PTV margin definition in hypofractionated IGRT of localized prostate cancer using cone beam CT and orthogonal image pairs with fiducial markers.

PURPOSE: To evaluate PTV margins for hypofractionated IGRT of prostate comparing kV/kV imaging or CBCT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2009 and 2012, 20 patients with low- (LR), intermediate- (IR) and high-risk (HR) prostate cancer were treated with VMAT in supine position with fiducial markers (FM), endorectal balloon (ERB) and full bladder. CBCT's and kV/kV imaging were performed before and additional CBCT's after treatment assessing intra-fraction motion. CTVP for 5 patients with LR and CTVPSV for 5 patients with IR/HR prostate cancer were contoured independently by 3 radiation oncologists using MRI. The van Hark formula (PTV margin =2.5Σ +0.7σ) was applied to calculate PTV margins of prostate/seminal vesicles (P/PSV) using CBCT or FM. RESULTS: 172 and 52 CBCTs before and after RT and 507 kV/kV images before RT were analysed. Differences between FM in CBCT or in planar kV image pairs were below 1 mm. Accounting for both random and systematic uncertainties anisotropic PTV margins were 5-8 mm for P (LR) and 6-11 mm for PSV (IR/HR). Random uncertainties like intra-fraction and inter-fraction (setup) uncertainties were of similar magnitude (0.9-1.4 mm). Largest uncertainty was introduced by CTV delineation (LR: 1-2 mm, IR/HR: 1.6-3.5 mm). Patient positioning using bone matching or ERB-matching resulted in larger PTV margins. CONCLUSIONS: For IGRT CBCT or kV/kV-image pairs with FM are interchangeable in respect of accuracy. Especially for hypofractionated RT, PTV margins can be kept in the range of 5 mm or below if stringent daily IGRT, ideally including prostate tracking, is applied. MR-based CTV delineation optimization is recommended.

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma after extrapleural pleuropneumonectomy.

Radiotherapy reduces the local relapse rate after pleuropneumonectomy of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). The optimal treatment technique with photons remains undefined. Comparative planning for intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) was performed. Six MPM patients with significant postoperative intrathoracic air cavities were planned with IMRT and VMAT. A dose comparison for the targets and organ at risks (OAR) was performed. Robustness was assessed in respect to the variation of target dose with change in volume of air cavities. VMAT reduced the dose to the contralateral lung by reducing the volume covered by 13 Gy and 20 Gy by a factor 1.8 and 2.8, in respect to IMRT (p = 0.02). Dose distribution with VMAT was the most stable technique in regard to postsurgical air cavity variation. For IMRT, V90, V95, and the minimal target dose decreased by 40%, 64%, and 12% compared to 29%, 47%, and 7% with VMAT when air cavity decreased. Two arcs compared to one arc decreased the dose to all the organs at risk (OAR) while leaving PTV dose coverage unchanged. Increasing the number of arcs from two to three did not reduce the dose to the OAR further, but increased the beam-on time by 50%. Using partial arcs decreased the beam-on time by 43%. VMAT allows a lower lung dose and is less affected by the air cavity variation than IMRT. The best VMAT plans were obtained with two partial arcs. VMAT seems currently the most suitable technique for the treatment of MPM patients when air cavities are remaining and no adaptive radiotherapy is performed.

The use of photon beams of a flattening filter-free linear accelerator for hypofractionated volumetric modulated arc therapy in localized prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the potential usage of flattening filter-free (FFF) photon beams in the treatment of prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment planning was performed for 7 patients using TrueBeam(®) linear accelerator and photon beams with (X6, X10) and without (X6FFF, X10FFF) flattening filter. Prescribed dose was 19 × 3 Gy = 57 Gy. One or two 360° arcs with dose rate of 600 MU/min for flattened beams, and 1,200 MU/min for FFF beams were used. RESULTS: No difference was detected between the four beams in PTV coverage, conformity, and homogeneity. Mean body dose and body volume receiving 50% of the prescribed dose decreased with increasing mean energy (r(2) = 0.8275, p < 0.01). X6FFF delivered 3.6% more dose compared with the X6 (p < 0.01). X10FFF delivered 3.0% (p < 0.01), and the X10 5.8% (p < 0.01) less mean body dose compared with X6. There was a significant increase in the mean dose to the rectum for the X10 compared with X6 (2.6%, p < 0.01). Mean dose to the bladder increased by 1.3% for X6FFF and decreased by 2.3% for X10FFF. Using a single arc and FFF, treatment time was reduced by 35% (2 SD = 10%). CONCLUSION: FFF beams resulted in dose distributions similar to flattened beams. X10FFF beam provided the best solution, sparing rectum and bladder and minimizing whole-body dose. FFF beams lead to a time efficient treatment delivery, particularly when combined with hypofractionated VMAT.

