Intensity modulated arc deliveries approximated by a large number of fixed gantry position sliding window dynamic multileaf collimator fields

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.

Analyzing the performance of ArcCHECK diode array detector for VMAT plan

AIM

The aim of this study is to evaluate performance of ArcCHECK diode array detector for the volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) patient specific quality assurance (QA). VMAT patient specific QA results were correlated with ion chamber measurement. Dose response of the ArcCHECK detector was studied.

BACKGROUND

VMAT delivery technique improves the dose distribution. It is complex in nature and requires proper QA before its clinical implementation. ArcCHECK is a novel three dimensional dosimetry system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twelve retrospective VMAT plans were calculated on ArcCHECK phantom. Point dose and dose map were measured simultaneously with ion chamber (IC-15) and ArcCHECK diode array detector, respectively. These measurements were compared with their respective TPS calculated values.

RESULTS

The ion chamber measurements are in good agreement with TPS calculated doses. Mean difference between them is 0.50% with standard deviation of 0.51%. Concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) obtained for ion chamber measurements is 0.9996. These results demonstrate a strong correlation between the absolute dose predicted by our TPS and the measured dose. The CCC between ArcCHECK doses and TPS predictions on the CAX was found to be 0.9978. In gamma analysis of dose map, the mean passing rate was 98.53% for 3% dose difference and 3 mm distance to agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

The VMAT patient specific QA with an ion chamber and ArcCHECK phantom are consistent with the TPS calculated dose. Statistically good agreement was observed between ArcCHECK measured and TPS calculated. Hence, it can be used for routine VMAT QA.

Comparison of two different IMRT planning techniques in the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Effect on parotid gland radiation doses

PURPOSE

To compare the effect of two different intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) planning techniques on parotid gland doses in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Radiotherapy for 10 NPC patients referred to the University of Istanbul Cerrahpasa Medical School was planned with arc- and static seven-field IMRT. The simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique was used to deliver 70 Gy (2.12 Gy per fraction) to the primary tumor and involved nodes; 60 Gy (1.81 Gy per fraction) to the entire nasopharynx and 54 Gy (1.63 Gy per fraction) to elective lymph nodes in 33 fractions. Plans also aimed to keep the mean parotid dose below 26 Gy and limit the maximum doses to the spinal cord and brain stem to 45 and 54 Gy, respectively. Mean parotid gland doses for the two planning techniques were compared using a paired t-test. Target coverage and dose inhomogeneity were evaluated by calculating conformity- (CI) and homogeneity index (HI) values.

RESULTS

Target coverage and dose homogeneity were identical and good for both planning techniques: CI = 1.05 ± 0.08 and 1.05 ± 0.08; HI = 1.08 ± 0.02 and 1.07 ± 0.01 for arc- and static field IMRT, respectively. Mean doses to contralateral parotid glands were 25.73 ± 4.27 and 27.73 ± 3.5 Gy(p = 0.008) for arc- and static field IMRT plans, respectively, whereas mean ipsilateral parotid doses were 30.65 ± 6.25 and 32.55 ± 5.93 Gy (non-significant p-value), respectively. Mean monitor units (MU) per fraction for the 10 patients were considerably lower for arc- than for static field treatments-540.5 ± 130.39 versus 1288.4 ± 197.28 (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Normal tissues--particularly the parotid glands--are better spared with the arc technique in patients with NPC. MU and treatment times are considerably reduced in arc IMRT plans.

Intensity-modulated arc therapy: principles, technologies and clinical implementation

Intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT) was proposed by Yu (1995 Phys. Med. Biol. 40 1435-49) as an alternative to tomotherapy. Over more than a decade, much progress has been made. The advantages and limitations of the IMAT technique have also been better understood. In recent years, single-arc forms of IMAT have emerged and become commercially adopted. The leading example is the volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), a single-arc form of IMAT that delivers apertures of varying weights with a single-arc rotation that uses dose-rate variation of the treatment machine. With commercial implementation of VMAT, wide clinical adoption has quickly taken root. However, there remains a lack of general understanding for the planning of such arc treatments, as well as what delivery limitations and compromises are made. Commercial promotion and competition add further confusion for the end users. It is therefore necessary to provide a summary of this technology and some guidelines on its clinical implementation. The purpose of this review is to provide a summary of the works from the radiotherapy community that led to wide clinical adoption, and point out the issues that still remain, providing some perspective on its further developments. Because there has been vast experience in IMRT using multiple intensity-modulated fields, comparisons between IMAT and IMRT are also made in the review within the areas of planning, delivery and quality assurance.

Hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for brain metastases: a dosimetric and treatment efficiency comparison between volumetric modulated arc therapy and intensity modulated radiotherapy

A treatment planning comparison study was performed to evaluate the dosimetric characteristic and treatment efficiency of volumetric modulated arc therapy with step-and-shoot intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for the hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (HFSRT) in patients with multiple brain metastases. CT datasets of 10 patients with two to four brain metastases were selected for the comparison. Three plans were generated for each case: seven-field step-and-shoot IMRT, single (RA1) and double (RA2) arcs with RapidArc technique (RA, Varian Medical System). The prescribed dose was 50 Gy in 10 fractions and plans were all normalized to the mean dose to the PTV. For PTV, plans aim to achieve at least 98% of PTV was covered with the 95% of prescription dose, at least 95% of PTV was encompassed by the prescription dose, and an over-dosage of 110% of the prescription dose was allowed to 5% volume of the PTV. The plans generated using three techniques were clinically acceptable. The target conformity and homogeneity were improved slightly with RA2 compared to IMRT and RA1. The Paddick CI was 0.868 (IMRT), 0.863 (RA1) and 0.895 (RA2), and HI was 7.7 (IMRT), 7.5 (RA1) and 6.5 (RA2), respectively. Compared with IMRT, the maximum dose in RA2 plans to the brainstem, left and right optic nerves, left and right lens was reduced by 1.6 Gy, 6 Gy, 3 Gy, 1.5 Gy, 1.3 Gy, respectively. The percentage of healthy tissue volume receiving 5 Gy was larger with RA1 (56.7%) and RA2 (57.1%) than with IMRT (52.9%), while the percentages of volume receiving 15 Gy and 20 Gy were smaller with RA1 (27.1%, 18.7%) and RA2 (25%, 16.3%) than with IMRT (28.8%, 19.1%). No significant difference was observed between RA1 and RA2. The mean number of MU per fraction of 5 Gy was 1944 +/- 374 (IMRT), 1199 +/- 173 (RA1) and 1387 +/- 186 (RA2), respectively. Compared with IMRT, the MUs were reduced by 36.8% and 27.2% with RA1 and RA2. The pure beam-on time needed per fraction was 6.5 +/- 1.2 min (IMRT), 1.25 min (RA1) and 2.5 min (RA2), respectively. The beam-on time for RA1 and RA2 was approximately 80% and 40% less compared to IMRT. In conclusion, RA, single arc or double arcs, is a feasible technique with highly conformal dose distribution for the HFSRT in patients with oligo brain metastases. Compared with IMRT, RA1 provides similar plan quality, while RA2 achieves slight improvements in PTV coverage and sparing of organs at risk. The treatment efficiency, using less monitor units and shorter treatment delivery time, is the most obvious advantage.

A planning comparison of dose patterns in organs at risk and predicted risk for radiation induced malignancy in the contralateral breast following radiation therapy of primary breast using conventional, IMRT and volumetric modulated arc treatment techniques

PURPOSE

To investigate the impact of using different radiation therapy techniques on contra-lateral breast (CB) dose, and also dose to other involved organs at risk such as heart and lungs following radiation therapy of breast and regional lymph nodes. Furthermore, to predict the risk for induced malignancies in CB using linear and non linear models.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Eight patients with stage II-III breast cancer were included in this analysis. It was focused on three treatment techniques; conventional radiotherapy technique forwardly planed, IMRT and volumetric modulated arc (RapidArc) techniques, inversely planed. The CC algorithm was employed to calculate the standard treatment plans whereas for the IMRT and RapidArc treatment plans AAA algorithm was adopted. The dose results based on mostly DVH analysis were compared. The excess relative risk (ERR) for cancer induction in CB, employed both linear and non-linear models, was estimated.

