E Soisson

Dosimetric comparison of left-sided whole breast irradiation with 3DCRT, forward-planned IMRT, inverse-planned IMRT, helical tomotherapy, and topotherapy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE To compare left-sided whole breast conventional and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment planning techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS Treatment plans were created for 10 consecutive patients. Three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), forward-planned IMRT (for-IMRT), and inverse-planned IMRT (inv-IMRT) used two tangent beams. For-IMRT utilized up to four segments per beam. For helical tomotherapy (HT) plans, beamlet entrance and/or exit to critical structures was blocked. Topotherapy plans, which used static gantry angles with simultaneous couch translation and inverse-planned intensity modulation, used two tangent beams. Plans were normalized to 50Gy to 95% of the retracted PTV. RESULTS Target max doses were reduced with for-IMRT compared to 3DCRT, which were further reduced with HT, topotherapy, and inv-IMRT. HT resulted in lowest heart and ipsilateral lung max doses, but had higher mean doses. Inv-IMRT and topotherapy reduced ipsilateral lung mean and max doses compared to 3DCRT and for-IMRT. CONCLUSIONS All modalities evaluated provide adequate coverage of the intact breast. HT, topotherapy, and inv-IMRT can reduce high doses to the target and normal tissues, although HT results in increased low doses to large volume of normal tissue. For-IMRT improves target homogeneity compared with 3DCRT, but to a lesser degree than the inverse-planned modalities.

A Comprehensive Assessment by Tumor Site of Patient Setup Using Daily MVCT Imaging From More Than 3,800 Helical Tomotherapy Treatments

PURPOSE To assess patient setup corrections based on daily megavoltage CT (MVCT) imaging for four anatomic treatment sites treated on tomotherapy. METHOD AND MATERIALS Translational and rotational setup corrections, based on registration of daily MVCT to planning CT images, were analyzed for 1,179 brain and head and neck (H&N), 1,414 lung, and 1,274 prostate treatment fractions. Frequencies of three-dimensional vector lengths, overall distributions of setup corrections, and patient-specific distributions of random and systematic setup errors were analyzed. RESULTS Brain and H&N had lower magnitude positioning corrections and smaller variations in translational setup errors but were comparable in roll rotations. Three-dimensional vector translational shifts of larger magnitudes occurred more frequently for lung and prostate than for brain and H&N treatments, yet this was not observed for roll rotations. The global systematic error for prostate was 4.7 mm in the vertical direction, most likely due to couch sag caused by large couch extension distances. Variations in systematic errors and magnitudes of random translational errors ranged from 1.6 to 2.6 mm for brain and H&N and 3.2 to 7.2 mm for lung and prostate, whereas roll rotational errors ranged from 0.8 degrees to 1.2 degrees for brain and H&N and 0.5 degrees to 1.0 degrees for lung and prostate. CONCLUSIONS Differences in setup were observed between brain, H&N, lung, and prostate treatments. Patient setup can be improved if daily imaging is performed. This analysis can assess the utilization of daily image guidance and allows for further investigation into improved anatomic site-specific and patient-specific treatments.

Dosimetric verification of helical tomotherapy for total scalp irradiation.

Total scalp irradiation is a treatment technique used for a variety of superficial malignancies. Helical tomotherapy is an effective technique used for total scalp irradiation. Recent published work has shown the TomoTherapy planning system to overestimate the superficial dose. In this study, the superficial doses for a helical tomotherapy total scalp irradiation have been measured on an anthropomorphic phantom using radiochromic and radiographic film as well as a new skin dosimeter, the MOSkin. The superficial dose was found to be accurately calculated by the TomoTherapy planning system. This is in contrast to recent reports, probably due to a combination of the smaller dose grid resolution used in planning and this particular treatment primarily consisting of beamlets tangential to the scalp. The superficial dose was found to increase from 33.6to41.2Gy and 36.0to42.0Gy over the first 2mm depth in the phantom in selected regions of the PTV, measured with radiochromic film. The prescription dose was 40Gy. The superficial dose was at the prescription dose or higher in some regions due to the bolus effect of the thermoplastic head mask and the head rest used to aid treatment setup. It is suggested that to achieve the prescription dose at the surface (⩽2mm depth) bolus or a custom thermoplastic helmet is used.

Image-guided helical Tomotherapy for treatment of spine tumors.

