Development and evaluation of a GEANT4-based Monte Carlo Model of a 0.35 T MR-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) linear accelerator

Development of an EGSnrc multi-leaf collimator component module and treatment head model for a low-field MRI linear accelerator

BACKGROUND

Monte Carlo (MC) modeling of MR-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) treatment machines enables the characterization of photon/electron interactions in the presence of a magnetic field. The EGSnrc MC code system is a well-established system for radiation dose calculations. The multi-leaf collimator (MLC) component modules presently available within the EGSnrc MC code system do not include a model of the double-focused MLC available on a low-field (0.35T) MRI linear accelerator (MR linac).

PURPOSE

Here we developed and validated a new component module (CM) for the low-field MRgRT MLC using the EGSnrc/BEAMnrc/DOSXYZnrc code system. We performed detailed modeling of the treatment head and validated the model using measurements and calculations from the vendor-specific treatment planning system (TPS).

METHODS

The detailed geometry of the low-field MR linac MLC and other treatment head structures were modeled using BEAMnrc. Comparisons of DOSXYZnrc simulated dose against measurements and the low-field MR linac TPS for a variety of AAPM TG-53 task group report suggested square and shaped fields, as well as a step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plan, are presented.

RESULTS

Our model agrees with both measured and TPS calculated data on average within 2%/2 mm (dose/DTA) criterion for square field profiles. Output factors agreed within 1% for field sizes down to 2.49 × 2.49 cm2 and within 2% of TPS data for the smallest field size of 0.83 × 0.83 cm2. Shaped field and IMRT MC calculations agreed with measured and TPS data such that the gamma pass rates (3%/2 mm) were 99.5% and (3%/3 mm) 96.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed and validated an MLC CM (SYNCVRMLC) for the low-field MR linac using the EGSnrc MC code systems. This new CM will facilitate MC computation of fluence and dose distributions using BEAMnrc/DOSXYZnrc for patients treated on the low-field MR linac.

A quantification of the electron return effect using Monte Carlo simulations and experimental measurements for the MRI-linac

The integration of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and linear accelerators into hybrid treatment systems has made MR-guided radiation therapy a clinical reality. This work aims to evaluate the influence of the Electron Return Effect (ERE) on the dose distributions. This study was conducted using MRIdian (ViewRay, Cleveland, Ohio) system. Monte-Carlo simulations (MCs) and experimental measurements with EBT3 Gafchromic films were performed to investigate the dose distribution in a slab water phantom with and without a 2-cm air gap. Plus, MCs took into account different field sizes and a lung gap. A gamma analysis compared calculated versus measured dose distributions. The MCs have shown an increase of the ERE with the radiation field size both in Percent Depth Dose (PDD) and crossline direction. As concerns to the PDD direction, the smallest field for which there was a significant dose accumulation was 4.15 × 4.15 cm2both for air-gap (13.5%) and lung-gap (3.3%). The largest field for which there was a significant dose accumulation was 24.07 × 24.07 cm2both for air-gap (39.7%) and lung-gap (4.9%). Instead for the crossline direction, the smallest field for which there was a significant dose accumulation was 2.49 × 2.49 cm2both for air-gap (8.6% ) and lung-gap (0.5%). The largest field for which there was a significant dose accumulation was 24.07 × 24.07 cm2both for air-gap (46.2%) and lung-gap (4.2%). PDD and crossline profiles showed good agreement with a gamma-passing rate higher than 91.15% for 2%/2 mm. The ERE can be adequately calculated by MC dose calculation platform available in the MRIdian Treatment Planning System. The MCs show an increase of the ERE directly proportional with the radiation field size. Good agreement was observed between the experimental measurements and calculated dose distributions.

Computational and experimental small field dosimetry using a commercial plastic scintillator detector for the 0.35 T MR-linac

PURPOSE

Although plastic scintillator detectors (PSDs) are considered ideal dosimeters for small field dosimetry in conventional linear accelerators (linacs), the impact of the magnetic field strength on the response of the PSD must be investigated.

