A small number of studies have confirmed the advantage of generalised equivalent uniform dose (gEUD) optimisation for some standard clinical scenarios; however, its performance with complicated stereotactic treatments is yet to be explored. Therefore, this study compared two planning optimisation methods, gEUD and Physical dose, in stereotactic treatments for several complex anatomical locations.

Thirty patients were selected, ten each for sites of brain, lung and spine. Two stereotactic plans were generated for each case using the gEUD objective and Physical objective cost functions. Within each of the three sites, dosimetric indices for conformity, gradient and homogeneity, along with parameters of monitor units and dose–volume histograms (DVHs), were compared for statistical significance. Additionally, patient-specific quality assurance was conducted using portal dosimetry, and the gamma passing rate between the two plans was evaluated.

Optimisation was better with a gEUD objective as compared with Physical objective, notably sparing critical organs. Overall, the differences in mean values for six critical organs at risk favoured gEUD-based over Physical-based plans (all six 2-tailed p-values were < 0·0002). Furthermore, all differences in mean values for DVH parameters favoured gEUD-based plans: GTVmean, GTVmax, PTVD100V, homogeneity index, gradient index and monitor unit (treatment time) (each 2-tailed p < 0·05).

gEUD optimisation in stereotactic treatment plans has a clear and general statistical advantage over Physical dose optimisation.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is susceptible to challenges for tumours affected by intrafraction organ motion. This study aims to investigate the effect of breathing characteristics and plan complexity on the interplay effect.

A patient-specific interplay effect evaluation was performed using in-house software with an alpha version of the treatment planning verification software Verisoft (PTW-Freiburg, Germany) on VMAT plans. The OCTAVIUS 4D phantom was used to acquire the static dose distribution, and the simulation approach was utilised to generate the moving dose distribution. The influence of plan complexity, PTV size, number of breaths, and motion amplitudes on the interplay effect were examined. The dose distribution of two extreme phases—end-inhale and end-exhale—was considered using the gamma criteria of 2%/2 mm for the interplay effect evaluation.

A strong correlation was found between the motion amplitude (p < 0.001) and the NBs (p < 0.001) with the gamma-passing rate. No correlation was found between the gamma-passing rate and the PTV size or plan complexity.

The simulation tool allowed the analysis of a large number of breathing traces, demonstrating how free-breathing patients, suspected of high interplay, could be selected for other motion management solutions. The simulated cases showed strong interplay effects for long breathing periods with extended motion amplitudes in a small group of patients.

Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) has emerged as a promising radiation treatment technique. One of the challenges in VMAT planning for lung carcinoma is the lack of consistency among different institutions with respect to what is considered an acceptable treatment plan in terms of target coverage and doses to the organs at risk (OAR). Additionally, the accuracy of dose calculations in the presence of heterogeneous medium (i.e. air) is another challenge in lung VMAT planning. Our objective is to develop an institutional criteria for non-stereotactic body radiotherapy (non-SBRT) lung treatment plans by evaluating the dosimetric impact of plan normalisation and dose calculation algorithms, including the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA), AcurosXB (AXB) and Monte Carlo (MC) simulation, on VMAT plans for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

The CT dataset of 20 patients with NSCLC was randomly selected to ensure a spectrum of target sizes and locations. All treatment planning was accomplished with 2–3 VMAT arcs and a prescription of 60 Gy in 30 fractions. Two plan normalisation methods were employed: (i) planning target volume (PTV) V100% = 95% and (ii) PTV V95% = 95%.

All three dose calculation algorithms revealed heterogeneous and conformal plans irrespective of plan normalisations. The PTV and OARs dose–volume constraints were met using both normalisation methods. However, we observed that AAA overestimated the minimum PTV doses by 2–5% regardless of plan normalisation. The mean PTV-V100% was lower for AAA in comparison with AXB and MC algorithms.

