The primary intent of cancer treatment is either curative, prolongation of patient life, or to improve patient quality of life; however, treatments are associated with various side effects that may impact patient wellbeing. Thus, understanding the patients’ wellbeing from the patient’s perspective is essential as it could help enable the provision of the necessary support for patients throughout their cancer journey.

We analysed Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) questionnaire responses completed by 19,288 patients over 201,839 visits to our Cancer Centre. As part of their routine and standard of care, patients completing the questionnaire are asked to score 6 physical and 2 psychological symptoms as well as overall wellbeing using an 11-point numerical rating scale ranging from 0 to 10, where 0 means complete absence of the symptom or best overall wellbeing and 10 means worst possible symptom or worst overall wellbeing. We used the ESAS responses to characterise the relationship between the overall wellbeing score and concurrent symptoms scored by cancer patients.

Patients reported tiredness and nausea as the physical symptom causing the most and least distress respectively. Patients that reported severe (7–10) wellbeing also scored high mean scores for tiredness (6·2 ± 2·7), drowsiness (4·7 ± 3·1) and lack of appetite (4·4 ± 3·4). Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analysis suggests higher odds for patients to report moderate-to-severe (4–10) wellbeing when they report moderate-to-severe concurrent symptoms compared to none-to-mild concurrent symptoms.

Our findings suggest that patients’ overall wellbeing as reported by the ESAS system is influenced by a number of concurrent symptoms. Tiredness was found to impact patients’ overall wellbeing to a greater extent than other concurrent symptoms. The sum of physical or psychological symptom scores was stronger indicators of a patient’s overall wellbeing compared to the scores of individual symptoms.

Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) has emerged as a promising radiation treatment technique. One of the challenges in VMAT planning for lung carcinoma is the lack of consistency among different institutions with respect to what is considered an acceptable treatment plan in terms of target coverage and doses to the organs at risk (OAR). Additionally, the accuracy of dose calculations in the presence of heterogeneous medium (i.e. air) is another challenge in lung VMAT planning. Our objective is to develop an institutional criteria for non-stereotactic body radiotherapy (non-SBRT) lung treatment plans by evaluating the dosimetric impact of plan normalisation and dose calculation algorithms, including the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA), AcurosXB (AXB) and Monte Carlo (MC) simulation, on VMAT plans for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

The CT dataset of 20 patients with NSCLC was randomly selected to ensure a spectrum of target sizes and locations. All treatment planning was accomplished with 2–3 VMAT arcs and a prescription of 60 Gy in 30 fractions. Two plan normalisation methods were employed: (i) planning target volume (PTV) V100% = 95% and (ii) PTV V95% = 95%.

All three dose calculation algorithms revealed heterogeneous and conformal plans irrespective of plan normalisations. The PTV and OARs dose–volume constraints were met using both normalisation methods. However, we observed that AAA overestimated the minimum PTV doses by 2–5% regardless of plan normalisation. The mean PTV-V100% was lower for AAA in comparison with AXB and MC algorithms.

VMAT is an effective radiotherapy technique for achieving greater target dose conformity, heterogeneity and dose fall-off from the PTV for the treatment of NSCLC. The results of this study can provide the basis for the development of local plan acceptability criteria for NSCLC VMAT plans, and the clinical implementation can be achieved with minimal or no imposition on resources and time constraints. Occasionally, plan normalisation of PTV-V95% = 95% may be required to ensure that the OAR dose tolerances are not exceeded.

In recent years, there has been a growing interest to enhance patients’ symptom management during routine cancer care using patient-reported outcome measures. The goal of this study is to analyse patients’ responses to the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) to determine whether patient-reported outcomes could help characterise those patients with the highest supportive care needs and symptom burden in order to help provide targeted support for patients.

In this study, we analysed ESAS questionnaire responses completed by patients as part of their routine care and considered part of patients’ standard of care. Statistical analyses were performed using the IBM SPSS Statistics version 26.0. Descriptive statistics are used to summarise patient demographics, disease characteristics and patient-reported symptom severity and prevalence.

