Purpose The purpose of the study was to investigate if surface guided radiotherapy (SGRT) can decrease setup deviations for tangential and locoregional breast cancer patients compared to conventional laser‐based setup (LBS). Materials and Methods Both tangential (63 patients) and locoregional (76 patients) breast cancer patients were enrolled in this study. For LBS, the patients were positioned by aligning skin markers to the room lasers. For the surface based setup (SBS), an optical surface scanning system was used for daily setup using both single and three camera systems. To compare the two setup methods, the patient position was evaluated using verification imaging (field images or orthogonal images). Results For both tangential and locoregional treatments, SBS decreased the setup deviation significantly compared to LBS (P < 0.01). For patients receiving tangential treatment, 95% of the treatment sessions were within the clinical tolerance of ≤ 4 mm in any direction (lateral, longitudinal or vertical) using SBS, compared to 84% for LBS. Corresponding values for patients receiving locoregional treatment were 70% and 54% for SBS and LBS, respectively. No significant difference was observed comparing the setup result using a single camera system or a three camera system. Conclusions Conventional laser‐based setup can with advantage be replaced by surface based setup. Daily SGRT improves patient setup without additional imaging dose to breast cancer patients regardless if a single or three camera system was used.

The purpose of this study was to develop a method to simulate breathing motion induced interplay effects for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), to verify the proposed method with measurements, and to use the method to investigate how interplay effects vary with different patient- and machine specific parameters. VMAT treatment plans were created on a virtual phantom in a treatment planning system (TPS). Interplay effects were simulated by dividing each plan into smaller sub-arcs using an in-house developed software and shifting the isocenter for each sub-arc to simulate a sin breathing motion in the superior-inferior direction. The simulations were performed for both flattening-filter (FF) and flattening-filter free (FFF) plans and for different breathing amplitudes, period times, initial breathing phases, dose levels, plan complexities, CTV sizes, and collimator angles. The resulting sub-arcs were calculated in the TPS, generating a dose distribution including the effects of motion. The interplay effects were separated from dose blurring and the relative dose differences to 2% and 98% of the CTV volume (ΔD and ΔD) were calculated. To verify the simulation method, measurements were carried out, both static and during motion, using a quasi-3D phantom and a motion platform. The results of the verification measurements during motion were comparable to the results of the static measurements. Considerable interplay effects were observed for individual fractions, with the minimum ΔD and maximum ΔD being  -16.7% and 16.2%, respectively. The extent of interplay effects was larger for FFF compared to FF and generally increased for higher breathing amplitudes, larger period times, lower dose levels, and more complex treatment plans. Also, the interplay effects varied considerably with the initial breathing phase, and larger variations were observed for smaller CTV sizes. In conclusion, a method to simulate motion induced interplay effects was developed and verified with measurements, which allowed for a large number of treatment scenarios to be investigated. The simulations showed large interplay effects for individual fractions and that the extent of interplay effects varied with the breathing pattern, FFF/FF, dose level, CTV size, collimator angle, and the complexity of the treatment plan.

The aim of this study was to investigate potential dose reductions to the heart, left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD), and ipsilateral lung for left‐sided breast cancer using visually guided deep inspiration breath‐hold (DIBH) with the optical surface scanning system Catalyst™, and how these potential dosimetric benefits are affected by intrafractional motion in between breath holds. For both DIBH and free breathing (FB), treatment plans were created for 20 tangential and 20 locoregional left‐sided breast cancer patients. During DIBH treatment, beam‐on was triggered by a region of interest on the xiphoid process using a 3 mm gating window. Using a novel nonrigid algorithm, the Catalyst™ system allows for simultaneous real‐time tracking of the isocenter position, which was used to calculate the intrafractional DIBH isocenter reproducibility. The 50% and 90% cumulative probabilities and maximum values of the intrafractional DIBH isocenter reproducibility were calculated and to obtain the dosimetric effect isocenter shifts corresponding to these values were performed in the treatment planning system. For both tangential and locoregional treatment, the dose to the heart, LAD and ipsilateral lung was significantly reduced for DIBH compared to FB. The intrafractional DIBH isocenter reproducibility was very good for the majority of the treatment sessions, with median values of approximately 1 mm in all three translational directions. However, for a few treatment sessions, intrafractional DIBH isocenter reproducibility of up to 5 mm was observed, which resulted in large dosimetric effects on the target volume and organs at risk. Hence, it is of importance to set tolerance levels on the intrafractional isocenter motion and not only perform DIBH based on the xiphoid process.

