Search

Background and Purpose: Radiation dose prescriptions are foundational for optimizing treatment efficacy and limiting treatment-related toxicity. We sought to assess the lack of standardization of SBRT dose prescriptions across institutions., Materials & Methods: Dosimetric data from 1298 patients from 9 academic institutions treated with IMRT and VMAT were collected. Dose parameters D 100 , D 98 , D 95 , D 50 , and D 2 were used to assess dosimetric variability., Results: Disease sites included lung (48.3 %) followed by liver (29.7 %), prostate (7.5 %), spine (6.8 %), brain (4.1 %), and pancreas (2.5 %). The PTV volume in lung varied widely with bimodality into two main groups (22.0-28.7 cm 3 ) and (48.0-67.1 cm 3 ). A hot spot ranging from 120-150 % was noted in nearly half of the patients, with significant variation across institutions. A D 50  ≥ 110 % was found in nearly half of the institutions. There was significant dosimetric variation across institutions., Conclusions: The SBRT prescriptions in the literature or in treatment guidelines currently lack nuance and hence there is significant variation in dose prescriptions across academic institutions. These findings add greater importance to the identification of dose parameters associated with improved clinical outcome comparisons as we move towards more hypofractionated treatments. There is a need for standardized reporting to help institutions in adapting treatment protocols based on the outcome of clinical trials. Dosimetric parameters are subsequently needed for uniformity and thereby standardizing planning guidelines to maximize efficacy, mitigate toxicity, and reduce treatment disparities are urgently needed., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To develop an independent log file-based intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA) tool for the 0.35 T magnetic resonance-linac (MR-linac) and investigate the ability of various IMRT plan complexity metrics to predict the QA results. Complexity metrics related to tissue heterogeneity were also introduced., Methods: The tool for particle simulation (TOPAS) Monte Carlo code was utilized with a previously validated linac head model. A cohort of 29 treatment plans was selected for IMRT QA using the developed QA tool and the vendor-supplied adaptive QA (AQA) tool. For 27 independent patient cases, various IMRT plan complexity metrics were calculated to assess the deliverability of these plans. A correlation between the gamma pass rates (GPRs) from the AQA results and calculated IMRT complexity metrics was determined using the Pearson correlation coefficients. Tissue heterogeneity complexity metrics were calculated based on the gradient of the Hounsfield units., Results: The median and interquartile range for the TOPAS GPRs (3%/3 mm criteria) were 97.24% and 3.75%, respectively, and were 99.54% and 0.36% for the AQA tool, respectively. The computational time for TOPAS ranged from 4 to 8 h to achieve a statistical uncertainty of <1.5%, whereas the AQA tool had an average calculation time of a few minutes. Of the 23 calculated IMRT plan complexity metrics, the AQA GPRs had correlations with 7 out of 23 of the calculated metrics. Strong correlations (|r| > 0.7) were found between the GPRs and the heterogeneity complexity metrics introduced in this work., Conclusions: An independent MC and log file-based IMRT QA tool was successfully developed and can be clinically deployed for offline QA. The complexity metrics will supplement QA reports and provide information regarding plan complexity., (© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of The American Association of Physicists in Medicine.)

Purpose: The feasibility of transferring patients between unmatched machines for a limited number of treatment fractions was investigated for three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatments., Methods: Eighty patient-plans were evaluated on two unmatched linacs: Elekta Versa HD and Elekta Infinity. Plans were equally divided into pelvis 3DCRT, prostate VMAT, brain VMAT, and lung VMAT plans. While maintaining the number of monitor units (MUs), plans were recalculated on the machine not originally used for treatment. Relative differences in dose were calculated between machines for the target volume and organs at risk (OARs). Differences in mean dose were assessed with paired t-tests (p < 0.05). The number of interchangeable fractions allowable before surpassing a cumulative ±5% difference in dose was determined. Additionally, patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) measurements using ArcCHECK for both machines were compared with distributions calculated on the machine originally used for treatment using gradient compensation (GC) with 2%/2-mm criteria., Results: Interchanging the two machines for pelvic 3DCRT and VMAT (prostate, brain, and lung) plans resulted in an average change in target mean dose of 0.9%, -0.5%, 0.6%, 0.5%, respectively. Based on the differences in dose to the prescription point when changing machines, statistically, nearly one-fourth of the prescribed fractions could be transferred between linacs for 3DCRT plans. While all of the prescribed fractions could typically be transferred among prostate VMAT plans, a rather large number of treatment fractions, 31% and 38%, could be transferred among brain and lung VMAT plans, respectively, without exceeding a ±5% change in the prescribed dose for two Elekta machines. Additionally, the OAR dosage was not affected within the given criterion with change of machine., Conclusions: Despite small differences in calculated dose, transferring patients between two unmatched Elekta machines with similar multileaf collimator (MLC)-head for target coverage and minimum changes in OAR dose is possible for a limited number of fractions (≤3) to improve clinical flexibility and institutional throughput along with patient satisfaction. A similar study could be carried out for other machines for operational throughput., (© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of The American Association of Physicists in Medicine.)

