METHODS: 52 prostate cancer patients who had completed radiotherapy were selected and randomly divided into 2 groups with 40 and 12 separately. Then both VMAT and IMRT plans were manually designed for all patients. The total plans in the group with 40 cases as training datasets were added to the knowledge-based planning (KBP) models for learning and finally obtained VMAT and IMRT training models. Another 12 cases were selected as the validation group to be used to generated auto IMRT plans by KBP VMAT and IMRT models. At last, the radiotherapy plans from three groups were obtained: the automated IMRT plan (V-IMRT) predicted by the VMAT model, the automated IMRT plan (I-IMRT) predicted by the IMRT model and the manual IMRT plan (M-IMRT) designed before. The dosimetric parameters of planning target volume (PTV) and organ at risks (OARs) as well as the time parameters (monitor unit, MU) were statistically analyzed.
RESULTS: The dose limit of all plans in the training datasets met the clinical requirements. Compared with the training plans added to VMAT model, the dosimetry parameters have no statistical differences in PTV (P > 0.05); the dose of X% volume (Dx%) with D25% and D35% in rectal and the maximum dose (Dmax) in the right femoral head were lower (P = 0.04, P = 0.01, P = 0.00) while D50% in rectal was higher ( 0.05), but the Dmax in left femoral heard and D15% in the right femoral head were lower and have significant differences (P 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Compared with the manual plan, the IMRT plans generated by the KBP models had a significant advantage in dose control of both OARs and PTV. Compared to the I-IMRT plans, the V-IMRT plans was not only without significant disadvantages, but it also achieved slightly better control of the low-dose region, which meet the clinical requirements and can used in the clinical treatment. This study demonstrates that it is feasible to transfer the KBP VMAT model in the prediction of IMRT plans.
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 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: The agreement indices (or pass rates) for global and local gamma evaluation, maximum allowed dose difference (MADD) and divide and conquer (D&C) techniques were calculated using a selection of acceptance criteria for 429 patient-specific pretreatment quality assurance measurements. Regression analysis was used to quantify the similarity of behavior of each technique, to determine whether possible variations in sensitivity might be present.
RESULTS: The results demonstrated that the behavior of D&C gamma analysis and MADD box analysis differs from any other dose comparison techniques, whereas MADD gamma analysis exhibits similar performance to the standard global gamma analysis. Local gamma analysis had the least variation in behavior with criteria selection. Agreement indices calculated for 2%/2 mm and 2%/3 mm, and 3%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm were correlated for most comparison techniques.
CONCLUSION: Radiation oncology treatment centers looking to compare between different dose comparison techniques, criteria or lower dose thresholds may apply the results of this study to estimate the expected change in calculated agreement indices and possible variation in sensitivity to delivery dose errors.
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.
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: This retrospective study covered all NPC patients who underwent radical IMRT treatment at the Penang General Hospital from June 2011 to February 2012. Patients of any age and stage of disease with histologically proven diagnosis were included. Information was collected on patient demographics, clinical stage, treatment received, including any neoadjuvant and/or concurrent chemotherapy, acute toxity and completion of IMRT within the OTT.
RESULTS: A total of 26 NPC patients were treated with IMRT during the study period; 88.5% had stage III/IV disease. 45.2% received neo-adjuvant chemotherapy while 50.0% were given concurrent chemo-irradiation. All patients completed the treatment and 92.3% within the 7 weeks OTT. Xerostomia was present in all patients with 92.3% having grade 2. Severe grade III/IV acute toxicity occurred in 73.1% of patients, the commonest of which was oral mucositis (57.6%). This was followed by dysphagia which occurred in 53.8%, skin reactions in 42.3% and weight loss in 19.2%. However, haematological toxicity was mild with only one patient having leucopaenia.
CONCLUSION: IMRT treatment for NPC is feasible in our center. More importantly, it can be delivered within the 7 weeks OTT in the majority of patients. Severe grade 3/4 toxicity is very common (73.1%) and thus maximal nutritional and analgesic support is required throughout the treatment.