Search

Purpose: This study uses a phantom to investigate the dosimetric impact of rotational setup errors for Single Isocenter Multiple Targets (SIMT) HyperArc plans. Additionally, it evaluates intra‐fractional rotational setup errors in patients treated with Encompass immobilization system. Methods: The Varian HyperArc system (Varian Medical systems) was used to create plans targeting spherical PTVs with diameters of 5, 10, and 15 mm and with offsets of 1.3–5.3 cm from the isocenter. Dosimetric parameters, including mean and maximum dose, D99% and D95% were evaluated for various rotational setup errors ranging from 0.5° to 2° for the PTVs and certain CTVs created within PTVs. These rotational errors were applied in an order and direction that resulted in the maximum displacement of targets. The rotation was applied both uniformly around all three axes and individually around each axis. Furthermore, to link the findings to actual treatment scenarios, the intra‐fractional rotational setup errors were obtained for stereotactic cranial patients treated with the Encompass system using CBCT images acquired during treatments. Results: The maximum displacement of 2.7 mm was observed for targets located at 4.4 and 4.5 cm from the isocenter with rotational setup errors of 2°. The dose reduction for D99% values corresponding to this displacement were about 50%, 40%, and 30% for PTVs with diameters of 5, 10, and 15 mm, respectively. Both D99% and D95% showed a consistent trend of dose reduction across various rotational errors and PTV volumes. While the maximum dose remained consistent for different targets with various rotational errors, the mean dose decreased by approximately 25%, 12%, and 6% for PTVs with diameters of 5, 10, and 15 cm, respectively, with rotational errors of 2°. In addition, by analyzing CBCT images, the absolute mean rotational setup errors obtained during treatment with Encompass for pitch, roll, and yaw were 0.17° ± 0.13°, 0.11° ± 0.10°, and 0.12° ± 0.10° respectively. This data, combined with existing studies, suggest that a 0.5° rotational setup error is a safe choice to consider for calculating additional PTV margin to ensure adequate CTV coverage. Therefore, the assessment of maximum displacement and dosimetric parameters in this study, for a 0.5° rotational error, highlights the need for an additional 0.7 mm PTV margin for targets positioned at distances of 4.4 cm or greater from the isocenter. Conclusions: For SIMT Plans, a 0.5° rotational setup error is recommended as a basis for calculating additional PTV margins to ensure adequate CTV coverage when using the Encompass system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background To evaluate the combined effect of rotational error and dose gradient on target dose coverage in frameless stereotactic radiotherapy. Methods Three spherical targets of different diameters (1, 1.5, and 2 cm) were drawn and placed equidistantly on the same axial brain computed tomography (CT) images. To test the different isocenter-target distances, 2.5- and 5-cm configurations were prepared. Volumetric modulated arc therapy plans were created for different dose gradients from the target, in which the dose gradients were modified using the maximum dose inside the target. To simulate the rotational error, CT images and targets were rotated in two ways by 0.5°, 1°, and 2°, in which one rotation was in the axial plane and the other was in three dimensions. The initial optimized plan parameters were copied to the rotated CT sets, and the doses were recalculated. The coverage degradation after rotation was analyzed according to the target dislocation and 12-Gy volume. Results A shallower dose gradient reduced the loss of target coverage under target dislocation, and the effect was clearer for small targets. For example, the coverage of the 1-cm target under 1-mm dislocation increased from 93 to 95% by increasing the Paddick gradient index from 5.0 to 7.9. At the same time, the widely accepted necrosis indicator, the 12-Gy volume, increased from 1.2 to 3.5 cm3, which remained in the tolerable range. From the differential dose volume histogram (DVH) analysis, the shallower dose gradient ensured that the dose-deficient under-covered target volume received a higher dose similar to that in the prescription. Conclusions For frameless stereotactic brain radiotherapy, the gradient, alongside the margin addition, can be adjusted as an ancillary parameter for small targets to increase target coverage or at least limit coverage reduction in conditions with probable positioning error.

