V. Cosgrove

Radiation-induced second primary cancer risks from modern external beam radiotherapy for early prostate cancer: impact of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and flattening filter free (FFF) radiotherapy

Risks of radiation-induced second primary cancer following prostate radiotherapy using 3D-conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), flattening filter free (FFF) and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) were evaluated. Prostate plans were created using 10u2009MV 3D-CRT (78u2009Gy in 39 fractions) and 6u2009MV 5-field IMRT (78u2009Gy in 39 fractions), VMAT (78u2009Gy in 39 fractions, with standard flattened and energy-matched FFF beams) and SABR (42.7u2009Gy in 7 fractions with standard flattened and energy-matched FFF beams). Dose-volume histograms from pelvic planning CT scans of three prostate patients, each planned using all 6 techniques, were used to calculate organ equivalent doses (OED) and excess absolute risks (EAR) of second rectal and bladder cancers, and pelvic bone and soft tissue sarcomas, using mechanistic, bell-shaped and plateau models. For organs distant to the treatment field, chamber measurements recorded in an anthropomorphic phantom were used to calculate OEDs and EARs using a linear model. Ratios of OED give relative radiation-induced second cancer risks. SABR resulted in lower second cancer risks at all sites relative to 3D-CRT. FFF resulted in lower second cancer risks in out-of-field tissues relative to equivalent flattened techniques, with increasing impact in organs at greater distances from the field. For example, FFF reduced second cancer risk by up to 20% in the stomach and up to 56% in the brain, relative to the equivalent flattened technique. Relative to 10u2009MV 3D-CRT, 6u2009MV IMRT or VMAT with flattening filter increased second cancer risks in several out-of-field organs, by up to 26% and 55%, respectively. For all techniques, EARs were consistently low. The observed large relative differences between techniques, in absolute terms, were very low, highlighting the importance of considering absolute risks alongside the corresponding relative risks, since when absolute risks are very low, large relative risks become less meaningful. A calculated relative radiation-induced second cancer risk benefit from SABR and FFF techniques was theoretically predicted, although absolute radiation-induced second cancer risks were low for all techniques, and absolute differences between techniques were small.

Prostate Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy Using Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy to Dominant Intraprostatic Lesions

Purpose To investigate boosting dominant intraprostatic lesions (DILs) in the context of stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) and to examine the impact on tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP). Methods and Materials Ten prostate datasets were selected. DILs were defined using T2-weighted, dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Four plans were produced for each dataset: (1) no boost to DILs; (2) boost to DILs, no seminal vesicles in prescription; (3) boost to DILs, proximal seminal vesicles (proxSV) prescribed intermediate dose; and (4) boost to DILs, proxSV prescribed higher dose. The prostate planning target volume (PTV) prescription was 42.7 Gy in 7 fractions. DILs were initially prescribed 115% of the PTVProstate prescription, and PTVDIL prescriptions were increased in 5% increments until organ-at-risk constraints were reached. TCP and NTCP calculations used the LQ-Poisson Marsden, and Lyman-Kutcher-Burman models respectively. Results When treating the prostate alone, the median PTVDIL prescription was 125% (range: 110%-140%) of the PTVProstate prescription. Median PTVDIL D50% was 55.1 Gy (range: 49.6-62.6 Gy). The same PTVDIL prescriptions and similar PTVDIL median doses were possible when including the proxSV within the prescription. TCP depended on prostate α/β ratio and was highest with an α/β ratio = 1.5 Gy, where the additional TCP benefit of DIL boosting was least. Rectal NTCP increased with DIL boosting and was considered unacceptably high in 5 cases, which, when replanned with an emphasis on reducing maximum dose to 0.5 cm3 of rectum (Dmax0.5cc), as well as meeting existing constraints, resulted in considerable rectal NTCP reductions. Conclusions Boosting DILs in the context of SABR is technically feasible but should be approached with caution. If this therapy is adopted, strict rectal constraints are required including Dmax0.5cc. If the α/β ratio of prostate cancer is 1.5 Gy or less, then high TCP and low NTCP can be achieved by prescribing SABR to the whole prostate, without the need for DIL boosting.