VMAT is an effective radiotherapy technique for achieving greater target dose conformity, heterogeneity and dose fall-off from the PTV for the treatment of NSCLC. The results of this study can provide the basis for the development of local plan acceptability criteria for NSCLC VMAT plans, and the clinical implementation can be achieved with minimal or no imposition on resources and time constraints. Occasionally, plan normalisation of PTV-V95% = 95% may be required to ensure that the OAR dose tolerances are not exceeded.

In modulated radiotherapy treatments with the jaw tracking technique (JTT), the collimator jaws can dynamically follow the multileaf collimator apertures and reduce radiation leakage. This reduction protects normal tissue from unwanted doses. Previous research has highlighted the importance of defining which patients will benefit most from JTT. Besides, some authors have expressed their concerns about possible increases in monitor units (MUs). Treatments of patients with peripheral targets and isocentre located in the patient’s midline are of particular interest. The current work assessed the effect of JTT on these cases.

JTT plans for thirty-two patients were compared to plans with the static jaws technique. The volumes of normal tissue receiving 5 Gy (V5), 10 Gy (V10) and 20 Gy (V20), mean dose (Dmean), target coverage parameters D95, D2% and Paddick’s conformity index (PCI) were compared. MUs were also registered for comparisons. The decrease in the jaws opening with JTT was correlated to the decrease in dose values in normal tissue.

Small decreases were observed in D95 and in D2% values, without statistical significance. A 5% average decrease in PCI values was noticed as well as significant decreases in V5, V10 and Dmean values, 9% on average. A 3% decrease in V20 was also observed. The number of MUs decreased by 2%. A significant correlation was found between the reduction of the secondary collimation opening areas and the dose delivered to normal tissue.

JTT technique improved normal tissue protection in volumetric modulated arc therapy treatments for the patients included in the present study.

Radiotherapy treatment delivery is evaluated by a pre-treatment patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) procedure to ensure the patient receives an accurate radiation dose. The current PSQA practice by using conventional phantoms requires more set-up time and cost of purchasing the tools. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the efficiency of an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) of linear accelerator (LINAC) as a PSQA tool for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning technique for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) treatment delivery.

A NPC VMAT plan on a Rando phantom was performed by following the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0615 protocol. The gamma passing rate of the EPID and PSQA phantom (ArcCHECK) were compared among the gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm and 1%/1 mm, respectively.

Both EPID and ArcCHECK phantom had distinguishable gamma passing rates in 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm with a difference of 0·87% and 0·30%, respectively. Meanwhile, the EPID system had a lower gamma passing rate than the ArcCHECK phantom in 1%/1 mm (21·23% difference). Furthermore, the sensitivity of the EPID system was evaluated and had the largest deviation in gamma passing rate from the reference position in gamma criteria of 2%/2 mm (41·14%) compared to the 3%/3 mm (25·45%) and 1%/1 mm (31·78%), discretely. The best fit line of the linear regression model for EPID was steeper than the ArcCHECK phantom in 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm, and vice versa in gamma criteria of 1%/1 mm. This indicates that the EPID had a higher sensitivity than the ArcCHECK phantom in 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm but less sensitivity in 1%/1 mm.

The EPID system was efficient in performing the PSQA test of VMAT treatment in HUSM with the gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm.

The study aimed to compare the dosimetric performance of Acuros® XB (AXB) and anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) for lung SBRT plans using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations.

We compared the dose calculation algorithms AAA and either of the dose reporting modes of AXB (dose to medium (AXB-Dm) or dose to water (AXB-Dw)) algorithms implemented in Eclipse® (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) Treatment planning system (TPS) with MC. PRIMO code was used for the MC simulations. The TPS-calculated dose profiles obtained with a multi-slab heterogeneity phantom were compared to MC. A lung phantom with a tumour was used to validate TPS algorithms using different beam delivery techniques. 2D gamma values obtained from Gafchromic film measurements in the tumour isocentre plane were compared with TPS algorithms and MC. Ten VMAT SBRT plans generated in TPS with each algorithm were recalculated with a PRIMO MC system for identical beam parameters for the clinical plan validation. A dose–volume histogram (DVH) based plan comparison and a 3D global gamma analysis were performed.

AXB demonstrated better agreement with MC and film measurements in the lung phantom validation, with good agreement in PDD, profiles and gamma analysis. AAA showed an overestimated PDD, a significant difference in dose profiles and a lower gamma pass rate near the field borders. With AAA, there was a dose overestimation at the periphery of the tumour. For clinical plan validation, AXB demonstrated higher agreement with MC than AAA.

AXB provided better agreement with MC than AAA in the phantom and clinical plan evaluations.

The RapidPlan is a radiotherapy planning tool that uses a dataset of approved plans to predict the dose distribution and automatically generates the dose–volume constraints for optimisation of the new plan. This study compares three strategies of model building for the treatment of prostate cancer with the 10-MV photon beam.

Three models for prostate treatment were compared: Model 6X, Model10X and Model6Xrefined. Model6X is already used in our department and was trained on treatment plans based on the 6-MV photon beam. Model10X was trained on treatment plans based on the 10-MV photon beam and manually optimised by an experienced medical physicist. Finally, Model6Xrefined was trained on plans automatically created by the Model6X, but using the 10-MV photon beam. The three models were used to generate 25 new plans with the 10-MV photon beam.

Model10X generated plans with 2 Gy lower mean dose to bladder-PTV and rectum-PTV volumes and 8% lower V15Gy at bladder and rectum volumes, although the number of monitor units increased by 170 on average.

The model trained on manually optimised plans generated plans with higher normal tissue sparing. However, model building is a time-consuming process, so a cost–benefit balance should be performed.

The use of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) on the breast has several dosimetric advantages but its impact on skin dose should be evaluated and compared to well-established treatment techniques using tangential fields. The aim of this work is to contrast the skin dose for VMAT and field-in-field (FIF) and to estimate the magnitude of the skin dose involved.

The skin dose was measured, without build-up, using thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) and optically stimulated luminescence dosimeter (OSLD) in breast radiotherapy by an in-house anthropomorphic phantom. Two different treatment techniques were used: FIF and VMAT, based on the planning strategy proposed by Nicolini et al. The dose levels were 4300 cGy, 4600 cGy and 5600 cGy in 20 fractions. In vivo dosimetry with TLD for VMAT was performed for different breast sizes in the same locations as phantom measurements.

The ipsilateral phantom breast skin dose using both treatment techniques was equivalent. TLD measured doses by the VMAT technique were up to 5% higher than OSLD, although they agree if we consider the geometry uncertainty of the TLD. In accordance with in vivo dosimetry, the mean dose of the ipsilateral breast skin was 62 ± 6% (51%, 75%) relative to the prescribed dose, regardless of the breast size for the volumes considered with this small population (n = 9) as shown by Mann–Whitney U-test (Z = 1·9, 95% confidence). The uncertainty expected in this region due to geometry (volume) changes is up to 9% higher for volumes from 225·9 cc to 968·8 cc. According to the treatment techniques and in vivo dosimetry, the contralateral breast skin dose was 1·0% in FIF and 2·5% in VMAT concerning the prescribed dose.

There is no difference in skin dosimetry between VMAT and FIF techniques on the ipsilateral breast. It provides useful support for the use of VMAT as a planning technique for breast irradiation. The work describes the importance of quantifying potential differences in skin dosimetry.

The Varian Trilogy linear accelerator’s multi-leaf collimator moves on a carriage with a maximum leaf span of 15 cm. The traditional open and limited X-jaw technique of volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) yields a relatively compromised dose distribution within the planning target volume (PTV) region. This study aimed to determine whether the split X-jaw planning technique for VMAT improves plan quality regarding target dose coverage and organs at risk (OAR) sparing for PTVs that require a field size of more than 15 cm in the X-jaw direction in prostate cancer patients.

