Comparative analysis of SmartArc-based dual arc volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Dosimetric comparison between Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) vs dual arc Volumetric Arc Therapy (VMAT) for nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC): Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Previous non-randomised studies comparing dosimetric outcomes between advanced techniques such as IMRT and VMAT reported conflicting findings. We thus sought to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to consolidate the findings of these studies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched PUBMED and EMBASE for eligible studies from their time of inception to 10 March 2022. A random effects model was used to estimate the pooled mean differences (MDs) and their 95% confidence intervals(CIs) for target volume coverage, organ-at-risk(OAR) doses, monitor units(MUs) and treatment delivery times. We also performed a subgroup analysis to evaluate if different treatment planning systems (TPS) (Eclipse, Monaco and Pinnacle) used affected the pooled mean differences.

RESULTS

A total of 17 studies (383 patients) were eligible to be included. The pooled results showed that dual arc VMAT reduced D2% of PTV (MD=0.71Gy,95%CI=0.14-1.27,P=0.01), mean left cochlea dose (MD=2.6Gy,95%CI=0.03-5.16,P=0.05), mean right cochlea dose (MD=3.4Gy,95%CI=0.7-6.1,P=0.01), MUs (MD=554.9,95%CI=245.8-863.9,P=0.0004), treatment delivery times (MD=6.7mins,95%CI=4.5-8.9,P<0.0001) and integral dose (MD=0.97Gy,95%CI=0.28-1.67,P=0.006). None of the other indices were significantly better for the IMRT plans. The subgroup analysis showed that the integral dose was significantly lower only for Eclipse (MD=0.88Gy, 95%CI=0.14-1.63, P=0.02). The total MUs was significantly lower only for Eclipse (MD=1035.2, 95%CI=624.6-1445.9, P<0.0001) and Pinnacle (MD=293, 95%CI=15.6-570.5, P=0.04). Similarly, delivery time was also significantly lower only for Eclipse (MD=6.1mins, 95%CI=5.7-6.5, P<0.0001) and Pinnacle (MD=4.9mins, 95%CI=2.6-7.2, P<0.0001). The subgroup analysis however showed that target coverage was superior for the IMRT plans for both Pinnacle (MD=0.48Gy, 95%CI=0.31-0.66, P<0.0001) and Monaco (MD=0.12Gy, 95%CI=0.07-0.17, P<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Dual-arc VMAT plans improved OAR doses, MUs and treatment times as compared to IMRT plans. The different TPS used may modify dosimetric outcomes.

Optimal plan target in cases with locally advanced nasopharyngeal cancer: Comparison of VMAT, IMRT, hybrid, and tomotherapy results

PURPOSE

In locally advanced nasopharyngeal cancer (NC), the spread of the disease, proximity to critical structures, and high dose requirement for tumor control may complicate the treatment plan. In this study, VMAT/IMRT/hybrid/tomotherapy plans were made to reach the safest and most effective dose distribution for each of the patients and the results were compared.

METHODS

Double volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and 7- and 9-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans were made to 21 locally advanced NCs with Varian Trilogy System. It was observed that appropriate dose distributions could not be achieved with IMRT or VMAT, and hybrid IMRT-VMAT plans were made. All cases were also planned with Tomotherapy Precision System, and the data of four different techniques were compared retrospectively.

RESULTS

For normal tissue tolerances in 73 structures could not be obtained with VMAT and 38 structures with IMRT whereas the desired tolerance was provided with the hybrid plan. Hybrid plans were made with an average of 14 VMATs and 20 IMRTs. The maximum brainstem and spinal cord doses were found significantly lower in hybrid and tomotherapy techniques. Homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI) values were the best in hybrid plans. No statistically significant difference between the hybrid plan and tomotherapy in terms of normal tissue tolerance doses and HI whereas a significant difference was found in the hybrid plan for CI.

CONCLUSION

It was observed that the most ideal plans for the locally advanced NC could be obtained with tomotherapy and hybrid plan techniques that the better protection in critical structures and desired dose distribution at target volumes.

Dosimetric comparison of robotic- and LINAC-based treatment of spine stereotactic body radiotherapy

To determine which treatment technique and modality would offer better dosimetric results and be preferable for spinal stereotactic body therapy (SBRT) depending on the three different regions of the vertebrae. Linear accelerator (LINAC)- and CyberKnife (CK)-based treatment techniques were compared in terms of their dosimetric quality, treatment efficiency, and delivery accuracy. Thirty previously treated patients were included in this study. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques were used for LINAC-based treatment, whereas CK-based treatment plans were generated for two different collimator systems: fixed and multileaf collimator (MLC). The plans were compared based on spinal cord sparing, dose homogeneity, conformity index (CI), gradient index (GI), monitor unit (MU), and beam-on time. The percentage volumes of V2Gy, V5Gy (representing volume low of the dose spillage region), V10Gy, and V20Gy (representing the volume of the high-dose spillage region) of the healthy tissue were analyzed. The CI and GI of the VMAT plans were better than those of the IMRT plans. For spinal cord sparing, the VMAT and MLC-based CK (CK-MLC) techniques were superior. The percentage of low-dose spillage regions was the lowest for IMRT and fixed cone-based CK (CK-FIX) plans. The percentage of the high-dose spillage region was the lowest for the VMAT and CK-MLC plans. In terms of treatment efficiency, the VMAT and CK-MLC plans were superior to the IMRT and CK-FIX plans. The VMAT technique lowered the MU and beam-on time values. The plan delivery accuracy of the VMAT and CK-FIX plans was better than that of the IMRT plans. VMAT is the best option for LINAC-based spinal SBRT. For CK-based spinal SBRT, MLC-based plans are preferred. If the clinic has both treatment modalities and the patient can tolerate long treatment times, CK-MLC-based treatment should be chosen because of its superiority in sparing the spinal cord and sharp dose fall-off.

Evaluation of auto-planning in VMAT for locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma

The aim of this study is to demonstrate the feasibility of a commercially available Auto-Planning module for the radiation therapy treatment planning for locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). 22 patients with locally advanced NPC were included in this study. For each patient, volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were generated both manually by an experienced physicist and automatically by the Auto-Planning module. The dose distribution, dosimetric parameters, monitor units and planning time were compared between automatic plans (APs) and manual plans (MPs). Meanwhile, the overall stage of disease was factored into the evaluation. The target dose coverage of APs was comparable to that of MPs. For the organs at risk (OARs) except spinal cord, the dose parameters of APs were superior to that of MPs. The D_max and V₅₀ of brainstem were statistically lower by 1.0 Gy and 1.32% respectively, while the D_max of optic nerves and chiasm were also lower in the APs (p < 0.05). The APs provided a similar or superior quality to MPs in most cases, except for several patients with stage IV disease. The dose differences for most OARs were similar between the two types of plans regardless of stage while the APs provided better brainstem sparing for patients with stage III and improved the sparing of the parotid glands for stage IV patients. The total monitor units and planning time were significantly reduced in the APs. Auto-Planning is feasible for the VMAT treatment planning for locally advanced NPC.

Normal tissue complication probability modeling to guide individual treatment planning in pediatric cranial proton and photon radiotherapy

PURPOSE

Proton therapy (PT) is broadly accepted as the gold standard of care for pediatric patients with cranial cancer. The superior dose distribution of PT compared to photon radiotherapy reduces normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for organs at risk. As NTCPs for pediatric organs are not well understood, clinics generally base radiation response on adult data. However, there is evidence that radiation response strongly depends on the age and even sex of a patient. Furthermore, questions surround the influence of individual intrinsic radiosensitivity (α/β ratio) on pediatric NTCP. While the clinical pediatric NTCP data is scarce, radiobiological modeling and sensitivity analyses can be used to investigate the NTCP trends and its dependence on individual modeling parameters. The purpose of this study was to perform sensitivity analyses of NTCP models to ascertain the dependence of radiosensitivity, sex, and age of a child and predict cranial side-effects following intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT).

METHODS

Previously, six sex-matched pediatric cranial datasets (5, 9, and 13 years old) were planned in Varian Eclipse treatment planning system (13.7). Up to 108 scanning beam IMPT plans and 108 IMRT plans were retrospectively optimized for a range of simulated target volumes and locations. In this work, dose-volume histograms were extracted and imported into BioSuite Software for radiobiological modeling. Relative-Seriality and Lyman-Kutcher-Burman models were used to calculate NTCP values for toxicity endpoints, where TD50, (based on reported adult clinical data) was varied to simulate sex dependence of NTCP. Plausible parameter ranges, based on published literature for adults, were used in modeling. In addition to sensitivity analyses, a 20% difference in TD50 was used to represent the radiosensitivity between the sexes (with females considered more radiosensitive) for ease of data comparison as a function of parameters such as α/β ratio.

