Purpose: Objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of using flattening filter free (FFF) beam with 0.5 cm multileaf collimator (MLC) leaves over conventional flattened beam with 1 cm leaf width MLC on the treatment plan quality in cranio‐spinal irradiation (CSI). Methods: For five medulloblastoma cases (3 males and 2 females), who were previously treated by volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique using conventional flattened beam shaped by 1 cm width MLC leaves, four test plans were generated and compared against the delivered plan. These retrospective plans consisted of four different combinations of flattened and FFF beams from Elekta's Agility treatment head with 0.5 cm width MLC leaves. Sparing of organs at risks (OAR) in terms of dose to 5%, 50%, 75% and 90% volumes, mean and maximum dose were evaluated. Results: All plans satisfied the planning objective of covering 95% of PTV by at least 95% of prescription dose. Marginal variation of dose spillage was observed between different VMAT plans at very low dose range (1–5 Gy). Variation in dose statistics for PTVs and OARs were within 1% or 1 Gy. Amongst the five plans, the plan with flattened beam with 1 cm MLC had the highest number of MUs, 2.13 times higher than the plan with Agility MLC with FFF beam that had the least number of MUs. No statistically significant difference (p≥0.05) was observed between the reference plan and the retrospectively generated plans in terms of PTV coverage, cold spot, hot spot and organ at risk doses. Conclusion: In the treatment of CSI cases by VMAT technique, FFF beams and/or finer width MLC did not exhibit advantage over the flattened beams or wider MLC in terms of plan quality except for reduction in MUs.

No abstract

Purpose: Six dimensional positional shifts (translational and rotational) determined by a volumetric imaging system were mathematically combined and incorporated as simple translational shifts and the resultant impact on dose characteristics was studied. Methods: Thirty patients who underwent either single fraction (12 Gy) or five fractions (5 Gy per fraction) stereotactic treatments were included in this study. They were immobilized using a double layered thermoplastic mask from BrainLAB. Isocenter matching was done using infrared marker of ExacTrac. An initial cone beam CT (CBCT) gave positional shifts in 6‐dimensions that were applied through 6‐D motion enabled couch. A verification CBCT was done following corrections before treatment. These 6‐D positional shifts determined at each imaging session from the first CBCT were mathematically combined to give three simple translational shifts. Doses were recalculated in the patient matrix with these positional errors present by moving the whole image dataset. Doses were also recalculated after second CBCT with only residual errors present. PTV dose statistics were compared. Results: For the approved plans V100%(PTV), V100%(GTV), D95%(PTV), D95%(GTV), D1%(PTV) and D1%(GTV) were 96.2±3.0%, 98.2±1.4%, 102%±1.7%, 103±1.2%, 107.9±8.9% and 109.3±7.5% of prescription dose respectively. With the positional errors present (after 1st CBCT) the corresponding values were 86.7±4.9%, 91.3±2.9%, 89.6±4.2%, 95.9±3.7%, 108.3±9.9% and 108.6±4.5%. Post‐correction (after 2nd CBCT) with only residual errors present, values were 94.5±5.7%, 97.3±2.9%, 99.3%±3.2%, 102%±2.1%, 107.6±8.5% and 109.0±7.6% respectively. Significant and nominal OAR dose variation was observed between pre‐ and post‐table corrections. Conclusion: Positional errors significantly affect PTV dose statistics. They need to be corrected before delivery of stereotactic treatments although the magnitude of dose changes can vary from patient‐to‐patient depending on the tumor location. As expected after the table corrections, residual errors result in insignificant dose deviations. For frameless stereotactic treatments having a six‐dimensional motion enabled couch is highly recommended to reduce quantum of dose deviations.

No abstract