The impact of different optimization strategies on the agreement between planned and delivered doses during volumetric modulated arc therapy for total marrow irradiation.

AIM OF THE STUDY: To evaluate the agreement between planned and delivered doses and its potential correlation with the plans' complexity subjected to dosimetric verification. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four isocentre volumetric modulated arc therapy for total marrow irradiation plans optimized simultaneously with (P1) and without (P2) MU reduction were evaluated dosimetrically by γ method performed in a global mode for 4 combinations of γ-index criteria (2%/2 mm, 2%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm, and 3%/3 mm). The evaluation was conducted for 4 regions (head and neck, chest, abdomen and upper pelvis, and lower pelvis and thighs) that were determined geometrically by the isocentres. The Wilcoxon test was used to detect significant differences between γ passing rate (GPR) analysis results for the P1 and P2 plans. The Pearson correlation was used to check the relationship between GPR and the plans' complexity. RESULTS: Except for the head and neck region, the P2 plans had better GPRs than the P1 plans. Only for hard combinations of γ-index criteria (i.e. 2%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm) were the GPRs differences between P1 and P2 clinically meaningful, and they were detected in the chest, abdomen and upper pelvis, and lower pelvis and thighs regions. The highest correlations between GPR and the indices describing the plans' complexity were found for the chest region. No correlation was found for the head and neck region. CONCLUSIONS: The P2 plans showed better agreement between planned and delivered doses compared to the P1 plans. The GPR and the plans' complexity depend on the anatomy region and are most important for the chest region.

Evaluation of three VMAT-TMI planning methods to find an appropriate balance between plan complexity and the resulting dose distribution.

PURPOSE: Evaluation of different planning methods of treatment plan preparation for volumetric modulated arc therapy during total marrow irradiation (VMAT-TMI). METHOD: Three different planning methods were evaluated to establish the most appropriate VMAT-TMI technique, based on organ at risk (OAR) dose reduction, conformity and plan simplicity. The methods were: (M1) the sub-plan method, (M2) use of eight arcs optimised simultaneously and (M3) M2 with monitor unit reduction. Friedman ANOVA comparison, with Nemenyi's procedures, was used in the statistical analysis of the results. RESULTS: The dosimetric results obtained for the planning target volume and for most OARs do not differ statistically between methods. The M3 method was characterized by the lowest numbers of monitor units (3259 MU vs. 4450 MU for M1 and 4216 MU for M2) and, in general, the lowest complexity. The variability of the monitor units from control points was almost half for M3 than M1 and M2 (i.e. 0.33 MU vs. 0.61 MU for M1 and 0.58 for M2). Analysing the relationship between the dose distributions obtained for the plans and their complexity, the best result was observed for the M3 method. CONCLUSION: The use of eight simultaneously optimised arcs with MU reduction allows to obtain VMAT-TMI plans that are characterized by the lowest complexity, with dose distributions comparable to the plans generated by other methods.

Conversion of the helical tomotherapy plans to the step-and-shoot IMRT plans for patients with hip prosthesis during radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the SharePlan software in conversion of helical tomotherapy (HT) to a step and shoot IMRT (sIMRT) for patients with high-risk prostate cancer and hip prosthesis. METHODS: Analysis was performed for 16 consecutive patients treated on HT. The HT plans were converted to sIMRT plans. 3DCRT, sliding window IMRT (dIMRT) and VMAT plans for a c-arm linear accelerator (CLA) were created manually. The doses in planning target volume (PTV), bladder, rectum, bowels, femoral heads and hip prosthesis were compared using: (i) a qualitative analysis of doses in averaged dose-volume histograms, (ii) a quantitative, ranking procedure performed for each patient separately, and (iii) statistical testing based on the Friedman ANOVA and Nemenyi method. RESULTS: For the bladder, rectum, and femoral head, the best dose distributions were observed for HT and sIMRT and then for dIMRT, VMAT, and finally for 3DCRT (p-values were, respectively, 0.002, 0.004 and p = 0.024). For the bowels, 3DCRT was significantly different from the rest of the techniques (p = 0.009). For the hip prosthesis, the differences were only between 3DCRT and HT/sIMRT (p = 0.038). CONCLUSION: The SharePlan is an efficient tool for the conversion of HT plans for patients with prostate cancer and hip prosthesis. Dose distributions in sIMRT and in HT plans are similar and are generally better than in CLA plans.