METHODS

A linac Monte Carlo (MC) head model for a low-field MR-linac was validated for small field dosimetry and utilized to calculate field output factors (OFs). The MC-calculated OFs were compared with the treatment planning system (TPS)-calculated OFs and measured OFs using a Blue Physics (BP) Model 10 commercial PSD and a synthetic diamond detector. The field-specific correction factors, [Formula: see text] , were calculated for the PSD in the presence of a 0.35 T and magnetic field. The impact of the source focal spot size and initial electron energy on the MC-calculated OFs was investigated.

RESULTS

Good agreement to within 2 % was found between the MC-calculated OFs and BP PSD OFs except for the 0.415 × 0.415 cm2 field size. The BP PSD [Formula: see text] correction factors were calculated to be within 1 % of unity. For field sizes ≥1.66 × 1.66 cm2, the MC-calculated OFs were relatively insensitive to the focal spot size and initial electron energy to within 2.5 %. However, for smaller field sizes, the MC-calculated OFs were found to differ up to 9.50 % and 7.00 % when the focal spot size and initial electron energy was varied, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The BP PSD was deemed suitable for small field dosimetry in MR-linacs without requiring any [Formula: see text] correction factors.

MR compatible detectors assessment for a 0.35 T MR-linac commissioning

PURPOSE

To assess a large panel of MR compatible detectors on the full range of measurements required for a 0.35 T MR-linac commissioning by using a specific statistical method represented as a continuum of comparison with the Monte Carlo (MC) TPS calculations. This study also describes the commissioning tests and the secondary MC dose calculation validation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Plans were created on the Viewray TPS to generate MC reference data. Absolute dose points, PDD, profiles and output factors were extracted and compared to measurements performed with ten different detectors: PTW 31010, 31021, 31022, Markus 34045 and Exradin A28 MR ionization chambers, SN Edge shielded diode, PTW 60019 microdiamond, PTW 60023 unshielded diode, EBT3 radiochromic films and LiF µcubes. Three commissioning steps consisted in comparison between calculated and measured dose: the beam model validation, the output calibration verification in four different phantoms and the commissioning tests recommended by the IAEA-TECDOC-1583.

MAIN RESULTS

The symmetry for the high resolution detectors was higher than the TPS data of about 1%. The angular responses of the PTW 60023 and the SN Edge were - 6.6 and - 11.9% compared to the PTW 31010 at 60°. The X/Y-left and the Y-right penumbras measured by the high resolution detectors were in good agreement with the TPS values except for the PTW 60023 for large field sizes. For the 0.84 × 0.83 cm2 field size, the mean deviation to the TPS of the uncorrected OF was - 1.7 ± 1.6% against - 4.0 ± 0.6% for the corrected OF whereas we found - 4.8 ± 0.8% for passive dosimeters. The mean absolute dose deviations to the TPS in different phantoms were 0 ± 0.4%, - 1.2 ± 0.6% and 0.5 ± 1.1% for the PTW 31010, PTW 31021 and Exradin A28 MR respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The magnetic field effects on the measurements are considerably reduced at low magnetic field. The PTW 31010 ionization chamber can be used with confidence in different phantoms for commissioning and QA tests requiring absolute dose verifications. For relative measurements, the PTW 60019 presented the best agreement for the full range of field size. For the profile assessment, shielded diodes had a behaviour similar to the PTW 60019 and 60023 while the ionization chambers were the most suitable detectors for the symmetry. The output correction factors published by the IAEA TRS 483 seem to be applicable at low magnetic field pending the publication of new MR specific values.

Beam quality correction factors for ionization chambers in a 0.35 T magnetic resonance (MR)-linac - A Monte Carlo study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to directly calculate [Formula: see text] correction factors for four cylindrical ICs for a 0.35 T MR-linac using the Monte Carlo (MC) method.

METHODS

A previously-validated TOPAS/GEANT4 MC head model of the 0.35 T MR-linac was employed. The MR-compatible Exradin A12, A1SL, A26, and A28 cylindrical ICs were modeled considering the dead volume in the air cavity. The [Formula: see text] correction factor was determined for initial electron energies of 5-7 MeV. The correction factor was calculated for all four angular orientations in the lateral plane. The impact of the 0.35 T magnetic field on the IC response was also investigated.