The overall mean age is 65.2 ± 12.8 years comprising 43.8% male and 56.2% female patients. The five common primary disease sites are breast (26.2%), haematology (21.1%), gastrointestinal (15.3%), genitourinary (12.7%) and lung (12.0%) cancers. The mean severity for each symptom is all mild (score: 1–3). The three most common reported symptoms causing distress are tiredness, poor overall wellbeing and anxiety, and the least reported symptom is nausea.

Systematic self-reporting of patients’ symptoms is important to improve symptom management, timely facilitation of appropriate intervention, patient experience, and patient and family satisfaction. The awareness of disease site, gender and age-related symptom variations should help in the design and provision of appropriate symptom-directed, tumour-specific and patient-focused interventions to meet patients’ immediate needs.

The complexity associated with the treatment planning and delivery of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) or stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans which employs continuous dynamic modulation of dose rate, field aperture and gantry speed necessitates diligent pre-treatment patient-specific quality assurance (QA). Numerous techniques for pre-treatment VMAT treatment plans QA are currently available with the aid of several different devices including the electronic portal imager (EPID). Although several studies have provided recommendations for gamma criteria for VMAT pre-treatment QA, there are no specifics for SRS/SRT VMAT QA. Thus, we conducted a study to evaluate intracranial SRS/SRT VMAT QA to determine clinical action levels for gamma criteria based on the institutional estimated means and standard deviations.

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 118 EPID patient-specific pre-treatment QA dosimetric measurements of 47 brain SRS/SRT VMAT treatment plans using the integrated Varian solution (RapidArcTM planning, EPID and Portal dosimetry system) for planning, delivery and EPID QA analysis. We evaluated the maximum gamma (γmax), average gamma (γave) and percentage gamma passing rate (%GP) for different distance-to-agreement/dose difference (DTA/DD) criteria and low-dose thresholds.

The gamma index analysis shows that for patient-specific SRS/SRT VMAT QA with the portal dosimetry, the mean %GP is ≥98% for 2–3 mm/1–3% and Field+0%, +5% and +10% low-dose thresholds. When applying stricter spatial criteria of 1 mm, the mean %GP is >90% for DD of 2–3% and ≥88% for DD of 1%. The mean γmax ranges: 1·32 ± 1·33–2·63 ± 2·35 for 3 mm/1–3%, 1·57 ± 1·36–2·87 ± 2·29 for 2 mm/1–3% and 2·36 ± 1·83–3·58 ± 2·23 for 1 mm/1–3%. Similarly the mean γave ranges: 0·16 ± 0·06–0·19 ± 0·07 for 3 mm/1–3%, 0·21 ± 0·08–0·27 ± 0·10 for 2 mm/1–3% and 0·34 ± 0·14–0·49 ± 0·17 for 1 mm/1–3%. The mean γmax and mean γave increase with increased DTA and increased DD for all low-dose thresholds.

The establishment of gamma criteria local action levels for SRS/SRT VMAT pre-treatment QA based on institutional resources is imperative as a useful tool for standardising the evaluation of EPID-based patient-specific SRS/SRT VMAT QA. Our data suggest that for intracranial SRS/SRT VMAT QA measured with the EPID, a stricter gamma criterion of 1 mm/2% or 1 mm/3% with ≥90% %GP could be used while still maintaining an in-control QA process with no extra burden on resources and time constraints.

Electron blocks are typically composed of a low melting point alloy (LMPA), which is poured into an insert frame containing a manually placed Styrofoam aperture negative used to define the desired field shape. Current implementations of the block fabrication process involve numerous steps which are subjective and prone to user error. Occasionally, bowing of the sides of the insert frame is observed, resulting in premature frame decommissioning. Recent works have investigated the feasibility of utilising 3D printing technology to replace the conventional electron block fabrication workflow; however, these approaches involved long print times, were not compatible with commonly used cadmium-free LMPAs, and did not address the problem of insert frame bowing. In this work, we sought to develop a new 3D printing technique that would remedy these issues.

