Search

Implementing tighter intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA) tolerances initially resulted in high numbers of marginal or failing QA results and motivated a number of improvements to our calculational processes. This work details those improvements and their effect on results. One hundred eighty IMRT plans analyzed previously were collected and new gamma criteria were applied and compared to the original results. The results were used to obtain an estimate for the number of plans that would require additional dose volume histogram (DVH)‐based analysis and therefore predicted workload increase. For 2 months and 133 plans, the established criteria were continued while the new criteria were applied and tracked in parallel. Because the number of marginal or failing plans far exceeded the predicted levels, a number of calculational elements were investigated: IMRT modeling parameters, calculation grid size, and couch top modeling. After improvements to these elements, the new criteria were clinically implemented and the frequency of passing, questionable, and failing plans measured for the subsequent 15 months and 674 plans. The retrospective analysis of selected IMRT QA results demonstrated that 75% of plans should pass, while 19% of IMRT QA plans would need DVH‐based analysis and an additional 6% would fail. However, after applying the tighter criteria for 2 months, the distribution of plans was significantly different from prediction with questionable or failing plans reaching 47%. After investigating and improving several elements of the IMRT calculation processes, the frequency of questionable plans was reduced to 11% and that of failing plans to less than 1%. Tighter IMRT QA tolerances revealed the need to improve several elements of our plan calculations. As a consequence, the accuracy of our plans have improved, and the frequency of finding marginal or failing IMRT QA results, remains within our practical ability to respond.

This work is to show which is more relevant to cause local failures (LFs) due to patient setup uncertainty between the planning target volume (PTV) underdosage and the potential target underdosage subject to patient setup uncertainties in head and neck (H&N) cancer treated with volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Thirteen LFs in 10 H&N patients treated by VMAT were analyzed. Measures have been taken to minimize the chances of insufficient target delineation for these patients and the patients were clinically determined to have LF based on the PET/CT scan results by an experienced radiologist and then reviewed by a second experienced radiation oncologist. Two methods were used to identify the possible locations of LF due to underdosage: (a) examining the standard VMAT plan, in which the underdosed volume in the nominal dose distribution (UVN) was generated by subtracting the volumes receiving the prescription doses from PTVs, and (b) plan robustness analysis, in which in addition to the nominal dose distribution, six perturbed dose distributions were created by translating the CT iso‐center in three cardinal directions by the PTV margin. The coldest dose distribution was represented by the minimum of the seven doses in each voxel. The underdosed volume in the coldest dose distribution (UVC) was generated by subtracting the volumes receiving the prescription doses in the coldest dose distribution from the volumes receiving the prescription doses in the nominal dose distribution. UVN and UVC were subsequently examined for spatial association with the locations of LF. The association was tested using the binominal distribution and the Fisher's exact test of independence. We found that of 13 LFs, 11 were associated with UVCs (P = 0.011), while three were associated with UVNs (P = 0.99). We concluded that the possible target underdosage due to patient setup uncertainties appeared to be a more relevant factor associated with LF in VMAT for H&N cancer than the compromised PTV coverage at least for the patients included in this study.

Purpose This report describes the long-term outcomes of a prospective trial of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), integrating a 111 In capromab pendetide (ProstaScint) scan-directed simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) for localized prostate cancer. Methods and Materials Seventy-one patients with T1N0M0 to T4N0M0 prostate cancer were enrolled, and their ProstaScint and pelvic computed tomography scans were coregistered for treatment planning. The entire prostate received 75.6 Gy in 42 fractions with IMRT, whereas regions of increased uptake on ProstaScint scans received 82 Gy as an SIB. Patients with intermediate- and high-risk disease also received 6 months and 12 months of adjuvant hormonal therapy, respectively. Results The study enrolled 31 low-, 30 intermediate-, and 10 high-risk patients. The median follow-up was 120 months (range, 24-150 months). The 10-year biochemical control rates were 85% for the entire cohort and 84%, 84%, and 90% for patients with low-, intermediate-, and high-risk disease, respectively. The 10-year survival rate of the entire cohort was 69%. Pretreatment prostate-specific antigen level >10 ng/mL and boost volume of >10% of the prostate volume were significantly associated with poorer biochemical control and survival. The outcomes were compared with those of a cohort of 302 patients treated similarly but without the SIB and followed up for a median of 91 months (range, 6-138 months). The 5- and 10-year biochemical control rates were 86% and 61%, respectively, in patients without the SIB compared with 94% and 85%, respectively, in patients in this trial who received the SIB ( P =.02). The cohort that received an SIB did not have increased toxicity. Conclusions The described IMRT strategy, integrating multiple imaging modalities to administer 75.6 Gy to the entire prostate with a boost dose of 82 Gy, was feasible. The addition of the SIB was associated with greater biochemical control but not toxicity. Modern imaging technology can be used to locally intensify the dose to tumors and spare normal tissues, producing very favorable long-term biochemical disease control.

