Johan P. Cuijpers

Volumetric Intensity-Modulated Arc Therapy Vs. Conventional IMRT in Head-and-Neck Cancer: A Comparative Planning and Dosimetric Study

PURPOSE Volumetric intensity-modulated arc therapy (RA) allows for rapid delivery of highly conformal dose distributions. In this study, planning and dosimetry of RA were compared with conventional intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans of head-and-neck cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS Computed tomography scans of 12 patients who had completed IMRT for advanced tumors of the naso-, oro- and hypopharynx were replanned using RA using either one or two arcs. Calculated doses to planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OAR) were compared between IMRT and RA plans. Dose distributions for single arc (n = 8) and double arc (n = 4) plans were verified using film dosimetry in three to five coronal planes using a quality assurance phantom. RESULTS RA plans allowed for a mean reduction in number of monitor units (MU) by nearly 60%, relative to seven field sliding window IMRT plans. RA plans achieved similar sparing of all OAR as IMRT. Double arc RA provided the best dose homogeneity to PTV with a lower standard deviation of PTV dose (1.4 Gy), vs. single arc plans (2.0 Gy) and IMRT (1.7 Gy). Film measurements showed good correspondence with calculated doses; the mean gamma value was 0.30 (double arc) and area of the film with a gamma exceeding 1 was 0.82%. CONCLUSIONS RA is a fast, safe, and accurate technique that uses lower MUs than conventional IMRT. Double arc plans provided at least similar sparing of OAR and better PTV dose homogeneity than single arc or IMRT.

Recommendations for implementing stereotactic radiotherapy in peripheral stage IA non-small cell lung cancer: report from the Quality Assurance Working Party of the randomised phase III ROSEL study

BackgroundA phase III multi-centre randomised trial (ROSEL) has been initiated to establish the role of stereotactic radiotherapy in patients with operable stage IA lung cancer. Due to rapid changes in radiotherapy technology and evolving techniques for image-guided delivery, guidelines had to be developed in order to ensure uniformity in implementation of stereotactic radiotherapy in this multi-centre study.Methods/DesignA Quality Assurance Working Party was formed by radiation oncologists and clinical physicists from both academic as well as non-academic hospitals that had already implemented stereotactic radiotherapy for lung cancer. A literature survey was conducted and consensus meetings were held in which both the knowledge from the literature and clinical experience were pooled. In addition, a planning study was performed in 26 stage I patients, of which 22 were stage 1A, in order to develop and evaluate the planning guidelines. Plans were optimised according to parameters adopted from RTOG trials using both an algorithm with a simple homogeneity correction (Type A) and a more advanced algorithm (Type B). Dose conformity requirements were then formulated based on these results.ConclusionBased on current literature and expert experience, guidelines were formulated for this phase III study of stereotactic radiotherapy versus surgery. These guidelines can serve to facilitate the design of future multi-centre clinical trials of stereotactic radiotherapy in other patient groups and aid a more uniform implementation of this technique outside clinical trials.

Rapid delivery of stereotactic radiotherapy for peripheral lung tumors using volumetric intensity-modulated arcs

The delivery of high dose conventional stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for patients with stage I lung tumors generally takes 30-45min per fraction. The novel volumetric intensity-modulated arc therapy (RA) for planning and delivery enabled much faster treatment for three patients with different fractionation schemes. This reduces the risk of intrafraction motion and is more patient friendly. In addition, in comparison to the conventional plans using 10 static non-coplanar fields, RA plans achieved superior dose conformity around the PTV and reduced chest wall doses.

Stereotactic radiotherapy for peripheral lung tumors: A comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy with 3 other delivery techniques

PURPOSE Volumetric modulated arc therapy (RapidArc) allows for fast delivery of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) delivery in stage I lung tumors. We compared dose distributions and delivery times between RapidArc and common delivery techniques in small tumors. METHODS In 18 patients who completed RapidArc SBRT for tumors measuring <70 cm(3), new treatment plans were generated using non-coplanar 3D conformal fields (conf-SBRT) and dynamic conformal arc radiotherapy (DCA). For 9 patients with tumors adjacent to the chest wall, co-planar intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans were also generated. PTV dose coverage, organs at risk (OAR) doses and treatment delivery times were assessed. RESULTS RapidArc plans achieved a superior conformity index (CI) and lower V(45 Gy) to chest wall (p<0.05) compared to all other techniques. RapidArc led to a small increase in V(5 Gy) to contralateral lung compared to conf-SBRT (4.4±4% versus 1.2±1.8%, p=0.011). For other OAR, RapidArc and conf-SBRT plans were comparable, and both were superior to DCA plans. Delivery of a 7.5 Gy-fraction required 3.9 min (RapidArc), 11.6 min (conf-SBRT), and 12 min (IMRT). CONCLUSIONS In stage I lung tumors measuring <70 cm(3), RapidArc plans achieved both the highest dose conformity and shortest delivery times.

