TBI lung dose comparisons using bilateral and anteroposterior delivery techniques and tissue density corrections.

This study compares lung dose distributions for two common techniques of total body photon irradiation (TBI) at extended source-to-surface distance calculated with, and without, tissue density correction (TDC). Lung dose correction factors as a function of lateral thorax separation are approximated for bilateral opposed TBI (supine), similar to those published for anteroposterior-posteroanterior (AP-PA) techniques in AAPM Report 17 (i.e., Task Group 29). 3D treatment plans were created retrospectively for 24 patients treated with bilateral TBI, and for whom CT data had been acquired from the head to the lower leg. These plans included bilateral opposed and AP-PA techniques- each with and without - TDC, using source-to-axis distance of 377 cm and largest possible field size. On average, bilateral TBI requires 40% more monitor units than AP-PA TBI due to increased separation (26% more for 23 MV). Calculation of midline thorax dose without TDC leads to dose underestimation of 17% on average (standard deviation, 4%) for bilateral 6 MV TBI, and 11% on average (standard deviation, 3%) for 23 MV. Lung dose correction factors (CF) are calculated as the ratio of midlung dose (with TDC) to midline thorax dose (without TDC). Bilateral CF generally increases with patient separation, though with high variability due to individual uniqueness of anatomy. Bilateral CF are 5% (standard deviation, 4%) higher than the same corrections calculated for AP-PA TBI in the 6 MV case, and 4% higher (standard deviation, 2%) for 23 MV. The maximum lung dose is much higher with bilateral TBI (up to 40% higher than prescribed, depending on patient anatomy) due to the absence of arm tissue blocking the anterior chest. Dose calculations for bilateral TBI without TDC are incorrect by up to 24% in the thorax for 6 MV and up to 16% for 23 MV. Bilateral lung CF may be calculated as 1.05 times the values published in Table 6 of AAPM Report 17, though a larger patient pool is necessary to better quantify this trend. Bolus or customized shielding will reduce lung maximum dose in the anterior thorax.

A prospective trial of volumetric intensity-modulated arc therapy vs conventional intensity modulated radiation therapy in advanced head and neck cancer.

AIM: To prospectively compare volumetric intensity-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and conventional intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in coverage of planning target volumes and avoidance of multiple organs at risk (OARs) in patients undergoing definitive chemoradiotherapy for advanced (stage III or IV) squamous cell cancer of the head and neck. METHODS: Computed tomography scans of 20 patients with advanced tumors of the larynx, naso-, oro- and hypopharynx were prospectively planned using IMRT (7 field) and VMAT using two arcs. Calculated doses to planning target volume (PTV) and OAR were compared between IMRT and VMAT plans. Dose-volume histograms (DVH) were utilized to obtain calculated doses to PTV and OAR, including parotids, cochlea, spinal cord, brainstem, anterior tongue, pituitary and brachial plexus. DVH's for all structures were compared between IMRT and VMAT plans. In addition the plans were compared for dose conformity and homogeneity. The final treatment plan was chosen by the treating radiation oncologist. RESULTS: VMAT was chosen as the ultimate plan in 18 of 20 patients (90%) because the plans were thought to be otherwise clinically equivalent. The IMRT plan was chosen in 2 of 20 patients because the VMAT plan produced concentric irradiation of the cord which was not overcome even with an avoidance structure. For all patients, VMAT plans had a lower number of average monitor units on average (MU = 542.85) than IMRT plans (MU = 1612.58) (P < 0.001). Using the conformity index (CI), defined as the 95% isodose volume divided by the PTV, the IMRT plan was more conformal with a lower conformity index (CI = 1.61) than the VMAT plan (CI = 2.00) (P = 0.003). Dose homogeneity, as measured by average standard deviation of dose distribution over the PTV, was not different with VMAT (1.45 Gy) or IMRT (1.73 Gy) (P = 0.069). There were no differences in sparing organs at risk. CONCLUSION: In this prospective study, VMAT plans were chosen over IMRT 90% of the time. Compared to IMRT, VMAT plans used only one third of the MUs, had shorter treatment times, and similar sparing of OAR. Overall, VMAT provided similar dose homogeneity but less conformity in PTV irradiation compared to IMRT. This difference in conformity was not clinically significant.

Volumetric modulated arc therapy vs. IMRT for the treatment of distal esophageal cancer.

Several studies have demonstrated that volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) has the ability to reduce monitor units and treatment time when compared with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). This study aims to demonstrate that VMAT is able to provide adequate organs at risk (OAR) sparing and planning target volume (PTV) coverage for adenocarcinoma of the distal esophagus while reducing monitor units and treatment time. Fourteen patients having been treated previously for esophageal cancer were planned using both VMAT and IMRT techniques. Dosimetric quality was evaluated based on doses to several OARs, as well as coverage of the PTV. Treatment times were assessed by recording the number of monitor units required for dose delivery. Body V(5) was also recorded to evaluate the increased volume of healthy tissue irradiated to low doses. Dosimetric differences in OAR sparing between VMAT and IMRT were comparable. PTV coverage was similar for the 2 techniques but it was found that IMRT was capable of delivering a slightly more homogenous dose distribution. Of the 14 patients, 12 were treated with a single arc and 2 were treated with a double arc. Single-arc plans reduced monitor units by 42% when compared with the IMRT plans. Double-arc plans reduced monitor units by 67% when compared with IMRT. The V(5) for the body was found to be 18% greater for VMAT than for IMRT. VMAT has the capability to decrease treatment times over IMRT while still providing similar OAR sparing and PTV coverage. Although there will be a smaller risk of patient movement during VMAT treatments, this advantage comes at the cost of delivering small doses to a greater volume of the patient.