Properties of the anisotropy of dose contributions: A planning study on prostate cases

PURPOSE: To characterize the static properties of the anisotropy of dose contributions for different treatment techniques on real patient data (prostate cases). From this, we aim to define a class of treatment techniques with invariant anisotropy distribution carrying information of target coverage and organ‐at‐risk (OAR) sparing. The anisotropy presumably is a helpful quantity for plan adaptation problems. METHODS: The anisotropy field is analyzed for different intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques for a total of ten planning CTs of prostate cases. Primary irradiation directions ranged from 5 to 15. The uniqueness of anisotropy was explored: In particular, the anisotropy distribution inside the planning treatment volume (PTV) and in its vicinity was investigated. Furthermore, deviations of the anisotropy under beam rotations were explored by direct plan comparison as an indicating the susceptibility of each planned technique to changes in the geometric plan configuration. In addition, plan comparisons enabled the categorization of treatment techniques in terms of their anisotropy distribution. RESULTS: The anisotropy profile inside the PTV and in the transition between OAR and PTV is independent of the treatment technique as long as a sufficient number of beams contribute to the dose distribution. Techniques with multiple beams constitute a class of almost identical and technique‐independent anisotropy distribution. For this class of techniques, substructures of the anisotropy are particularly pronounced in the PTV, thus offering good options for applying adaptation rules. Additionally, the techniques forming the mentioned class fortunately allow a better OAR sparing at constant PTV coverage. Besides the characterization of the distribution, a pairwise plan comparison reveals each technique's susceptibility to deviations which decreases for an increasing number of primary irradiation directions. CONCLUSIONS: Techniques using many irradiation directions form a class of almost identical anisotropy distributions which are assumed to provide a basis for improved adaptation procedures. Encouragingly, these techniques deliver quite invariant anisotropy distributions with respect to rotations correlated with good plan qualities than techniques using few gantry angles. The following will be the next steps toward anisotropy‐based adaptation: first, the quantification of anisotropy regarding organ deformations; and second, establishing the interrelation between the anisotropy and beam shaping.