Clinical Impact of Couch Top and Rails on IMRT and Arc Therapy

Purpose: To evaluate the clinical impact of the Varian Exact Couch on dose and volume coverage to targets and critical structures and tumor control probability (TCP) for 6-MV IMRT and Arc Therapy. Methods: Five clinical prostate patients were planned with both, 6-MV 8-field IMRT and 6-MV 2-field RapidArc using the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS). These plans neglected treatment couch attenuation, as is standard clinical practice. Dose distributions were then recalculated in Eclipse with the inclusion of the Varian Exact Couch (imaging couch top) and the rails in varying configurations. The changes in dose and coverage were evaluated using the DVHs from each plan iteration. We used a tumor control probability (TCP) model to calculate losses in tumor control resulting from not accounting for the couch top and rails. We also verified dose measurements in a phantom. Results: Failure to account for the treatment couch and rails resulted in clinically unacceptable dose and volume coverage losses to the target for both IMRT and RapidArc. The couch caused average dose losses (relative to plans that ignored the couch) to the prostate of 4.2% and 2.0% for IMRT with the rails out and in, respectively, and 3.2% and 2.9% for RapidArc with the rails out and in, respectively. On average, the percentage of the target covered by the prescribed dose dropped to 35% and 84% for IMRT (rails out and in, respectively) and to 18% and 17% for RapidArc (rails out and in, respectively). The TCP was also reduced by as much as 10.5% (6.3% on average). Dose and volume coverage losses for IMRT plans were primarily due to the rails, while the imaging couch top contributed most to losses for RapidArc. Both the couch top and rails contribute to dose and coverage losses that can render plans clinically unacceptable. A follow-up study we performed found that the less attenuating unipanel mesh couch top available with the Varian Exact couch does not cause a clinically impactful loss of dose or coverage for IMRT but still causes an unacceptable loss for RapidArc. Conclusions: Both the imaging couch top and rails contribute to dose and coverage loss to a degree that, if included, would prevent the plan from meeting clinical planning criteria. Therefore, the imaging and mesh couch tops and rails should be accounted for in Arc Therapy and the imaging couch and rails only in IMRT treatment planning.

The effect of shoulder variation on IMRT and SmartArc for Head and Neck Cancer

Purpose: First, to determine an average and maximum displacement of the shoulder relative to isocenter over the course of treatment. Second, to establish the dosimetric effect of shoulder displacements relative to correct isocenter alignment on the dose delivered to the target and the surrounding structures for head and neck cancer patients. Method and Materials: The frequency of shoulder shifts of various magnitudes relative to isocenter was assessed for 4 patients using image registration software. The location of the center of the right and left humeral head relative to isocenter (usually C2) was found daily from CT on rails scans, and was compared to the location of the humeral heads relative to isocenter on the initial simulation CT. Three Baseline head and neck IMRT and SmartArc plans were generated in Pinnacle based on simulation CTs. The CT datasets (external contour and boney structures) were then modified to represent shifts of the shoulder (relative to isocenter) between 3 mm and 15 mm in the SI, AP, and LR directions. The initial plans were recalculated on the image sets with shifted shoulders. Results: On average, shoulder variation was 2-5 mm in each direction, although displacements of over 1 cm in the inferior and posterior directions occurred. Shoulder shifts induced perturbations in the dose distribution, although generally only for large shifts. Most substantially, large, superior shifts resulted in coverage loss by the 95% isodose line for targets in the lower neck. Inferior shifts elevated the dose to the brachial plexus by 0.6-4.1 Gy. SmartArc plans showed similar loss of target coverage as IMRT plans. Conclusions: The position of the shoulder can have an impact on target coverage and critical structure dose. Shoulder position may need to be considered for setup of head and neck patients depending on target location.