Evaluation of the AAA Treatment Planning Algorithm for SBRT Lung Treatment: Comparison with Monte Carlo and Homogeneous Pencil Beam Dose Calculations

Evaluation of scanning resolution, detector choice and detector orientation to be used for accurate and time-efficient commissioning of a 6MV clinical linear accelerator

The present study is aimed at exploring different scanning parameters, detectors and their orientations for time-efficient and accurate commissioning of a 6 MV clinical linear accelerator (LINAC). Beam profiles and percentage depth dose (PDD) curves were measured with a PTW dosimetry diode, a PTW Semiflex and a PinPoint ion chamber in different orientations. To acquire beam data, equidistant (step size of 0.5 mm, 1 mm, 2 mm and 3 mm) and fanline (step size of 2-0.5 mm, 2-1 mm, 3-0.5 mm and 3-1 mm) scanning modes were employed and data measurement time was recorded. Scan time per measurement point was also varied (0.2 s, 0.5 s and 1.0 s) to investigate its effect on the accuracy and acquisition time of beam data. Accuracy of the measured data was analyzed on the basis of the variation between measured data and data modeled by a treatment planning system. Beam profiles (particularly in penumbra region) were found to be sensitive to variation in scanning resolution and showed an improved accuracy with decrease in step size, while PDD curves were affected negligibly. The accuracy of beam data obtained with the PTW dosimetry diode and the PinPoint ion chamber was higher than those obtained with the PTW Semiflex ion chamber for small fields (2 × 2 cm² and 3 × 3 cm²). However, the response of the PTW diode and the PinPoint ion chamber was significantly indifferent in these fields. Furthermore, axial orientation of the PTW Semiflex ion chamber improved accuracy of profiles and PDDs as compared to radial orientation, while such a difference was not significant for the PinPoint ion chamber. It is concluded that a scan time of 0.2 s/point with a fanline scanning resolution of 2-1 mm for beam profiles and 3 mm for PDDs are most favorable in terms of accuracy and time efficiency. For small fields (2 × 2 cm² and 3 × 3 cm²), a PinPoint ion chamber in radial orientation or a dosimetry diode in axial orientation are recommended for both beam profiles and PDDs. If a PinPoint ion chamber and a PTW dosimetry diode are not available, a Semiflex ion chamber in axial orientation may be used for small fields.

Monte Carlo evaluation of target dose coverage in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy with flattening filter-free beams

Aim

Previous studies showed that replacing conventional flattened beams (FF) with flattening filter-free (FFF) beams improves the therapeutic ratio in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), but these findings could have been impacted by dose calculation uncertainties caused by the heterogeneity of the thoracic anatomy and by respiratory motion, which were particularly high for target coverage. In this study, we minimized such uncertainties by calculating doses using high-spatial-resolution Monte Carlo and four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) images. We aimed to evaluate more reliably the benefits of using FFF beams for lung SBRT.

Materials and methods

For a cohort of 15 patients with early stage lung cancer that we investigated in a previous treatment planning study, we recalculated dose distributions with Monte Carlo using 4DCT images. This included fifteen FF and fifteen FFF treatment plans.

Results

Compared to Monte Carlo, the treatment planning system (TPS) over-predicted doses in low-dose regions of the planning target volume. For most patients, replacing FF beams with FFF beams improved target coverage, tumor control, and uncomplicated tumor control probabilities.

Conclusions

Monte Carlo tends to reveal deficiencies in target coverage compared to coverage predicted by the TPS. Our data support previously reported benefits of using FFF beams for lung SBRT.

Clinical verification of treatment planning dose calculation in lung SBRT with GATE Monte Carlo simulation code

PURPOSE

This study aims to use GATE/Geant4 simulation code to evaluate the performance of dose calculations with Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) in the context of lung SBRT for complex treatments considering images of patients.

METHODS

Four cases of non-small cell lung cancer treated with SBRT were selected for this study. Irradiation plans were created with AAA and recalculated end to end using Monte Carlo (MC) method maintaining field configurations identical to the original plans. Each treatment plan was evaluated in terms of PTV and organs at risk (OARs) using dose-volume histograms (DVH). Dosimetric parameters obtained from DVHs were used to compare AAA and MC.

RESULTS

The comparison between the AAA and MC DVH using gamma analysis with the passing criteria of 3%/3% showed an average passing rate of more than 90% for the PTV structure and 97% for the OARs. Tightening the criteria to 2%/2% showed a reduction in the average passing rate of the PTV to 86%. The agreement between the AAA and MC dose calculations for PTV dosimetric parameters (V₁₀₀; V₉₀; Homogeneity index; maximum, minimum and mean dose; CI_Paddick and D_2cm) was within 18.4%. For OARs, the biggest differences were observed in the spinal cord and the great vessels.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, we did not find significant differences between AAA and MC. The results indicate that AAA could be used in complex SBRT cases that involve a larger number of small treatment fields in the presence of tissue heterogeneities.