Purpose To present the most updated American College of Radiology (ACR) Appropriateness Criteria formed by an expert panel on the appropriate delivery of external beam radiation to manage stage T1 and T2 prostate cancer (in the definitive setting and post-prostatectomy) and to provide clinical variants with expert recommendations based on accompanying Appropriateness Criteria for target volumes and treatment planning. Methods and materials The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a panel of multidisciplinary experts. The guideline development and revision process includes an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In instances in which evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment. Results The panel summarizes the most recent and relevant literature on the topic, including organ motion and localization methods, image guidance, and delivery techniques (eg, 3-dimensional conformal intensity modulation). The panel presents 7 clinical variants, including (1) a standard case and cases with (2) a distended rectum, (3) a large-volume prostate, (4) bilateral hip implants, (5) inflammatory bowel disease, (6) prior prostatectomy, and (7) a pannus extending into the radiation field. Each case outlines the appropriate techniques for simulation, treatment planning, image guidance, dose, and fractionation. Numerical rating and commentary is given for each treatment approach in each variant. Conclusions External beam radiation is a key component of the curative management of T1 and T2 prostate cancer. By combining the most recent medical literature, these Appropriateness Criteria can aid clinicians in determining the appropriate treatment delivery and personalized approaches for individual patients.

Purpose Incident learning is a critical tool to improve patient safety. The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 established essential legal protections to allow for the collection and analysis of medical incidents nationwide. Methods and materials Working with a federally listed patient safety organization (PSO), the American Society for Radiation Oncology and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine established RO-ILS: Radiation Oncology Incident Learning System (RO-ILS). This paper provides an overview of the RO-ILS background, development, structure, and workflow, as well as examples of preliminary data and lessons learned. RO-ILS is actively collecting, analyzing, and reporting patient safety events. Results As of February 24, 2015, 46 institutions have signed contracts with Clarity PSO, with 33 contracts pending. Of these, 27 sites have entered 739 patient safety events into local database space, with 358 events (48%) pushed to the national database. Conclusions To establish an optimal safety culture, radiation oncology departments should establish formal systems for incident learning that include participation in a nationwide incident learning program such as RO-ILS.

Purpose The Radiation Oncology Incident Learning System (RO-ILS) receives event reports from facilities across the country. This effort extracted common error pathways seen in the data. These pathways, expressed as fault trees, demonstrate the need for, and opportunities for, preventing these errors and/or limiting their propagation to treatment. Methods and materials As of the third quarter of 2016, 2344 event reports had been submitted to RO-ILS and reviewed. A total of 396 of the reports judged highest priority were rereviewed and assigned up to 3 keywords to classify events. Based on patterns among the keyword assignments, the data were further aggregated into pathways leading to 3 general error types: "problematic plan approved for treatment," "wrong shift instructions given to therapists," and "wrong shift performed at treatment." Fault trees were created showing how different errors at different stages in the treatment process combine to flow into these general error types. Results A total of 173 of the 396 (44%) events were characterized as belonging to 1 of these 3 general error types. Ninety-nine events were defined as "problematic plan approved for treatment," 40 as "wrong shift instructions given to therapists," and 34 as "wrong shift performed at treatment." Seventy-six of these events (44%) resulted in incorrectly delivered treatment. Event discovery was by therapists (n = 76), physicists (n = 45), physicians (n = 23), dosimetrists (n = 15), or not identified (n = 9); 5 events were found as a result of the patient questioning the staff. For the event type "problematic plan approved for treatment," 64 of the 99 (65%) events were attributable to physician error: incorrect target or dosing pattern prescribed. Conclusions Data extracted from RO-ILS event reports demonstrate common error pathways in radiation oncology that propagate all the way to treatment. Additional study and coordination of efforts is needed to develop and share best practices to address the sources of these errors and curtail their propagation.

