Algorithms used in heterogeneous dose calculations show systematic differences as measured with the Radiological Physics Center's anthropomorphic thorax phantom used for RTOG credentialing

Contouring variability of human- and deformable-generated contours in radiotherapy for prostate cancer

This study was designed to evaluate contouring variability of human-and deformable-generated contours on planning CT (PCT) and CBCT for ten patients with low-or intermediate-risk prostate cancer. For each patient in this study, five radiation oncologists contoured the prostate, bladder, and rectum, on one PCT dataset and five CBCT datasets. Consensus contours were generated using the STAPLE method in the CERR software package. Observer contours were compared to consensus contour, and contour metrics (Dice coefficient, Hausdorff distance, Contour Distance, Center-of-Mass [COM] Deviation) were calculated. In addition, the first day CBCT was registered to subsequent CBCT fractions (CBCTn: CBCT2-CBCT5) via B-spline Deformable Image Registration (DIR). Contours were transferred from CBCT1 to CBCTn via the deformation field, and contour metrics were calculated through comparison with consensus contours generated from human contour set. The average contour metrics for prostate contours on PCT and CBCT were as follows: Dice coefficient-0.892 (PCT), 0.872 (CBCT-Human), 0.824 (CBCT-Deformed); Hausdorff distance-4.75 mm (PCT), 5.22 mm (CBCT-Human), 5.94 mm (CBCT-Deformed); Contour Distance (overall contour)-1.41 mm (PCT), 1.66 mm (CBCT-Human), 2.30 mm (CBCT-Deformed); COM Deviation-2.01 mm (PCT), 2.78 mm (CBCT-Human), 3.45 mm (CBCT-Deformed). For human contours on PCT and CBCT, the difference in average Dice coefficient between PCT and CBCT (approx. 2%) and Hausdorff distance (approx. 0.5 mm) was small compared to the variation between observers for each patient (standard deviation in Dice coefficient of 5% and Hausdorff distance of 2.0 mm). However, additional contouring variation was found for the deformable-generated contours (approximately 5.0% decrease in Dice coefficient and 0.7 mm increase in Hausdorff distance relative to human-generated contours on CBCT). Though deformable contours provide a reasonable starting point for contouring on CBCT, we conclude that contours generated with B-Spline DIR require physician review and editing if they are to be used in the clinic.

Flattening filter-free accelerators: a report from the AAPM Therapy Emerging Technology Assessment Work Group

This report describes the current state of flattening filter‐free (FFF) radiotherapy beams implemented on conventional linear accelerators, and is aimed primarily at practicing medical physicists. The Therapy Emerging Technology Assessment Work Group of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) formed a writing group to assess FFF technology. The published literature on FFF technology was reviewed, along with technical specifications provided by vendors. Based on this information, supplemented by the clinical experience of the group members, consensus guidelines and recommendations for implementation of FFF technology were developed. Areas in need of further investigation were identified. Removing the flattening filter increases beam intensity, especially near the central axis. Increased intensity reduces treatment time, especially for high‐dose stereotactic radiotherapy/radiosurgery (SRT/SRS). Furthermore, removing the flattening filter reduces out‐of‐field dose and improves beam modeling accuracy. FFF beams are advantageous for small field (e.g., SRS) treatments and are appropriate for intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). For conventional 3D radiotherapy of large targets, FFF beams may be disadvantageous compared to flattened beams because of the heterogeneity of FFF beam across the target (unless modulation is employed). For any application, the nonflat beam characteristics and substantially higher dose rates require consideration during the commissioning and quality assurance processes relative to flattened beams, and the appropriate clinical use of the technology needs to be identified. Consideration also needs to be given to these unique characteristics when undertaking facility planning. Several areas still warrant further research and development. Recommendations pertinent to FFF technology, including acceptance testing, commissioning, quality assurance, radiation safety, and facility planning, are presented. Examples of clinical applications are provided. Several of the areas in which future research and development are needed are also indicated.

PACS number: 87.53.‐j, 87.53.Bn, 87.53.Ly, 87.55.‐x, 87.55.N‐, 87.56.bc

Stereotactic radiotherapy of intrapulmonary lesions: comparison of different dose calculation algorithms for Oncentra MasterPlan®

BACKGROUND

The use of high accuracy dose calculation algorithms, such as Monte Carlo (MC) and Collapsed Cone (CC) determine dose in inhomogeneous tissue more accurately than pencil beam (PB) algorithms. However, prescription protocols based on clinical experience with PB are often used for treatment plans calculated with CC. This may lead to treatment plans with changes in field size (FS) and changes in dose to organs at risk (OAR), especially for small tumor volumes in lung tissue treated with SABR.