Purpose: A multi-institutional investigation for dosimetric evaluation of high-Z hip prosthetic device in photon beam., Methods: A bilateral hip prosthetic case was chosen. An in-house phantom was built to replicate the human pelvis with two different prostheses. Dosimetric parameters: dose to the target and organs at risk (OARs) were compared for the clinical case generated by various treatment planning system (TPS) with varied algorithms. Single beam plans with different TPS for phantom using 6 MV and 15 MV photon beams with and without density correction were compared with measurement., Results: Wide variations in target and OAR dosimetry were recorded for different TPS. For clinical case ideal PTV coverage was noted for plans generated with Corvus and Prowess TPS only. However, none of the TPS were able to meet plan objective for the bladder. Good correlation was noticed for the measured and the Pinnacle TPS for corrected dose calculation at the interfaces as well as the dose ratio in elsewhere. On comparing measured and calculated dose, the difference across the TPS varied from -20% to 60% for 6 MV and 3% to 50% for the 15 MV, respectively., Conclusion: Most TPS do not provide accurate dosimetry with high-Z prosthesis. It is important to check the TPS under extreme conditions of beams passing through the high-Z region. Metal artifact reduction algorithms may reduce the difference between the measured and calculated dose but still significant differences exist. Further studies are required to validate the calculational accuracy., (Copyright © 2022 Associazione Italiana di Fisica Medica e Sanitaria. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Treatment of locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) with chemoradiation may be associated with high rates of symptomatic cardiac toxicity. Large margins are typically required to ensure coverage of GEJ tumors with free-breathing volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) radiotherapy. The purpose of this study is to determine whether treatment with tighter margins enabled by maximum-inhalation breath hold (MIBH)-gated intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) on an integrated MRI-linear accelerator system (MR-linac) can decrease radiation doses to the heart and cardiac substructures. Ten patients with locally advanced GEJ adenocarcinoma underwent both free breathing 4-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) and MIBH MRI simulation scans. MR-linac IMRT plans were created with a 3 mm clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume (PTV) isotropic margin and 4DCT VMAT plans were created with a 11, 13, and 9 mm CTV to PTV anisotropic margins in the left-right, cranial-caudal, and anterior-posterior directions according to GEJ-specific PTV expansion recommendations by Voncken et al. Prescription dose to PTV was 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions. Dosimetry to the heart and cardiac substructures was compared with paired t test; p < 0.05 was considered significant. Mean PTV on the MR-linac IMRT plans was significantly smaller compared to the 4DCT VMAT plans (689 cm 3 vs 1275 cm 3 , p < 0.01). Mean dose to the heart and all cardiac substructures was significantly lower in the MR-linac IMRT plans compared to the 4DCT VMAT plans: heart 20.9 Gy vs 27.8 Gy, left atrium 29.6 Gy vs 39.4 Gy, right atrium 20.5 Gy vs 25.6 Gy, left ventricle 21.6 Gy vs 29.6 Gy, and right ventricle 18.7 Gy vs 25.2 Gy (all p values <0.05). MIBH-gated MR-linac IMRT treatment of locally advanced GEJ adenocarcinoma can significantly decrease doses to the heart and cardiac substructures and this may translate to reduced rates of cardiac toxicity., (Copyright © 2020 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To validate an MR-compatible version of the ScandiDos Delta 4 Phantom+ on a 0.35T MR guided linear accelerator (MR-Linac) system and to determine the effect of