Evaluation of second cancer induction risk by CT follow-up in oncological long-surviving patients.

The goal of establishing prompt localization of the malignant spread or recurrence of a tumor has found a powerful solution in the definition of follow-up protocols, which include the indication for CT scans on an annual or semiannual basis. In the case of long-surviving patients, however, this approach will lead to a considerable integrated dose level over a period of several years after recovery from the illness. Pathologies treated primarily by surgery and/or chemotherapy have been considered, not taking into account cancers treated with adjuvant or radical radiotherapy. Given that the most likely protocols for these cancers often call for total body scans, an estimation of the consequent effective and organ doses can be performed with acceptable accuracy. The data acquired from five centers have been collected and the related effective and organ doses calculated by means of IMPACT software. Use of the effective dose concept, however, has lately become the subject of criticism, and the recently proposed Effective Risk Model has therefore also been applied. The evaluated absolute additional risk of second tumor induction ranges between 0.1% and 10%, depending primarily on age and pathology. These results depict this additional risk as an issue of significant importance for clinical practice. A revision of follow-up and scan parameter protocols, as well as the introduction of new algorithms for dose reduction, could significantly improve the risk-benefit ratio for all the pathologies studied.

Quality assurance by systematic in vivo dosimetry: results on a large cohort of patients.

BACKGROUND: In vivo dosimetry is widely considered to be an important tool for quality assurance in external radiotherapy. INTRODUCTION: In this study we report on our experience over more than 4 years in systematic in vivo dosimetry with diodes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From November '94 an in vivo entrance dosimetry check was performed for every new patient irradiated at one of our treatment units (Linac 6/100, 6 MV X-rays). Diodes were calibrated in terms of entrance dose; appropriate correction factors had been previously assessed (taking SSDs, field width, wedge, oblique incidence and blocking tray into account) and were individually applied to in vivo diode readings. The in vivo measured entrance dose was compared with the expected one, with a 5% action level; if a larger deviation was found, all treatment parameters were verified, and the in vivo dosimetry check was repeated. During the period November '94-May '99, 2824 measurements on 1433 patients were collected. RESULTS: Nine out of 1433 (0.63%) serious systematic errors (leading to a 5% or more on the delivered dose to the PTV) were detected by in vivo dosimetry; four out of nine would produce a 10% or more error if not detected. The rate of serious systematic errors detected by an independent check of treatment chart and MU calculation was found to be 1.5%, showing that less than 1/3 of the errors escapes this check. One hundred and twelve out of 1433 (7.8%) patients had more than one check: the rate of second checks was significantly higher for breast patients (31/250, 12.4%) against non-breast patients (81/1183, 6.8%, P=0.003). A number of patients demonstrated a persistent relatively large error even after two or more checks. For almost all patients the cause of the deviation was assessed; the most frequent cause was the difficulty in correctly positioning the patient and/or the diode. When analyzing the distribution of the deviations between measured and expected entrance doses (excluding first checks in the case of repetition of the in vivo dosimetry control) the mean deviation was 0.4% with a standard deviation equal to 3.0%. The rates of deviations larger than 5 and 7% were 9.9 and 2.6%, respectively. When considering the same data taking the average deviation in the case of opposed beams, the SD became 2.6% and the rates of deviations larger than 5 and 7%, respectively, 5.2 and 0.8%. When dividing the beams according to their orientation, significantly higher rates of large deviations (>5 and 7%) were found for oblique and posterior-anterior (PA) fields against lateral and anterior-posterior (AP) fields (P<0.05). Similarly, higher rates of large deviations were found for wedged fields against unwedged fields (P<0.03) and for blocked fields against unblocked fields (P<0.01). When dividing the data according to the anatomical district, accuracy was worse for breast (mean deviation 0.1%, 1 SD: 3.5%) and neck AP-PA fields (mean deviation 1%, 1 SD: 3,4%). Better accuracy was found for vertebrae (0.1%, 1 SD 2. 1%) and brain patients (-0.7%, 1 SD: 2.6%). During the considered period, in vivo dosimetry was also able to promptly detect a systematic error caused by a wrong resetting of the simulator height couch indicator, with a consequent error in the estimate of patient thickness of about 4 cm. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, systematic in vivo dosimetry demonstrated to be a valid tool for quality assurance, both in detecting systematic errors which may escape the data transfer/MU calculation check and in giving an effective way of estimating the accuracy of treatment delivery.

Conformal irradiation of concave-shaped PTVs in the treatment of prostate cancer by simple 1D intensity-modulated beams.