DOSIMETRIC IMPACT OF INTERPLAY EFFECT ON RAPIDARC LUNG STEREOTACTIC TREATMENT DELIVERY

PURPOSE Volumetric modulated arc therapy (RapidArc; Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) allows fast delivery of stereotactic radiotherapy for Stage I lung tumors. We investigated discrepancies between the calculated and delivered dose distributions, as well as the dosimetric impact of leaf interplay with breathing-induced tumor motion. METHODS AND MATERIALS In 20 consecutive patients with Stage I lung cancer who completed RapidArc delivery, 15 had tumor motion exceeding 5 mm on four-dimensional computed tomography scan. Static and dynamic measurements were performed with Gafchromic EBT film (International Specialty Products Inc., Wayne, NJ) in a Quasar motion phantom (Modus Medical Devices, London, Ontario, Canada). Static measurements were compared with calculated dose distributions, and dynamic measurements were compared with the convolution of static measurements with sinusoidal motion patterns. Besides clinical treatment plans, additional cases were optimized to create excessive multileaf collimator modulation and delivered on the phantom with peak-to-peak motions of up to 25 mm. γ Analysis with a 3% dose difference and 2- or 1-mm distance to agreement was used to evaluate the accuracy of delivery and the dosimetric impact of the interplay effect. RESULTS In static mode film dosimetry of the two-arc delivery in the phantom showed that, on average, fewer than 3% of measurements had γ greater than 1. Dynamic measurements of clinical plans showed a high degree of agreement with the convolutions: for double-arc plans, 99.5% met the γ criterion. The degree of agreement was 98.5% for the plans with excessive multileaf collimator modulations and 25 mm of motion. CONCLUSIONS Film dosimetry shows that RapidArc accurately delivers the calculated dose distribution and that interplay between leaves and tumor motion is not significant for single-fraction treatments when RapidArc is delivered with two different arcs.

Fast Arc Delivery for Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy of Vertebral and Lung Tumors

PURPOSE Flattening filter-free (FFF) beams with higher dose rates and faster delivery are now clinically available. The purpose of this planning study was to compare optimized non-FFF and FFF RapidArc plans for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and to validate the accuracy of fast arc delivery. METHODS AND MATERIAL Ten patients with peripheral lung tumors and 10 with vertebral metastases were planned using RapidArc with a flattened 6-MV photon beam and a 10-MV FFF beam for fraction doses of 7.5-18 Gy. Dosimetry of the target and organs at risk (OAR), number of monitor units (MU), and beam delivery times were assessed. GafChromic EBT2 film measurements of FFF plans were performed to compare calculated and delivered dose distributions. RESULTS No major dosimetric differences were seen between the two delivery techniques. For lung SBRT plans, conformity indices and OAR doses were similar, although the average MU required were higher with FFF plans. For vertebral SBRT, FFF plans provided comparable PTV coverage, with no significant differences in OAR doses. Average beam delivery times were reduced by a factor of up to 2.5, with all FFF fractions deliverable within 4 min. Measured FFF plans showed high agreement with calculated plans, with more than 99% of the area within the region of interest fulfilling the acceptance criterion. CONCLUSION The higher dose rate of FFF RapidArc reduces delivery times significantly, without compromising plan quality or accuracy of dose delivery.

The accuracy of frameless stereotactic intracranial radiosurgery.

PURPOSE To determine the accuracy of frameless stereotactic radiosurgery using the BrainLAB ExacTrac system and robotic couch by measuring the individual contributions such as the accuracy of the imaging and couch correction system, the linkage between this system and the linac isocenter and the possible intrafraction motion of the patient in the frameless mask. MATERIALS AND METHODS An Alderson head phantom with hidden marker was randomly positioned 31 times. Automated 6D couch shifts were performed according to ExacTrac and the deviation with respect to the linac isocenter was measured using the hidden marker. ExacTrac-based set-up was performed for 46 patients undergoing hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for 135 fractions, followed by verification X-rays. Forty-three of these patients received post-treatment X-ray verification for 79 fractions to determine the intrafraction motion. RESULTS The hidden target test revealed a systematic error of 1.5 mm in one direction, which was corrected after replacement of the system calibration phantom. The accuracy of the ExacTrac positioning is approximately 0.3 mm in each direction, 1 standard deviation. The intrafraction motion was 0.35±0.21 mm, maximum 1.15 mm. CONCLUSION Intrafraction motion in the BrainLAB frameless mask is very small. Users are strongly advised to perform an independent verification of the ExacTrac isocenter in order to avoid systematic deviations.

