Will Ansbacher

VOLUMETRIC MODULATED ARC THERAPY IMPROVES DOSIMETRY AND REDUCES TREATMENT TIME COMPARED TO CONVENTIONAL INTENSITY-MODULATED RADIOTHERAPY FOR LOCOREGIONAL RADIOTHERAPY OF LEFT-SIDED BREAST CANCER AND INTERNAL MAMMARY NODES

PURPOSEnVolumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is a novel extension of conventional intensity-modulated radiotherapy (cIMRT), in which an optimized three-dimensional dose distribution may be delivered in a single gantry rotation. VMAT is the predecessor to RapidArc (Varian Medical System). This study compared VMAT with cIMRT and with conventional modified wide-tangent (MWT) techniques for locoregional radiotherapy for left-sided breast cancer, including internal mammary nodes.nnnMETHODS AND MATERIALSnTherapy for 5 patients previously treated with 50 Gy/25 fractions using nine-field cIMRT was replanned with VMAT and MWT. Comparative endpoints were planning target volume (PTV) dose homogeneity, doses to surrounding structures, number of monitor units, and treatment delivery time.nnnRESULTSnFor VMAT, two 190 degrees arcs with 2-cm overlapping jaws were required to optimize over the large treatment volumes. Treatment plans generated using VMAT optimization resulted in PTV homogeneity similar to that of cIMRT and MWT. The average heart volumes receiving >30 Gy for VMAT, cIMRT, and MWT were 2.6% +/- 0.7%, 3.5% +/- 0.8%, and 16.4% +/- 4.3%, respectively, and the average ipsilateral lung volumes receiving >20 Gy were 16.9% +/- 1.1%, 17.3% +/- 0.9%, and 37.3% +/- 7.2%, respectively. The average mean dose to the contralateral medial breast was 3.2 +/- 0.6 Gy for VMAT, 4.3 +/- 0.4 Gy for cIMRT, and 4.4 +/- 4.7 Gy for MWT. The healthy tissue volume percentages receiving 5 Gy were significantly larger with VMAT (33.1% +/- 2.1%) and IMRT (45.3% +/- 3.1%) than with MWT (19.4% +/- 3.7%). VMAT reduced the number of monitor units by 30% and the treatment time by 55% compared with cIMRT.nnnCONCLUSIONSnVMAT achieved similar PTV coverage and sparing of organs at risk, with fewer monitor units and shorter delivery time than cIMRT.

WHEN IS CT-BASED POSTOPERATIVE SEROMA MOST USEFUL TO PLAN PARTIAL BREAST RADIOTHERAPY? EVALUATION OF CLINICAL FACTORS AFFECTING SEROMA VOLUME AND CLARITY

PURPOSEnTo evaluate the effect of the time from surgery and other clinical factors on seroma volume and clarity and establish the optimal time to use the computed tomography (CT)-based seroma to plan partial breast irradiation (PBI).nnnMETHODS AND MATERIALSnA total of 205 women with early-stage breast cancer underwent planning CT after breast-conserving surgery. One radiation oncologist contoured the seroma volume and scored the seroma clarity, using a standardized Seroma Clarity Score scale, from 0 (not detectable) to 5 (clearest). Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate the associations between the seroma characteristics and the interval from surgery and other clinical factors.nnnRESULTSnThe mean interval from surgery to CT was 84 days (standard deviation 59). During postoperative Weeks 3-8, the mean seroma volume decreased from 47 to 30 cm(3), stabilized during Weeks 9-14 (mean 21) and was involuted beyond 14 weeks (mean 9 cm(3)). The mean seroma clarity score was 3.4 at Weeks 3-8, 2.5 at Weeks 9-14, and 1.6 after 14 weeks. The seroma clarity was greater in patients aged >or=70 years. The seroma volume and clarity correlated significantly with the volume of excised breast tissue but not with the maximal tumor diameter, surgical re-excision, or chemotherapy use.nnnCONCLUSIONnThe optimal time to obtain the planning CT scan for PBI is within 8 weeks after surgery. During Weeks 9-14, the seroma might remain adequately defined in some patients; however, after 14 weeks, alternate strategies are needed to identify the PBI target. The lack of correlation between the seroma volume and tumor size suggests that the CT-based seroma should not be the sole guide for PBI target volume definition.

