Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-pwrkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-06T22:16:18.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Volumetric-modulated arc therapy in craniospinal irradiation: a dosimetric analysis of acuros XB and analytical anisotropic algorithm comparing flattened and flattening filter-free beams with different energies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 May 2020

Suresh Tamilarasu Open the ORCID record for Suresh Tamilarasu [Opens in a new window]  and
Madeswaran Saminathan Open the ORCID record for Madeswaran Saminathan [Opens in a new window]
Suresh Tamilarasu
Affiliation:
Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, Sector 5 Rohini, New Delhi, 110085, India
Madeswaran Saminathan*
Affiliation:
VIT University, Vellore, Tamilnadu, India
*
Author for correspondence: Madeswaran Saminathan, VIT University, Vellore, Tamilnadu, India. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aim:

To compare the dosimetric performance of flattening filter-free (FFF) beam and flattened beams (FBs) utilising volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for craniospinal irradiation (CSI) planning.

Materials and Methods:

Five medulloblastoma patients were randomly selected retrospectively and 40 plans were generated. The dose prescription to the planning target volume (PTV) was 36 Gy in 20 fractions. VMAT plans were created using 6 MV and 10 MV FB and FFF beam. Final dose calculations were performed using Acuros XB (AXB) and analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA). Dosimetric parameters such as D98%, D95%, D50%, V110%, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), low-grade dose index, high-grade dose index, dose to the organ at risks (OARs) and normal tissue mean dose were noted. The effect of low-dose volume on normal tissue was also analysed.

Results:

The 6 MV and 10 MV flattened and FFF beam plan generates similar target coverage, and a significant difference was observed in the HI and CI. FFF beam plan produces lower doses in some of the OARs as compared to FB. Significant differences were also noted in monitor unit (MU), body-PTV mean dose and low-dose spillage regions (1–10 Gy) outside the PTV. In our study, 6 MV and 10 MV FFF beam beams need 23–25% more MUs to achieve planning goals when compared to FBs. The increased MUs in FFF plan decreases the body-PTV mean dose (0·07–0·09 Gy in 6 MV FFF and 0·31 Gy in 10 MV FFF in both algorithms) when compared to FB plans.

Conclusion:

FFF beams generate a highly conformal and homogenous plan in CSI cases. FFF beam plan reduced the non-tumour dose and will aid in reducing the probability of second malignancies.

