Impact of the dose quantity used in MV photon optimization on dose distribution, robustness, and complexity

Experimental validation of absorbed dose-to-medium calculation algorithms in heterogeneous media

Objective.The aim of this work was to determine heterogeneous correction factorshQclin,Qreffclin,frefdetm,wto validate absorbed dose-to-mediumDm,Qclinm,fclincalculation algorithms from detector readings. The impact of detector orientation perpendicular and parallel to the beam central axis on the correction factors was also investigated.Approach.ThehQclin,Qreffclin,frefdetm,wfactors were calculated for four types of detectors (PTW PinPoint T31016, PTW microDiamond T60019, PTW microSilicon T60023 and EBT3 film) placed in different media (cortical bone, lung, adipose tissue, Teflon and RW3) for the 6 MV energy beam with a 10 × 10 cm2field size. These corrections were then applied to the detector measurements performed at different depths in heterogeneous phantoms.Main results.ThehQclin,Qreffclin,frefdetm,wfactors mainly depended on the media and slightly on the type of detector. Considering all detectors, the largest corrections were found in high-density media with values ranging from 0.911 to 0.934 in cortical bone. For comparison, the corrections in other media were closer to unity with values from 0.966 (lung and RW3) to 0.991 (adipose tissue). Except for the PinPoint T31016, detector orientation-dependence was observed especially in high-density media. A good agreement (≤1.5%) was found betweenDm,Qclinm,fclincalculations and the detector readings corrected with thehQclin,Qreffclin,frefdetm,wfactor for all studied heterogeneous phantoms.Significance.This paper could serve as an initial guideline for medical physicists involved in the validation of the advanced type-b dose calculation algorithms reportingDm,Qclinm,fclin. To our knowledge, this is the first study to assess the impact of the orientation of different detectors in heterogeneous media. The orientation dependence of the detector response observed in water may not reflect what is observed in heterogeneous media, especially in high-density media. The knowledge of thehQclin,Qreffclin,frefdetm,wfactors becomes mandatory for accurate interpretation of detector readings and comparisons withDm,Qclinm,fclincalculations.

Inverse planning of lung radiotherapy with photon and proton beams using a discrete ordinates Boltzmann solver

Objective. A discrete ordinates Boltzmann solver has recently been developed for use as a fast and accurate dose engine for calculation of photon and proton beams. The purpose of this study is to apply the algorithm to the inverse planning process for photons and protons and to evaluate the impact that this has on the quality of the final solution.Approach.The method was implemented into an iterative least-squares inverse planning optimiser, with the Boltzmann solver used every 20 iterations over the total of 100 iterations. Elemental dose distributions for the intensity modulation and the dose changes at the intermediate iterations were calculated by a convolution algorithm for photons and a simple analytical model for protons. The method was evaluated for 12 patients in the heterogeneous tissue environment encountered in radiotherapy of lung tumours. Photon arc and proton arc treatments were considered in this study. The results were compared with those for use of the Boltzmann solver solely at the end of inverse planning or not at all.Main results.Application of the Boltzmann solver at the end of inverse planning shows the dose heterogeneity in the planning target volume to be greater than calculated by convolution and empirical methods, with the median root-mean-square dose deviation increasing from 3.7 to 5.3 for photons and from 1.9 to 3.4 for proton arcs. Use of discrete ordinates throughout inverse planning enables homogeneity of target coverage to be maintained throughout, the median root-mean-square dose deviation being 3.6 for photons and 2.3 for protons. Dose to critical structures is similar with discrete ordinates and conventional methods. Time for inverse planning with discrete ordinates takes around 1-2 h using a contemporary computing environment.Significance.By incorporating the Boltzmann solver into an iterative least squares inverse planning optimiser, accurate dose calculation in a heterogeneous medium is obtained throughout inverse planning, with the result that the final dose distribution is of the highest quality.

Considerations for radiotherapy planning with MV photons using dose-to-medium

Background and purpose

Radiotherapy planning considerations were developed for the previous calculation algorithms yielding dose to water-in-water (D_w,w). Advanced algorithms improve accuracy, but their dose values in terms of dose to medium-in-medium (D_m,m) depend on the medium considered. This work aimed to show how mimicking D_w,w planning with D_m,m can introduce new issues.

Materials and methods

A head and neck case involving bone and metal heterogeneities outside the CTV was considered. Two different commercial algorithms were used to obtain D_m,m and D_w,w distributions. First, a plan was optimised to irradiate the PTV uniformly and get a homogeneous D_w,w distribution. Second, another plan was optimised to achieve homogeneous D_m,m. Both plans were calculated with D_w,w and D_m,m, and the differences between their dose distributions, clinical impact, and robustness were evaluated.

Results

Uniform irradiation produced D_m,m cold spots in bone (-4%) and implants (-10%). Uniform D_m,m compensated them by increasing fluence but, when recalculated in D_w,w, the fluence compensations produced higher doses that affected homogeneity. Additionally, doses were 1% higher for the target, and + 4% for the mandible, thus increasing toxicity risk. Robustness was impaired when increased fluence regions and heterogeneities mismatched.

Conclusion

Planning with D_m,m as with D_w,w can impact clinical outcome and impair robustness. In optimisation, uniform irradiation instead of homogeneous D_m,m distributions should be pursued when media with different D_m,m responses are involved. However, this requires adapting evaluation criteria or avoiding medium effects. Regardless of the approach, there can be systematic differences in dose prescription and constraints.