To report the planning parameters, efficacy and toxicity of total body irradiation using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT).

From July 2019 till May 2021, nine patients treated with VMAT-based total body irradiation as a part of the myeloablative regimen for homologous stem cell transplant were evaluated. The CT acquisition, planning parameters, doses to target volume and critical structures were evaluated retrospectively.

Median age was 24 with median height 172 cm. Average Mean Lung dose was 9·5 Gy, mean dose to kidney was kidney dose 8·4 Gy, planning target volume (PTV) 95% was 98 % and mean heterogeneity index of PTV was 1·2 all patients. Total fraction delivery time including setup was 3·1 h while beam on time was 23 min. Main toxicity observed was mucositis and fatigue, while no Grade 3 or more acute radiation toxicity was observed.

At our institution, high dose TBI performed with multi-isocentric VMAT is now a standard procedure. Though it is cumbersome and time-consuming process but VMAT offers an advantage of increased dose homogeneity in the target volume with reduction in doses to critical organs especially lungs and kidneys in comparison to standard source to skin distance technique, longer follow-up time is necessary to evaluate our method and long-term toxicity.

To report a single-institution experience of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and RapidArc treatment plans for the patients treated with low grade mucoepidermoid carcinoma (MEC) of the salivary gland while sparing the organs at risk (OARs) within tolerance limits.

Twenty-five patients with MEC were selected to develop and analyse the treatment plans using both of the techniques. Dose distributions were calculated using Eclipse treatment planning system (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA). Plans were generated to deliver the dose of 6000 cGy in 30 fractions. For IMRT, seven angle plans were used and for RapidArc, two half arcs were used with the same 6 MV photon beam. Quality of treatment plans was evaluated by using parameters such as, coverage, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), gradient index (GI), unified dosimetry index (UDI), dose volume histogram, delivery time and OARs sparing for IMRT and RapidArc plans.

The analysis revealed that IMRT and RapidArc coverages are 0·90 and 0·94, respectively; CIs are 1·15 and 1·10, respectively; HIs are 1·12 and 1·07, respectively; GIs are 0·94 and 0·98, respectively. Average UDI values for RapidArc and IMRT are 1·09 and 1·11, respectively. Integral dose comparison shows better OAR sparing for RapidArc. RapidArc plans have the shorter beam on time (45%) in comparison with IMRT plans.

Planning constraints were achieved in both techniques. However, RapidArc showed better quality treatment plan, OARs sparing and shorter delivery time as compared to IMRT.

A comparative study was performed about the plan parameters and quality indices between volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer patients. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the two methods of external beam radiotherapy IMRT and VMAT in terms of plan quality and efficacy.

Fifteen high-risk prostate patients were planned for radiotherapy using 6 MV photon. Three dose levels were contoured having Planning Tumour Volume 1 (PTV1 = 48 Gy), Planning Tumour Volume 2 (PTV2 = 57.6 Gy) and Planning Tumour Volume 3 (PTV3 = 60 Gy). Setup margins were given using the CHIP trial method. The prescribed PTV3 dose was 60 Gy in 20 fractions which is biologically equivalent to 74 Gy in 37 fractions using α/β = 3. In case of IMRT, seven fixed beam angles 30, 60, 105, 180, 255, 300 and 330 were used and the dose was optimised using the sliding window method. In case of rapid arc technique, one or two full arcs were used for dose optimisation while keeping all the dose constraints and other planning parameters same used in IMRT. The plan evaluation parameters and Organ at risks (OARs) doses were calculated using a dose volume histogram (DVH).

The average D2, D5, D95 and PTVmean for PTV3 were 61.22, 61.13, 58.12, 60.00 Gy and 62.41 62.24 59.53 61.12 Gy for IMRT and VMAT, respectively. The averages V60 for bladder and V30 for rectum were 22.81, 25 and 67, 65% for IMRT and VMAT, respectively. The average homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI) and gradient index (GI) were 1.04, 1.4833, 14.79 and 1.04, 1.704, 7.89 for IMRT and VMAT, respectively.