Background: Retrospective studies on MRI-only radiotherapy have been presented. Widespread clinical implementations of MRI-only workflows are however limited by the absence of guidelines. The MR-PROTECT trial presents an MRI-only radiotherapy workflow for prostate cancer using a new single sequence strategy. The workflow incorporated the commercial synthetic CT (sCT) generation software MriPlanner™ (Spectronic Medical, Helsingborg, Sweden). Feasibility of the workflow and limits for acceptance criteria were investigated for the suggested workflow with the aim to facilitate future clinical implementations. Methods: An MRI-only workflow including imaging, post imaging tasks, treatment plan creation, quality assurance and treatment delivery was created with questionnaires. All tasks were performed in a single MR-sequence geometry, eliminating image registrations. Prospective CT-quality assurance (QA) was performed prior treatment comparing the PTV mean dose between sCT and CT dose-distributions. Retrospective analysis of the MRI-only gold fiducial marker (GFM) identification, DVH-analysis, gamma evaluation and patient setup verification using GFMs and cone beam CT were performed. Results: An MRI-only treatment was delivered to 39 out of 40 patients. The excluded patient was too large for the predefined imaging field-of-view. All tasks could successfully be performed for the treated patients. There was a maximum deviation of 1.2% in PTV mean dose was seen in the prospective CT-QA. Retrospective analysis showed a maximum deviation below 2% in the DVH-analysis after correction for rectal gas and gamma pass-rates above 98%. MRI-only patient setup deviation was below 2 mm for all but one investigated case and a maximum of 2.2 mm deviation in the GFM-identification compared to CT.

The aim of this study was to verify the advanced inhomogeneous dose distribution produced by a volumetric arc therapy technique (RapidArc) using 3D gel measurements and Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. The TPS (treatment planning system)-calculated dose distribution was compared with gel measurements and MC simulations, thus investigating any discrepancy between the planned dose delivery and the actual delivery. Additionally, the reproducibility of the delivery was investigated using repeated gel measurements. A prostate treatment plan was delivered to a 1.3 liter nPAG gel phantom using one single arc rotation and a target dose of 3.3 Gy. Magnetic resonance imaging of the gel was carried out using a 1.5 T scanner. The MC dose distributions were calculated using the VIMC-Arc code. The relative absorbed dose differences were calculated voxel-by-voxel, within the volume enclosed by the 90% isodose surface (VOI(90)), for the TPS versus gel and TPS versus MC. The differences between the verification methods, MC versus gel, and between two repeated gel measurements were investigated in the same way. For all volume comparisons, the mean value was within 1% and the standard deviation of the differences was within 2.5% (1SD). A 3D gamma analysis between the dose matrices were carried out using gamma criteria 3%/3 mm and 5%/5 mm (% dose difference and mm distance to agreement) within the volume enclosed by the 50% isodose surface (VOI(50)) and the 90% isodose surface (VOI(90)), respectively. All comparisons resulted in very high pass rates. More than 95% of the TPS points were within 3%/3 mm of both the gel measurement and MC simulation, both inside VOI(50) and VOI(90). Additionally, the repeated gel measurements showed excellent consistency, indicating reproducible delivery. Using MC simulations and gel measurements, this verification study successfully demonstrated that the RapidArc plan was both accurately calculated and delivered as planned.

Background: The purpose was to evaluate the dosimetric effects in prostate cancer treatment caused by anatomical changes occurring during the time frame of adaptive replanning in a magnetic resonance linear accelerator (MR-linac) workflow. Methods: Two MR images (MR1 and MR2) were acquired with 30 min apart for each of the 35 patients enrolled in this study. The clinical target volume (CTV) and organs at risk (OARs) were delineated based on MR1. Using a synthetic CT (sCT), ultra-hypofractionated VMAT treatment plans were created for MR1, with three different planning target volume (PTV) margins of 7 mm, 5 mm and 3 mm. The three treatment plans of MR1, were recalculated onto MR2 using its corresponding sCT. The dose distribution of MR2 represented delivered dose to the patient after 30 min of adaptive replanning, omitting motion correction before beam on. MR2 was registered to MR1, using deformable registration. Using the inverse deformation, the structures of MR1 was deformed to fit MR2 and anatomical changes were quantified. For dose distribution comparison the dose distribution of MR2 was warped to the geometry MR1. Results: The mean center of mass vector offset for the CTV was 1.92 mm [0.13-9.79 mm]. Bladder volume increase ranged from 12.4 to 133.0% and rectum volume difference varied between −10.9 and 38.8%. Using the conventional 7 mm planning target volume (PTV) margin the dose reduction to the CTV was 1.1%. Corresponding values for 5 mm and 3 mm PTV margin were 2.0% and 4.2% respectively. The dose to the PTV and OARs also decreased from D1 to D2, for all PTV margins evaluated. Statistically significant difference was found for CTV D min between D1 and D2 for the 3 mm PTV margin (p < 0.01). Conclusions: A target underdosage caused by anatomical changes occurring during the reported time frame for adaptive replanning MR-linac workflows was found. Volume changes in both bladder and rectum caused large prostate displacements. This indicates the importance of thorough position verification before treatment delivery and that the workflow needs to speed up before introducing margin reduction.