Technological quality requirements for stereotactic radiotherapy : Expert review group consensus from the DGMP Working Group for Physics and Technology in Stereotactic Radiotherapy

This review details and discusses the technological quality requirements to ensure the desired quality for stereotactic radiotherapy using photon external beam radiotherapy as defined by the DEGRO Working Group Radiosurgery and Stereotactic Radiotherapy and the DGMP Working Group for Physics and Technology in Stereotactic Radiotherapy. The covered aspects of this review are 1) imaging for target volume definition, 2) patient positioning and target volume localization, 3) motion management, 4) collimation of the irradiation and beam directions, 5) dose calculation, 6) treatment unit accuracy, and 7) dedicated quality assurance measures. For each part, an expert review for current state-of-the-art techniques and their particular technological quality requirement to reach the necessary accuracy for stereotactic radiotherapy divided into intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery in one single fraction (SRS), intracranial fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT), and extracranial stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is presented. All recommendations and suggestions for all mentioned aspects of stereotactic radiotherapy are formulated and related uncertainties and potential sources of error discussed. Additionally, further research and development needs in terms of insufficient data and unsolved problems for stereotactic radiotherapy are identified, which will serve as a basis for the future assignments of the DGMP Working Group for Physics and Technology in Stereotactic Radiotherapy. The review was group peer-reviewed, and consensus was obtained through multiple working group meetings.

Comparing local control and distant metastasis in NSCLC patients between CyberKnife and conventional SBRT

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Previous literature suggests that the dose proximally outside the PTV could have an impact on the incidence of distant metastasis (DM) after SBRT in stage I NSCLC patients. We investigated this observation (along with local failure) in deliveries made by different treatment modalities: robotic mounted linac SBRT (CyberKnife) vs conventional SBRT (VMAT/CRT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study included 422 stage I NSCLC patients from 2 institutions who received SBRT: 217 treated conventionally and 205 with CyberKnife. The dose behavior outside the PTV of both sub-cohorts were compared by analyzing the mean dose in continuous shells extending 1, 2, 3, …, 100 mm from the PTV. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed between the two sub-cohorts with respect to DM-free survival and local progression-free survival. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was fitted to the combined cohort (n = 422) with respect to DM incidence and local failure.

RESULTS

The shell-averaged dose fall-off beyond the PTV was found to be significantly more modest in CyberKnife plans than in conventional SBRT plans. In a 30 mm shell around the PTV, the mean dose delivered with CyberKnife (38.1 Gy) is significantly larger than with VMAT/CRT (22.8 Gy, p<10^-8). For 95% of CyberKnife plans, this region receives a mean dose larger than the 21 Gy threshold dose discovered in our previous study. In contrast, this occurs for only 75% of VMAT/CRT plans. The DM-free survival of the entire CyberKnife cohort is superior to that of the 25% of VMAT/CRT patients receiving less than the threshold dose (VMAT/CRT_<21Gy), with a hazard ratio of 5.3 (95% CI: 3.0-9.3, p<10^-8). The 2 year DM-free survival rates were 87% (95% CI: 81%-91%) and 44% (95% CI: 28%-58%) for CyberKnife and the below-threshold dose conventional cohorts, respectively. A multivariable analysis of the combined cohort resulted in the confirmation that threshold dose was a significant predictor of DM(HR = 0.28, 95% CI: 0.15-0.55, p<10^-3) when adjusted for other clinical factors. CyberKnife was also found to be superior to the entire VMAT/CRT with respect to local control (HR = 3.44, CI: 1.6-7.3). The 2-year local progression-free survival rates for the CyberKnife cohort and the VMAT/CRT cohort were 96% (95% CI: 92%-98%) and 88% (95% CI: 82%-92%) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In standard-of-care CyberKnife treatments, dose distributions that aid distant control are achieved 95% of the time. Although similar doses could be physically achieved by conventional SBRT, this is not always the case with current prescription practices, resulting in worse DM outcomes for 25% of conventional SBRT patients. Furthermore, CyberKnife was found to provide superior local control compared to VMAT/CRT.

Dosimetric Comparison of Treatment Plans Computed With Finite Size Pencil Beam and Monte Carlo Algorithms Using the InCise™ Multileaf Collimator-Equipped Cyberknife® System

Purpose:

InCise™ multileaf collimator (MLC) was introduced for CyberKnife^® (CK) Robotic Radiosurgery System (CK-MLC) in 2015, and finite size pencil beam (FSPB) was the only available dose computation algorithm for treatment plans of CK-MLC system. The more advanced Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation algorithm of lnCise™ was initially released in 2017 for the CK Precision™ treatment planning system (TPS) (v1.1) with new graphic processing unit (GPU) platform. GPU based TPS of the CK offers more accurate, faster treatment planning time and intuitive user interface with smart three-dimensional editing tools and fully automated autosegmentation tools. The MC algorithm used in CK TPS simulates the energy deposited by each individual photon and secondary particles to calculate more accurate dose. In the present study, the dose disparities between MC and FSPB algorithms for selected Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy (SABR) CK-MLC treatment plans are quantified.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 80 CK-MLC SABR plans computed with FSPB were retrospectively reviewed and compared with MC computed results, including plans for detached lung cancer (or tumors fully surrounded by lung tissues, n = 21), nondetached lung cancer (or tumor touched the chest wall or mediastinum, n = 23), intracranial (n = 21), and pancreas lesions (n = 15). Dosimetric parameters of each planning target volume and major organs at risk (OAR) are compared in terms of normalized percentage deviations (N_dev).