BACKGROUND: In the case of concave-shaped PTVs including prostate (P) and seminal vesicles (SV), intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) should improve the therapeutic ratio of the treatment of prostate cancer. PURPOSE: Comparing IMRT by simple 1D modulations with conventional 3D conformal therapy (i.e. non-IMRT) in the treatment of concave-shaped PTVs including P+SV. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For five patients having a concave-shaped PTV (P+SV) previously treated at our Institute with conformal radiotherapy, conventional 3- and 4-fields conformal plans were compared with IMRT plans in terms of biological indices. IMRT plans were generated by using five equi-spaced beams with a partial shielding of the rectum obtainable with our single-absorber modulation technique (Fiorino C, Lev A, Fusca M, Cattaneo GM, Rudello F, Calandrino R. Dynamic beam modulation by using a single dynamic absorber. Phys. Med. Biol. 1995;40:221-240). The modulation was one-dimensional and the shape of the beams was at single minimum in correspondence with the 'core' of the rectum; the beam intensity in the minimum was set equal to 20 or 40% of the open beam intensity. All plans were simulated on the CADPLAN TPS using a pencil-beam based algorithm (with 18 MV X-rays). Tumour control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs) (for rectum, bladder and femoral head) were calculated for all situations when varying the isocentre dose from 60 to 90 Gy. Dose distributions were corrected taking dose fractionation into account through the linear-quadratic model; for the TCP/NTCP estimations the Webb-Nahum and the Lyman-Kutcher models were respectively applied. Three different scores were considered: (a) increase of TCP while keeping rectum NTCP equal to 5% (TCP(5%)); (b) increase of the uncomplicated tumour control probability (P+); (c) increase of the biological-based scoring function (S+), developed by Mohan et al. (Mohan R, Mageras GS, Baldwin B, Clinically relevant optimization of 3D conformal treatments. Med. Phys. 1992;19:933-944). The impact of the uncertainty in the knowledge of the parameters of the biological models was investigated for TCP(5%). RESULTS: (a) The average gain in TCP(5%) when considering IMRT against non-IMRT conformal plans was 7.3% (range 5.0-13.5%); (b) the average increase of P+ was 3.4% (range: 1. 0-8.5%); and (c) the average increase of S+ was 5.4% (range 2.9-12. 4%). The largest gain was found for one patient (patient 5) showing a significantly larger overlapping between PTV and rectum. CONCLUSIONS: Simple 1D-IMRT may clearly improve the therapeutic ratio in the treatment of concave-shaped PTVs including P and SV. In the range of clinically suitable values, the impact of the uncertainty of the parameters n and sigma(alpha) does not significantly alter the main results concerning the gain in TCP(5%). The reported gain in terms of P+ and S+ should be considered with great caution because of the intrinsic uncertainties of the model's parameters and, for bladder, because the 'true' DVH (considering variations of the shape and dimension due to variable filling) may be very different from the DVH calculated on a single CT scan. Further investigations should consider inversely-optimised 1D and 2D-IMRT plan in order to compare them in terms of cost-benefit.

1D dynamic beam modulation: methods to counteract inertia effects.

Dynamic modulation can be affected by inaccuracies when the required acceleration is larger than the highest allowed by the mechanical characteristics of the whole apparatus. In this study, inertia effects have been investigated with regard to the single absorber 1D modulation, analysing primarily how the acceleration performed by the modulating system affects the realization of 'single absorber' fluence profiles and the type of correction which could be devised. The observed percentage deviations from desired modulation at the lowest fluence coordinate of single minimum fluence profiles, when no correction is applied, were almost negligible for 'easy' modulations of the incident fluence (i.e. slow gradients); deviations became increasingly relevant as the moving absorber executed steeper gradients (a 17.6% higher dose being delivered in the minimum position when a 0.2 modulation is required). By applying the proposed corrections, the single absorber performances were improved to a satisfactory level, with a maximum deviation from desired modulation in the minima within 1.6%.

Dose calculation and dosimetry tests for clinical implementation of 1D tissue-deficit compensation by a single dynamic absorber.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In this study the possibilities for implementing 1D tissue-deficit compensation techniques by a dynamic single absorber were investigated. This research firstly involved a preliminary examination on the accuracy of a pencil beam-based algorithm, implemented for irregularly shaped photon beams in our 3D treatment planning system (TPS) (Cadplan 2.7, Varian-Dosetek Oy), in calculating dose distributions delivered in ID non-uniform fields. Once the reliability of the pencil beam (PB) algorithm for dose calculations in non-uniform beams was verified, we proceeded to test the feasibility of tissue-deficit compensation using our single absorber modulator. As an example, we considered a mantle field technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To evaluate the accuracy of the method employed in calculating dose distributions delivered in 1D non-uniform fields, three different fluence profiles, which could be considered as a small sample representative of clinically relevant applications, were selected. The incident non-uniform fluences were simulated by the sum of simple blocked fields (i.e. with rectangular 'strip' blocks, one per beam) properly weighed by the 'modulation factors' Fi, defined in each interval of the subdivided profile as the ratio between the desired fluence and the open field fluence. Depth dose distributions in a cubic phantom were then calculated by the TPS and compared with the corresponding doses (at 5 and 10 cm acrylic depths) delivered by the single absorber modulation system. In the present application, the absorber speed profile able to compensate for the tissue deficit along the cranio-caudal direction and then homogenizing the dose distribution on a 'midline' isocentric plane with sufficient accuracy can be directly derived from anatomic data, such as the SSDs (source-skin distances) along the patient contour. The compensation can be verified through portal dosimetry techniques (using a traditional port film system). RESULTS: The technique was tested in isocentric conditions on the humanoid RANDO phantom in a clinically suitable situation. The agreement between expected/calculated and measured incident/exit dose profiles was found to be within 4%, with deviations generally around 1-2%. As for the PB accuracy investigation for dose calculations in non-uniform fields, calculated versus measured dose profiles were found to be in good agreement, indicating a satisfactory accuracy of the method employed for dose calculation in 1D non-uniform photon beams. A better performance should be expected if the incident fluences could be directly inserted in the TPS. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that the proposed technique should be sufficiently reliable for clinical application. The main advantages are its simplicity and the possibility of application on Linacs which have no complex options for dynamic control of collimators.