Computed tomography data sets from 15 patients with prostate cancer were enrolled in the study. Only the PTVs requiring a field size larger than 18 cm in the X-jaw position were considered, and a dose of 4500 cGy in 25 fractions was prescribed. For each case, three separate treatment plans were generated: open, limited and split X-jaw planning techniques with similar planning objectives

The split X-jaw technique resulted in statistically significant superior coverage of PTV when compared with the open (P < 0·0001) and limited methods (P < 0·001). The split technique delivered a lower dose to the OARs, although statistical significance could not be achieved. D2% (cGy) was lowest for the PTV in the split technique (4684·8 ± 18·16) and highest for the open technique (4710 ± 18·75), P < 0·001.

The x-split jaw technique can replace the traditional open X-jaw practice of VMAT for PTVs requiring an X-jaw width of more than 15 cm in the Varian linear accelerator.

This study compares three different hybrid plans, for left-sided chest wall (CW) and nodal stations irradiation using a hypofractionated dose regimen.

Planning target volumes (PTVs) of 25 breast cancer patients that included CW, supraclavicular (SCL) and internal mammary node (IMN) were planned with 3 different hybrid techniques: 3DCRT+IMRT, 3DCRT+VMAT and IMRT+VMAT. All hybrid plans were generated with a hypofractionated dose prescription of 40·5 Gy in 15 fractions. Seventy per cent of the dose was planned with the base-dose component and remaining 30% of the dose was planned with the hybrid component. All plans were evaluated based on the PTVs and organs at risk (OARs) dosimetric parameters.

The results for PTVs parameters have shown that the 3DCRT+IMRT and 3DCRT+VMAT plans were superior in uniformity index to the IMRT+VMAT plan. The OARs dose parameters were comparable between hybrid plans. The IMRT+VMAT plan provided a larger low dose volume spread to the heart and ipsilateral lung (p < 0·001). The 3DCRT+VMAT plan required less monitor units and treatment time (p = 0·005) than other plans.

The 3DCRT+VMAT hybrid plan showed superior results with efficient treatment delivery and provide clinical benefit by reducing both low and high dose levels.

The intent of the review was to identify different methodological approaches used to calculate the planning target volume (PTV) margin for head and neck patients treated with volumetric arc therapy (VMAT), and whether the necessary factors to calculate the margin size with the selected formula were used.

A comprehensive, systematic search of related studies was done using the Hydi search engine and different databases: MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, ProQuest (Nursing and Allied Health), Scopus, ScienceDirect and tipsRO. The literature search included studies published between January 2007 and December 2020. Eligibility screening was performed by two reviewers.

A total of seven studies were found. All the reviewed studies used the Van Herk formula to measure the PTV margin. None of the studies incorporated the systematic errors of target volume delineation in the PTV equation. Inter-fraction translational errors were assessed in all the studies, whilst intra-fraction errors were only included in the margin equation for two studies. The studies showed great heterogeneity in the key characteristics, aims and methods.

Since systemic errors from target volume delineation were not considered and not all studies assess intra-fraction errors, PTV margins may be underestimated. The recommendations are that studies need to determine the effect of target volume variance on PTV margins. It is also recommended to compare PTV margin results using various formulas.

The complexity associated with the treatment planning and delivery of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) or stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans which employs continuous dynamic modulation of dose rate, field aperture and gantry speed necessitates diligent pre-treatment patient-specific quality assurance (QA). Numerous techniques for pre-treatment VMAT treatment plans QA are currently available with the aid of several different devices including the electronic portal imager (EPID). Although several studies have provided recommendations for gamma criteria for VMAT pre-treatment QA, there are no specifics for SRS/SRT VMAT QA. Thus, we conducted a study to evaluate intracranial SRS/SRT VMAT QA to determine clinical action levels for gamma criteria based on the institutional estimated means and standard deviations.

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 118 EPID patient-specific pre-treatment QA dosimetric measurements of 47 brain SRS/SRT VMAT treatment plans using the integrated Varian solution (RapidArcTM planning, EPID and Portal dosimetry system) for planning, delivery and EPID QA analysis. We evaluated the maximum gamma (γmax), average gamma (γave) and percentage gamma passing rate (%GP) for different distance-to-agreement/dose difference (DTA/DD) criteria and low-dose thresholds.