Electron cutout negatives and alignment jigs were printed using Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene, which does not warp at the high temperatures associated with molten cadmium-free alloys. The accuracy of the field shape produced by electron blocks fabricated using the 3D printed negatives was assessed using Gafchromic film and beam profiler measurements. As a proof-of-concept, electron blocks with off-axis apertures, as well as complex multi-aperture blocks to be used for passive electron beam intensity modulation, were also created.

Film and profiler measurements of field size were in excellent agreement with the values calculated using the Eclipse treatment planning system, showing less than a 1% difference in line profile full-width at half-maximum. The multi-aperture electron blocks produced fields with intensity modulation ≤3.2% of the theoretically predicted value. Use of the 3D printed alignment jig – which has contours designed to match those of the insert frame – was found to reduce the amount of frame bowing by factors of 1.8 and 2.1 in the lateral and superior–inferior directions, respectively.

The 3D printed ABS negatives generated with our technique maintain their spatial accuracy even at the higher temperatures associated with cadmium-free LMPA. The negatives typically take between 1 and 2 hours to print and have a material cost of approximately $2 per patient.

Lung cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in Canada and the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in both men and women in North America. Surgery is usually the primary treatment option for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, for patients who may not be suitable candidates for surgery, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is an alternative method of treatment. SBRT has proven to be an effective technique for treating NSCLC patients by focally administering high radiation dose to the tumour with acceptable risk of toxicity to surrounding healthy tissues. The goal of this comprehensive retrospective dosimetric study is to compare the dosimetric parameters between three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) lung SBRT treatment plans for two prescription doses.

We retrospectively analysed and compared lung SBRT treatment plans of 263 patients treated with either a 3DCRT non-coplanar or with 2–3 VMAT arcs technique at 48 Gy in 4 fractions (48 Gy/4) or 50 Gy in 5 fractions (50 Gy/5) prescribed to the planning target volume (PTV), typically encompassing the 80% isodose volume. All patients were treated on either a Varian 21EX or TrueBeam linear accelerator using 6-MV or 10-MV photon beams.

The mean PTV V95% and V100% for treatment plans at 48 Gy/4 are 99·4 ± 0·6% and 96·0 ± 1·0%, respectively, for 3DCRT and 99·7 ± 0·4% and 96·4 ± 3·4%, respectively, for VMAT. The corresponding mean PTV V95% and V100% at 50 Gy/5 are 99·0 ± 1·4% and 95·5 ± 2·5% for 3DCRT and 99·5 ± 0·8% and 96·1 ± 1·6% for VMAT. The CIRI and HI5/95 for the PTV at 48 Gy/4 are 1·1 ± 0·1 and 1·2 ± 0·0 for 3DCRT and 1·0 ± 0·1 and 1·2 ± 0·0 for VMAT. The corresponding CIRI and HI5/95 at 50 Gy/5 are 1·1 ± 0·1 and 1·3 ± 0·1 for 3DCRT and 1·0 ± 0·1 and 1·2 ± 0·0 for VMAT. The mean R50% and D2cm at 48 Gy/4 are 5·0 ± 0·8 and 61·2 ± 7·0% for 3DCRT and 4·9 ± 0·8 and 57·8 ± 7·9% for VMAT. The corresponding R50% and D2cm at 50 Gy/5 are 4·7 ± 0·5 and 65·5 ± 9·4% for 3DCRT and 4·7 ± 0·7 and 60·0 ± 7·2% for VMAT.

The use of 3DCRT or VMAT technique for lung SBRT is an efficient and reliable method for achieving dose conformity, rapid dose fall-off and minimising doses to the organs at risk. The VMAT technique resulted in improved dose conformity, rapid dose fall-off from the PTV compared to 3DCRT, although the magnitude may not be clinically significant.

Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among women and the second leading cause of cancer-related death in Canadian women. Surgery is often the first line of treatment for low-risk early stage patients, followed by adjuvant radiation therapy to reduce the risk of local recurrence and prevent metastasis after lumpectomy or mastectomy. For high-risk patients with node positive disease or are at greater risk of nodal metastasis, radiation therapy will involve treatment of the intact breast or chest-wall as well as the regional lymph nodes.

