Planning 4D intensity-modulated arc therapy for tumor tracking with a multileaf collimator.

This study introduces a practical four-dimensional (4D) planning scheme of IMAT using 4D computed tomography (4D CT) for planning tumor tracking with dynamic multileaf beam collimation. We assume that patients can breathe regularly, i.e. the same way as during 4D CT with an unchanged period and amplitude, and that the start of 4D-IMAT delivery can be synchronized with a designated respiratory phase. Each control point of the IMAT-delivery process can be associated with an image set of 4D CT at a specified respiratory phase. Target is contoured at each respiratory phase without a motion-induced margin. A 3D-IMAT plan is first optimized on a reference-phase image set of 4D CT. Then, based on the projections of the planning target volume in the beam's eye view at different respiratory phases, a 4D-IMAT plan is generated by transforming the segments of the optimized 3D plan by using a direct aperture deformation method. Compensation for both translational and deformable tumor motion is accomplished, and the smooth delivery of the transformed plan is ensured by forcing connectivity between adjacent angles (control points). It is envisioned that the resultant plans can be delivered accurately using the dose rate regulated tracking method which handles breathing irregularities (Yi et al 2008 Med. Phys. 35 3955-62).This planning process is straightforward and only adds a small step to current clinical 3D planning practice. Our 4D planning scheme was tested on three cases to evaluate dosimetric benefits. The created 4D-IMAT plans showed similar dose distributions as compared with the 3D-IMAT plans on a single static phase, indicating that our method is capable of eliminating the dosimetric effects of breathing induced target motion. Compared to the 3D-IMAT plans with large treatment margins encompassing respiratory motion, our 4D-IMAT plans reduced radiation doses to surrounding normal organs and tissues.

Dosimetric comparison between intra-cavitary breast brachytherapy techniques for accelerated partial breast irradiation and a novel stereotactic radiotherapy device for breast cancer: GammaPod™.

The GammaPod™ device, manufactured by Xcision Medical Systems, is a novel stereotactic breast irradiation device. It consists of a hemispherical source carrier containing 36 Cobalt-60 sources, a tungsten collimator with two built-in collimation sizes, a dynamically controlled patient support table and a breast immobilization cup also functioning as the stereotactic frame for the patient. The dosimetric output of the GammaPod™ was modelled using a Monte Carlo based treatment planning system. For the comparison, three-dimensional (3D) models of commonly used intra-cavitary breast brachytherapy techniques utilizing single lumen and multi-lumen balloon as well as peripheral catheter multi-lumen implant devices were created and corresponding 3D dose calculations were performed using the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group-43 formalism. Dose distributions for clinically relevant target volumes were optimized using dosimetric goals set forth in the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-39. For clinical scenarios assuming similar target sizes and proximity to critical organs, dose coverage, dose fall-off profiles beyond the target and skin doses at given distances beyond the target were calculated for GammaPod™ and compared with the doses achievable by the brachytherapy techniques. The dosimetric goals within the protocol guidelines were fulfilled for all target sizes and irradiation techniques. For central targets, at small distances from the target edge (up to approximately 1 cm) the brachytherapy techniques generally have a steeper dose fall-off gradient compared to GammaPod™ and at longer distances (more than about 1 cm) the relation is generally observed to be opposite. For targets close to the skin, the relative skin doses were considerably lower for GammaPod™ than for any of the brachytherapy techniques. In conclusion, GammaPod™ allows adequate and more uniform dose coverage to centrally and peripherally located targets with an acceptable dose fall-off and lower relative skin dose than the brachytherapy techniques considered in this study.

GammaPod-a new device dedicated for stereotactic radiotherapy of breast cancer.