plan complexity on the measurement results., Methods/materials: 36 clinical treatment plans originally delivered on a 0.35T MR linac system were re-planned on the Delta 4 Phantom+ MR geometry following our clinical quality assurance (QA) protocol. The QA plans were then measured using the Delta 4 Phantom+ MR and the global gamma pass rates were compared to previous results measured using a Sun Nuclear ArcCHECK-MR. Both 3%/3mm and 2%/2mm global gamma pass rates with a 20% dose threshold were recorded and compared. Plan complexity was quantified for each clinical plan investigated using 24 different plan metrics and each metric's correlation with the overall 2%/2mm global gamma pass rate was investigated using Pearson correlation coefficients., Results: Both systems demonstrated comparable levels of gamma pass rates at both the 3%/3mm and 2%/2mm level for all plan complexity metrics. Nine plan metrics including area, number of active MLCs, perimeter, edge metric, leaf segment variability, complete irradiation area outline, irregularity, leaf travel index, and unique opening index were moderately (|r| > 0.5) correlated with the Delta 4 2%/2mm global gamma pass rates whereas those same metrics had weak correlation with the ArcCHECK-MR pass rates. Only the perimeter to area ratio and small aperture score (20 mm) metrics showed moderate correlation with the ArcCHECK-MR gamma pass rates., Conclusions: The MR-compatible version of the ScandiDos Delta 4 Phantom+ MR has been validated for clinical use on a 0.35T MR-Linac with results being comparable to an ArcCHECK-MR system in use clinically for almost five years. Most plan complexity metrics did not correlate with lower 2%/2mm gamma pass rates using the ArcCHECK-MR but several metrics were found to be moderately correlated with lower 2%/2mm global gamma pass rates for the Delta 4 Phantom+ MR., (© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.)

Purpose: Dark current radiation produced during linac beam-hold has the potential to lead to unplanned dose delivered to the patient. With the increased usage of motion management and step-and-shoot IMRT deliveries for MR-guided systems leading to increased beam-hold time, it is necessary to consider the impact of dark current radiation on patient treatments., Methods: The relative dose rate due to dark current for the ViewRay MRIdian linac was measured longitudinally over 15 months (June 2018-August 2019). Ion chamber measurements were acquired with the linac in the beam-hold state and the beam-on state, with the ratio representing the relative dark current dose rate. The potential contribution of the dark current dose to the overall prescription was retrospectively analyzed for 972 fractions from 83 patients over the same time period. The amount of time spent in the beam-hold state was combined with the monthly measured relative dark current dose rate to estimate the dark current dose contribution., Results: The relative dark current dose rate compared to the beam-on dose rate was 0.12% ± 0.027%. In a near worst-case estimation, the dark current dose contribution accounted for 0.90% ± 0.67% of the prescription dose across all fractions (3.61% maximum). Gantry and MLC motion between segments accounted for 87% of the dark current contribution, with the remaining 13% attributable to gating during segment delivery. The largest dark current contributions were associated with plans delivering a small dose per treatment segment., Conclusions: The dark current associated with new clinical treatment units should be considered prior to treatment delivery to ensure it will not lead to dosimetric inaccuracies. For the MRIdian linac system investigated in this work, the contribution from dark current remained relatively low, though users should be cognizant of the larger potential dosimetric contribution for plans with small doses per segment., (© 2020 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.)

