In radiation therapy, accurate dose distribution in target volume requires accurate treatment setup. The set-up errors are unwanted and inherent in the treatment process. By achieving these errors, a set-up margin (SM) of clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume (PTV) can be determined. In the current study, systematic and random set-up errors that occurred during prostate cancer radiotherapy were measured by an electronic portal imaging device (EPID). The obtained values were used to propose the optimum CTV-to-PTV margin in prostate cancer radiotherapy.

A total of 21 patients with prostate cancer treated with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) participated in this study. A total of 280 portal images were acquired during 12 months. Gross, population systematic (Σ) and random (σ) errors were obtained based on the portal images in Anterior–Posterior (AP), Medio-Lateral (ML) and Superior–Inferior (SI) directions. The SM of CTV to PTV were then calculated and compared by using the formulas presented by the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) 62, Stroom and Heijmen and Van Herk et al.

The findings showed that the population systematic errors during prostate cancer radiotherapy in AP, ML and SI directions were 1·40, 1·95 and 1·94 mm, respectively. The population random errors in AP, ML and SI directions were 2·09, 1·85 and 2·29 mm, respectively. The SM of CTV to PTV calculated in accordance with the formula of ICRU 62 in AP, ML and SI directions were 2·51, 2·68 and 3·00 mm, respectively. And according to Stroom and Heijmen, formula were 4·23, 5·19 and 5·48 mm, respectively. And Van Herk et al. formula were 4·96, 6·17 and 6·45 mm, respectively.

The SM of CTV to PTV in all directions, based on the formulas of ICRU 62, Stroom and Heijmen and van Herk et al., were equal to 2·73, 4·98 and 5·86 mm, respectively; these values were obtained by averaging the margins in all directions.

This study aims to compare the dosimetric parameters among four different external beam radiotherapy techniques used for the treatment of retinoblastoma.

Computed tomography (CT) sets of five retinoblastoma patients who required radiotherapy to one globe were included. Four different plans were generated for each patient using three dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and VMAT using flattening filter free (VMAT-FFF) beam techniques. Plans were compared for target coverage and organs at risk (OARs) sparing.

The target coverage of planning target volume (PTV) for all the four modalities were clinically acceptable with a V95 of 95 ± 0%, 97·6 ± 1·87%, 99·3 ± 0·5% and 99·17 ± 0·45% for 3DCRT, IMRT, VMAT and VMAT-FFF respectively. The VMAT and IMRT plans had better target coverage than the 3DCRT plans (p = 0·001 and p = 0·07 respectively). IMRT and VMAT plans were also found superior to 3DCRT plans in terms of OAR sparing like brainstem, optic chiasm, brain (p < 0·05). VMAT delivered significantly lower dose to the brainstem and contralateral optic nerve in comparison to IMRT. Use of VMAT-FFF beams did not show any benefit over VMAT in target coverage and OAR sparing.

VMAT should be preferred over 3DCRT and IMRT for treatment of retinoblastoma owing to better target coverage and less dose to most of the OARs. However, IMRT and VMAT should be used with caution because of the increased low dose volumes to the OARs like contralateral lens and eyeball.

The objective of this article is to evaluate the dosimetric efficacy of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in comparison to dynamic conformal arc therapy (DCAT) and 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) for very small volume (≤1 cc) and small volume (≤3 cc) tumours for flattened (FF) and unflattened (FFF) 6 MV beams.

A total of 21 patients who were treated with single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery, using either VMAT, DCAT or 3DCRT, were included in this study. The volume categorisation was seven patients each in <1, 1–2 and 2–3 cc volume. The treatment was planned with 6 MV FF and FFF beams using three different techniques: VMAT/Rapid Arc (RA) (RA_FF and RA_FFF), dynamic conformal arc therapy (DCA_FF and DCA_FFF) and 3DCRT (Static_FF and Static_FFF). Plans were evaluated for target coverage (V100%), conformity index, homogeneity index, dose gradient for 50% dose fall-off, total MU and MU/dose ratio [intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) factor], normal brain receiving >12 Gy dose, dose to the organ at risk (OAR), beam ON time and dose received by 12 cc of the brain.

The average target coverage for all plans, all tumour volumes (TVs) and delivery techniques is 96·4 ± 4·5 (range 95·7 ± 6·1–97·5 ± 2·9%). The conformity index averaged over all volume ranges <1, 2, 3 cc> varies between 0·55 ± 0·08 and 0·68 ± 0·04 with minimum and maximum being exhibited by DCA_FFF for 1 cc and Static_FFF/RA_FFF for 3 cc tumours, respectively. Mean IMRT factor averaged over all volume ranges for RA_FF, DCA_FF and Static_FF are 3·5 ± 0·8, 2·0 ± 0·2 and 2·0 ± 0·2, respectively; 50% dose fall-off gradient varies in the range of 0·33–0·42, 0·35–0·40 and 0·38–0·45 for 1, 2 and 3 cc tumours, respectively.