RESULTS

IMPT plans resulted in lower NTCP compared to IMRT across all models (p < 0.0001). For medulloblastoma treatment, the risk of brainstem necrosis (> 10%) and cochlea tinnitus (> 20%) among females could potentially be underestimated considering a lower TD50 value for females. Sensitivity analyses show that the difference in NTCP between sexes was significant (p < 0.0001). Similarly, both brainstem necrosis and cochlea tinnitus NTCP varied significantly (p < 0.0001) across tested α/β as a function of TD50 values (assumption being that TD50 values are 20% lower in females). If the true α/β of these pediatric tissues is higher than expected (α/β ∼ 3), the risk of tinnitus for IMRT can significantly increase (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Due to the scarcity of pediatric NTCP data available, sensitivity analyses were performed using plausible ranges based on published adult data. In the clinical scenario where, if female pediatric patients were 20% more radiosensitive (lower TD50 value), they could be up to twice as likely to experience side-effects of brainstem necrosis and cochlea tinnitus compared to males, highlighting the need for considering the sex in NTCP models. Based on our sensitivity analyses, age and sex of a pediatric patient could significantly affect the resultant NTCP from cranial radiotherapy, especially at higher α/β values.

Evaluation of automatic VMAT plans in locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the quality of locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) radiotherapy plans generated by the automated planning module of a commercial treatment planning system (TPS).

METHODS

Data of 30 patients with locally advanced NPC were retrospectively investigated. For each patient, volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans with double arcs were generated manually by experienced physicists and automatically in the Pinnacle³ Auto-Planning module (Philips Medical Systems, Fitchburg, WI, USA). The anatomic distance between the second clinical target volume (CTV₂) and the pons of the brainstem, and the T category of disease were factored into the evaluation. Dosimetric verification was evaluated in terms of gamma pass rate. Target coverage, sparing of organs at risk (OARs), and monitor units were evaluated and compared between the manual and automatic VMAT plans.

RESULTS

Not all treatment plans fully met the dose objectives for planning target volumes (PTVs) and OARs, particularly in T4 patients. Overall, automatic VMAT provides a comparable or superior plan quality to manual VMAT in most cases. In stratified analysis, plan quality is mainly independent on T category but is also affected by anatomic distance. If the anatomic distance is less than 5 mm, the automatic VMAT plan quality is equal or even inferior to manual VMAT performed by experienced physicists. Conversely, if the anatomic distance is greater than 5 mm, the automatic VMAT plan quality is superior to manual VMAT. Gamma pass rates for quality assurance are similar between manual and automatic VMAT plans for the former case, but significantly higher in automatic VMAT for the latter.

CONCLUSION

The selection of manual versus automatic VMAT planning in locally advanced NPC should be made individually based on the anatomic distance, rather than blindly and habitually, since automatic VMAT is not good enough to completely replace manual VMAT.

Quality of life and survival outcome for patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated by volumetric-modulated arc therapy versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the longitudinal changes of quality of life (QoL) and survival in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) treated by volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT).

METHODS

One hundred and forty non-distant metastatic NPC patients treated by VMAT (n = 66) or IMRT (n = 74) with simultaneously integrated boost between March 2013 and December 2015 at a single institute were analyzed. QoL was prospectively assessed by the EORTC QLQ-C30 and HN35 questionnaires at the four time points: before RT, RT 42.4 Gy (20 fractions), and 3, 12 months after RT.

RESULTS

The 3-year locoregional relapse-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, failure-free survival, and overall survival rates were 96.6, 89.4, 86.1%, and 87.4 for the VMAT group, respectively, compared with 91.4, 90.0, 79.8, and 91.3% for the IMRT group (p value > 0.05). The pattern of QoL changes was similar between the VMAT and IMRT group. No statistically or clinically significant difference in all the QoL scales was observed between VMAT and IMRT group at each time point. Compared to before RT, we observed statistically (p<0.05) and clinically (difference of mean scores≧10) better outcome in global QoL and social functioning, but worse head and neck symptomatic outcome in swallowing, taste/smell, opening mouth, dry mouth, and sticky saliva at the time point of 1 year after RT for both groups.

CONCLUSION

The study provides the evidence that the tumor control, survival and changes of QoL is compatible for NPC patients treated by VMAT versus IMRT.

Comparison of Radiation-Induced Secondary Malignancy Risk Between Sequential and Simultaneous Integrated Boost for the Treatment of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy versus Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the secondary cancer risk (SCR) between the sequential boost (SEQ) technique and simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) using the concepts of organ equivalent dose (OED) and excess absolute risk (EAR).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

IMRT-SEQ, VMAT-SEQ, IMRT-SIB, and VMAT-SIB plans were created with identical objective functions for five patients with early-stage NPC. Three different planning tumor volumes (PTVs; PTV1, PTV2, and PTV3) were delineated for each patient, and the prescribed doses were 50 Gy, 60 Gy, and 70 Gy (2 Gy/fraction), respectively, for the SEQ technique and 52.8 Gy, 59.4 Gy, and 69.3 Gy (33 fractions), respectively, for the SIB technique.

RESULTS

All plans were clinically acceptable. There was no difference in most OED-based SCRs between IMRT and VMAT when the same fractionation scheme was used. Compared with the SEQ technique, the SIB technique in IMRT and VMAT was associated with the lowest OEDs for the oral cavity, pharynx, parotids, and submandibular glands, resulting in SCR reduction. SCR for the parotids was much lower than that for the other assessed organs when the SIB technique was used.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that OED-based SCRs are lower with the SIB technique than with the SEQ technique in IMRT and VMAT in most organs for which SCR was calculated; furthermore, SCR for the parotids is much lower than that for other organs when the SIB technique is used in patients with NPC.

Dosimetric evaluation of automatic and manual plans for early nasopharyngeal carcinoma to radiotherapy

To investigate dosimetric differences and plan qualities between manual plans and automatic plans for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) in early stage, and provide better options to maximize the benefits. Sixteen cases diagnosed with early NPC were retrospectively investigated. Conventional step and shoot IMRT with 7-fields and full arc volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with double arcs were manually generated by experienced planners and automatically generated by Auto-Planning module in Pinnacle³ respectively, such as IMRT manual-planning (mIMRT), IMRT auto-planning (aIMRT), VMAT manual-planning (mVMAT), and VMAT auto-planning (aVMAT) for each patient. Target coverage, organs at risk sparing, monitor units, and planning times were compared and evaluated. All parameters of plans are able to fulfill International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements repor (ICRU) 83 recommendations. Automatic plans are comparable or superior to manual plans without time-consuming planning process. The CI and HI for PTVs are better in aVMAT when compared with aIMRT and mVMAT, but those are similar between aIMRT and mVMAT. Automatic plans not only have superior dose homogeneity and conformity in PTVs, but also have better sparing for spinal cord or slightly reduce the doses received by other OARs, while the VMAT plans have better sparing for brain stem, especially the aVMAT plans. However, Dmax, V30, and V40 of brain stem are similar between aIMRT and mVMAT without significant difference. The monitor units and planning time for treatment plans have been significantly decreased through automatic planning technique. The automatic VMAT plan has greater clinical advantages and should be recommended to a better option for treating NPC in early stage, while automatic IMRT would be preferentially considered instead of manual VMAT.

A comparative study of identical VMAT about two adjacent targets with and without fixed-jaw technique

BACKGROUND

The radiation transmission through the multileaf collimators is undesired in modern techniques such as volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). According to identical plans, in this study, we aim to investigate the dosimetric impact of jaw tracking on the VMAT plans on two adjacent targets.

METHODS

Two treatment plans were designed for eight pelvic (cervical) patients with two targets using the same optimization parameters. The original plan (O-plan) used automatically selected jaw positions. In the new plan (F-plan), the jaws were fixed to block two targets in two beams. The dosimetric parameters of the two plans were compared to evaluate the improvement of dose sparing for the body volume between two targets (named interOAR) in F-VMAT.

RESULTS

The mean dose of interOAR reduced significantly from 654.96 ± 113.38 cGy for O-VMAT, to 490.84 ± 80.26 cGy for F-VMAT (p = 0.018). The monitor units (MUs) in the F-plans were 1.49-fold higher than that in the O-plan. The F and O-plan performed similarly in target dose homogeneity. The differences in Dmax of spinal cord, Dmax of spinal cord planning organ at risk volume, and V20, V30, and V40 of the intestine were insignificant.

CONCLUSIONS

VMAT plans with the fixed-jaw method can reduce the volume between two targets effectively. However, despite the plan quality, the method can only be used when the regular methods cannot reach the clinical requirements for critical organs because of additional MUs.

On the use of AAA and AcurosXB algorithms for three different stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) techniques: Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT)

Aim

The purpose of this study was to investigate the dosimetric characteristics of three stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) techniques using the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB algorithm. The SABR techniques include coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (C-VMAT), non-coplanar intensity modulated radiation therapy (NC-IMRT) and non-coplanar three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (NC-3D CRT).

