postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) to improve local control. We review the evidence for contemporary practice and outline the processes involved in the delivery of PORT using the zonal anatomical classification.

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.