Image-guided radiotherapy of the prostate using daily CBCT: the feasibility and likely benefit of implementing a margin reduction.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether planning target volume (PTV) margins may be safely reduced in radiotherapy of localized prostate cancer incorporating daily online tube potential-cone beam CT (CBCT) image guidance and the anticipated benefit in predicted rectal toxicity. METHODS: The prostate-only clinical target volume (CTV2) and rectum were delineated on 1 pre-treatment CBCT each week in 18 randomly selected patients. By transposing these contours onto the original plan, dose-volume histograms (DVHs) for CTV2 and the rectum were each calculated and combined, for each patient, to produce a single mean DVH representative of the dose delivered over the treatment course. Plans were reoptimized using reduced CTV2 to PTV2 margins and the consequent radiobiological impact modelled by the tumour control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) of the rectum. RESULTS: All CBCT images were deemed of sufficient quality to identify the CTV and rectum. No loss of TCP was observed when plans using the standard 5-mm CTV2 to PTV2 margin of the centre were reoptimized with a 4- or 3-mm margin. Margin reduction was associated with a significant decrease in rectal NTCP (5-4 mm; p < 0.05 and 5-3 mm; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Using daily online image guidance with CBCT, a reduction in CTV2 to PTV2 margins to 3 mm is achievable without compromising tumour control. The consequent sparing of surrounding normal tissues is associated with reduced anticipated rectal toxicity. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Margin reduction is feasible and potentially beneficial. Centres with image-guided radiotherapy capability should consider assessing whether margin reduction is possible within their institutes.

Tumour shrinkage and contour change during radiotherapy increase the dose to organs at risk but not the target volumes for head and neck cancer patients treated on the TomoTherapy HiArt™ system.

AIMS: To quantify the changes in contours of the target and organs at risk and the differences between planned and delivered doses to the target and organs at risk during the course of radiotherapy in head and neck cancer patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy on the TomoTherapy HiArt™ system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck treated with radical chemoradiotherapy using the TomoTherapy HiArt system were included in the study. The target volumes were treated to three different dose levels depending on the level of clinical risk for harbouring disease. Patient positions were assessed daily with megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) and positional correction made before each treatment when necessary. MVCTs were superimposed on to the planning kilovoltage computed tomography images for each patient and target volumes and organ at risk volumes were re-outlined on MVCT images. Doses to clinical target volumes and organs at risk were recalculated to show the actual delivered doses. RESULTS: There was shrinkage in the volume of the parotid glands during treatment in all cases. The mean volume reduction in the ipsilateral parotid gland was more marked at 30.2%, compared with the contralateral parotid glands. However, the mean percentage dose per fraction increase was higher in the contralateral parotid glands at 24%, compared with the ipsilateral parotids. The calculated doses were higher than the planned doses in all CTV-54, CTV-60 and CTV-68, but the mean dose differences were modest, in the range 1.3-2.4%. CONCLUSIONS: We have shown that there were considerable changes in the volume and dose to the parotids during treatment. The changes in volume and dose to the clinical target volume were more modest in comparison. Adaptive radiotherapy planning can be helpful in improving the dose to the parotid glands. However, its role in the optimisation of the dosage to the clinical target volume is less likely to result in a significant clinical benefit.

Practical aspects of implementation of helical tomotherapy for intensity-modulated and image-guided radiotherapy.