Coplanar versus noncoplanar intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment planning for fronto-temporal high-grade glioma†

The purpose of this study was to compare dosimetric and radiobiological parameters of treatment plans using coplanar and noncoplanar beam arrangements in patients with fronto‐temporal high‐grade glioma (HGG) generated for intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Ten cases of HGG overlapping the optic apparatus were selected. Four separate plans were created for each case: coplanar IMRT, noncoplanar IMRT (ncIMRT), VMAT, and noncoplanar VMAT (ncVMAT). The prescription dose was 60 Gy in 30 fractions. Dose‐volume histograms and equivalent uniform doses (EUD) for planning target volumes (PTVs) and organs at risk (OARs) were generated. The four techniques resulted in comparable mean, minimum, maximum PTV doses, and PTV EUDs (p≥0.33). The mean PTV dose and EUD averaged for all techniques were 59.98 Gy (Standard Deviation (SD)±0.15) and 59.86 Gy (SD±0.27). Noncoplanar IMRT significantly reduced contralateral anterior globe EUDs (6.7 Gy versus 8.2 Gy, p=0.05), while both ncIMRT and ncVMAT reduced contralateral retina EUDs (16 Gy versus 18.8 Gy, p=0.03). Noncoplanar techniques resulted in lower contralateral temporal lobe dose (22.2 Gy versus 24.7 Gy). Compared to IMRT, VMAT techniques required fewer monitor units (755 vs. 478, p≤0.001) but longer optimization times. Treatment delivery times were 6.1 and 10.5 minutes for coplanar and ncIMRT versus 2.9 and 5.0 minutes for coplanar and ncVMAT. In this study, all techniques achieved comparable target coverage. Superior sparing of contralateral optic structures was seen with ncIMRT. The VMAT techniques reduced treatment delivery duration but prolonged plan optimization times, compared to IMRT techniques. Technique selection should be individualized, based on patient‐specific clinical and dosimetric parameters. PACS number: 87

An investigation of gantry angle data accuracy for cine-mode EPID images acquired during arc IMRT

EPID images acquired in cine mode during arc therapy have inaccurate gantry angles recorded in their image headers. In this work, methods were developed to assess the accuracy of the gantry potentiometer for linear accelerators. As well, assessments of the accuracy of other, more accessible, sources of gantry angle information (i.e., treatment log files, analysis of EPID image headers) were investigated. The methods used in this study are generally applicable to any linear accelerator unit, and have been demonstrated here with Clinac/Trilogy systems. Gantry angle data were simultaneously acquired using three methods: i) a direct gantry potentiometer measurement, ii) an incremental rotary encoder, and iii) a custom‐made radiographic gantry‐angle phantom which produced unique wire intersections as a function of gantry angle. All methods were compared to gantry angle data from the EPID image header and the linac MLC DynaLog file. The encoder and gantry‐angle phantom were used to validate the accuracy of the linacs potentiometer. The EPID image header gantry angles and the DynaLog file gantry angles were compared to the potentiometer. The encoder and gantry‐angle phantom mean angle differences with the potentiometer were 0.13∘±0.14∘ and 0.10∘±0.30∘, respectively. The EPID image header angles analyzed in this study were within ±1∘ of the potentiometer angles only 35% of the time. In some cases, EPID image header gantry angles disagreed by as much as 3° with the potentiometer. A time delay in frame acquisition was determined using the continuous acquisition mode of the EPID. After correcting for this time delay, 75% of the header angles, on average, were within ±1∘ of the true gantry angle, compared to an average of only 35% without the correction. Applying a boxcar smoothing filter to the corrected gantry angles further improved the accuracy of the header‐derived gantry angles to within ±1∘ for almost all images (99.4%). An angle accuracy of 0.11∘±0.04∘ was determined using a point‐by‐point comparison of the gantry angle data in the MLC DynaLog file and the potentiometer data. These simple correction methods can be easily applied to individual treatment EPID images in order to more accurately define the gantry angle. PACS numbers: 87.53.Kn, 87.55.T‐, 87.56.bd, 87.59.‐e