VMAT takes less dose-delivery time and lesser number of monitoring units than IMRT, thus it compensates the intrafractional movements during dose delivery. The Dose GI in VMAT was much better than IMRT. This indicates sharper dose fall off near the normal tissue. No other major differences were observed in terms of plan evaluation parameters between IMRT and VMAT techniques. So, we conclude that VMAT technique is more efficient than IMRT in terms of plan quality and dose delivery.

To assess volume variations in target site due to changes in bladder filling and rectal content including air bubbles during simultaneous-integrated boost intensity-modulated radiotherapy (SIB-IMRT) of patients suffering from squamous cell carcinoma of uterine cervix.

A total of ten patients of squamous cell carcinoma of uterine cervix were enrolled in this analysis. All patients were planned to undergo SIB-IMRT using 10 MV beam. Planning target volume of the tumour (PTVtumour) and PTVnodal were prescribed with 5,040 and 4,500 cGy doses, respectively. During planning, PTVtumour V95%, PTVnodal V95% and organs at risk (OARs) (bladder, rectum, femoral heads and small bowel) volumes were measured from initial CT planning scans taken with full bladder. CT scans were acquired once in a week over a treatment period of 5·5 weeks. Intra-treatment scans with full bladder were then fused with the planning scans to determine variations in the target volume and the OAR volume. Changes in radiation dose to the PTVtumour and the PTVnodal were also assessed by comparing intra-treatment scans with the planning (first) scans.

All patients showed intra-treatment bladder volume larger than the planning bladder volume. Difference between planning bladder and intra-treatment bladder volumes ranged from 4·5 to 49%. Rectal volume varied from 17 to 60 cc. A wide variation between planning and intra-treatment air volumes was found in most of the patients. When comparing initial and inter-fraction air volumes, the maximum difference was 366·67%. Due to bladder and rectal volume variations, PTVtumour V95% and PTVnodal V95% doses did not remain constant throughout the treatment. The maximum discrepancy between intra-treatment PTVtumour dose and planning PTVtumour dose was 12·15%. The maximum difference between planning and inter-fraction PTV V95% was 48·28%. PTVnodal dose observed from scan taken in last week of treatment was 12·87% less than planning PTVnodal dose analysed from planning CT scan. Maximum difference in planning and inter-fraction PTVnodal V95% was 57·78%.

Inconsistent bladder and rectal volumes had a significant impact on target volume and dosage during an entire course of SIB-IMRT. For radiotherapy of gynaecological malignancies, data on variations in PTV should be acquired on daily basis to target radiation dose to the tumour site with accuracy.

The aim of this work was to study the acceptability of plans prepared for prostate patients treated by volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with the vision to evaluate the quality of plans and test pre-treatment quality assurance (QA).

VMAT plans of 35 patients, planned on the Eclipse Treatment Planning System (Aria 15), were included in the study. Plan acceptability was checked using statistical analysis, which includes homogeneity index, radical and median homogeneity index, coverage and uniformity index. Dose–volume histograms (DVH) of the plans were also studied to check prescribed dose (PD), Dmax, Dmin, D5 and D95. Portal dosimetry was also done by gamma analysis using 3%/3 mm criterion. SD and mean SD error were also calculated and analysed.

Statistical analysis showed a mean HI of 1·054, coverage 0·959, UI 1·055, mDHI 0·962 and rDHI 0·866. SD of HI, coverage, UI, mDHI and rDHI was 0·019, 0·019, 0·014, 0·013 and 0·030, respectively. From the DVHs, mean of D5, D95, Dmin and Dmax was calculated at 6,252·9, 5,757·4, 6,413·3 and 5,657·7 cGy, respectively, with a prescribed dose of 6,000 cGy. According to gamma analysis, area gamma < 1 was 99·12% with a tolerance limit of 95%, maximum gamma was 1·466 with a tolerance limit of 3·5, average gamma was 0·388 with a tolerance limit of 0·5, area gamma > 1·2 was 0·242% with a tolerance limit of 0·5%, maximum dose difference was 0·6 with a tolerance limit of 1·0 and average dose difference was 0·029 with a tolerance limit of 0·2.

All three computations showed the results to be within acceptable limits. VMAT possesses a unique feature of delivering the whole treatment with only two rotations of the gantry. VMAT has an improved efficiency of delivery for equivalent dosimetric quality.