Background

SABR is a special type of radiotherapy where a high dose of radiation is delivered over a short time. The treatment outcome and accuracy of the dose delivered to cancer patients highly depend on the dose calculation algorithm and treatment technique.

Materials and methods

Twelve lung cancer patients underwent 4D CT scanning, and three different treatment plans were generated: C-VMAT, NC-IMRT, NC-3D CRT. Dose calculation was performed using the AAA and Acuros XB algorithm. The dosimetric indices, such as conformity index (CI), homogeneity index, dose fall-off index, doses received by organs at risk and planning target volume, were used to compare the plans. The accuracy of AAA and Acuros XB (AXB) algorithms for the lung was validated against measured dose on a CIRS thorax phantom.

Results

The CIs for C-VMAT, NC-IMRT and NC-3D CRT were 1.21, 1.28 and 1.38 for the AAA, respectively, and 1.17, 1.26 and 1.36 for the Acuros XB algorithm, respectively. The overall dose computed by AcurosXB algorithm was close to the measured dose when compared to the AAA algorithm. The overall dose computed by the AcurosXB algorithm was close to the measured dose when compared to the AAA algorithm.

Conclusion

This study showed that the treatment planning results obtained using the Acuros XB algorithm was better than those using the AAA algorithm in SABR lung radiotherapy.

Development of geometrically ideal dose distribution as a reference for treatment planning in VMAT using filtered back-projection method

PURPOSE

To determine optimal dose distribution in the treatment planning of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), a virtually ideal dose distribution was developed as a reference by applying filtered back-projection method.

METHODS

Delineated structures in patient CT scans were identified using a treatment planning system. The projection of the planning target volume (PTV) was calculated along the X-ray direction for each angle of rotation. Each projection was Fourier transformed to the frequency space; a Shepp-Logan filter was applied, then an inverse Fourier transformation was performed. As the dose irradiation cannot assume a negative value, the filtered projections were shifted using the minimum value inside of the PTV. All values outside of the PTV were set to zero. The corrected filtered projections were then multiplied by the tissue-maximum ratio according to each voxel depth from the surface of the body to simulate X-ray attenuation. Finally, the distributions of multiple rotational angles were convolved to simulate the dose distribution of the VMAT.

RESULTS

Ideal dose distributions were generated with sufficient uniformity inside of the PTV. Dose spreading except for the PTV due to external irradiation was reproduced in the case of a brain tumor. A reference dose distribution including OAR sparing was produced. The efficacy of this process as a target for optimum planning was confirmed.

CONCLUSION

Using applied filtered back-projection, the ideal dose distribution, which excluded some device-oriented restrictions, was generated. This application will provide support for the determination of VMAT planning quality by providing reference dose distributions.

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy by simultaneously integrated boost volumetric-modulated arc therapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma-toxicity/quality of life and survival

BACKGROUND

To investigate the toxicity, changes of quality of life (QOL), and survival for patients with nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) treated by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) with simultaneously integrated boost volumetric-modulated arc therapy (SIB-VMAT).

METHODS

A total of 68 NPC patients treated by CCRT with SIB-VMAT technique were collected. QOL was longitudinally assessed by the EORTC QLQ-C30 and HN35 questionnaires at the 4 time points: baseline, 42.4 Gy (20 fractions), and 3, 12 months after CCRT.

RESULTS

The 4-year locoregional relapse free, distant metastasis free, failure free, and overall survival rates were 97.0%, 86.4%, 82.0%, and 88.1%, respectively. The 4-year cumulative incidence rate of late toxicities with grade 3 or more was 3.0%. One year after CCRT, most QOL scales, except some oral related symptoms, recovered to baseline level.

CONCLUSION

CCRT with SIB-VMAT produces excellent locoregional control, few severe late toxicity, and good general health status for NPC patients.

Evaluation of optimization workflow using design of experiment (DoE) for various field configurations in volumetric-modulated arc therapy

PURPOSE

In volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), field configurations such as couch or arc angles are defined manually or using a template. A field configuration is reselected through trial-and-error in the case of undesirable resultant planning. To efficiently plan for desirable quality, configurations should be assessed before dose calculation. Design of experiments (DoE) is an optimization technique that efficiently reveals the influence of inputs on outputs. We developed an original tool using DoE to determine the field configuration selection and evaluated the efficacy of this workflow for clinical practice.

METHODS

Computed-tomography scans of 17 patients and target structures were acquired retrospectively from a brain tumor treated using a dual-arc VMAT plan. The configurations of the couch, arc, collimator angles, field sizes, and beam energy were determined using DoE. The resultant dose distributions obtained using the DoE-selected configuration were compared with the clinical plan.

RESULTS

The averaged differences between the DoE and clinical plan for 17 patients of doses to 50% of the planning target volume (PTV-D50%), Brain-D60%, Brain-D30%, Brain stem-D1%, Left eye-D1%, Right eye-D1%, Optic nerve-D1%, and Chiasm-D1% were 0.2 ± 0.5%, -1.0 ± 4.6%, 1.7 ± 3.5%, -2.5 ± 6.7%, -0.2 ± 4.9%, -1.2 ± 3.6%, -2.8 ± 7.3%, and -2.1 ± 5.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our optimization workflow obtained using DoE for various field configurations provided the same or slightly superior plan quality compared with that created by experts. This process is feasible for clinical practice and will efficiently improve treatment quality while removing the influence of the planner's experience.

Relationships among patient characteristics, irradiation treatment planning parameters, and treatment toxicity of acute radiation dermatitis after breast hybrid intensity modulation radiation therapy

To evaluate the relationships among patient characteristics, irradiation treatment planning parameters, and treatment toxicity of acute radiation dermatitis (RD) after breast hybrid intensity modulation radiation therapy (IMRT). The study cohort consisted of 95 breast cancer patients treated with hybrid IMRT. RD grade ≥2 (2⁺) toxicity was defined as clinically significant. Patient characteristics and the irradiation treatment planning parameters were used as the initial candidate factors. Prognostic factors were identified using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO)-based normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) model. A univariate cut-off dose NTCP model was developed to find the dose-volume limitation. Fifty-two (54.7%) of ninety-five patients experienced acute RD grade 2⁺ toxicity. The volume of skin receiving a dose >35 Gy (V₃₅) was the most significant dosimetric predictor associated with RD grade 2⁺ toxicity. The NTCP model parameters for V_35Gy were TV₅₀ = 85.7 mL and γ₅₀ = 0.77, where TV₅₀ was defined as the volume corresponding to a 50% incidence of complications, and γ₅₀ was the normalized slope of the volume-response curve. Additional potential predictive patient characteristics were energy and surgery, but the results were not statistically significant.

To ensure a better quality of life and compliance for breast hybrid IMRT patients, the skin volume receiving a dose >35 Gy should be limited to <85.7 mL to keep the incidence of RD grade 2⁺ toxicities below 50%. To avoid RD toxicity, the volume of skin receiving a dose >35 Gy should follow sparing tolerance and the inherent patient characteristics should be considered.

Prospective matched study on comparison of volumetric-modulated arc therapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: dosimetry, delivery efficiency and outcomes

Background: The purpose of this study is to assess the feasibility of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients by comparing the physical dosimetry, delivery efficiency and clinical outcomes with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT).

Methods: A prospective matched study was performed for patients with newly diagnosed NPC who underwent VMAT or IMRT. The patients in two groups were equally matched in terms of gender, age, tumor stage and chemotherapy. The target coverage, homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI) of the planning target volume (PTV), organs at risk (OARs) sparing, average treatment time and clinical outcomes were analyzed.

Results: From June 2013 to August 2015, a total of 80 patients were enrolled in this study, with 40 patients in each group. The coverage of PTV was similar for both groups. D2 was observed slight difference only in early stage disease (T1-2) (VMAT vs. IMRT, 7494±109 cGy vs. 7564±92 cGy; p=0.06). The HI of VMAT group was better than that of IMRT group (p=0.001), whereas CI was slightly worse (p=0.061). The maximum doses received by the brain stem, spinal cord, and optic nerve of VMAT were higher than those of IMRT (p<0.05). But the irradiation volumes in healthy tissue were generally lower for VMAT group, with significant differences in V20, V25 and V45 (p<0.05). With regard to the delivery efficiency compared with IMRT (1160 ± 204s), a 69% reduction in treatment time was achieved by VMAT (363 ± 162s). Both groups had 5 cases of nasopharyngeal residual lesions after radiotherapy. The 2-year estimated local relapse-free survival, regional relapse-free survival and locoregional relapse-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, disease-free survival and overall survival were similar between two groups, with the corresponding rates of 100%, 97.4%, 97.4%, 90.0%, 90.0% and 92.4% in VMAT group, and 100%, 100%, 100%, 95.0%, 95.0% and 97.5% in IMRT group, respectively.

Conclusions: Both VMAT and IMRT can meet the clinical requirements for the treatment of NPC. The short-term tumor regression rates and 2-year survival rates with the two techniques are comparable. The faster treatment time benefits of VMAT will enable more patients to receive precision radiotherapy.