RESULTS

The maximum beam quality dependence in the [Formula: see text] exhibited by the A12, A1SL, A26, and A28 ICs was 1.10 %, 2.17 %, 0.81 %, and 1.75 %, respectively, considering all angular orientations. The magnetic field dependence was < 1 % and the maximum [Formula: see text] correction was < 2 % when the detector was aligned along the direction of the magnetic field at 0° and 180° angles. The A12 IC over-responded up to 5.40 % for the orthogonal orientation. An asymmetry in the response of up to 8.30 % was noted for the A28 IC aligned at 90° and 270° angles.

CONCLUSIONS

A parallel orientation for the IC, with respect to the magnetic field, is recommended for reference dosimetry in MRgRT. Both over and under-response in the IC signal was noted for the orthogonal orientations, which is highly dependent on the cavity diameter, cavity length, and the dead volume.

MRgRT Quality Assurance for a Low-Field MR-Linac

The introduction of MR-guided treatment machines into the radiation oncology clinic has provided unique challenges for the radiotherapy QA program. These MR-linac systems require that existing QA procedures be adapted to verify linac performance within the magnetic field environment and that new procedures be added to ensure acceptable image quality for the MR system. While both high and low-field MR-linac options exist, this chapter is intended to provide a structure for implementing a QA program within the low-field MR environment. This review is divided into three sections. The first section focuses on machine QA tasks including mechanical and dosimetric verification. The second section is concentrated on the procedures implemented for imaging QA. Finally, the last section covers patient specific QA tasks including special considerations related to the performance of patient specific QA within the framework of online adaptive radiotherapy.

Development and clinical application of a GPU-based Monte Carlo dose verification module and software for 1.5 T MR-LINAC

BACKGROUND

Adaptive radiotherapy (ART) has made significant advances owing to magnetic resonance linear accelerator (MR-LINAC), which provides superior soft-tissue contrast, fast speed and rich functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to guide radiotherapy. Independent dose verification plays a critical role in discovering errors, while several challenges remain in MR-LINAC.

PURPOSE

A Monte Carlo-based GPU-accelerated dose verification module for Unity is proposed and integrated into the commercial software ArcherQA to achieve fast and accurate quality assurance (QA) for online ART.

METHODS

Electron or positron motion in a magnetic field was implemented, and a material-dependent step-length limit method was used to trade off speed and accuracy. Transport was verified by dose comparison with EGSnrc in three A-B-A phantoms. Then, an accurate Monte Carlo-based Unity machine model was built in ArcherQA, including an MR-LINAC head, cryostat, coils, and treatment couch. In particular, a mixed model combining measured attenuation and homogeneous geometry was adopted for the cryostat. Several parameters in the LINAC model were tuned to commission it in the water tank. An alternating open-closed MLC plan on solid water measured with EBT-XD film was used to verify the LINAC model. Finally, the ArcherQA dose was compared with ArcCHECK measurements and GPUMCD in 30 clinical cases through the gamma test.

RESULTS

ArcherQA and EGSnrc were well matched in three A-B-A phantom tests, and the relative dose difference (RDD) was less than 1.6% in the homogenous region. A Unity model was commissioned in the water tank, and the RDD in the homogenous region was less than 2%. In the alternating open-closed MLC plan, the gamma result (3%/3 mm) between ArcherQA and Film was 96.55%, better than the gamma result between GPUMCD and Film (92.13%). In 30 clinical cases, the mean three-dimensional (3D) gamma result (3%/2 mm) was 99.36% ± 1.28% between ArcherQA and ArcCHECK for the QA plans and 99.27% ± 1.04% between ArcherQA and GPUMCD for the clinical patient plans. The average dose calculation time was 106 s in all clinical patient plans.