The main objective of this study is to assure the quality of cervical cancer treatment plans using an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) in RapidArc techniques.

Fifteen cases of cervical cancer patients undergoing RapidArc technique were selected to evaluate the quality assurance (QA) of their treatment. The computed tomography (CT) of each patient was obtained with 3-mm-slice thickness and transferred to the Eclipse treatment planning system. The prescribed dose (PD) of 50·4 Gy with 1·8 Gy per fraction to planning target volume (PTV) was used for each patient. The aim of treatment planning was to achieve 95% of PD to cover 97%, and dose to the PTV should not receive 105% of the PD. All RapidArc plans were created using the AAA algorithm and treated on Varian DHX using 6 MV photon beam, with two full arcs. Gamma analysis was used to evaluate the quality of the treatment plans with accepting criteria of 95% at 3%/3 mm.

In this study, maximum and average gamma values were 2·53 ± 0·409 and 0·195 ± 0·059 showing very small deviation and indicating the smaller difference between both predicted and portal doses. Gamma Area changes from > 0·8 to > 1·2. SD increased to 5·4% and mean standard error increased to 4·67%.

On the basis of these outcomes, we can summarise that the EPID is a useful tool for QA in standardising and evaluating RapidArc treatment plans of cervical cancer in routine clinical practice.

The main objective of this research work is to compare the dosimertic effect on lower and upper oesophagus cancer treatment using 3D conformal radiotherapy as well as to evaluate the doses administered to the organs at risk.

In this study, a cohort of 30 oesophageal cancer patients between the ages of 45 and 67 years registered during March 2017 to February 2018 was considered. These patients were treated through 3D conformal radiotherapy using four-field technique. Beam energy of 15 MV from Varian DHX linear accelerator was used. The given 30 patients were divided into two groups. The 1st group of 15 patients with upper oesophagus cancer was prescribed 5000 cGy doses, and the 2nd group of remaining 15 patients with lower oesophagus cancer was prescribed 4500 cGy. Computed tomography scans of every patient were obtained and then transmitted to Eclipse TPS for generating treatment plans. All radiotherapy plans were evaluated through various dosimetric indices. Statistical analysis software SPSS was utilised to get the values of means standard error and standard deviation of these indices for the treatment plan evaluation.

Uniformity index (UI) calculated for first group of patients showed difference of 7·4% from ideal value. A difference of 7% between ideal and calculated UI value was observed in 2nd group of patients. The values of other dosimetric indices like coverage, homogeneity, moderate dose homogeneity index (mDHI) and radical dose homogeneity index (rDHI) were found in limits specified by the Radiation Therapy and Oncology Group. The maximum difference of 6% was observed between the coverage mean values of 1st and 2nd group treatment plans.

For oesophageal cancer, 3D conformal radiotherapy using four-field treatment plans shows homogeneous distribution of dose around the target and limits the dose to organ at risk.

This study reported the justification and selection of acceptable γ criteria with respect to low (6 MV) and high (15 MV) photon beams for intensity-modulated radiation therapy quality assurance (IMRT QA) using the Gafchromic external beam therapy 3 (EBT3) film.

Five-field step-and-shoot IMRT was used to treat 16 brain IMRT patients using the dual-energy DHX-S linear accelerator (Varian Medical System, Palo Alto, CA, USA). Dose comparisons between computed values of the treatment planning system (TPS) and Gafchromic EBT3 film were evaluated based on γ analysis using the Film QA Pro software. The dose distribution was analysed with gamma area histograms (GAHs) generated using different γ criteria (3%/2 mm, 3%/3 mm and 5%/3 mm) for the 6 and 15 MV photon beams, to optimise the best distance-to-agreement (DTA) criteria with respect to the beam energy.

From the comparison between the dose distributions acquired from the TPS and EBT3 film, a DTA criterion of 3%/2 mm showed less dose differences (DDs) with passing rates up to 93% for the 6 MV photon beams, while for the 15 MV a relaxed DTA criterion of 5%/3 mm was consistent with the DD acceptability criteria with a 95% passing rate.

