Secondary monitor unit calculations for VMAT using parallelized Monte Carlo simulations

Monitor unit verification for Varian TrueBeam VMAT plans using Monte Carlo calculations and phase space data

To use the open-source Monte Carlo (MC) software calculations for TPS monitor unit verification of VMAT plans, delivered with the Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator, and compare the results with a commercial software product, following the guidelines set in AAPM Task Group 219. The TrueBeam is modeled in EGSnrc using the Varian-provided phase-space files. Thirteen VMAT TrueBeam treatment plans representing various anatomical regions were evaluated, comprising 37 treatment arcs. VMAT plans simulations were performed on a computing cluster, using 107 -109 particle histories per arc. Point dose differences at five reference points per arc were compared between Eclipse, MC, and the commercial software, MUCheck. MC simulation with 5 × 107 histories per arc offered good agreement with Eclipse and a reasonable average calculation time of 9-18 min per full plan. The average absolute difference was 3.0%, with only 22% of all points exceeding the 5% action limit. In contrast, the MUCheck average absolute difference was 8.4%, with 60% of points exceeding the 5% dose difference. Lung plans were particularly problematic for MUCheck, with an average absolute difference of approximately 16%. Our EGSnrc-based MC framework can be used for the MU verification of VMAT plans calculated for the Varian TrueBeam; furthermore, our phase space approach can be adapted to other treatment devices by using appropriate phase space files. The use of 5 × 107 histories consistently satisfied the 5% action limit across all plan types for the majority of points, performing significantly better than a commercial MU verification system, MUCheck. As faster processors and cloud computing facilities become even more widely available, this approach can be readily implemented in clinical settings.

Is a weekly qualitative picket fence test sufficient? A proposed alternate EPID-based weekly MLC QA program

PURPOSE

Well-designed routine multileaf collimator (MLC) quality assurance (QA) is important to assure external-beam radiation treatment delivery accuracy. This study evaluates the clinical necessity of a comprehensive weekly (C-Weekly) MLC QA program compared to the American Association of Physics in Medicinerecommended weekly picket fence test (PF-Weekly), based on our seven-year experience with weekly MLC QA.

METHODS

The C-Weekly MLC QA program used in this study includes 5 tests to analyze: (1) absolute MLC leaf position; (2) interdigitation MLC leaf position; (3) picket fence MLC leaf positions at static gantry angle; (4) minimum leaf-gap setting; and (5) volumetric-modulated arc therapy delivery. A total of 20,226 QA images from 16,855 tests (3,371 tests × 5) for 11 linacs at 5 photon clinical sites from May 2014 to June 2021 were analyzed. Failure mode and effects analysis was performed with 5 failure modes related to the 5 tests. For each failure mode, a risk probability number (RPN) was calculated for a C-Weekly and a PF-Weekly MLC QA program. The probability of occurrence was evaluated from statistical analyses of the C-Weekly MLC QA.

RESULTS

The total number of failures for these 16,855 tests was 143 (0.9%): 39 (27.3%) for absolute MLC leaf position, 13 (9.1%) for interdigitation position, 9 (6.3%) for static gantry picket fence, 2 (1.4%) for minimum leaf-gap setting, and 80 (55.9%) for VMAT delivery. RPN scores for PF-Weekly MLC QA ranged from 60 to 192 and from 48 to 96 for C-Weekly MLC QA.

CONCLUSION

RPNs for the 5 failure modes of MLC QA tests were quantitatively determined and analyzed. A comprehensive weekly MLC QA is imperative to lower the RPNs of the 5 failure modes to the desired level (<125); those from the PF-Weekly MLC QA program were found to be higher (>125). This supports the clinical necessity for comprehensive weekly MLC QA.

Validation of a secondary dose check tool against Monte Carlo and analytical clinical dose calculation algorithms in VMAT

PURPOSE

Patient-specific quality assurance (QA) is very important in radiotherapy, especially for patients with highly conformed treatment plans like VMAT plans. Traditional QA protocols for these plans are time-consuming reducing considerably the time available for patient treatments. In this work, a new MC-based secondary dose check software (SciMoCa) is evaluated and benchmarked against well-established TPS (Monaco and Pinnacle3 ) by means of treatment plans and dose measurements.

