Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is a prevalent disease in Southern China. Radiation therapy remains the primary treatment modality for NPC due to its high radiation sensitivity. Conventional volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) can achieve excellent target volume coverage and superior conformal dose distributions while sparing organs at risk (OARs). However, VMAT may also produce substantial volume of low-dose region in the surrounding normal tissue. Our oncology centre has incorporated the concept of anterior cervical field with VMAT in clinical practice of NPC treatment planning. The purpose of this treatment-comparison case study is to demonstrate the lower neck OARs sparing ability of hybrid volumetric-modulated arc therapy (hybrid-VMAT) over conventional VMAT for NPC.

Four patients diagnosed with NPC of different clinical lymph node staging (N staging) were enrolled for this treatment-comparison case study. Planning target volumes and OARs were delineated with reference to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0225/0615. Additional OARs from lower neck region, including thyroid, trachea, cervical spine and pharyngeal constrictor muscles (PCMs), were also delineated. Two treatment techniques, hybrid-VMAT and VMAT, were created for each patient’s dataset.

Both treatment techniques produced adequate target coverage and reduced radiation dose to the OARs as suggested in RTOG 0225/0615. Hybrid-VMAT plans achieved superior dose reduction in larynx, oesophagus, middle PCM, inferior PCM, cervical spine and trachea comparing with VMAT plans. Hence, the clinical usability and functional outcome of hybrid-VMAT should be further investigated for NPC radiation therapy.

We have investigated the influence in volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans by a sequence of increment of gantry angle (IGA) in definitive radiotherapy treatment for cervical cancer. The plans are quantitatively analysed in terms of conformity index (CI), heterogeneity index (HI), dose–gradient index (DGI), target coverage (TC) by prescription dose, monitor unit (MU) usage, control points (CPs) and dose to organs.

In this retrospective study, we selected 27 patients with cervical cancer having aged between 54 and 69. All the patients enrolled in this study were at T3N1M0 stage of cervical cancer. The prescription dose to planning target volume (PTV) was 50 Gy and was administered in 2 Gy/fraction through VMAT technique. VMAT plans were optimised by varying the parameter ‘IGA’ as 10, 20, 30 and 40°.

Homogenous dose distribution within PTV and TC by prescription dose was significantly enhanced (p < 0·05) with larger IGA. The difference between volume receiving 15 Gy (V15Gy) in bowel was up to 10% with larger IGA (30 and 40°) and V25Gy in femoral head was up to 3% with smaller IGA (10 and 20°). CPs were enhanced and MU usage was reduced with larger IGA (30 and 40°). IGA 40° had reduced the MU usage than IGA 30° but the CI and DGI were compromised due to large MLC field segments.

This study recommends that the larger IGA could yield better results when the number of sectors is even, for a cervical cancer patient. However, more data from more patients need to be obtained and analysed to make this an evidence-based hypothesis.

Dosimetric comparison between volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and helical tomotherapy (HT) in the treatment of bilateral breast cancer (BBC).

Ten patients treated on HT were selected retrospectively. Dose prescription was 50 Gy in 25 fractions to breast/chest wall and supraclavicular fossa (SCF) while tumour bed was simultaneously boosted to 61 Gy in 25 fractions. VMAT plans were made with four mono-isocentric partial arcs. The monitoring unit (MU) and treatment time were used to quantify the treatment efficiency. Target volumes were compared for homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI) while organs at risk (OARs) were compared for relevant dose volumes and integral doses (IDs).

For targets, no significant difference is observed between VMAT and HT in CI but VMAT could give better HI. The mean lung dose, V20 and V5 is 10·6 Gy versus 8·4 Gy (p-value 0·03), 12% versus 11·5% (p-value 0·5) and 78·1% versus 43·4% (p-value 0·005), respectively. The mean heart dose, V30 and V5 is 4·9 Gy versus 4·7 Gy (p-value 0·88), 0·5% versus 1·5% (p-value 0·18) and 26·2% versus 22·8% (p-value 0·4). Integral dose (ID) for the whole body and heart are comparable: 289 Gy kg versus 299 Gy kg (p-value 0·24) and 2·9 Gy kg versus 2·8 Gy kg (p-value 0·80). ID for lungs was significantly higher with VMAT: 7·9 Gy kg versus 6·3 Gy kg (p-value 0·03). There is a 53% reduction in treatment time and 78% in MU with VMAT against HT.