Our results suggested that high-energy photon beams required relaxed DTA criteria for the brain IMRT QA, while low-energy photon beams showed better results even with tight DTA criteria.

This exploration is intended to analyse the dosimetric characteristics of proton beams of multiple energies using different snout sizes.

A synchrotron was used for the extraction of eight proton beam energies (100–250 MeV). Dosimetric measurements were taken in a water phantom that was irradiated with a proton beam emanating from the gantry system at angles 0, 90, 180 and 270 degree using a large and a medium snout. The range of beam energies in the phantom, their corresponding centre modulation depth (CMD) and the width of spread out Bragg peak (SOBP) were measured by Markus chamber. Double scattering technique was employed for the creation of SOBPs.

The range of proton beams varied from 4·3 cm for 100 MeV beam to 28·5 cm for 250 MeV beam with the medium snout and from 4·3 cm for 100 MeV to 25 cm for 250 MeV beam with large snout in the water phantom. SOBP width showed a variation from 4 to 10 cm with medium and large snout. While determining the output with medium snout, the discrepancy of 1·1% was observed between the maximum and minimum mean values of output for all the given set of energies and angles. There occurred a difference of 0·9% between the maximum and minimum mean values of output with the large snout. Beam output at SOBP centre was 12% higher with large snout as compared to that with medium snout for all the given beam energies. Flatness and symmetry were found within ±2·5% tolerance limits with medium and large snouts.

Flatness and symmetry were found within explicit limits with both medium and large snouts. Large snout produced higher beam output than that of medium snout at the centre of SOBP. This exploration can be extended to the determination of beam output, flatness and symmetry with a small snout.

This work reports our study to commission a radiochromic film dosimetry system using the timely EBT3 film. We carried out dosimetric evaluations on different characteristics of photon beams (e.g., flatness, symmetry and penumbra) in radiation dose delivery.

A Varian linear accelerator producing 6 and 15 MV photon beams with 120 multi-leaf collimator was used in this study. PTW ionisation chamber was used to measure the beam characteristics such as symmetry, flatness and penumbra and these measurements were used to commission the radiochormic EBT3 film dosimetry system. The results of irradiated films were analysed using the radiochromic film QA Pro software 2016.

The measured film doses were analysed at two different colour channels (green and red) using two scanning geometries (i.e., upper or lower side of film facing the scanner light source) at two dose levels (10 and 40 Gy). The difference between the ionisation chamber and film results was found insignificant and within the acceptable range as per the World Health Organisation standard.

Results of the comparison between the ionisation chamber and film measurements show that our radiochormic EBT3 film dosimetry system is reliable and cost-effective in the output measurement of a linear accelerator. Our measurements confirm that our EBT3 film dosimetry agreed well with the ionisation chamber, and can be used as a re-validation tool for linear accelerator quality control.

This study is primarily aimed at the analysis of various dose homogeneity indices (HIs) essential for the evaluation of therapeutic plans by employing intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) on patients with cervix cancer. Also integral dose (ID) to healthy surrounding organs is computed.

Effectiveness of different HIs (A, B, C, D) was explored for IMRT plans using 15 MV photon beam. In total, 18 patients were selected at random for treatment of cervix cancer, and dose of 5,040 cGy was delivered in 28 equal fractions.

The study was undertaken to compare four HI formulas and coefficient of determination between each set of HI was known by calculating R2 value. Mean±SD of HI A, HI B, HI C and HI D were 1·12±0·02, 0·13±0·04, 0·10±0·02 and 0·99±0·03, respectively. Mean value of ID for rectum is 3·16 and for bladder is 10·3.

Our data suggested that HI calculated using four formulas provided good plan quality. The results advocate that all the studied HIs can be effectively used for assessment of uniformity inside the target volume. However, values of HI C were closest to ideal value as compared with other three formulas; hence, it is considered a better measure to compute homogeneity of dose within target volume. The ID gives satisfactory results for surrounding normal tissues such as rectum and bladder and significant critical tissue sparing was achieved by using IMRT technique.

The purpose of this study was to analyse the comparison of intensity-modulated radiation therapy quality assurance (IMRT QA) using Gafchromic® EBT3 film, Electronic portal imaging device (EPID) and MapCHECK®2.

