There is a concern for dose calculation in highly heterogenous environments such as the thorax region. This study compares the quality of treatment plans of peripheral non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) using 2 calculation algorithms, namely, Eclipse Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) and Acuros External Beam (AXB), for 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) data from 20 anonymized patients were studied using Varian Eclipse planning system, AXB, and AAA version 10.0.28. A 3DCRT plan and a VMAT plan were generated using AAA and AXB with constant plan parameters for each patient. The prescription and dose constraints were benchmarked against Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0915 protocol. Planning parameters of the plan were compared statistically using Mann-Whitney U tests. Results showed that 3DCRT and VMAT plans have a lower target coverage up to 8% when calculated using AXB as compared with AAA. The conformity index (CI) for AXB plans was 4.7% lower than AAA plans, but was closer to unity, which indicated better target conformity. AXB produced plans with global maximum doses which were, on average, 2% hotter than AAA plans. Both 3DCRT and VMAT plans were able to achieve D95%. VMAT plans were shown to be more conformal (CI = 1.01) and were at least 3.2% and 1.5% lower in terms of PTV maximum and mean dose, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference for doses received by organs at risk (OARs) regardless of calculation algorithms and treatment techniques. In general, the difference in tissue modeling for AXB and AAA algorithm is responsible for the dose distribution between the AXB and the AAA algorithms. The AXB VMAT plans could be used to benefit patients receiving peripheral NSCLC SBRT.

Background and purpose: During radiotherapy, prostate motion changes over time. Quantifying and accounting for this motion is essential. This study aimed to assess intra-fraction prostate motion and derive duration-dependent planning margins for two treatment techniques. Material and methods: A four-dimension (4D) transperineal ultrasound Clarity® system was used to track prostate motion. We analysed 1913 fractions from 60 patients undergoing volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to the prostate. The mean VMAT treatment duration was 3.4 min. Extended monitoring was conducted weekly to simulate motion during intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment (an additional seven minutes). A motion-time trend analysis was conducted and the mean intra-fraction motion between VMAT and IMRT treatments compared. Duration-dependent margins were calculated and anisotropic margins for VMAT and IMRT treatments were derived. Results: There were statistically significant differences in the mean intra-fraction motion between VMAT and the simulated IMRT duration in the inferior (0.1 mm versus 0.3 mm) and posterior (−0.2 versus −0.4 mm) directions respectively (p ≪ 0.01). An intra-fraction motion trend inferiorly and posteriorly was observed. The recommended minimum anisotropic margins are 1.7 mm/2.7 mm (superior/inferior); 0.8 mm (left/right), 1.7 mm/2.9 mm (anterior/posterior) for VMAT treatments and 2.9 mm/4.3 mm (superior/inferior), 1.5 mm (left/right), 2.8 mm/4.8 mm (anterior/posterior) for IMRT treatments. Smaller anisotropic margins were required for VMAT compared to IMRT (differences ranging from 1.2 to 1.6 mm superiorly/inferiorly, 0.7 mm laterally and 1.1-1.9 mm anteriorly/posteriorly). Conclusions: VMAT treatment is preferred over IMRT as prostate motion increases with time. Larger margins should be employed in the inferior and posterior directions for both treatment durations. Duration-dependent margins should be applied in the presence of prolonged imaging and verification time.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract