Search

Introduction Software that evaluates the quality of treatment plans (PlanIQTM) has become commercially available in recent years. It includes a feasibility assessment tool that provides the ideal dose volume histogram (DVH) for each organ at risk, based on the ideal dose falloff from the prescribed dose at the target boundary. It is important to investigate whether the PlanIQTM assessment tool (Feasibility DVHTM) can assist treatment planners who have limited to no experience in treatment planning. Therefore, the present study aimed to evaluate this tool's usefulness for improving the quality of treatment plans. Materials & Methods This study included 5 patients with prostate cancer. The treatment planners were 2 graduate students, 2 undergraduate students, and one clinical planner. All students were radiological technology and medical physics students with no clinical experience. Two different volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were developed before and after Feasibility DVHTM. The quality of each treatment plan was evaluated based on a scoring system implemented in PlanIQTM. Results Of 5 patients included, 4 received improved treatment plans when Feasibility DVHTM was used. Moreover, 4 of 5 treatment planners showed improvement in treatment planning using Feasibility DVHTM. Conclusions The findings suggest that using the Feasibility DVHTM tool may improve treatment plans for different planners and patients. However, planners at any level of experience should be trained to check the dose distribution in addition to checking the DVH, which depends on the adequacy of the contours.

In this study, qualities of 4D cone-beam CT (CBCT) images obtained using various gantry rotation speeds (GRSs) for liver stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) with fiducial markers were quantitatively evaluated. Abdominal phantom containing a fiducial marker was moved along a sinusoidal waveform, and 4D-CBCT images were acquired with GRSs of 50–200° min−1. We obtained the 4D-CBCT projection data from six patients who underwent liver SBRT and generated 4D-CBCT images at GRSs of 67–200° min−1, by varying the number of projection data points. The image quality was evaluated based on the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and structural similarity index (SSIM). The fiducial marker positions with different GRSs were compared with the setup values and a reference position in the phantom and clinical studies, respectively. The root mean square errors (RMSEs) were calculated relative to the reference positions. In the phantom study, the mean SNR, CNR, and SSIM decreased from 37.6 to 10.1, from 39.8 to 10.1, and from 0.9 to 0.7, respectively, as the GRS increased from 50 to 200° min−1. The fiducial marker positions were within 2.0 mm at all GRSs. Similarly, in the clinical study, the mean SNR, CNR, and SSIM decreased from 50.4 to 13.7, from 24.2 to 6.0, and from 0.92 to 0.73, respectively. The mean RMSEs were 2.0, 2.1, and 3.6 mm for the GRSs of 67, 100, and 200° min−1, respectively. We conclude that GRSs of 67 and 85° min−1 yield images of acceptable quality for 4D-CBCT in liver SBRT with fiducial markers.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) involves the delivery of substantially larger doses over fewer fractions than conventional therapy. Therefore, SBRT treatments will strongly benefit patients using vivo patient dose verification, because the impact of the fraction is large. For in vivo measurements, a commercially available quality assurance (QA) system is the COMPASS system (IBA Dosimetry, Germany). For measurements, the system uses a new transmission detector (Dolphin, IBA Dosimetry). In this study, we evaluated the method for in vivo 3D dose reconstruction for SBRT using this new transmission detector. We confirmed the accuracy of COMPASS with Dolphin for SBRT using multi leaf collimator (MLC) test patterns and clinical SBRT cases. We compared the results between the COMPASS, the treatment planning system, the Kodak EDR2 film, and the Monte Carlo (MC) calculations. MLC test patterns were set up to investigate various aspects of dose reconstruction for SBRT: (a) simple open fields (2 × 2–10 × 10 cm2), (b) a square wave chart pattern, and (c) the MLC position detectability test in which the MLCs were changed slightly. In clinical cases, we carried out 6 and 8 static IMRT beams for SBRT in the lung and liver. For MLC test patterns, the differences between COMPASS and MC were around 3%. The COMPASS with the dolphin system showed sufficient resolution in SBRT. For clinical cases, COMPASS can detect small changes for the dose profile and dose–volume histogram. COMPASS also showed good agreement with MC. We can confirm the feasibility of SBRT QA using the COMPASS system with Dolphin. This method was successfully operated using the new transmission detector and verified by measurements and MC.