PURPOSE: This paper introduces a new external beam radiotherapy device named GammaPod that is dedicated for stereotactic radiotherapy of breast cancer. METHODS: The design goal of the GammaPod as a dedicated system for treating breast cancer is the ability to deliver ablative doses with sharp gradients under stereotactic image guidance. Stereotactic localization of the breast is achieved by a vacuum-assisted breast immobilization cup with built-in stereotactic frame. Highly focused radiation is achieved at the isocenter due to the cross-firing from 36 radiation arcs generated by rotating 36 individual Cobalt-60 beams. The dedicated treatment planning system optimizes an optimal path of the focal spot using an optimization algorithm borrowed from computational geometry such that the target can be covered by 90%-95% of the prescription dose and the doses to surrounding tissues are minimized. The treatment plan is intended to be delivered with continuous motion of the treatment couch. In this paper the authors described in detail the gamma radiation unit, stereotactic localization of the breast, and the treatment planning system of the GammaPod system. RESULTS: A prototype GammaPod system was installed at University of Maryland Medical Center and has gone through a thorough functional, geometric, and dosimetric testing. The mechanical and functional performances of the system all meet the functional specifications. CONCLUSIONS: An image-guided breast stereotactic radiotherapy device, named GammaPod, has been developed to deliver highly focused and localized doses to a target in the breast under stereotactic image guidance. It is envisioned that the GammaPod technology has the potential to significantly shorten radiation treatments and even eliminate surgery by ablating the tumor and sterilizing the tumor bed simultaneously.

Dosimetric and geometric evaluation of a novel stereotactic radiotherapy device for breast cancer: the GammaPod™.

PURPOSE: A dedicated stereotactic gamma irradiation device, the GammaPod™ from Xcision Medical Systems, was developed specifically to treat small breast cancers. This study presents the first evaluation of dosimetric and geometric characteristics from the initial prototype installed at University of Maryland Radiation Oncology Department. METHODS: The GammaPod™ stereotactic radiotherapy device is an assembly of a hemi-spherical source carrier containing 36 (60)Co sources, a tungsten collimator, a dynamically controlled patient support table, and the breast immobilization system which also functions as a stereotactic frame. The source carrier contains the sources in six columns spaced longitudinally at 60° intervals and it rotates together with the variable-size collimator to form 36 noncoplanar, concentric arcs focused at the isocenter. The patient support table enables motion in three dimensions to position the patient tumor at the focal point of the irradiation. The table moves continuously in three cardinal dimensions during treatment to provide dynamic shaping of the dose distribution. The breast is immobilized using a breast cup applying a small negative pressure, where the immobilization cup is embedded with fiducials also functioning as the stereotactic frame for the breast. Geometric and dosimetric evaluations of the system as well as a protocol for absorbed dose calibration are provided. Dosimetric verifications of dynamically delivered patient plans are performed for seven patients using radiochromic films in hypothetical preop, postop, and target-in-target treatment scenarios. RESULTS: Loaded with 36 (60)Co sources with cumulative activity of 4320 Ci, the prototype GammaPod™ unit delivers 5.31 Gy/min at the isocenter using the largest 2.5 cm diameter collimator. Due to the noncoplanar beam arrangement and dynamic dose shaping features, the GammaPod™ device is found to deliver uniform doses to targets with good conformity. The spatial accuracy of the device to locate the radiation isocenter is determined to be less than 1 mm. Single shot profiles with 2.5 cm collimator are measured with radiochromic film and found to be in good agreement with respect to the Monte Carlo based calculations (congruence of FWHM less than 1 mm). Dosimetric verifications corresponding to all hypothetical treatment plans corresponding to three target scenarios for each of the seven patients demonstrated good agreement with gamma index pass rates of better than 97% (99.0% ± 0.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Dosimetric evaluation of the first GammaPod™ stereotactic breast radiotherapy unit was performed and the dosimetric and spatial accuracy of this novel technology is found to be feasible with respect to clinical radiotherapy standards. The observed level of agreement between the treatment planning system calculations and dosimetric measurements has confirmed that the system can deliver highly complex treatment plans with remarkable geometric and dosimetric accuracy.

Is RapidArc more susceptible to delivery uncertainties than dynamic IMRT?