Feasibility of portal dosimetry for flattening filter-free radiotherapy

The feasibility of using portal dosimetry (PD) to verify 6 MV flattening filter‐free (FFF) IMRT treatments was investigated. An Elekta Synergy linear accelerator with an Agility collimator capable of delivering FFF beams and a standard iViewGT amorphous silicon (aSi) EPID panel (RID 1640 AL5P) at a fixed SSD of 160 cm were used. Dose rates for FFF beams are up to four times higher than for conventional flattened beams, meaning images taken at maximum FFF dose rate can saturate the EPID. A dose rate of 800 MU/min was found not to saturate the EPID for open fields. This dose rate was subsequently used to characterize the EPID for FFF portal dosimetry. A range of open and phantom fields were measured with both an ion chamber and the EPID, to allow comparison between the two. The measured data were then used to create a model within The Nederlands Kanker Instituuts (NKIs) portal dosimetry software. The model was verified using simple square fields with a range of field sizes and phantom thicknesses. These were compared to calculations performed with the Monaco treatment planning system (TPS) and isocentric ion chamber measurements. It was found that the results for the FFF verification were similar to those for flattened beams with testing on square fields, indicating a difference in dose between the TPS and portal dosimetry of approximately 1%. Two FFF IMRT plans (prostate and lung SABR) were delivered to a homogeneous phantom and showed an overall dose difference at isocenter of ∼0.5% and good agreement between the TPS and PD dose distributions. The feasibility of using the NKI software without any modifications for high‐dose‐rate FFF beams and using a standard EPID detector has been investigated and some initial limitations highlighted. PACS number: 87.55.QrThe feasibility of using portal dosimetry (PD) to verify 6 MV flattening filter-free (FFF) IMRT treatments was investigated. An Elekta Synergy linear accelerator with an Agility collimator capable of delivering FFF beams and a standard iViewGT amorphous silicon (aSi) EPID panel (RID 1640 AL5P) at a fixed SSD of 160 cm were used. Dose rates for FFF beams are up to four times higher than for conventional flattened beams, meaning images taken at maximum FFF dose rate can saturate the EPID. A dose rate of 800 MU/min was found not to saturate the EPID for open fields. This dose rate was subsequently used to characterize the EPID for FFF portal dosimetry. A range of open and phantom fields were measured with both an ion chamber and the EPID, to allow comparison between the two. The measured data were then used to create a model within The Nederlands Kanker Instituuts (NKIs) portal dosimetry software. The model was verified using simple square fields with a range of field sizes and phantom thicknesses. These were compared to calculations performed with the Monaco treatment planning system (TPS) and isocentric ion chamber measurements. It was found that the results for the FFF verification were similar to those for flattened beams with testing on square fields, indicating a difference in dose between the TPS and portal dosimetry of approximately 1%. Two FFF IMRT plans (prostate and lung SABR) were delivered to a homogeneous phantom and showed an overall dose difference at isocenter of ∼0.5% and good agreement between the TPS and PD dose distributions. The feasibility of using the NKI software without any modifications for high-dose-rate FFF beams and using a standard EPID detector has been investigated and some initial limitations highlighted. PACS number: 87.55.Qr.

Unintended doses in radiotherapy—over, under and outside?

Radiotherapy is a safe treatment; nevertheless, national reporting of serious incidents allows investigation of potential harm to individuals and failing safety culture. UK guidance has previously been limited to overexposures, but underexposures will be included in thexa0new legislation, and positioning errors have also been explicitly included in recent guidance. This commentary reviews current guidance and suggests practical approaches to the additional categories, including the definition of a local error margin.

PO-0827: Elekta AgilityTM FFF for Lung VMAT SABR.

Conclusions: The Eclipse planning system is able to achieve a comparable plan quality for Elekta VMAT delivery technique to that of fixed field IMRT in terms of target coverage and critical structure sparing using optimizing templates without operator interference. Plans with 2 arcs show less exceeding of the objectives than plans with 1 arc. In the VMAT cases where the objectives are not met, adapting the optimizing parameters once results in an improvement of the target coverage and OAR sparing.