MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 10 consecutive patients treated with IMRT from June-October 2011 in Penang General Hospital were collected retrospectively for analysis. For each patient, dose volume histograms were generated for both the IMRT and 3DCRT plans using a total dose of 70Gy. Comparison of the plans was accomplished by comparing the target volume coverage (5 measures) and sparing of organs at risk (17 organs) for each patient using both IMRT and 3DCRT. The means of each comparison target volume coverage measures and organs at risk measures were obtained and tested for statistical significance using the paired Student t-test.
RESULTS: All 5 measures for target volume coverage showed marked dosimetric superiority of IMRT over 3DCRT. V70 and V66.5 for PTV70 showed an absolute improvement of 39.3% and 24.1% respectively. V59.4 and V56.4 for PTV59.4 showed advantages of 18.4% and 16.4%. Moreover, the mean PTV70 dose revealed a 5.1 Gy higher dose with IMRT. Only 4 out of 17 organs at risk showed statistically significant difference in their means which were clinically meaningful between the IMRT and 3DCRT techniques. IMRT was superior in sparing the spinal cord (less 5.8Gy), V30 of right parotid (less 14.3%) and V30 of the left parotid (less 13.1%). The V55 of the left cochlea was lower with 3DCRT (less 44.3%).
CONCLUSIONS: IMRT is superior to 3DCRT due to its dosimetric advantage in target volume coverage while delivering acceptable doses to organs at risk. A total dose of 70Gy with IMRT should be considered as a standard of care for radical treatment of NPC.
METHODS: Dose measurement of a standard pear-shaped plan carried out in phantom to verify the MOSkin dose measurement accuracy. With MOSkin attached to the third diode, RP3 of the PTW 9112, both detectors were inserted into patients' rectum. The RP3 and MOSkin measured doses in 18 sessions as well as the maximum measured doses from PTW 9112, RPmax in 48 sessions were compared to the planned doses.
RESULTS: Percentage dose differences ΔD (%) in phantom study for two MOSkin found to be 2.22 ± 0.07% and 2.5 ± 0.07%. IVD of 18 sessions resulted in ΔD(%) of -16.3% to 14.9% with MOSkin and ΔD(%) of -35.7% to -2.1% with RP3. In 48 sessions, RPmax recorded ΔD(%) of -37.1% to 11.0%. MOSkin_measured doses were higher in 44.4% (8/18) sessions, while RP3_measured were lower than planned doses in all sessions. RPmax_measured were lower in 87.5% of applications (42/47).
CONCLUSIONS: The delivered doses proven to deviate from planned doses due to unavoidable shift between imaging and treatment as measured with MOSkin and PTW 9112 detectors. The integration of MOSkin on commercial PTW 9112 surface found to be feasible for rectal dose IVD during cervical HDR ICBT.
RESULTS: The PTV, hippocampus and hippocampal avoidance volumes ranges between 1.00 - 39.00 cc., 2.50 - 5.30 cc and 26.47 - 36.30 cc respectively. The mean hippocampus dose for the HSWBRT and HSWBRT and SIB plans was 8.06 Gy and 12.47 respectively. The max dose of optic nerve, optic chiasm and brainstem were kept below acceptable range of 37.5 Gy.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this dosimetric study demonstrated the feasibility and safety of treating limited brain metastases with HSWBRT and SIB. It is possible to achieve the best of both worlds by combining HSWBRT and SIB to achieve maximal local intracranial control while maintaining as low a dose as possible to the hippocampus thereby preserving memory and quality of life.
METHODS: A survey on medical physics aspects of IMRT is conducted on radiotherapy departments across Malaysia to assess the usage, experience and QA in IMRT, which is done for the first time in this country. A set of questionnaires was designed and sent to the physicist in charge for their responses. The questionnaire consisted of four sections; (i) Experience and qualification of medical physicists, (ii) CT simulation techniques (iii) Treatment planning and treatment unit, (iv) IMRT process, delivery and QA procedure.