OBJECTIVES One of the most common indications for radiotherapy is treatment of the spine. The vast majority of cases are related to metastatic disease with primary tumors of the spine being rare. Conventional radiation therapy often plays an important role in the management of spine tumors although at times with significant side effects and disadvantages. Furthermore, retreatment of spine tumors is a challenge due to concerns over spinal cord toxicity. In this series, we examine the efficacy of using image-guided helical Tomotherapy and the possible advantages offered by this new technology. PATIENTS AND METHODS Eight patients at Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian were treated between November 2005 and November 2006. The median age was 66 years. Of the eight patients, seven had metastatic disease with one patient having a primary neuroendocrine tumor of the spine. Five patients were previously treated to the spine with conventional radiation planning. Two patients received single fraction stereotactic radiosurgery (15 Gy) while the remaining patients received hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy to a median total dose of 2,500 cGy in 500 cGy fractions. RESULTS At the time of last follow-up, radiographic control was seen in all eight patients with a median local control rate of 2.5 months (range of 1-5.8 months). Four of the eight patients are still alive with median overall survival of 5.1 months (range 1.4-6.9 months). Acute toxicity ranged from Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) score 0-2 and no patients experienced late complications of radiation myelitis. CONCLUSIONS The TomoTherapy Hi-ART system can be an alternative treatment option for upfront or retreatment of spine tumors. Minimal acute and late toxicity were seen in patients treated with Tomotherapy. Intensity-modulated radiation delivery combined with megavoltage CT image guidance offered by the TomoTherapy Hi-ART system allows for set-up and delivery accuracy that is required for stereotactic treatment of spine tumors and eliminates the need for any internal or external fiducial marker placement.

Treatment planning to improve delivery accuracy and patient throughput in helical tomotherapy.

PURPOSE To investigate delivery quality assurance (DQA) discrepancies observed for a subset of helical tomotherapy patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS Six tomotherapy patient plans were selected for analysis. Three had passing DQA ion chamber (IC) measurements, whereas 3 had measurements deviating from the expected dose by more than 3.0%. All plans used similar parameters, including: 2.5 cm field-width, 15-s gantry period, and pitch values ranging from 0.143 to 0.215. Preliminary analysis suggested discrepancies were associated with plans having predominantly small leaf open times (LOTs). To test this, patients with failing DQA measurements were replanned using an increased pitch of 0.287. New DQA plans were generated and IC measurements performed. Exit fluence data were also collected during DQA delivery for dose reconstruction purposes. RESULTS Sinogram analysis showed increases in mean LOTs ranging from 29.8% to 83.1% for the increased pitch replans. IC measurements for these plans showed a reduction in dose discrepancies, bringing all measurements within +/-3.0%. The replans were also more efficient to deliver, resulting in reduced treatment times. Dose reconstruction results were in excellent agreement with IC measurements, illustrating the impact of leaf-timing inaccuracies on plans having predominantly small LOTs. CONCLUSIONS The impact of leaf-timing inaccuracies on plans with small mean LOTs can be considerable. These inaccuracies result from deviations in multileaf collimator latency from the linear approximation used by the treatment planning system and can be important for plans having a 15-s gantry period. The ability to reduce this effect while improving delivery efficiency by increasing the pitch is demonstrated.

On the impact of longitudinal breathing motion randomness for tomotherapy delivery.

The purpose of this study is to explain the unplanned longitudinal dose modulations that appear in helical tomotherapy (HT) dose distributions in the presence of irregular patient breathing. This explanation is developed by the use of longitudinal (1D) simulations of mock and surrogate data and tested with a fully 4D HT delivered plan. The 1D simulations use a typical mock breathing function which allows more flexibility to adjust various parameters. These simplified simulations are then made more realistic by using 100 surrogate waveforms all similarly scaled to produce longitudinal breathing displacements. The results include the observation that, with many waveforms used simultaneously, a voxel-by-voxel probability of a dose error from breathing is found to be proportional to the realistically random breathing amplitude relative to the beam width if the PTV is larger than the beam width and the breathing displacement amplitude. The 4D experimental test confirms that regular breathing will not result in these modulations because of the insensitivity to leaf motion for low-frequency dynamics such as breathing. These modulations mostly result from a varying average of the breathing displacements along the beam edge gradients. Regular breathing has no displacement variation over many breathing cycles. Some low-frequency interference is also possible in real situations. In the absence of more sophisticated motion management, methods that reduce the breathing amplitude or make the breathing very regular are indicated. However, for typical breathing patterns and magnitudes, motion management techniques may not be required with HT because typical breathing occurs mostly between fundamental HT treatment temporal and spatial scales. A movement beyond only discussing margins is encouraged for intensity modulated radiotherapy such that patient and machine motion interference will be minimized and beneficial averaging maximized. These results are found for homogeneous and longitudinal on-axis delivery for unplanned longitudinal dose modulations.

Comparison of modulated electron radiotherapy to conventional electron boost irradiation and volumetric modulated photon arc therapy for treatment of tumour bed boost in breast cancer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE To compare few leaf electron collimator (FLEC)-based modulated electron radiotherapy (MERT) to conventional direct electron (DE) and volumetric modulated photon arc therapy (VMAT) for the treatment of tumour bed boost in breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS Fourteen patients with breast cancer treated by lumpectomy and requiring post-operative whole breast radiotherapy with tumour bed boost were planned retrospectively using conventional DE, VMAT and FLEC-based MERT. The planning goal was to deliver 10Gy to at least 95% of the tumour bed volume. Dosimetry parameters for all techniques were compared. RESULTS Dose evaluation volume (DEV) coverage and homogeneity were best for MERT (D(98)=9.77Gy, D(2)=11.03Gy) followed by VMAT (D(98)=9.56Gy, D(2)=11.07Gy) and DE (D(98)=9.81Gy, D(2)=11.52Gy). Relative to the DE plans, the MERT plans predicted a reduction of 35% in mean breast dose (p<0.05), 54% in mean lung dose (p<0.05) and 46% in mean body dose (p<0.05). Relative to the VMAT plans, the MERT plans predicted a reduction of 24%, 36% and 39% in mean breast dose, heart dose and body dose, respectively (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS MERT plans were a considerable improvement in dosimetry over DE boost plans. There was a dosimetric advantage in using MERT over VMAT for increased DEV conformity and low-dose sparing of healthy tissue including the integral dose; however, the cost is often an increase in the ipsilateral lung high-dose volume.

