Purpose: To assess and compare the dosimetric parameters obtained between three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), three-dimensional field-in-field (3DFIF), 5-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT MF5), tangential IMRT (tIMRT), tangential volumetric modulated arc therapy (tVMAT), electronic tissue compensation (Ecomp), and Hybrid treatment plans. Material and Methods: Thirty planning computed tomography datasets obtained from patients previously treated with whole breast radiation therapy (WBRT) were utilized in this study. Treatment plans were created for 3DCRT, 3DFIF, IMRT MF5, tIMRT, tVMAT, Ecomp, and Hybrid techniques using Eclipse Treatment Planning System (version 13.6) with a prescribed dose of 42.5 Gy in 16 fractions. Results: Techniques with tangential beams produced statistically significantly better organs-at-risk (OARs) dosimetry (p < 0.001). Planning target volume Homogeneity Index (HI) was found to be significantly different among all techniques (p < 0.001), with Ecomp resulting in better HI (1.061 ± 0.029). Ecomp was also observed to require relatively shorter planning time (p < 0.001). Conclusions Techniques using tangential fields arrangements produced improved OARs dosimetry. Of all the treatment planning techniques employed in this study, Ecomp was found to be relatively easy to plan and produce acceptable dosimetry for WBRT in a short time.

Purpose: To assess and compare the dosimetric parameters obtained between three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), three-dimensional field-in-field (3DFIF), 5-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT MF5), tangential IMRT (tIMRT), tangential volumetric modulated arc therapy (tVMAT), electronic tissue compensation (Ecomp), and Hybrid treatment plans. Material and Methods: Thirty planning computed tomography datasets obtained from patients previously treated with whole breast radiation therapy (WBRT) were utilized in this study. Treatment plans were created for 3DCRT, 3DFIF, IMRT MF5, tIMRT, tVMAT, Ecomp, and Hybrid techniques using Eclipse Treatment Planning System (version 13.6) with a prescribed dose of 42.5 Gy in 16 fractions. Results: Techniques with tangential beams produced statistically significantly better organs-at-risk (OARs) dosimetry (p < 0.001). Planning target volume Homogeneity Index (HI) was found to be significantly different among all techniques (p < 0.001), with Ecomp resulting in better HI (1.061 ± 0.029). Ecomp was also observed to require relatively shorter planning time (p < 0.001). Conclusions Techniques using tangential fields arrangements produced improved OARs dosimetry. Of all the treatment planning techniques employed in this study, Ecomp was found to be relatively easy to plan and produce acceptable dosimetry for WBRT in a short time.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the suitability of using cone-beam computed tomography images (CBCTs) produced in a Leksell Gamma Knife (LGK) Icon system to generate electron density information for the convolution algorithm in Leksell GammaPlan (LGP) Treatment Planning System (TPS). Materials and Methods: A retrospective set of 30 LGK treatment plans generated for patients with multiple metastases was selected in this study. Both CBCTs and fan-beam CTs were used to provide electron density data for the convolution algorithm. Plan quality metrics such as coverage, selectivity, gradient index, and beam-on time were used to assess the changes introduced by convolution using CBCT (convCBCT) and planning CT (convCT) data compared to the homogeneous TMR10 algorithm. Results: The mean beam-on time for TMR10 and convCBCT was found to be 18.9 ± 5.8 minutes and 21.7 ± 6.6 minutes, respectively. The absolute mean difference between TMR10 and convCBCT for coverage, selectivity, and gradient index were 0.001, 0.02, and 0.0002, respectively. The calculated beam-on times for convCBCT were higher than the time calculated for convCT treatment plans. This is attributed to the considerable variation in Hounsfield values (HU) dependent on the position within the field of view. Conclusion The artifacts from the CBCT’s limited field-of-view and considerable HU variation need to be taken into account before considering the use of convolution algorithm for dose calculation on CBCT image datasets, and electron data derived from the onboard CBCT should be used with caution.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the suitability of using cone-beam computed tomography images (CBCTs) produced in a Leksell Gamma Knife (LGK) Icon system to generate electron density information for the convolution algorithm in Leksell GammaPlan (LGP) Treatment Planning System (TPS). Materials and Methods: A retrospective set of 30 LGK treatment plans generated for patients with multiple metastases was selected in this study. Both CBCTs and fan-beam CTs were used to provide electron density data for the convolution algorithm. Plan quality metrics such as coverage, selectivity, gradient index, and beam-on time were used to assess the changes introduced by convolution using CBCT (convCBCT) and planning CT (convCT) data compared to the homogeneous TMR10 algorithm. Results: The mean beam-on time for TMR10 and convCBCT was found to be 18.9 ± 5.8 minutes and 21.7 ± 6.6 minutes, respectively. The absolute mean difference between TMR10 and convCBCT for coverage, selectivity, and gradient index were 0.001, 0.02, and 0.0002, respectively. The calculated beam-on times for convCBCT were higher than the time calculated for convCT treatment plans. This is attributed to the considerable variation in Hounsfield values (HU) dependent on the position within the field of view. Conclusion The artifacts from the CBCT’s limited field-of-view and considerable HU variation need to be taken into account before considering the use of convolution algorithm for dose calculation on CBCT image datasets, and electron data derived from the onboard CBCT should be used with caution.