Treatment plan quality and delivery accuracy assessments on 3 IMRT delivery methods of stereotactic body radiotherapy for spine tumors

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for spine tumors has demonstrated clinical effectiveness. The treatment planning and delivery techniques have evolved from dynamic conformal arc therapy, to fixed gantry angle intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and most recently to volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). A hybrid-arc (HARC) planning and delivery method combining dynamic conformal arc therapy delivery with a number of equally spaced IMRT beams is proposed. In this study we investigated plan quality, delivery accuracy, and efficiency of 3 delivery techniques: IMRT, HARC, and VMAT. Patients who underwent spine SBRT treatments were randomly selected from an Institutional Review Board-approved registry. For each patient, the prescription dose was 14 to 16 Gy in a single fraction to cover >90% of the tumor (without planning margin) while constraining V_10Gy ≤ 10% of the spinal cord and the maximum point dose (MPD) of the spinal cord ≤ 14 Gy. All cases were clinically treated with fixed gantry step-shoot IMRT plans and then re-planned with VMAT using Pinnacle 9.0 and with HARC using Brainlab iPlan 4.5. Student t-test was used to compare the dosimetric end points, including V_16Gy to the planning target volume, homogeneity index, MPD_PTV, the conformity index, V_10Gy of the spinal cord, and MPD_cord. To compare the accuracy of delivery, we delivered all plans on a phantom and conducted gamma index (GI) comparisons with 3 mm/3% and 2 mm/2% criteria. All plans met our clinical requirements. Among 3 techniques, there were no differences on dose coverage to the tumor volume, maximum dose to the spinal cord, and plan homogeneity index (p > 0.05). The average V_10Gy of the spinal cord was 6.66 ± 0.03%, 5.49 ± 0.03%, and 4.76 ± 0.02% for IMRT, HARC, and VMAT plans, respectively. Accordingly, the conformity indices were 1.30 ± 0.11 and 1.29 ± 0.20, 1.53 ± 0.29, respectively. VMAT plans were significantly (p < 0.05) less conformal but significantly (p < 0.05) lower V_10Gy of the spinal cord than those from HARC and IMRT plans. With delivery accuracy measured by GIs, the average GIs of 3%/3 mm were 92.6 ± 1.1%, 96.5 ± 2.7%, 99.0 ± 1.1% for IMRT, HARC, and VMAT plans, respectively. The differences were significant (p < 0.05). Accordingly, the average monitor units were 9238 ± 2242, 9853 ± 2548 and 5091 ± 910. The plan quality created from the 3 planning techniques can meet the clinical requirement. Adding arc beams in delivery such as in HARC and VMAT plans improves the delivery accuracy. VMAT is the most efficient delivery method.

RapidArc vs Conventional IMRT for Head and Neck Cancer Irradiation: Is Faster Necessary Better?

Purpose:

The aim of this study was to dosimetrically evaluate and compare double arc RapidArc (RA) with conventional IMRT (7 fields) plans for irradiation of locally advanced head and neck cancers (LAHNC), focusing on target coverage and doses received by organs at risk (OAR).

Methods:

Computed tomography scans of 20 patients with LAHNC were obtained. Contouring of the target volumes and OAR was done. Two plans were made for each patient, one using IMRT and the other double arc RA, and calculated doses to planning target volume (PTV) and OAR were compared. Monitor units for each technique were also calculated.

Results:

PTV coverage was similar with both techniques. The homogeneity index (HI) was higher for the IMRT plans with a value of 0.108 ± 0.021 compared to 0.0975 ± 0.017 for double arc RA plans (p-value of 0.540). The double arc RA plans achieved a better conformity with a CI95%= 1.01 ± 0.021 compared to 1.05 ± 0.057 achieved with the IMRT plans (p-value of 0.036). The average monitor units (MU) ±SD were 930.5 ± 142.42 for the IMRT plans as opposed to 484.25 ± 69.47 for the double arc RA plans (P-value of 0.002). Double arc plans provided better OAR sparing with a significant p-value of 0.002 and 0.004 for the right and left parotid glands, respectively.

Conclusions:

RA is a rapid and accurate technique that uses lower MUs than conventional IMRT. Double arc plans provide better dose conformity, OAR sparing and a more homogeneous target coverage compared to IMRT.

Radiation-induced secondary malignancies for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a pilot study of patients treated via IMRT or VMAT

Background

Patients treated with radiotherapy are at risk of developing a second cancer during their lifetime, which can directly impact treatment decision-making and patient management. The aim of this study was to qualify and compare the secondary cancer risk (SCR) after intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients.

Patients and methods

We analyzed the treatment plans of a cohort of 10 NPC patients originally treated with IMRT or VMAT. Dose distributions in these plans were used to calculate the organ equivalent dose (OED) with Schneider’s full model. Analyses were applied to the brain stem, spinal cord, oral cavity, pharynx, parotid glands, lung, mandible, healthy tissue, and planning target volume.

Results

We observed that the OED-based risks of SCR were slightly higher for the oral cavity and mandible when VMAT was used. No significant difference was found in terms of the doses to other organs, including the brain stem, parotids, pharynx, submandibular gland, lung, spinal cord, and healthy tissue. In the NPC cohort, the lungs were the organs that were most sensitive to radiation-induced cancer.

Conclusion

VMAT afforded superior results in terms of organ-at-risk-sparing compared with IMRT. Most OED-based second cancer risks for various organs were similar when VMAT and IMRT were employed, but the risks for the oral cavity and mandible were slightly higher when VMAT was used.

Optimization of the margin expanded from the clinical to the planned target volume during intensity-modulated radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma

During the radiotherapy process, the emergence of set-up errors is nearly inevitable. Because set-up errors were not detected and corrected daily, planned target volumes were formed by expanding the clinical target volume according to each unit's experience. We optimized the margins of clinical and planned target volumes during administration of intensity-modulated radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma. A total of 72 patients newly diagnosed with non-metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma and treated with Tomotherapy were prospectively enrolled in the study. For each patient, one megavoltage computed tomography scan was obtained after conventional positioning, online correction, and daily tomotherapy delivery. The interfraction set-up errors were determined using a planning CT based on the registered scan. The mean interfraction errors were -2.437±2.0529 mm, 0.0652±2.3844 mm, 0.318±1.8314 mm, and 0.197±1.8721° for the medial-lateral, superior-inferior, and anterior-posterior directions, and the direction of rotation, respectively. The total M_PTV in the three directions was 7.53 mm, 1.83 mm, and 2.08 mm, respectively. The 3-mm margins in the superior-inferior and anterior-posterior directions uniformly expanded from the clinical target volume should be sufficient, and the marging in the medial-lateral direction was up to 7.5 mm. These results suggest that personalized M_PTV may be adopted for intensity-modulated radiotherapy planning.

Three-dimensional dose prediction and validation with the radiobiological gamma index based on a relative seriality model for head-and-neck IMRT

This study proposes a quality assurance (QA) method incorporating radiobiological factors based on the QUANTEC-determined tumor control probability and the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) of head-and-neck intensity-modulated radiation therapy (HN-IMRT). Per-beam measurements were conducted for 20 cases using a 2D detector array. Three-dimensional predicted dose distributions within targets and organs at risk were reconstructed based on the per-beam QA results derived from differences between planned and measured doses. Under the predicted dose distributions, the differences between the physical and radiobiological gamma indices (PGI and RGI, respectively) based on the relative seriality (RS) model were evaluated. The NTCP values in the RS and Niemierko models were compared. The dose covers 98% (D98%) of the clinical target volume (CTV) decreased by 3.2% (P < 0.001), and the mean dose of the ipsilateral parotid increased by 6.3% (P < 0.001) compared with the original dose. RGI passing rates in the CTV and brain stem were greater than PGI ones by 5.8% (P < 0.001) and 2.0% (P < 0.001), respectively. The RS model's average NTCP values for the ipsilateral and contralateral parotids under the original dose were smaller than those of the Niemierko model by 9.0% (P < 0.001) and 7.0% (P < 0.001), respectively. The 3D predicted dose evaluation with RGI based on the RS model was introduced for QA of HN-IMRT, leading to dose evaluation for each organ with consideration of the radiobiological effect. This method constitutes a rational way to perform QA of HN-IMRT in clinical practice.

A method to reconstruct and apply 3D primary fluence for treatment delivery verification

Motivation

In this study, a method is reported to perform IMRT and VMAT treatment delivery verification using 3D volumetric primary beam fluences reconstructed directly from planned beam parameters and treatment delivery records. The goals of this paper are to demonstrate that 1) 3D beam fluences can be reconstructed efficiently, 2) quality assurance (QA) based on the reconstructed 3D fluences is capable of detecting additional treatment delivery errors, particularly for VMAT plans, beyond those identifiable by other existing treatment delivery verification methods, and 3) QA results based on 3D fluence calculation (3DFC) are correlated with QA results based on physical phantom measurements and radiation dose recalculations.