Results:

This study revealed an average of 24.4% overestimated D₉₅ values in plans using FSPB over MC for detached lung (n = 21) and 14.9% for nondetached lung (n = 23) lesions. No significant dose differences are found in intracranial (0.3%, n = 21) and pancreatic (0.9%, n = 15) cases. Furthermore, no significant differences were found in N_dev of OARs.

Conclusion:

In this study, it was found that FSPB overestimates dose to inhomogeneous treatment sites. This indicates, the employment of MC algorithm in CK-MLC-based lung SABR treatment plans is strongly suggested.

Dosimetric comparison of pencil beam and Monte Carlo algorithms in conformal lung radiotherapy

PURPOSE

In this study, lung radiotherapy target volumes as well as critical organs such as the lungs, spinal cord, esophagus, and heart doses calculated using pencil beam (PB) and Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm-based treatment planning systems (TPSs) were compared. The main aim was the evaluation of calculated dose differences between the PB and MC algorithms in a highly heterogeneous medium.

METHODS

A total of 6 MV photon energy conformal treatment plans were created for a RANDO lung phantom using one PB algorithm-based Precise Plan Release 2.16 TPS and one MC algorithm-based Monaco TPS. Thermoluminescence dosimeters (TLDs) were placed into appropriate slices within the RANDO phantom and then irradiated with an Elekta-Synergy® Linear Accelerator for dose verification. Doses were calculated for the V5, V10, V20, and mean lung doses (MLDs) in bilateral lungs and D50, D98, D2, and mean doses in the target volume (planning target volume, PTV).

RESULTS

The minimum, maximum, and mean doses of the target volumes and critical organs in two treatment plans were compared using dose volume histograms (DVHs). The mean dose difference between the PB and MC algorithms for the PTV was 0.3%, whereas the differences in V5, V10, V20, and MLD were 12.5%, 15.8%, 14.4%, and 9.1%, respectively. The differences in PTV coverage between the two algorithms were 0.9%, 2.7% and 0.7% for D50, D98 and D2, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A comparison of the dose data acquired in this study reveals that the MC algorithm calculations are closer to the 60 Gy prescribed dose for PTV, while the difference between the PB and MC algorithms was found to be non-significant. Because of the major difference arising from the dose calculation techniques by TPS that was observed in the MLD with significant medium heterogeneity, we recommend the use of the MC algorithm in such heterogeneous sites.

Dosimetric accuracy and clinical quality of Acuros XB and AAA dose calculation algorithm for stereotactic and conventional lung volumetric modulated arc therapy plans

INTRODUCTION

The main aim of the current study was to assess the dosimetric accuracy and clinical quality of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for stereotactic (stage I) and conventional (stage III) lung cancer treatments planned with Eclipse version 10.0 Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm.

METHODS

The dosimetric impact of using AAA instead of AXB, and grid size 2.5 mm instead of 1.0 mm for VMAT treatment plans was evaluated. The clinical plan quality of AXB VMAT was assessed using 45 stage I and 73 stage III patients, and was compared with published results, planned with VMAT and hybrid-VMAT techniques.

RESULTS

The dosimetric impact on near-minimum PTV dose (D98%) using AAA instead of AXB was large (underdose up to 12.3%) for stage I and very small (underdose up to 0.8%) for stage III lung treatments. There were no significant differences for dose volume histogram (DVH) values between grid sizes. The calculation time was significantly higher for AXB grid size 1.0 than 2.5 mm (p < 0.01). The clinical quality of the VMAT plans was at least comparable with clinical qualities given in literature of lung treatment plans with VMAT and hybrid-VMAT techniques. The average mean lung dose (MLD), lung V(20Gy) and V(5Gy) in this study were respectively 3.6 Gy, 4.1% and 15.7% for 45 stage I patients and 12.4 Gy, 19.3% and 46.6% for 73 stage III lung patients. The average contra-lateral lung dose V(5Gy-cont) was 35.6% for stage III patients.

CONCLUSIONS

For stereotactic and conventional lung treatments, VMAT calculated with AXB grid size 2.5 mm resulted in accurate dose calculations. No hybrid technique was needed to obtain the dose constraints. AXB is recommended instead of AAA for avoiding serious overestimation of the minimum target doses compared to the actual delivered dose.