We compared two intensity-modulated radiotherapy techniques for left-sided breast treatment, involving lymph node irradiation including the internal mammary chain. Inverse planned arc-therapy (VMAT) was compared with a forward-planned multi-segment technique with a mono-isocenter (MONOISO). Ten files were planned per technique, delivering a 50-Gy dose to the breast and 46.95 Gy to nodes, within 25 fractions. Comparative endpoints were planning target volume (PTV) coverage, dose to surrounding structures, and treatment delivery time. PTV coverage, homogeneity and conformality were better for two arc VMAT plans; V95%PTV-T was 96% for VMAT vs 89.2% for MONOISO. Homogeneity index (HI)PTV-T was 0.1 and HIPTV-N was 0.1 for VMAT vs 0.6 and 0.5 for MONOISO. Treatment delivery time was reduced by a factor of two using VMAT relative to MONOISO (84 s vs 180 s). High doses to organs at risk were reduced (V30left lung = 14% using VMAT vs 24.4% with MONOISO; dose to 2% of the volume (D2%)heart = 26.1 Gy vs 32 Gy), especially to the left coronary artery (LCA) (D2%LCA = 34.4 Gy vs 40.3 Gy). However, VMAT delivered low doses to a larger volume, including contralateral organs (mean dose [Dmean]right lung = 4 Gy and Dmeanright breast = 3.2 Gy). These were better protected using MONOISO plans (Dmeanright lung = 0.8 Gy and Dmeanright breast = 0.4 Gy). VMAT improved PTV coverage and dose homogeneity, but clinical benefits remain unclear. Decreased dose exposure to the LCA may be clinically relevant. VMAT could be used for complex treatments that are difficult with conventional techniques. Patient age should be considered because of uncertainties concerning secondary malignancies.

PURPOSE: Magnetic resonance–guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) has recently become commercially available, offering the opportunity to accurately image and target moving tumors as compared with computed tomography-guided radiation therapy (CTgRT) systems. However, the costs of delivering care with these 2 modalities remain poorly described. With localized unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma as an example, we were able to use time-driven activity-based costing to determine the cost of treatment on linear accelerators with CTgRT compared with MRgRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Process maps, informed via interviews with departmental personnel, were created for each phase of the care cycle. Stereotactic body radiation therapy was delivered at 50 Gy in 5 fractions, either with CTgRT using fiducial placement, deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) with real-time position management, and volumetric-modulated arc therapy, or with MRgRT using real-time tumor gating, DIBH, and static-gantry intensity-modulated radiation therapy. RESULTS: Direct clinical costs were $7,306 for CTgRT and $8,622 for MRgRT comprising personnel costs ($3,752 v $3,603), space and equipment costs ($2,912 v $4,769), and materials costs ($642 v $250). Increased MRgRT costs may be mitigated by forgoing CT simulation ($322 saved) or shortening treatment to 3 fractions ($1,815 saved). Conversely, adaptive treatment with MRgRT would result in an increase in cost of $529 per adaptive treatment. CONCLUSION: MRgRT offers real-time image guidance, avoidance of fiducial placement, and ability to use adaptive treatments; however, it is 18% more expensive than CTgRT under baseline assumptions. Future studies that elucidate the magnitude of potential clinical benefits of MRgRT are warranted to clarify the value of using this technology.

No abstract