Comparison of five dose calculation algorithms in a heterogeneous media using design of experiment

Impact of delivery variations on 3D dose distributions for volumetric modulated arc therapy plans of various complexity

BACKGROUND

Delivery variations during radiotherapy can cause discrepancies between planned and delivered dose distribution. These variations could arise from random and systematic offsets in certain machine parameters or systematic offsets related to the calibration process of the treatment unit.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to present a novel simulation-based methodology to evaluate realistic delivery variations in three dimensions (3D). Additionally, we investigated the dosimetric impact of delivery variations for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for different treatment sites and complexities.

METHODS

Twelve VMAT plans for different treatment sites (prostate-, head & neck-, lung-, and gynecological cancer) were selected. The clinical plan used for the treatment of each patient was reoptimized to create one plan with reduced complexity (i.e., simple plan) and one of higher complexity (i.e., complex plan). This resulted in a total of 36 plans. Delivery variations were simulated by randomly introducing offsets in multi-leaf collimator position, jaw position, gantry angle and collimator angle simultaneously. Twenty simulations were carried out for each of the 36 plans, yielding 720 simulated deliveries. To explore the impact of individual offsets, additional simulations were conducted for each type of offset separately. A 3D dose calculation was performed for each simulation using the same calculation engine as for the clinical plan. Two standard deviations (2SD) of dose were determined for every voxel for 3D-spatial evaluations. The dose variation in certain DVH metrics, that is, D2% and D98% for the clinical target volume and five different DVH metrics for selected organs at risk, was calculated for the twenty simulated deliveries of each plan. For comparison, the effect of delivery variations was assessed by conducting measurements with the Delta4 phantom.

RESULTS

The volume of voxels with 2SD above 1% of the prescribed dose was consistently larger for the complex plans in comparison to their corresponding simple and clinical plans. 2SDs larger than 1% were in many cases, found to accumulate outside the planning target volume. For complex plans, regions with 2SDs larger than 1% were detected also inside the high dose region, exhibiting, on average, a size six times larger volume, than those observed in simple plans. Similar results were found for all treatment sites. Variation in the selected DVH metrics for the simulated deliveries was generally largest for the complex plans with few exceptions. When comparing the 2SD distribution of the measurements with the 2SD distribution from the simulations, the spatial information showed deviations outside the PTV in both simulations and measurements. However, the measured values were, on average, 35% higher for the prostate plans and 10% higher for the head & neck plans compared to the simulated values.

CONCLUSIONS

The presented methodology effectively quantified and localized dose deviations due to delivery offsets. The 3D analysis provided information that was undetectable using the analysis based on DVH metrics. Dosimetric uncertainties due to delivery variations were prominent at the edge of the high-dose region irrespective of treatment site and plan complexity. Dosimetric uncertainties inside the high-dose region was more profound for plans of higher complexity.

Preliminary evaluation of a novel secondary check tool for intensity modulated radiotherapy treatment planning

PURPOSE

To evaluate the dosimetric accuracy of the Delta4 Insight (DI) secondary-check dosimetry system.

METHODS

Absolute dosimetry in reference conditions, output factors, percent depth doses normalized and off-axis dose profiles for different field sizes calculated by DI were compared with measurements. Dose calculations for 20 clinical IMRT/VMAT plans generated in the TPS using both AAA or AcurosXB algorithms were compared with measurements. The average difference between calculated and measured point dose in high-dose region was calculated for all cases. 3D dose measurements were performed in Delta4 Phantom+ and a comparison between calculated and measured dose distributions was performed by means of the gamma analysis with 3 %/2 mm criteria. The dose distributions calculated by DI for 20 IMRT/VMAT plans were compared with those calculated by the TPS.

RESULTS

The absolute dosimetry computed by DI showed dose value in agreement with the measured one within 0.3 %. The average differences between measured and calculated output factors were less than 2.5 %. The average PDD differences were less than 0.6 %. An excellent agreement between calculations and off-axis measurements is found. The point doses calculated for the 20 recalculated plan showed good agreement with measurements with average differences less than 0.5 %. The average gamma pass rate values for the Delta4 Phantom + 3D dose analysis was greater than 97.%. The comparison of DI with theTPS showed good agreement for the used metrics.

CONCLUSIONS

Delta4 Insight may provide a useful independent secondary dose verification system for IMRT/VMAT plans, complementing the traditional global QA protocols.