We retrospectively evaluated the treatment plans of 354 patients with breast cancer with nodes positive or were at high risk of nodal involvement treated at our cancer centre. All patients were treated with a prescription dose of 50 Gy in 25 fractions to the intact breast or chest-wall and 50 Gy in 25 fractions to the supraclavicular region and, based on patient suitability and tolerance, were treated either using the deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) or free-breathing (FB) techniques.

Based on patient suitability and tolerance, 130 (36·7%) patients were treated with DIBH and 224 (63·3%) with FB techniques. There were 169 (47·7%) patients treated with intact breast, whereas 185 (52·3%) were treated for post-mastectomy chest-wall. The mean PTV_eval V92%, V95%, V100% and V105% for all patients are 99·4 ± 0·7, 97·6 ± 1·6, 74·8 ± 7·9 and 1·5 ± 3·2%, respectively. The mean ipsilateral lung V10Gy, V20Gy and V30Gy are 30·0 ± 5·3, 22·4 ± 4·7 and 18·4 ± 4·3% for intact breast and 30·9 ± 5·8, 23·5 ± 5·4 and 19·4 ± 5·0% for post-mastectomy patients with FB, respectively. The corresponding values for patients treated using DIBH are 26·3 ± 5·9, 18·9 ± 5·0 and 15·6 ± 4·7% for intact breast and 27·5 ± 6·5, 20·6 ± 5·7 and 17·1 ± 5·2% for post-mastectomy patients, respectively. The mean heart V10Gy, V20Gy, is 1·8 ± 1·7, 0·9 ± 1·0 for intact breast and 3·1 ± 2·2, 1·7 ± 1·6 for post-mastectomy patients with FB, respectively. The corresponding values with the DIBH are 0·5 ± 0·7, 0·1 ± 0·4 for intact breast and 1·1 ± 1·4, 0·4 ± 0·7 for post-mastectomy patients, respectively.

The use of 3 and/or 4 field hybrid intensity-modulated radiation therapy technique for radiation therapy of high-risk node positive breast cancer patients provides an efficient and reliable method for achieving superior dose uniformity, conformity and homogeneity in the breast or post-mastectomy chest-wall volume with minimal doses to the organs at risk. The development and implementation of a consistent treatment plan acceptability criteria in radiotherapy programmes would establish an evaluation process to define a consistent, standardised and transparent treatment path for all patients that would reduce significant variations in the acceptability of treatment plans.

The standard treatment modalities for prostate cancer include surgery, chemotherapy, hormonal therapy and radiation therapy or any combination depending on the stage of the tumour. Radiation therapy is a common and effective treatment modality for low-intermediate-risk patients with localised prostate cancer, to treat the intact prostate and seminal vesicles or prostate bed post prostatectomy. However, for high-risk patients with lymph node involvement, treatment with radiation will usually include treatment of the whole pelvis to cover the prostate and seminal vesicles or prostate bed and the pelvic lymph nodes followed by a boost delivery dose to the prostate and seminal vesicles or prostate bed.

We retrospectively analysed the treatment plans for 179 prostate cancer patients treated at the cancer centre with the volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique via RapidArc using 6 MV photon beam. Patients were either treated with a total prescription dose of 78 Gy in 39 fractions for patients with intact prostate or 66 Gy in 33 fractions for post prostatectomy patients.

There were 114 (64%) patients treated with 78 Gy/39 and 65 (36%) treated with 66 Gy/34. The mean homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI) and uniformity index (UI) for the PTV-primary of patients treated with 78 Gy are 0.06 ± 0.01, 1.04 ± 0.01 and 0.99 ± 0.01, respectively, and the corresponding mean values for patients treated with 66 Gy are 0.06 ± 0.02, 1.05 ± 0.01 and 0.99 ± 0.01, respectively. The mean PTV-primary V95%, V100% and V105% are 99.5 ± 0.5%, 78.8 ± 12.2% and 0.1 ± 0.5%, respectively, for patients treated with 78 Gy and 99.3 ± 0.9%, 78.1 ± 10.6% and 0.1 ± 0.4%, respectively, for patients treated with 66 Gy. The rectal V50Gy, V65Gy, V66.6Gy, V70Gy, V75Gy and V80Gy are 26.8 ± 9.1%, 14.2 ± 5.3%, 13.1 ± 5.0%, 10.8 ± 4.3%, 6.9 ± 3.1% and 0.1 ± 0.1%, respectively, for patients treated with 78 Gy and 33.7 ± 8.4%, 14.1 ± 4.5%, 6.7 ± 4.5%, 0.0 ± 0.2%, 0.0% and 0.0%, respectively, for patients treated with 66 Gy.

