Intensity-modulated radiosurgery/radiotherapy using a micromultileaf collimator

Dosimetric comparison of intensity-modulated stereotactic radiotherapy with other stereotactic techniques for locally recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma

PURPOSE

Locally recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients can be salvaged by reirradiation with a substantial degree of radiation-related complications. Stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) is widely used in this regard because of its rapid dose falloff and high geometric precision. The aim of this study was to examine whether the newly developed intensity-modulated stereotactic radiotherapy (IMSRT) has any dosimetric advantages over three other stereotactic techniques, including circular arc (CARC), static conformal beam (SmMLC), and dynamic conformal arc (mARC), in treating locally recurrent NPC.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Computed tomography images of 32 patients with locally recurrent NPC, previously treated with SRT, were retrieved from the stereotactic planning system for contouring and computing treatment plans. Treatment planning of each patient was performed for the four treatment techniques: CARC, SmMLC, mARC, and IMSRT. The conformity index (CI) and homogeneity index (HI) of the planning target volume (PTV) and doses to the organs at risk (OARs) and normal tissue were compared.

RESULTS

All four techniques delivered adequate doses to the PTV. IMSRT, SmMLC, and mARC delivered reasonably conformal and homogenous dose to the PTV (CI <1.47, HI <0.53), but not for CARC (p < 0.05). IMSRT presented with the smallest CI (1.37) and HI (0.40). Among the four techniques, IMSRT spared the greatest number of OARs, namely brainstem, temporal lobes, optic chiasm, and optic nerve, and had the smallest normal tissue volume in the low-dose region.

CONCLUSION

Based on the dosimetric comparison, IMSRT was optimal for locally recurrent NPC by delivering a conformal and homogenous dose to the PTV while sparing OARs.

Planning and delivery of intensity-modulated radiation therapy

Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is an advanced form of external beam radiation therapy. IMRT offers an additional dimension of freedom as compared with field shaping in three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy because the radiation intensities within a radiation field can be varied according to the preferences of locations within a given beam direction from which the radiation is directed to the tumor. This added freedom allows the treatment planning system to better shape the radiation doses to conform to the target volume while sparing surrounding normal structures. The resulting dosimetric advantage has shown to translate into clinical advantages of improving local and regional tumor control. It also offers a valuable mechanism for dose escalation to tumors while simultaneously reducing radiation toxicities to the surrounding normal tissue and sensitive structures. In less than a decade, IMRT has become common practice in radiation oncology. Looking forward, the authors wonder if IMRT has matured to such a point that the room for further improvement has diminished and so it is pertinent to ask what the future will hold for IMRT. This article attempts to look from the perspective of the current state of the technology to predict the immediate trends and the future directions. This article will (1) review the clinical experience of IMRT; (2) review what we learned in IMRT planning; (3) review different treatment delivery techniques; and finally, (4) predict the areas of advancements in the years to come.

Novalis intensity-modulated radiosurgery: methods for pretreatment planning

OBJECTIVE

The Novalis stereotactic radiotherapy system (BrainLAB, Heimstetten, Germany) allows for precise treatment of cranial base tumors with single-fraction radiosurgery. In some cases, however, proximity of the optic nerve and chiasm is a concern. In these cases, intensity-modulated stereotactic radiosurgery (IMRS) can be used to limit the dose to these structures. IMRS planning can be labor intensive, which poses a problem when it is performed on the day of treatment. We describe our methods and results of preprocedure planning for IMRS for patients with lesions in the cavernous sinus or parasellar regions in whom the dose to the optic nerve or chiasm might exceed our acceptable tolerance dose (8 Gy).

METHODS

Patients whose lesions were more than 4 mm from the optic nerve and chiasm on standard magnetic resonance imaging scans but who were questionable candidates for radiosurgery because of concerns of dose to the optic nerve or chiasm were considered for IMRS. Preprocedure imaging (computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging) was fused and analyzed using the BrainLAB BrainScan 5.3 treatment planning system. Dynamic conformal arc plans for stereotactic radiosurgery and IMRS were evaluated. Doses to the planning target volume and optic apparatus were assessed by dose-volume histograms and conformality index calculated to characterize the quality of the different plans. When IMRS was used, the preplan allowed for a rapid recalculation on the treatment day, minimizing the time patients were in the head frame before treatment.

RESULTS

We describe three patients with recurrent pituitary tumors and three with meningiomas. Doses were 1500 to 2000 cGy prescribed to the 80 to 96% isodose line delivered by eight to 22 fields. Tumor volumes ranged from 2.70 to 8.82 cm (mean, 5.7 cm). In five of the six patients, the dynamic conformal arc plan precluded delivery of therapeutic dose without exceeding optic nerve tolerance. On the basis of 95% coverage of target volume, maximum prescription doses of 7.7 to 20.64 Gy were possible with the dynamic conformal arc plans without exceeding 8 Gy to the optic apparatus. IMRS allowed maximum doses of 20 to 31 Gy using the same optic apparatus dose restriction. No complications have occurred, and all tumors have remained stable since treatment (mean follow-up period, 30 mo).

