To report the planning parameters, efficacy and toxicity of total body irradiation using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT).

From July 2019 till May 2021, nine patients treated with VMAT-based total body irradiation as a part of the myeloablative regimen for homologous stem cell transplant were evaluated. The CT acquisition, planning parameters, doses to target volume and critical structures were evaluated retrospectively.

Median age was 24 with median height 172 cm. Average Mean Lung dose was 9·5 Gy, mean dose to kidney was kidney dose 8·4 Gy, planning target volume (PTV) 95% was 98 % and mean heterogeneity index of PTV was 1·2 all patients. Total fraction delivery time including setup was 3·1 h while beam on time was 23 min. Main toxicity observed was mucositis and fatigue, while no Grade 3 or more acute radiation toxicity was observed.

At our institution, high dose TBI performed with multi-isocentric VMAT is now a standard procedure. Though it is cumbersome and time-consuming process but VMAT offers an advantage of increased dose homogeneity in the target volume with reduction in doses to critical organs especially lungs and kidneys in comparison to standard source to skin distance technique, longer follow-up time is necessary to evaluate our method and long-term toxicity.

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the impact of changes in breathing pattern inside the breath-hold window (BHW) during deep inspiration breath hold treatment for carcinoma left breast patients post-conservative surgery.

Ten patients of carcinoma left breast post-conservative surgery were prospectively selected. Three sets of CT plain images were acquired, one with 5 mm deep inspiration BHW (DIBHR) and the other one with 1 mm BHW matching the lower threshold (DIBHL) and the third one with 1 mm BHW matching the upper threshold (DIBHH) as DIBHR. For all patients, forward intensity-modulated radiotherapy (FIMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were generated in the 5 mm BHW CT series and the same plan being copy and pasted in other series. Target volume doses and critical structure doses were tabulated.

Planning target volume coverage was adequate and no significant differences were found in any CT series. Significant differences noted in average left lung V5%, V10% and V18% doses between DIBHR versus DIBHH (p values = 0·0461, 0·0283 and 0·0213, respectively) and DIBHL versus DIBHH (p values = 0·0434, 0·0484 and 0·0334, respectively) for FIMRT plans and V18% doses in DIBHR versus DIBHH (p = 0·0067) in VMAT. No differences in heart and apex of heart doses were found. Left anterior descending artery (LAD) mean doses were significant in DIBHL versus DIBHR, DIBHR versus DIBHH and DIBHL versus DIBHH (p = 0·0012, 0·0444 and 0·0048, respectively) series for FIMRT plans and DIBHR versus DIBHH and DIBHL versus DIBHH (p = 0·0341, 0·0001) for VMAT plans.

The changes in the breathing pattern inside DIBH window level cause some variation in LAD doses and no other significant differences in any parameters noted, so care should be taken while treating patients with preexisting cardiac conditions.

This work compares dose-volume constraints (DVCs) and tumour control predictions based on the average intensity projection (AVIP) to those on each phase of the four-dimensional computed tomography.

In this prospective study plans generated on an AVIP for nine patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer were recalculated on each phase. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) metrics extracted and tumour control probabilities (TCP) were calculated. These were evaluated by Bland–Altman analysis and Pearson Correlation.

The largest difference between clinical target volume (CTV) on the individual phases and the internal CTV (iCTV) on the AVIP was seen for the smallest volume. For the planning target volume, the mean of each metric across all phases is well represented by the AVIP value. For most patients, TCPs from individual phases are representative of that on the AVIP. Organ at risk metrics from the AVIP are similar to those seen across all phases.

Utilising traditional DVH metrics on an AVIP is generally valid, however, additional investigation may be required for small target volumes in combination with large motion as the differences between the values on the AVIP and any given phase may be significant.

The aim of this study is to evaluate the influence of flattened and flattening filter-free (FFF) beam 6 MV photon beam for liver stereotactic body radiation therapy by using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique in deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) and free breathing condition.

Eight liver metastasis patients (one to three metastasis lesions) were simulated in breath hold and free breathing condition. VMAT-based treatment plans were created for a prescription dose of 50 Gy in 10 fractions, using a 230° coplaner arc and 60° non-coplanar arc for both DIBH and free breathing study set. Treatment plans were evaluated for planning target volume (PTV) dose coverage, conformity and hot spots. Parallel and serial organs at risk were compared for average and maximum dose, respectively. Dose spillages were evaluated for different isodose volumes from 5 to 80%.

Mean D98% (dose received by 98% target volume) for FFF in DIBH, flattened beam in DIBH, FFF in free breathing and flatten beam in free breathing dataset were 48·9, 47·81, 48·5 and 48·3 Gy, respectively. D98% was not statistically different between FFF and flatten beam (p = 0·34 and 0·69 for DIBH and free breathing condition). PTV V105% (volume receiving 105% dose) for the same set were 3·76, 0·25, 1·2 and 0·4%, respectively. Mean heterogeneity index for all study sets and beam models varies between 1·05 and 1·07. Paddik conformity index using unflattened and flattened beam in DIBH at 98% prescription dose were 0·91 and 0·79, respectively. Maximum variation of isodose volume was observed for I-5%, which was ranging between 2288·8 and 2427·2 cm3. Increase in isodose value shows a diminishing difference in isodose volumes between different techniques. DIBH yields a significant reduction in the chest wall dose compared with free breathing condition. Average monitor units for FFF beam in DIBH, flattened beam in DIBH, FFF beam in free breathing CT dataset and flattened beam in free breathing CT dataset were 1318·6 ± 265·1, 1940·3 ± 287·6, 1343·3 ± 238·1 and 2192·5 ± 252·6 MU.

DIBH and FFF is a good combination to reduce the treatment time and to achieve better tumour conformity. No other dosimetric gain was observed for FFF in either DIBH or free breathing condition.

This 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.

In 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).

The 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%.

This 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.

To evaluate the dosimetric errors associated with the effect of the collimator angle error in volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatments.

Four patients with different planning target volume (PTV) and localisations treated using VMAT were analysed (high-risk prostate, low-risk prostate, head and neck (H&N) and holocranial with hippocampus protection) in terms of dosimetric variations when errors in the collimator angle were introduced. Original plans underwent modifications of the planned collimator angles of ±0·5°, ±1° and ±1·5°. These modified plans were re-calculated using the same original plan fluencies, and the resulting dose–volume histograms and homogeneity index (HI-ICRU) were compared.

For the high-risk prostate case, there was a noticeable loss of PTV dose coverage for collimator angle errors larger than ±1°, with HI-ICRU relative variations up to 75% in the range analysed. The low-risk prostate case did not present significant changes in organs at risk or PTV dose coverage. For the H&N case, the spinal cord presented changes around 4% for D0·1 cc. In the holocranial case, optic lens showed dose variations up to 5% for collimator angle errors larger than ±1°.

The effect of the collimator error in VMAT increased as the PTV increased.

For selecting the position of the isocentre, one should be cautious, and whenever possible choose a position close to the geometrical centre of the PTVs in order to avoid or minimise errors from the calibration of the collimator angle.