Methods

Using beam parameters extracted from DICOM plan files and treatment delivery log files, 3D volumetric primary fluences are reconstructed by forward‐projecting the beam apertures, defined by the MLC leaf positions and modulated by beam MU values, at all gantry angles using first‐order ray tracing. Treatment delivery verifications are performed by comparing 3D fluences reconstructed using beam parameters in delivery log files against those reconstructed from treatment plans. Passing rates are then determined using both voxel intensity differences and a 3D gamma analysis. QA sensitivity to various sources of errors is defined as the observed differences in passing rates. Correlations between passing rates obtained from QA derived from both 3D fluence calculations and physical measurements are investigated prospectively using 20 clinical treatment plans with artificially introduced machine delivery errors.

Results

Studies with artificially introduced errors show that common treatment delivery problems including gantry angle errors, MU errors, jaw position errors, collimator rotation errors, and MLC leaf position errors were detectable at less than normal machine tolerances. The reported 3DFC QA method has greater sensitivity than measurement‐based QA methods. Statistical analysis‐based Spearman's correlations shows that the 3DFC QA passing rates are significantly correlated with passing rates of physical phantom measurement‐based QA methods.

Conclusion

Among measurement‐less treatment delivery verification methods, the reported 3DFC method is less demanding than those based on full dose re‐calculations, and more comprehensive than those that solely checks beam parameters in treatment log files. With QA passing rates correlating to measurement‐based passing rates, the 3DFC QA results could be useful for complementing the physical phantom measurements, or verifying treatment deliveries when physical measurements are not available. For the past 4+ years, the reported method has been implemented at authors’ institution 1) as a complementary metric to physical phantom measurements for pretreatment, patient‐specific QA of IMRT and VMAT plans, and 2) as an important part of the log file‐based automated verification of daily patient treatment deliveries. It has been demonstrated to be useful in catching both treatment plan data transfer errors and treatment delivery problems.

A comparative study of standard intensity-modulated radiotherapy and RapidArc planning techniques for ipsilateral and bilateral head and neck irradiation

The purpose of this study was to investigate class solutions using RapidArc volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning for ipsilateral and bilateral head and neck (H&N) irradiation, and to compare dosimetric results with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans. A total of 14 patients who received ipsilateral and 10 patients who received bilateral head and neck irradiation were retrospectively replanned with several volumetric-modulated arc therapy techniques. For ipsilateral neck irradiation, the volumetric-modulated arc therapy techniques included two 360° arcs, two 360° arcs with avoidance sectors around the contralateral parotid, two 260° or 270° arcs, and two 210° arcs. For bilateral neck irradiation, the volumetric-modulated arc therapy techniques included two 360° arcs, two 360° arcs with avoidance sectors around the shoulders, and 3 arcs. All patients had a sliding-window-delivery intensity-modulated radiotherapy plan that was used as the benchmark for dosimetric comparison. For ipsilateral neck irradiation, a volumetric-modulated arc therapy technique using two 360° arcs with avoidance sectors around the contralateral parotid was dosimetrically comparable to intensity-modulated radiotherapy, with improved conformity (conformity index = 1.22 vs 1.36, p < 0.04) and lower contralateral parotid mean dose (5.6 vs 6.8Gy, p < 0.03). For bilateral neck irradiation, 3-arc volumetric-modulated arc therapy techniques were dosimetrically comparable to intensity-modulated radiotherapy while also avoiding irradiation through the shoulders. All volumetric-modulated arc therapy techniques required fewer monitor units than sliding-window intensity-modulated radiotherapy to deliver treatment, with an average reduction of 35% for ipsilateral plans and 67% for bilateral plans. Thus, for ipsilateral head and neck irradiation a volumetric-modulated arc therapy technique using two 360° arcs with avoidance sectors around the contralateral parotid is recommended. For bilateral neck irradiation, 2- or 3-arc techniques are dosimetrically comparable to intensity-modulated radiotherapy, but more work is needed to determine the optimal approaches by disease site.

An investigation of the dose distribution effect related with collimator angle in volumetric arc therapy of prostate cancer

To investigate the dose-volume variations of planning target volume (PTV) and organ at risks (OARs) in eleven prostate cancer patients planned with single and double arc volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) when varying collimator angle. Single and double arc VMAT treatment plans were created using Monaco5.0^® with collimator angle set to 0°. All plans were normalized 7600 cGy dose to the 95% of clinical target volume (CTV) volume. The single arc VMAT plans were reoptimized with different collimator angles (0°, 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, 75°, and 90°), and for double arc VMAT plans (0–0°, 15°–345, 30–330°, 45–315°, 60–300°, 75–285°, 90–270°) using the same optimization parameters. For the comparison the parameters of heterogeneity index (HI), dose-volume histogram and minimum dose to the 95% of PTV volume (D95 PTV) calculated and analyzed. The best plans were verified using 2 dimensional ion chamber array IBA Matrixx^® and three-dimensional IBA Compass^® program. The comparison between calculation and measurement were made by the γ-index (3%/3 mm) analysis. A higher D95 (PTV) were found for single arc VMAT with 15° collimator angle. For double arc, VMAT with 60–300° and 75–285° collimator angles. However, lower rectum doses obtained for 75–285° collimator angles. There was no significant dose difference, based on other OARs which are bladder and femur head. When we compared single and double arc VMAT's D95 (PTV), we determined 2.44% high coverage and lower HI with double arc VMAT. All plans passed the γ-index (3%/3 mm) analysis with more than 97% of the points and we had an average γ-index for CTV 0.36, for PTV 0.32 with double arc VMAT. These results were significant by Wilcoxon signed rank test statistically. The results show that dose coverage of target and OAR's doses also depend significantly on the collimator angles due to the geometry of target and OARs. Based on the results we have decided to plan prostate cancer patients in our clinic with double arc VMAT and 75°–285° collimator angles.

Assessment of radiobiological metrics applied to patient-specific QA process of VMAT prostate treatments

VMAT is a powerful technique to deliver hypofractionated prostate treatments. The lack of correlations between usual 2D pretreatment QA results and the clinical impact of possible mistakes has allowed the development of 3D verification systems. Dose determination on patient anatomy has provided clinical predictive capability to patient-specific QA process. Dose-volume metrics, as evaluation criteria, should be replaced or complemented by radiobiological indices. These metrics can be incorporated into individualized QA extracting the information for response parameters (gEUD, TCP, NTCP) from DVHs. The aim of this study is to assess the role of two 3D verification systems dealing with radiobiological metrics applied to a prostate VMAT QA program. Radiobiological calculations were performed for AAPM TG-166 test cases. Maximum differences were 9.3% for gEUD, -1.3% for TCP, and 5.3% for NTCP calculations. Gamma tests and DVH-based comparisons were carried out for both systems in order to assess their performance in 3D dose determination for prostate treatments (high-, intermediate-, and low-risk, as well as prostate bed patients). Mean gamma passing rates for all structures were bet-ter than 92.0% and 99.1% for both 2%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm criteria. Maximum discrepancies were (2.4% ± 0.8%) and (6.2% ± 1.3%) for targets and normal tis-sues, respectively. Values for gEUD, TCP, and NTCP were extracted from TPS and compared to the results obtained with the two systems. Three models were used for TCP calculations (Poisson, sigmoidal, and Niemierko) and two models for NTCP determinations (LKB and Niemierko). The maximum mean difference for gEUD calculations was (4.7% ± 1.3%); for TCP, the maximum discrepancy was (-2.4% ± 1.1%); and NTCP comparisons led to a maximum deviation of (1.5% ± 0.5%). The potential usefulness of biological metrics in patient-specific QA has been explored. Both systems have been successfully assessed as potential tools for evaluating the clinical outcome of a radiotherapy treatment in the scope of pretreatment QA.

An IMRT/VMAT Technique for Nonsmall Cell Lung Cancer

The study is to investigate a Hybrid IMRT/VMAT technique which combines intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for the treatment of nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Two partial arcs VMAT, 5-field IMRT, and hybrid plans were created for 15 patients with NSCLC. The hybrid plans were combination of 2 partial arcs VMAT and 5-field IMRT. The dose distribution of planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs) for hybrid technique was compared with IMRT and VMAT. The monitor units (MUs) and treatment delivery time were also evaluated. Hybrid technique significantly improved the target conformity and homogeneity compared with IMRT and VMAT. The mean delivery time of IMRT, VMAT, and hybrid plans was 280 s, 114 s, and 327 s, respectively. The mean MUs needed for IMRT, VMAT, and hybrid plans were 933, 512, and 737, respectively. Hybrid technique reduced V5, V10, V30, and MLD of normal lung compared with VMAT and spared the OARs better with fewer MUs with the cost of a little higher V5, V10, and mean lung dose (MLD) of normal lung compared with IMRT. Hybrid IMRT/VMAT can be a viable radiotherapy technique with better plan quality.