RESULTS: A total of 26 responses were collected, representing 26 departments out of 33 radiotherapy departments in operation across Malaysia (79% response rate). Results showed that the medical physics aspects of IMRT practice in Malaysia are homogenous, with some variations in certain areas of practices. Thirteen centres (52%) performed measurement-based QA using 2D array detector and analysed using gamma index criteria of 3%, 3 mm with variation confidence range. In relation to the IMRT delivery, 44% of Malaysia's physicist takes more than 8 h to plan a head and neck case compared to the UK study possibly due to the lack of professional training.
CONCLUSIONS: This survey provides a picture of medical physics aspects of IMRT in Malaysia where the results/data can be used by radiotherapy departments to benchmark their local policies and practice.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: This retrospective study used data from 5 consecutive patients with NPC who were treated with bolus for large neck nodes using IMRT from November 2011-January 2012 in our institute. All these patients were treated radically with IMRT according to our institution's protocol. Re-planning with IMRT without bolus for these patients with exactly the same target volumes were done for comparison. Comparison of the plans was done by comparing the V70 of PTV70-N, V66.5 of PTV70-N, V65.1 of PTV70-N and the surface dose of the PTV70-N.
RESULTS: The mean size of the largest diameter of the enlarged lymph nodes for the 5 patients was 3.9 cm. The mean distance of the GTV-N to the skin surface was 0.6 cm. The mean V70 of PTV70-N for the 5 patients showed an absolute advantage of 10.8% (92.4% vs. 81.6%) for the plan with bolus while the V66.5 of PTV70-N had an advantage of 8.1% (97.0% vs. 88.9%). The mean V65.1 also had an advantage of 7.1% (97.6% vs. 90.5%). The mean surface dose for the PTV70-N was also much higher at 61.1 Gy for the plans with bolus compared to only 23.5 Gy for the plans without bolus.
CONCLUSION: Neck node bolus technique should be strongly considered in the treatment of NPC with enlarged lymph nodes treated with IMRT. It yields a superior dosimetry compared to non-bolus plans with acceptable skin toxicity.
METHODS: A 3-step framework was proposed, consisting of: (1) 3D LV model reconstruction from motion-corrected 4D cine-MRI; (2) Registration of 2D LGE-MRI with 4D cine-MRI; (3) LV contour extraction from the intersection of LGE slices with the LV model. The framework was evaluated against cardiac MRI data from 27 patients scanned within 6 months after acute myocardial infarction. We compared the use of local Pearson's correlation (LPC) and normalized mutual information (NMI) as similarity measures for the registration. The use of 2 and 6 long-axis (LA) cine-MRI scans was also compared. The accuracy of the framework was evaluated using manual segmentation, and the interobserver variability of the scar volume derived from the segmented LV was determined using Bland-Altman analysis.
RESULTS: LPC outperformed NMI as a similarity measure for the proposed framework using 6 LA scans, with Hausdorrf distance (HD) of 1.19 ± 0.53 mm versus 1.51 ± 2.01 mm (endocardial) and 1.21 ± 0.48 mm versus 1.46 ± 1.78 mm (epicardial), respectively. Segmentation using 2 LA scans was comparable to 6 LA scans with a HD of 1.23 ± 0.70 mm (endocardial) and 1.25 ± 0.74 mm (epicardial). The framework yielded a lower interobserver variability in scar volumes compared with manual segmentation.
CONCLUSION: The framework showed high accuracy and robustness in delineating LV in LGE-MRI and allowed for bidirectional mapping of information between LGE- and cine-MRI scans, crucial in personalized model studies for treatment planning.
