Background: To compare the dosimetric advantage of three different intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans to a three dimensional (3D) conventional radiation treatment for anal cancer with regards to organs-at-risk (OAR) avoidance, including iliac bone marrow.

No abstract

BackgroundTo compare volumetric-modulated arc therapy (RapidArc) plans with conventional intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans in anal canal cancers.MethodsTen patients with anal canal carcinoma previously treated with IMRT in our institution were selected for this study. For each patient, three plans were generated with the planning CT scan: one using a fixed beam IMRT, and two plans using the RapidArc technique: a single (RA1) and a double (RA2) modulated arc therapy. The treatment plan was designed to deliver in one process with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) a dose of 59.4 Gy to the planning target volume (PTV2) based on the gross disease in a 1.8 Gy-daily fraction, 5 days a week. At the same time, the subclinical disease (PTV1) was planned to receive 49.5 Gy in a 1.5 Gy-daily fraction. Plans were normalized to 99% of the PTV2 that received 95% of the prescribed dose. Planning objectives were 95% of the PTV1 will receive 95% of the prescribed dose and no more than 2% of the PTV will receive more than 107%. Dose-volume histograms (DVH) for the target volume and the organs at risk (bowel tract, bladder, iliac crests, femoral heads, genitalia/perineum, and healthy tissue) were compared for these different techniques. Monitor units (MU) and delivery treatment time were also reported.ResultsAll plans achieved fulfilled objectives. Both IMRT and RA2 resulted in superior coverage of PTV than RA1 that was slightly inferior for conformity and homogeneity (p < 0.05).Conformity index (CI95%) for the PTV2 was 1.15 ± 0.15 (RA2), 1.28 ± 0.22 (IMRT), and 1.79 ± 0.5 (RA1). Homogeneity (D5% - D95%) for PTV2 was 3.21 ± 1.16 Gy (RA2), 2.98 ± 0.7 Gy (IMRT), and 4.3 ± 1.3 Gy (RA1). RapidArc showed to be superior to IMRT in terms of organ at risk sparing. For bowel tract, the mean dose was reduced of 4 Gy by RA2 compared to IMRT. Similar trends were observed for bladder, femoral heads, and genitalia. The DVH of iliac crests and healthy tissue resulted in comparable sparing for the low doses (V10 and V20). Compared to IMRT, mean MUs for each fraction was significantly reduced with RapidArc (p = 0.0002) and the treatment time was reduced by a 6-fold extent.ConclusionFor patients suffering from anal canal cancer, RapidArc with 2 arcs was able to deliver equivalent treatment plan to IMRT in terms of PTV coverage. It provided a better organ at risk sparing and significant reductions of MU and treatment time per fraction.

PurposeTo assess outcomes of patients with carcinoma of the anal canal (CAC) treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT).Method and materialsFrom August 2007 to January 2011, seventy-two patients suffering from CAC were treated with IMRT. Concurrent chemotherapy was added in case of locally advanced tumors. Radiation course consisted in delivering an initial plan to the PTV1 defined as the primary tumor and the risk area including pelvic and inguinal nodes. Forty-five Gy in daily 1.8 Gy-daily fractions were delivered five days a week. A second plan of 14.4-20 Gy to the primary tumor (PTV2) was administered in 1.8-2 Gy-daily fractions, 5 days a week. We present here the results of dosimetry, toxicities, and clinical outcome of the first 39 patients with a median follow-up of 24 months.ResultsThirty-one women and eight men were included in the present analysis. Tumors were classified as stages I, II, III and IV in 2, 7, 27 and 2 patients, respectively. Median age was 59 years (range, 38-85). Radiotherapy alone (RT) or combined with chemotherapy (RCT) were delivered in 6 (15%) and 33 (85%) patients, respectively.Six patients (15%) required a treatment break ≥ 3 days, and median time for treatment break was 8 days (range, 3-14 days). Acute grade 3 gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities were seen in 10 and 5% of patients, respectively. Grade 4 toxicity was only hematologic and occurred in 12% patients receiving RCT. With a median follow-up of 24 months, no patient experienced any late grade 4 toxicity. The 2-year overall survival rate was 89%, the 2-year local relapse free survival was 77% and the 2-year colostomy-free survival rate was 85%.ConclusionIMRT is well tolerated with acceptable treatment interruption allowing dose escalation.

a b s t r a c tAim: To evaluate the tumor repositioning during gated volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for liver stereotactic body radiotherapy(SBRT) treatment using implanted fiducial markers and intrafraction kilovoltage (kV) images acquired during dose delivery. Materials and methods:Since 2012, 47 liver cancer patients with implanted fiducial markers were treated using the gated VMAT technique with a Varian Truebeam STx linear accelerator.The fiducial markers were implanted inside or close to the tumor target before treatment simulation. They were defined at the maximum inhalation and exhalation phases on a 4-dimensionnal computed tomography (4DCT) acquisition. During the treatment, kV images were acquired just before the beam-on at each breathing cycle at maximum exhalation and inhalation phases to verify the fiducial markers positions. For the five first fractions of treatment in the first ten consecutive patients, a total of 2705 intrafraction kV images were retrospectively analyzed to assess the differences between expected and actual positions of the fiducial markers along the cranio-caudal (CC) direction during the exhalation phase. Results:The mean absolute intrafractional fiducial marker deviation along the CC direction was 1.0 mm at the maximum exhalation phase. In 99%, 95% and 90% cases, the fiducial marker deviations were ≤4.5 mm, 2.8 mm and 2.2 mm, respectively. Conclusion:Intrafraction kV images allowed us to ensure the consistency of tumor repositioning during treatment. In 99% cases, the fiducial marker deviations were ≤4.5 mm corresponding to our 5 mm treatment margin. This margin seems to be well-adapted to the gated VMAT SBRT treatment in liver disease.