Over the last several decades, there have been great advances in radiotherapy with the development of new technologies and modalities, and radiotherapy trends have changed rapidly. To comprehend the current state of radiotherapy in Japan, the QA/QC 2016–2017 Committee of the Japan Society of Medical Physics set up an intensity-modulated radiotherapy/image-guided radiotherapy (IMRT/IGRT) working group and performed a Web-based survey to show the current status of radiotherapy in Japan. The Web-based questionnaire, developed using Google Forms, contained 42 items: 7 on stereotactic radiotherapy implementation, 4 on IMRT, 24 on IGRT, and 7 on respiratory motion management. The survey was conducted from 17 January to 9 March of 2018; in total, 335 institutions provided data. The results show that volumetric modulated arc therapy was used at a level comparable to that of static gantry IMRT. For IGRT, machine-integrated computed tomography (CT), including kilovoltage or megavoltage cone-beam CT and megavoltage CT, was used at many institutions in conjunction with target-based image registration. For respiratory motion management, breath holding was the most commonly used technique. Our hope is that multi-institutional surveys such as this one will be conducted periodically to elucidate the current status of radiotherapy and emerging developments in this field. If our questionnaire was distributed worldwide, in the same format, then global trends in radiotherapy could be better understood.

The Mobius3D (M3D) system (Mobius Medical Systems) is a second-check dosimetry system. We investigated the dose calculation accuracy of this system using heterogeneous phantoms with reference beam data provided by the manufacturer using simple and patient plans. We compared the dose distributions between M3D and the treatment planning system, as well as the measurements in solid water phantoms, heterogeneous phantoms, and patient plans for Varian and Elekta accelerators. The M3D results agreed well with the measurements in the solid water phantoms for the simple plans. However, the accuracy of M3D appeared to depend on the type of accelerator, as indicated by the slight differences in the dose measurements. Furthermore, the M3D dose measurements differed by 5-10% in the lung and bone regions. Regarding the patient plans, we confirmed that M3D is reasonably accurate as a second-check system, despite the slight accelerator type-dependent dose difference.

This study verified the dose calculation accuracy of the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA), Acuros XB version 10 (AXB10), and version 11 (AXB11) installed in an Eclipse treatment planning system, by comparing with Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. First, the algorithms were compared in terms of dose distributions using four types of virtual heterogeneous multi-layer phantom for 6 and 15 MV photons. Next, the clinical head and neck intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) dose distributions for 6 MV photons were evaluated using dose volume histograms (DVHs) and three-dimensional gamma analysis. In percentage depth doses (PDDs) for virtual heterogeneous phantoms, AAA overestimated absorbed doses in the air cavity, bone, and aluminum in comparison with MC, AXB10, and AXB11. The PDDs of AXB10 almost agreed with those of MC and AXB11, except for the air cavity. The dose in the air cavity was higher for AXB10 than for AXB11, because their electron cutoff energies are set at 500 and 200 keV, respectively. For head and neck IMRT dose distributions, the D95 in the clinical target volume (CTV) for AAA was almost the same as that for AXB10 and was approximately 7 % larger than that for MC. Comparing each approach with MC using a criterion of 3 %/3 mm, the pass rates for AXB10, AXB11, and AAA were 92.4, 94.7, and 90.4 % in the CTV, respectively. In conclusion, AAA produces dose errors in heterogeneous regions, while AXB11 provides calculation accuracy comparable to MC. AXB10 overestimates the dose in regions that include an air cavity.

In this study, we evaluated the performance of a three‐dimensional (3D) dose verification system, COMPASS version 3, which has a dedicated beam models and dose calculation engine. It was possible to reconstruct the 3D dose distributions in patient anatomy based on the measured fluence using the MatriXX 2D array. The COMPASS system was compared with Monte Carlo simulation (MC), glass rod dosimeter (GRD), and 3DVH, using an anthropomorphic phantom for intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) dose verification in clinical neck cases. The GRD measurements agreed with the MC within 5% at most measurement points. In addition, most points for COMPASS and 3DVH also agreed with the MC within 5%. The COMPASS system showed better results than 3DVH for dose profiles due to individual adjustments, such as beam modeling for each linac. Regarding the dose‐volume histograms, there were no large differences between MC, analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) in Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS), 3DVH, and the COMPASS system. However, AAA underestimated the dose to the clinical target volume and Rt‐Parotid slightly. This is because AAA has some problems with dose calculation accuracy. Our results indicated that the COMPASS system offers highly accurate 3D dose calculation for clinical IMRT quality assurance. Also, the COMPASS system will be useful as a commissioning tool in routine clinical practice for TPS. PACS number: 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc, 87.61.Bj