RESULTS

A better homogeneity and conformation in PTV was observed in the RapidArc plans. The highest minimum dose to PTV was observed in the conventional plans while no difference was observed for minimum significant doses D(98%) and D(99%) where D(X%) is the dose received by X% of the PTV volume. In terms of organ sparing, the IMRT and RapidArc plans spare ipsilateral-lung better, but a 40% lower mean dose in the contra-lateral lung in the conventional plans is observed. The mean dose to the contra-lateral breast was lowest for the RapidArc plans as well as the V(10Gy) and the maximum dose. The mean predicted ERR for the eight patients were lower for the conventional and RA plans than for the IMRT plans assuming a linear dose-risk relationship. The mean predicted ERR when using a non linear model was lower for all the three techniques (with lowest ERR for RapidArc plans).

CONCLUSIONS

From a clinical perspective, it should be concluded that all three solutions investigated in the study can offer high quality treatment of patients. Further comparative analysis of the two algorithms used in the present study, however, should be performed especially on the peripheral organ dose. The impact of CB exposure to a low-dose radiation on minimizing the risk of radiation induced malignancy in CB can be interpreted differently when using linear or non linear models to predict ERR. In general, no detriment was observed when using RapidArc compared to conventional treatments while a potentially higher risk could be associated to IMRT treatments with fixed gantry.

Volumetric modulated arc therapy: planning and evaluation for prostate cancer cases

PURPOSE

To develop an optimization method using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and evaluate VMAT plans relative to the standard intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) approach in prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A single gantry rotation was modeled using 177 equispaced beams. Multileaf collimator apertures and dose rates were optimized with respect to gantry angle subject to dose-volume-based objectives. Our VMAT implementation used conjugate gradient descent to optimize dose rate, and stochastic sampling to find optimal multileaf collimator leaf positions. A treatment planning study of 11 prostate cancer patients with a prescription dose of 86.4 Gy was performed to compare VMAT with a standard five-field IMRT approach. Plan evaluation statistics included the percentage of planning target volume (PTV) receiving 95% of prescribed dose (V95), dose to 95% of PTV (D95), mean PTV dose, tumor control probability, and dosimetric endpoints of normal organs, whereas monitor unit (MU) and delivery time were used to assess delivery efficiency.

RESULTS

Patient-averaged PTV V95, D95, mean dose, and tumor control probability in VMAT plans were 96%, 82.6 Gy, 88.5 Gy, and 0.920, respectively, vs. 97%, 84.0 Gy, 88.9 Gy, and 0.929 in IMRT plans. All critical structure dose requirements were met. The VMAT plans presented better rectal wall sparing, with a reduction of 1.5% in normal tissue complication probability. An advantage of VMAT plans was that the average number of MUs (290 MU) was less than for IMRT plans (642 MU).

CONCLUSION

The VMAT technique can reduce beam on time by up to 55% while maintaining dosimetric quality comparable to that of the standard IMRT approach.

Volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy for carcinomas of the anal canal: A treatment planning comparison with fixed field IMRT

PURPOSE

A treatment planning study was performed to compare volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy against conventional fixed field IMRT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

CT datasets of 10 patients affected by carcinoma of the anal canal were included and five plans were generated for each case: fixed beam IMRT, single (RA1)- and double (RA2)-modulated arcs with the RapidArc technique. Dose prescription was set according to a simultaneous integrated boost strategy to 59.4 Gy to the primary tumour PTVI (at 1.8 Gy/fraction) and to 49.5 Gy to risk area including inguinal nodes, PTVII. Planning objectives for PTV were minimum dose >95%, maximum dose<107%; for organs at risk (OARs): bladder (mean<45 Gy, D(2%)<56 Gy, D(30%)<35 Gy), femurs (D(2%)<47 Gy), small bowel (mean<30 Gy, D(2%)<56 Gy). MU and delivery time scored treatment efficiency.

RESULTS

All techniques fulfilled objectives on maximum dose. Some deviations were observed on minimum dose for PTV. Uniformity (D(5)-D(95)) on PTVI resulted 6.6+/-1.4% for IMRT and ranged from 5.7+/-0.3% to 8.1+/-0.8% for RA plans (+/-1 standard deviation). Conformity index (CI(95%)) was 1.3+/-0.1 (IMRT) and 1.4+/-0.1 (all RA techniques). Bladder: all techniques resulted equivalent above 40 Gy; V(30 Gy) approximately 57% for the double arcs, approximately 61% for RA1 and approximately 65% for IMRT. Femurs: maximum dose was of the order of 41-42 Gy for all RA plans and approximately 45 Gy for IMRT. Small bowel: all techniques respected planning objectives. The number of computed MU/fraction was 1531+/-206 (IMRT), 468+/-95 (RA1), and 545+/-80 (RA2) leading to differences in treatment time: 9.4+/-1.7 min for IMRT vs. 1.1+/-0.0 min for RA1 and 2.6+/-0.0 min for double arcs.

CONCLUSION

RapidArc showed improvements in organs at risk and healthy tissue sparing with uncompromised target coverage when double arcs are applied. Optimal results were also achieved anyway with IMRT plans.

Volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy for carcinomas of the oro-pharynx, hypo-pharynx and larynx: a treatment planning comparison with fixed field IMRT

PURPOSE

A planning study was performed to evaluate the performance of volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy on head and neck cancer patients. Conventional fixed field IMRT was used as a benchmark.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

CT datasets of 29 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the oro-pharynx, hypo-pharynx and larynx were included. Plans for fixed beam IMRT, single (RA1) and double (RA2) modulated arcs with the RapidArc technique were optimised. Dose prescription was set to 66 Gy to the primary tumour (at 2.2 Gy/fraction), 60 Gy to intermediate-risk nodes and 54 Gy to low-risk nodal levels. The planning objectives for PTV were minimum dose >95%, and maximum dose <107%. Maximum dose to spinal cord was limited to 46 Gy, maximum to brain stem to 50 Gy. For parotids, mean dose <26 Gy (or median <30 Gy) was assumed as the objective. The MU and delivery time were scored to measure expected treatment efficiency.

RESULTS

Target coverage and homogeneity results improved with RA2 plans compared to both RA1 and IMRT. All the techniques fulfilled the objectives on maximum dose, while small deviations were observed on minimum dose for PTV. The conformity index (CI(95%)) was 1.7+/-0.2 for all the three techniques. RA2 allowed a reduction of D(2%) to spinal cord of approximately 3 Gy compared to IMRT (RA1 D(2%) increased it of approximately 1 Gy). On brain stem, D(2%) was reduced from 12 Gy (RA1 vs. IMRT) to 13.5 Gy (RA2 vs. IMRT). The mean dose to ipsi-lateral parotids was reduced from 40 Gy (IMRT) to 36.2 Gy (RA1) and 34.4 Gy (RA2). The mean dose to the contra-lateral gland ranged from 32.6 Gy (IMRT) to 30.9 Gy (RA1) and 28.2 Gy (RA2).

CONCLUSION

RapidArc was investigated for head and neck cancer. RA1 and RA2 showed some improvements in organs at risk and healthy tissue sparing, while only RA2 offered improved target coverage with respect to conventional IMRT.

A treatment planning study comparing volumetric arc modulation with RapidArc and fixed field IMRT for cervix uteri radiotherapy

PURPOSE

A treatment planning study was performed to evaluate the performance of the novel volumetric modulated single arc radiotherapy on cervix uteri cancer patients. Conventional fixed field IMRT was used as benchmark.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

CT datasets of eight patients were included in the study. Plans were optimised with the aim to assess organs at risk and healthy tissue sparing while enforcing highly conformal target coverage. Planning objectives for PTV were: maximum significant dose lower than 52.5 Gy and minimum significant dose higher than 47.5 Gy. For organs at risk, the median and maximum doses were constrained to be lower than 30 (rectum), 35 (bladder) and 25 Gy (small bowel) and 47.5 Gy; additional objectives were set on various volume thresholds. Plans were evaluated on parameters derived from dose volume histograms and on NTCP estimates. Peripheral doses at 5, 10 and 15 cm from the PTV surface were recorded to assess the low-level dose bath. The MU and delivery time were scored to measure expected treatment efficiency.