AIMS: Image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) represent two important technical developments that will probably improve patient outcome. Helical tomotherapy, provided by the TomoTherapy HiArt system, provides an elegant integrated solution providing both technologies, although others are available. Here we report our experience of clinical implementation of daily online IGRT and IMRT using helical tomotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Methods were needed to select patients who would probably benefit. Machine-specific commissioning, a quality assurance programme and patient-specific delivery quality assurance were also needed. The planning target volume dose was prescribed as the median dose, with the added criterion that the 95% isodose should cover 99% of the target volume. Although back-up plans, for delivery on conventional linear accelerators, were initially prepared, this practice was abandoned because they were used very rarely. RESULTS: In the first 12 months, 114 patients were accepted for treatment, and 3343 fractions delivered. New starts averaged 2.6 per week, with an average of 17.5 fractions treated per day, and the total number capped at 22. This has subsequently been raised to 24. Of the first 100 patients, 96 were treated with radical intent. Five were considered to have been untreatable on our standard equipment. IGRT is radiographer led and all patients were imaged daily, with positional correction made before treatment, using an action level of 1mm. A formal training programme was developed and implemented before installation. The in-room time fell significantly during the year, reflecting increasing experience and a software upgrade. More recently, after a couch upgrade in April 2009, the mean in-room time fell to 18.6 min. CONCLUSIONS: Successful implementation of tomotherapy was the result of careful planning and effective teamwork. Treatment, including daily image guidance, positional correction and intensity-modulated delivery, is fast and efficient, and can be integrated into routine service. This should encourage the adoption of these technologies.

Skull base meningioma - comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy planning techniques using the moduleaf micro-multileaf collimator and helical tomotherapy.

AIMS: Therapeutic radiotherapy to lesions of the skull base is limited by complex target shapes and their proximity to organs at risk. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) using helical tomotherapy may result in improved dose distributions and safer dose escalation. The aim of this study was to compare plan efficacy and efficiency using, linac-based micro-multileaf collimator (mMLC) IMRT and helical tomotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five cases of skull base meningioma, previously treated with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (50 Gy/30 fractions) were identified. They were re-planned to a dose of 60 Gy/30 fractions using IMRT with Moduleaf mMLC (2.5 mm) and helical tomotherapy. Plan efficacy was compared using measures of PTV(60) coverage (D(min), D(max), V(90%), V(95%) and V(100%)). Plan efficiency was assessed by comparing estimated beam-on times. RESULTS: The critical structure dose was limited to below predetermined tolerance levels in all cases, with similar doses obtained between techniques. The average PTV(60)D(max), D(min), D(med), D(mean), V(90%), V(95%) and V(100%) across the five cases achieved were as follows: mMLC IMRT: 64.9 Gy, 40.1 Gy, 60 Gy, 59.6 Gy, 95.4%, 88.8% and 69.2%, respectively; helical tomotherapy: 67.2 Gy, 50.3 Gy, 60 Gy, 59.9 Gy, 95.8%, 83.5% and 51.9%, respectively. The average treatment time per fraction was 18.4 min for IMRT with mMLC and 6.7 min for helical tomotherapy. DISCUSSION: This study shows that safe dose escalation to a dose of 60G y to skull base lesions can be achieved; using either mMLC- or helical tomotherapy-based IMRT. A plan comparison between the two solutions is difficult, but they seem to be similar in efficacy with any small differences being difficult to interpret and of questionable clinical significance. Helical tomotherapy has the advantage of a significantly decreased beam-on time.

An assessment of action levels in imaging strategies in head and neck cancer using TomoTherapy. Are our margins adequate in the absence of image guidance?

AIMS: To assess the effectiveness of different on-treatment correction strategies on set-up accuracy in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) treated on a TomoTherapy HiArt system. To assess the adequacy of clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume (PTV) treatment planning margins when treating with intensity-modulated radiotherapy without daily image guidance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The set-up accuracy measured by daily online volumetric imaging was retrospectively reviewed for the first 15 patients with HNC treated on the TomoTherapy unit at Addenbrooke's Hospital. For each fraction, megavoltage computed tomography was carried out, any discrepancy from the planning scan was noted, and corrected, before treatment. These data were used to evaluate imaging correction protocols using three different action levels. The first three fractions were imaged and used to correct for systematic error, using a 5 mm action level (5 mmAL), a 3 mm action level (3 mmAL), and no action level (NAL). All imaging strategies were applied, to assess the number of fractions that would potentially have exceeded a 5 and 3 mm margin. Systematic and random errors were calculated for the population, assuming the NAL protocol had been applied, and minimum CTV-PTV margins, required to allow for errors attributable only to set-up, were calculated using van Herk's formula. RESULTS: In total, 490 fractions were analysed. Using a 5 mmAL imaging protocol, potentially 198/490 fractions (40%) were outside a 5 mm CTV-PTV margin and 400/490 (82%) were outside a 3 mm margin. Using a 3 mmAL imaging protocol, potentially 67/490 fractions (14%) were outside a 5 mm CTV-PTV margin and 253/490 (52%) were outside a 3 mm margin. A small systematic error was identified in the system; once corrected this would improve these results. Using the NAL imaging protocol, potentially 31/490 fractions (6%) were outside a 5 mm CTV-PTV margin and 143/490 fractions (29%) were outside a 3 mm margin. Estimated minimum CTV-PTV margins to account only for set-up errors, with three-fraction image-guided radiotherapy and a NAL protocol, were 2.8, 3.1 and 4.1 mm in the mediolateral, superior-inferior and anterior-posterior directions, respectively. CONCLUSION: Reducing the action level at which the systematic error is corrected improves the probability of treatment delivery accuracy. Using the NAL correction protocol reduces the number of fractions that have set-up displacements outside a 5 mm CTV-PTV margin. Although a 5 mm margin is probably sufficient for standard HNC radiotherapy, change to a 3 mm margin is not favoured at our centre without access to daily image-guided radiotherapy.