In this study, we evaluated the basic performance of the three-dimensional dose verification system COMPASS (IBA Dosimetry). This system is capable of reconstructing 3D dose distributions on the patient anatomy based on the fluence measured using a new transmission detector (Dolphin, IBA Dosimetry) during treatment. The stability of the absolute dose and geometric calibrations of the COMPASS system with the Dolphin detector were investigated for fundamental validation. Furthermore, multileaf collimator (MLC) test patterns and a complicated volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan were used to evaluate the accuracy of the reconstructed dose distributions determined by the COMPASS. The results from the COMPASS were compared with those of a Monte Carlo simulation (MC), EDR2 film measurement, and a treatment planning system (TPS). The maximum errors for the absolute dose and geometrical position were − 0.28% and 1.0 mm for 3 months, respectively. The Dolphin detector, which consists of ionization chamber detectors, was firmly mounted on the linear accelerator and was very stable. For the MLC test patterns, the TPS showed a > 5% difference at small fields, while the COMPASS showed good agreement with the MC simulation at small fields. However, the COMPASS produced a large error for complex small fields. For a clinical VMAT plan, COMPASS was more accurate than TPS. COMPASS showed real delivered-dose distributions because it uses the measured fluence, a high-resolution detector, and accurate beam modeling. We confirm here that the accuracy and detectability of the delivered dose of the COMPASS system are sufficient for clinical practice.

Our purpose in this study was to evaluate the performance of four-dimensional computed tomography (4D-CBCT) and to optimize the acquisition parameters. We evaluated the relationship between the acquisition parameters of 4D-CBCT and the accuracy of the target motion trajectory using a dynamic thorax phantom. The target motion was created three dimensionally using target sizes of 2 and 3 cm, respiratory cycles of 4 and 8 s, and amplitudes of 1 and 2 cm. The 4D-CBCT data were acquired under two detector configurations: “small mode” and “medium mode”. The projection data acquired with scan times ranging from 1 to 4 min were sorted into 2, 5, 10, and 15 phase bins. The accuracy of the measured target motion trajectories was evaluated by means of the root mean square error (RMSE) from the setup values. For the respiratory cycle of 4 s, the measured trajectories were within 2 mm of the setup values for all acquisition times and target sizes. Similarly, the errors for the respiratory cycle of 8 s were

In this study, we evaluated the dosimetric performance of the three-dimensional (3D) dose verification system, COMPASS version 3 (IBA Dosimetry, GmbH, Germany). The COMPASS has the function of a dedicated beam modeling and dose calculation. It is able to reconstruct 3D dose distributions on patient CT images, using the incident fluence from a linear accelerator measured with the MatriXX 2D array (IBA Dosimetry). The dose profiles measured with various multi-leaf collimator (MLC) test patterns for the COMPASS were checked by comparison with those of EDR2 (Eastman Kodak, Rochester, NY) films and Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. The COMPASS was also used for dose verification in clinical intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans for head and neck cases. The dose distributions were compared with those measured by 3DVH (Sun Nuclear, Melbourne, FL) and MC. In addition, the quality assurance (QA) times among the COMPASS, 3DVH, and EDR2 were compared. For MLC test patterns, the COMPASS dose profiles agreed within 3 % with those of EDR2 films and MC simulations. The physical resolution of the COMPASS detectors was lower than that of film, but the dose resolution for MLC patterns was comparable to that of film. In clinical plans, the dose-volume-histograms were equal for all systems. The average QA times of the COMPASS, 3DVH, and EDR2 film were 40.1, 59.4, and 121.4 min, respectively. The COMPASS system provides fast and reliable 3D dose verification for clinical IMRT QA. The COMPASS QA process does not require phantom plans. Therefore, it allows a simple QA workflow.

