Dataset Information

Estimated clinical benefit of combining highly conformal target volumes with Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) versus conventional flank irradiation in pediatric renal tumors.

ABSTRACT:

Background

For decades, Anterior-Posterior/Posterior-Anterior (AP/PA) photon beams were standard-of-care for flank irradiation in children with renal cancer. Recently, highly conformal flank target volumes were defined correcting for postoperative organ shift and intra-fraction motion.By radiotherapy treatment plan comparison, this study aims to estimate the clinical benefits and potential risks of combining highly conformal target volumes with Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) versus conventional target volumes with AP/PA beams for flank irradiation.

Materials and methods

Twenty consecutive renal tumor cases (left/right-sided:10/10; median age:3.2 years) were selected. Highly conformal flank target volumes were generated for VMAT, while conventional target volumes were used for AP/PA. For each case, the dose to the organs at risk (OARs) and Total Body Volume (TBV) was calculated to compare VMAT with AP/PA treatment plans for a prescribed dose (PD) of 14.4/1.8 Gy. Dose constraint violation of the tail of the pancreas and spleen (D_mean < 10 Gy), heart (D₅₀ < 5 Gy) or mammary buds (D_mean < 10 Gy) were prioritized as potentially beneficial for clinics.

Results

Highly conformal Planning Target Volumes (PTV) were smaller than conventional volumes (mean ΔPTV_AP/PA-PTV_VMAT: 555 mL, Δ60%, p=<0.01). A mean dose reduction favoring VMAT was observed for almost all OARs. Dose constraints to the tail of the pancreas, spleen, heart and mammary buds were fulfilled in 8/20, 12/20, 16/20 and 19/20 cases with AP/PA, versus 14/20, 17/20, 20/20 and 20/20 cases with VMAT, respectively. In 12/20 cases, VMAT prevented the dose constraint violation of one or more OARs otherwise exceeded by AP/PA. VMAT increased the TBV receiving 10% of the PD, but reduced the amount of irradiated TBV for all higher doses.

Conclusion

Compared to 14.4 Gy flank irradiation using conventional AP/PA photon beams, an estimated clinical benefit by dose reduction to the OARs can be expected in 60% of the pediatric renal tumor cases using highly conformal flank target volumes combined with VMAT.

SUBMITTER: Mul J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8134033 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:To introduce a hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy/intensity modulated radiation therapy (VMAT/IMRT) optimization strategy called FusionArc that combines the delivery efficiency of single-arc VMAT with the potentially desirable intensity modulation possible with IMRT.A beamlet-based inverse planning system was enhanced to combine the advantages of VMAT and IMRT into one comprehensive technique. In the hybrid strategy, baseline single-arc VMAT plans are optimized and then the current cost function gradients with respect to the beamlets are used to define a metric for predicting which beam angles would benefit from further intensity modulation. Beams with the highest metric values (called the gradient factor) are converted from VMAT apertures to IMRT fluence, and the optimization proceeds with the mixed variable set until convergence or until additional beams are selected for conversion. One phantom and two clinical cases were used to validate the gradient factor and characterize the FusionArc strategy. Comparisons were made between standard IMRT, single-arc VMAT, and FusionArc plans with one to five IMRT∕hybrid beams.The gradient factor was found to be highly predictive of the VMAT angles that would benefit plan quality the most from beam modulation. Over the three cases studied, a FusionArc plan with three converted beams achieved superior dosimetric quality with reductions in final cost ranging from 26.4% to 48.1% compared to single-arc VMAT. Additionally, the three beam FusionArc plans required 22.4%-43.7% fewer MU∕Gy than a seven beam IMRT plan. While the FusionArc plans with five converted beams offer larger reductions in final cost--32.9%-55.2% compared to single-arc VMAT--the decrease in MU∕Gy compared to IMRT was noticeably smaller at 12.2%-18.5%, when compared to IMRT.A hybrid VMAT∕IMRT strategy was implemented to find a high quality compromise between gantry-angle and intensity-based degrees of freedom. This optimization method will allow patients to be simultaneously planned for dosimetric quality and delivery efficiency without switching between delivery techniques. Example phantom and clinical cases suggest that the conversion of only three VMAT segments to modulated beams may result in a good combination of quality and efficiency.

Project description:The objective of this study is to validate the capabilities of a cylindrical diode array system for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment quality assurance (QA). The VMAT plans were generated by the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) with the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) for dose calculation. An in-house Monte Carlo (MC) code was utilized as a validation tool for the TPS calculations and the ArcCHECK measurements. The megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) of the ArcCHECK system was adopted for the geometry reconstruction in the TPS and for MC simulations. A 10 × 10 cm2 open field validation was performed for both the 6 and 10 MV photon beams to validate the absolute dose calibration of the ArcCHECK system and also the TPS dose calculations for this system. The impact of the angular dependency on noncoplanar deliveries was investigated with a series of 10 × 10 cm2 fields delivered with couch rotation 0° to 40°. The sensitivity of detecting the translational (1 to 10 mm) and the rotational (1° to 3°) misalignments was tested with a breast VMAT case. Ten VMAT plans (six prostate, H&N, pelvis, liver, and breast) were investigated to evaluate the agreement of the target dose and the peripheral dose among ArcCHECK measurements, and TPS and MC dose calculations. A customized acrylic plug holding an ion chamber was used to measure the dose at the center of the ArcCHECK phantom. Both the entrance and the exit doses measured by the ArcCHECK system with and without the plug agreed with the MC simulation to 1.0%. The TPS dose calculation with a 2.5 mm grid overestimated the exit dose by up to 7.2% when the plug was removed. The agreement between the MC and TPS calculations for the ArcCHECK without the plug improved significantly when a 1 mm dose calculation grid was used in the TPS. The noncoplanar delivery test demonstrated that the angular dependency has limited impact on the gamma passing rate (< 1.2% drop) for the 2%-3% dose and 2mm-3 mm DTA criteria. A 1° rotational misalignment introduces 11.3% (3%/3mm) to 21.3% (1%/1 mm) and 0.2% (3%/3 mm) to 0.8% (1%/1 mm) Gamma passing rate drop for ArcCHECK system and MatriXX system, respectively. Both systems have comparable sensitivity to the AP misalignments. However, a 2 mm RL misalignment introduces gamma passing rate drop ranging from 0.9% (3%/3 mm) to 4.0% (1%/1 mm) and 5.0% (3%/3 mm) to 12.0% (1%/1 mm) for ArcCHECK and MatriXX measurements, respectively. For VMAT plan QA, the gamma analysis passing rates ranged from 96.1% (H&N case) to 99.9% (prostate case), when using the 3%/3 mm DTA criteria for the peripheral dose validation between the TPS and ArcCHCEK measurements. The peripheral dose validation between the MC simulation and ArcCHECK measurements showed at least 97.9% gamma passing rates. The central dose validation also showed an agreement within 2.2% between TPS/MC calculations and ArcCHECK measurements. The worst discrepancy was found in the H&N case, which is the most complex VMAT case. The ArcCHECK system is suitable for VMAT QA evaluation based on the sensitivity to detecting misalignments, the clinical impact of the angular dependency, and the correlation between the dose agreements in the peripheral region and the central region. This work also demonstrated the importance of carrying out a thorough validation of both the TPS and the dosimetry system prior to utilizing it for QA, and the value of having an independent dose calculation tool, such as the MC method, in clinical practice.