Background: Hippocampal-avoidance prophylactic cranial irradiation (HA-PCI) offers potential neurocognitive benefits but raises technical challenges to treatment planning. This study aims to improve the conventional planning method using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique and investigate a better patient's head positioning to achieve a high quality of HA-PCI treatment plans.Methods: The improved planning method set a wide expansion of hippocampus as a special region for dose decline. The whole brain target was divided into two parts according to whether the slice included hippocampus and their optimization objectives were set separately. Four coplanar full arcs with partial field sizes were employed to deliver radiation dose to different parts of the target. The collimator angle for all arcs was 90°. Tilting patient's head was achieved by rotating CT images.The improved planning method and tilted head positioning were verified using datasets from 16 patients previously treated with HA-PCI using helical tomotherapy (HT).Results: For the improved VMAT plans, the max and mean doses to hippocampus were 7.88 Gy and 6.32 Gy, respectively, significantly lower than those for the conventional VMAT plans (P < 0.001). Meanwhile, the improved planning method significantly improved the plan quality. Compared to the HT plans, the improved VMAT plans result in similar mean dose to hippocampus (P > 0.1) but lower max dose (P < 0.02). Besides, the target coverage was the highest for the improved VMAT plans. The tilted head positioning further reduced the max and mean doses to hippocampus (P < 0.05), significantly decreased the max dose to lens (P < 0.001) and resulted in higher plan quality as compared to nontilted head positioning. Conclusions:The improved planning method enables the VMAT plans to meet the clinical requirements of HA-PCI treatment with high plan quality and convenience.The tilted head positioning provides superior dosimetric advantages over the nontilted head positioning, which is recommended for clinical application.

PurposeThe aim of this work is to introduce the 2019 International Planning Competition and to analyze its results.Methods and materialsA locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) case using the simultaneous integrated boost approach was selected. The plan quality was evaluated by using a ranking system in accordance with practice guidelines. Planners used their clinical Treatment Planning System (TPS) to generate the best possible plan along with a survey, designed to obtain medical physics aspects information. We investigated the quality of the large population of plans designed by worldwide planners using different planning and delivery systems. The correlations of plan quality with relevant planner characteristics (work experience, department scale, and competition experience) and with technological parameters (TPS and modality) were examined.ResultsThe number of the qualified plans was 287 with a wide range of scores (38.61–97.99). The scores showed statistically significant differences by the following factors: 1) department scale: the mean score (89.76 ± 8.36) for planners from the departments treating &gt;2,000 patients annually was the highest of all; 2) competition experience: the mean score for the 107 planners with previous competition experience was 88.92 ± 9.59, statistically significantly from first-time participants (p = .001); 3) techniques: the mean scores for planners using VMAT (89.18 ± 6.43) and TOMO (90.62 ± 7.60) were higher than those using IMRT (82.28 ± 12.47), with statistical differences (p &lt;.001). The plan scores were negligibly correlated with the planner’s years of work experience or the type of TPS used. Regression analysis demonstrated that plan score was associated with dosimetric objectives that were difficult to achieve, which is generally consistent with a clinical practice evaluation. However, 51.2% of the planners abandoned the difficult component of total lung receiving a dose of 5 Gy in their plan design to achieve the optimal plan.ConclusionThe 2019 international planning competition was carried out successfully, and its results were analyzed. Plan quality was not correlated with work experiences or the TPS used, but it was correlated with department scale, modality, and competition experience. These findings differed from those reported in previous studies.