The gamma index analysis shows that for patient-specific SRS/SRT VMAT QA with the portal dosimetry, the mean %GP is ≥98% for 2–3 mm/1–3% and Field+0%, +5% and +10% low-dose thresholds. When applying stricter spatial criteria of 1 mm, the mean %GP is >90% for DD of 2–3% and ≥88% for DD of 1%. The mean γmax ranges: 1·32 ± 1·33–2·63 ± 2·35 for 3 mm/1–3%, 1·57 ± 1·36–2·87 ± 2·29 for 2 mm/1–3% and 2·36 ± 1·83–3·58 ± 2·23 for 1 mm/1–3%. Similarly the mean γave ranges: 0·16 ± 0·06–0·19 ± 0·07 for 3 mm/1–3%, 0·21 ± 0·08–0·27 ± 0·10 for 2 mm/1–3% and 0·34 ± 0·14–0·49 ± 0·17 for 1 mm/1–3%. The mean γmax and mean γave increase with increased DTA and increased DD for all low-dose thresholds.

The establishment of gamma criteria local action levels for SRS/SRT VMAT pre-treatment QA based on institutional resources is imperative as a useful tool for standardising the evaluation of EPID-based patient-specific SRS/SRT VMAT QA. Our data suggest that for intracranial SRS/SRT VMAT QA measured with the EPID, a stricter gamma criterion of 1 mm/2% or 1 mm/3% with ≥90% %GP could be used while still maintaining an in-control QA process with no extra burden on resources and time constraints.

To study the effect of deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) on Fast-Forward trial for left-sided breast radiotherapy dosimetrically using tangential field-in-field (FiF), flattening filtered volumetric-modulated arc therapy (FF-VMAT) and flattening filter free volumetric-modulated arc therapy (FFF-VMAT) in comparison with free breathing (FB).

Computed tomography images were acquired on 15 patients with carcinoma of left breast in FB and DIBH. Planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk were contoured on both image sets. Dose of 26 Gy in five daily fractions was prescribed to PTV. FiF, FF-VMAT and FFF-VMAT plans were created in treatment planning system on both FB and DIBH. PTV V95%, V107%, D0·1 cc, CI and HI, heart V1·5 Gy, V7 Gy, lung left V8 Gy, monitor units (MU) and beam ON time were used for evaluation. Different technique analysis in same breathing condition and FB versus DIBH for same planning technique were performed.

Mean of all 15 patients was reported as mean ± 1 standard deviation. PTV V95% was 97·55 ± 0·10 (FiF), 95·75 ± 0·66 (FF-VMAT) and 96·15 ± 0·46 (FFF-VMAT) in FB while 97·34 ± 0·50 (FiF), 96·03 ± 0·71 (FF-VMAT) and 95·86 ± 0·63 (FFF-VMAT) in DIBH. Heart V7 Gy was 8·53 ± 4·26 (FiF), 8·86 ± 2·20 (FF-VMAT) and 9·27 ± 2·46 (FFF-VMAT) in FB while 6·30 ± 2·98 (FiF), 5·23 ± 2·20 (FF-VMAT) and 4·68 ± 2·01 (FFF-VMAT) in DIBH. p-value of heart V7 Gy between FB and DIBH was 0·278 (FiF), 0·009 (FF-VMAT) and 0·003 (FFF-VMAT). Beam ON time for FFF-VMAT was reduced by 65% (FF-VMAT) and 11% (FiF).

Conformal dose to PTV was achieved better with VMAT plans. FFF-VMAT was delivered in less time compared to FF-VMAT and FiF for 26 Gy in five fractions. Heart dose can be significantly minimised with DIBH for VMAT plans.