Purpose: To present the most updated American College of Radiology (ACR) Appropriateness Criteria formed by an expert panel on the appropriate delivery of external beam radiation to manage stage T1 and T2 prostate cancer (in the definitive setting and post-prostatectomy) and to provide clinical variants with expert recommendations based on accompanying Appropriateness Criteria for target volumes and treatment planning. Methods and materials: The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a panel of multidisciplinary experts. The guideline development and revision process includes an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In instances in which evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment. Results: The panel summarizes the most recent and relevant literature on the topic, including organ motion and localization methods, image guidance, and delivery techniques (eg, 3-dimensional conformal intensity modulation). The panel presents 7 clinical variants, including (1) a standard case and cases with (2) a distended rectum, (3) a large-volume prostate, (4) bilateral hip implants, (5) inflammatory bowel disease, (6) prior prostatectomy, and (7) a pannus extending into the radiation field. Each case outlines the appropriate techniques for simulation, treatment planning, image guidance, dose, and fractionation. Numerical rating and commentary is given for each treatment approach in each variant. Conclusions: External beam radiation is a key component of the curative management of T1 and T2 prostate cancer. By combining the most recent medical literature, these Appropriateness Criteria can aid clinicians in determining the appropriate treatment delivery and personalized approaches for individual patients.

Single‐isocenter, multitarget cranial stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is more efficient than using an isocenter for each target, but spatial positioning uncertainties can be magnified at locations away from the isocenter. This study reports on the spatial accuracy of two frameless, linac‐based SRS systems for multitarget, single‐isocenter SRS as a function of distance from the isocenter. One system uses the ExacTrac platform for image guidance and the other localizes with cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). For each platform, a phantom with 12 target BBs distributed up to 13.8 cm from the isocenter was aligned starting from five different initial offsets and then imaged with the treatment beam at seven different gantry and couch angles. The distribution of the resulting positioning errors demonstrated the value of adding a 1‐mm PTV margin for targets up to about 7–8 cm from the isocenter. For distances 10 cm or more, the CBCT‐based alignment remained within 1.1 mm while the ExacTrac‐based alignment differed by up to 2.2 mm.

To identify prognostic factors and evaluate biochemical control rates for patients with localized prostate cancer treated with either high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or conventional-dose three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy 3D-CRT.Four hundred sixteen patients with a minimum follow-up of 3 years (median, 5 years) were included. Two hundred seventy-one patients received 3D-CRT with a median dose of 68.4 Gy (range, 66-71 Gy). The next 145 patients received IMRT with a median dose of 75.6 Gy (range, 70.2-77.4 Gy). Biochemical control rates were calculated according to both American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) consensus definitions. Prognostic factors were identified using both univariate and multivariate analyses.The 5-year biochemical control rate was 60.4% for 3D-CRT and 74.1% for IMRT (p0.0001, first ASTRO Consensus definition). Using the ASTRO Phoenix definition, the 5-year biochemical control rate was 74.4% and 84.6% with 3D-RT and IMRT, respectively (p = 0.0326). Univariate analyses determined that PSA level, T stage, Gleason score, perineural invasion, and radiation dose were predictive of biochemical control. On multivariate analysis, dose, Gleason score, and perineural invasion remained significant.On the basis of both ASTRO definitions, dose, Gleason score, and perineural invasion were predictive of biochemical control. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy allowed delivery of higher doses of radiation with very low toxicity, resulting in improved biochemical control.