The use of VMAT technique for radiation therapy of high-risk prostate cancer patients is an efficient and reliable method for achieving superior dose conformity, uniformity and homogeneity to the PTV and minimal doses to the organs at risk. Results from this study provide the basis for the development and implementation of consistent treatment criteria in radiotherapy programs, have the potential to establish an evaluation process to define a consistent, standardised and transparent treatment path for all patients that reduces significant variations in the acceptability of treatment plans and potentially improve patient standard of care.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and sensitivity of the Varian portal dosimetry (PD) system as a quality assurance (QA) tool for breast intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment plans.

Four hundred portal dose images from 200 breast cancer patient IMRT treatment plans were analysed. The images were obtained using Varian PortalVision electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs) on Varian TrueBeam Linacs. Three patient plans were selected, and the multi-leaf collimator (MLC) positions were randomly altered by a mean of 0·5, 1, 1·5 and 2 mm with a standard deviation of 0·1 mm on 50, 75 and 100% of control points. Using the improved/global gamma calculation algorithm with a low-dose threshold of 10% in the EPID, the change in gamma passing rates for 3%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm and 1%/1 mm criterion was analysed as a function of the introduced error. The changes in the dose distributions of clinical target volume and organ at risk due to MLC positioning errors were also analysed.

Symmetric and asymmetric breast or chest wall plan fields are different in delivery as well as in the QA. An average gamma passing rate of 99·8 ± 0·5 is presented for 3%/3 mm symmetric plans and 96·9 ± 4·5 is presented for 3%/3 mm asymmetric plans. An average gamma passing rate of 98·4 ± 4·3 is presented for 2%/2 mm symmetric plans and 89·7 ± 9·5 is presented for 2%/2 mm asymmetric plans. A large-induced error in MLC positioning (2·0 mm, 100% of control points) results in an insignificant change in dose that would be delivered to the patient. However, EPID portal dosimetry is sensitive enough to detect even the slightest change in MLC positioning error (0·5 mm, 50% of control points).

Stricter pre-treatment QA action levels can be established for breast IMRT plans utilising EPID. For improved sensitivity, a multigamma criteria approach is recommended. The PD tool is sensitive enough to detect MLC positioning errors that contribute to even insignificant dose changes.

Brain tumours are relatively rare disease but present a large medical challenge as there is currently no method for early detection of the tumour and are typically not diagnosed until patients have progressed to symptomatic stage which significantly decreases chances of survival and also minimises treatment efficacy. However, if brain cancers can be diagnosed at early stages and also if clinicians have the potential to prospectively identify patients likely to respond to specific treatments, then there is a very high potential to increase patients’ treatment efficacy and survival. In recent years, there have been several investigations to identify biomarkers for brain cancer risk assessment, early detection and diagnosis, the likelihood of identifying which group of patients will benefit from a particular treatment and monitoring patient response to treatment.

This paper reports on a review of 21 current clinical and emerging biomarkers used in risk assessment, screening for early detection and diagnosis, and monitoring the response of treatment of brain cancers.

Understanding biomarkers, molecular mechanisms and signalling pathways can potentially lead to personalised and targeted treatment via therapeutic targeting of specific genetic aberrant pathways which play key roles in malignant brain tumour formation. The future holds promising for the use of biomarker analysis as a major factor for personalised and targeted brain cancer treatment, since biomarkers have the potential to measure early disease detection and diagnosis, the risk of disease development and progression, improved patient stratification for various treatment paradigms, provide accurate information of patient response to a specific treatment and inform clinicians about the likely outcome of a brain cancer diagnosis independent of the treatment received.

