SummaryThe uptake of stereotactic ablative body radiation therapy (SABR)/ stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) worldwide has been rapid. The Australian and New Zealand Faculty of Radiation Oncology (FRO) assembled an expert panel of radiation oncologists, radiation oncology medical physicists and radiation therapists to establish guidelines for safe practice of SABR. Draft guidelines were reviewed by a number of international experts in the field and then distributed through the membership of the FRO. Members of the Australian Institute of Radiography and the Australasian College of Physical Scientists and Engineers in Medicine were also asked to comment on the draft. Evidence-based recommendations (where applicable) address aspects of departmental staffing, procedures and equipment, quality assurance measures, as well as organisational considerations for delivery of SABR treatments. Central to the guidelines is a set of key recommendations for departments undertaking SABR. These guidelines were developed collaboratively to provide an educational guide and reference for radiation therapy service providers to ensure appropriate care of patients receiving SABR.

With strict immobilisation, image-guidance and 6-DOF correction, our current practice of applying 3-mm planning margins for target volumes and critical structures appears safe. Lower image-guidance action thresholds plus verification with end-to-end testing would be recommended before further reducing margins.

Introduction Various techniques for whole breast radiation therapy (WBRT) have been reported to increase dose to contralateral tissues. Heart dose is of critical importance as there is no apparent dose threshold below which there is no risk. The aim of this study was to compare planning techniques for WBRT that achieves the best target dosimetry and lowest organ at risk (OAR) dose. Methods Thirty early‐stage whole breast patient datasets, 15 each left‐ and right‐sided cases, were retrospectively selected. Five techniques were generated for each data set: three‐dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), hybrid intensity modulated radiation therapy (HYI), hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) – (HYV), reduced arc VMAT – bowtie (BT), and BT flattening filter free (FFF) – (BTFFF). Plan goals and OARs were evaluated and compared between techniques. Results BT had the highest median conformity index (CI) values (0.82, IQR: 0.80–0.85 left and 0.83, IQR 0.80–0.86 right). BT recorded lower mean heart doses (median value 1.19Gy, IQR: 0.90–1.55), and BTFFF recorded lower heart V2.5 Gy , V5 Gy ; median 3.96% (IQR: 2.90–6.80) and 0.90% (IQR: 0.50–1.50) respectively for left‐sided patients. There was a statistically significant difference in all ipsilateral lung measures, (p < 0.001) with BTFFF producing significantly lower doses across all measures: mean, V5 Gy , V10 Gy and V20 Gy . Conclusion Overall BT and BTFFF techniques produced lower OAR doses and equivalent PTV coverage for WBRT. BT and BTFFF techniques increased contralateral lung and breast doses; however, these were within prescribed tolerances and comparable to results published in the literature.

IntroductionThe aim of this study was to compare various coplanar and non‐coplanar 3‐dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) beam arrangements for the delivery of stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) to patients with early stage lung cancer, based on the dosimetric criteria from the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 1021 protocol.MethodsTen medically inoperable lung cancer patients eligible for SABR were re‐planned using three different coplanar and three different non‐coplanar beam arrangements. The plans were compared by assessing planning target volume (PTV) coverage, doses to normal tissues, the high‐dose conformity (conformity index) and intermediate dose spillage as defined by the D2cm, (the dose at any point 2 cm away from the PTV), and the R50% (the ratio of the volume of half the prescription dose to the volume of the PTV).ResultsSixty plans in total were assessed. Mean PTV coverage with the prescription isodose was similar between coplanar (95.14%) and non‐coplanar (95.26%) techniques (P = 0.47). There was significant difference between all coplanar and all non‐coplanar fields for the R50% (P < 0.0001) but none for the D2cm (P = 0.19). The seven and nine field beam arrangements with two non‐coplanar fields had less unacceptable protocol deviations (10 and 7) than the seven and nine field plans with only coplanar fields (13 and 8). The 13 field coplanar fields did not improve protocol compliance with eight unacceptable deviations. The 10 field non‐coplanar beam arrangement achieved best compliance with the RTOG 1021 dose criteria with only one unacceptable deviation (maximum rib dose).ConclusionA 3DCRT planning technique using 10 fields with ≥6 non‐coplanar beams best satisfied high and intermediate dose constraints stipulated in the RTOG 1021 trial. Further investigations are required to determine if minor protocol deviations should be balanced against efficiency with the extended treatment times required to deliver non‐coplanar fields and if treatment times can be improved using novel intensity modulated techniques.

IntroductionThe purpose of this study was to investigate coplanar and non‐coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivery techniques for stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) to the lung.MethodsFor ten patients who had already completed a course of radiation therapy for early stage lung cancer, three new SABR treatment plans were created using (1) a coplanar full arc (FA) technique, (2) a coplanar partial arc technique (PA) and (3) a non‐coplanar technique utilising three partial arcs (NCA). These plans were evaluated using planning target volume (PTV) coverage, dose to organs at risk, and high and intermediate dose constraints as incorporated by radiation therapy oncology group (RTOG) 1021.ResultsWhen the FA and PA techniques were compared to the NCA technique, on average the PTV coverage (V 54Gy) was similar (P = 0.15); FA (95.1%), PA (95.11%) and NCA (95.71%). The NCA resulted in a better conformity index (CI) of the prescription dose (0.89) when compared to the FA technique (0.88, P = 0.23) and the PA technique (0.83, P = 0.06). The NCA technique improved the intermediate dose constraints with a statistically significant difference for the D 2cm and R 50% when compared with the FA (P < 0.03 and <0.0001) and PA (P < 0.04 and <0.0001) techniques. The NCA technique reduced the maximum spinal cord dose by 2.72 and 4.2 Gy when compared to the PA and FA techniques respectively. Mean lung doses were 4.09, 4.31 and 3.98 Gy for the FA, PA and NCA techniques respectively.ConclusionThe NCA VMAT technique provided the highest compliance to RTOG 1021 when compared to coplanar techniques for lung SABR. However, single FA coplanar VMAT was suitable for 70% of patients when minor deviations to both the intermediate dose and organ at risk (OAR) constraints were accepted.