Dosimetric Analysis of Unflattened (FFFB) and Flattened (FB) Photon Beam Energy for Gastric Cancers Using IMRT and VMAT-a Comparative Study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility of flattening filter free beam (FFFB) for the treatment of gastric tumors and to review their benefits over 6MV flatten beam (6MV_FFB). METHODS: Fifteen patients with histologically proven gastric carcinoma were selected. CT scans with slice thickness of 0.3 cm were acquired and planning target volume (PTV) and organ at risk (OAR) were delineated. Plans were made retrospectively for each patient for the prescription dose of 45 Gy/25 fractions to the PTV. Four isocentric plans were compared in the present study on Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA, USA). RESULTS: PTV D98% was 44.41 ± 0.12, 44.38 ± 0.13, 44.59 ± 0.14, and 44.49 ± 0.19 Gy for IMRT 6MV_FFB, IMRT 6MV_FFFB, VMAT 6MV_FFB, and VMAT 6MV_FFFB respectively. 6MV_FFFB beam minimizes the mean heart dose Dmean (P = 0.001). VMAT dominates over IMRT when it came to kidney doses V12Gy (P = 0.02), V23Gy (P = 0.015), V28Gy (P = 0.011), and Dmax (P < 0.01). VMAT has significantly reduced the doses to kidneys. It was analyzed that 6MV_FFFB significantly reduces the dose to normal tissues (P = 0.006 and P = 0.018). VMAT significantly reduces the TMU, which is required to deliver the similar dose by IMRT (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Unflattened beam spares the organs at risk significantly to avoid the chances of secondary malignancies and reduces the intra-fraction motion during treatment due to provision of higher dose rate. Hence, we conclude that 6MV unflattened beam can be used to treat gastric carcinoma.

Using Procedure Codes to Define Radiation Toxicity in Administrative Data: The Devil is in the Details.

BACKGROUND: Systematic coding systems are used to define clinically meaningful outcomes when leveraging administrative claims data for research. How and when these codes are applied within a research study can have implications for the study validity and their specificity can vary significantly depending on treatment received. SUBJECTS: Data are from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked dataset. STUDY DESIGN: We use propensity score methods in a retrospective cohort of prostate cancer patients first examined in a recently published radiation oncology comparative effectiveness study. RESULTS: With the narrowly defined outcome definition, the toxicity event outcome rate ratio was 0.88 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.08). With the broadly defined outcome, the rate ratio was comparable, with 0.89 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval, 0.76-1.04), although individual event rates were doubled. Some evidence of surveillance bias was suggested by a higher rate of endoscopic procedures the first year of follow-up in patients who received proton therapy compared with those receiving intensity-modulated radiation treatment (11.15 vs. 8.90, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the risk of introducing bias through subjective application of procedure codes. Careful consideration is required when using procedure codes to define outcomes in administrative data.

Dosimetric comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy and volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis.

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) are two main radiotherapy techniques. The aim of this study is to explore which is the preferred technique in prostate treatment through the related publica-tions and meta-analysis. Two authors independently identified all relevant articles available regarding eligibility criteria on PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases until December 2015. Publication bias was evaluated with funnel plot, and statistical analyses were performed with Stata software. P < 0.05 was thought statistically significant. Ten studies comprised a total of 110 patients; in total 110 IMRT plans and 110 VMAT plans that were included in this study. V40, V60, and V70 of rectum were significantly decreased in VMAT than in IMRT. However, V50 of rectum and V40, V50, V60, V70 of bladder had no statistical differences between IMRI and VMAT plans. Compared with IMRT, the treatment time and MUs of VMAT were significantly lower. VMAT protects rectum better than IMRT and improves the delivery efficiency. VMAT may be the preferred modality for treating prostate cancer.

Clinical and dosimetric evaluation of RapidArc versus standard sliding window IMRT in the treatment of head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: Several planning studies have already proven the substantial dosimetric advantages of RapidArc (RA) over standard intensity-modulated radiotherapy. We retrospectively compared RapidArc and standard sliding window IMRT (swIMRT) in locally advanced head and neck cancer, looking both at dosimetrics as well as toxicity and outcome. METHODS: CT datasets of 78 patients treated with swIMRT and 79 patients treated with RA were included. To compare the resulting dose distributions, the dose-volume parameters were evaluated for the planning target volumes (PTVs), clinical target volumes (CTVs), and organs at risk (OARs), and the number of MU were calculated. Acute toxicity was assessed by the Common Toxicity Criteria version 3.0. RESULTS: PTV coverage with the 95% isodose was slightly better for RA. Dose distribution has proven to be significantly more homogenous with RA and led to a reduction of 62% in MU with better OAR sparing. As for toxicity, more grade 3 mucositis and dysphagia was observed for swIMRT, though we observed more grade 3 dermatitis for RA. CONCLUSION: In our retrospective analysis, RA had better target coverage and better sparing of the OAR. Overall, the grade of acute toxicity was lower for RA than for swIMRT for the same types of tumor locations, except for the grade of dermatitis.

