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.

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.

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.

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.

Total body irradiation (TBI) is an external radiotherapy technique in which the whole body including the superficial regions is required to receive the therapeutic dose. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the received surface dose during TBI technique.

The anterior/posterior (AP/PA) TBI was implemented with 18-MV photon beam at 312-cm treatment distance for human-like phantom. The GAFCHROMIC-EBT3 films were used for superficial dose measurements.

The percentage of surface-absorbed dose relative to the prescription point for 8 points of measurements was between 102·78–121·48% and 104·51–127·43% at 5 and 10 mm depth, respectively. In the chest wall region due to the presence of lung blocks, the absorbed dose was below the acceptable level, so an electron boost was required to increase the chest wall absorbed dose.

According to the results, the implemented technique was able to deliver sufficient dose to the shallow surface of phantom’s body.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of Eclipse’s beam angle optimiser (BAO) for three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy planning.

Eleven 3D conformal lung plans, with varied tumour volumes, were retrospectively studied. For each clinical plan, a BAO plan was produced and then optimised by an experienced planner. Plan quality was assessed using International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU)-83 and  Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) recommended dose reporting metrics for dose volume prescribing and reporting.

Differences in dose volume histograms for both methods showed no clinical significance. Planning target volume Dmax for both plans was comparable and within ICRU guidelines. Reported spinal cord Dmax and the doses to 33% and 67% volume of the heart were within the RTOG recommended limits. Mean lung V20 values for BAO and non-BAO plans were 20 and 16%, respectively. The average monitor units for the BAO plans were about 11% lower. The conformity and homogeneity indices were within the acceptable range for both cases. On average, it took 23 minutes to plan using the BAO compared to 68 minutes for the non-BAO plans.

Eclipse BAO shows the potential to produce good quality conformal plans and reduce planning time. This process could be further refined with multi-leaf collimator and optimal collimator angle options.