Analyzing the performance of the planning system by use of AAPM TG 119 test cases

Our objective in this study was to create AAPM TG 119 test plans for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in the Monaco planning system. The results were compared with the published studies, and the performance of the Monaco planning system was analyzed. AAPM TG 119 proposed a set of test cases called multi-target, mock prostate, mock head and neck and C-shape to ascertain the overall accuracy of IMRT planning, measurement, and analysis. We used these test cases to investigate the performance of the Monaco planning system for the complex plans. For these test cases, we created IMRT plans with static multi-leaf collimator (MLC) and dynamic MLC by using 7-9 static beams as explained in TG-119. VMAT plans were also created with a 320° arc length and a single or double arc. The planning objectives and dose were set as described in TG 119. The dose prescriptions for multi-target, mock prostate, mock head and neck, and C-shape were taken as 50, 75.6, 50 and 50 Gy, respectively. All plans were compared with the results of TG 119 and the study done by Mynampati et al. Point dose and fluence measurements were done with a CC13 chamber and ArcCHECK phantom, respectively. Gamma analysis was done for the calculated and measured dose. Using the Monaco planning system, we achieved the goals mentioned in AAPM TG-119, and the plans were comparable to those of other studies. A comparison of point dose and fluence showed good results. From these results, we conclude that the performance of the Monaco planning system is good for complex plans.

A comparative planning study of step-and-shoot IMRT versus helical tomotherapy for whole-pelvis irradiation in cervical cancer

The aim of this study was to compare the dosimetric parameters of whole-pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT) for cervical cancer between step-and-shoot IMRT (SaS-IMRT) and Helical Tomotherapy™ (HT). Retrospective analysis was performed on 20 cervical cancer patients who received WPRT in our center between January 2011 and January 2014. SaS-IMRT and HT treatment plans were generated for each patient. The dosimetric values for target coverage and organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing were compared according to the criteria of the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements 83 (ICRU 83) guidelines. Differences in beam-on time (BOT) were also compared. All the PTV dosimetric parameters (D5%, D50% and D95%) for the HT plan were (statistically significantly) of better quality than those for the SaS-IMRT plan (P-value < 0.001 in all respects). HT was also significantly more accurate than SaS-IMRT with respect to the D98% and Dmean of the CTV (P-values of 0.008 and <0.001, respectively). The median Conformity Index (CI) did not differ between the two plans (P-value = 0.057). However, the Uniformity Index for HT was significantly better than that for SaS-IMRT (P-value < 0.001). The median of D50% for the bladder, rectum and small bowel were significantly lower in HT planning than SaS-IMRT (P-value < 0.001). For D2%, we found that HT provided better sparing to the rectum and bladder (P-value < 0.001). However, the median of D2% for the small bowel was comparable for both plans. The median of Dmax of the head of the left femur was significantly lower in the HT plan, but this did not apply for the head of the right femur. BOT for HT was significantly shorter than for SaS-IMRT (P-value < 0.001). HT provided highly accurate plans, with more homogeneous PTV coverage and superior sparing of OARs than SaS-IMRT. In addition, HT enabled a shorter delivery time than SaS-IMRT.

Planning for mARC treatments with the Eclipse treatment planning system

While modulated arc (mARC) capabilities have been available on Siemens linear accelerators for almost two years now, there was, until recently, only one treatment planning system capable of planning these treatments. The Eclipse treatment planning system now offers a module that can plan for mARC treatments. The purpose of this work was to test the module to determine whether it is capable of creating clinically acceptable plans. A total of 23 plans were created for various clinical sites and all plans delivered without anomaly. The average 3%/3 mm gamma pass rate for the plans was 98.0%, with a standard deviation of 1.7%. For a total of 14 plans, an equivalent static gantry IMRT plan was also created to compare delivery time. In all but two cases, the mARC plans delivered significantly faster than the static gantry plan. We have confirmed the successful creation of mARC plans that are deliverable with high fidelity on an ARTISTE linear accelerator, thus demonstrating the successful implementation of the Eclipse mARC module.

A treatment planning study comparing Elekta VMAT and fixed field IMRT using the varian treatment planning system eclipse

Background

The newest release of the Eclipse (Varian) treatment planning system (TPS) includes an optimizing engine for Elekta volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning. The purpose of this study was to evaluate this new algorithm and to compare it to intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for various disease sites by creating single- and double-arc VMAT plans.

Methods

A total of 162 plans were evaluated in this study, including 38 endometrial, 57 head and neck, 12 brain, 10 breast and 45 prostate cancer cases. The real-life IMRT plans were developed during routine clinical cases using the TPS Eclipse. VMAT plans were generated using a preclinical version of Eclipse with tumor-region-specific optimizing templates without interference of the operator: with one full arc (1A) and with two full arcs (2A), and with partial arcs for breast and prostate with hip implant cases. All plans were evaluated based on target coverage, homogeneity and conformity. The organs at risk (OARs) were analyzed according to plan objectives, such as the mean and maximum doses. If one or more objectives were exceeded, the plan was considered clinically unacceptable, and a second VMAT plan was created by adapting the optimization penalties once.

Results

Compared to IMRT, single- and double-arc VMAT plans showed comparable or better results concerning the target coverage: the maximum dose in the target for 1A is the same as that for IMRT; for 2A, an average reduction of 1.3% over all plans was observed. The conformity showed a statistically significant improvement for both 1A (+3%) and 2A (+6%). The mean total body dose was statistically significant lower for the considered arc techniques (IMRT: 16.0 Gy, VMAT: 15.3 Gy, p < 0.001). However, the sparing of OARs shows individual behavior that depends strongly on the different tumor regions. A clear difference is found in the number of monitor units (MUs) per plan: VMAT shows a reduction of 31%.

Conclusion

These findings demonstrate that based on optimizing templates with minimal interaction of the operator, the Eclipse TPS is able to achieve a plan quality for the Elekta VMAT delivery technique that is comparable to that of fixed-field IMRT. Plans with two arcs show better dose distributions than plans with one arc.

Use dose bricks concept to implement nasopharyngeal carcinoma treatment planning

Purpose. A “dose bricks” concept has been used to implement nasopharyngeal carcinoma treatment plan; this method specializes particularly in the case with bell shape nasopharyngeal carcinoma case. Materials and Methods. Five noncoplanar fields were used to accomplish the dose bricks technique treatment plan. These five fields include (a) right superior anterior oblique (RSAO), (b) left superior anterior oblique (LSAO), (c) right anterior oblique (RAO), (d) left anterior oblique (LAO), and (e) superior inferior vertex (SIV). Nondivergence collimator central axis planes were used to create different abutting field edge while normal organs were blocked by multileaf collimators in this technique. Results. The resulting 92% isodose curves encompassed the CTV, while maximum dose was about 115%. Approximately 50% volume of parotid glands obtained 10–15% of total dose and 50% volume of brain obtained less than 20% of total dose. Spinal cord receives only 5% from the scatter dose. Conclusions. Compared with IMRT, the expenditure of planning time and costing, “dose bricks” may after all be accepted as an optional implementation in nasopharyngeal carcinoma conformal treatment plan; furthermore, this method also fits the need of other nonhead and neck lesions if organ sparing and noncoplanar technique can be executed.

Comparative analysis of volumetric-modulated arc therapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy for base of tongue cancer

The aim of this study was to compare the various dosimetric parameters of dynamic multileaf collimator (MLC) intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for base of tongue cases. All plans were done in Monaco planning system for Elekta synergy linear accelerator with 80 MLC. IMRT plans were planned with nine stationary beams, and VMAT plans were done for 360° arc with single arc or dual arc. The dose to the planning target volumes (PTV) for 70, 63, and 56 Gy was compared. The dose to 95, 98, and 50% volume of PTV were analyzed. The homogeneity index (HI) and the conformity index (CI) of the PTV70 were also analyzed. IMRT and VMAT plan showed similar dose coverage, HI, and CI. Maximum dose and dose to 1-cc volume of spinal cord, planning risk volume (PRV) cord, and brain stem were compared. IMRT plan and VMAT plan showed similar results except for the 1 cc of PRV cord that received slightly higher dose in VMAT plan. Mean dose and dose to 50% volume of right and left parotid glands were analyzed. VMAT plan gave better sparing of parotid glands than IMRT. In normal tissue dose analyses VMAT was better than IMRT. The number of monitor units (MU) required for delivering the good quality of the plan and the time required to deliver the plan for IMRT and VMAT were compared. The number of MUs for VMAT was higher than that of IMRT plans. However, the delivery time was reduced by a factor of two for VMAT compared with IMRT. VMAT plans yielded good quality of the plan compared with IMRT, resulting in reduced treatment time and improved efficiency for base of tongue cases.