Comparing conformal, arc radiotherapy and helical tomotherapy in craniospinal irradiation planning.

Currently, radiotherapy treatment plan acceptance is based primarily on dosimetric performance measures. However, use of radiobiological analysis to assess benefit in terms of tumor control and harm in terms of injury to normal tissues can be advantageous. For pediatric craniospinal axis irradiation (CSI) patients, in particular, knowing the technique that will optimize the probabilities of benefit versus injury can lead to better long-term outcomes. Twenty-four CSI pediatric patients (median age 10) were retrospectively planned with three techniques: three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D CRT), volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and helical tomotherapy (HT). VMAT plans consisted of one superior and one inferior full arc, and tomotherapy plans were created using a 5.02cm field width and helical pitch of 0.287. Each plan was normalized to 95% of target volume (whole brain and spinal cord) receiving prescription dose 23.4Gy in 13 fractions. Using an in-house MATLAB code and DVH data from each plan, the three techniques were evaluated based on biologically effective uniform dose (D=), the complication-free tumor control probability (P+), and the width of the therapeutically beneficial range. Overall, 3D CRT and VMAT plans had similar values of D= (24.1 and 24.2 Gy), while HT had a D= slightly lower (23.6 Gy). The average values of the P+ index were 64.6, 67.4, and 56.6% for 3D CRT, VMAT, and HT plans, respectively, with the VMAT plans having a statistically significant increase in P+. Optimal values of D= were 28.4, 33.0, and 31.9 Gy for 3D CRT, VMAT, and HT plans, respectively. Although P+ values that correspond to the initial dose prescription were lower for HT, after optimizing the D= prescription level, the optimal P+ became 94.1, 99.5, and 99.6% for 3D CRT, VMAT, and HT, respectively, with the VMAT and HT plans having statistically significant increases in P+. If the optimal dose level is prescribed using a radiobiological evaluation method, as opposed to a purely dosimetric one, the two IMRT techniques, VMAT and HT, will yield largest overall benefit to CSI patients by maximizing tumor control and limiting normal tissue injury. Using VMAT or HT may provide these pediatric patients with better long-term outcomes after radiotherapy.

Dosimetric comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy for pancreatic malignancies.

Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) has been previously evaluated for several tumor sites and has been shown to provide significant dosimetric and delivery benefits when compared with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). To date, there have been no published full reports on the benefits of VMAT use in pancreatic patients compared with IMRT. Ten patients with pancreatic malignancies treated with either IMRT or VMAT were retrospectively identified. Both a double-arc VMAT and a 7-field IMRT plan were generated for each of the 10 patients using the same defined tumor volumes, organs at risk (OAR) volumes, dose, fractionation, and optimization constraints. The planning tumor volume (PTV) maximum dose (55.8 Gy vs. 54.4 Gy), PTV mean dose (53.9 Gy vs. 52.1 Gy), and conformality index (1.11 vs. 0.99) were statistically similar between the IMRT and VMAT plans, respectively. The VMAT plans had a statistically significant reduction in monitor units compared with the IMRT plans (1109 vs. 498, p < 0.001). In addition, the doses to the liver, small bowel, and spinal cord were comparable between the IMRT and VMAT plans. However, the VMAT plans demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in the mean left kidney V(25) (9.4 Gy vs. 2.3 Gy, p = 0.018), mean right kidney V(15) (53.4 Gy vs. 45.9 Gy, p = 0.035), V(20) (32.2 Gy vs. 25.5 Gy, p = 0.016), and V(25) (21.7 Gy vs. 14.9 Gy, p = 0.001). VMAT was investigated in patients with pancreatic malignancies and compared with the current standard of IMRT. VMAT was found to have similar or improved dosimetric parameters for all endpoints considered. Specifically, VMAT provided reduced monitor units and improved bilateral kidney normal tissue dose. The clinical relevance of these benefits in the context of pancreatic cancer patients, however, is currently unclear and requires further investigation.