Background To compare plan robustness of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and to compare the effectiveness of 3 plan robustness quantification methods. Methods and materials The VMAT and IMRT plans were created for 9 head and neck cancer patients. For each plan, 6 new perturbed dose distributions were computed using ±3 mm setup deviations along each of the 3 orientations. Worst-case analysis (WCA), dose-volume histogram (DVH) band (DVHB), and root-mean-square dose-volume histogram (RVH) were used to quantify plan robustness. In WCA, a shaded area in the DVH plot bounded by the DVHs from the lowest and highest dose per voxel was displayed. In DVHB, we displayed the envelope of all DVHs in band graphs of all the 7 dose distributions. The RVH represents the relative volume on the vertical axis and the root-mean-square-dose on the horizontal axis. The width from the first 2 methods at different target DVH indices (such as D 95% and D 5% ) and the area under the RVH curve for the target were used to indicate plan robustness. Results were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results The DVHB showed that the width at D 95% of IMRT was larger than that of VMAT (unit Gy) (1.59 vs 1.18) and the width at D 5% of IMRT was comparable to that of VMAT (0.59 vs 0.54). The WCA showed similar results between IMRT and VMAT plans (D 95% : 3.28 vs 3.00; D 5% : 1.68 vs 1.95). The RVH showed the area under the RVH curve of IMRT was comparable to that of VMAT (1.13 vs 1.15). No statistical significance was found in plan robustness between IMRT and VMAT. Conclusions The VMAT is comparable to IMRT in terms of plan robustness. For the 3 quantification methods, WCA and DVHB are DVH parameter–dependent, whereas RVH captures the overall effect of uncertainties.

We have recently commissioned a temporary radiation therapy facility that is novel in two aspects: it was constructed using modular components, and the LINAC was installed in one of the modular sections before it was lifted into position. Additional steel and granular fill was added to the modular sections on‐site during construction. The building will be disassembled and removed when no longer needed. This paper describes the radiation shielding specifications and survey of the facility, as well as the ramifications for acceptance testing occasioned by the novel installation procedure. The LINAC is a Varian 21EX operating at 6 MV and 18 MV. The radiation levels outside the vault satisfied the design criteria, and no anomalous leakage was detected along the joints of the modular structure. At 18 MV and 600 monitor units (MU) per minute, the radiation level outside the primary barrier walls was 8.5μSv/h of photons; there were no detectable neutrons. Outside the direct‐shielded door, the levels were 0.4μSv/h of photons and 3.0μSv/h of neutrons. The isocentricity of the accelerator met the acceptance criteria and was not affected by its preinstallation into an integrated baseframe and subsequent transport to the building site. PACS numbers: 87.52.Df, 87.52.Ga

JAMES M. GALVIN D.SC.,* GARY EZZELL, PH.D., AVRAHAM EISBRAUCH, M.D.,* CEDRIC YU, D.SC., BRIAN BUTLER, M.D.,* YING XIAO, PH.D., ISAAC ROSEN, PH.D., JULIAN ROSENMAN, M.D.,* MICHAEL SHARPE, PH.D., LEI XING, PH.D., PING XIA, PH.D., TONY LOMAX, PH.D., DANIEL A. LOW, PH.D., AND JATINDER PALTA, PH.D. *American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology IMRT Scope Committee; American Association of Physicists in Medicine IMRT Subcommittee of the Radiation Therapy Committee

The control loop in the Varian DMLC system (V4.8) requires ~65 msec to monitor and halt the irradiation of a segment, causing an “overshoot” effect: the segment ends on a fractional monitor unit larger than that planned. As a result, the actual MU delivered may differ from that planned. In general, for step‐and‐shoot treatments, the first segment receives more, the last receives less, and intermediate segments vary. The overshoot for each segment (ΔMU) is small, approximately 0.6 MU at 600 MU/min Our IMRT planning system (Corvus) produces plans often having more than 20% of the segments with less than 1 MU/segment. Such segments may be skipped if the ΔMU exceeds the segments’ planned MU. Furthermore, QA filming often requires reducing the total MU by a factor of 4–6, increasing the potential for dosimetric error. This study measured ΔMU over a range of MU/min and MU/segment. At >5 MU/segment, the ΔMU was stable, corresponding to a delay of 62 msec. ΔMU became larger and more variable at

