Objective: To investigate the features of helical tomotherapy and co-planar dual Arcs volumetric-modulated arc therapy during prophylactic cranial irradiation associated with bilateral hippocampal tissue sparing. Materials and methods: Helical tomotherapy and co-planar dual arcs volumetric-modulated arc therapy treatment plans were generated with a dose of 30 Gy/10 fractions in 16 patients treated with prophylactic cranial irradiation. The dose to the bilateral hippocampal tissues, organs at risk, and planning target volume were determined when the average dose of bilateral hippocampal tissues was reduced by approximately 4 Gy as an observation point. Changes in dosimetry when sparing the bilateral hippocampal tissues were determined for both modalities. Results: When bilateral hippocampal tissues were restricted to 8 Gy, D40%mean-bilateral hippocampal tissues = 7.64 ± 0.41 Gy in helical tomotherapy, while D40%mean-bilateral hippocampal tissues = 10.96 ± 0.38 Gy in co-planar dual arcs volumetric-modulated arc therapy volumetric-modulated arc therapy. Helical tomotherapy was associated with significantly lower doses to organs at risk, including Dmean-bilateral hippocampal tissues ( P = .03), D98%-bilateral hippocampal tissues ( P = .01), D2%-bilateral hippocampal tissues ( P = .01), Dmean-inner ear ( P = .02), Dmean-parotid glands ( P = .02), Dmax-lens ( P = .02), and Dmax-brainstem ( P = .02), but not Dmax-optic nerves ( P = .87). Helical tomotherapy provided better target coverage, with lower average D2%-PTV ( P = .02), higher average D98%-PTV ( P = .02), and better conformal index (0.87 vs 0.84, P = .02) and homogeneity index (0.15 vs 0.21, P = .05). With smaller bilateral hippocampal tissues doses, the planning target volume dose changed across 3 dosimetry regions for both modalities; the plateau region (>20.0 Gy for helical tomotherapy versus >16.0 Gy for co-planar dual arcs volumetric-modulated arc therapy), gradient region (20.0-12.0 Gy vs 16.0-11.0 Gy), and falling region (<12.0 Gy vs <11.0 Gy). The average delivery duration of helical tomotherapy was almost 7.7 times longer than that of co-planar dual arcs volumetric-modulated arc therapy. Conclusions: Helical tomotherapy was better at sparing the bilateral hippocampal tissues and organs at risk and had better target coverage but a significantly longer treatment duration than co-planar dual arcs volumetric-modulated arc therapy. Further dose decreases in the bilateral hippocampal tissues would yield worse target dose coverage.

Objective: To compare the 6-dimensional errors of different immobilization devices and body regions based on 3-dimensional cone beam computed tomography for image-guided radiotherapy and to further quantitatively evaluate the impact of rotational corrections on translational shifts and dose distribution based on anthropomorphic phantoms. Materials and Methods: Two hundred ninety patients with cone beam computed tomographies from 3835 fractions were retrospectively analyzed for brain, head & neck, chest, abdomen, pelvis, and breast cases. A phantom experiment was conducted to investigate the impact of rotational errors on translational shifts using cone beam computed tomography and the registration system. For the dosimetry study, pitch rotations were simulated by adjusting the breast bracket by ±2.5°. Roll and yaw rotations were simulated by rotating the gantry and couch in the planning system by ±3.0°, respectively. The original plan for the breast region was designed in the computed tomography image space without rotation. With the same planning parameters, the original plan was transplanted into the image space with different rotations for dose recalculation. The effect of these errors on the breast target and organs at risk was assessed by dose-volume histograms. Results: Most of the mean rotational errors in the breast region were >1°. A single uncorrected yaw of 3° caused a change of 2.9 mm in longitudinal translation. A phantom study for the breast region demonstrated that when the pitch rotations were −2.5° and 2.5° and roll and yaw were both 3°, the reductions in the planning target volumes-V50 Gy were 20.07% and 29.58% of the original values, respectively. When the pitch rotation was +2.5°, the left lung V5 Gy and heart Dmean were 7.49% and 165.76 Gy larger, respectively, than the original values. Conclusions: Uncorrected rotations may cause changes in the values and directions of translational shifts. Rotational corrections may improve the patient setup and dose distribution accuracy.