Monte Carlo Evaluation of RapidArc Oropharynx Treatment Planning Strategies for Sparing of Midline Structures

The aim of the study was to perform the Monte Carlo (MC) evaluation of RapidArc (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) dose calculations for four oropharynx midline sparing planning strategies. Six patients with squamous cell cancer of the oropharynx were each planned with four RapidArc head and neck treatment strategies consisting of single and double photon arcs. In each case, RTOG0522 protocol objectives were used during planning optimization. Dose calculations performed with the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) are compared against BEAMnrc/DOSXYZnrc dose calculations for the 24-plan dataset. Mean dose and dose-to-98%-of-structure-volume (D(98%)) were used as metrics in the evaluation of dose to planning target volumes (PTVs). Mean dose and dose-to-2%-of-structure-volume (D(2%)) were used to evaluate dose differences within organs at risk (OAR). Differences in the conformity index (CI) and the homogeneity index (HI) as well as 3D dose distributions were also observed. AAA calculated PTV mean dose, D(98%), and HIs showed very good agreement with MC dose calculations within the 0.8% MC (statistical) calculation uncertainty. Regional node volume (PTV-80%) mean dose and D(98%) were found to be overestimated (1.3%, sigma = 0.8% and 2.3%, sigma = 0.8%, respectively) by the AAA with respect to MC calculations. Mean dose and D(2%) to OAR were also observed to be consistently overestimated by the AAA. Increasing dose calculation differences were found in planning strategies exhibiting a higher overall fluence modulation. From the plan dataset, the largest local dose differences were observed in heavily shielded regions and within the esophageal and sinus cavities. AAA dose calculations as implemented in RapidArc demonstrate excellent agreement with MC calculations in unshielded regions containing moderate inhomogeneities. Acceptable agreement is achieved in regions of increased MLC shielding. Differences in dose are attributed to inaccuracies in the AAA-modulated fluence modeling, modeling of material inhomogeneities and dose deposition within low-density materials. The use of MC dose calculations leads to the same general conclusion as using AAA that a two arc delivery with limited collimator opening can provide the greatest amount of midline sparing compared to the other techniques investigated.