Jim Cramb

Comparison of CT on Rails With Electronic Portal Imaging for Positioning of Prostate Cancer Patients With Implanted Fiducial Markers

PURPOSE The objective of this investigation was to measure the agreement between in-room computed tomography (CT) on rails and electronic portal image (EPI) radiography. METHODS AND MATERIALS Agreement between the location of the center of gravity (COG) of fiducial markers (FMs) on CT and EPI images was determined in phantom studies and a patient cohort. A secondary analysis between the center of volume (COV) of the prostate on CT and the COG of FMs on CT and EPI was performed. Agreement was defined as the 95% probability of a difference of <or=3.0 mm between images. Systematic and random errors from CT and EPI are reported. RESULTS From 8 patients, 254 CT and EPI pairs were analyzed. FMs were localized to within 3 mm on CT and EPI images 96.9% of the time in the left-right (LR) plane, 85.8% superior-inferior (SI), and 89% anterior-posterior (AP). The differences between the COV on CT and the COG on EPI were not within 3 mm in any plane: 87.8% (LR), 64.2% (SI), and 70.9% (AP). The systematic error varied from 1.2 to 2.9 mm (SI) and 1.8-2.9 mm (AP) between the COG on EPI and COV on CT. CONCLUSIONS Considerable differences between in-room CT and EPI exist. The phantom measurements showed slice thickness affected the accuracy of localization in the SI plane, and couch sag that occurs at the CT on rails gantry could not be totally corrected for in the AP plane. Other confounding factors are the action of rotating the couch and associated time lag between image acquisitions (prostate motion), EPI image quality, and outlining uncertainties.

Small field segments surrounded by large areas only shielded by a multileaf collimator: Comparison of experiments and dose calculation

PURPOSE Complex radiotherapy fields delivered using a tertiary multileaf collimator (MLC) often feature small open segments surrounded by large areas of the beam only shielded by the MLC. The aim of this study was to test the ability of two modern dose calculation algorithms to accurately calculate the dose in these fields which would be common, for example, in volumetric modulated arc treatment (VMAT) and study the impact of variations in dosimetric leaf gap (DLG), focal spot size, and MLC transmission in the beam models. METHODS Nine test fields with small fields (0.6-3 cm side length) surrounded by large MLC shielded areas (secondary collimator 12 × 12 cm(2)) were created using a 6 MV beam from a Varian Clinac iX linear accelerator with 120 leaf MLC. Measurements of output factors and profiles were performed using a diamond detector (PTW) and compared to two dose calculations algorithms anisotropic analytical algorithm [(AAA) and Acuros XB] implemented on a commercial radiotherapy treatment planning system (Varian Eclipse 10). RESULTS Both calculation algorithms predicted output factors within 1% for field sizes larger than 1 × 1 cm(2). For smaller fields AAA tended to underestimate the dose. Profiles were predicted well for all fields except for problems of Acuros XB to model the secondary penumbra between MLC shielded fields and the secondary collimator. A focal spot size of 1 mm or less, DLG 1.4 mm and MLC transmission of 1.4% provided a generally good model for our experimental setup. CONCLUSIONS AAA and Acuros XB were found to predict the dose under small MLC defined field segments well. While DLG and focal spot affect mostly the penumbra, the choice of correct MLC transmission will be essential to model treatments such as VMAT accurately.

A dosimetric comparison of 3D conformal vs intensity modulated vs volumetric arc radiation therapy for muscle invasive bladder cancer

BackgroundTo compare 3 Dimensional Conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) with Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) with Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) for bladder cancer.MethodsRadiotherapy plans for 15 patients with T2-T4N0M0 bladder cancer were prospectively developed for 3-DCRT, IMRT and VMAT using Varian Eclipse planning system. The same radiation therapist carried out all planning and the same clinical dosimetric constraints were used. 10 of the patients with well localised tumours had a simultaneous infield boost (SIB) of the primary tumour planned for both IMRT and VMAT. Tumour control probabilities and normal tissue complication probabilities were calculated.ResultsMean planning time for 3D-CRT, IMRT and VMAT was 30.0, 49.3, and 141.0 minutes respectively. The mean PTV conformity (CI) index for 3D-CRT was 1.32, for IMRT 1.05, and for VMAT 1.05. The PTV Homogeneity (HI) index was 0.080 for 3D-CRT, 0.073 for IMRT and 0.086 for VMAT. Tumour control and normal tissue complication probabilities were similar for 3D-CRT, IMRT and VMAT. The mean monitor units were 267 (range 250–293) for 3D-CRT; 824 (range 641–1083) for IMRT; and 403 (range 333–489) for VMAT (P < 0.05). Average treatment delivery time were 2:25min (range 2:01–3:09) for 3D-CRT; 4:39 (range 3:41–6:40) for IMRT; and 1:14 (range 1:13–1:14) for VMAT. In selected patients, the SIB did not result in a higher dose to small bowel or rectum.ConclusionsVMAT is associated with similar dosimetric advantages as IMRT over 3D-CRT for muscle invasive bladder cancer. VMAT is associated with faster delivery times and less number of mean monitor units than IMRT. SIB is feasible in selected patients with localized tumours.