Dose homogeneity specification for reference dosimetry of nonstandard fields

PURPOSE To investigate the sensitivity of the plan-class specific correction factor to dose distributions in composite nonstandard field dosimetry. METHODS A cylindrical water-filled PMMA phantom was constructed at the center of which reference absorbed dose could be measured. Ten different TomoTherapy(®)-based IMRT fields were created on the CT images of the phantom. The dose distribution for each IMRT field was estimated at the position of a radiation detector or ionization chamber. The dose in each IMRT field normalized to that in a reference 10 × 10 cm(2) field was measured using a PTW micro liquid ion chamber. Based on the new dosimetry formalism, a plan-class specific correction factor k(Q(pcsr),Q) (f(pcsr),f(ref)) for each field was measured for two Farmer-type chambers, Exradin A12 and NE2571, as well as for a smaller Exradin A1SL chamber. The dependence of the measured correction factor on parameters characterizing dose distribution was analyzed. RESULTS Uncertainty on the plan-class specific correction factor measurement was in the range of 0.3%-0.5% and 0.3%-0.8% for the Farmer-type chambers and the Exradin A1SL, respectively. When the heterogeneity of the central region of the target volume was less than 5%, the correction factor did not differ from unity by more than 0.7% for the three air-filled ionization chambers. For more heterogeneous dose deliveries, the correction factor differed from unity by up to 2.4% for the Farmer-type chambers. For the Exradin A1SL, the correction factor was closer to unity due to the reduced effect of dose gradients, while it was highly variable in different IMRT fields because of a more significant impact of positioning uncertainties on the response of this chamber. CONCLUSIONS The authors have shown that a plan-class specific correction factor can be specified as a function of plan evaluation parameters especially for Farmer-type chambers. This work provides a recipe based on quantifying dose distribution to accurately select air-filled ionization chamber correction factors for nonstandard fields.

Helical Tomotherapy Quality Assurance

Helical tomotherapy uses a dynamic delivery in which the gantry, treatment couch, and multileaf collimator leaves are all in motion during treatment. This results in highly conformal radiotherapy, but the complexity of the delivery is partially hidden from the end-user because of the extensive integration and automation of the tomotherapy control systems. This presents a challenge to the medical physicist who is expected to be both a system user and an expert, capable of verifying relevant aspects of treatment delivery. A related issue is that a clinical tomotherapy planning system arrives at a customers site already commissioned by the manufacturer, not by the clinical physicist. The clinical physicist and the manufacturers representative verify the commissioning at the customer site before acceptance. Theoretically, treatment could begin immediately after acceptance. However, the clinical physicist is responsible for the safe and proper use of the machine. In addition, the therapists and radiation oncologists need to understand the important machine characteristics before treatment can proceed. Typically, treatment begins about 2 weeks after acceptance. This report presents an overview of the tomotherapy system. Helical tomotherapy has unique dosimetry characteristics, and some of those features are emphasized. The integrated treatment planning, delivery, and patient-plan quality assurance process is described. A quality assurance protocol is proposed, with an emphasis on what a clinical medical physicist could and should check. Additionally, aspects of a tomotherapy quality assurance program that could be checked automatically and remotely because of its inherent imaging system and integrated database are discussed.

A comparison of helical tomotherapy to circular collimator-based linear-accelerator radiosurgery for the treatment of brain metastases.

Purpose:To compare stereotactic radiosurgery treatment plans for the treatment of patients with brain metastases generated using Tomotherapy and a circular collimator-based SRS approach. Materials and Methods:Twenty patients, previously treated with circular collimator-based radiosurgery, were replanned using Tomotherapy treatment planning software. Tomotherapy planning emphasized dose fall off peripheral to the target by allowing for inhomogeneous target coverage. Conformity and dose falloff were compared with the circular collimator-based plans using the following metrics: prescription isodose to tumor volume ratio, conformation number, and homogeneity index to assess effects on targets, whereas a combined conformity gradient index and the volume of the 12-Gy isodose volume were used to assess differences in dose to normal brain. Results:Although a similar homogeneity index was achieved for both sets of plans, plan conformity was generally improved using the tomotherapy system whereas dose falloff at the target periphery was shallower. The 12-Gy isodose volume increased on average by 3.4 mL (range, −1.9 to +12.1 mL), for the 20 patients studied, but in spite of this, based on modeled predictions, the risk for symptomatic radiation necrosis associated with Tomotherapy SRS for each patient still falls within the clinically observed ranges for Gamma Knife SRS. Conclusion:Tomotherapy can be used to create treatment plans that meet the dosimetric and clinical requirements for stereotactic radiosurgery.