Purpose We developed a quality assurance (QA) phantom to enable easy confirmation of radiation source output measurements of a high dose rate (192)Ir intracavitary brachytherapy unit in gynecology. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of daily checks using the QA phantom. Methods and materials The QA phantom was designed with tough water phantoms to hold a Farmer-type ionization chamber, with semiconductor detectors used as in vivo dosimeters to measure rectal dose, and three transfer tubes for gynecology. To test the reliability of our QA phantom for the detection of abnormalities in source output or semiconductor detectors, we applied different doses. Results Variations due to different settings of the QA phantom were within 2%. The temporal variations were less than 2% and 5% in the Farmer-type ionization chamber and semiconductor detectors, respectively. Interobserver variations were below 3%. Conclusions With tolerance levels of 2% and 5% for a Farmer-type ionization chamber and semiconductor detectors, respectively, a QA phantom is potentially useful for easily detecting abnormalities by applying daily checks of the brachytherapy unit.

At present, every manufacturer of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) equipment uses multi-leaf collimators (MLCs); however, each company's intensity modulation methods and dose calculation algorithms differ. This study used four typical radiation treatment planning systems (RTPSs) employed domestically for prostate IMRT plans to carry out 15 case studies by one planner based on the dose limits at this clinic. The results were used to compare the differences, if any, in RTPS treatment plans. With prostate IMRT plans, an overlap area exists between the PTV and the rectum. For this reason, while observing dose limits of 60-75 Gy (within the dose tolerated by the rectum), securing uniformity and concentration of dose is essential to create the most appropriate treatment plan for the PTV and other targets. Although each RTPS uses different planning methods, it was generally possible to observe this clinic's dose limits by adjusting the parameter values. When identical beam data is used, it is possible to create similar treatment plans.

The dosimetric properties between various 2D array detectors were compared and were evaluated with regard to the accuracy in absolute dose and dose distributions for clinical treatment fields. We used to check the dose accuracy: 2D array detectors; MapCHECK (Sun Nuclear), EPID (Varian Medical Systems), EPID-based dosimetry (EPIDose, Sun Nuclear), COMPASS (IBA) and conventional system; EDR2 film (Eastman Kodak), Exradin A-14SL ion chamber (0.016 cc, Standard Imaging). First, we compared the dose linearity, dose rate dependence, and output factor between the 2D array detectors. Next, the accuracy of the absolute dose and dose distributions were evaluated for clinical fields. All detector responses for the dose linear were in agreement within 1%, and the dose rate dependence and output factor agreed within a standard deviation of ±1.2%, except for EPID. This is because EPID is fluence distributions. In all the 2D array detectors, the point dose agreed within 5% with treatment planning system (TPS). Pass rates of each detector for TPS were more than 97% in the gamma analysis (3 mm/3%). EPIDose was in a good agreement with TPS. All 2D array detectors used in this study showed almost the same accuracy for clinical fields. EPIDose has better resolution than other 2D array detectors and thus this is expected for dose distributions with a small field.

Objective: To evaluate longitudinal changes in parotid volumes and saliva production over 2 years after 30 Gy irradiation. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 15 assessable patients treated for advanced oral cancer. Eligibility criteria were a pathologic diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma, preoperative radiation therapy with a total dose of 30 Gy delivered in 15 fractions, and the availability of longitudinal data of morphological assessments by computed tomography and functional assessments with the Saxon test spanning 2 years after radiation therapy. In the Saxon test, saliva production was measured by weighing a folded sterile gauze pad before and after chewing; the low-normal value is 2 g/2 min. Repeated-measures analysis of variance with Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons was used to determine the longitudinal changes. Results: The normalized ipsilateral parotid volumes 2 weeks and 6-, 12- and 24 months after radiation therapy were found to be 72.5, 63.7, 66.9 and 78.1%, respectively; the normalized contralateral volumes were 69.8, 64.6, 72.2 and 82.0%, respectively. The bilateral parotid volumes were significantly decreased after radiation therapy (P , 0.01). The nadir appeared at 6 months post-radiation therapy and the volumes substantially recuperated 24 months after radiation therapy (P , 0.01). Mean saliva production before radiation therapy was 3.7 g; the longitudinal changes after radiation therapy were 31.3, 38.0, 43.3 and 69.6%, respectively. Substantial recuperation of saliva production was observed 24 months after radiation therapy (P ¼ 0.01). Conclusions: Although parotid volumes and saliva production were decreased after 30 Gy irradiation, we observed the recuperation of morphological and functional changes in the parotid glands 2 years after radiation therapy.