Research in the applications of the principles of quantum physics in oncology has progressed significantly over the past decades; and several research groups with professionals from diverse scientific background, including electrical engineers, mathematicians, biologists, atomic physicists, computer programmers, and biochemists, are working collaboratively in an unprecedented and pioneering economic, organisational and human effort searching for a wider and more effective, potentially definitive, understanding of the cancers. It is hypothesised that the principles of quantum physics could open new and broader understanding of the cancers and the development of new effective, targeted, accurate, personalised and possibly definitive cancer treatment.

This paper reports on a review of recent studies in the field of the applications of the principles of quantum physics in biology, chemistry, biochemistry and quantum physics in cancer research, including quantum physics principles and cancer, quantum modelling techniques, quantum dots and its applications in oncology, quantum cascade laser histopathology and quantum computing applications.

The applications of the principles of quantum physics in oncology, chemistry and biology are providing new perspectives and greater insights into a long-studied disease, which could result in a greater understanding of the cancers and the potential for personalised and definitive treatment methods.

An increasing number of external beam treatment modalities including intensity modulated radiation therapy, volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and stereotactic radiosurgery uses very small fields for treatment planning and delivery. However, there are major challenges in small photon field dosimetry, due to the partial occlusion of the direct photon beam source’s view from the measurement point, lack of lateral charged particle equilibrium, steep dose-rate gradient and volume averaging effect of the detector response and variation of the energy fluence in the lateral direction of the beam. Therefore, experimental measurements of dosimetric parameters such as percent depth doses (PDDs), beam profiles and relative output factors (ROFs) for small fields continue to be a challenge.

In this study, we used a homogeneous water phantom and the heterogeneous anthropomorphic stereotactic end-to-end verification (STEEV) head phantom for all dose measurements and calculations. PDDs, lateral dose profiles and ROFs were calculated in the Eclipse Treatment Planning System version 13·6 using the Acuros XB (AXB) and the analytical anisotropic algorithms (AAAs) in a homogenous water phantom. Monte Carlo (MC) simulations and measurements using the Exradin W1 Scintillator were also accomplished for four photon energies: 6 MV, 6FFF, 10 MV and 10FFF. Two VMAT treatment plans were generated for two different targets: one located in the brain and the other in the neck (close to the trachea) in the head phantom (CIRS, Norfolk, VA, USA). A Varian Truebeam linear accelerator (Varian, Palo Alto, CA, USA) was used for all treatment deliveries. Calculated results with AXB and AAA were compared with MC simulations and measurements.

The average difference of PDDs between W1 Exradin Scintillator measurements and MC simulations, AAA and AXB algorithm calculations were 1·2, 2·4 and 3·2%, respectively, for all field sizes and energies. AXB and AAA showed differences in ROF of about 0·3 and 2·9%, respectively, compared with W1 Exradin Scintillator measured values. For the target located in the brain in the head phantom, the average dose difference between W1 Exradin Scintillator and the MC simulations, AAA and AXB were 0·2, 3·2 and 2·7%, respectively, for all field sizes. Similarly, for the target located in the neck, the respective dose differences were 3·8, 5·7 and 3·5%.

In this study, we compared dosimetric parameters such as PDD, beam profile and ROFs in water phantom and isocenter point dose measurements in an anthropomorphic head phantom representing a patient. We observed that measurements using the W1 Exradin scintillator agreed well with MC simulations and can be used efficiently for dosimetric parameters such as PDDs and dose profiles and patient-specific quality assurance measurements for small fields. In both homogenous and heterogeneous media, the AXB algorithm dose prediction agrees well with MC and measurements and was found to be superior to the AAA algorithm.

Radiation therapy (RT) remains a common and effective treatment modality for patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. Technological advancements over the past decade have resulted in the introduction of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) planning and delivery techniques that maximise the dose of radiation delivered to the prostate while sparing organs at risk (OAR). A more recent and evolving IMRT technique, called volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), involves a continuous irradiation at a constant or variable dose rate when the gantry rotates around the prostate using one or more arcs.