We have developed a treatment planning protocol for intensity‐modulated radiation therapy of the prostate using commercially available inverse planning software. Treatment plans were developed for ten patients using the Corvus version 3.8 planning system, testing various prescription options, including tissue types, dose volume histogram values for the target and normal structures, beam arrangements, and number of intensity levels. All plans were scaled so that 95% of the clinical target volume received 75.6 Gy; mean doses to the prostate were typically 79 Gy. The reproducibility of the inverse planning algorithm was tested by repeating a set of the plans five times. Plans were deemed acceptable if they satisfied predefined dose constraints for the targets and critical organs. Figures of merit for target coverage, target dose uniformity, and organ sparing were used to rank acceptable plans. Certain systematic behaviors of the optimizer were noted: the high dose regions for both targets and critical organs were 5–10 Gy more than prescribed; reducing bladder and rectum tolerance increased the range of doses within the target; increasing the number of fields incrementally improved plan quality. A set of planning parameters was found that usually satisfied the minimum requirements. Repeating the optimization with different beam order produced similar but slightly different dose distributions, which was sometimes useful for finding acceptable solutions for difficult cases. The standard set of parameters serves as a useful starting point for individualized planning. PACS number(s): 87.53.–j, 87.90.+y

Purpose: To evaluate the dosimetric difference between a simple radiation therapy plan utilizing a single contour and a more complex three-dimensional (3D) plan utilizing multiple contours, lung inhomogeneity correction, and dose-based compensators. Methods and Materials: This is a study of the radiation therapy (RT) plans of 85 patients with early breast cancer. All patients were considered for breast-conserving management and treated by conventional tangential fields technique. Two plans were generated for each patient. The first RT plan was based on a single contour taken at the central axis and utilized two wedges. The second RT plan was generated by using the 3D planning system to design dose-based compensators after lung inhomogeneity correction had been made. The endpoints of the study were the comparison between the volumes receiving greater than 105% and greater than 110% of the reference dose, as well as the magnitude of the treated volume maximum dose. Dosimetric improvement was defined to be of significant value if the volume receiving > 105% of one plan was reduced by at least 50% with the absolute difference between the volumes being 5% or greater. The dosimetric improvements in 49 3D plans (58%) were considered of significant value. Patients' field separation and breast size did not predict the magnitude of improvement in dosimetry. Conclusion: Dose-based compensator plans significantly reduced the volumes receiving > 105%, >110%, and volume maximum dose.

Purpose: To determine the efficacy and toxicity of permanent 125 iodine implants for recurrent malignant gliomas. Methods and Materials: Between January 1989 and January:, 59 patients with histologically confirmed recurrent malignant gliomas (22 nonglioblastoma malignant gliomas, 37 glioblastoma multiforme at the time of implant) received a permanent 125 iodine implant. Patients ranged in age from 13–74 years. The median ages for the overall group, nonglioblastoma (nonGBM), and glioblastoma (GBM) groups was 47 years, 39 years, and 53 years, respectively. Results: With a median follow-up of 40 months, the median survival for the 59 total patients is 1.34 years; nonGBM 2.04 years, GBM 0.9 years. Factors predictive for poor prognosis were GBM histology, age 60 years or more, target volume 17 cc or more, and/or tumor location within the corpus callosum or thalamus. Reoperations have been performed in 24 (40%) patients; 15 (25%) for tumor progression; 3 (5%) for radiation necrosis; 2 (3%) for skull necrosis/infection, and 4 (7%) for other reasons (Ommaya reservoir insertion, catheter removal, hematoma evacuation). Conclusion: Permanent 125 iodine implants in selected patients with recurrent malignant gliomas are associated with reasonable long-term survival and a low risk of complications. Given the low incidence of radiation necrosis, future plans are to increase dose rate and/or total dose delivered with the permanent implant.

This paper describes in detail the setup of breast irradiation using an isocentric tangential technique. This setup method does not require any special devices or calculations beyond simple arithmetic. We will discuss some of the practical problems and pitfalls that result from the oblique incidence of the radiation beams and the slope of the chest wall and provide possible solutions.