Pretreatment authentication is the main apprehension in advanced radiation therapy treatment plans such as IMRT.

A total of 20 patients were planned on Eclipse treatment planning system using 6 and 15 MV separately.

Gamma index of EBT3 film results shows the following average passing rates: 97% for 6 MV and 96·6% for 15 MV using criteria of ±5% of 3 mm, ±3% of 3 mm and ±3% of 2 mm for brain. However, by using ±5% of 3 mm and ±3% of 3 mm criteria, the average passing rates were 95·4% on 6 MV and 95·2% on 15 MV for prostate. For EPID, the results show the average passing rates as 97·8% for 6 MV and 97·2% for 15 MV in for brain. In cases in which ±5% of 3 mm and ±3% of 3 mm were used, the average passing rates were 96·6% for 6 MVand 96·1% for 15 MV for prostate. MapCHECK®2 results show average passing rates of 96·4% for 6 and 96·2% for 15 MV, respectively, for brain using criteria of ±5% of 3 mm, ±3% of 3 mm and ±3% of 2 mm, whereas for ±5% of 3 mm and ±3% of 3 mm the average rates are 95·2% for 6 and 94·7% for 15 MV in prostate.

The EPID results are better than the other methods, and hence EPID can be used effectively for IMRT pretreatment verifications.

To determine the feasibility of an anthropomorphic breast polyurethane-based three-dimensional (3D) dosimeter with cavity to measure dose distributions and skin dose for a commercial strut-based applicator strut-adjusted volume implant (SAVI™) 6–1.

An anthropomorphic breast 3D dosimeter was created with a cavity to accommodate the SAVI™ strut-based device. 2 Gy was prescribed to the breast dosimeter having D95 to planning target volume evaluation (PTV_EVAL) while limiting 125% of the prescribed dose to the skin. Independent dose distribution verification was performed with GAFCHROMIC® EBT2 film. The dose distribution from the 3D dosimeter was compared to the distributions from commercial brachytherapy treatment planning system (TPS) and film. Point skin doses, line profiles and dose–volume histogram (DVHs) for the skin and PTV_EVAL were compared.

The maximum difference in skin dose for TPS and the 3D dosimeter was 4% whereas 41% between the TPS and EBT2 film. The maximum dose difference for line profiles between TPS, 3D dosimeter, and film was 4·1%. DVHs of skin and PTV_EVAL for TPS and 3D dosimeter differed by a maximum of 4% at 5 mm depth and skin differed by a maximum 1·5% between TPS and 3D dosimeter. The criterion for gamma analysis comparison was 92·5% at ±5%±3 mm criterion. The TPS demonstrated at least ±5% comparability in predicting dose to the skin, PTV_EVAL and normal breast tissue.

3D anthropomorphic polyurethane dosimeter with cavity gives comparable results to the TPS dose predictions and GAFCHROMIC® EBT2 film results in the context of HDR brachytherapy.

This exploration is intended to measure tissue maximum ratios (TMRs) in smaller fields through CC01 detector and to compare CC01 measured TMRs with Pinnacle treatment planning software (TPS) calculated TMRs.

CC01 compact chamber detector was used to measure TMR in water phantom for 6 and 18 MV beam delivered from Varian linear accelerator. Pinnacle TPS was employed in this study to calculate TMR from the measured percentage depth doses data. CC01 measured TMR data was compared with the calculated TMR data at depths from 5 to 20 cm for field sizes varying from 1 to 10 cm2.

For the smallest given field size of 1 cm2, CCO1 measured 13·95% higher TMR value for 18 MV beam than that for 6 MV beam. At 20 cm depth for 1 cm2 field size, TMR due to 18 MV beam was 52·4% higher than the TMR due to 6 MV beam. For 6 MV beam, the maximum difference appeared between the measured TMR and pinnacle calculated TMR was 2·8% and for 18 MV beam, the maximum difference was 4%.

For both 6 and 18 MV beam, there was good agreement between CC01 measured and Pinnacle calculated TMRs for the field sizes ranging from 1 to 10 cm2. This exploration can be extended to the determination of other dosimetric parameters like TARs, TPRs in small fields.