ObjectivesAssessment of physiologic renal motion in order to optimize abdominal intensity-modulated radiation therapy and stereotactic body radiation therapy.Methods and materialsTwenty patients with a median age of 47 years underwent computed tomography simulation and four-dimensional computed tomography acquisition. Thirty-nine kidneys were contoured during ten phases of respiration to estimate renal motion.ResultsKidney motion was not related to age (p = 0.42), sex (p = 0.28), height (p = 0.75), or body weight (p = 0.63). The average +/- standard deviation (SD) of movement of the center of gravity for all subjects was 11.1 +/- 4.8 mm in the cranio-caudal (CC) direction (range, 2.5-20.5 mm), 3.6 +/- 2.1 mm in the anterior-posterior (AP) direction (range, 0.6-8.0 mm), and 1.7 +/- 1.4 mm in the right-left (RL) direction (range, 0.4-5.9 mm). Renal motion strongly correlated with the respiratory phases (r > 0.97 and p < 0.01 in all three directions).ConclusionsRenal motion was independent of age, sex, height, or body weight. Renal motion in all directions was strongly respiration dependent, but motion in the cranio-caudal direction showed wide individual variation. In a clinical setting, it will be necessary to evaluate renal respiratory motion separately in each individual.

PurposeThe aim of this study was to report the outcome of primary or metastatic lung cancer patients undergoing volumetric modulated arc therapy for stereotactic body radiation therapy (VMAT-SBRT).Methods and materialsFrom October 2010 to December 2013, consecutive 67 lung cancer patients received single-arc VMAT-SBRT using an Elekta-synergy system. All patients were treated with an abdominal compressor. The gross tumor volumes were contoured on 10 respiratory phases computed tomography (CT) datasets from 4-dimensional (4D) CT and merged into internal target volumes (ITVs). The planning target volume (PTV) margin was isotropically taken as 5 mm. Treatment was performed with a D95 prescription of 50 Gy (43 cases) or 55 Gy (12 cases) in 4 fractions for peripheral tumor or 56 Gy in 7 fractions (12 cases) for central tumor.ResultsAmong the 67 patients, the median age was 73 years (range, 59–95 years). Of the patients, male was 72% and female 28%. The median Karnofsky performance status was 90-100% in 39 cases (58%) and 80-90% in 20 cases (30%). The median follow-up was 267 days (range, 40–1162 days). Tissue diagnosis was performed in 41 patients (61%). There were T1 primary lung tumor in 42 patients (T1a in 28 patients, T1b in 14 patients), T2 in 6 patients, three T3 in 3 patients, and metastatic lung tumor in 16 patients. The median mean lung dose was 6.87 Gy (range, 2.5-15 Gy). Six patients (9%) developed radiation pneumonitis required by steroid administration. Actuarial local control rate were 100% and 100% at 1 year, 92% and 75% at 2 years, and 92% and 75% at 3 years in primary and metastatic lung cancer, respectively (p = 0.59). Overall survival rate was 83% and 84% at 1 year, 76% and 53% at 2 years, and 46% and 20% at 3 years in primary and metastatic lung cancer, respectively (p = 0.12).ConclusionsUse of VMAT-based delivery of SBRT in primary in metastatic lung tumors demonstrates high local control rates and low risk of normal tissue complications.

PurposeTo report the result of independent absorbed-dose calculations based on a Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for various treatment sites.Methods and materialsAll treatment plans were created by the superposition/convolution (SC) algorithm of SmartArc (Pinnacle V9.2, Philips). The beam information was converted into the format of the Monaco V3.3 (Elekta), which uses the X-ray voxel-based MC (XVMC) algorithm. The dose distribution was independently recalculated in the Monaco. The dose for the planning target volume (PTV) and the organ at risk (OAR) were analyzed via comparisons with those of the treatment plan.Before performing an independent absorbed-dose calculation, the validation was conducted via irradiation from 3 different gantry angles with a 10- × 10-cm2 field. For the independent absorbed-dose calculation, 15 patients with cancer (prostate, 5; lung, 5; head and neck, 3; rectal, 1; and esophageal, 1) who were treated with single-arc VMAT were selected. To classify the cause of the dose difference between the Pinnacle and Monaco TPSs, their calculations were also compared with the measurement data.ResultIn validation, the dose in Pinnacle agreed with that in Monaco within 1.5%. The agreement in VMAT calculations between Pinnacle and Monaco using phantoms was exceptional; at the isocenter, the difference was less than 1.5% for all the patients. For independent absorbed-dose calculations, the agreement was also extremely good. For the mean dose for the PTV in particular, the agreement was within 2.0% in all the patients; specifically, no large difference was observed for high-dose regions. Conversely, a significant difference was observed in the mean dose for the OAR. For patients with prostate cancer, the mean rectal dose calculated in Monaco was significantly smaller than that calculated in Pinnacle.ConclusionsThere was no remarkable difference between the SC and XVMC calculations in the high-dose regions. The difference observed in the low-dose regions may have arisen from various causes such as the intrinsic dose deviation in the MC calculation, modeling accuracy, and CT-to-density table used in each planning system It is useful to perform independent absorbed-dose calculations with the MC algorithm in intensity-modulated radiation therapy commissioning.

No abstract

No abstract