RESULTS

Both RapidArc and IMRT resulted in equivalent target coverage but RapidArc had an improved homogeneity (D(5%)-D(95%) = 3.5 +/- 0.6 Gy for RapidArc and 4.3 +/- 0.8 Gy for IMRT) and conformity index (CI(90%) = 1.30 +/- 0.06 for RapidArc and 1.41 +/- 0.15 for IMRT). On rectum the mean dose was reduced by about 6 Gy (10 Gy for the rectum fraction not included in the PTV). Similar trends were observed for the various dose levels with reductions ranging from approximately 3 to 14.4 Gy. For the bladder, RapidArc allowed a reduction of mean dose ranging from approximately 4 to 6Gy and a reduction from approximately 3 to 9 Gy w.r.t. IMRT. Similar trends but with smaller absolute differences were observed for the small bowel and left and right femur. NTCP calculations on bladder and rectum confirmed the DVH data with a potential relative reduction ranging from 30 to 70% from IMRT to RapidArc. The healthy tissue was significantly less irradiated in the medium to high dose regions (from 20 to 30 Gy) and the integral dose reduction with RapidArc was about 12% compared to IMRT. Concerning peripheral dose, the relative difference between IMRT and RapidArc was of 9 +/- 2%, 43 +/- 11% and 36 +/- 5% at 5, 10 and 15 cm from the PTV surface, respectively. The MU/Gy from RapidArc was 245 +/- 17 corresponding to an expected average beam on time of 73 +/- 10 s per fractions of 2 Gy. IMRT plans presented higher values with an average of MU/Gy = 479 +/- 63.

CONCLUSION

RapidArc was investigated for cervix uteri cancer showing significant improvements in organs at risk and healthy tissue sparing with uncompromised target coverage leading to better conformal avoidance of treatments w.r.t. conventional IMRT. This, in combination with the confirmed short delivery time, can lead to clinically significant advances in the management of this highly aggressive cancer type. Clinical protocols are now advised to evaluate prospectively the potential benefit observed at the planning level.

Dose-volume and biological-model based comparison between helical tomotherapy and (inverse-planned) IMAT for prostate tumours

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Helical tomotherapy (HT) and intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT) are two arc-based approaches to the delivery of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Through plan comparisons we have investigated the potential of IMAT, both with constant (conventional or IMAT-C) and variable (non-conventional or IMAT-NC, a theoretical exercise) dose-rate, to serve as an alternative to helical tomotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Six patients with prostate tumours treated by HT with a moderately hypo-fractionated protocol, involving a simultaneous integrated boost, were re-planned as IMAT treatments. A method for IMAT inverse-planning using a commercial module for static IMRT combined with a multi-leaf collimator (MLC) arc-sequencing was developed. IMAT plans were compared to HT plans in terms of dose statistics and radiobiological indices.

RESULTS

Concerning the planning target volume (PTV), the mean doses for all PTVs were similar for HT and IMAT-C plans with minimum dose, target coverage, equivalent uniform dose (EUD) and tumour control probability (TCP) values being generally higher for HT; maximum dose and degree of heterogeneity were instead higher for IMAT-C. In relation to organs at risk, mean doses and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) values were similar between the two modalities, except for the penile bulb where IMAT was significantly better. Re-normalizing all plans to the same rectal toxicity (NTCP=5%), the HT modality yielded higher TCP than IMAT-C but there was no significant difference between HT and IMAT-NC. The integral dose with HT was higher than that for IMAT.

CONCLUSIONS

with regards to the plan analysis, the HT is superior to IMAT-C in terms of target coverage and dose homogeneity within the PTV. Introducing dose-rate variation during arc-rotation, not deliverable with current linac technology, the simulations result in comparable plan indices between (IMAT-NC) and HT.

Multibeam tomotherapy: a new treatment unit devised for multileaf collimation, intensity-modulated radiation therapy

