This work reports on the normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) from a UK cohort of previously treated peripheral lung SABR patients (n = 198) supplementing our previous publication on tumour control probabilities (TCP). Each patient was recalculated for alternative schedules.

NTCP for 3 (54 Gy), 5 (55 and 60 Gy) and 8 (50 Gy) fraction (#) schemes were calculated with the Lyman Kutcher Burman (LKB) model in the software platform ‘Biosuite’ (Version 12·01) for lung and chest wall. Patients treated with 5 # or 8 # were then recomputed for alternative fractionations and doses (3 # and 5 #, for both 55 Gy and 60 Gy).

The mean lung NTCP (NTCPLUNG, for the outcome of radiation pneumonitis) was 2·8% (range 0·6 – 10·6). The mean chest wall NTCP (NTCPCW, for the outcome of rib fracture) was 1·4% (range 0·0–55·9). There were no statistically significant differences observed between male and female, tumour status or fractionation groups except for the NTCPLUNG between 5 # and 3 #. When recalculating NTCP and TCP individually, for 8 # patients, no differences were observed between mean TCP, NTCPLUNG or NTCPCW compared with 3 # or 5 # indicating that fractionation reduction is possible. Parity was observed between the 60 Gy group when recalculated for 55 Gy. For the 60 Gy in 5 # group, the NTCPCW increased significantly when recalculated for 3 #.

NTCPs achievable with current UK planning techniques have been presented indicating SABR Consortium compliant centres are likely to have low complication population risks (< 3 %). 5 # schedules could be justified for 8 # patients, thereby reducing the number of treatment visits. Where there is a large overlap of PTV and chest wall, this indicates an NTCP/TCP calculation is required to investigate if fractionation reduction is individually appropriate.

Previous studies showed that replacing conventional flattened beams (FF) with flattening filter-free (FFF) beams improves the therapeutic ratio in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), but these findings could have been impacted by dose calculation uncertainties caused by the heterogeneity of the thoracic anatomy and by respiratory motion, which were particularly high for target coverage. In this study, we minimised such uncertainties by calculating doses using high-spatial-resolution Monte Carlo and four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) images. We aimed to evaluate more reliably the benefits of using FFF beams for lung SBRT.

For a cohort of 15 patients with early-stage lung cancer that we investigated in a previous treatment planning study, we recalculated dose distributions with Monte Carlo using 4DCT images. This included 15 FF and 15 FFF treatment plans.

Compared to Monte Carlo, the treatment planning system (TPS) over-predicted doses in low-dose regions of the planning target volume (PTV). For most patients, replacing FF beams with FFF beams improved target coverage, tumour control, and uncomplicated tumour control probabilities.

Monte Carlo tends to reveal deficiencies in target coverage compared to coverage predicted by the TPS. Our data support previously reported benefits of using FFF beams for lung SBRT.

To compare tumour dose distribution, conformality, homogeneity, normal tissue avoidance, tumour control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) using 3D conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), 3- and 4-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

Twenty-four patients staged T1–3N+M0 with locally advanced rectal cancer underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy. Four different radiotherapy plans were prepared for each patient: 3DCRT, 3- and 4-field IMRT and VMAT are evaluated for target distribution using CI and homogeneity index (HI), normal tissue avoidance using Dmax, V45, V40, V50 and TCP and NTCP using the Lyman–Kutcher–Burman model.

VMAT has better HI (HI = 1·32) and 3DCRT exhibited better conformality (CI = 1·05) than the other radiotherapy techniques. With regard to normal tissue avoidance, all radiotherapy plans met the constraints. Dmax in the 3DCRT plans was statistically significant (p = 0·04) for bladder and no significant differences in V40 and V50. In the bowel bag, no significant differences in Dmax for any radiotherapy plan and V40 was lower in 3DCRT than VMAT (p = 0·024). In the case of femoral heads, 3DCRT has a statistically significant lower dose on Dmax than 4-field IMRT (p = 0·00 « 0·05). VMAT has the biggest TCP (80·76%) than the other three radiotherapy plans. With regard to normal tissue complications, probabilities were shown to be very low, of the order of 10-14 and 10-41 for bowel bag and femoral heads respectively.

It can be concluded that 3DCRT plan improves conformity and decreases radiation sparing in the organ at risks, but the VMAT plan exhibits better homogeneity and greater TCP.

To evaluate the impact of couch translational shifts on dose–volume histogram (DVH) and radiobiological parameters [tumour control probability (TCP), equivalent uniform dose (EUD) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP)] of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans and to develop a simple and swift method to predict the same online, on a daily basis.

In total, ten prostate patients treated with VMAT technology were selected for this study. The plans were generated using Eclipse TPS and delivered using Clinac ix LINAC equipped with a Millennium 120 multileaf collimator. In order to find the effect of systematic translational couch shifts on the DVH and radiobiological parameters, errors were introduced in the clinically accepted base plan with an increment of 1 mm and up to 5 mm from the iso-centre in both positive and negative directions of each of the three axis, x [right–left (R-L)], y [superior–inferior (S-I)] and z [anterior–posterior (A-P)]. The percentages of difference in these parameters (∆D, ∆TCP, ∆EUD and ∆NTCP) were analyzed between the base plan and the error introduced plans. DVHs of the base plan and the error plans were imported into the MATLAB software (R2013a) and an in-house MATLAB code was generated to find the best curve fitted polynomial functions for each point on the DVH, there by generating predicted DVH for planning target volume (PTV), clinical target volume (CTV) and organs at risks (OARs). Functions f(x, vj), f(y, vj) and f(z, vj) were found to represent the variation in the dose when there are couch translation shifts in R-L, S-I and A-P directions, respectively. The validation of this method was done by introducing daily couch shifts and comparing the treatment planning system (TPS) generated DVHs and radiobiological parameters with MATLAB code predicted parameters.

It was noted that the variations in the dose to the CTV, due to both systematic and random shifts, were very small. For CTV and PTV, the maximum variations in both DVH and radiobiological parameters were observed in the S-I direction than in the A-P or R-L directions. ∆V70 Gy and ∆V60 Gy of the bladder varied more due to S-I shift whereas, ∆V40 Gy, ∆EUD and ∆NTCP varied due to A-P shifts. All the parameters in rectum were most affected by the A-P shifts than the shifts in other two directions. The maximum percentage of deviation between the TPS calculated and MATLAB predicted DVHs of plans were calculated for targets and OARs and were found to be less than 0·5%.

The variations in the parameters depend upon the direction and magnitude of the shift. The DVH curves generated by the TPS and predicted by the MATLAB showed good correlation.