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to investigate the potential dose reduction to the heart, left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery and the ipsilateral lung for patients treated with tangential and locoregional radiotherapy for left-sided breast cancer with enhanced inspiration gating (EIG) compared to free breathing (FB) using the AAA algorithm. The radiobiological implication of such dose sparing was also investigated.MethodsThirty-two patients, who received tangential or locoregional adjuvant radiotherapy with EIG for left-sided breast cancer, were retrospectively enrolled in this study. Each patient was CT-scanned during FB and EIG. Similar treatment plans, with comparable target coverage, were created in the two CT-sets using the AAA algorithm. Further, the probability of radiation induced cardiac mortality and pneumonitis were calculated using NTCP models.ResultsFor tangential treatment, the median V25Gy for the heart and LAD was decreased for EIG from 2.2% to 0.2% and 40.2% to 0.1% (p < 0.001), respectively, whereas there was no significant difference in V20Gy for the ipsilateral lung (p = 0.109). For locoregional treatment, the median V25Gy for the heart and LAD was decreased for EIG from 3.3% to 0.2% and 51.4% to 5.1% (p < 0.001), respectively, and the median ipsilateral lung V20Gy decreased from 27.0% for FB to 21.5% (p = 0.020) for EIG. The median excess cardiac mortality probability decreased from 0.49% for FB to 0.02% for EIG (p < 0.001) for tangential treatment and from 0.75% to 0.02% (p < 0.001) for locoregional treatment. There was no significant difference in risk of radiation pneumonitis for tangential treatment (p = 0.179) whereas it decreased for locoregional treatment from 6.82% for FB to 3.17% for EIG (p = 0.004).ConclusionsIn this study the AAA algorithm was used for dose calculation to the heart, LAD and left lung when comparing the EIG and FB techniques for tangential and locoregional radiotherapy of breast cancer patients. The results support the dose and NTCP reductions reported in previous studies where dose calculations were performed using the pencil beam algorithm.

In this study, we have quantified the setup deviation and time gain when using fast surface scanning for daily setup/positioning with weekly megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) and compared it to daily MVCT. Methods: A total of 16 835 treatment fractions were analyzed, treated, and positioned using our TomoTherapy HD (Accuray Inc., Madison, USA) installed with a Sentinel optical surface scanning system (C-RAD Positioning AB, Uppsala, Sweden). Patients were positioned using in-room lasers, surface scanning and MVCT for the first three fractions. For the remaining fractions, in-room laser was used for setup followed by daily surface scanning with MVCT once weekly. The three-dimensional (3D) setup correction for surface scanning was evaluated from the registration between MVCT and the planning CT. The setup correction vector for the in-room lasers was assessed from the surface scanning and the MVCT to planning CT registration. The imaging time was evaluated as the time from imaging start to beam-on. Results: We analyzed 894 TomoTherapy treatment plans from 2012 to 2018. Of all the treatment fractions performed with surface scanning, 90 % of the residual errors were within 2.3 mm for CNS (N = 284), 2.9 mm for H&N (N = 254), 8.7 mm for thorax (N = 144) and 10.9 for abdomen (N = 134) patients. The difference in residual error between surface scanning and positioning with in-room lasers was significant (P < 0.005) for all sites. The imaging time was assessed as total imaging time per treatment plan, modality, and treatment site and found that surface scanning significantly reduced patient on-couch time compared to MVCT for all treatment sites (P < 0.005). Conclusions: The results indicate that daily surface scanning with weekly MVCT can be used with the current target margins for H&N, CNS, and thorax, with reduced imaging time.