Comparison of four commercial dose calculation algorithms in different evaluation tests

BACKGROUND

Accurate and fast dose calculation is crucial in modern radiation therapy. Four dose calculation algorithms (AAA, AXB, CCC, and MC) are available in Varian Eclipse and RaySearch Laboratories RayStation Treatment Planning Systems (TPSs).

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to evaluate and compare dosimetric accuracy of the four dose calculation algorithms applying to homogeneous and heterogeneous media, VMAT plans (based on AAPM TG-119 test cases), and the surface and buildup regions.

METHODS

The four algorithms are assessed in homogeneous (IAEA-TECDOCE 1540) and heterogeneous (IAEA-TECDOC 1583) media. Dosimetric evaluation accuracy for VMAT plans is then analyzed, along with the evaluation of the accuracy of algorithms applying to the surface and buildup regions.

RESULTS

Tests conducted in homogeneous media revealed that all algorithms exhibit dose deviations within 5% for various conditions, with pass rates exceeding 95% based on recommended tolerances. Additionally, the tests conducted in heterogeneous media demonstrate high pass rates for all algorithms, with a 100% pass rate observed for 6 MV and mostly 100% pass rate for 15 MV, except for CCC, which achieves a pass rate of 94%. The results of gamma index pass rate (GIPR) for dose calculation algorithms in IMRT fields show that GIPR (3% /3 mm) for all four algorithms in all evaluated tests based on TG119, are greater than 97%. The results of the algorithm testing for the accuracy of superficial dose reveal variations in dose differences, ranging from -11.9% to 7.03% for 15 MV and -9.5% to 3.3% for 6 MV, respectively. It is noteworthy that the AXB and MC algorithms demonstrate relatively lower discrepancies compared to the other algorithms.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that generally, two dose calculation algorithms (AXB and MC) that calculate dose in medium have better accuracy than other two dose calculation algorithms (CCC and AAA) that calculate dose to water.

Advances in anthropomorphic thorax phantoms for radiotherapy: a review

A phantom is a highly specialized device, which mimic human body, or a part of it. There are three categories of phantoms: physical phantoms, physiological phantoms, and computational phantoms. The phantoms have been utilized in medical imaging and radiotherapy for numerous applications. In radiotherapy, the phantoms may be used for various applications such as quality assurance (QA), dosimetry, end-to-end testing, etc. In thoracic radiotherapy, unique QA problems including tumor motion, thorax deformation, and heterogeneities in the beam path have complicated the delivery of dose to both tumor and organ at risks (OARs). Also, respiratory motion is a major challenge in radiotherapy of thoracic malignancies, which can be resulted in the discrepancies between the planned and delivered doses to cancerous tissue. Hence, the overall treatment procedure needs to be verified. Anthropomorphic thorax phantoms, which are made of human tissue-mimicking materials, can be utilized to obtain the ground truth to validate these processes. Accordingly, research into new anthropomorphic thorax phantoms has accelerated. Therefore, the review is intended to summarize the current status of the commercially available and in-house-built anthropomorphic physical/physiological thorax phantoms in radiotherapy. The main focus is on anthropomorphic, deformable thorax motion phantoms. This review also discusses the applications of three-dimensional (3D) printing technology for the fabrication of thorax phantoms.

Technical note: GAMMORA, a free, open-source, and validated GATE-based model for Monte-Carlo simulations of the Varian TrueBeam

PURPOSE

Monte Carlo (MC) is the reference computation method for medical physics. In radiotherapy, MC computations are necessary for some issues (such as assessing figures of merit, double checks, and dose conversions). A tool based on GATE is proposed to easily create full MC simulations of the Varian TrueBeam STx.

METHODS

GAMMORA is a package that contains photon phase spaces as a pre-trained generative adversarial network (GAN) and the TrueBeam's full geometry. It allows users to easily create MC simulations for simple or complex radiotherapy plans such as VMAT. To validate the model, the characteristics of generated photons are first compared to those provided by Varian (IAEA format). Simulated data are also compared to measurements in water and heterogeneous media. Simulations of 8 SBRT plans are compared to measurements (in a phantom). Two examples of applications (a second check and interplay effect assessment) are presented.

RESULTS

The simulated photons generated by the GAN have the same characteristics (energy, position, and direction) as the IAEA data. Computed dose distributions of simple cases (in water) and complex plans delivered in a phantom are compared to measurements, and the Gamma index (3%/3mm) was always superior to 98%. The feasibility of both clinical applications is shown.