SU‐E‐T‐210: Precise Gantry Angle Determination for EPID Images during Rotational IMRT

Purpose: Utilization of an aSi EPID to develop an in vivo patient dose verification system for rotational IMRT (rIMRT) delivery requires accurate knowledge of gantry angle as a function of time. Currently the accuracy of the gantry angle stamp in the header of the EPIDimage is limited to approximately +/−3 degrees. This work investigates several unique methods for a more accurate determination of the gantry angle during rIMRT. Methods: Gantry angles were determined using: (1) an incremental rotary encoder attached to the rotational axis of the gantry, (2) a direct analogue‐to‐digital measurement of the gantry potentiometer, and (3) through EPIDimage analyses of an in‐house phantom (manufactured at sub‐millimeter precision). The phantom consists of a cylindrical acrylic frame with one wire wrapped helically around its surface and one straight wire traversing its central axis. This design creates EPIDimages with unique and identifiable wire intersection points as a function of gantry orientation. Analysis of the treatment console log files was compared to the above methods. Results: The gantry potentiometer is considered the most accurate gantry angle but is unavailable during treatment. The ClinacLog produced discrepancies of up to ±2 degrees, the DynaLog up to ±1 degrees, and the encoder up to ±0.5 degrees with respect to the potentiometer. Preliminary analysis comparing our phantom‐determined gantry angles with the encoder gantry angles showed agreement within ±0.5 degrees of each other for 85% of the data and differed at most by 1.3 degrees from each other. Conclusions: We have developed several techniques to determine gantry angle as a function of time during rIMRT. We have shown a strong agreement in gantry determination by our phantom and encoder. This investigation of gantry angle is critical to develop an accurate in vivo patient dose verification system for rIMRT delivery.

TU‐E‐BRB‐01: Is AcurosXBTM Equivalent in Accuracy to Monte Carlo for Complex IMRT and VMAT Dose Calculations?

Purpose: To assess the accuracy of a new algorithm, a deterministic solution of the Boltzmann Transport Equations (AcurosXB,TM, Varian Medical Systems), in intensity‐modulated (IMRT) and volumetric‐modulated (VMAT) planning against a benchmark Monte Carlo system and a standard clinical algorithm (AAA, Varian Medical Systems) Method and Materials: Four sites were chosen: prostate, lung, oropharynx and nasopharynx, each exhibiting characteristic challenges for planning. CT‐based plans using 6MV IMRT and VMAT delivery were developed for each site and calculated as dose‐to‐water using Acuros v. 11 and AAA v. 10. Plans were exported to and calculated on a 36‐CPU implementation of the EGSnrc‐BEAMnrc MonteCarlo code with better than 1% statistical uncertainty. Dose and DVH differences were evaluated in the Varian‐Eclipse environment for the target PTVs and relevant critical OARs. Results: Dosimetric differences between Acuros and MonteCarlo were in general much smaller than between AAA and MonteCarlo. For Acuros, the greatest differences occurred in low density lung (densities < 0.1 g/cc) or in air cavities, and were less than 5% of the target dose, extending over regions no greater than 5mm. Corresponding AAA differences were as high as 7% and extended for up to 10mm into higher‐density tissues. As a result, the mean lung PTV dose difference was less than 0.5% for Acuros, but 1.7% for AAA. For the other three sites, the Acuros dose differences were within 3% over more than 97% of a representative volume defined by the 60% isodose contours. AAA dose differences were within 3% over 94% of the volume. Conclusions: Within normal tissue‐like materials (densities up to 1.6g/cc) and in complex clinical planning scenarios involving dynamic beam modulation, Acuros and MonteCarlo generally agreed within the statistical precision of the MonteCarlo dose calculations. Small discrepancies beyond this level could be attributed to differences in treatment head and MLCmodelling between Eclipse and BEAMnrc. Partial funding provided through a research agreement with Varian Medical Systems