This study establishes the equivalence between the FF and FFF beam models and different delivery techniques for stereotactic radiosurgery in small TVs in the range of ≤1 to ≤3 cc. Dose conformity, heterogeneity, dose fall-off characteristics and OAR doses show no or very little variation. FFF could offer only limited time advantage due to excess dose rate over an FF beam.

The error in set-up of patients is an inherent part of treatment processes. The positioning errors can be used to determine the margins of the planning target volume (PTV) to cover the target volume, while minimising the radiation dose delivered to normal tissues. This study aimed to evaluate random and systematic errors occurring in inter-fraction set-ups of pelvic radiotherapy measured by electronic portal imaging device (EPID) and then to propose the optimum clinical target volume (CTV) to PTV margin in pelvic cancer patients.

This study examined 22 patients treated with pelvic radiotherapy. A total of 182 portal images were evaluated. Population random (σ) and systematic (Σ) errors were determined based on the portal images in three directions (X, Y and Z). The set-up margin for CTV to PTV was calculated by published margin formulae of International Commission on Radiation Units and measurements (ICRU) report No. 62 recommendation and formulas presented by Stroom and Heijmen and Van Herk et al.

Systematic set-up errors for radiotherapy to patients ranged between 2·36 and 4·99 mm, and random errors ranged between 1·51 and 2·74 mm. The margin required to cover the target volume retrospectively was calculated based on ICRU 62 and formulas presented by Stroom and Heijmen and Van Herk et al. were used to calculate the range 2·8–5·7 mm, 5·7–11·9 mm and 6·9–14·4 mm, respectively.

According to our findings, it can be concluded that by extending the CTV margin by 6·9–14·4 mm, we can ensure that 90% of the pelvic cancer patients will receive ≥ 95% of the prescribed dose in the CTV area.

The purpose of this study was to dosimetrically compare TomoDirect, TomoHelical and linear accelerator-based 3D-conformal radiotherapy (Linac-3DCRT) for craniospinal irradiation (CSI) in the treatment of medulloblastoma.

Five CSI patients were replanned with Linac-3DCRT, TomoHelical, TomoDirect-3DCRT and TomoDirect-intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Dose of 36 Gy in 20 fractions was prescribed to the planning target volume (PTV). Homogeneity index (HI), non-target integral dose (NTID), dose–volume histograms, organs-at-risk (OARs) Dmax, Dmean and treatment times were compared.

TomoHelical achieved the best PTV homogeneity compared with Linac-3DCRT, TomoDirect-3DCRT and TomoDirect-IMRT (HI of 3·6 versus 20·9, 8·7 and 9·4%, respectively). TomoDirect-IMRT achieved the lowest NTID compared with TomoDirect-3DCRT, TomoHelical and Linac-3DCRT (141 J versus 151 J, 181 J and 250 J), indicating least biological damage to normal tissues. TomoHelical plans achieved the lowest Dmax in all organs except the breasts, and lowest Dmean for most OARs, except in laterally situated OARs, where TomoDirect triumphed. Beam-on time was longest for TomoHelical, followed by TomoDirect and Linac-3DCRT.

TomoDirect has the potential to lower NTID and shorten treatment times compared with TomoHelical. It reduces PTV inhomogeneity and better spares OARs compared with Linac-3DCRT. Therefore, TomoDirect may be a CSI treatment alternative to TomoHelical and in place of Linac-3DCRT.

This is a dosimetric study to compare the feasibility of carotid artery sparing as a primary objective, as well as planning target volume coverage and dose to spinal cord as a secondary objective, by using 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for patients with early glottis cancer.

Six patients who had been treated for early stage glottic carcinoma (stage T1-2 N0M0) were included in this study. All patients were immobilised in the supine position with a thermoplastic mask and treatment planning computed tomography scans were obtained from the top of the skull to the top of aortic arch with a 3-mm slice thickness. Two plans were created for every patient, one using 3DCRT and the second using IMRT. Comparison between the two plans was undertaken and analysis was made regarding the dose to the carotids arteries, target coverage and doses to the organs at risk.

For target coverage, the V95% for both plans was the same with no significant difference, hot spots were the highest in 3DCRT with p=0·002, the homogeneity index for IMRT plan was better than 3DCRT (p=0·0001). Regarding the dose to the carotids, it was significantly lower in the IMRT plan compared with the 3DCRT plan (p=0·01). The spinal cord dose was significantly higher in the IMRT plan.

IMRT significantly reduces the radiation dose to the carotid arteries compared with 3DCRT while maintaining clinical target volume coverage. Such a results assists in decreasing the incidence of radiation-induced carotid stenosis, thus improving the quality of life for patients.

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.