CONCLUSIONS

This model is now shared as a free and open-source tool that generates radiotherapy MC simulations. It has been validated and used for five years. Several applications can be envisaged for research and clinical purposes.

Dose Calculation Algorithms for External Radiation Therapy: An Overview for Practitioners

Radiation therapy (RT) is a constantly evolving therapeutic technique; improvements are continuously being introduced for both methodological and practical aspects. Among the features that have undergone a huge evolution in recent decades, dose calculation algorithms are still rapidly changing. This process is propelled by the awareness that the agreement between the delivered and calculated doses is of paramount relevance in RT, since it could largely affect clinical outcomes. The aim of this work is to provide an overall picture of the main dose calculation algorithms currently used in RT, summarizing their underlying physical models and mathematical bases, and highlighting their strengths and weaknesses, referring to the most recent studies on algorithm comparisons. This handy guide is meant to provide a clear and concise overview of the topic, which will prove useful in helping clinical medical physicists to perform their responsibilities more effectively and efficiently, increasing patient benefits and improving the overall quality of the management of radiation treatment.

Independent calculation-based verification of volumetric-modulated arc therapy-stereotactic body radiotherapy plans for lung cancer

This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of independent calculation‐based verification of volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT)–stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for patients with lung cancer using a secondary treatment planning system (sTPS). In all, 50 patients with lung cancer who underwent VMAT‐SBRT between April 2018 and May 2019 were included in this study. VMAT‐SBRT plans were devised using the Collapsed‐Cone Convolution in RayStation (primary TPS: pTPS). DICOM files were transferred to Eclipse software (sTPS), which utilized the Eclipse software, and the dose distribution was then recalculated using Acuros XB. For the verification of dose distribution in homogeneous phantoms, the differences among pTPS, sTPS, and measurements were evaluated using passing rates of a dose difference of 5% (DD5%) and gamma index of 3%/2 mm (γ3%/2 mm). The ArcCHECK cylindrical diode array was used for measurements. For independent verification of dose‐volume parameters per the patient’s geometry, dose‐volume indices for the planning target volume (PTV) including D_95% and the isocenter dose were evaluated. The mean differences (± standard deviations) between the pTPS and sTPS were then calculated. The gamma passing rates of DD5% and γ3%/2 mm criteria were 99.2 ± 2.4% and 98.6 ± 3.2% for pTPS vs. sTPS, 92.9 ± 4.0% and 94.1 ± 3.3% for pTPS vs. measurement, and 93.0 ± 4.4% and 94.3 ± 4.1% for sTPS vs. measurement, respectively. The differences between pTPS and sTPS for the PTVs of D_95% and the isocenter dose were −3.1 ± 2.0% and −2.3 ± 1.8%, respectively. Our investigation of VMAT‐SBRT plans for lung cancer revealed that independent calculation‐based verification is a time‐efficient method for patient‐specific quality assurance.

Three-dimensional dose reconstruction-based pretreatment dosimetric verification in volumetric modulated arc therapy for prostate cancer

Purpose

We performed three-dimensional (3D) dose reconstruction-based pretreatment verification to evaluate gamma analysis acceptance criteria in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for prostate cancer.

Materials and Methods

Pretreatment verification for 28 VMAT plans for prostate cancer was performed using the COMPASS system with a dolphin detector. The 3D reconstructed dose distribution of the treatment planning system calculation (TC) was compared with that of COMPASS independent calculation (CC) and COMPASS reconstruction from the dolphin detector measurement (CR). Gamma results (gamma failure rate and average gamma value [GFR and γAvg]) and dose-volume histogram (DVH) deviations, 98%, 2% and mean dose-volume difference (DD_98%, DD_2% and DD_mean), were evaluated. Gamma analyses were performed with two acceptance criteria, 2%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm.

Results

The GFR in 2%/2 mm criteria were less than 8%, and those in 3%/3 mm criteria were less than 1% for all structures in comparisons between TC, CC, and CR. In the comparison between TC and CR, GFR and γAvg in 2%/2 mm criteria were significantly higher than those in 3%/3 mm criteria. The DVH deviations were within 2%, except for DD_mean (%) for rectum and bladder.

Conclusions

The 3%/3 mm criteria were not strict enough to identify any discrepancies between planned and measured doses, and DVH deviations were less than 2% in most parameters. Therefore, gamma criteria of 2%/2 mm and DVH related parameters could be a useful tool for pretreatment verification for VMAT in prostate cancer.