METHODS: The agreement indices (or pass rates) for global and local gamma evaluation, maximum allowed dose difference (MADD) and divide and conquer (D&C) techniques were calculated using a selection of acceptance criteria for 429 patient-specific pretreatment quality assurance measurements. Regression analysis was used to quantify the similarity of behavior of each technique, to determine whether possible variations in sensitivity might be present.
RESULTS: The results demonstrated that the behavior of D&C gamma analysis and MADD box analysis differs from any other dose comparison techniques, whereas MADD gamma analysis exhibits similar performance to the standard global gamma analysis. Local gamma analysis had the least variation in behavior with criteria selection. Agreement indices calculated for 2%/2 mm and 2%/3 mm, and 3%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm were correlated for most comparison techniques.
CONCLUSION: Radiation oncology treatment centers looking to compare between different dose comparison techniques, criteria or lower dose thresholds may apply the results of this study to estimate the expected change in calculated agreement indices and possible variation in sensitivity to delivery dose errors.
RESULTS: The PTV, hippocampus and hippocampal avoidance volumes ranges between 1.00 - 39.00 cc., 2.50 - 5.30 cc and 26.47 - 36.30 cc respectively. The mean hippocampus dose for the HSWBRT and HSWBRT and SIB plans was 8.06 Gy and 12.47 respectively. The max dose of optic nerve, optic chiasm and brainstem were kept below acceptable range of 37.5 Gy.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this dosimetric study demonstrated the feasibility and safety of treating limited brain metastases with HSWBRT and SIB. It is possible to achieve the best of both worlds by combining HSWBRT and SIB to achieve maximal local intracranial control while maintaining as low a dose as possible to the hippocampus thereby preserving memory and quality of life.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included a total of 47 patients with oral cancer reporting to our hospital between years 2009 to 2010. The age group for the selected patients was more than 65 years, treated with radical and palliative radiotherapy with no prior surgical interventions. Patients were evaluated till Dec 2013 for overall survival time.
RESULTS: Twenty nine patients were treated with radical radiotherapy as main stay of treatment, out of which 21 died during the follow up time with median survival of 352 ± 281.7 days with 8 patients alive. All the 16 patients were dead who received palliative radiotherapy with a median survival time of 112 ± 144.0 days.
CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective study showed improved overall survival time, loco regional control rates and reduced morbidity in patients treated with radical radiotherapy when compared to patients treated with palliative radiotherapy.
METHODS: Optimal RTU (oRTU) rates were determined for nine middle-income countries, following the epidemiological evidence-based method. The actual RTU (aRTU) rates were calculated dividing the total number of new notifiable cancer patients treated with radiotherapy in 2012 by the total number of cancer patients diagnosed in the same year in each country. An analysis of the characteristics of patients and treatments in a series of 300 consecutive radiotherapy patients shed light on the particular patient and treatments profile in the participating countries.
RESULTS: The median oRTU rate for the group of nine countries was 52% (47-56%). The median aRTU rate for the nine countries was 28% (9-46%). These results show that the real proportion of cancer patients receiving RT is lower than the optimal RTU with a rate difference between 10-42.7%. The median percent-unmet need was 47% (18-82.3%).
CONCLUSIONS: The optimal RTU rate in middle-income countries did not differ significantly from that previously found in high-income countries. The actual RTU rates were consistently lower than the optimal, in particular in countries with limited resources and a large population.
METHODS: A survey on medical physics aspects of IMRT is conducted on radiotherapy departments across Malaysia to assess the usage, experience and QA in IMRT, which is done for the first time in this country. A set of questionnaires was designed and sent to the physicist in charge for their responses. The questionnaire consisted of four sections; (i) Experience and qualification of medical physicists, (ii) CT simulation techniques (iii) Treatment planning and treatment unit, (iv) IMRT process, delivery and QA procedure.
RESULTS: A total of 26 responses were collected, representing 26 departments out of 33 radiotherapy departments in operation across Malaysia (79% response rate). Results showed that the medical physics aspects of IMRT practice in Malaysia are homogenous, with some variations in certain areas of practices. Thirteen centres (52%) performed measurement-based QA using 2D array detector and analysed using gamma index criteria of 3%, 3 mm with variation confidence range. In relation to the IMRT delivery, 44% of Malaysia's physicist takes more than 8 h to plan a head and neck case compared to the UK study possibly due to the lack of professional training.
CONCLUSIONS: This survey provides a picture of medical physics aspects of IMRT in Malaysia where the results/data can be used by radiotherapy departments to benchmark their local policies and practice.
MATERIALS/METHODS: A total of 10 patients with synchronous bilateral breast cancer who were treated with VMAT at our institution were retrospectively analyzed. Clinical target volume (CTV) included chest wall and regional nodes (supraclavicular fossa and internal mammary chain) and prescription dose was 40.05 Gy in 15 daily fractions. HT and IMPT plans were generated for each patient. Dose-volume statistics, including planning target volume (PTV) coverage and dose to OAR: lungs, heart, thyroid, spinal cord, brachial plexus and esophagus, were compared between modalities using a paired T-test.
RESULTS: Mean age of patients was 61 years (43-84). Majority of the patients (80%) were ER+ PR+ and HER2-. 40% of patients underwent breast reconstruction following surgery. All 3 techniques provided adequate target volume distribution and OAR sparing. Compared to VMAT and HT plans, IMPT had better heart and lung sparing effects, resulting in lower mean and V25 Gy heart dose; mean, V20 Gy and V5 Gy lung dose (p<0.0001). There was no significant difference in VMAT and HT plans for mean heart and lung dose. VMAT plans showed significantly lower V25 Gy heart dose on average (p = 0.04). V5 Gy lung dose was slightly lower in HT compared to VMAT plans, approaching statistical significance (p = 0.08). PTV coverage was adequate for all 3 techniques. All techniques fulfilled cord, esophagus, thyroid and brachial plexus constraints.
CONCLUSION: IMPT plans showed significantly better OAR sparing compared to photon techniques. All 3 techniques met OAR constraints, and resulted in adequate target volume coverage. As IMPT is significantly more costly than VMAT or HT techniques, appropriate patient selection is important to deliver treatment in the most resource-effective manner for patients who would derive the most benefit, for example those with young age or existing heart or lung comorbidities.