METHODS

Fifty VMAT plans have been computed using same calculation parameters with SciMoCa and the two primary TPSs. Plans were validated with measurements performed with a 3D diode detector (ArcCHECK) by translating patient plans to phantom geometry. Calculation accuracy was assessed by measuring point dose differences and gamma passing rates (GPR) from a 3D gamma analysis with 3%-2 mm criteria. Comparison between SciMoCa and primary TPS calculations was made using the same estimators and using both patient and phantom geometry plans.

RESULTS

TPS and SciMoCa calculations were found to be in very good agreement with validation measurements with average point dose differences of 0.7 ± 1.7% and -0.2 ± 1.6% for SciMoCa and two TPSs, respectively. Comparison between SciMoCa calculations and the two primary TPS plans did not show any statistically significant difference with average point dose differences compatible with zero within error for both patient and phantom geometry plans and GPR (98.0 ± 3.0% and 99.0 ± 3.0% respectively) well in excess of the typical 95 % clinical tolerance threshold.

CONCLUSION

This work presents results obtained with a significantly larger sample than other similar analyses and, to the authors' knowledge, compares SciMoCa with a MC-based TPS for the first time. Results show that a MC-based secondary patient-specific QA is a clinically viable, reliable, and promising technique, that potentially allows significant time saving that can be used for patient treatment and a per-plan basis QA that effectively complements traditional commissioning and calibration protocols.

Enhanced optimization of volumetric modulated arc therapy plans using Monte Carlo generated beamlets

PURPOSE

A treatment planning system (TPS) produces volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans by applying an optimization process to an objective function, followed by an accurate calculation of the final, deliverable dose. However, during the optimization step, a rapid dose calculation algorithm is required, which reduces its accuracy and its representation of the objective function space. Monte Carlo (MC) routines, considered the gold standard in accuracy, are currently too slow for practical comprehensive VMAT optimization. Therefore, we propose a novel approach called enhanced optimization (EO), which employs the TPS VMAT plan as a starting point, and applies small perturbations to nudge the solution closer to a true objective minimum. The perturbations consist of beamlet dose matrices, calculated using MC routines on a distributed-computing framework.

METHODS

DICOM files for clinical VMAT plans files are exported from the TPS and used to generate input files for the EGSnrc MC toolkit. Beamlet doses are calculated using the MC routines, each corresponding to a single multileaf collimator leaf from a single control point traveling 0.5 cm in or out of the field. A typical VMAT plan requires 5000 to 10 000 beamlets, which may be calculated overnight. This results in a ternary-valued objective function, which may use the same clinical objectives as the original VMAT plan. A simple greedy search algorithm is applied to minimize this function and determine the optimal set of ternary variables. The resulting modified control point parameters are imported into the TPS to calculate the final, deliverable dose, and to compare the EO plan with the original. EO was evaluated retrospectively on seven VMAT plans (two adult brain, one pediatric brain, two head and neck, and two prostate). Additionally, the use of stricter objectives was investigated for two of the cases: the left cochlea planning organ at risk (OAR) volume objective for the pediatric brain case, and the rectum objective for a prostate case.

RESULTS

EO produced improved objective scores (by 6% to 60%) and dose-volume histograms (DVH) for the brain plans and the head and neck plans. For each of these plans, the target dose minimum and homogeneity were preserved, while one or more of the OAR DVH's was reduced. Although EO also reduced the objective scores for the prostate plans (by 46% and 79%), their absolute score and DVH improvements were not substantial. The stricter objective on the pediatric brain case resulted in lower dose to the OAR without compromising the target dose. However, the rectum dose in the prostate case could not be improved without reducing dose homogeneity to the planning target volume, suggesting that VMAT prostate cases may already be highly optimized by the TPS.

CONCLUSION

We have developed a novel approach to improving the dose distribution of VMAT plans, which relies on MC calculations to provide small modifications to the control points. This method may be particularly useful for complex treatments in which a certain OAR is of concern and it is difficult for the treatment planner to obtain an acceptable solution with the TPS. Further development will reduce the beamlet computation time and result in more sophisticated EO treatment planning methods.