METHODS

We re-evaluated 17 3D-conformal treatment plans for small intrapulmonary lesions with a prescription of 60 Gy in fractions of 7.5 Gy to the 80% isodose. All treatment plans were initially calculated in Oncentra MasterPlan® using a PB algorithm and recalculated with CC (CCre-calc). Furthermore, a CC-based plan with coverage similar to the PB plan (CCcov) and a CC plan with relaxed coverage criteria (CCclin), were created. The plans were analyzed in terms of Dmean, Dmin, Dmax and coverage for GTV, PTV and ITV. Changes in mean lung dose (MLD), V10Gy and V20Gy were evaluated for the lungs. The re-planned CC plans were compared to the original PB plans regarding changes in total monitor units (MU) and average FS.

RESULTS

When PB plans were recalculated with CC, the average V60Gy of GTV, ITV and PTV decreased by 13.2%, 19.9% and 41.4%, respectively. Average Dmean decreased by 9% (GTV), 11.6% (ITV) and 14.2% (PTV). Dmin decreased by 18.5% (GTV), 21.3% (ITV) and 17.5% (PTV). Dmax declined by 7.5%. PTV coverage correlated with PTV volume (p < 0.001). MLD, V10Gy, and V20Gy were significantly reduced in the CC plans. Both, CCcov and CCclin had significantly increased MUs and FS compared to PB.

CONCLUSIONS

Recalculation of PB plans for small lung lesions with CC showed a strong decline in dose and coverage in GTV, ITV and PTV, and declined dose in the lung. Thus, switching from a PB algorithm to CC, while aiming to obtain similar target coverage, can be associated with application of more MU and extension of radiotherapy fields, causing greater OAR exposition.

A clinical study of lung cancer dose calculation accuracy with Monte Carlo simulation

Background

The accuracy of dose calculation is crucial to the quality of treatment planning and, consequently, to the dose delivered to patients undergoing radiation therapy. Current general calculation algorithms such as Pencil Beam Convolution (PBC) and Collapsed Cone Convolution (CCC) have shortcomings in regard to severe inhomogeneities, particularly in those regions where charged particle equilibrium does not hold. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the PBC and CCC algorithms in lung cancer radiotherapy using Monte Carlo (MC) technology.

Methods and materials

Four treatment plans were designed using Oncentra Masterplan TPS for each patient. Two intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans were developed using the PBC and CCC algorithms, and two three-dimensional conformal therapy (3DCRT) plans were developed using the PBC and CCC algorithms. The DICOM-RT files of the treatment plans were exported to the Monte Carlo system to recalculate. The dose distributions of GTV, PTV and ipsilateral lung calculated by the TPS and MC were compared.

Result

For 3DCRT and IMRT plans, the mean dose differences for GTV between the CCC and MC increased with decreasing of the GTV volume. For IMRT, the mean dose differences were found to be higher than that of 3DCRT. The CCC algorithm overestimated the GTV mean dose by approximately 3% for IMRT. For 3DCRT plans, when the volume of the GTV was greater than 100 cm³, the mean doses calculated by CCC and MC almost have no difference. PBC shows large deviations from the MC algorithm. For the dose to the ipsilateral lung, the CCC algorithm overestimated the dose to the entire lung, and the PBC algorithm overestimated V₂₀ but underestimated V₅; the difference in V₁₀ was not statistically significant.

Conclusions

PBC substantially overestimates the dose to the tumour, but the CCC is similar to the MC simulation. It is recommended that the treatment plans for lung cancer be developed using an advanced dose calculation algorithm other than PBC. MC can accurately calculate the dose distribution in lung cancer and can provide a notably effective tool for benchmarking the performance of other dose calculation algorithms within patients.

GTV-based prescription in SBRT for lung lesions using advanced dose calculation algorithms

Background

The aim of current study was to investigate the way dose is prescribed to lung lesions during SBRT using advanced dose calculation algorithms that take into account electron transport (type B algorithms). As type A algorithms do not take into account secondary electron transport, they overestimate the dose to lung lesions. Type B algorithms are more accurate but still no consensus is reached regarding dose prescription. The positive clinical results obtained using type A algorithms should be used as a starting point.

Methods

In current work a dose-calculation experiment is performed, presenting different prescription methods. Three cases with three different sizes of peripheral lung lesions were planned using three different treatment platforms. For each individual case 60 Gy to the PTV was prescribed using a type A algorithm and the dose distribution was recalculated using a type B algorithm in order to evaluate the impact of the secondary electron transport. Secondly, for each case a type B algorithm was used to prescribe 48 Gy to the PTV, and the resulting doses to the GTV were analyzed. Finally, prescriptions based on specific GTV dose volumes were evaluated.