VMAT can generate clinically acceptable plans comparable to HT for BBC. HT shows better control over low dose spillage in lungs compared to VMAT thereby increasing ID to lungs. VMAT shows better homogeneity and efficient treatment delivery than HT.

Radiation therapy (RT) remains a common and effective treatment modality for patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. Technological advancements over the past decade have resulted in the introduction of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) planning and delivery techniques that maximise the dose of radiation delivered to the prostate while sparing organs at risk (OAR). A more recent and evolving IMRT technique, called volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), involves a continuous irradiation at a constant or variable dose rate when the gantry rotates around the prostate using one or more arcs.

This paper reports on a dosimetric evaluation of our implementation of VMAT technique for prostate cancer treatment. A retrospective analysis of VMAT plans was performed for 300 prostate cancer patients treated during the period of January 2013 to December 2014. Two prescription cohorts of patients treated to a dose of 78 Gy in 39 fractions as the primary radiation therapy treatment (XRT) and 66 Gy in 33 fractions as a post-op or salvage XRT were considered.

The mean and maximal doses, dose inhomogeneities and conformity indexes for the planning target volumes were evaluated for each prescription cohort of patients. Similarly, the doses to OAR such as rectum, bladder and femoral heads were also assessed for various dose levels.

This study shows that highly conformal radiation dose distribution for the treatment of prostate cancer is achievable with the VMAT technique. It provides evidence to support the adoption of such conformal technology in many disease sites such as the prostate. We believe that our experience reported here could help form the foundation for individual institutions to evaluate and develop the most suitable planning criteria tailored to their own needs and priority. This endeavour hopefully will provide further improvement in the planning process and, therefore, help achieve an effective and efficient delivery of radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

In advanced radiotherapy techniques such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), the quality assurance (QA) process is essential. The aim of the study was to assure the treatment planning dose delivered during delivery of complex treatment plans. The QA standard is to perform patient-specific comparisons between planned doses and doses measured in a phantom.

The Delta 4 phantom (Scandidos, Uppsala, Sweden) has been used in this study. This device consists of diode matrices in two orthogonal planes inserted in a cylindrical acrylic phantom. Each diode is sampled per beam pulse so that the dose distribution can be evaluated on segment-by-segment, beam-by-beam, or as a composite plan from a single set of measurements. Ninety-five simple and complex radiotherapy treatment plans for different pathologies, planned using a treatment planning system (TPS) were delivered to the QA device. The planned and measured dose distributions were then compared and analysed. The gamma index was determined for different pathologies.

The evaluation was performed in terms of dose deviation, distance to agreement and gamma index passing rate. The measurements were in excellent agreement between with the calculated dose of the TPS and the QA device. Overall, good agreement was observed between measured and calculated doses in most cases with gamma values above 1 in >95% of measured points. Plan results for each test met the recommended dose goals.

The delivery of IMRT and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans was verified to correspond well with calculated dose distributions for different pathologies. We found the Delta 4 device is accurate and reproducible. Although Delta4 appears to be a straightforward device for measuring dose and allows measure in real-time dosimetry QA, it is a complex device and careful quality control is required before its use.

The purpose of this study was to develop the patient-specific quality control (QC) process by most commonly used dosimeters in Bangladesh and recommend a suitable passing rate for QC, irrespective of the dosimetric tools used.

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans of five head-and-neck (HN) and five prostate patients were selected for the patient-specific QC. These plans were generated using the Eclipse TPS v11·0 (Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA) 6 MV X-ray from a Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator (Varian Medical Systems, Inc.) for each case. Each IMRT and VMAT plans were measured by two-dimensional (2D) ion chamber arrays (I’matriXX) and electronic portal imaging devices (EPID), respectively. The passing rates of the dosimetric tools were calculated using criteria of 3%/3 mm.

The average passing rates (±SD) of I’matriXX for prostate and HN were 97·9±0·76 and 98·88±0·24, respectively. For VMAT verification, the average passing rates of EPID for prostate for arc1 and arc2 were 96·15±0·49 and 97·8±0·70, respectively; similarly, for HN the rates were 97·85±0·63 and 97·2±0·56, respectively.