Purpose To evaluate, in a prospective study, the use of 111 In–capromab pendetide (ProstaScint) scan to guide the delivery of a concomitant boost to intraprostatic region showing increased uptake while treating the entire gland with intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Methods and Materials From September 2002 to November 2005, 71 patients were enrolled. Planning pelvic CT and 111 In–capromab pendetide scan images were coregistered. The entire prostate gland received 75.6 Gy/42 fractions, whereas areas of increased uptake in 111 In–capromab pendetide scan received 82 Gy. For patients with T3/T4 disease, or Gleason score ≥8, or prostate-specific antigen level >20 ng/mL, 12 months of adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy was given. In January 2005 the protocol was modified to give 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy to patients with a prostate-specific antigen level of 10–20 ng/mL or Gleason 7 disease. Results Thirty-one patients had low-risk, 30 had intermediate-risk, and 10 had high-risk disease. With a median follow-up of 66 months, the 5-year biochemical control rates were 94% for the entire cohort and 97%, 93%, and 90% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively. Maximum acute and late urinary toxicities were Grade 2 for 38 patients (54%) and 28 patients (39%) and Grade 3 for 1 and 3 patients (4%), respectively. One patient had Grade 4 hematuria. Maximum acute and late gastrointestinal toxicities were Grade 2 for 32 patients (45%) and 15 patients (21%), respectively. Most of the side effects improved with longer follow-up. Conclusion Concomitant boost to areas showing increased uptake in 111 In–capromab pendetide scan to 82 Gy using intensity-modulated radiotherapy while the entire prostate received 75.6 Gy was feasible and tolerable, with 94% biochemical control rate at 5 years.

This study was performed to examine potential field arrangements for irradiating non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) on a dose escalation study. An example patient was chosen and 7 coplanar treatment plans were created to treat a NSCLC. Two plans included prophylactic nodal irradiation (PNRT) and 5 did not. Four plans used 4 fields, 2 plans used 5 fields, and 1 plan included dynamic conformal 360 degrees rotational therapy. All plans delivered 80 Gy to the isocenter with 10-MV x-rays. Each plan was initially created without dose inhomogeneity corrections and then was recalculated with these corrections, maintaining the same weighting and number of monitor units. Avoiding PNRT spared a considerable volume of normal tissue from radiation. Plans with 5 fields generally spared normal tissues better than 4-field plans. There was no benefit to the dynamic conformal 360 degrees rotational plan. Inhomogeneity corrections revealed that higher doses were delivered to both the tumor and normal structures. Seven beam arrangements for the treatment of NSCLC were compared to develop potential beam arrangements that would be applicable to treating NSCLC on a multi-institutional dose escalation study. We favor the use of at least 5 beams in most situations. It is possible that the use of more fields would further improve plans up to a point of diminishing returns, as exemplified by the lack of benefit seen with the dynamic conformal 360 degrees rotational plan. It is possible that the use of noncoplanar fields or intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) may further improve the therapeutic ratio.

The performance of an automated treatment planning algorithm was tested using cases of patients with pancreatic carcinoma; the system implements optimization tools that suggest high-quality plans for consideration by the planner and physician, making best use of the capabilities of a conventional linear accelerator: isocentric setup, shaped fields, and wedges. Ten consecutive patients presenting with pancreatic cancer were first planned using a conventional 3-field protocol to provide a basis for comparison. Each was then planned using an automated optimization technique using a genetic algorithm and a dose-based score function subject to volume-dose constraints. Two sets of optimized plans were created, 1 using only axial beams and the other permitting non-axial beams. The improvement afforded by the optimization was assessed by comparing the score function results and by computing the combined normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for a constant isocenter dose. In all 10 cases, optimization improved the dose-based score function. In 9 cases, the non-axial plan scored higher than the axial plan. Optimization driven by the dose-based score function improved or equaled the predicted NTCP in 8 axial and 9 nonaxial plans. This study demonstrates progress toward the goal of developing an automated planning tool that can robustly suggest high-quality plans.

