Clinical implementation of intensity-modulated arc therapy

We performed an evaluation of the CyberKnife InCise MLC by comparing plan qualities for single and multiple brain lesions generated using the first version of InCise MLC, fixed cone, and Iris collimators. We also investigated differences in delivery efficiency among the three collimators. Twenty‐four patients with single or multiple brain mets treated previously in our clinic on a CyberKnife M6 using cone/Iris collimators were selected for this study. Treatment plans were generated for all lesions using the InCise MLC. Number of monitor units, delivery time, target coverage, conformity index, and dose falloff were compared between MLC‐ and clinical cone/Iris‐based plans. Statistical analysis was performed using the nonparametric Wilcoxon‐Mann‐Whitney signed‐rank test. The planning accuracy of the MLC‐based plans was validated using chamber and film measurements. The InCise MLC‐based plans achieved mean dose and target coverage comparable to the cone/Iris‐based plans. Although the conformity indices of the MLC‐based plans were slightly higher than those of the cone/Iris‐based plans, beam delivery time for the MLC‐based plans was shorter by 30%∼40%. For smaller targets or cases with OARs located close to or abutting target volumes, MLC‐based plans provided inferior dose conformity compared to cone/Iris‐based plans. The QA results of MLC‐based plans were within 5% absolute dose difference with over 90% gamma passing rate using 2%/2 mm gamma criteria. The first version of InCise MLC could be a useful delivery modality, especially for clinical situations for which delivery time is a limiting factor or for multitarget cases.PACS number(s): 87.53.Ly, 87.55.D‐

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 54%

Dosimetric comparison between cone/Iris‐based and InCise MLC‐based CyberKnife plans for single and multiple brain metastases

Jang

Lalonde

Ozhasoglu

et al. 2016

“…A recently introduced rotational radiotherapy technique, intensity‐modulated arc therapy (IMAT) treatment planning system, delivers a highly conformal radiation dose to the target by simultaneously modulating gantry rotation, dose rate, and multileaf collimators (MLCs) position 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 . The advantages of the IMAT system over IMRT include the ability to reduce the total number of MUs and subsequently the beam‐on time, which may improve patient tolerance of treatment, and potentially reduce leakage radiation dose to the patients 13 , 14 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The advantages of the IMAT system over IMRT include the ability to reduce the total number of MUs and subsequently the beam‐on time, which may improve patient tolerance of treatment, and potentially reduce leakage radiation dose to the patients 13 , 14 . Conformal IMAT plans may decrease the dose to the organs at risk (OARs), including the hippocampus.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential for reduced radiation‐induced toxicity using intensity‐modulated arc therapy for whole‐brain radiotherapy with hippocampal sparing

Pokhrel

Sood

Lominska

et al. 2015

The purpose of this study was to retrospectively investigate the accuracy, plan quality, and efficiency of using intensity‐modulated arc therapy (IMAT) for whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) patients with sparing not only the hippocampus (following RTOG 0933 compliance criteria) but also other organs at risk (OARs). A total of 10 patients previously treated with nonconformal opposed laterals whole‐brain radiotherapy (NC‐WBRT) were retrospectively replanned for hippocampal sparing using IMAT treatment planning. The hippocampus was volumetrically contoured on fused diagnostic T1‐weighted MRI with planning CT images and hippocampus avoidance zone (HAZ) was generated using a 5 mm uniform margin around the hippocampus. Both hippocampi were defined as one paired organ. Whole brain tissue minus HAZ was defined as the whole‐brain planning target volume (WB‐PTV). Highly conformal IMAT plans were generated in the Eclipse treatment planning system for Novalis TX linear accelerator consisting of high‐definition multileaf collimators (HD‐MLCs: 2.5 mm leaf width at isocenter) and 6 MV beam for a prescription dose of 30 Gy in 10 fractions following RTOG 0933 dosimetric criteria. Two full coplanar arcs with orbits avoidance sectors were used. In addition to RTOG criteria, doses to other organs at risk (OARs), such as parotid glands, cochlea, external/middle ear canals, skin, scalp, optic pathways, brainstem, and eyes/lens, were also evaluated. Subsequently, dose delivery efficiency and accuracy of each IMAT plan was assessed by delivering quality assurance (QA) plans with a MapCHECK device, recording actual beam‐on time and measuring planed vs. measured dose agreement using a gamma index. On IMAT plans, following RTOG 0933 dosimetric criteria, the maximum dose to WB‐PTV, mean WB‐PTV D2%, and mean WB‐PTV D98% were 34.9±0.3 Gy,33.2±0.4 Gy, and 26.0±0.4 Gy, respectively. Accordingly, WB‐PTV received the prescription dose of 30 Gy and mean V30 was 90.5%±0.5%. The D100%, and mean and maximum doses to hippocampus were 8.4±0.3 Gy,11.2±0.3 Gy, and 15.6±0.4 Gy, on average, respectively. The mean values of homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI) were 0.23×0.02 and 0.96×0.02, respectively. The maximum point dose to WB‐PTV was 35.3 Gy, well below the optic pathway tolerance of 37.5 Gy. In addition, compared to NC‐WBRT, dose reduction of mean and maximum of parotid glands from IMAT were 65% and 50%, respectively. Ear canals mean and maximum doses were reduced by 26% and 12%, and mean and maximum scalp doses were reduced by 9 Gy (32%) and 2 Gy (6%), on average, respectively. The mean dose to skin was 9.7 Gy with IMAT plans compared to 16 Gy with conventional NC‐WBRT, demonstrating that absolute reduction of skin dose by a factor of 2. The mean values of the total number of monitor units (MUs) and actual beam on time were 719×44 and 2.34×0.14 min, respectively. The accuracy of IMAT QA plan delivery was (98.1±0.8) %, on average, with a 3%/3 mm gamma index passing rate criteria. All of these plans were considered clinically acceptable per ...