This paper reports on a dosimetric evaluation of our implementation of VMAT technique for prostate cancer treatment. A retrospective analysis of VMAT plans was performed for 300 prostate cancer patients treated during the period of January 2013 to December 2014. Two prescription cohorts of patients treated to a dose of 78 Gy in 39 fractions as the primary radiation therapy treatment (XRT) and 66 Gy in 33 fractions as a post-op or salvage XRT were considered.

The mean and maximal doses, dose inhomogeneities and conformity indexes for the planning target volumes were evaluated for each prescription cohort of patients. Similarly, the doses to OAR such as rectum, bladder and femoral heads were also assessed for various dose levels.

This study shows that highly conformal radiation dose distribution for the treatment of prostate cancer is achievable with the VMAT technique. It provides evidence to support the adoption of such conformal technology in many disease sites such as the prostate. We believe that our experience reported here could help form the foundation for individual institutions to evaluate and develop the most suitable planning criteria tailored to their own needs and priority. This endeavour hopefully will provide further improvement in the planning process and, therefore, help achieve an effective and efficient delivery of radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

The purpose of the study was to investigate the detailed angularly dependent attenuation characteristics of three different commercial couch-tops: Varian IGRT, Qfix kVue Standard and Qfix kVue Dose Max couch-tops used in radiation therapy.

The attenuation of photon beams by the treatment couch-tops was measured using a farmer chamber inserted at the centre of a 16 cm diameter cylindrical acrylic phantom for five different photon energies: 6 MV, 6FFF MV, 10 MV, 10FFF MV and 15 MV photon beams. The Varian IGRT couch-top has three different thicknesses thus attenuation measurements were done at the three different longitudinal locations. Measurements were made with the sliding support rails of the Qfix kVue Standard and Qfix kVue Dose Max couch-tops at both ‘rails-in’ and ‘rails-out’ positions. All measurements were taken for several projections through 360° movement of the gantry and for two different field sizes; 5×5 cm2 and 10×10 cm2.

The results indicate that the maximum attenuation of the Varian IGRT couch-top at the thin, medium and thick portions are 5·1, 5·7 and 8·9%, respectively, the Qfix kVue Standard couch with the rails-in and rails-out are 11·2 and 13·7%, respectively, and Qfix kVue Dose Max couch-top with rails-in and rails-out are 9·7 and 13·8%, respectively. The results from this study can be used to account for the couch-top attenuation during radiation treatment planning of patients treated with these couch-tops.

Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) has emerged as one of the most favourable techniques for radiotherapy treatment in recent years because of its conformal dose distribution to the planning target volume (PTV), lower doses to adjacent normal organs at risk (OARs) and faster and easier dose delivery. A typical conventional VMAT protocol for low-intermediate risk prostate cancer uses a flattened 6 MV photon beam to deliver 78 Gy in 39 fractions, however, a recent Radiation Therapy Oncology Group study investigated prostate cancer radiotherapy with a hypofractionated dose scheme of 36·25 Gy in 5 fractions. One advantage of flattening filter-free (FFF) beams in radiotherapy is the higher doses in the central region on the dose profile and much higher dose delivery rates.

This paper reports the investigation of preclinical studies for implementing FFF beams in hypofractionated VMAT for prostate cancer radiotherapy. All treatment planning were accomplished using Varian EclipseTM treatment planning system version 11 and delivered on Varian Truebeam linear accelerators. The studies compared the biological-effective dose–volume histograms and dose–volume histograms of PTV and OARs for 20 patients using conventional and hypofractionated dose schemes. The study also evaluated the 6 and 10 MV FFF by comparing 6 and 10 MV VMAT plans with the FFF beams. The treatment time was investigated using plans with 6 MV beams and doses of 2, 4, 5, 6, 7·25 Gy/fraction and plans with 10 MV FFF with a dose of 7·25 Gy/fraction. We also investigated an angular monitor unit (MU) quantity (MU/deg) and its threshold value for RapidArcTM plans, beyond which FFF beams can be considered superior to flattened beams in terms of treatment time increased caused by higher dose per fraction.