PURPOSE: Rotational IMRT has been adopted by many clinics for its promise to deliver treatments in a shorter amount of time than other conventional IMRT techniques. In this paper, the authors investigate whether RapidArc is more susceptible to delivery uncertainties than dynamic IMRT using fixed fields. METHODS: Dosimetric effects of delivery uncertainties in dose rate, gantry angle, and MLC leaf positions were evaluated by incorporating these uncertainties into RapidArc and sliding window IMRT (SW IMRT) treatment plans for five head-and-neck and five prostate cases. Dose distributions and dose-volume histograms of original and modified plans were recalculated and compared using Gamma analysis and dose indices of planned treatment volumes (PTV) and organs at risk (OAR). Results of Gamma analyses using passing criteria ranging from 1%-1 mm up to 5%-3 mm were reported. RESULTS: Systematic shifts in MLC leaf bank positions of SW-IMRT cases resulted in 2-4 times higher average percent differences than RapidArc cases. Uniformly distributed random variations of 2 mm for active MLC leaves had a negligible effect on all dose distributions. Sliding window cases were much more sensitive to systematic shifts in gantry angle. Dose rate variations during RapidArc must be much larger than typical machine tolerances to affect dose distributions significantly; dynamic IMRT is inherently not susceptible to such variations. CONCLUSIONS: RapidArc deliveries were found to be more tolerant to variations in gantry position and MLC leaf position than SW IMRT. This may be attributed to the fact that the average segmental field size or MLC leaf opening is much larger for RapidArc. Clinically acceptable treatments may be delivered successfully using RapidArc despite large fluctuations in dose rate and gantry position.

Four-dimensional dose distributions of step-and-shoot IMRT delivered with real-time tumor tracking for patients with irregular breathing: constant dose rate vs dose rate regulation.

PURPOSE: Dose-rate-regulated tracking (DRRT) is a tumor tracking strategy that programs the MLC to track the tumor under regular breathing and adapts to breathing irregularities during delivery using dose rate regulation. Constant-dose-rate tracking (CDRT) is a strategy that dynamically repositions the beam to account for intrafractional 3D target motion according to real-time information of target location obtained from an independent position monitoring system. The purpose of this study is to illustrate the differences in the effectiveness and delivery accuracy between these two tracking methods in the presence of breathing irregularities. METHODS: Step-and-shoot IMRT plans optimized at a reference phase were extended to remaining phases to generate 10-phased 4D-IMRT plans using segment aperture morphing (SAM) algorithm, where both tumor displacement and deformation were considered. A SAM-based 4D plan has been demonstrated to provide better plan quality than plans not considering target deformation. However, delivering such a plan requires preprogramming of the MLC aperture sequence. Deliveries of the 4D plans using DRRT and CDRT tracking approaches were simulated assuming the breathing period is either shorter or longer than the planning day, for 4 IMRT cases: two lung and two pancreatic cases with maximum GTV centroid motion greater than 1 cm were selected. In DRRT, dose rate was regulated to speed up or slow down delivery as needed such that each planned segment is delivered at the planned breathing phase. In CDRT, MLC is separately controlled to follow the tumor motion, but dose rate was kept constant. In addition to breathing period change, effect of breathing amplitude variation on target and critical tissue dose distribution is also evaluated. RESULTS: Delivery of preprogrammed 4D plans by the CDRT method resulted in an average of 5% increase in target dose and noticeable increase in organs at risk (OAR) dose when patient breathing is either 10% faster or slower than the planning day. In contrast, DRRT method showed less than 1% reduction in target dose and no noticeable change in OAR dose under the same breathing period irregularities. When ±20% variation of target motion amplitude was present as breathing irregularity, the two delivery methods show compatible plan quality if the dose distribution of CDRT delivery is renormalized. CONCLUSIONS: Delivery of 4D-IMRT treatment plans, stemmed from 3D step-and-shoot IMRT and preprogrammed using SAM algorithm, is simulated for two dynamic MLC-based real-time tumor tracking strategies: with and without dose-rate regulation. Comparison of cumulative dose distribution indicates that the preprogrammed 4D plan is more accurately and efficiently conformed using the DRRT strategy, as it compensates the interplay between patient breathing irregularity and tracking delivery without compromising the segment-weight modulation.

Improving IMRT-plan quality with MLC leaf position refinement post plan optimization.

PURPOSE: In intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) planning, reducing the pencil-beam size may lead to a significant improvement in dose conformity, but also increase the time needed for the dose calculation and plan optimization. The authors develop and evaluate a postoptimization refinement (POpR) method, which makes fine adjustments to the multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf positions after plan optimization, enhancing the spatial precision and improving the plan quality without a significant impact on the computational burden. METHODS: The authors' POpR method is implemented using a commercial treatment planning system based on direct aperture optimization. After an IMRT plan is optimized using pencil beams with regular pencil-beam step size, a greedy search is conducted by looping through all of the involved MLC leaves to see if moving the MLC leaf in or out by half of a pencil-beam step size will improve the objective function value. The half-sized pencil beams, which are used for updating dose distribution in the greedy search, are derived from the existing full-sized pencil beams without need for further pencil-beam dose calculations. A benchmark phantom case and a head-and-neck (HN) case are studied for testing the authors' POpR method. RESULTS: Using a benchmark phantom and a HN case, the authors have verified that their POpR method can be an efficient technique in the IMRT planning process. Effectiveness of POpR is confirmed by noting significant improvements in objective function values. Dosimetric benefits of POpR are comparable to those of using a finer pencil-beam size from the optimization start, but with far less computation and time. CONCLUSIONS: The POpR is a feasible and practical method to significantly improve IMRT-plan quality without compromising the planning efficiency.

High-dose spatially fractionated GRID radiation therapy (SFGRT): a comparison of treatment outcomes with Cerrobend vs. MLC SFGRT.

PURPOSE: Spatially fractionated GRID radiotherapy (SFGRT) using a customized Cerrobend block has been used to improve response rates in patients with bulky tumors. The clinical efficacy of our own multileaf collimator (MLC) technique is unknown. We undertook a retrospective analysis to compare clinical response rates attained using these two techniques. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Seventy-nine patients with bulky tumors (median diameter, 7.6 cm; range, 4-30 cm) treated with SFGRT were reviewed. Between 2003 and late 2005, the Cerrobend block technique (n = 39) was used. Between late 2005 and 2008, SFGRT was delivered using MLC-shaped fields (n = 40). Dose was prescribed to dmax (depth of maximum dose) and was typically 15 Gy. Eighty percent of patients in both groups received external beam radiotherapy in addition to SFGRT. The two-sided Fisher-Freeman-Halton test was used to compare pain and mass effect response rates between the two groups. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients (77%) were treated for palliative intent and 18 (23%) for curative intent. The majority of patients had either lung or head-and-neck primaries in both groups; the most frequent site of SFGRT application was the neck. The majority of patients complained of either pain (65%) or mass effect (58%) at intake. Overall response rates for pain and mass response were no different between the Cerrobend and MLC groups: pain, 75% and 74%, respectively (p = 0.50), and mass effect, 67% and 73%, respectively (p = 0.85). The majority of toxicities were Grade 1 or 2, and only 3 patients had late Grade 3-4 toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: MLC-based and Cerrobend-based SFGRT have comparable and encouraging response rates when used either in the palliative or curative setting. MLC-based SGFRT should allow clinics to more easily adopt this novel treatment approach for the treatment of bulky tumors.

Intensity-modulated arc therapy: principles, technologies and clinical implementation.

Intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT) was proposed by Yu (1995 Phys. Med. Biol. 40 1435-49) as an alternative to tomotherapy. Over more than a decade, much progress has been made. The advantages and limitations of the IMAT technique have also been better understood. In recent years, single-arc forms of IMAT have emerged and become commercially adopted. The leading example is the volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), a single-arc form of IMAT that delivers apertures of varying weights with a single-arc rotation that uses dose-rate variation of the treatment machine. With commercial implementation of VMAT, wide clinical adoption has quickly taken root. However, there remains a lack of general understanding for the planning of such arc treatments, as well as what delivery limitations and compromises are made. Commercial promotion and competition add further confusion for the end users. It is therefore necessary to provide a summary of this technology and some guidelines on its clinical implementation. The purpose of this review is to provide a summary of the works from the radiotherapy community that led to wide clinical adoption, and point out the issues that still remain, providing some perspective on its further developments. Because there has been vast experience in IMRT using multiple intensity-modulated fields, comparisons between IMAT and IMRT are also made in the review within the areas of planning, delivery and quality assurance.