COMPASS system (IBA Dosimetry, Schwarzenbruck, Germany) and ArcCHECK with 3DVH software (Sun Nuclear Corp., Melbourne, FL) are commercial quasi-3-dimensional (3D) dosimetry arrays. Cross-validation to compare them under the same conditions, such as a treatment plan, allows for clear evaluation of such measurement devices. In this study, we evaluated the accuracy of reconstructed dose distributions from the COMPASS system and ArcCHECK with 3DVH software using Monte Carlo simulation (MC) for multi-leaf collimator (MLC) test patterns and clinical VMAT plans. In a phantom study, ArcCHECK 3DVH showed clear differences from COMPASS, measurement and MC due to the detector resolution and the dose reconstruction method. Especially, ArcCHECK 3DVH showed 7% difference from MC for the heterogeneous phantom. ArcCHECK 3DVH only corrects the 3D dose distribution of treatment planning system (TPS) using ArcCHECK measurement, and therefore the accuracy of ArcCHECK 3DVH depends on TPS. In contrast, COMPASS showed good agreement with MC for all cases. However, the COMPASS system requires many complicated installation procedures such as beam modeling, and appropriate commissioning is needed. In terms of clinical cases, there were no large differences for each QA device. The accuracy of the compass and ArcCHECK 3DVH systems for phantoms and clinical cases was compared. Both systems have advantages and disadvantages for clinical use, and consideration of the operating environment is important. The QA system selection is depending on the purpose and workflow in each hospital.

PURPOSE Although image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) is widely used to determine and correct daily setup errors, the additional interpretation for image registration would provide another error. We evaluated the uncertainty in image registration in IGRT. METHOD The subjects consisted of 12 consecutive patients treated with IGRT for thoracic esophageal cancer. Two radiation therapists had consensually achieved daily 3D registration between planning computed tomography (CT) and cone beam CT (CBCT). The original data sets of image registration in all fractions except for boost irradiations with a change in the isocenter positions were selected for evaluation. There were 20 to 32 data sets for each patient: a total of 318 data sets. To evaluate daily setup errors, the mean 3D displacement vector was calculated for each patient. To assess the reproducibility of image registration, two other radiation therapists reviewed the data sets and recorded geometric differences as uncertainty in the image registration. RESULTS The mean 3D displacement vector for each patient ranged from 4.9 to 15.5 mm for setup errors and 0.7 to 2.2 mm for uncertainty in image registration. There was a positive correlation between the 3D vectors for setup error and uncertainty in image registration (r = 0.487, p = 0.016). CONCLUSION Although IGRT can correct the setup errors, potential uncertainty exists in image registration. The setup error would disturb the image registration in IGRT.

With the recent introduction of intensity modulated arc therapy techniques, there is an increasing need for validation of treatment delivery in three-dimensional (3D) space. A commercial dosimetry device ArcCHECK™ (Sun Nuclear Corporation, Melbourne, FL, USA) can be used in conjunction with 3DVH program. With this system, one can reconstruct the 3D dose distribution produced in the actual patient. In this work the authors evaluate the relative accuracy of the ArcCHECK™-3DVH system using BANG3 (MGS Research, Guilford, CT, USA) polymer gel dosimeter.About 15-cm diameter and 20-cm long cylindrical phantoms filled with BANG3 was used to simulate a patient, to which a volumetrically modulated arc therapy plan was created with Pinnacle3 treatment planning software (Philips Healthcare, Andover, MA, USA). The plan (76 Gy total in 38 fractions) was designed for prostate radiotherapy using a 6 MV photon beam from an Elekta Synergy linear accelerator (Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden). The treatment was delivered to the simulated patient. The same plan was used to irradiate an ArcCHECK™ device with an insert plug. The point dose at the isocenter was measured using a Farmer-type ionization chamber. The measured dose data were imported into the 3DVH program, which generated the 3D dose distributions projected onto the simulated patient. The dose data recorded in the polymer gel were read out using a MRI scanner and the 3D dose distribution delivered to the simulated patient was analyzed and compared with those from the 3DVH program and the Pinnacle3 software. The comparison was accomplished by using the gamma index, overlaying the isodose lines for a set of data on selected planes, and computing dose-volume histogram of structures.The dose at the center of the ArcCHECK™ device measured with an ionization chamber was 1.82% lower than the dose predicted by Pinnacle3. The 3D dose distribution generated by Pinnacle3 was compared with those obtained by the ArcCHECK™-3DVH system and BANG3. The gamma passing rates for criteria of 3% dose difference, 3 mm distance-to-agreement, and 25% lower dose threshold were 99.1% for the former and 95.7% for the latter. The mean and maximum PTV doses estimated by the 3DVH were 74.0 and 79.3 Gy in comparison to 74.4 and 76.5 Gy with Pinnacle3. Those values for BANG3 measurements were 74.7 and 79.5 Gy. The mean doses to rectum were 40.2, 39.8, and 38.8 Gy for Pinnacle3, 3DVH, and BANG3, whereas the mean doses to the bladder were 26.7, 25.7, and 21.7 Gy, respectively.The ArcCHECK™-3DVH system provides an accurate estimation of 3D dose distribution in an actual patient within a clinically meaningful tolerance level. However, both 3DVH and BANG3 showed two noticeable differences from Pinnacle3. First, the measured dose throughout the PTV region was less uniform than Pinnacle3. Second, the dose gradient at the interface between PTV and rectum was steeper than Pinnacle3 prediction. Further investigation may be able to identify the cause for these findings.

