Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is modern rotational intensity modulated therapy used for treatment of several sites. The study aimed to analyze partial tangential arc VMAT treatment planning and delivery, including analyzing the cardiac and contralateral breast doses resulting from this technique. A total of 153 consecutively treated breast cancer (conservation as well as mastectomy) patients were taken for this dosimetric study. All patients were planned using partial arc VMAT in the Monaco treatment planning system using two partial arc beams. All patients were divided into seven different categories: (1) all the patients in the study, (2) left sided whole breast and chest wall patients, (3) left Chest wall patients, (4) left whole breast patients, (5) right sided whole breast and chest wall patients, (6) right chest wall patients, and (7) right whole breast patients. We evaluated each treatment plan for PTV coverage and doses to OARs. SPSS version 16.0 software was used for statistical analysis. There were 91 left sided and 62 right sided breast cancer patients in the overall analysis. The percentage of PTV volume receiving 95% of the prescription dose (PTV V95%, mean ± SD) varied in the range of 91.2 ± 5.2-94.8 ± 2.1% with mean dose of 92.4 ± 5.2% for all cases. The (mean ± SD) cardiac dose for all the patients was 289 ± 23 cGy. The (mean ± SD) cardiac doses were higher for left sided patients (424 ± 33.8 cGy) as compared to right sided patients (123.9 ± 80 cGy) (p < 0.001). Cardiac mean doses were higher with arc angles >30° versus 30° (324.5 ± 247.1 vs. 234.4 ± 188.4 cGy) (p = 0.001). Similarly contralateral breast mean dose was higher with arc angles >30° versus 30° (126 ± 115 vs. 88.6 ± 76.1 cGy) (p = 0.001). However cardiac V20, V30 and V40 Gy did not exhibit any statistical difference between the two groups (p = 0.26, 0.057 and 0.054 respectively). This is the first large study of its kind that assesses the dosimetric outcome of tangential partial arc VMAT treatments in a large group of mastectomy and breast conservation patients. Our study demonstrates the efficacy of this technique in dose coverage of PTV as well as in minimizing dose to OARs. Further, based on our results, we conclude that the arc length for the bi-tangential arcs should be 30° since it helps to achieve the most optimal balance between target coverage and acceptable OAR doses.

The aim of this article is to derive and verify a mathematical formulation for the reduction of the six-dimensional (6D) positional inaccuracies of patients (lateral, longitudinal, vertical, pitch, roll and yaw) to three-dimensional (3D) linear shifts. The formulation was mathematically and experimentally tested and verified for 169 stereotactic radiotherapy patients. The mathematical verification involves the comparison of any (one) of the calculated rotational coordinates with the corresponding value from the 6D shifts obtained by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). The experimental verification involves three sets of measurements using an ArcCHECK phantom, when (i) the phantom was not moved (neutral position: 0MES), (ii) the position of the phantom shifted by 6D shifts obtained from CBCT (6DMES) from neutral position and (iii) the phantom shifted from its neutral position by 3D shifts reduced from 6D shifts (3DMES). Dose volume histogram and statistical comparisons were made between [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text]. The mathematical verification was performed by a comparison of the calculated and measured yaw (γ°) rotation values, which gave a straight line, Y  =  1X with a goodness of fit as R =  0.9982. The verification, based on measurements, gave a planning target volume receiving 100% of the dose (V100%) as 99.1  ±  1.9%, 96.3  ±  1.8%, 74.3  ±  1.9% and 72.6  ±  2.8% for the calculated treatment planning system values TPSCAL, 0MES, 3DMES and 6DMES, respectively. The statistical significance (p-values: paired sample t-test) of V100% were found to be 0.03 for the paired sample [Formula: see text] and 0.01 for [Formula: see text]. In this paper, a mathematical method to reduce 6D shifts to 3D shifts is presented. The mathematical method is verified by using well-matched values between the measured and calculated γ°. Measurements done on the ArcCHECK phantom also proved that the proposed methodology is correct. The post-correction of the table position condition introduces a minimal spatial dose delivery error in the frameless stereotactic system, using a 6D motion enabled robotic couch. This formulation enables the reduction of 6D positional inaccuracies to 3D linear shifts, and hence allows the treatment of patients with frameless stereotactic radiosurgery by using only a 3D linear motion enabled couch.

No abstract

ObjectiveThis study was conducted for comparison of techniques between volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), forward-planning intensity-modulated radiotherapy (FIMRT) and conventional technique for left-sided breast radiotherapy after conservative surgery.MethodsIn all, 20 postoperative left breast carcinoma patients were included in this study. In all plans the planning target volume (PTV) was the breast tissue with appropriate margin as per our institutional protocol. The contouring was done on a Monaco Sim (V5.00.02) contouring workstation. All patient were planned using partial arc VMAT in Monaco treatment planning system (TPS) (V5.00.02) and treated on Elekta Synergy linear accelerator. The 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) and FIMRT planning were done in CMS XIO (V5.00.01.1) TPS. The 3DCRT planning consisted of conventional medial and tangential wedge portals with multileaf collimator field shaping conforming to the target volume. For all the plans generated the following metrics were scored: V105%, V100%, V95%, mean dose (for PTV), V5%, V20%, D2cc and mean dose (for organs at risk).ResultsThe mean PTV volume for 20 patients was 1,074·6±405·1 cc. The highest PTV dose coverage was observed in the 3DCRT technique with 94·1±1·8% of the breast PTV receiving 95% of the prescription dose (V95%). However, it was also observed that this technique resulted in 21·3±10% of the PTV receiving more than 105% of the prescription dose (V105%), which was highest among the three techniques. In contrast, VMAT yielded lowest V95% of 93·0±1·8 and 3·3±5·5% of V105%.ConclusionThis study concluded equivalent result between FIMRT and VMAT. However, VMAT was found to be the choice of radiotherapy technique as it produces lesser dose distribution to heart compared with any other technique.

Purpose: To quantify inherent uncertainty associated with a volumetric imaging system in its determination of positional shifts. Methods: The study was performed on an Elekta Axesse™ linac's XVI cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) system. A CT image data set of a Penta‐ Guide phantom was used as reference image by placing isocenter at the center of the phantom.The phantom was placed arbitrarily on the couch close to isocenter and CBCT images were obtained. The CBCT dataset was matched with the reference image using XVI software and the shifts were determined in 6‐dimensions. Without moving the phantom, this process was repeated 20 times consecutively within 30 minutes on a single day. Mean shifts and their standard deviations in all 6‐dimensions were determined for all the 20 instances of imaging. For any given day, the first set of shifts obtained was kept as reference and the deviations of the subsequent 19 sets from the reference set were scored. Mean differences and their standard deviations were determined. In this way, data were obtained for 30 consecutive working days. Results: Tabulating the mean deviations and their standard deviations observed on each day for the 30 measurement days, systematic and random errors in the determination of shifts by XVI software were calculated. The systematic errors were found to be 0.03, 0.04 and 0.03 mm while random errors were 0.05, 0.06 and 0.06 mm in lateral, craniocaudal and anterio‐posterior directions respectively. For rotational shifts, the systematic errors were 0.02°, 0.03° and 0.03° and random errors were 0.06°, 0.05° and 0.05° in pitch, roll and yaw directions respectively. Conclusion: The inherent uncertainties in every image guidance system should be assessed and baseline values established at the time of its commissioning. These shall be periodically tested as part of the QA protocol.