(1) Purpose: Challenges remain in dose accumulation for cervical cancer radiotherapy combined with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and brachytherapy (BT) as there are many large and complex organ deformations between different treatments. This study aims to improve deformable image registration (DIR) accuracy with the introduction of multi-metric objectives for dose accumulation of EBRT and BT. (2) Materials and methods: Twenty cervical cancer patients treated with EBRT (45–50 Gy/25 fractions) and high-dose-rate BT (≥20 Gy in 4 fractions) were included for DIR. The multi-metric DIR algorithm included an intensity-based metric, three contour-based metrics, and a penalty term. Nonrigid B-spine transformation was used to transform the planning CT images from EBRT to the first BT, with a six-level resolution registration strategy. To evaluate its performance, the multi-metric DIR was compared with a hybrid DIR provided by commercial software. The DIR accuracy was measured by the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and Hausdorff distance (HD) between deformed and reference organ contours. The accumulated maximum dose of 2 cc (D2cc) of the bladder and rectum was calculated and compared to simply addition of D2cc from EBRT and BT (ΔD2cc). (3) Results: The mean DSC of all organ contours for the multi-metric DIR were significantly higher than those for the hybrid DIR (p ≤ 0.011). In total, 70% of patients had DSC > 0.8 using the multi-metric DIR, while 15% of patients had DSC > 0.8 using the commercial hybrid DIR. The mean ΔD2cc of the bladder and rectum for the multi-metric DIR were 3.25 ± 2.29 and 3.54 ± 2.02 GyEQD2, respectively, whereas those for the hybrid DIR were 2.68 ± 2.56 and 2.32 ± 3.25 GyEQD2, respectively. The multi-metric DIR resulted in a much lower proportion of unrealistic D2cc than the hybrid DIR (2.5% vs. 17.5%). (4) Conclusions: Compared with the commercial hybrid DIR, the introduced multi-metric DIR significantly improved the registration accuracy and resulted in a more reasonable accumulated dose distribution.

Purpose: To compare two inverse planning algorithms, the hybrid inverse planning optimization (HIPO) algorithm and the inverse planning simulated annealing (IPSA) algorithm, for cervical cancer brachytherapy and provide suggestions for their usage. Material and methods: This study consisted of 24 cervical cancer patients treated with CT image-based high-dose-rate brachytherapy using various combinations of tandem/ovoid applicator and interstitial needles. For fixed catheter configurations, plans were retrospectively optimized with two methods: IPSA and HIPO. The dosimetric parameters with respect to target coverage, localization of high dose volume (LHDV), conformal index (COIN), and sparing of organs at risk (OARs) were evaluated. A plan assessment method which combines a graphical analysis and a scoring index was used to compare the quality of two plans for each case. The characteristics of dwell time distributions of the two plans were also analyzed in detail. Results: Both IPSA and HIPO can produce clinically acceptable treatment plans. The rectum D 2cc was slightly lower for HIPO as compared to IPSA (P = 0.002). All other dosimetric parameters for targets and OARs were not significantly different between the two algorithms. The generated radar plots and scores intuitively presented the plan properties and enabled to reflect the clinical priorities for the treatment plans. Significant different characteristics were observed between the dwell time distributions generated by IPSA and HIPO. Conclusions: Both algorithms could generate high-quality treatment plans, but their performances were slightly different in terms of each specific patient. The clinical decision on the optimal plan for each patient can be made quickly and consistently with the help of the plan assessment method. Besides, the characteristics of dwell time distribution were suggested to be taken into account during plan selection. Compared to IPSA, the dwell time distributions generated by HIPO may be closer to clinical preference.

Purpose: Maximum leaf speed is a configurable parameter of MLC in a treatmentplanning system. This study investigated the influence of MLC on the quality of VMAT plans. Methods: Seven MLCs with different maximum leaf speeds (1.0, 1.5, 2.25, 3.5, 5.0, 7.5, and 10 cm/s) were configured for an accelerator in treatment-planning system. Correspondingly, seven treatment plans, with the identical initial optimization parameter, were designed with the mdaccAutoPlan system. Six nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients and nine rectal cancer patients were selected, representing complex and simple clinical circumstances. VMAT plan quality was evaluated with PlanIQ TM software. The results were statistically analyzed with a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and pairwise comparison tests. Results: The relative changes of plan scores achieved by the seven configured accelerators, with specific maximum MLC leaf speed (MMLS) for each patient, were studied. Two apparent trends of MMLS influence on VMAT plan scores were observed: Plan scores increased with MMLS; Plan scores increased rapidly when MMLS increased from 1 to 3.5, thus the relative change of plan score decreased in this MMLS range. The stationary point of maximum MLC speed (MMSSP) is defined, for the specific MMLS when the relative changes of plan scores is first <5%, as MMLS increases from 1.0 to 10. For rectal plans, MMSSPs were 2.25 for six patients and 3.5 for the other three patients. For NPC plans, MMSSPs were 3.5 for five patients and 2.25 for one patient. Conclusion: This work indicates that MMLS directly influences VMAT plan quality in NPC cases and rectal cancer cases. VMAT plan quality improved conspicuously as MMLS increased from 1 to 3.5, VMAT plan quality with marginal improvement when MMLS is above 3.5.