Adaptive radiotherapy for bladder cancer reduces integral dose despite daily volumetric imaging.

We studied the integral radiation dose in 27 patients who had adaptive radiotherapy for bladder cancer using kilo voltage cone beam CT imaging. Compared to conventional radiotherapy the reduction in margin and choice of best plan of three for the day resulted in a lower total dose in most patients despite daily volumetric imaging.

Seminal vesicle interfraction displacement and margins in image guided radiotherapy for prostate cancer

BackgroundTo analyze interfraction motion of seminal vesicles (SV), and its motion relative to rectal and bladder filling.Methods and MaterialsSV and prostate were contoured on 771 daily computed tomography “on rails” scans from 24 prostate cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy. Random and systematic errors for SV centroid displacement were measured relative to the prostate centroid. Margins required for complete geometric coverage of SV were determined using isotropic expansion of reference contours. SV motion relative to rectum and bladder was determined.ResultsSystematic error for the SV was 1.9 mm left-right (LR), 2.9 mm anterior-posterior (AP) and 3.6 mm superior-inferior (SI). Random error was 1.4 mm (LR), 2.7 mm (AP) and 2.1 mm (SI). 10 mm margins covered the entire left SV and right SV on at least 90% of fractions in 50% and 33% of patients and 15 mm margins covered 88% and 79% respectively. SV AP movement correlated with movement of the most posterior point of the bladder (mean R2 = 0.46, SD = 0.24) and rectal area (mean R2 = 0.38, SD = 0.21).ConclusionsConsiderable interfraction displacement of SV was observed in this cohort of patients. Bladder and rectal parameters correlated with SV movement.

Simple methods to reduce patient dose in a Varian cone beam CT system for delivery verification in pelvic radiotherapy

Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) is a three-dimensional imaging modality that has recently become available on linear accelerators for radiotherapy patient position verification. It was the aim of the present study to implement simple strategies for reduction of the dose delivered in a commercial CBCT system. The dose delivered in a CBCT procedure (Varian, half-fan acquisition, 650 projections, 125 kVp) was assessed using a cylindrical Perspex phantom (diameter, 32 cm) with a calibrated Farmer type ionisation chamber. A copper filter (thickness, 0.15 mm) was introduced increasing the half value layer of the beam from 5.5 mm Al to 8 mm Al. Image quality and noise were assessed using an image quality phantom (CatPhan) while the exposure settings per projection were varied from 25 ms/80 mA to 2 ms/2 mA per projection. Using the copper filter reduced the dose to the phantom from approximately 45 mGy to 30 mGy at standard settings (centre/periphery weighting 1/3 to 2/3). Multiple CBCT images were acquired for six patients with pelvic malignancies to compare CBCTs with and without a copper filter. Although the reconstructed image is somewhat noisier with the filter, it features similar contrast in the centre of the patient and was often preferred by the radiation oncologist because of greater image uniformity. The X-ray shutters were adjusted to the minimum size required to obtain the desired image volume for a given patient diameter. The simple methods described here reduce the effective dose to patients undergoing daily CBCT and are easy to implement, and initial evidence suggests that they do not affect the ability to identify soft tissue for the purpose of treatment verification.

Does inverse-planned intensity-modulated radiation therapy have a role in the treatment of patients with left-sided breast cancer?

Introduction: The purpose of the study was to determine if multi‐field inverse‐planned intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) improves on the sparing of organs at risk (heart, lungs and contralateral breast) when compared with field‐in‐field forward‐planned RT (FiF).

A comparison of in-room computerized tomography options for detection of fiducial markers in prostate cancer radiotherapy.

