Intensity-modulated radiation therapy, protons, and the risk of second cancers

We investigated the effect of mixing high‐ and low‐energy photon beams on the quality of intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans for patients with prostate cancer. Three different plans for each of twenty patients were generated using either 6 MV or 15 MV alone, and both 6 and 15 MV beams. All the planning parameters, goals, and constraints were set to be identical except beam energy. The dose distributions were similar in terms of target coverage, conformity, and homogeneity regardless of beam energy. The normalV70Gy of rectal wall in 6 MV, 15 MV and mixed‐energy plans was 16.7%, 17.9%, and 16.3%, respectively, while normalV40Gy was 55.6%, 53.2%, and 50%. The mean dose to femoral heads in 6 MV, 15 MV, and mixed‐energy plans were 31.7 Gy, 26.3 Gy, and 26.2 Gy, respectively. The integral dose of 6 MV plans was 7% larger than those of 15 MV or mixed‐energy plans. These results indicated that mixed‐energy IMRT plans could take advantage of the dosimetric characteristics of low‐ and high‐energy beams. Even though the reduction of dose to the organs at risk may not be clinically relevant, mixing energy in an IMRT plan for deep‐seated tumors can improve the overall plan quality.PACS number: 87.55.ne

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 62%

The dosimetric effect of mixed‐energy IMRT plans for prostate cancer

Park

Choi

et al. 2011

“…In addition, according to Dorr and Herrmann, 31 , 32 the majority of second cancers are induced within the penumbra of radiotherapy. Moreover, some papers reported that second cancers occurred in the low‐dose region, especially in pediatric patients 33 , 34 , 35 . Thus, the low dose should be delivered accurately and evaluated strictly.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gamma analysis dependence on specified low‐dose thresholds for VMAT QA

Song

Kim

Park

et al. 2015

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 119 instructed institutions to use a low‐dose threshold of 10% or a region of interest determined by the jaw setting when they collected gamma analysis quality assurance (QA) data for the planar dose distribution. However, there are no clinical data to quantitatively demonstrate the impact of the low‐dose threshold on the gamma index. Therefore, we performed a gamma analysis with various low‐dose thresholds in the range of 0% to 15% according to both global and local normalization and different acceptance criteria (3%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm, and 1%/1 mm). A total of 30 treatment plans — 10 head and neck, 10 brain, and 10 prostate cancer cases — were randomly selected from the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS). For the gamma analysis, a calculated portal image was acquired through a portal dose calculation algorithm in the Eclipse TPS, and a measured portal image was obtained using an electronic portal‐imaging device. Then, the gamma analysis was performed using the Portal Dosimetry software (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA). The gamma passing rate (%GP) for the global normalization decreased as the low‐dose threshold increased, and all low‐dose thresholds led to %GP values above 95% for both the 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm criteria. However, for the local normalization, %GP for a low‐dose threshold of 10% was 7.47%, 10.23%, and 6.71% greater than the low‐dose threshold of 0% for head and neck, brain, and prostate for the 3%/3 mm criteria, respectively. The results indicate that applying the low‐dose threshold to global normalization does not have a critical impact on patient‐specific QA results. However, in the local normalization, the low‐dose threshold level should be carefully selected because the excluded low‐dose points could cause the average %GP to increase rapidly.PACS number: 87.55.Qr

“…The differences in peripheral doses should mainly be due to the reduction in radiation leakage from the machine head by using triple‐arc RA with reduced monitor units. The reduction of primary leakage dose by using RA decreases the total body exposure, and therefore might also decrease the risk of developing secondary cancers (18) . Exposure of adult from radiotherapy in the abdominopelvic region may result in induction of genetic disorders in future generations (19) .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comprehensive dosimetric evaluation of using RapidArc volumetric‐modulated arc therapy for the treatment of early‐stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Kan

Wong²,

Leung³

et al. 2012

The purpose of this study was to investigate the potential benefits of using triple‐arc volumetric‐intensity modulated arc radiotherapy (RapidArc (RA)) for the treatment of early‐stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). A comprehensive evaluation was performed including plan quality, integral doses, and peripheral doses. Twenty cases of stage I or II NPC were selected for this study. Nine‐field sliding window IMRT, double‐arc, and triple‐arc RA treatment plans were compared with respect to target coverage, dose conformity, critical organ sparing, and integral doses. Measurement of peripheral doses was performed using thermoluminescent dosimeters in an anthropomorphic phantom. While similar conformity and target coverage were achieved by the three types of plans, triple‐arc RA produced better sparing of parotid glands and spinal cord than double‐arc RA or IMRT. Double‐arc RA plans produced slightly inferior parotid sparing and dose homogeneity than the other two delivery methods. The monitor units (MU) required for triple‐arc were about 50% less than those of IMRT plans, while there was no significant difference in the required MUs between triple‐arc and double‐arc RA plans. The peripheral dose in triple‐arc RA was found to be 50% less compared to IMRT near abdominal and pelvic region. Triple‐arc RA improves both the plan quality and treatment efficiency compared with IMRT for the treatment of early stage NPC. It has become the preferred choice of treatment delivery method for early stage NPC at our center.PACS numbers: 87.53.Bn, 87.55.D, 87.55.de, 87.55.dk, 87.56.ng