Total-body irradiation using linac-based volumetric modulated arc therapy: Its clinical accuracy, feasibility and reliability.

PURPOSE: To report the feasibility, accuracy, and reliability of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT)-based total-body irradiation (TBI) treatment in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2015 to 2018, 30 patients with AML or ALL were planned and treated with VMAT-based TBI, which consisted of three isocenters and three overlapping arcs. TBI dose was prescribed to 90% of the planning treatment volume (PTV) receiving 12 Gy in six fractions, at two fractions per day. Mean lung and kidney doses were restricted less than 10 Gy, and maximum lens dose less than 6 Gy. Quality assurance (QA) comprised the verification of the irradiation plans via dose-volume histogram (DVH) based 3D patient QA system. RESULTS: Average mean lung dose was 9.7 ±â€¯0.2 Gy, mean kidney dose 9.6 ±â€¯0.2 Gy, maximum lens dose 4.5 ±â€¯0.4 Gy, mean PTV dose 12.7 ±â€¯0.1 Gy, and heterogeneity index of PTV was 1.16 ±â€¯0.02 in all patients. Grade 3 or more acute radiation toxicity was not observed. When comparing plan and DVH-based 3D patient QA results, average differences of 3.3% ±â€¯1.3 in mean kidney doses, 1.1% ±â€¯0.7 in mean lung doses, and 0.9% ±â€¯0.4 in mean target doses were observed. CONCLUSION: Linac-based VMAT increased the dose homogeneity of TBI treatment more than extended SSD techniques. Partial cone-beam CT and optical surface-guided system assure patient positioning. DVH-based 3D patient dose verification QA was possible with linac-based VMAT showing small differences between planned and delivered doses. It is feasible, accurate, and reliable.

An investigation of the dose distribution effect related with collimator angle in volumetric arc therapy of prostate cancer.

To investigate the dose-volume variations of planning target volume (PTV) and organ at risks (OARs) in eleven prostate cancer patients planned with single and double arc volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) when varying collimator angle. Single and double arc VMAT treatment plans were created using Monaco5.0(®) with collimator angle set to 0°. All plans were normalized 7600 cGy dose to the 95% of clinical target volume (CTV) volume. The single arc VMAT plans were reoptimized with different collimator angles (0°, 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, 75°, and 90°), and for double arc VMAT plans (0-0°, 15°-345, 30-330°, 45-315°, 60-300°, 75-285°, 90-270°) using the same optimization parameters. For the comparison the parameters of heterogeneity index (HI), dose-volume histogram and minimum dose to the 95% of PTV volume (D95 PTV) calculated and analyzed. The best plans were verified using 2 dimensional ion chamber array IBA Matrixx(®) and three-dimensional IBA Compass(®) program. The comparison between calculation and measurement were made by the γ-index (3%/3 mm) analysis. A higher D95 (PTV) were found for single arc VMAT with 15° collimator angle. For double arc, VMAT with 60-300° and 75-285° collimator angles. However, lower rectum doses obtained for 75-285° collimator angles. There was no significant dose difference, based on other OARs which are bladder and femur head. When we compared single and double arc VMAT's D95 (PTV), we determined 2.44% high coverage and lower HI with double arc VMAT. All plans passed the γ-index (3%/3 mm) analysis with more than 97% of the points and we had an average γ-index for CTV 0.36, for PTV 0.32 with double arc VMAT. These results were significant by Wilcoxon signed rank test statistically. The results show that dose coverage of target and OAR's doses also depend significantly on the collimator angles due to the geometry of target and OARs. Based on the results we have decided to plan prostate cancer patients in our clinic with double arc VMAT and 75°-285° collimator angles.