Purpose: With advance magnetic resonance (MR)-guided online adaptive radiotherapy (MRgoART) relying on calculation-based intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA), accurate and sensitive QA of the multileaf collimator (MLC) becomes an increasingly essential component for routine machine QA. As such, it is important to assure compliance with the AAPM TG142 guidelines to supplement calculation-based QA methods for an online adaptive radiotherapy program. We have developed and implemented an efficient and highly sensitive QA procedure using an ionization chamber profiler (ICP) array to enable real-time characterization of the positional accuracy of a double-focused and double-stacked MLC on a clinical MR-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) system and to supplement calculation-based QA for an MRgoART program., Methods: An in-house MR-compatible jig was used to position the ICP (detector resolution 5 mm on X/Y axis) at an extended SDD of 108.4 cm to enable each MLC leaf (8.3 mm leaf width at isocenter) to be uniquely determined by two neighboring ion chambers. The MRgRT linac system utilizes a novel jawless, double-focused, and double-stacked MLC design such that the upper bank (MLC1) and lower bank (MLC2) are offset by half a leaf width. Positional accuracy was characterized by three methods: single bank half-beam block (HBB) at central axis, forward slash diagonal (FSD), and backslash diagonal (BSD) at off-axis. Measurements were performed for each bank in which each leaf occludes half of a detector. A corresponding reference field with the MLC retracted from occlusion was measured. The sensitivities of HBB, FSD, and BSD were evaluated by introducing 0.5-2.5 mm of known errors in 0.5 mm increments, in both positive and negative directions. The relationship between detector response and MLC error was established. Over a 6-month longitudinal assessment, we have evaluated MLC performance with weekly QA of HBB among cardinal angles, and monthly QA of FSD and BSD., Results: A strong correlation was found between detector response of percentage dose difference and MLC positional error introduced (N = 350 introduced errors) for both HBB and FSD/BSD with coefficient of determination of 0.999 and 0.977, respectively. The relationship between detector response to MLC positional change was found to be 20.65%/mm for HBB and 11.14%/mm for FSD and BSD. At baseline, the mean MLC positional accuracy averaged across all leaves was 0.06 ± 0.27 mm (HBB), 0.04 ± 0.52 mm (FSD), -0.06 ± 0.51 mm (BSD). The mean MLC positional accuracy relative to baseline over the 6-month assessment was found to be highly reproducible at 0.00 ± 0.12 mm (HBB; N = 28 weeks), -0.02 ± 0.19 mm (FSD; N = 6 months), -0.03 ± 0.19 mm (BSD; N = 6 months)., Conclusions: Positional accuracy of a novel jawless, double-focused, double-stacked MLC has been characterized and monitored over 6 months with an efficient, highly sensitive, and robust method using an ICP array. This routine QA method supplements calculation-based IMRT QA for an online adaptive radiotherapy program. Longitudinal assessment demonstrated no-drift in the MLC calibration. A highly reproducible jig setup allowed the validation of MLC positional accuracy to be within TG142 criteria of ±1 mm for 99% of measurements (i.e., 100% HBB, 95% BSD, 95% FSD) over the 6-month assessment., (© 2019 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.)

Purpose: To describe and characterize daily machine quality assurance (QA) for an MR-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) linac system, in addition to reporting a longitudinal assessment of the dosimetric and mechanical stability over a 7-month period of clinical operation., Methods: Quality assurance procedures were developed to evaluate MR imaging/radiation isocenter, imaging and patient handling system, and linear accelerator stability. A longitudinal assessment was characterized for safety interlocks, laser and imaging isocenter coincidence, imaging and radiation (RT) isocentricity, radiation dose rate and output, couch motion, and MLC positioning. A cylindrical water phantom and an MR-compatible A1SL detector were utilized. MR and RT isocentricity and MLC positional accuracy was quantified through dose measured with a 0.40 cm 2  x 0.83 cm 2 field at each cardinal angle. The relationship between detector response to MR/RT isocentricity and MLC positioning was established through introducing known errors in phantom position., Results: Correlation was found between detector response and introduced positional error (N = 27) with coefficients of determination of 0.9996 (IEC-X), 0.9967 (IEC-Y), 0.9968 (IEC-Z) in each respective shift direction. The relationship between dose (Dose MR/RT+MLC ) and the vector magnitude of MLC and MR/RT positional error (Error mag ) was calculated to be a nonlinear response and resembled a quadratic function: Dose MR/RT+MLC [%] = -0.0253 Error mag [mm] 2  - 0.0195 Error mag [mm]. For the temporal assessment (N = 7 months), safety interlocks were functional. Laser coincidence to MR was within ±2.0 mm (99.6%) and ±1.0 mm (86.8%) over the 7-month assessment. IGRT position-reposition shifts were within ±2.0 mm (99.4%) and ±1.0 mm (92.4%). Output was within ±3% (99.4%). Mean MLC and MR/RT isocenter accuracy was 1.6 mm, averaged across cardinal angles for the 7-month period., Conclusions: The linac and IGRT accuracy of an MR-guided radiotherapy system has been validated and monitored over seven months for daily QA. Longitudinal assessment demonstrated a drift in dose rate, but temporal assessment of output, MLC position, and isocentricity has been stable., (© 2019 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.)