“…Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) is an elegant technique of delivering IMRT that allows for shorter treatment times achieved by optimizing MLC positions and dose rate while the gantry rotates around the patient with the beam‐on 23, 24, 25. SBRT to the spine has been demonstrated to be feasible and safe in a phase I study; however, concerns over the possibility of vertebral compression fracture and radiation‐induced myelitis remain and are an active area of investigation 26, 27, 28.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Volumetric modulated arc therapy treatment planning of thoracic vertebral metastases using stereotactic body radiotherapy

Mallory

Pokhrel

Badkul

et al. 2018

Purpose/ObjectivesTo retrospectively evaluate the plan quality, treatment efficiency, and accuracy of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for thoracic spine metastases using stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT).Materials/MethodsSeven patients with thoracic vertebral metastases treated with noncoplanar hybrid arcs (NCHA) (1 to 2 3D‐conformal partial arcs +7 to 9 IMRT beams) were re‐optimized with VMAT plans using three coplanar arcs. Tumors were located between T2 and T7 and PTVs ranged between 24.3 and 240.1 cc (median 48.1 cc). All prescriptions were 30 Gy in 5 fractions with 6 MV beams treated using the Novalis Tx linac equipped with high definition multileaf collimators (HDMLC). MR images were fused with planning CTs for target and OAR contouring. Plans were compared for target coverage using conformality index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), D90, D98, D2, and Dmedian. Normal tissue sparing was evaluated by comparing doses to the spinal cord (Dmax, D0.35, and D1.2 cc), esophagus (Dmax and D5 cc), heart (Dmax, D15 cc), and lung (V5 and V10). Data analysis was performed with a two‐sided t‐test for each set of parameters. Dose delivery efficiency and accuracy of each VMAT plan was assessed via quality assurance (QA) using a MapCHECK device. The Beam‐on time (BOT) was recorded, and a gamma index was used to compare dose agreement between the planned and measured doses.Results VMAT plans resulted in improved CI (1.02 vs. 1.36, P = 0.05), HI (0.14 vs. 0.27, P = 0.01), D98 (28.4 vs. 26.8 Gy, P = 0.03), D2 (32.9 vs. 36.0 Gy, P = 0.02), and Dmedian (31.4 vs. 33.7 Gy, P = 0.01). D90 was improved but not statistically significant (30.4 vs. 31.0 Gy, P = 0.38). VMAT plans showed statistically significant improvements in normal tissue sparing: Esophagus Dmax (22.5 vs. 27.0 Gy, P = 0.03), Esophagus 5 cc (17.6 vs. 21.5 Gy, P = 0.02), and Heart Dmax (13.1 vs. 15.8 Gy, P = 0.03). Improvements were also observed in spinal cord and lung sparing as well but were not statistically significant. The BOT showed significant reduction for VMAT, 4.7 ± 0.6 min vs. 7.1 ± 1 min for NCHA (not accounting for couch kicks). VMAT plans demonstrated an accurate dose delivery of 95.5 ± 1.0% for clinical gamma passing rate of 3%/3 mm criteria, which was similar to NCHA plans.Conclusions VMAT plans have shown improved dose distributions and normal tissue sparing compared to NCHA plans. Significant reductions in treatment time could potentially minimize patient discomfort and intrafraction movement errors. VMAT planning for SBRT is an attractive option for the treatment of metastases to thoracic vertebrae, and further investigation using alternative fractionation schedules is warranted.