PTV margin calculation for head and neck patients treated with VMAT: a systematic literature review

Aim: 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. Materials and Methods: 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. Results: 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. Findings: 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.

Dosimetric comparison of MR-linac-based IMRT and conventional VMAT treatment plans for prostate cancer

Background The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the performance of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans, planned for low-field strength magnetic resonance (MR) guided linear accelerator (linac) delivery (labelled IMRT MRL plans), and clinical conventional volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans, for the treatment of prostate cancer (PCa). Both plans used the original planning target volume (PTV) margins. Additionally, the potential dosimetric benefits of MR-guidance were estimated, by creating IMRT MRL plans using smaller PTV margins. Materials and methods 20 PCa patients previously treated with conventional VMAT were considered. For each patient, two different IMRT MRL plans using the low-field MR-linac treatment planning system were created: one with original (orig.) PTV margins and the other with reduced (red.) PTV margins. Dose indices related to target coverage, as well as dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters for the target and organs at risk (OAR) were compared. Additionally, the estimated treatment delivery times and the number of monitor units (MU) of each plan were evaluated. Results The dose distribution in the high dose region and the target volume DVH parameters (D98%, D50%, D2% and V95%) were similar for all three types of treatment plans, with deviations below 1% in most cases. Both IMRT MRL plans (orig. and red. PTV margins) showed similar homogeneity indices (HI), however worse values for the conformity index (CI) were also found when compared to VMAT. The IMRT MRL plans showed similar OAR sparing when the orig. PTV margins were used but a significantly better sparing was feasible when red. PTV margins were applied. Higher number of MU and longer predicted treatment delivery times were seen for both IMRT MRL plans. Conclusions A comparable plan quality between VMAT and IMRT MRL plans was achieved, when applying the same PTV margin. However, online MR-guided adaptive radiotherapy allows for a reduction of PTV margins. With a red. PTV margin, better sparing of the surrounding tissues can be achieved, while maintaining adequate target coverage. Nonetheless, longer treatment delivery times, characteristic for the IMRT technique, have to be expected.

Optimising image-guidance frequency for patients treated with volumetric-modulated arc therapy for pelvic cancer

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

Determination of the CTV-PTV margin for prostate cancer radiotherapy depending on the prostate gland positioning control method

Objective: The objective of the study was to determine the correct CTV-PTV margin, depending on the method used to verify the PG position. In the study, 3 methods of CBCT image superimposition were assessed as based on the location of the prostate gland (CBCT images), a single gold marker, and pubic symphysis respectively.Materials and methods: The study group consisted of 30 patients undergoing irradiation therapy at the University Hospital in Zielona Góra. The therapy was delivered using the VMAT (Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy) protocol. CBCT image-based superimposition (prostate-based alignment) was chosen as the reference method. The uncertainty of the PG positioning method was determined and the margin to be used was determined for the CBCT-based reference method. Then, changes in the position of the prostate gland relative to these determined using the single marker and pubic symphysis-based methods were determined. The CTV-PTV margin was calculated at the root of the sum of the squares for the doubled value of method uncertainty for the CBCT image-based alignment method and the value of the difference between the locations of planned and actual isocenters as determined using the method of interest and the CBCT-based alignment method for which the total number of differences accounted for 95% of all differences.Results: The CTV-PTV margins to be used when the prostate gland is positioned using the CBCT imaging, single marker, and pubic symphysis-based methods were determined. For the CBCT-based method, the following values were obtained for the Vrt, Lng, and Lat directions respectively: 0.43 cm, 0.48 cm, 0.29 cm. For the single marker-based method, the respective values were 0.7 cm, 0.88 cm, and 0.44 cm whereas for the pubic symphysis-based method these were 0.65 cm, 0.76 cm, and 0.46 cm.Conclusions: Regardless of the method, the smallest margin values were obtained for the lateral direction, with the CBCT-based method facilitating the smallest margins to be used. The largest margins were obtained using the single marker-based alignment method.