QUALITY ASSURANCE OF 4D-CT SCAN TECHNIQUES IN MULTICENTER PHASE III TRIAL OF SURGERY VERSUS STEREOTACTIC RADIOTHERAPY (RADIOSURGERY OR SURGERY FOR OPERABLE EARLY STAGE (STAGE 1A) NON-SMALL-CELL LUNG CANCER [ROSEL] STUDY)

PURPOSE To determine the accuracy of four-dimensional computed tomography (4D-CT) scanning techniques in institutions participating in a Phase III trial of surgery vs. stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT) for lung cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS All 9 centers performed a 4D-CT scan of a motion phantom (Quasar, Modus Medical Devices) in accordance with their in-house imaging protocol for SBRT. A cylindrical cedar wood insert with plastic spheres of 15 mm (ø15) and 30 mm (ø30) diameter was moved in a cosine-based pattern, with an extended period in the exhale position to mimic the actual breathing motion. A range of motion of R = 15 and R = 25 mm and breathing period of T = 3 and T = 6 s were used. Positional and volumetric imaging accuracy was analyzed using Pinnacle version 8.1× at various breathing phases, including the mid-ventilation phase and maximal intensity projections of the spheres. RESULTS Imaging using eight CT scanners (Philips, Siemens, GE) and one positron emission tomography-CT scanner (Institution 3, Siemens) was investigated. The imaging protocols varied widely among the institutions. No strong correlation was found between the specific scan protocol parameters and the observed results. Deviations in the maximal intensity projection volumes averaged 1.9% (starting phase of the breathing cycle [ø]15, R = 15), 12.3% (ø15, R = 25), and -0.9% (ø30, R = 15). The end-expiration volume deviations (13.4%, ø15 and 2.5%, ø30), were, on average, smaller than the end-inspiration deviations (20.7%, ø15 and 4.5%, ø30), which, in turn, were smaller than the mid-ventilation deviations (32.6%, ø15 and 8.0%, ø30). A slightly larger variation in the mid-ventilation origin position was observed (mean, -0.2 mm; range, -3.6-4.2) than in the maximal intensity projection origin position (mean, -0.1 mm; range, -2.5-2.5). The range of motion was generally underestimated (mean, -1.5 mm; range, -5.5-1). CONCLUSIONS Notable differences were seen in the 4D-CT imaging protocols for SBRT among centers. However, the observed deviations in target volumes were generally small. They were slightly larger for the mid-ventilation phases and smallest for the end-expiration phases. Steps to optimize and standardize the 4D-CT scanning protocols for SBRT are desirable.

Impact of Audio-Coaching on the Position of Lung Tumors

PURPOSE Respiration-induced organ motion is a major source of positional, or geometric, uncertainty in thoracic radiotherapy. Interventions to mitigate the impact of motion include audio-coached respiration-gated radiotherapy (RGRT). To assess the impact of coaching on average tumor position during gating, we analyzed four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) scans performed both with and without audio-coaching. METHODS AND MATERIALS Our RGRT protocol requires that an audio-coached 4DCT scan is performed when the initial free-breathing 4DCT indicates a potential benefit with gating. We retrospectively analyzed 22 such paired scans in patients with well-circumscribed tumors. Changes in lung volume and position of internal target volumes (ITV) generated in three consecutive respiratory phases at both end-inspiration and end-expiration were analyzed. RESULTS Audio-coaching increased end-inspiration lung volumes by a mean of 10.2% (range, -13% to +43%) when compared with free breathing (p = 0.001). The mean three-dimensional displacement of the center of ITV was 3.6 mm (SD, 2.5; range, 0.3-9.6mm), mainly caused by displacement in the craniocaudal direction. Displacement of ITV caused by coaching was more than 5 mm in 5 patients, all of whom were in the subgroup of 9 patients showing total tumor motion of 10 mm or more during both coached and uncoached breathing. Comparable ITV displacements were observed at end-expiration phases of the 4DCT. CONCLUSIONS Differences in ITV position exceeding 5 mm between coached and uncoached 4DCT scans were detected in up to 56% of mobile tumors. Both end-inspiration and end-expiration RGRT were susceptible to displacements. This indicates that the method of audio-coaching should remain unchanged throughout the course of treatment.

Flattening Filter Free vs Flattened Beams for Breast Irradiation

PURPOSE Flattening filter free (FFF) beams offer the potential for a higher dose rate, shorter treatment time, and lower peripheral dose. To investigate their role in large-field treatments, this study compared flattened and FFF beams for breast irradiation. METHODS AND MATERIALS Ten left breast clinical plans comprising 2 tangential beams and a medially located 3-field simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) were replanned. Full intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), hybrid IMRT, electronic tissue compensator (ETC), and multiple static field treatment plans were created for the elective breast volume using flattened and FFF beams, in combination with a 3-field IMRT SIB. Plan quality was assessed and delivery times were measured for all plans for 1 patient. Out-of-field doses were measured using an ionization chamber for an IMRT plan optimized on a corner of simple cubic phantom for both flattened and FFF beams. RESULTS For each technique, mean target volume metrics (planning target volume coverage, homogeneity, conformity) were typically within 3% for flattened and FFF beams. Larger mean differences in boost conformity favoring flattened hybrid (7.2%) and full IMRT (5.5%) plans may have reflected limitations in plan normalization. Calculated heart and ipsilateral lung doses were comparable; however, both flattened and FFF low-dose phantom measurements were substantially higher than calculated values, rendering the comparison of low dose in the contralateral breast uncertain. Beam delivery times were on average 31% less for FFF. CONCLUSIONS In general, target volume metrics for flattened and FFF plans were comparable. The planning system did not seem to allow for accurate peripheral dose evaluation. FFF was associated with a potentially shorter treatment time. All 4 IMRT techniques allowed FFF beams to generate acceptable plans for breast IMRT.