Image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) is an increasingly commonly adopted technique. As a result, however, total patient dose is increasing rapidly, especially when kV-cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) is applied. This study investigated the dosimetry of kV-CBCT using a Farmer ionization chamber with a (60)Co absorbed-dose calibration factor. The absorbed-dose measurements were performed using an I'mRT phantom (RW3, IBA) which is employed for dose verification of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). The I'mRT phantom was used as a substitute for head and pelvis phantoms. The kV-CBCT absorbed dose was evaluated from a beam quality conversion factor of kV to (60)Co and the ionization ratio of the I'mRT phantom and water, calculated using the Monte Carlo method. The dose distribution in the I'mRT phantom was also measured using a radiophotoluminescent glass dosimeter (RGD). The absorbed doses for the pelvis phantom (full scan) ranged from 2.5-4 cGy for kV-CBCT and 4-8 cGy for MV-CBCT. TomoTherapy resulted in a lower dose of approximately 1.3 cGy due to fan-beam. For the head phantom (half scan), the doses ranged from 0.1-0.7 cGy for kV-CBCT and 3-5 cGy for MVCBCT. The results for RGD were similar to ion chamber measurements. It is necessary to decrease the absorbed dose of the organs at risk every time IGRT is applied.

In this study, we investigated comprehensive quality assurance (QA) for respiratory-gated stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in the lungs using a real-time position management system (RPM). By using the phantom study, we evaluated dose liberality and reproducibility, and dose distributions for low monitor unite (MU), and also checked the absorbed dose at isocenter and dose profiles for the respiratory-gated exposure using RPM. Furthermore, we evaluated isocenter dose and dose distributions for respiratory-gated SBRT plans in the lungs using RPM. The maximum errors for the dose liberality were 4% for 2 MU, 1% for 4-10 MU, and 0.5% for 15 MU and 20 MU. The dose reproducibility was 2% for 1 MU and within 0.1% for 5 MU or greater. The accuracy for dose distributions was within 2% for 2 MU or greater. The dose error along a central axis for respiratory cycles of 2, 4, and 6 sec was within 1%. As for geometric accuracy, 90% and 50% isodose areas for the respiratory-gated exposure became almost 1 mm and 2 mm larger than without gating, respectively. For clinical lung-SBRT plans, the point dose at isocenter agreed within 2.1% with treatment planning system (TPS). And the pass rates of all plans for TPS were more than 96% in the gamma analysis (3 mm/3%). The geometrical accuracy and the dose accuracy of TPS calculation algorithm are more important for the dose evaluation at penumbra region for respiratory-gated SBRT in lung using RPM.

In this study, we evaluated various image guided radiation therapy (IGRT) systems regarding accuracy and patient throughput for conventional radiation therapy. We compared between 2D-2D match (the collation by 2 X-rays directions), cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), and ExacTrac X-Ray system using phantom for CLINAC iX and Synergy. All systems were able to correct within almost 1 mm. ExacTrac X-Ray system showed in particular a high accuracy. As for patient throughput, ExacTrac X-Ray system was the fastest system and 2D-2D match for Synergy was the slowest. All systems have enough ability with regard to accuracy and patient throughput on clinical use. ExacTrac X-Ray system showed superiority with accuracy and throughput, but it is important to note that we have to choose the IGRT technique depending on the treatment site, the purpose, and the patient's state.

