No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

PurposeTo evaluate PTV margins for hypofractionated IGRT of prostate comparing kV/kV imaging or CBCT.Patients and methodsBetween 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.Results172 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.ConclusionsFor 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.

Objective: Quality assurance data from five centres were analysed to assess the reliability of RapidArc radiotherapy delivery in terms of machine and dosimetric performance. Methods: A large group of patients was treated with RapidArc radiotherapy and treatment data recorded. Machine quality assurance was performed according to Ling et al (Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;72:575-81). In addition, treatment to a typical clinical case was delivered biweekly as a constancy check. Pre-treatment dosimetric validation of plan delivery was performed for each patient. All measurements and computations were performed at the depth of the maximum dose in water according to the GLAaS method using electronic portal imaging device measurements. Evaluation was carried out according to a gamma agreement index (GAI, the percentage of field area passing the test); the threshold dose difference was 3% and the threshold distance to agreement was 3 mm. Results: A total of 275 patients (395 arcs) were included in the study. Mean delivery parameters were 31.0¡20.0 u (collimator angle), 4.7¡0.5 u s -1 (gantry speed), 343¡134 MU min -1 (dose rate) and 1.6¡1.4 min (beam-on time) for prescription doses ranging from 1.8 to 16.7 Gy/fraction. Mean deviations from the baseline dose rate and gantry speed ranged from 20.61% to 1.75%. Mean deviations from the baseline for leaf speed variation ranged from 20.73% to 0.41%. The mean GAI of repeated clinical fields was 99.2¡0.2%. GAI varied from 84.7% to 100%; the mean across all patients was 97.1¡2.4%. Conclusion: RapidArc can provide a reliable and accurate delivery of radiotherapy for a variety of clinical conditions.