Background Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) given in 1-5 fractions is an effective treatment for vertebral metastases. Real-time magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) improves soft tissue contrast, which translates into accurate delivery of spine SBRT. Here we report on clinical implementation of MRgRT for spine SBRT, the quality of MRgRT plans compared to TrueBeam based volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans in the treatment of spine metastases and benefits of MRgRT MR scan. Patients and methods Ten metastatic lesions were included in this study for plan comparison. Lesions were spread across thoracic spine and lumbosacral spine. Three fraction spine SBRT plans: 27Gy to planning target volume (PTV) and 30Gy to gross tumor volume (GTV) were generated on the ViewRay MRIdian Linac system and compared to TrueBeamTM STx based VMAT plans. Plans were compared using metrics such as minimum dose, maximum dose, mean dose, ratio of the dose to 50% of the volume (R50), conformity index, homogeneity index and dose to the spinal cord. Results MRIdian plans achieved equivalent target coverage and spinal cord dose compared to VMAT plans. The maximum and minimum PTV doses and homogeneity index were equivalent for both planning systems. R50 was lower for MRIdian plans compared to VMAT plans, indicating a lower spread of intermediate doses with MRIdian system (5.16 vs. 6.11, p = 0.03). Conclusions MRgRT can deliver high-quality spine SBRT plans comparable to TrueBeam volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans.

Purpose: To find the optimal dose weighting for hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy (H-VMAT), a combination of conventional 3DCRT and VMAT plans for left sided chest wall and supraclavicular radiation therapy., Methods & Materials: 20 left-sided breast cancer patients who received adjuvant radiotherapy were considered for this study. To find the optimal weighting, 5 H-VMAT plans were generated for each study case by combining different dose proportions of 3DCRT and VMAT plans including: 90% 3DCRT/10% VMAT, 80% 3DCRT/20% VMAT, 70% 3DCRT/30% VMAT, 60% 3DCRT/40% VMAT, 50% 3DCRT/50% VMAT. Further field-in-field, optimal H-VMAT and VMAT alone plans were compared., Results: All H-VMAT plans achieved the expected target coverage. A higher conformity index was achieved for 50% 3DCRT/50% VMAT plan, while better homogeneity index was achieved for 80% 3DCRT/20% VMAT plan. Mean and low doses were less in 90% 3DCRT/10% VMAT plan. Compared with other proportions, 80% 3DCRT/20% VMAT and 70% 3DCRT/30% VMAT weighted H-VMAT plans achieved balanced results for PTVs and OARs., Conclusion: The optimal dose mixture for H-VMAT technique is 70% to 80% for 3DCRT and 20% to 30% for VMAT. The optimal H-VMAT achieved balanced results for the PTVs and OARs compared with field-in-field and VMAT alone plans., (Copyright © 2018 Associazione Italiana di Fisica Medica. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The dosimetric stability of six TomoTherapy units was analyzed to investigate changes in performance over time and with system upgrades. Energy and output were tracked using monitor chamber signal, onboard megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) detector profile, and external ion chamber measurements. The systems (and monitoring periods) include three Hi-Art (67, 61, and 65 mos.), two TomoHDA (31 and 26 mos.), and one Radixact unit (11 mos.), representing approximately 10 years of clinical use. The four newest systems use the Dose Control Stability (DCS) system and Fixed Target Linear Accelerator (linac) (FTL). The output stability is reported as deviation from reference monitor chamber signal for all systems and/or from an external chamber signal. The energy stability was monitored using relative (center versus off-axis) MVCT detector signal (beam profile) and/or the ratio of chamber measurements at 2 depths. The clinical TomoHDA data were used to benchmark the Radixact stability, which has the same FTL but runs at a higher dose rate. The output based on monitor chamber data of all systems is very stable. The standard deviation of daily output on the non-DCS systems was 0.94-1.52%. As expected, the DCS systems had improved standard deviation: 0.004-0.06%. The beam energy was also very stable for all units. The standard deviation in profile flatness was 0.23-0.62% for rotating target systems and 0.04-0.09% for FTL. Ion chamber output and PDD ratios supported these results. The output stability on the Radixact system during extended treatment delivery (20, 30, and 40 min) was comparable to a clinical TomoHDA system. For each system, results are consistent between different measurement tools and techniques, proving not only the dosimetric stability, but also these quality parameters can be confirmed with various metrics. The replacement history over extended time periods of the major dosimetric components of the different delivery systems (target, linac, and magnetron) is also reported., (© 2017 University of Wisconsin. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.)