CONCLUSIONS

A GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo-based dose verification module was developed and built for the Unity MR-LINAC. The fast speed and high accuracy were proven by comparison with EGSnrc, commission data, the ArcCHECK measurement dose, and the GPUMCD dose. This module can achieve fast and accurate independent dose verification for Unity.

An independent Monte Carlo-based IMRT QA tool for a 0.35 T MRI-guided linear accelerator

PURPOSE

To develop an independent log file-based intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA) tool for the 0.35 T magnetic resonance-linac (MR-linac) and investigate the ability of various IMRT plan complexity metrics to predict the QA results. Complexity metrics related to tissue heterogeneity were also introduced.

METHODS

The tool for particle simulation (TOPAS) Monte Carlo code was utilized with a previously validated linac head model. A cohort of 29 treatment plans was selected for IMRT QA using the developed QA tool and the vendor-supplied adaptive QA (AQA) tool. For 27 independent patient cases, various IMRT plan complexity metrics were calculated to assess the deliverability of these plans. A correlation between the gamma pass rates (GPRs) from the AQA results and calculated IMRT complexity metrics was determined using the Pearson correlation coefficients. Tissue heterogeneity complexity metrics were calculated based on the gradient of the Hounsfield units.

RESULTS

The median and interquartile range for the TOPAS GPRs (3%/3 mm criteria) were 97.24% and 3.75%, respectively, and were 99.54% and 0.36% for the AQA tool, respectively. The computational time for TOPAS ranged from 4 to 8 h to achieve a statistical uncertainty of <1.5%, whereas the AQA tool had an average calculation time of a few minutes. Of the 23 calculated IMRT plan complexity metrics, the AQA GPRs had correlations with 7 out of 23 of the calculated metrics. Strong correlations (|r| > 0.7) were found between the GPRs and the heterogeneity complexity metrics introduced in this work.

CONCLUSIONS

An independent MC and log file-based IMRT QA tool was successfully developed and can be clinically deployed for offline QA. The complexity metrics will supplement QA reports and provide information regarding plan complexity.

A multi-institutional comparison of dosimetric data for a 0.35 T MR-linac

Objective. A comparison of percent depth dose (PDD) curves, lateral beam profiles, output factors (OFs), multileaf collimator (MLC) leakage, and couch transmission factors was performed between ten institutes for a commercial 0.35 T MR-linac. Approach. The measured data was collected during acceptance testing of the MR-linac. The PDD curves were measured for the 3.32 × 3.32 cm2, 9.96 × 9.96 cm2, and 27.20 × 24.07 cm2 field sizes. The lateral beam profiles were acquired for a 27.20 × 24.07 cm2 field size using an ion chamber array and penumbra was defined as the distance between 80% of the maximum dose and 20% of the maximum dose after normalizing the profiles to the dose at the inflection points. The OFs were measured using solid-state dosimeters, whereas radiochromic films were utilized to measure radiation leakage through the MLC stacks. The relative couch transmission factors were measured for various gantry angles. The variation in the multi-institutional data was quantified using the percent standard deviation metric. Main results. Minimal variations (<1%) were found between the PDD data, except for the build-up region and the deeper regions of the PDD curve. The in-field region of the lateral beam profiles varied <1.5% between different institutions and a small variation (<0.7 mm) in penumbra was observed. A variation of <1% was observed in the OF data for field sizes above 1.66 × 1.66 cm2, whereas large variations were shown for small-field sizes. The average and maximum MLC leakage was calculated to be <0.3% and <0.6%, which was well below the international electrotechnical commission (IEC) leakage thresholds. The couch transmission was smallest for oblique beams and ranged from 0.83 to 0.87. Significance. The variation in the data was found to be relatively small and the different 0.35 T MR-linacs were concluded to have similar dosimetric characteristics.

Commissioning a secondary dose calculation software for a 0.35 T MR-linac

Secondary external dose calculations for a 0.35 T magnetic resonance image-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) are needed within the radiation oncology community to follow safety standards set forth within the field. We evaluate the commercially available software, RadCalc, in its ability to accurately perform monitor unit dose calculations within a magnetic field. We also evaluate the potential effects of a 0.35 T magnetic field upon point dose calculations. Monitor unit calculations were evaluated with (wMag) and without (noMag) a magnetic field considerations in RadCalc for the ViewRay MRIdian. The magnetic field is indirectly accounted for by using asymmetric profiles for calculation. The introduction of double-stacked multi-leaf collimator leaves was also included in the monitor unit calculations and a single transmission value was determined. A suite of simple and complex geometries with a variety field arrangements were calculated for each method to demonstrate the effect of the 0.35 T magnetic field on monitor unit calculations. Finally, 25 patient-specific treatment plans were calculated using each method for comparison. All simple geometries calculated in RadCalc were within 2% of treatment planning system (TPS) values for both methods, except for a single noMag off-axis comparison. All complex muilt-leaf collimator (MLC) pattern calculations were within 5%. All complex phantom geometry calculations were within 5% except for a single field within a lung phantom at a distal point. For the patient calculations, the noMag method average percentage difference was 0.09 ± 2.5% and the wMag average percentage difference was 0.08 ± 2.5%. All results were within 5% for the wMag method. We performed monitor unit calculations for a 0.35 T MRgRT system using a commercially available secondary monitor unit dose calculation software and demonstrated minimal impact of the 0.35 T magnetic field on monitor unit dose calculations. This is the first investigation demonstrating successful calculations of dose using RadCalc in the low-field 0.35 T ViewRay MRIdian system.

Dosimetric Effects of Air Cavities for MRI-Guided Online Adaptive Radiation Therapy (MRgART) of Prostate Bed after Radical Prostatectomy

PURPOSE

To evaluate dosimetric impact of air cavities and their corresponding electron density correction for 0.35 tesla (T) Magnetic Resonance-guided Online Adaptive Radiation Therapy (MRgART) of prostate bed patients.

METHODS

Three 0.35 T MRgRT plans (anterior-posterior (AP) beam, AP-PA beams, and clinical intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)) were generated on a prostate bed patient's (Patient A) planning computed tomography (CT) with artificial rectal air cavities of various sizes (0-3 cm, 0.5 cm increments). Furthermore, two 0.35 T MRgART plans ('Deformed' and 'Override') were generated on a prostate bed patient's (Patient B) daily magnetic resonance image (MRI) with artificial rectal air cavities of various sizes (0-3 cm, 0.5 cm increments) and on five prostate bed patient's (Patient 1-5) daily MRIs (2 MRIs: Fraction A and B) with real air cavities. For each MRgART plan, daily MRI electron density map was obtained by deformable registration with simulation CT. In the 'Deformed' plan, a clinical IMRT plan is calculated on the daily MRI with electron density map obtained from deformable registration only. In the 'Override' plan, daily MRI and simulation CT air cavities are manually corrected and bulk assigned air and water density on the registered electron density map, respectively. Afterwards, the clinical IMRT plan is calculated.

RESULTS

For the MRgRT plans, AP and AP-PA plans' rectum/rectal wall max dose increased with increasing air cavity size, where the 3 cm air cavity resulted in a 20%/17% and 13%/13% increase, relative to no air cavity, respectively. Clinical IMRT plan was robust to air cavity size, where dose change remained less than 1%. For the MRgART plans, daily MRI electron density maps, obtained from deformable registration with simulation CT, was unable to accurately produce electron densities reflecting the air cavities. However, for the artificial daily MRI air cavities, dosimetric change between 'Deformed' and 'Override' plan was small (<4%). Similarly, for the real daily MRI air cavities, clinical constraint changes between 'Deformed' and 'Override' plan was negligible and did not lead to change in clinical decision for adaptive planning except for two fractions. In these fractions, the 'Override' plan indicated that the bladder max dose and rectum V35.7 exceeded the constraint, while the 'Deformed' plan showed acceptable dose, although the absolute difference was only 0.3 Gy and 0.03 cc, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Clinical 0.35 T IMRT prostate bed plans are dosimetrically robust to air cavities. MRgART air cavity electron density correction shows clinically insignificant change and is not warranted on low-field systems.