The results show that the hypofractionated plans resulted in greater biological equivalent doses to PTV and lower doses to OARs. The 10 MV FFF plans have statistically lower mean doses to all the OARs, whereas PTV homogeneity index remains the same compared with other beam energies. The mean body integral dose for the 20 patients is 8·7% lower using 10 MV FFF compared with 6 MV FFF mainly because of the higher energy and less required MUs with the 10 MV FFF beam. The hypofractionated scheme with 10 MV FFF plan has the same treatment time as that of the 6 MV plan at 2 Gy/fraction, as the higher dose delivery rates at 10 MV FFF can compensate for the higher prescribed dose per fraction without the need of extra treatment time.

In this study, we observed that the 10 MV FFF beam is better for hypofractionated prostate cancer VMAT plan delivery. The threshold value of MU/deg is found to be 2·083 MU/deg based on our machine configurations.

Electronic portal imaging device (EPID) offers high-resolution digital image that can be compared with a predicted portal dose image. A very common method to quantitatively compare a measured and calculated dose distribution that is routinely used for quality assurance (QA) of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment plans is the evaluation of the gamma index. The purpose of this work was to evaluate the gamma passing rate (%GP), maximum gamma (γmax), average gamma (γave), maximum dose difference (DDmax) and the average dose difference (DDave) for various regions of interest using Varian’s implementation of three absolute dose gamma calculation techniques of improved, local, and combined improved and local.

We analyzed 232 portal dose images from 100 prostate cancer patients’ VMAT plans obtained using the Varian EPID on TrueBeam Linacs.

Our data show that the %GP, γmax and γave depend on the gamma calculation method and the acceptance criteria. Higher %GP values were obtained compared with both our current institutional action level and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 119 recommendations.

The results of this study can be used to establish stricter action levels for pre-treatment QA of prostate VMAT plans. A stricter 3%/3 mm improved gamma criterion with a passing rate of 97% or the 2%/2 mm improved gamma criterion with a passing rate of 95% can be achieved without additional measurements or configurations.

Due to the increased degree of modulation and complexity of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans, it is necessary to have a pre-treatment patient-specific quality assurance (QA) programme. The gamma index is commonly used to quantitatively compare two dose distributions. In this study we investigated the sensitivity of single- and multi-gamma criteria techniques to detect multileaf collimator (MLC) positioning errors using the Varian TrueBeam Electronic Portal Imaging DeviceTM (EPID) dosimetry and the ArcCHECKTM device.

All active MLC positions of seven intact prostate patients VMAT plans were randomly changed with a mean value of 0.25, 0.5, 1 and 2 mm and a standard deviation of 0.1 mm on 25, 50, 75 and 100% of the control points. The change in gamma passing rates of six gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm, 3%/1 mm, 2%/2 mm, 2%/1 mm and 1%/1 mm were analysed individually (single-gamma criterion) and as a group (multi-gamma criteria) as a function of the simulated errors. We used the improved and global gamma calculation algorithms with a low dose threshold of 10% in the EPID and ArcCHECK software, respectively. The changes in the planning target volume dose distributions and the organs at risk due to the MLC positioning errors were also studied.

When 25, 50, 75 and 100% of the control points were modified by the introduction of the simulated errors, the smallest detectable errors with the EPID were 2, 1, 0.5 and 0.5 mm, respectively, using the multi-gamma criteria technique. Similarly for the single-gamma criteria technique errors as small as 2, 1, 1 and 1 mm applied to 25, 50, 75 and 100% of the control points, respectively, were detectable using a 2%/2 mm criterion. However, the smallest detectable errors with the ArcCHECK when using the multi-gamma criteria technique were 2, 2 and 1 mm when MLC errors were applied on 50, 75 and 100% of the control points. When only 25% of the control points were affected the ArcCHECK were unable to detect any of the errors applied. No noticeable difference was observed in the sensitivity using the single- or the multi-gamma criteria techniques with the ArcCHECK.

The Varian TrueBeam EPID dosimetry shows a higher sensitivity in detecting MLC positioning errors compared with the ArcCHECK regardless of using the single- or the multi-gamma criteria techniques. Higher sensitivity was observed using the multi-gamma criteria technique compared with the single-criterion technique when using the EPID.