Purpose: To design an afterloading vaginal cylinder application appropriate to treat the vault with high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy after prior total abdominal hysterectomy. Methods and Materials: A vaginal cylinder was designed and built using nylon and source loading channels positioned for source movement for HDR vault and vaginal brachytherapy. The channels are positioned to treat a broader isodose surface and to avoid the "end" effects of linear source brachytherapy. The central channel allows an applicator tube to be advanced beyond the end of the cylinder to treat a "tented" vault or a cervical stump (or uterus). Additional peripheral sources can be added to allow vaginal wall plaque therapy. Results: The application allows vault, vault plus proximal vagina, or vault plus entire vagina therapy using HDR. The isodose surface treated is controlled by source positioning and dwell times. Conclusion: The HDR cylinder has wide potential usability for uterus or cervix therapy as both low stage and operable endometrial carcinomas are now usually treated by surgery.

Purpose : A basis is presented for predicting the reduction in radiation dose to the larynx attributable to swallowing during radiation therapy treatment. Methods and Materials : Laryngeal movement associated with swallowing can occur during radiation therapy even when the patient's head is immobilized. Data on the extent and timing of laryngeal motions and the frequency of swallowing were used to predict the effect such motion would have on accuracy of radiation dose to the larynx. Results : In a nontrachestomized adult the larynx elevates approximately 2 cm during a swallow and moves anteriorly less than 1 cm. The normal frequency of swallowing in the supine position is once every 1–2 min. During therapy, the likelihood of a swallow occurring during an irradiation interval depended on the duration of the interval. For irradiation intervals less than 2 min long the ratio of number of swallows to number of intervals was 0.27. For irradiation intervals between 2–3 min long the ratio was 1.76. Based on conservative estimates of radiation field dimensions, larynx motion, and incidence of swallowing, the reduction in radiation dose attributable to swallowing during treatment would be approximately 0.5%. Conclusion : With small fields the total dose is only decreased by 0.5% with swallowing, so the change in the total dose is insignificant.

The objective of this study was to build on our experience with 3-D conformal radiotherapy (CRT) by using a hyperfractionated dose escalation scheme to maximize the therapeutic ratio between improved local control and reduced morbidity in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. Twenty patients with locally advanced (T3, T4) adenocarcinoma of the prostate were treated with a hyperfractionated radiotherapy schedule. All fields were designed with a conformal therapy based beam's eye view, 3-D planning system. The pelvic lymph nodes received 1.8 Gy/day to a total dose of 45 Gy in 5 weeks. Using partial transmission blocks, the prostate and periprostatic tissues received 1.3 Gy twice daily (minimum interval of 6 h) to a total dose of 78 Gy in 6 weeks. The dose was chosen by calculating the biologically effective dose (BED) which would produce the same effect in late reacting tissue but an increase for the tumor as our standard dose of 69 Gy delivered in 1.8-2.0 Gy fractions. The alpha/beta chosen for late damage was 3 Gy and 10 Gy was used for the tumor. All 20 patients completed the planned course of treatment. Although an increase in the tumor BED would be expected to result in increased acute effects, no significant worsening of acute side-effects was observed compared with standard treatment. All patients had only mild (Grade 1) rectal or bladder toxicity during treatment. One patient had an exacerbation of diverticulitis during treatment requiring hospitalization for antibiotics but completed treatment on schedule.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

This paper describes the clinical and biological rationales for the use of transmission blocks. Clinical advantages over the use of full-thickness blocks applied part way through the course of therapy include the use of only one set of fields, blocks, and beam calculations, and less complex chart recording. There is a net saving in time required for the preparation and treatment of the patient. There is also a quality assurance advantage since the impact of a potential error in block positioning is reduced. In terms of biological advantages, it is demonstrated that the linear-quadratic iso-effect model can be applied to predict an improvement of up to 10% in the therapeutic ratio if transmission blocks are used instead of full-thickness blocks.

Over the past 20 years, several proton beam treatment programs have been implemented throughout the United States. Increasingly, the number of new programs under development is growing. Proton beam therapy has the potential for improving tumor control and survival through dose escalation. It also has potential for reducing harm to normal organs through dose reduction. However, proton beam therapy is more costly than conventional x-ray therapy. This increased cost may be offset by improved function, improved quality of life, and reduced costs related to treating the late effects of therapy. Clinical research opportunities are abundant to determine which patients will gain the most benefit from proton beam therapy. We review the clinical case for proton beam therapy. Summary sentence Proton beam therapy is a technically advanced and promising form of radiation therapy.