Search

Background: Both geometric and dosimetric components are commonly considered when determining the margin for planning target volume (PTV). As dose distribution is shaped by controlling beam aperture in peripheral dose prescription and dose‐escalated simultaneously integrated boost techniques, adjusting the margin by incorporating the variable dosimetric component into the PTV margin is inappropriate; therefore, geometric components should be accurately estimated for margin calculations. Purpose: We introduced an asymmetric margin‐calculation theory using the guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM) and intra‐fractional motion. The margins in fiducial marker‐based real‐time tumor tracking (RTTT) for lung, liver, and pancreatic cancers were calculated and were then evaluated using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. Methods: A total of 74 705, 73 235, and 164 968 sets of intra‐ and inter‐fractional positional data were analyzed for 48 lung, 48 liver, and 25 pancreatic cancer patients, respectively, in RTTT clinical trials. The 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of the positional error were considered representative values of each fraction of the disease site. The population‐based statistics of the probability distributions of these representative positional errors (PD‐RPEs) were calculated in six directions. A margin covering 95% of the population was calculated using the proposed formula. The content rate in which the clinical target volume (CTV) was included in the PTV was calculated through MC simulations using the PD‐RPEs. Results: The margins required for RTTT were at most 6.2, 4.6, and 3.9 mm for lung, liver, and pancreatic cancer, respectively. MC simulations revealed that the median content rates using the proposed margins satisfied 95% for lung and liver cancers and 93% for pancreatic cancer, closer to the expected rates than the margins according to van Herk's formula. Conclusions: Our proposed formula based on the GUM and motion probability distributions (MPD) accurately calculated the practical margin size for fiducial marker‐based RTTT. This was verified through MC simulations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Combined modality therapy, including radiotherapy (RT), is a common treatment for scalp or face angiosarcoma. Although intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) can deliver homogeneous doses to the scalp or face, clinical data are limited. This multicenter study aimed to evaluate scalp or face angiosarcoma treated with definitive or post-operative IMRT. We retrospectively analyzed data from patients who received IMRT for scalp or face angiosarcoma at three institutions between January 2015 and March 2020. Local control (LC) rate, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), recurrence patterns and toxicity were evaluated. Fifteen patients underwent IMRT during the study period. Definitive RT was performed on 10 patients and post-operative RT was performed on 5 patients. The 1-year LC rate was 85.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 53.9–96.2%). The 1-year OS and PFS rates were 66.7% (95% CI, 37.5–84.6%) and 53.3% (95% CI, 26.3%–74.4%), respectively. Univariate analysis revealed that a clinical target volume over 500 cm3 was associated with poor LC. Distant metastasis was the most common recurrence pattern. All patients experienced Grade 2 or 3 radiation dermatitis, and five patients experienced grade ≥ 3 skin ulceration. One patient who underwent maintenance therapy with pazopanib developed Grade 5 skin ulceration. Fisher's exact test showed that post-operative RT was significantly associated with an increased risk of skin ulceration of grade ≥ 3. These results demonstrate that IMRT is a feasible and effective treatment for scalp or face angiosarcoma, although skin ulceration of grade ≥ 3 is a common adverse event in patients who receive post-operative RT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The applications of Type B [anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and collapsed cone (CC)] and Type C [Acuros XB (AXB) and photon Monte Carlo (PMC)] dose calculation algorithms in spine stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) were evaluated. Water- and bone-equivalent phantoms were combined to evaluate the percentage depth dose and dose profile. Subsequently, 48 consecutive patients with clinical spine SBRT plans were evaluated. All treatment plans were created using AXB in Eclipse. The prescription dose was 24 Gy in two fractions at a 10 MV FFF on TrueBeam. The doses were then recalculated with AAA, CC and PMC while maintaining the AXB-calculated monitor units and beam arrangement. The dose index values obtained using the four dose calculation algorithms were then compared. The AXB and PMC dose distributions agreed with the bone-equivalent phantom measurements (within ±2.0%); the AAA and CC values were higher than those in the bone-equivalent phantom region. For the spine SBRT plans, PMC, AAA and CC were overestimated compared with AXB in terms of the near minimum and maximum doses of the target and organ at risk, respectively; the mean dose difference was within 4.2%, which is equivalent with within 1 Gy. The phantom study showed that the results from AXB and PMC agreed with the measurements within ±2.0%. However, the mean dose difference ranged from 0.5 to 1 Gy in the spine SBRT planning study when the dose calculation algorithms changed. Users should incorporate a clinical introduction that includes an awareness of these differences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]