Helical tomotherapy versus single-arc intensity-modulated arc therapy: a collaborative dosimetric comparison between two institutions.

PURPOSE: Both helical tomotherapy (HT) and single-arc intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT) deliver radiation using rotational beams with multileaf collimators. We report a dual-institution study comparing dosimetric aspects of these two modalities. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eight patients each were selected from the University of Maryland (UMM) and the University of Wisconsin Cancer Center Riverview (UWR), for a total of 16 cases. Four cancer sites including brain, head and neck (HN), lung, and prostate were selected. Single-arc IMAT plans were generated at UMM using Varian RapidArc (RA), and HT plans were generated at UWR using Hi-Art II TomoTherapy. All 16 cases were planned based on the identical anatomic contours, prescriptions, and planning objectives. All plans were swapped for analysis at the same time after final approval. Dose indices for targets and critical organs were compared based on dose-volume histograms, the beam-on time, monitor units, and estimated leakage dose. After the disclosure of comparison results, replanning was done for both techniques to minimize diversity in optimization focus from different operators. RESULTS: For the 16 cases compared, the average beam-on time was 1.4 minutes for RA and 4.8 minutes for HT plans. HT provided better target dose homogeneity (7.6% for RA and 4.2% for HT) with a lower maximum dose (110% for RA and 105% for HT). Dose conformation numbers were comparable, with RA being superior to HT (0.67 vs. 0.60). The doses to normal tissues using these two techniques were comparable, with HT showing lower doses for more critical structures. After planning comparison results were exchanged, both techniques demonstrated improvements in dose distributions or treatment delivery times. CONCLUSIONS: Both techniques created highly conformal plans that met or exceeded the planning goals. The delivery time and total monitor units were lower in RA than in HT plans, whereas HT provided higher target dose uniformity.

GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo convolution/superposition implementation for dose calculation.

PURPOSE: Dose calculation is a key component in radiation treatment planning systems. Its performance and accuracy are crucial to the quality of treatment plans as emerging advanced radiation therapy technologies are exerting ever tighter constraints on dose calculation. A common practice is to choose either a deterministic method such as the convolution/superposition (CS) method for speed or a Monte Carlo (MC) method for accuracy. The goal of this work is to boost the performance of a hybrid Monte Carlo convolution/superposition (MCCS) method by devising a graphics processing unit (GPU) implementation so as to make the method practical for day-to-day usage. METHODS: Although the MCCS algorithm combines the merits of MC fluence generation and CS fluence transport, it is still not fast enough to be used as a day-to-day planning tool. To alleviate the speed issue of MC algorithms, the authors adopted MCCS as their target method and implemented a GPU-based version. In order to fully utilize the GPU computing power, the MCCS algorithm is modified to match the GPU hardware architecture. The performance of the authors' GPU-based implementation on an Nvidia GTX260 card is compared to a multithreaded software implementation on a quad-core system. RESULTS: A speedup in the range of 6.7-11.4x is observed for the clinical cases used. The less than 2% statistical fluctuation also indicates that the accuracy of the authors' GPU-based implementation is in good agreement with the results from the quad-core CPU implementation. CONCLUSIONS: This work shows that GPU is a feasible and cost-efficient solution compared to other alternatives such as using cluster machines or field-programmable gate arrays for satisfying the increasing demands on computation speed and accuracy of dose calculation. But there are also inherent limitations of using GPU for accelerating MC-type applications, which are also analyzed in detail in this article.

Comparative analysis of the post-lumpectomy target volume versus the use of pre-lumpectomy tumor volume for early-stage breast cancer: implications for the future.