A fully integrated system for treatment planning, application, and verification for automated multileaf collimator (MLC) based, intensity-modulated, image-guided, and adaptive radiation therapy (IMRT, IGRT and ART, respectively) is proposed. Patient comfort, which was the major development goal, will be achieved through a new unit design and short treatment times. Our device for photon beam therapy will consist of a new dual energy linac with five fixed treatment heads positioned evenly along one plane but one electron beam generator only. A minimum of moving parts increases technical reliability and reduces motion times to a minimum. Motion is allowed solely for the MLCs, the robotic patient table, and the small angle gantry rotation of +/- 36 degrees. Besides sophisticated electron beam guidance, this compact setup can be built using existing modules. The flattening-filter-free treatment heads are characterized by reduced beam-on time and contain apertures restricted in one dimension to the area of maximum primary fluence output. In the case of longer targets, this leads to a topographic intensity modulation, thanks to the combination of "step and shoot" MLC delivery and discrete patient couch motion. Owing to the limited number of beam directions, this multislice cone beam serial tomotherapy is referred to as "multibeam tomotherapy." Every patient slice is irradiated by one treatment head at any given moment but for one subfield only. The electron beam is then guided to the next head ready for delivery, while the other heads are preparing their leaves for the next segment. The "Multifocal MLC-positioning" algorithm was programmed to enable treatment planning and optimize treatment time. We developed an overlap strategy for the longitudinally adjacent fields of every beam direction, in doing so minimizing the field match problem and the effects of possible table step errors. Clinical case studies show for the same or better planning target volume coverage, better organ-at-risk sparing, and comparable mean integral dose to the normal tissue a reduction in treatment time by more than 50% to only a few minutes in comparison to high-quality 3-D conformal and IMRT treatments. As a result, it will be possible to incorporate features for better patient positioning and image guidance, while sustaining reasonable overall treatment times at the same time. The virtual multibeam tomotherapy design study TOM'5-CT contains a dedicated electron beam CT (TOM'AGE) and an objective optical topometric patient positioning system (TOPOS). Thanks to the wide gantry bore of 120 cm and slim gantry depths of 70 cm, patients can be treated very comfortably, in all cases tumor-isocentrically, as well as with noncoplanar beam arrangements as in stereotactic radiosurgery with a couch rotation of up to +/- 54 degrees. The TOM'5 treatment unit on which this theoretical concept is based has a stand-alone depth of 40 cm and an outer diameter of 245 cm; the focus-isocenter distance of the heads is 100 cm with a field size of 40 cm x 7 cm and 0.5 cm leaves, which operate perpendicular to the axis of table motion.

IMAT-SIM: A new method for the clinical dosimetry of intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT)

Dynamic-gantry multi-leaf collimator (MLC)-based, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMAT) has been proposed as an alternative to tomotherapy. In contrast to fixed-gantry, MLC-based intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), where commercial treatment planning systems (TPS) or dosimetric analysis software currently provide many automatic tools enabling two-dimensional (2D) detectors (matrix or electronic portal imaging devices) to be used as measurement systems, for the planning and delivery of IMAT these tools are generally not available. A new dosimetric method is proposed to overcome some of these limitations. By converting the MLC files of IMAT beams from arc to fixed gantry-angle modality, while keeping the leaf trajectories equal, IMAT plans can be both simulated in the TPS and executed as fixed-gantry, sliding-window DMLC treatments. In support of this idea, measurements of six IMAT plans, in their double form of original arcs and converted fixed-gantry DMLC beams (IMAT-SIM), have been compared among themselves and with their corresponding IMAT-SIM TPS calculations. Radiographic films and a 2D matrix ionization chamber detector rigidly attached to the accelerator gantry and set into a cubic plastic phantom have been used for these measurements. Finally, the TPS calculation-algorithm implementations of both conformal dynamic MLC arc (CD-ARC) modalities, used for clinical IMAT calculations, and DMLC modalities (IMAT-SIM), proposed as references for validating IMAT plan dose-distributions, have been compared. The comparisons between IMAT and IMAT-SIM delivered beams have shown very good agreement with similar shapes of the measured dose profiles which can achieve a mean deviation (+/-2sigma) of (0.35+/-0.16) mm and (0.37+/-0.14)%, with maximum deviations of 1.5 mm and 3%. Matching the IMAT measurements with their corresponding IMAT-SIM data calculated by the TPS, these deviations remain in the range of (1.01+/-0.28) mm and (-1.76+/-0.42)%, with maximums of 3 mm and 5%, limits generally accepted for IMRT plan dose validation. Differences in the algorithm implementations have been found, but by correcting CD-ARC calculations for the leaf-end transmission offset (LTO) effect the IMAT and IMAT-SIM simulations agree well in terms of final dose distributions. The differences found between IMAT and the IMAT-SIM beam measurements are due to the different controls of leaf motion (via electron gun delay in the latter) that cannot be used in the former to correct possible speed variations in the rotation of the gantry. As the IMAT delivered beams are identical to what the patient will receive during the treatment, and the IMAT-SIM beam calculations made by the TPS reproduce exactly the treatment plans of that patient, the accuracy of this new dosimetric method is comparable to that which is currently used for static IMRT. This new approach of 2D-detector dosimetry, together with the commissioning, quality-assurance, and preclinical dosimetric procedures currently used for IMRT techniques, can be applied and extended to any kind of dynamic-gantry MLC-based treatment modality either CD-ARC or IMAT.