Practical issues in the implementation of image-guided radiotherapy for the treatment of prostate cancer within a UK department.

AIMS: To study the feasibility of using implanted gold seeds in combination with a commercial software system for daily localisation of the prostate gland during conformal radiotherapy, and to assess the effect this may have on departmental workload. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six patients had three gold radio-opaque seeds implanted into the prostate gland before starting a course of radiotherapy. The seeds were identified on daily portal images and an automated online system provided immediate vector analysis of discrepancies between the planned and actual daily position of the intraprostatic seeds. In total, 138 interfractional displacements were analysed. The workload impact for the department was assessed using the basic treatment equivalence model, by comparing measurements of daily treatment session durations with a control group of patients receiving standard conformal radiotherapy, matched for treatment complexity. RESULTS: No acute complications of seed insertion were observed. A number of developmental issues required solutions to be identified before clinical implementation was possible. The standard deviations of the set-up and organ motion systematic errors in the left-right, superior-inferior and anterior-posterior directions were 2.4, 3.0 and 2.5 mm, respectively. The standard deviations of the set-up and organ motion random errors calculated were 2.5, 2.9 and 3.7 mm. The mean treatment session duration with this daily prostate localisation system was increased by 3 min compared with matched controls using standard imaging practice. If all radical prostate patients in our department were to receive image-guided radiotherapy in this way, this would increase machine workload time by 2.2 h/day. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of this image-guided system is feasible. No additional linear accelerator modification is required and standard imaging devices can be used. It would be a useful addition to any department's image-guided radiotherapy developmental strategy.

Quantitative analysis of patient-specific dosimetric IMRT verification.

Patient-specific dosimetric verification methods for IMRT treatments are variable, time-consuming and frequently qualitative, preventing evidence-based reduction in the amount of verification performed. This paper addresses some of these issues by applying a quantitative analysis parameter to the dosimetric verification procedure. Film measurements in different planes were acquired for a series of ten IMRT prostate patients, analysed using the quantitative parameter, and compared to determine the most suitable verification plane. Film and ion chamber verification results for 61 patients were analysed to determine long-term accuracy, reproducibility and stability of the planning and delivery system. The reproducibility of the measurement and analysis system was also studied. The results show that verification results are strongly dependent on the plane chosen, with the coronal plane particularly insensitive to delivery error. Unexpectedly, no correlation could be found between the levels of error in different verification planes. Longer term verification results showed consistent patterns which suggest that the amount of patient-specific verification can be safely reduced, provided proper caution is exercised: an evidence-based model for such reduction is proposed. It is concluded that dose/distance to agreement (e.g., 3%/3 mm) should be used as a criterion of acceptability. Quantitative parameters calculated for a given criterion of acceptability should be adopted in conjunction with displays that show where discrepancies occur. Planning and delivery systems which cannot meet the required standards of accuracy, reproducibility and stability to reduce verification will not be accepted by the radiotherapy community.