Background: To evaluate the combined effect of rotational error and dose gradient on target dose coverage in frameless stereotactic radiotherapy.Methods: Three spherical targets of different diameters (1, 1.5, and 2 cm) were drawn and placed equidistantly on the same axial brain computed tomography (CT) images. To test the different isocenter-target distances, 2.5- and 5-cm configurations were prepared. Volumetric modulated arc therapy plans were created for different dose gradients from the target, in which the dose gradients were modified using the maximum dose inside the target. To simulate the rotational error, CT images and targets were rotated in two ways by 0.5°, 1°, and 2°, in which one rotation was in the axial plane and the other was in three dimensions. The initial optimized plan parameters were copied to the rotated CT sets, and the doses were recalculated. The coverage degradation after rotation was analyzed according to the target dislocation and 12-Gy volume.Results: A shallower dose gradient reduced the loss of target coverage under target dislocation, and the effect was clearer for small targets. For example, the coverage of the 1-cm target under 1-mm dislocation increased from 93 to 95% by increasing the Paddick gradient index from 5.0 to 7.9. At the same time, the widely accepted necrosis indicator, the 12-Gy volume, increased from 1.2 to 3.5 cm3, which remained in the tolerable range. From the differential dose volume histogram (DVH) analysis, the shallower dose gradient ensured that the dose-deficient under-covered target volume received a higher dose similar to that in the prescription.Conclusions: For frameless stereotactic brain radiotherapy, the gradient, alongside the margin addition, can be adjusted as an ancillary parameter for small targets to increase target coverage or at least limit coverage reduction in conditions with probable positioning error. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The rapid development and clinical implementation of external beam radiation treatment technologies continues. The existence of various commercially available technologies for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has stimulated interest in exploring the differential potential advantage one may have compared with another. Two such technologies, Hi-Art Helical Tomotherapy (HT) and conventional medical linear accelerator–based IMRT (LIMRT) have been shown to be particularly suitable for the treatment of head and neck cancers. In this study, 23 patients who were diagnosed with stages 3 or 4 head and neck cancers, without evidence of distance metastatic disease, were treated in our clinic. Treatment plans were developed for all patients simultaneously on the HT planning station and on the Pinnacle treatment planning system for step-and-shoot IMRT. Patients were treated only on the HT unit, with the LIMRT plan serving as a backup in case the HT system might not be available. All plans were approved for clinical use by a physician. The prescription was that patients receive at least 95% of the planning target volume (PTV), which is 66 Gy at 2.2 Gy per fraction. Several dosimetric parameters were computed: PTV dose coverage; PTV volume conformity index; the normalized total dose (NTD), where doses were converted to 2 Gy per fraction to organs at risk (OAR); and PTV dose homogeneity. Both planning systems satisfied our clinic''s PTV prescription requirements. The results suggest that HT plans had, in general, slightly better dosimetric characteristics, especially regarding PTV dose homogeneity and normal tissue sparing. However, for both techniques, doses to OAR were well below the currently accepted normal tissue tolerances. Consequently, factors other than the dosimetric parameters studied here may have to be considered when making a choice between IMRT techniques. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background and purpose: In permanent prostate brachytherapy the dose distributions 4 weeks post implant differ from the intraoperative dose distributions. The purpose of this study is to compare intraoperative planning and post implant dosimetry for loose and stranded seed implants. Materials and methods: This study investigates prostate dose coverage in 389 patients with stage T1 or T2 prostate cancer treated in the years 2005, 2006 and 2007. The patients received either a loose seed or a stranded seed implant. All patients had US-based intraoperative planning and CT/MRI-based post implant dosimetry after 4 weeks. Results: Intraoperative and post implant D90 values amounted 183±13Gy (mean±standard deviation) and 161±30Gy, respectively. Decline of D90 values (mean and 95% confidence interval) between intraoperative planning and post implant dosimetry for RAPID strand (n =67), Intersource strand (n =136) and loose selectSeeds (n =186) implants amounted to −40 (−45 to −34)Gy, −25 (−28 to −21)Gy and −15 (−18 to −21)Gy, respectively. Conclusions: The patients treated in the period 2005–2007 with stranded or loose seed implants had on average adequate D90 values of 161±30Gy. Post implant D90 values were 22±27Gy lower compared to intraoperative planning. Decline of dose coverage between intraoperative planning and post implant dosimetry was significantly larger for the stranded seed implants. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Purpose: Respiratory motion presents a significant challenge in stereotactic body radiosurgery. Respiratory tracking that follows the translational movement of the internal fiducials minimizes the uncertainties in dose delivery. However, the effect of deformation, defined as any changes in the body and organs relative to the center of fiducials, remains unanswered. This study investigated this problem and a possible solution. Methods and Materials: Dose delivery using a robotic respiratory-tracking system was studied with clinical data. Each treatment plan was designed with the computed tomography scan in the end-expiration phase. The planned beams were applied to the computed tomography scan in end-inspiration following the shift of the fiducials. The dose coverage was compared with the initial plan, and the uncertainty due to the deformation was estimated. A necessary margin from the clinical target volume to the planning target volume was determined to account for this and other sources of uncertainty. Results: We studied 12 lung and 5 upper abdomen lesions. Our results demonstrated that for lung patients with properly implanted fiducials a 3-mm margin is required to compensate for the deformation and a 5-mm margin is required to compensate for all uncertainties. Our results for the upper abdomen tumors were still preliminary but indicated a similar result, although a larger margin might be required. Conclusion: The effect of body deformation was studied. We found that adequate dose coverage for lung tumors can be ensured with proper fiducial placement and a 5-mm planning target volume margin. This approach is more practical and effective than a recent proposal to combine four-dimensional planning with respiratory tracking. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The purpose of this study was to investigate the dose coverage of sentinel lymph node (SLN) site, level I, II and III axillary target volumes using different field arrangements (standard or high tangent fields: STgF, HTgF and STgF + axillary-supraclavicular field: ASF) in N0 invasive breast cancer patients treated with breast conserving surgery. In 30 patients the SLN site was marked with titanium clip. They were treated with 3D-conformal radiotherapy. Retrospectively, for the purpose of this study, the SLN site and axillary target volumes were contoured, and three plans were generated for each patient using the original CT data. The prescribed dose was 50 Gy (2 Gy/fraction). The mean dose with STgF or HTgF was 33.1 and 49.1 Gy (p=0.0001) in the SLN site, 25.7 and 45.1 Gy (p<0.0001) in level I, 7.2 and 28.9 Gy (p<0.0001) in level II and 3.5 and 12.7 Gy (p=0.0003) in level III. The mean dose with STgF+ASF in level II or III was 45 and 46 Gy. The dose coverage is inadequate to all axillary levels with STgM. The target volumes should be delineated to give accurate dose estimation.