Dynamic intensity-modulated non-coplanar arc radiotherapy (INCA) for head and neck cancer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

To define the potential advantages of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) applied using a non-coplanar dynamic arc technique for the treatment of head and neck cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) was planned in ten patients with head and neck cancer using coplanar IMRT and non-coplanar arc techniques, termed intensity modulated non-coplanar arc EBRT (INCA). Planning target volumes (PTV1) of first order covered the gross tumor volume and surrounding clinical target volume treated with 68-70 Gy, whereas PTV2 covered the elective lymph nodes with 54-55 Gy using a simultaneous internal boost. Treatment plan comparison between IMRT and INCA was carried out using dose-volume histogram and "equivalent uniform dose" (EUD).

RESULTS

INCA resulted in better dose coverage and homogeneity of the PTV1, PTV2, and reduced dose delivered to most of the organs at risk (OAR). For the parotid glands, a reduction of the mean dose of 2.9 (+/- 2.0) Gy was observed (p = 0.002), the mean dose to the larynx was reduced by 6.9 (+/- 2.9) Gy (p = 0.003), the oral mucosa by 2.4 (+/- 1.1) Gy (p < 0.001), and the maximal dose to the spinal cord by 3.2 (+/- 1.7) Gy (p = 0.004). The mean dose to the brain was increased by 3.0 (+/- 1.4) Gy (p = 0.002) and the mean lung dose increased by 0.2 (+/- 0.4) Gy (p = 0.87). The EUD suggested better avoidance of the OAR, except for the lung, and better coverage and dose uniformity were achieved with INCA compared to IMRT.

CONCLUSION

Dose delivery accuracy with IMRT using a non-coplanar dynamic arc beam geometry potentially improves treatment of head and neck cancer.

Is tomotherapy the future of IMRT?

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) has become established in many clinics round the world and is, arguably, technically feasible in any facility. Serial tomotherapy contributed an extensive role in its introduction into the mainstream in the second half of the 1990s. In tomotherapy, literally "slice therapy", highly conformal treatments are possible because of the advantages available within the treatment planning of the IMRT process. Currently the majority of clinics implementing IMRT are doing so using conventional clinical linear accelerators (Linacs) fitted with an integrated multileaf collimator (MLC). At this point in time we may wonder if there is any scope for further dramatic changes in this new technology. As we venture from IMRT initial implementation into image guided therapy it is clear that major changes in approach are still valid and needed. If, at each treatment fraction, we can ensure that treatments are delivered accurately by integration of volumetric imaging into on-line validation, then we can attempt higher levels of conformality. A new treatment machine, the helical tomotherapy system, is available that combines the benefits of tomotherapy with on-line volumetric imaging. In this article we will review this approach and explore its features.

Validation and application of polymer gel dosimetry for the dose verification of an intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT) treatment

Polymer gel dosimetry was used to assess an intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT) treatment for whole abdominopelvic radiotherapy. Prior to the actual dosimetry experiment, a uniformity study on an unirradiated anthropomorphic phantom was carried out. A correction was performed to minimize deviations in the R2 maps due to radiofrequency non-uniformities. In addition, compensation strategies were implemented to limit R2 deviations caused by temperature drift during scanning. Inter- and intra-slice R2 deviations in the phantom were thereby significantly reduced. This was verified in an investigative study where the same phantom was irradiated with two rectangular superimposed beams: structural deviations between gel measurements and computational results remained below 3% outside high dose gradient regions; the spatial shift in those regions was within 2.5 mm. When comparing gel measurements with computational results for the IMAT treatment, dose deviations were noted in the liver and right kidney, but the dose-volume constraints were met. Root-mean-square differences between both dose distributions were within 5% with spatial deviations not more than 2.5 mm. Dose fluctuations due to gantry angle discretization in the dose computation algorithm were particularly noticeable in the low-dose region.