The Pinnacle3 Auto-Planning (AP) package is an automated inverse planning tool employing a multi-sequence optimisation algorithm. The nature of the optimisation aims to improve the overall quality of radiotherapy plans but at the same time may produce higher modulation, increasing plan complexity and challenging linear accelerator delivery capability.

Thirty patients previously treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) to the prostate with or without pelvic lymph node irradiation were replanned with locally developed AP techniques for step-and-shoot IMRT (AP-IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (AP-VMAT). Each case was also planned with VMAT using conventional inverse planning. The patient cohort was separated into two groups, those with a single primary target volume (PTV) and those with dual PTVs of differing prescription dose levels. Plan complexity was assessed using the modulation complexity score.

Plans produced with AP provided equivalent or better dose coverage to target volumes whilst effectively reducing organ at risk (OAR) doses. For IMRT plans, the use of AP resulted in a mean reduction in bladder V50Gy by 4·2 and 4·7 % (p ≤ 0·01) and V40Gy by 4·8 and 11·3 % (p < 0·01) in the single and dual dose level cohorts, respectively. For the rectum, V70Gy, V60Gy and V40Gy were all reduced in the dual dose level AP-VMAT plans by an average of 2·0, 2·7 and 7·3 % (p < 0·01), respectively. A small increase in plan complexity was observed only in dual dose level AP plans.

The automated nature of AP led to high quality treatment plans with improvement in OAR sparing and minimised the variation in achievable dose planning metrics when compared to the conventional inverse planning approach.

To identify treatment outcome, dose uniformity, treatment time, toxicity among 3D conformal therapy (3D-CRT), intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) based on literature review.

A literature search was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, BMC—part of Springer Nature, Google Scholar and iMEDPub Ltd with the following keywords for filtering: 3D-CRT, IMRT, VMAT, lung cancer, local control and radiobiology. A total of 14 publications were finally selected for the comparison of 3D-CRT, IMRT and VMAT to determine which technique is superior or inferior among these three.

Compared to 3D-CRT, IMRT delivers more precise treatment, has better conformal dose coverage to planning target volume (PTV) that covers gross tumour with microscopic extension, respiratory tumour motion and setup margin. 3D-CRT has large number of limitations: low overall survival (OS), large toxicity, secondary malignancies.

It is difficult to choose the best technique for treating NSCLC due to patient conditions and technique availability. A high-precision treatment may improve tumour control probability (TCP) and patient’s quality of life. VMAT, whether superior or not, needs more clinical trials to treat NSCLC and requires longer dose optimisation time with the greatest benefit of rapid treatment delivery, improved patient comfort, reduced intrafraction motion and increased patient throughput compared to IMRT and 3D-CRT.

To determine the feasibility of non-daily image-guided radiotherapy (RT) with volumetric-modulated arc therapy for pelvic cancer.

Daily cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images data of 21 patients (542 fractions) with pelvic cancer were used to simulate 5 non-daily imaging (DL) protocols (Alternate day: AD, First 5 + Weekly: FF+WL, Weekly: WL, First 5 fractions: FF and Alternate week: AW protocol). The residual errors in the lateral (X), longitudinal (Y), and vertical (Z) directions and 3D vector shifts of each non-DL protocol were explored. The planning target volume (PTV) margins were calculated using the van Herk’s formula according to population systematic and random error. Finally, the average time of each process from the start to stop of the treatment was used to calculate the number of patients treated per day to assess the treatment delivery capacity for different imaging protocols.

The 3D vector shift for the FF+WL protocol produced the greatest proportion of residual error ≤ 0·5 cm and showed the smallest random error in all three directions. However, the FF protocol produced the greatest proportion of residual error > 0·5 cm and revealed the largest magnitudes of systematic error in all three directions. Only the AD protocol can explore the PTV margin of less than 0·5 cm in all three directions. The AW protocol showed the maximum capacity of the treatment delivery, showed the highest number of patients treated per day. In contrast, the AW protocol also affects the treatment accuracy, showed the large residual error and PTV margin.