Positron emission tomography/Radiation therapy planning/Gross tumor volume/Threshold/Standardized uptake value. As there is continuing controversy over the role of F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET)/CT-fused imaging in radiation therapy (RT) planning, we performed a phantom s tudy to assess the feasibility of FDG-PET/CT-based gross tumor volume (GTV) contouring. The phantom set, consisting of an elliptical bowl and 6 spheres measuring from 10–37 mm in diameter, were filled with FDG to obtain 3 source-to-background ratios (SBRs) of 4, 8, and 16. The ratio to maximum intensity at 5% intervals was applied as the threshold for contouring. The ratio between contoured- and actual volumes (volume ratio) was calculated, and the threshold ratio was selected to provide a volume ratio close to 100%. To consider the clinical application, we applied the threshold value (maximum intensity × threshold ratio) for the largest 37-mm sphere to the 6 spheres. The threshold ratio and the volume ratio in 6 spheres with 3 SBRs were compared using the Friedman test. Threshold ratios ranged from 25–80%; they were higher for smaller spheres (p = 0.003) and lower SBRs (p < 0.001). The volume ratios with the threshold value for the largest 37-mm sphere were lower in smaller spheres (p = 0.010). These results suggest that smaller lesions and higher background activities require a higher threshold ratio and smaller lesions a lower threshold value. FDG-PET/CT-fused imaging should not be used as a single modality but rather to obtain supplemental information in RT planning. The contoured GTV should be adjusted based on clinical data including conventional images.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-derived adaptive radiotherapy. We evaluate planning computed tomography (pCT) and CBCT in 50 patients who had undergone image guided radiotherapy (IGRT) with CBCT. Irradiated sites included head, neck, chest, abdomen, and pelvis; there were 10 patients in each group. Treatment plans including 153 beam data were recalculated based on CBCT. To compare between pCT and CBCT, we estimated CT values of normal tissues, body contour, effective depth, and monitor units (MU) calculation. The maximum difference in CT values was observed in lung estimation. The 5 mm or more differences in depth were observed in 2 beams of 2 pelvic cases, but CBCT also demonstrated a shift of abdominal wall due to intestinal motility. There were downward trends for the effective depth and MU based on CBCT, especially in lung cases. However, the differences in prescribed dose due to MU calculation were less than 5% because all patients were treated with a multifield irradiation plan. CBCT provides not only precise daily setup but also accurate anatomical information on body contour. In addition, CBCT may be considered as a useful tool for dose calculation.

Radiation therapy/Xerostomia/Salivary glands/Computed tomography/Histology. We retrospectively evaluated the relationship betw een computed tomography (CT)- and histopathological findings of parotid and submandibular glands in six patients treated for advanced oral cancer. Eligibility criteria were a pathologic diagnosis of oral squamous cell carcinoma, preoperative chemoradiation t herapy (CRT) with a total dose of 30 Gy and oral S-1 (80 mg/m 2 /day), the availability of morphological assessments by CT and of functional assessments with the Saxon test before- and 2 weeks after CRT, and the availability of histopathological slides of irradiated parotid and submandibular glands. In the histopathological interpretation, gland structures were divided into acinar-, duct-, and adipose cells and other tis sues. The Mann-Whitney test and the Spearman rank correlation test were used to determine histopathological changes. After 30-Gy irradiation, saliva production and parotid and submandibular volumes were significantly decreased (P < 0.05 each). Histopathological analysis demonstrated that 30-Gy irradiation r esulted in a loss of acinar cells although acinar cells in the submandibular gland were relatively retained; the median acinar rate in the parotid and submandibular glands was 1.1% and 19.0%, respectively. The CT values after CRT were inversely correlated with adipose ratios (r = –0.98, P < 0.01) and there was a strong correlation between CT values before and after CRT (r = 0.97, P < 0.01). Our results suggested that acinar cell loss is a main contributor to changes in the volume and function of irradiated human parotid and submandibular glands. The CT value may reflect the ad ipose ratio rather than salivary function.

