Stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer: a dosimetric comparison of IMRT and VMAT using flattening filter and flattening filter-free beams.

This retrospective study was performed to evaluate plan quality and treatment delivery parameters of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer. The study utilized different isocentric modulated techniques: intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using 6 MV flattening filter (FF) and 10 MV flattening filter-free beams (FFF). Fifteen retrospective prostate cancer patients were selected for this study. Sixty plans were created with an SBRT-prescribed dose of 36.25 Gy delivered in five fractions. Planning target volume (PTV) coverage, plan quality indices, doses delivered to organs at risk (OARs), and treatment delivery parameters were compared for all plans. It turned out that VMAT plans, particularly those using the FFF beam, provided superior target conformality and a steeper dose gradient as compared to IMRT plans. Additionally, VMAT plans showed better OARs sparing compared to IMRT plans. However, IMRT plans delivered a lower maximum dose to the target than VMAT plans. Importantly, the VMAT plans resulted in reduced treatment delivery parameters, including beam on time (BOT), monitor unit (MU), and modulation factor (MF), compared to IMRT plans. Furthermore, a statistically significant difference was observed in BOT and mean body dose between FF and FFF beams, with FFF beams showing superior performance. Considering all results, VMAT using 10 MV (FFF) is suggested for treating prostate cancer patients with SBRT. This offers the fastest delivery in addition to maintaining the highest plan quality.

Efficacy of flattening filter-free beams with the acuros XB algorithm in thoracic spine stereotactic body radiation therapy.

This study aimed to determine the dosimetric value of flattening filter-free (FFF) beams compared to flattening filter (FF) beams using different algorithms in the treatment planning of thoracic spine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). A total of 120 plans were created for 15 patients using the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) and the Acuros External Beam (AXB) algorithm with FF and FFF beams at 6 MV and 10 MV energies. Various dosimetric parameters were evaluated, including target coverage, dose spillage, and organs-at-risk sparing of the spinal cord and esophagus. Treatment delivery parameters, such as the monitor units (MUs), modulation factors (MFs), beam-on time (BOT), and dose calculation time (DCT), were also collected. Significant differences were observed in the dosimetric parameters when AXB was used for all energies (P < 0.05). 6 XFFF energy was the best option for target coverage, dose spillage, and organs-at-risk sparing. In contrast, dosimetric parameters had no significant difference when using the AAA. The AAA and AXB calculations showed that the 6 XFFF beam had the shortest DCT. The treatment delivery parameters indicated that 10 XFF beam required the fewest MUs and MFs. In addition, the 10 XFFF beam demonstrated the shortest BOT. For effective treatment of the thoracic spine using SBRT, it is recommended to use the 10 XFFF beam because of the short BOT. Moreover, the AXB algorithm should be used because of its accurate dose calculation in regions with tissue heterogeneity.

Quantifying inter- and intra-fraction variations of breast cancer radiotherapy with skin dose measurements.

Aim. The aim of the current study was to compare between the deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) technique and free-breathing (FB) method in the treatment delivery uncertainty of breast cancer radiotherapy using skin dose measurements.Methods. In a prospective manner, eighty patients were randomly selected for skin dose measurements, and they were assigned to two groups. DIBH (40 patients) and FB (40 patients). The systematic inter-fraction dose variation was quantified using the mean percentage error (MPE) between the average measured total dose per session in three consecutive sessions and the corresponding calculated point dose from the treatment planning system. The random inter-fraction dose variation was quantified using the standard deviation (SD) of the dose delivered by the medial or lateral tangential fields, or the total session dose in the three sessions (SDMT, SDLT, or SDtotal, respectively). While the random intra-fraction dose variation was quantified using the SD of the dose difference between the medial and lateral tangential fields in three consecutive sessions (SDMT-LT).Results. There was no statistically significant difference in MPE between the DIBH and FB groups (p = 0.583). Moreover, the mean SDtotaland SDMTof the DIBH group were significantly lower than that of the FB group (2.75 ± 2.33 cGy versus 4.45 cGy ± 4.33, p = 0.048) and (1.94 ± 1.63 cGy versus 3.76 ± 3.42 cGy, p = 0.007), respectively. However, there was no significant difference in the mean SDLTand SDMT-LTbetween the two groups (p > 0.05).Conclusion. In addition to the advantage of reducing the cardiopulmonary radiation doses in left breast cancer, the DIBH technique could reduce the treatment delivery uncertainty compared to the FB method due to the significant reduction in the random inter-fraction dose variations.

The necessity of using deep inspiration breath-hold in the radiotherapy of left breast cancer patients who undergo the UK FAST trial.

AIM: The purpose of the current study was to compare between deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) and free-breathing (FB) method in the setup reproducibility and to perform a dosimetric comparison between both methods in left-sided breast cancer patients who undergo the UK FAST trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The online matching correction data were retrospectively collected for 50 patients treated with the FAST trial. They were equally divided into DIBH and FB groups to compare between both methods in the setup reproducibility and create the appropriate planning target volume (PTV) margin. Ten patients out of the fifty were scanned in DIBH and FB to perform a dosimetric comparison with the strict acceptance criteria of the FAST trial. RESULTS: All heart dosimetric parameters of the DIBH was significantly lower than that of FB (p < 0.001), and the lung V30% of DIBH plans was significantly lower than FB plans (p = 0.03). There was no statistically significant difference between the two methods in the other organs at risk doses. To fulfill the heart and lung constraints in FB plans, the PTV V90% was reduced by 3.4%, and three plans would not attain the PTV acceptance criteria. There was no significant difference between the systematic or random setup errors between both methods except the left-right random shift was significantly lower in DIBH cases (p = 0.004). The calculated PTV margins were (4 mm, 3 mm, and 4 mm) for DIBH group, and (5 mm, 6 mm, and 8 mm) for FB group in the anterior-posterior, superior-inferior, and left-right shifts, respectively. CONCLUSION: It is highly warranted to treat left-sided breast cancer patients with the DIBH technique when the UK FAST trial is employed for treatment.