Radiation dose escalation based on FDG-PET driven dose painting by numbers in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: a dosimetric comparison between TomoTherapy-HA and RapidArc.

PURPOSE: Validation of dose escalation through FDG-PET dose painting (DP) for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) requires randomized clinical trials with large sample size, potentially involving different treatment planning and delivery systems. As a first step of a joint clinical study of DP, a planning comparison was performed between Tomotherapy HiArt® (HT) and Varian RapidArc® (RA). METHODS: The planning study was conducted on five patients with oropharyngeal SCC. Elective and therapeutic CTVs were delineated based on anatomic information, and the respective PTVs (CTVs + 4 mm) were prescribed a dose of 56 (PTV56) and 70 Gy (PTV70). A gradient-based method was used to delineate automatically the external contours of the FDG-PET volume (GTVPET). Variation of the FDG uptake within the GTVPET was linearly converted into a prescription between 70 and 86 Gy. A dilation of the voxel-by-voxel prescription of 2.5 mm was applied to account for geometric errors in dose delivery (PTVPET). The study was divided in two planning phases aiming at maximizing target coverage (phase I) and lowering doses to OAR (phase II). A Quality-Volume Histogram (QVH) assessed conformity with the DP prescription inside the PTVPET. RESULTS: In phase I, for both HT and RA, all plans achieved comparable target coverage for PTV56 and PTV70, respecting the planning objectives. A median value of 99.9 and 97.2% of all voxels in the PTVPET received at least 95% of the prescribed dose for RA and HT, respectively. A median value of 0.0% and 3.7% of the voxels in the PTVPET received 105% or more of prescribed dose for RA and HT, respectively. In phase II, no significant differences were found in OAR sparing. Median treatment times were 13.7 min for HT and 5 min for RA. CONCLUSIONS: Both HT and RA can generate similar dose distributions for FDG-PET based dose escalation and dose painting in oropharyngeal SCC patients.

A dosimetric selectivity intercomparison of HDR brachytherapy, IMRT and helical tomotherapy in prostate cancer radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Dose escalation in order to improve the biochemical control in prostate cancer requires the application of irradiation techniques with high conformality. The dosimetric selectivity of three radiation modalities is compared: high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT), intensity-modulated radiation radiotherapy (IMRT), and helical tomotherapy (HT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ten patients with prostate adenocarcinoma treated by a 10-Gy HDR-BT boost after external-beam radiotherapy were investigated. For each patient, HDR-BT, IMRT and HT theoretical treatment plans were realized using common contour sets. A 10-Gy dose was prescribed to the planning target volume (PTV). The PTVs and critical organs' dose-volume histograms obtained were compared using Student's t-test. RESULTS: HDR-BT delivers spontaneously higher mean doses to the PTV with smaller cold spots compared to IMRT and HT. 33% of the rectal volume received a mean HDR-BT dose of 3.86 + or - 0.3 Gy in comparison with a mean IMRT dose of 6.57 + or - 0.68 Gy and a mean HT dose of 5.58 + or - 0.71 Gy (p < 0.0001). HDR-BT also enables to better spare the bladder. The hot spots inside the urethra are greater with HDR-BT. The volume of healthy tissue receiving 10% of the prescribed dose is reduced at least by a factor of 8 with HDR-BT (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: HDR-BT offers better conformality in comparison with HT and IMRT and reduces the volume of healthy tissue receiving a low dose.

A dosimetry study comparing NCS report-5, IAEA TRS-381, AAPM TG-51 and IAEA TRS-398 in three clinical electron beam energies.

New codes of practice for reference dosimetry in clinical high-energy photon and electron beams have been published recently, to replace the air kerma based codes of practice that have determined the dosimetry of these beams for the past twenty years. In the present work, we compared dosimetry based on the two most widespread absorbed dose based recommendations (AAPM TG-51 and IAEA TRS-398) with two air kerma based recommendations (NCS report-5 and IAEA TRS-381). Measurements were performed in three clinical electron beam energies using two NE2571-type cylindrical chambers, two Markus-type plane-parallel chambers and two NACP-02-type plane-parallel chambers. Dosimetry based on direct calibrations of all chambers in 60Co was investigated, as well as dosimetry based on cross-calibrations of plane-parallel chambers against a cylindrical chamber in a high-energy electron beam. Furthermore, 60Co perturbation factors for plane-parallel chambers were derived. It is shown that the use of 60Co calibration factors could result in deviations of more than 2% for plane-parallel chambers between the old and new codes of practice, whereas the use of cross-calibration factors, which is the first recommendation in the new codes, reduces the differences to less than 0.8% for all situations investigated here. The results thus show that neither the chamber-to-chamber variations, nor the obtained absolute dose values are significantly altered by changing from air kerma based dosimetry to absorbed dose based dosimetry when using calibration factors obtained from the Laboratory for Standard Dosimetry, Ghent, Belgium. The values of the 60Co perturbation factor for plane-parallel chambers (k(att) x k(m) for the air kerma based and p(wall) for the absorbed based codes of practice) that are obtained from comparing the results based on 60Co calibrations and cross-calibrations are within the experimental uncertainties in agreement with the results from other investigators.