The results showed that both the dosimeters can be used in patient-specific QC, although the EPID-based IMRT and VMAT QC is more advantageous in terms of time-saving and ease of use. Hence, for patient-specific QC, one can use the ion chamber arrays (I’matriXX) or EPID in hospital, but the systems need to be cross-checked.

Accurate three-dimensional dosimetry is essential in modern radiotherapy techniques such as volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). In this research work, the PRESAGE® dosimeter was used as quality assurance (QA) tool for VMAT planning for head and neck (H&N) cancer.

Computer tomography (CT) scans of an Image Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) H&N anthropomorphic phantom with both IROC standard insert and PRESAGE® insert were acquired separately. Both CT scans were imported into the Pinnacle (9.4 version) TPS for treatment planning, where the structures [planning target volume (PTV), organs at risk) and thermoluminescent detectors (TLDs) were manually contoured and used to optimise a VMAT plan. Treatment planning was done using VMAT (dual arc: 182°–178°, 178°–182°). Beam profile comparisons and gamma analysis were used to quantify agreement with film, PRESAGE® measurement and treatment planning system (TPS) calculated dose distribution.

The average ratio of TLD measured to calculated doses at the four PTV locations in the H&N phantom were between 0·95 to 0·99 for all three VMAT deliveries. Dose profiles were taken along the left–right, the anterior–posterior and superior–inferior axes, and good agreement was found between the PRESAGE® and Pinnacle profile. The mean value of gamma results for three VMAT deliveries in axial and sagittal planes were found to be 94·24 and 93·16% when compared with film and Pinnacle, respectively. The average values comparing the PRESAGE® results and dose values calculated on Pinnacle were observed to be 95·29 and 94·38% in the said planes, respectively, using a 5%/3 mm gamma criteria.

The PRESAGE® dose measurements and calculated dose of pinnacle show reasonable agreement in both axial and sagittal planes for complex dual arc VMAT treatment plans. In general, the PRESAGE® dosimeter is found to be a feasible QA tool of VMAT plan for H&N cancer treatment.

Whole breast irradiation is an essential treatment after breast-conserving surgery (BCS). However, there are some adverse effects from inhomogeneity and dose to adjacent normal tissues.

Aim of this study was to compare dosimetry among standard technique, three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), and advanced techniques, electronic compensator (ECOMP), inverse intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT).

Whole breast irradiation treatment plans of patients who had underwent BCS and whole breast irradiation were re-planned with all four techniques. Clinical target volume was contoured according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group atlas for breast only in patients who had negative node or ductal carcinoma in situ and breast with chest wall for patients with positive node. Planning target volume was non-uniformly expanded. Dose prescription was 50 Gy in 25 fractions with 6 MV photon energy.

In total, 25 patients underwent whole breast irradiation with computed tomography simulation from November 2013 to November 2014 were included. Six patients with positive nodes were re-planned for breast with chest wall irradiation and 19 patients with negative nodes were re-planned for breast only irradiation. Primary outcome, radical dose homogeneity index (HI) of 3D-CRT, ECOMP, IMRT and VMAT were 0·865, 0·889, 0·890 and 0·866, respectively. ECOMP and IMRT showed significant higher HI than 3D-CRT (p-value<0·001). Secondary outcome, conformity index (CI) of advanced technique were significantly better than 3D-CRT. Lung V20, mean ipsilateral lung dose (MILD), mean heart dose (MHD), heart V25, heart V30 of advanced techniques were also lower than 3D-CRT. ECOMP had better mean lung dose (MLD), mean contralateral lung dose (MCLD) and mean contralateral breast dose (MCBD) when compared with 3D-CRT. Monitor units of advanced techniques were significantly higher than 3D-CRT.

HI of ECOMP and IMRT were significantly higher than 3D-CRT technique. All advanced techniques showed statistically better in CI. Lung V20, MILD, heart V25 and heart V30 of advanced techniques were lower than 3D-CRT. However, only ECOMP showed decreased MLD, MHD, MCLD and MCBD when compared with 3D-CRT.