PURPOSE To compare volumetric in-room computed tomography (CT) and kilovoltage (kV) cone-beam CT (CBCT) to planar imaging with respect to their ability to localize fiducial markers (FMs) for radiotherapy of prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS Image guidance options from two linear accelerators were compared in terms of identifying the center of gravity (COG) of FMs from the isocenter: a Siemens Primatom, where the couch is rotated 180 degrees from the treatment isocenter to the in-room CT vs. electronic portal imaging (EPI); and a Varian OBI system, where kV CBCT, EPI, and planar kV radiographs were compared. In all, 387 image pairs (CBCT = 133; CT = 254) from 18 patients were analyzed. A clinical tolerance of 3 mm was predefined as the acceptable threshold for agreement. RESULTS COG location on in-room CT and EPI was in agreement 96.9%, 85.8%, and 89.0% of the time in the left-right (LR), superior-inferior (SI), and anterior-posterior (AP) directions, respectively, vs. 99.2%, 91.7%, and 93.2% for the CBCT and EPI analysis. The CBCT vs. kV radiographs were in agreement 100% (LR), 85.4% (SI), and 88.5% (AP), and EPI vs. kV radiographs were in agreement 100% (LR), 94.6% (SI), and 91.5% (AP) of the time. CONCLUSION Identification of FMs on volumetric or planar images was found to be not equivalent (+/-3 mm) using either linear accelerator. Intrafraction prostate motion, interpretation of FM location, and spatial properties of images are contributing factors. Although in-room CT has superior image quality, the process of realigning the treatment couch to acquire a CT introduces an error, highlighting the benefits of a single isocentric system.

Benchmarking dosimetric quality assessment of prostate intensity-modulated radiotherapy.

PURPOSE To benchmark the dosimetric quality assessment of prostate intensity-modulated radiotherapy and determine whether the quality is influenced by disease or treatment factors. PATIENTS AND METHODS We retrospectively analyzed the data from 155 consecutive men treated radically for prostate cancer using intensity-modulated radiotherapy to 78 Gy between January 2007 and March 2009 across six radiotherapy treatment centers. The plan quality was determined by the measures of coverage, homogeneity, and conformity. Tumor coverage was measured using the planning target volume (PTV) receiving 95% and 100% of the prescribed dose (V(95%) and V(100%), respectively) and the clinical target volume (CTV) receiving 95% and 100% of the prescribed dose. Homogeneity was measured using the sigma index of the PTV and CTV. Conformity was measured using the lesion coverage factor, healthy tissue conformity index, and the conformity number. Multivariate regression models were created to determine the relationship between these and T stage, risk status, androgen deprivation therapy use, treatment center, planning system, and treatment date. RESULTS The largest discriminatory measurements of coverage, homogeneity, and conformity were the PTV V(95%), PTV sigma index, and conformity number. The mean PTV V(95%) was 92.5% (95% confidence interval, 91.3-93.7%). The mean PTV sigma index was 2.10 Gy (95% confidence interval, 1.90-2.20). The mean conformity number was 0.78 (95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.79). The treatment center independently influenced the coverage, homogeneity, and conformity (all p < .0001). The planning system independently influenced homogeneity (p = .038) and conformity (p = .021). The treatment date independently influenced the PTV V(95%) only, with it being better at the start (p = .013). Risk status, T stage, and the use of androgen deprivation therapy did not influence any aspect of plan quality. CONCLUSION Our study has benchmarked measures of coverage, homogeneity, and conformity for the treatment of prostate cancer using IMRT. The differences seen between centers and planning systems and the coverage deterioration over time highlight the need for every center to determine their own benchmarks and apply clinical vigilance with respect to maintaining these through quality assurance.

Phantom measurements and computed estimates of breast dose with radiotherapy for Hodgkin’s lymphoma: Dose reduction with the use of the involved field*

The risk of breast cancer following radiotherapy for Hodgkin’s lymphoma appears to be dose related. In this study we compared breast dose in an anthropomorphic phantom for conventional ‘mantle’; upper mediastinal/bilateral neck (minimantle) and unilateral neck fields, and evaluated the accuracy of computer planned dose estimates for out‐of‐field doses. For each field, computer‐planned breast dose (CPD) estimates were compared with thermoluminescence dosimetry measurements in five locations within ‘breast tissue’. CPD were also compared with ion chamber measurements in a slab phantom. Measured dose and CPD were within 20% of each other up to approximately 10 cm from the field edge. Beyond 10 cm, the CPD underestimated dose by a factor of 2 or more. The mini‐mantle reduced the breast dose by a factor of approximately 10 compared with the mantle treatment. Treating the neck field lowered the breast dose by a further 50% or more. Modern involved‐field radiotherapy for lymphoma substantially reduces breast dose compared with mantle fields. Computer dosimetery underestimated dose at larger distances from the field. This needs to be considered if computer dosimetery is used to estimate breast dose and, by extrapolation, breast cancer risk.