Results

When using a type A algorithm to prescribe the same dose to the PTV, the differences regarding median GTV doses among platforms and cases were always less than 10% of the prescription dose. The prescription to the PTV based on type B algorithms, leads to a more important variability of the median GTV dose among cases and among platforms, (respectively 24%, and 28%). However, when 54 Gy was prescribed as median GTV dose, using a type B algorithm, the variability observed was minimal.

Conclusion

Normalizing the prescription dose to the median GTV dose for lung lesions avoids variability among different cases and treatment platforms of SBRT when type B algorithms are used to calculate the dose. The combination of using a type A algorithm to optimize a homogeneous dose in the PTV and using a type B algorithm to prescribe the median GTV dose provides a very robust method for treating lung lesions.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13014-014-0223-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Commissioning and initial stereotactic ablative radiotherapy experience with Vero

The purpose of this study is to describe the comprehensive commissioning process and initial clinical performance of the Vero linear accelerator, a new radiotherapy device recently installed at UT Southwestern Medical Center specifically developed for delivery of image‐guided stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). The Vero system utilizes a ring gantry to integrate a beam delivery platform with image guidance systems. The ring is capable of rotating ± 60° about the vertical axis to facilitate noncoplanar beam arrangements ideal for SABR delivery. The beam delivery platform consists of a 6 MV C‐band linac with a 60 leaf MLC projecting a maximum field size of 15×15 cm2 at isocenter. The Vero planning and delivery systems support a range of treatment techniques, including fixed beam conformal, dynamic conformal arcs, fixed gantry IMRT in either SMLC (step‐and‐shoot) or DMLC (dynamic) delivery, and hybrid arcs, which combines dynamic conformal arcs and fixed beam IMRT delivery. The accelerator and treatment head are mounted on a gimbal mechanism that allows the linac and MLC to pivot in two dimensions for tumor tracking. Two orthogonal kV imaging subsystems built into the ring facilitate both stereoscopic and volumetric (CBCT) image guidance. The system is also equipped with an always‐active electronic portal imaging device (EPID). We present our commissioning process and initial clinical experience focusing on SABR applications with the Vero, including: (1) beam data acquisition; (2) dosimetric commissioning of the treatment planning system, including evaluation of a Monte Carlo algorithm in a specially‐designed anthropomorphic thorax phantom; (3) validation using the Radiological Physics Center thorax, head and neck (IMRT), and spine credentialing phantoms; (4) end‐to‐end evaluation of IGRT localization accuracy; (5) ongoing system performance, including isocenter stability; and (6) clinical SABR applications.

PACS number: 87.53.Ly

Quality assurance for clinical trials

Cooperative groups, of which the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group is one example, conduct national clinical trials that often involve the use of radiation therapy. In preparation for such a trial, the cooperative group prepares a protocol to define the goals of the trial, the rationale for its design, and the details of the treatment procedure to be followed. The Radiological Physics Center (RPC) is one of several quality assurance (QA) offices that is charged with assuring that participating institutions deliver doses that are clinically consistent and comparable. The RPC does this by conducting a variety of independent audits and credentialing processes. The RPC has compiled data showing that credentialing can help institutions comply with the requirements of a cooperative group clinical protocol. Phantom irradiations have been demonstrated to exercise an institution's procedures for planning and delivering advanced external beam techniques (1-3). Similarly, RPC data indicate that a rapid review of patient treatment records or planning procedures can improve compliance with clinical trials (4). The experiences of the RPC are presented as examples of the contributions that a national clinical trials QA center can make to cooperative group trials. These experiences illustrate the critical need for comprehensive QA to assure that clinical trials are successful and cost-effective. The RPC is supported by grants CA 10953 and CA 81647 from the National Cancer Institute, NIH, DHHS.

Credentialing for participation in clinical trials

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) clinical cooperative groups have been instrumental over the past 50 years in developing clinical trials and evidence-based clinical trial processes for improvements in patient care. The cooperative groups are undergoing a transformation process to launch, conduct, and publish clinical trials more rapidly. Institutional participation in clinical trials can be made more efficient and include the expansion of relationships with international partners. This paper reviews the current processes that are in use in radiation therapy trials and the importance of maintaining effective credentialing strategies to assure the quality of the outcomes of clinical trials. The paper offers strategies to streamline and harmonize credentialing tools and processes moving forward as the NCI undergoes transformative change in the conduct of clinical trials.