Comparison of 3D anatomical dose verification and 2D phantom dose verification of IMRT/VMAT treatments for nasopharyngeal carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The two-dimensional phantom dose verification (2D-PDV) using hybrid plan and planar dose measurement has been widely used for IMRT treatment QA. Due to the lack of information about the correlations between the verification results and the anatomical structure of patients, it is inadequate in clinical evaluation. A three-dimensional anatomical dose verification (3D-ADV) method was used in this study to evaluate the IMRT/VMAT treatment delivery for nasopharyngeal carcinoma and comparison with 2D-PDV was analyzed.

METHODS

Twenty nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients treated with IMRT/VMAT were recruited in the study. A 2D ion-chamber array was used for the 2D-PDV in both single-gantry-angle composite (SGAC) and multi-gantry-angle composite (MGAC) verifications. Differences in the gamma pass rate between the 2 verification methods were assessed. Based on measurement of irradiation dose fluence, the 3D dose distribution was reconstructed for 3D-ADV in the above cases. The reconstructed dose homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI) of the planning target volume (PTV) were calculated. Gamma pass rate and deviations in the dose-volume histogram (DVH) of each PTV and organ at risk (OAR) were analyzed.

RESULTS

In 2D-PDV, the gamma pass rate (3%, 3 mm) of SGAC (99.55% ± 0.83%) was significantly higher than that of MGAC (92.41% ± 7.19%). In 3D-ADV, the gamma pass rates (3%, 3 mm) were 99.75% ± 0.21% in global, 83.82% ± 16.98% to 93.71% ± 6.22% in the PTVs and 45.12% ± 32.78% to 98.08% ± 2.29% in the OARs. The maximum HI increment in PTVnx was 19.34%, while the maximum CI decrement in PTV1 and PTV2 were -32.45% and -6.93%, respectively. Deviations in dose volume of PTVs were all within ±5%. D2% of the brainstem, spinal cord, left/right optic nerves, and the mean doses to the left/right parotid glands maximally increased by 3.5%, 6.03%, 31.13%/26.90% and 4.78%/4.54%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The 2D-PDV and global gamma pass rate might be insufficient to provide an accurate assessment for the complex NPC IMRT operation. In contrast, the 3D-ADV is superior in clinic-related quality assurance offering evaluation of organ specific pass rate and dose-volume deviations.

A bias-free, automated planning tool for technique comparison in radiotherapy - application to nasopharyngeal carcinoma treatments

In this study a novel, user‐independent automated planning technique was developed to objectively compare volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma planning, and to determine which technique offers a greater benefit for parotid‐sparing and dose escalation strategies. Ten patients were investigated, with a standard prescription of three dose levels to the target volumes (70, 63, and 56 Gy), using a simultaneous integrated boost in 33 fractions. The automated tool was used to investigate three planning strategies with both IMRT and VMAT: clinically acceptable plan creation, parotid dose sparing, and dose escalation. Clinically acceptable plans were achieved for all patients using both techniques. For parotid‐sparing, automated planning reduced the mean dose to a greater extent using VMAT rather than IMRT (17.0 Gy and 19.6 Gy, respectively, p<0.01). For dose escalation to the mean of the main clinical target volume, neither VMAT nor IMRT offered a significant benefit over the other. The OAR‐limiting prescriptions for VMAT ranged from 84‐98 Gy, compared to 76‐110 Gy for IMRT. Employing a user‐independent planning technique, it was possible to objectively compare VMAT and IMRT for nasopharyngeal carcinoma treatment strategies. VMAT offers a parotid‐sparing improvement, but no significant benefit was observed for dose escalation to the primary target.

PACS numbers: 87.55.D‐, 87.55.kd

The performance of the progressive resolution optimizer (PRO) for RapidArc planning in targets with low-density media

A new version of progressive resolution optimizer (PRO) with an option of air cavity correction has been implemented for RapidArc volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (RA). The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of this new PRO with the use of air cavity correction option (PRO10_air) against the one without the use of the air cavity correction option (PRO10_no‐air) for RapidArc planning in targets with low‐density media of different sizes and complexities. The performance of PRO10_no‐air and PRO10_air was initially compared using single‐arc plans created for four different simple heterogeneous phantoms with virtual targets and organs at risk. Multiple‐arc planning of 12 real patients having nasopharyngeal carcinomas (NPC) and ten patients having non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were then performed using the above two options for further comparison. Dose calculations were performed using both the Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm with the dose to medium option and the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA). The effect of using intermediate dose option after the first optimization cycle in PRO10_air and PRO10_no‐air was also investigated and compared. Plans were evaluated and compared using target dose coverage, critical organ sparing, conformity index, and dose homogeneity index. For NSCLC cases or cases for which large volumes of low‐density media were present in or adjacent to the target volume, the use of the air cavity correction option in PROIO was shown to be beneficial. For NPC cases or cases for which small volumes of both low‐ and high‐density media existed in the target volume, the use of air cavity correction in PRO10 did not improve the plan quality. Based on the AXB dose calculation results, the use of PRO10_air could produce up to 18% less coverage to the bony structures of the planning target volumes for NPC cases. When the intermediate dose option in PRO10 was used, there was negligible difference observed in plan quality between optimizations with and without using the air cavity correction option.

PACS number: 87.55.D‐, 87.55.de, 87.56.N‐

Current status of IMRT in head and neck cancer

BACKGROUND

IMRT provides highly conformal dose distributions creating non uniform spatial intensity using different segments in the beam.

MATERIAL & METHODS AND RESULTS

Different retrospective studies have shown a high capability of IMRT to treat tumours close to the base of skull. Prospective studies have shown a decrease in xerostomia compared with conventional 3D conformal treatment (3DCRT). Modulation of intensity is performed by the movement of the multileaf collimator (MLC) that can deliver the radiation in different ways, such as static field segments, dynamic field segments and rotational delivery (arc therapy and tomotherapy). There are slight differences among the different techniques in terms of homogeneity, dose conformity and treatment delivery time.

CONCLUSIONS

The best method to deliver IMRT will depend on multiple factors such as deliverability, practicality, user training and plan quality.

Dose verification in intensity modulation radiation therapy: a fractal dimension characteristics study

Purpose. This study describes how to identify the coincidence of desired planning isodose curves with film experimental results by using a mathematical fractal dimension characteristic method to avoid the errors caused by visual inspection in the intensity modulation radiation therapy (IMRT). Methods and Materials. The isodose curves of the films delivered by linear accelerator according to Plato treatment planning system were acquired using Osiris software to aim directly at a single interested dose curve for fractal characteristic analysis. The results were compared with the corresponding planning desired isodose curves for fractal dimension analysis in order to determine the acceptable confidence level between the planning and the measurement. Results. The film measured isodose curves and computer planning curves were deemed identical in dose distribution if their fractal dimensions are within some criteria which suggested that the fractal dimension is a unique fingerprint of a curve in checking the planning and film measurement results. The dose measured results of the film were presumed to be the same if their fractal dimension was within 1%. Conclusions. This quantitative rather than qualitative comparison done by fractal dimension numerical analysis helps to decrease the quality assurance errors in IMRT dosimetry verification.

Advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma radiotherapy with volumetric modulated arcs and the potential role of flattening filter-free beams

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to investigate the dosimetric characteristics of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with flattening filter-free (FFF) beams and assess the role of VMAT in the treatment of advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).

METHODS

Ten cases of CT data were randomly selected from advanced NPC patients. Three treatment plans were optimized for each patient, RapidArc with FFF beams (RA-FFF), conventional beams (RA) and static gantry intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). The doses to the planning target volumes (PTVs), organs at risk (OARs), skin and normal tissue were compared. All the plans were delivered on a Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator and verified using the Delta4 phantom. Technical delivery parameters including the mean gamma score, treatment delivery time and monitor units (MUs) were also analyzed.

RESULTS

All the techniques delivered adequate doses to the PTVs. RA-FFF gave the highest D(1%) (dose received by 1% of the volume), but the poorest conformity index (CI) and homogeneity index (HI) among the PTVs except for the planning target volume of involved regional lymph nodes (PTV66) CI, which showed no significant difference among three techniques. For the planning target volume of the primary nasopharyngeal tumor (PTV70), RA-FFF provided for higher mean dose than other techniques. For the planning target volume receiving 60 Gy (PTV60) and PTV66, RA delivered the lowest mean doses whereas IMRT delivered the highest mean doses. IMRT demonstrated the highest percentage of target coverage and D(99%) for PTV60. RA-FFF provided for the highest doses to the brain stem, skin and oral cavity. RA gave the highest D(1%) to the right optic nerve among three techniques while no significant differences were found between each other. IMRT delivered the highest mean doses to the parotid glands and larynx while RA delivered the lowest mean doses. Gamma analysis showed an excellent agreement for all the techniques at 3%/3 mm. Significant differences in the MUs were observed among the three techniques (p < 0.001). Delivery times for RA-FFF and RA were 152 ± 7s and 153 ± 7s, respectively, nearly 70% lower than the 493 ± 24s mean time for IMRT.

