The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of anatomical changes in prostate cancer patients on the target coverage when using 6 MV beams-VMAT therapy and to propose strategies that allow us to evaluate the dose or correct it by normalization without having to perform a new simulation.

Ten patients of high-risk prostate cancer were chosen for the study. All test plans were delivered using the same isocenter and monitor units as the original plan and compared against the original unedited plan. The expansion and contraction of body contours due to size changes was mimicked by increasing and decreasing the body contour with depths of −2, −1·5, …, 1·5, 2 cm, in the anterior, and both lateral directions of the patient. A total of 90 plans were evaluated, 9 for each patient. Dose-volume histogram statistics were extracted from each plan and normalized to prescription dose.

Weight changes resulted in considerable dose modifications to the target and critical structures. Plans were found to be varied with 2·9% ± 0·3% per cm SSD change for VMAT treatment with a correlation index close to one. Therefore, doses variations were linear to the changes of depth. Gamma index evaluation was performed for the 10 renormalized plans. All of them passed criteria of 3%/3 mm in at least 98.2% of points. Eight of them passed criteria in 99% points. Gamma index 4%/4 mm passed 100% points in all patients for the chosen region of interest.

The dosimetry estimation presented in this study shows important data for the radiation oncology staff to justify whether a CT rescan is necessary or not when a patient experiences weight changes during treatment. Based on the results of our study, discrepancies between real dose and planned dose were >5% for 1·7 cm of difference in external contour in the anterior and both lateral directions of the patient.

Dose distribution index (DDI) is a treatment planning evaluation parameter, reflecting dosimetric information of target coverage that can help to spare organs at risk (OARs) and remaining volume at risk (RVR). The index has been used to evaluate and compare prostate volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans using two different plan optimisers, namely photon optimisation (PO) and its predecessor, progressive resolution optimisation (PRO).

Twenty prostate VMAT treatment plans were created using the PO and PRO in this retrospective study. The 6 MV photon beams and a dose prescription of 78 Gy/39 fractions were used in plans with the same dose–volume criteria for plan optimisation. Dose–volume histograms (DVHs) of the planning target volume (PTV), as well as of OARs such as the rectum, bladder, left and right femur were determined in each plan. DDIs were calculated and compared for plans created by the PO and PRO based on DVHs of the PTV and all OARs.

The mean DDI values were 0·784 and 0·810 for prostate VMAT plans created by the PO and PRO, respectively. It was found that the DDI of the PRO plan was about 3·3% larger than the PO plan, which means that the dose distribution of the target coverage and sparing of OARs in the PRO plan was slightly better. Changing the weighting factors in different OARs would vary the DDI value by ∼7%. However, for plan comparison based on the same set of dose–volume criteria, the effect of weighting factor can be neglected because they were the same in the PO and PRO.

Based on the very similar DDI values calculated from the PO and PRO plans, with the DDI value in the PRO plan slightly larger than that of the PO, it may be concluded that the PRO can create a prostate VMAT plan with slightly better dose distribution regarding the target coverage and sparing of OARs. Moreover, we found that the DDI is a simple and comprehensive dose–volume parameter for plan evaluation considering the target, OARs and RVR.