Reducing the frequency of image-guided RT results in a high residual error. Non-daily image-guided RT strategies for pelvic irradiation should be applied for margins more than 0·5 cm. The number of patients treated per day, residual error and PTV margin are information to determine non-daily protocol applications that balance treatment delivery capacity and treatment accuracy.

The objective of this study has been to identify monitor unit (MU) and treatment time variations, volume coverage dissimilarity among 3D conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT), intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment plans for head and neck cancer (HNC) based on literature review.

A number of HNC cases were studied with the investigation of conformity and homogeneity index.

When high-dose modulation was required around small organs at risk (OARs), a clinically acceptable IMRT plan was achieved as VMAT usually required longer dose optimisation time. The greatest benefit of VMAT has been rapid treatment delivery allowing improved patient comfort, reduced intra-fraction motion and increased patient throughput. In some papers, 3D-CRT was shown not to meet well the requirements on parotid glands. One paper showed that cerebellum dose was lower for 3D-CRT than IMRT. However, it was found in other papers that OAR sparing with 3D-CRT was reasonable but in complex cases not enough.

IMRT usually consists of several treatment fields with different directions, hundreds of beam lets with modulated intensity, an advantage over 3D-CRT, whereas VMAT has advantage over IMRT due to rotating beam utilisation. VMAT has lower total MU and treatment times than IMRT and 3D-CRT, while maintaining similar dosimetric endpoints.

Lung cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in Canada and the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in both men and women in North America. Surgery is usually the primary treatment option for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, for patients who may not be suitable candidates for surgery, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is an alternative method of treatment. SBRT has proven to be an effective technique for treating NSCLC patients by focally administering high radiation dose to the tumour with acceptable risk of toxicity to surrounding healthy tissues. The goal of this comprehensive retrospective dosimetric study is to compare the dosimetric parameters between three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) lung SBRT treatment plans for two prescription doses.

We retrospectively analysed and compared lung SBRT treatment plans of 263 patients treated with either a 3DCRT non-coplanar or with 2–3 VMAT arcs technique at 48 Gy in 4 fractions (48 Gy/4) or 50 Gy in 5 fractions (50 Gy/5) prescribed to the planning target volume (PTV), typically encompassing the 80% isodose volume. All patients were treated on either a Varian 21EX or TrueBeam linear accelerator using 6-MV or 10-MV photon beams.

The mean PTV V95% and V100% for treatment plans at 48 Gy/4 are 99·4 ± 0·6% and 96·0 ± 1·0%, respectively, for 3DCRT and 99·7 ± 0·4% and 96·4 ± 3·4%, respectively, for VMAT. The corresponding mean PTV V95% and V100% at 50 Gy/5 are 99·0 ± 1·4% and 95·5 ± 2·5% for 3DCRT and 99·5 ± 0·8% and 96·1 ± 1·6% for VMAT. The CIRI and HI5/95 for the PTV at 48 Gy/4 are 1·1 ± 0·1 and 1·2 ± 0·0 for 3DCRT and 1·0 ± 0·1 and 1·2 ± 0·0 for VMAT. The corresponding CIRI and HI5/95 at 50 Gy/5 are 1·1 ± 0·1 and 1·3 ± 0·1 for 3DCRT and 1·0 ± 0·1 and 1·2 ± 0·0 for VMAT. The mean R50% and D2cm at 48 Gy/4 are 5·0 ± 0·8 and 61·2 ± 7·0% for 3DCRT and 4·9 ± 0·8 and 57·8 ± 7·9% for VMAT. The corresponding R50% and D2cm at 50 Gy/5 are 4·7 ± 0·5 and 65·5 ± 9·4% for 3DCRT and 4·7 ± 0·7 and 60·0 ± 7·2% for VMAT.

The use of 3DCRT or VMAT technique for lung SBRT is an efficient and reliable method for achieving dose conformity, rapid dose fall-off and minimising doses to the organs at risk. The VMAT technique resulted in improved dose conformity, rapid dose fall-off from the PTV compared to 3DCRT, although the magnitude may not be clinically significant.

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.