CONCLUSIONS

All treatment plans met the planning objectives. The dose measurements also showed good agreement with computed doses. RapidArc technique can treat patients with advanced NPC effectively, with good target coverage and sparing of critical structures. RA has a greater dosimetric superiority than RA-FFF.

The effect of the target-organ geometric complexity on the choice of delivery between RapidArc and sliding-window IMRT for nasopharyngeal carcinoma

We attempted to assess the effect of target-organ geometric complexity on the plan quality of sliding-window intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), double-arc (RA2), and triple-arc (RA3) RapidArc volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Plans for 9-field sliding-window IMRT, RA2, and RA3 were optimized for 36 patients with NPC ranging from T1 to T4 tumors. Initially the patients were divided into 2 groups, with group A representing the most simple early stage (T1 and T2) cases, whereas group B represented the more complex advanced cases (T3 and T4). Evaluation was performed based on target conformity, target dose homogeneity, organ-sparing capability, and delivery efficiency. Based on the plan quality results, a subgroup of advanced cases, group B2, representing the most demanding task was distinguished and reported separately from the rest of the group B cases, B1. Detailed analysis was performed on the anatomic features for each group of cases, so that planners can easily identify the differences between B1 and B2. For the group A cases, RA3 plans were superior to the IMRT plans in terms of organ sparing, whereas target conformity and dose homogeneity were similar. For the group B1 cases, the RA3 plans produced almost equivalent plan quality as the IMRT plans. For the group B2 cases, for most of which large target volumes were adjacent to (5mm or less) and wrapping around the brain stem, RA2 and RA3 were inferior to the IMRT regarding both target dose homogeneity and conformity. RA2 plans were slightly inferior to IMRT and RA3 plans for most cases. The plan comparison results depend on the target to brain stem distances and the target sizes. The plan quality results together with the anatomic information may allow the evaluation of the 3 treatment options before actual planning.

Treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma by tomotherapy: five-year experience

Purpose

To analyze of survival curve and toxicity outcomes for patients treated for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) by intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) delivered by helical TomoTherapy (HT).

Materials and methods

Since May 2006, 72 patients with primary NPC were treated. In 67 cases PET-CT was used to help delineate the gross tumor volume (GTV); in 4 of these cases distant metastases in bone, mediastinal lymph nodes and unexpected small neck nodes were detected by high SUV uptake. 3, 22, 19, and 27 patients, respectively, had AJCC stage I to IV disease. Patients received a median total dose of 72 Gy to the GTV, 64.8 Gy to the elective PTV, and 54 Gy to the clinically negative neck region.

Results

At a median follow-up of 41 months (range 0.2 to 67 months), no patient has recurred locally. Two patients with stage IIb disease, both of whom received chemotherapy, recurred regionally. Ten patients developed distant metastases. One died from progressive disease with initial proved bony metastasis. Two patients with stage IIb disease, both of whom received chemotherapy, experienced neck node recurrence. 5-year locoregional control rate was 97%; freedom from distant metastases was 84.6% at 5 years. No evidence of disease was detected in 13 early stage (I/IIa/IIb) patients who did not receive chemotherapy. Acute grade 3 toxicity occurred in four patients and grade 4 in two patients. Late toxicities were low, with no grade 3+ xerostomia, grade 2 xerostomia in two patients (3%), and grade 3 hearing loss in two patients (3%).

Conclusions

HT resulted in excellent long-term disease control and survival in heterogeneous NPC patients. Generally mild acute and late toxicity, with low rates of xerostomia, were obtained. Image-guided HT offers the ability to deliver conformal, OAR-sparing dose distributions to a wide variety of NPC patients with good long-term clinical outcomes.

Multi-institutional comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy vs. intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head-and-neck cancer: a planning study

Background

Compared to static beam Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT), the main advantage of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) is a shortened delivery time, which leads to improved patient comfort and possibly smaller intra-fraction movements. This study aims at a treatment planner-independent comparison of radiotherapy treatment planning of IMRT and VMAT for head-and-neck cancer performed by several institutes and based on the same CT- and contouring data.

Methods

Five institutes generated IMRT and VMAT plans for five oropharyngeal cancer patients using either Pinnacle³ or Oncentra Masterplan to be delivered on Elekta linear accelerators.

Results

Comparison of VMAT and IMRT plans within the same patient and institute showed significantly better sparing for almost all OARs with VMAT. The average mean dose to the parotid glands and oral cavity was reduced from 27.2 Gy and 39.4 Gy for IMRT to 25.0 Gy and 36.7 Gy for VMAT, respectively. The dose conformity at 95% of the prescribed dose for PTV_boost and PTV_total was 1.45 and 1.62 for IMRT and 1.37 and 1.50 for VMAT, respectively. The average effective delivery time was reduced from 13:15 min for IMRT to 5:54 min for VMAT.

Conclusions

Independently of institution-specific optimization strategies, the quality of the VMAT plans including double arcs was superior to step-and-shoot IMRT plans including 5–9 beam ports, while the effective treatment delivery time was shortened by ~50% with VMAT.

Quantitative analysis of normal tissue effects in the clinic (QUANTEC) guideline validation using quality of life questionnaire datasets for parotid gland constraints to avoid causing xerostomia during head-and-neck radiotherapy

PURPOSE

To perform a validation test of the quantitative analysis of normal tissue effects in the clinic (QUANTEC) guidelines against quality of life (QoL) questionnaire datasets collected prospectively from patients with head and neck (HN) cancers, including HN squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) and nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

QoL questionnaire datasets from 95 patients with NPC and 142 with HNSCC were analyzed separately. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer H&N35 QoL questionnaire was used as the endpoint evaluation. The primary endpoint (grade 3(+) xerostomia) was defined as moderate to severe xerostomia 3 and 12 months after the completion of RT, and excluded patients with grade 3(+) xerostomia at the baseline. The Lyman-Kutcher-Burman normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) model was used to describe the incidence of xerostomia. Negative predictive values (NPVs) were used to determine the rate of correctly predicting the lack of complications.

RESULTS

NTCP fitted parameters were TD₅₀=37.8 Gy (CI: 29.1-46.9 Gy), m=0.59 (CI: 0.48-0.80) and TD50=43.9 Gy (CI: 33.2-52.8 Gy), m=0.48 (CI: 0.37-0.76) at the 3-month and 12-month time points, respectively. For QUANTEC validation, HN and HNSCC data validation gave similar results at 3 months; at mean doses to the spared parotid of ≤20 and ≤25 Gy, the QoL dataset showed approximately 22% and 28% rates of xerostomia, respectively. At 12 months, the rates of xerostomia were approximately 13% and 19%, respectively. For NPC cases, the dataset showed approximately 0% and 33% (∼67% NPV) rates of xerostomia at 3 months. At 12 months, both rates of xerostomia were approximately 0% (∼100% NPV), which differed significantly from the results for the HNSCC cohort.

CONCLUSION

The QoL datasets validated the QUANTEC guidelines and suggested that the modified QUANTEC 20/20-Gy spared-gland guideline is suitable for clinical use in HNSCC cohorts to effectively avoid xerostomia, and the QUANTEC 25-Gy guideline is justified for NPC cohorts.

Phase I/II study of induction chemotherapy plus concurrent chemotherapy and SMART-IMRT-based radiotherapy in locoregionally-advanced nasopharyngeal cancer

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy, toxicity and tolerability of simultaneous modulated accelerated radiation therapy (SMART)-intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plus cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) chemotherapy for patients with advanced nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC). Forty-five patients with stage II–IV NPC, determined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer system, were treated with prescribed doses of 72 Gy total to the gross tumor volume, 60 Gy to the clinical target volume and metastatic nodal station, and 54 Gy to the clinically-negative neck region. Before radiotherapy, two cycles of cisplatin (30 mg/m²/day on days 1–3) plus 5-FU (400 mg/m²/day on days 1–5) were delivered every three weeks for two cycles. Patients received two cycles of cisplatin (30 mg/m² day on days 1–3) every three weeks during radiotherapy. In addition, two cycles of cisplatin and 5-FU were given after radiation. All patients completed the prescribed radiotherapy and all scheduled cycles of chemotherapy. Thirty of the 45 patients (66.6%) had a complete response at the end of treatment. Grade 3 mucositis occurred in 4/45 patients (8.8%) and grade 3 dermatitis occurred in 5/45 (11.1%) during radiotherapy. Grade 3 neutropenia occurred in 6/45 (13.3%) during concurrent chemotherapy. There was no treatment-related mortality. After a median follow-up time of 51 months, only three patients’ treatments had failed. Local and distant failure rates were 1.5 and 3.0%, respectively. SMART-IMRT plus cisplatin and 5-FU chemotherapy showed promising activity with manageable toxicity. It is a feasible regimen and improves locoregional disease control.