PURPOSE: Three-dimensional conformal accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI-3D-CRT) is commonly associated with the treatment of large amounts of normal breast tissue. We hypothesized that a planning tumor volume (PTV) generation based on an expansion of the pre-lumpectomy (pre-LPC) intact tumor volume would result in smaller volumes of irradiated normal breast tissue compared with using a PTV based on the post-lumpectomy cavity (post-LPC). Use of PTVs based on the pre-LPC might also result in greater patient eligibility for APBI-3D-CRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Forty-one early-stage breast cancers were analyzed. Preoperative imaging was used to determine a pre-LPC tumor volume. PTVs were developed in the pre- and post-LPC settings as per National Surgical Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP)-B39 guidelines. The pre- and post-LPC PTV volumes were compared and eligibility for APBI-3D-CRT determined using NSABP-B39 criteria. RESULTS: The post-LPC PTV exceeded the pre-LPC PTV in all cases. The median volume for the pre- and post-LPC PTVs were 93 cm(3) (range, 24-570 cm(3)) and 250 cm(3) (range, 45-879 cm(3)), respectively, p <0.001. The difference between pre- and post-LPC PTVs represented a median of 165 cc (range, 21-482 cc) or 16% (range, 3%-42%) of the whole breast volume. Three of 41 vs. 13 of 41 cases were ineligible for APBI-3D-CRT when using the pre- and post-LPC PTVs, respectively. CONCLUSION: PTVs based on pre-LPC tumor expansion are likely associated with reduced amounts of irradiated normal breast tissue compared with post-LPC PTVs, possibly leading to greater patient eligibility for APBI-3D-CRT. These findings support future investigation as to the feasibility of neoadjuvant APBI-3D-CRT.

Comparing radiation treatments using intensity-modulated beams, multiple arcs, and single arcs.

PURPOSE: A dosimetric comparison of multiple static-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), multiarc intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT), and single-arc arc-modulated radiation therapy (AMRT) was performed to evaluate their clinical advantages and shortcomings. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twelve cases were selected for this study, including three head-and-neck, three brain, three lung, and three prostate cases. An IMRT, IMAT, and AMRT plan was generated for each of the cases, with clinically relevant planning constraints. For a fair comparison, the same parameters were used for the IMRT, IMAT, and AMRT planning for each patient. RESULTS: Multiarc IMAT provided the best plan quality, while single-arc AMRT achieved dose distributions comparable to those of IMRT, especially in the complicated head-and-neck and brain cases. Both AMRT and IMAT showed effective normal tissue sparing without compromising target coverage and delivered a lower total dose to the surrounding normal tissues in some cases. CONCLUSIONS: IMAT provides the most uniform and conformal dose distributions, especially for the cases with large and complex targets, but with a delivery time similar to that of IMRT; whereas AMRT achieves results comparable to IMRT with significantly faster treatment delivery.

Variable dose rate single-arc IMAT delivered with a constant dose rate and variable angular spacing.

Single-arc intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT) has gained worldwide interest in both research and clinical implementation due to its superior plan quality and delivery efficiency. Single-arc IMAT techniques such as the Varian RapidArc deliver conformal dose distributions to the target in one single gantry rotation, resulting in a delivery time in the order of 2 min. The segments in these techniques are evenly distributed within an arc and are allowed to have different monitor unit (MU) weightings. Therefore, a variable dose-rate (VDR) is required for delivery. Because the VDR requirement complicates the control hardware and software of the linear accelerators (linacs) and prevents most existing linacs from delivering IMAT, we propose an alternative planning approach for IMAT using constant dose-rate (CDR) delivery with variable angular spacing. We prove the equivalence by converting VDR-optimized RapidArc plans to CDR plans, where the evenly spaced beams in the VDR plan are redistributed to uneven spacing such that the segments with larger MU weighting occupy a greater angular interval. To minimize perturbation in the optimized dose distribution, the angular deviation of the segments was restricted to

Role of image-guided patient repositioning and online planning in localized prostate cancer IMRT.