Proton therapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma after extrapleural pleuropneumonectomy.

PURPOSE: To perform comparative planning for intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and proton therapy (PT) for malignant pleural mesothelioma after radical surgery. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eight patients treated with IMRT after extrapleural pleuropneumonectomy (EPP) were replanned for PT, comparing dose homogeneity, target volume coverage, and mean and maximal dose to organs at risk. Feasibility of PT was evaluated regarding the dose distribution with respect to air cavities after EPP. RESULTS: Dose coverage and dose homogeneity of the planning target volume (PTV) were significantly better for PT than for IMRT regarding the volume covered by >95% (V95) for the high-dose PTV. The mean dose to the contralateral kidney, ipsilateral kidney, contralateral lung, liver, and heart and spinal cord dose were significantly reduced with PT compared with IMRT. After EPP, air cavities were common (range, 0-850 cm(3)), decreasing from 0 to 18.5 cm(3)/day. In 2 patients, air cavity changes during RT decreased the generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD) in the case of using an a value of < - 10 to the PTV2 to <2 Gy in the presence of changing cavities for PT, and to 40 Gy for IMRT. Small changes were observed for gEUD of PTV1 because PTV1 was reached by the beams before air. CONCLUSION: Both PT and IMRT achieved good target coverage and dose homogeneity. Proton therapy accomplished additional dose sparing of most organs at risk compared with IMRT. Proton therapy dose distributions were more susceptible to changing air cavities, emphasizing the need for adaptive RT and replanning.

Surviving hypopharynx-larynx carcinoma in the era of IMRT.

PURPOSE: Outcome in locoregionally advanced laryngeal carcinoma and hypopharyngeal carcinoma after conventional radiation techniques is known for modest disease control and considerable late toxicity. Considering the lack of standardization in prescription dose for intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), we aimed to compare the results after our methods of simultaneously integrated boost IMRT with published results. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between March 2002 and December 2008, 65 hypopharyngeal, 31 supraglottic, and 27 locoregionally advanced glottic tumor patients underwent definitive IMRT (with simultaneous chemotherapy in 86%). Of these, 64% presented with locoregionally advanced disease. Mean follow-up was 26 months (range, 3-83 months), with a median of 21 months. Treatment (2.0-2.2 Gy per fraction, 66-72.6 Gy) followed a prospectively defined protocol. If the boost volume included more than half of the larynx or a substantial part of the pharynx, dose was limited to 2.0 Gy per fraction. RESULTS: The 2-year local, nodal, and locoregional control (LRC) rates for the entire cohort were 82%, 90%, and 77%, respectively; the disease-free and overall survival rates were 75% and 83%, respectively. The ultimate 2-year LRC rate, including salvage surgery, was 86%. Laryngectomy was required in 2 LRC patients needing tracheostoma already before; 2 further LRC patients needed tracheostomy before IMRT and remained tracheostoma dependent, and 3 patients remained feeding tube dependent after IMRT. Salvage laryngectomy was successful in 8 of 11. Of all 123 patients, 91 patients (74%) are locoregionally controlled and live with a functional laryngopharynx. CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneously integrated boost IMRT with limited acceptance of dose inhomogeneity resulted in very satisfactory disease control despite a slight left shift of planning target volume curves on the dose-volume histogram. Considering the treatment tolerance, a careful increase in dose in our patients seems possible. Dose-volume comparisons remain difficult because no international standards have been defined for contouring and volume-related dose distribution.