CONCLUSION

We believe this pretreatment technique streamlines the process for IMRS, allowing for better patient comfort and efficient physician time use.

Trilogy Image-Guided Stereotactic Radiosurgery

Full integration of advanced imaging, noninvasive immobilization, positioning, and motion-management methods into radiosurgery have resulted in fundamental changes in therapeutic strategies and approaches that are leading us to the treatment room of the future. With the introduction of image-guided radiosurgery (IGRS) systems, such as Trilogy, physicians have for the first time a practical means of routinely identifying and treating very small lesions throughout the body. Using new imaging processes such as positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) scans, clinics may be able to detect these lesions and then eradicate them with image-guided stereotactic radiosurgery treatments. Thus, there is promise that cancer could be turned into a chronic disease, managed through a series of checkups, and Trilogy treatments when metastatic lesions reappear.

Intensity-modulated radiosurgery for childhood arteriovenous malformations

PURPOSE

Presentation of intensity-modulated radiosurgery (IMRS) for the treatment of inoperable, complex shaped pediatric arterio-venous malformations AVM.

METHOD

Between 03/99 and 11/04, IMRS was delivered to seven children aged six to 18 years. Prescribed minimum doses ranged from 17.5 to 20 Gy (median 18 Gy). Radiosurgery planning and delivery used a serial tomotherapeutic IMRT technique (Peacock IMRT, North American Scientific/Nomos, Cranberry Township, PA) over two to four couch angles. A linear accelerator attached binary multi-leaf collimator was used to generate pencil beams of 10 mm by either 8.5 or 4.0 mm. Treatment planning employed an inverse treatment planning optimization algorithm. Parameters submitted to the treatment planning system were: prescription dose (PD), volume of target allowed to receive less dose (standard 3%), minimum dose (0.5 Gy less than PD), and maximum dose (200% of PD). Planning system specific IMRS target and tissue types were selected to prioritize dose conformality over dose homogeneity. The prescription isodose encompassed at least 95% of the target volume. We calculated conformality (CI) and homogeneity indices (HI) to characterize the quality of IMRS plans, and summarized preliminary clinical outcomes.

FINDINGS

Target volumes ranged from 0.71 to 63.02 cm(3) (median 13.8 cm(3), 6/7 AVM larger than 10 cm(3)). Median CI was 1.07 (range 1.05 to 1.7) according to RTOG criteria. Median HI was 1.12 (range 1.09 to 1.23). During limited follow-up (median 32 months, range 5 to 53 months), two AVM completely obliterated at 19 and 22 months, and partial obliteration (>75%) was observed in three cases. No treatment-related side effects, other than acute nausea and temporary headaches interpreted as being associated with changes in cerebral blood distribution, were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

IMRS can allow for highly conformal planning and delivery of radiosurgery radiation doses even if pediatric AVM target volumes are large and/or highly complex in shape. This technique has been seen to result in favorable preliminary outcomes, thus supporting future exploration of this technique in pediatric and adult patients.

A survey of intensity-modulated radiation therapy use in the United States

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to assess the current level of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) use in the United States.

METHODS

Three-hundred thirty-three randomly selected radiation oncologists were sent a 13-question survey regarding IMRT use. IMRT users were asked about the number of patients and sites treated, their reasons for adopting IMRT, and future plans for its use. Physicians who did not use IMRT were asked about their reasons for not using IMRT; whether they intended to adopt it in the future; and, if so, their reasons.

RESULTS

One-hundred sixty-eight responses (50.5%) were received. Fifty-four respondents (32.1%) stated that they currently used IMRT. Most IMRT users (79.6%) had adopted IMRT since 2000. Academic physicians were more likely to use IMRT (P = 0.003) compared with private practitioners. The percent of physicians using IMRT in practices comprised of 1 physician, 2-4 physicians, or > 4 physicians were 15.4%, 28.4%, and 44.2%, respectively (P = 0.02). The most common sites treated were head and neck malignancies and genitourinary tumors. Of the 114 IMRT nonusers, 96.5% planned to use IMRT in the future, with 91.8% planning to use IMRT within 3 years. Among IMRT nonusers, the most common reason cited for not using IMRT was lack of necessary equipment. The most common reasons for adopting IMRT (users) or wanting to adopt IMRT (nonusers) were to improve delivery of conventional doses and to escalate dose.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately one-third of radiation oncologists in the United States use IMRT. However, this number appears to be growing rapidly. Efforts to ensure the safe and appropriate application of this new technology are warranted.