METHODS: ARCHERY is a non-randomised prospective study to evaluate the quality and economic impact of AI-based automated radiotherapy treatment planning for cervical, head and neck, and prostate cancers, which are endemic in LMICs, and for which radiotherapy is the primary curative treatment modality. The sample size of 990 patients (330 for each cancer type) has been calculated based on an estimated 95% treatment plan acceptability rate. Time and cost savings will be analysed as secondary outcome measures using the time-driven activity-based costing model. The 48-month study will take place in six public sector cancer hospitals in India (n=2), Jordan (n=1), Malaysia (n=1) and South Africa (n=2) to support implementation of the software in LMICs.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received ethical approval from University College London (UCL) and each of the six study sites. If the study objectives are met, the AI-based software will be offered as a not-for-profit web service to public sector state hospitals in LMICs to support expansion of high quality radiotherapy capacity, improving access to and affordability of this key modality of cancer cure and control. Public and policy engagement plans will involve patients as key partners.
MATERIALS/METHODS: A total of 10 patients with synchronous bilateral breast cancer who were treated with VMAT at our institution were retrospectively analyzed. Clinical target volume (CTV) included chest wall and regional nodes (supraclavicular fossa and internal mammary chain) and prescription dose was 40.05 Gy in 15 daily fractions. HT and IMPT plans were generated for each patient. Dose-volume statistics, including planning target volume (PTV) coverage and dose to OAR: lungs, heart, thyroid, spinal cord, brachial plexus and esophagus, were compared between modalities using a paired T-test.
RESULTS: Mean age of patients was 61 years (43-84). Majority of the patients (80%) were ER+ PR+ and HER2-. 40% of patients underwent breast reconstruction following surgery. All 3 techniques provided adequate target volume distribution and OAR sparing. Compared to VMAT and HT plans, IMPT had better heart and lung sparing effects, resulting in lower mean and V25 Gy heart dose; mean, V20 Gy and V5 Gy lung dose (p<0.0001). There was no significant difference in VMAT and HT plans for mean heart and lung dose. VMAT plans showed significantly lower V25 Gy heart dose on average (p = 0.04). V5 Gy lung dose was slightly lower in HT compared to VMAT plans, approaching statistical significance (p = 0.08). PTV coverage was adequate for all 3 techniques. All techniques fulfilled cord, esophagus, thyroid and brachial plexus constraints.
CONCLUSION: IMPT plans showed significantly better OAR sparing compared to photon techniques. All 3 techniques met OAR constraints, and resulted in adequate target volume coverage. As IMPT is significantly more costly than VMAT or HT techniques, appropriate patient selection is important to deliver treatment in the most resource-effective manner for patients who would derive the most benefit, for example those with young age or existing heart or lung comorbidities.
METHOD: The model was formulated by integrating the Caputo fractional derivative with the previous cancer treatment model. Thereafter, the linear-quadratic with the repopulation model was coupled into the model to account for the cells' population decay due to radiation. The treatment process was then simulated with numerical variables, numerical parameters, and radiation parameters. The numerical parameters which included the proliferation coefficients of the cells, competition coefficients of the cells, and the perturbation constant of the normal cells were obtained from previous literature. The radiation and numerical parameters were obtained from reported clinical data of six patients treated with radiotherapy. The patients had tumor volumes of 24.1cm3, 17.4cm3, 28.4cm3, 18.8cm3, 30.6cm3, and 12.6cm3 with fractionated doses of 2 Gy for the first two patients and 1.8 Gy for the other four. The initial tumor volumes were used to obtain initial populations of cells after which the treatment process was simulated in MATLAB. Subsequently, a global sensitivity analysis was done to corroborate the model with clinical data. Finally, 96 radiation protocols were simulated by using the biologically effective dose formula. These protocols were used to obtain a regression equation connecting the value of the Caputo fractional derivative with the fractionated dose.
RESULTS: The final tumor volumes, from the results of the simulations, were 3.58cm3, 8.61cm3, 5.68cm3, 4.36cm3, 5.75cm3, and 6.12cm3, while those of the normal cells were 23.87cm3, 17.29cm3, 28.17cm3, 18.68cm3, 30.33cm3, and 12.55cm3. The sensitivity analysis showed that the most sensitive model factors were the value of the Caputo fractional derivative and the proliferation coefficient of the cancer cells. Lastly, the obtained regression equation accounted for 99.14% of the prediction.
CONCLUSION: The model can simulate a cancer treatment process and predict the results of other radiation protocols.