In this work, we investigated the dosimetric differences between the intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans and the three-dimensional (3D) helical plans based on the TomoTherapy system. A total of 15 patients with supine setup were randomly selected from the data base. For patients with lumpectomy planning target volume (PTV), regional lymph nodes were also included as part of the target. For dose sparing, the significant differences between the helical IMRT and helical 3D were only found in the heart and contralateral breast. For the dose to the heart, helical IMRT reduced the maximum point dose by 6.98Gy compared to the helical 3D plan (p = 0.01). For contralateral breast, the helical IMRT plans significantly reduced the maximum point dose by 5.6Gy compared to the helical 3D plan. However, compared to the helical 3D plan, the helical IMRT plan increased the volume for lower dose (13.08% increase in V 5Gy , p = 0.01). In general, there are no significant differences in dose sparing between helical IMRT and helical 3D plans., (Copyright © 2017 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Concave shape with variable size target volume makes treatment planning for the breast/chest wall a challenge. Conventional techniques used for the breast/chest wall cancer treatment provided better sparing of organs at risk (OARs), with poor conformity and uniformity to the target volume. Advanced technologies such as intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) improve the target coverage at the cost of higher low dose volumes to OARs. Novel hybrid techniques present promising results in breast/chest wall irradiation in terms of target coverage as well as OARs sparing. Several published data compared these technologies for the benefit of the breast/chest wall with or without nodal volumes. The aim of this article is to review relevant data and identify the scope for further research in developing optimal treatment plan for breast/chest wall cancer treatment., (Copyright © 2016 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To evaluate 2 simultaneous integrated boost treatment planning techniques using helical tomotherapy for breast conserving therapy with regard to acute skin toxicity and dosimetry., Methods: Thirty-two patients were studied. The original approach was for 16 patients and incorporated a directional block of the ipsilateral lung and breast. An additional 16 patients were planned for using a modified approach that incorporates a full block of the ipsilateral lung exclusive of 4 cm around the breast. Dose-volume histograms of targets and critical structures were evaluated. Skin toxicity monitoring was performed throughout treatment and follow-up using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events., Results: Treatment was well tolerated with patients receiving a median dose of 59.36 Gy. Of the 16 patients in both groups, 8 had grade 2 erythema immediately after radiation. On 3-week follow-up, 10 and 7 patients in the original and modified groups showed grade 1 erythema. On 3- and 6-month follow-up, both groups had minimal erythema, with all patients having either grade 0 or 1 symptoms. No grade 2 or 3 toxicities were reported. Mean treatment time was 7.5 and 10.4 minutes using the original and modified methods. Adequate dose coverage was achieved using both methods (V95 = 99.5% and 98%). Mean dose to the heart was 10.5 and 1.8 Gy, respectively (P < .01). For right-sided tumors, the original and modified plans yielded a mean of 8.8 and 1.1 Gy (P < .01) versus 11.7 and 2.4 Gy for left-sided tumors (P < .01). The mean dose to the ipsilateral lung was also significantly lower in the modified plans (11.8 vs. 5.0 Gy, P < .01)., Conclusions: Tomotherapy is capable of delivering homogeneous treatment plans to the whole breast and lumpectomy cavity using simultaneous integrated boost treatment. Using the treatment methods described herein, extremely low doses to critical structures can be achieved without compromising acute skin toxicity., (© The Author(s) 2015.)