To evaluate progression pattern and progression-free interval for patients with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), on the basis of the extent of resection. Between January 2000 and September 2009, 138 patients with GBM underwent postoperative radiation therapy and longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging studies. The operations were classified as biopsy, partial resection (PR), and gross total resection (GTR). Progression patterns were classified as gross tumor volume (GTV), T2 hyperintensity (T2h), distant, and free. We used the Kruskal–Wallis test to compare progression-free intervals on the basis of the extent of resection and the progression pattern. Recurrence of biopsied and PR tumors at the GTV site was 100 and 97%, respectively. The median progression-free interval was 3 months for biopsied (n = 29), 4 months for PR (n = 70), and 8 months for GTR (n = 39) tumors (p

Our purpose in this study was to evaluate the fundamental accuracy of reconstructed dose distributions from the COMPASS system using specific MLC test patterns and complicated IMRT neck plans. The COMPASS-reconstructed dose distributions were compared with those measured with EPID, MapCHECK, and EDR2 film and as well as Monte Carlo-calculated dose profiles with use of square-wave chart patterns of 20-, 10-, and 5-mm gaps and step and pyramid patterns. Additionally, the COMPASS dose distributions for clinical IMRT neck plans were tested. The COMPASS dose profiles were almost in agreement with the Monte Carlo-calculated dose profiles and point doses measured with MapCHECK for 20- and 10-mm gap patterns. The dose profile for a 5-mm gap pattern showed a narrow width due to the detector size in the penumbra region. For step and pyramid patterns, COMPASS agreed with MapCHECK and Monte Carlo calculation, except for EDR2 film. The COMPASS and MapCHECK dose distributions agreed with that of a treatment planning system by gamma analysis (criteria; 3 mm/3%). In comparisons of clinical IMRT neck dose distributions, COMPASS was measured with almost the same accuracy as MapCHECK, but slight deviations were found for large IMRT fields. These deviations could be minimized by improvement of the beam model of the COMPASS system. The COMPASS system can be expected to be used for traditional QA methods in clinical routine with the same accuracy as a MapCHECK diode detector.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of setup error and anatomical change on dose distribution during conventional radiation therapy. We performed regional irradiation (Plan1) using opposing pair fields, and then we planned local irradiation (Plan2) with a computed tomography (CT) acquired at that time in 10 patients with advanced oral cancer. To consider the setup error, a minimum dose of gross tumor volume (GTV) and a maximum dose for the spinal cord were re-calculated with isocenter shifts of ±5 mm. We also evaluated an alteration of reference dose due to anatomical changes during radiation therapy. A minimum dose of GTV was decreased with isocenter shifts; the trend was stronger in Plan2 than Plan1 (-5.7% vs. -1.2%, p=0.02). Similarly, a maximum dose of spinal cord was increased with isocenter shifts, especially in Plan2 (12.2% vs. 0.5%, p

Background For stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) of liver tumors, tumor motion induced by respiration must be taken into account in planning and treatment. We evaluated whether liver tumor motion at the planning simulation represents liver tumor motion during SBRT, and estimated inter- and intrafractional tumor motion changes in patients undergoing liver SBRT. Methods Ten patients underwent four-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography (4D-CBCT) image-guided liver SBRT with abdominal compression (AC) and fiducial markers. 4D-CBCT was performed to evaluate liver tumor motion at the planning simulation, pre-, and post-SBRT. The translational distances at the center position of the fiducial markers from all 10 phases on the 4D-CBCT images were measured as the extent of the liver tumor motion in the left-right (LR), anterior-posterior (AP), and superior-inferior (SI) directions. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate the correlation between liver tumor motion of the planning simulation and the mean liver tumor motion of the pre-SBRT. Inter- and intrafractional liver tumor motion changes were measured based on the 4D-CBCT of planning simulation, pre-, and post-SBRT. Significant inter- and intrafractional changes in liver tumor motion were defined as a change of >3 mm. Results The mean (± SD) liver tumor motion of the planning simulation 4D-CBCT was 1.7 ± 0.8 mm, 2.4 ± 2.2 mm, and 5.3 ± 3.3 mm, in the LR, AP, and SI directions, respectively. Those of the pre-SBRT 4D-CBCT were 1.2 ± 0.7 mm, 2.3 ± 2.3 mm, and 4.5 ± 3.8 mm, in the LR, AP, and SI directions, respectively. There was a strong significant correlation between liver tumor motion of the planning simulation and pre-SBRT in the LR (R = 0.7, P