PURPOSE: To determine the expected benefit of image-guided online replanning over image-guided repositioning of localized prostate cancer intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: On 10 to 11 CT scans of each of 10 early-stage prostate cancer patients, the prostate, bladder and rectum are manually segmented. Using a 3-mm PTV margin expansion from the CTV, an IMRT plan is made on the first CT scan of each patient. Online repositioning is simulated by recalculating the IMRT plan from the initial CT scan on the subsequent CT scans of each patient. For online replanning, IMRT is replanned twice on all CT scans, using 0-mm and 3-mm margins. The doses from subsequent CT images of each patient are then deformed to the initial CT anatomy using a mesh-based thin-plate B-spline deformation method and are accumulated for DVH and isodose review. RESULTS: Paired t-tests show that online replanning with 3-mm margins significantly increases the prostate volume receiving the prescribed dose over replanning with 0-mm margins (p-value 0.004); gives marginally better target coverage than repositioning with 3-mm margins(p-value 0.06-0.343), and reduces variations in target coverage over repositioning. Fractional volumes of rectum and bladder receiving 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, and 95% (V75, V80, V85, V90, and V95) of the prescription dose are evaluated. V90 and V95 values for the rectum are 1.6% and 0.7 % for 3-mm margin replanning and 1% and 0.4 % for 0-mm margin replanning, with p-values of 0.010-0.011. No significant differences between repositioning and replanning with 3-mm margins are found for both the rectum and the bladder. CONCLUSIONS: Image-guided replanning using 3-mm margins reduces target coverage variations, and maintains comparable rectum and bladder sparing to patient repositioning in localized prostate cancer IMRT. Marginal reductions in doses to rectum and bladder are possible when planning margins are eliminated in the online replanning scenario. However, further reduction in treatment planning margins is not recommended.

Arc-modulated radiation therapy (AMRT): a single-arc form of intensity-modulated arc therapy.

Arc-modulated radiation therapy (AMRT) is a novel rotational intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) technique developed for a clinical linear accelerator that aims to deliver highly conformal radiation treatment using just one arc of gantry rotation. Compared to fixed-gantry IMRT and the multiple-arc intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT) techniques, AMRT promises the same treatment quality with a single-arc delivery. In this paper, we present a treatment planning scheme for AMRT, which addresses the challenges in inverse planning, leaf sequencing and dose calculation. The feasibility and performance of this AMRT treatment planning scheme have been verified with multiple clinical cases of various sites on Varian linear accelerators.

Stochastic versus deterministic kernel-based superposition approaches for dose calculation of intensity-modulated arcs.

Dose calculations for radiation arc therapy are traditionally performed by approximating continuous delivery arcs with multiple static beams. For 3D conformal arc treatments, the shape and weight variation per degree is usually small enough to allow arcs to be approximated by static beams separated by 5 degrees -10 degrees . But with intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT), the variation in shape and dose per degree can be large enough to require a finer angular spacing. With the increase in the number of beams, a deterministic dose calculation method, such as collapsed-cone convolution/superposition, will require proportionally longer computational times, which may not be practical clinically. We propose to use a homegrown Monte Carlo kernel-superposition technique (MCKS) to compute doses for rotational delivery. The IMAT plans were generated with 36 static beams, which were subsequently interpolated into finer angular intervals for dose calculation to mimic the continuous arc delivery. Since MCKS uses random sampling of photons, the dose computation time only increased insignificantly for the interpolated-static-beam plans that may involve up to 720 beams. Ten past IMRT cases were selected for this study. Each case took approximately 15-30 min to compute on a single CPU running Mac OS X using the MCKS method. The need for a finer beam spacing is dictated by how fast the beam weights and aperture shapes change between the adjacent static planning beam angles. MCKS, however, obviates the concern by allowing hundreds of beams to be calculated in practically the same time as for a few beams. For more than 43 beams, MCKS usually takes less CPU time than the collapsed-cone algorithm used by the Pinnacle(3) planning system.

On the sources of drift in a turbine-based spirometer.

A systematic study on the sources of drift in a turbine-based spirometer (VMM-400) is presented. The study utilized an air-tight cylinder to pump air through the spirometer in a precise and programmable manner. Factors contributing to the drift were isolated and quantified. The drift due to imbalance in the electronics and the mechanical blade increased from 1% per breathing cycle to as much as 10% when the flow rate decreased from 0.24 to 0.08 l s(-1). A temperature difference of 16 degrees between the ambient and the air in the cylinder contributed about 3.5%. Most significantly, a difference in the breathing between inhalation and exhalation could produce a drift of 40% per breathing cycle, or even higher, depending on the extent of the breathing asymmetry. The origin of this drift was found to be rooted in the differential response of the spirometer to the different flow rate. Some ideas and suggestions for a correction strategy are provided for future work. The present work provides an important first step for eventual utilization of a spirometer as a stand-alone breathing surrogate for gating or tracking radiation therapy.