Keywords

Acuros XB algorithmanalytical anisotropic algorithmcraniospinal irradiationflattened and flattening filter-free beam
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , June 2021 , pp. 196 - 202
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Seppala, J, Kulmala, J, Lindholm, P, Minn, H. A method to improve target dose homogeneity of craniospinal irradiation using dynamic split field IMRT. Radiother Oncol 2010; 96: 209–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Georg, D, Knoos, T, McClean, B. Current status and future perspective of flattening filter free photon beams. Med Phys 2011; 38: 1280–1293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bloom, H J G. Medulloblastoma in children: increasing survival rates and further prospects. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1982; 8: 2023–2027.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Followill, D, Geis, P, Boyer, A. Estimates of whole-body dose equivalent produced by beam intensity modulated conformal therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997; 38: 667–672.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, E J, Wuu, C S. Radiation-induced second cancers: the impact of 3D-CRT and IMRT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003; 56 (1): 83–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kry, S F, Salehpour, M, Followill, D et al. The calculated risk of fatal secondary malignancies from intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005;62: 1195–1203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vassiliev, O, Wareing, T, McGhee, J, Failla, G, Salehpour, M, Mourtada, F. Validation of a new grid based Boltzmann equation solver for dose calculation in radiotherapy with photon beams. Phys Med Biol 2010; 55: 581–598.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fogliata, G N, Clivio, A, Vanetti, E, Mancosu, P, Cozzi, L. Dosimetric validation of the Acuros XB advanced dose calculation algorithm: fundamental characterization in water. Phys Med Biol 2011; 56: 1879–1904.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Failla, G A, Wareing, T, Archambault, Y, Thompson, S. Acuros® XB advanced dose calculation for the Eclipse™ treatment planning system. Clinical Perspectives 2010; 1–27.Google Scholar
IAEA. An International Code of Practice for Dosimetry based on absorbed dose to Water, IAEA Technical Series No. 398, absorbed Dose Determination in External Beam Radiotherapy. Vienna: IAEA; 2000.Google Scholar
ICRU Report 83. Prescribing, Recording, and Reporting Photon-Beam Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT). Bethesda: International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, 2010: 1–92.Google Scholar
Paddick, I, Lippitz, B. A simple dose gradient measurement tool to complement the conformity index. J Neurosurg 2006; 105: 194–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mah, K, Danjoux, E C, Manship, S, Makhani, N, Cardoso, M, Sixel, K E. Computed tomographic simulation of craniospinal fields in pediatric patients: improved treatment accuracy and patient comfort. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998; 41: 997–1003.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vijay, M P, Arun, S O, Chakraborty, S et al. Shielding in whole brain irradiation in the multileaf collimator era: dosimetric evaluation of coverage using SFOP guidelines against in-house guidelines. J Cancer Res Ther 2010 Apr–Jun; 6 (2): 152–158.Google Scholar
Saini, G, Aggarwal, A, Sharma, P K et al. Response to development and evaluation of multiple isocentric volumetric modulated arc therapy technique for craniospinal axis radiotherapy planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 82: 495–496.Google ScholarPubMed
Kry, S F, Bednarz, B, Howell, R M. et al. AAPM TG 158: measurement and calculation of doses outside the treated volume from external-beam radiation therapy. Med Phys 2017; 44 (10): e391–e429.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fogliata, A, Bergström, S, Cafaro, I et al. Cranio-spinal irradiation with volumetric modulated arc therapy: a multi-institutional treatment experience. Radiotherapy and Oncol 2011; 99: 79–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vassiliev, O N, Kry, S F, Chang, J Y et al. Stereotactic radiotherapy for lung cancer using a flattening filter free linac. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2009; 10: 14e21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pamela, M, Sotirios, S, Alonso, N, Carlos, E, Panayiotis, M, Niko, P. Dosimetric Comparison of Craniospinal Axis Irradiation (CSI) treatments using Helical Tomotherapy, SmartarcTM, and 3D Conventional Radiation Therapy. IJMPCERO 2013; 2: 30–38.Google Scholar
Wang, Y, Golden, N, Ting, JY. Treatment planning study: flattening filter free x-rays vs. conventional flattened x-rays for stereotactic body radiation therapy of stage 1A non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Presented at the 2011 annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Fu, W, Dai, J, Hu, Y et al. Delivery time comparison for intensity-modulated radiation therapy with/without flattening filter: a planning Study. Phys Med Biol 2004; 49: 1535–1547.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kry, SF, Titt, U, Pönisch, F et al. Reduced neutron production through use of a flattening-filter-free accelerator. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 68: 1260e1264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foo, M L, McCullough, E C, Foote, R L, Pisansky, T M, Shaw, E G. Doses to radiation sensitive organs and structures located outside the radiotherapeutic target volume for four treatment situations. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1993; 27 (2): 403–417.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emami, B, Lyman, J, Brown, A et al. Tolerance of normal tissue to therapeutic irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1991; 21: 109–122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yoden, E, Maruta, T, Soejima, T et al. Hypothyroidism after radiotherapy to the neck. Int Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001; S–51: 337–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansen, S, Reinertsen, K V, Knutstad, K, Olsen, D R, Fossa, S D. Dose distribution in the thyroid gland following radiation therapy of breast cancer--a retrospective study. Radiat Oncol 2011; 6: 68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tell, R, Lundell, G, Nilsson, B et al. Long-term incidence of hypothyroidism after radiotherapy in patients with headand-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004; 60: 395–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fogliata, A, Nicolini, G, Clivio, A et al. Dosimetric validation of the Acuros XB advanced dose calculation algorithm: fundamental characterization in water. Phys Med Biol 2011; 56: 1879–1904.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kan, M W, Leung, L H, Yu, P K. Dosimetric impact of using the Acuros XB algorithm for intensity modulated radiation therapy and RapidArc planning in nasopharyngeal carcinomas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013; 85: e73–e80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fogliata, A, Nicolini, G, Clivio, A et al. Critical appraisal of Acuros XB and Anisotropic Analytic Algorithm dose calculation in advanced non-small--cell lung cancer treatments. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 83: 1587–1595.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cao, F, Ramaseshan, R, Corns, R et al. A three-isocenter jaggedjunction IMRT approach for craniospinal irradiation without beam edge matching for field junctions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 84: 648–654. PMID:22436794.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, Y K, Brooks, C J, Bedford, J L, Warrington, A P, Saran, F H. Development and evaluation of multiple isocentric volumetric modulated arc therapytechnique for craniospinal axis radiotherapy planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 82: 1006–1012. PMID:21345612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaitelman, S F, Grills, I S, Liang, J et al. A comprehensive dose-volume analysis of predictors of pneumonitis and esophagitis following radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 75: S468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khan, R F, Villarreal-Barajas, E, Lau, H, Liu, H W. Effect of Acuros XB algorithm on monitor units for stereotactic body radiotherapy planning of lung cancer. Med Dosim 2014; 39: 83–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed