Monte Carlo simulations to replace film dosimetry in IMRT verification

Secondary malignancy risk for patients with localized prostate cancer after intensity-modulated radiotherapy with and without flattening filter

Men treated for localized prostate cancer by radiotherapy have often a remaining life span of 10 yr or more. Therefore, the risk for secondary malignancies should be taken into account. Plans for ten patients were evaluated which had been performed on an Oncentra® treatment planning system for a treatment with an Elekta Synergy™ linac with Agility™ head. The investigated techniques involved IMRT and VMTA with and without flattening filter. Different dose response models were applied for secondary carcinoma and sarcoma risk in the treated region and also in the periphery. As organs at risk we regarded for carcinoma risk urinary bladder, rectum, colon, esophagus, thyroid, and for sarcoma risk bone and soft tissue. The excess absolute risk (EAR) was found very similar in the treated region for both techniques (IMRT and VMAT) and also for both with and without flattening filter. The secondary sarcoma risk resulted about one magnitude smaller than the secondary carcinoma risk. The EAR to the peripheral organs was statistically significant reduced by application of the flattening filter free mode concerning the flattening filter as main source of scattered dose. Application of flattening filter free mode can thus support to reduce second malignancy risk for patients with localized prostate cancer.

A technique for quantifying the sensitivity of dosimetric tool gamma with 2D detector array in pretreatment IMRT plans by segment deletion method

OBJECTIVES

Motivation of this study is to check the sensitivity of dosimetric tool gamma with 2D detector array combination when unexpected errors occur while transferring intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment plans from planning system to treatment unit.

METHODS

This study consists of 17 head and neck cancer patient's treatment plans. Nine types of verification plans are created for all 17 clinically approved treatment plans by consecutively deleting different segments (up to eight) one by one from each field of the plan. Decrement factor (χ) is introduced in our study which illustrated the degree of decay of gamma passing rate when intentional errors are introduced. We analyzed the data by two different methods-one without selecting the region of interest (ROI) in dose distributions and the other by selecting the region of interest.

RESULTS

By linear regression, the absolute value of slopes is 0.025, 0.024 and 0.015 without ROI and 0.030, 0.027 and 0.015 with ROI for 2%/2 mm, 3%/3 mm and 5%/5 mm criteria, respectively. The higher absolute value of the fitted slope indicates the higher sensitivity of this method to identify erroneous plan in treatment unit. The threshold value for 2%/2 mm equivalent to 95% passing criteria in 3%/3 mm used in clinical practice is obtained as 83.44%.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2D detector array with dosimetric tool gamma is less sensitive in detecting errors when unprecedented errors of segment deletion occur within the treatment plans.

EGSnrc application for IMRT planning

The aim of this study was to describe a detailed instruction of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) planning simulation using BEAMnrc-DOSXYZnrc code system (EGSnrc package) and present a new graphical user interface based on MATLAB code (The MathWorks) to combine more than one. 3ddose file which were obtained from the IMRT plan. This study was performed in four phases: the commissioning of Varian Clinac iX6 MV, the simulation of IMRT planning in EGSnrc, the creation of in-house VDOSE GUI, and the analysis of the isodose contour and dose volume histogram (DVH) curve from several beam angles. The plan paramaters in sequence and control point files were extracted from the planning data in Tan Tock Seng Hospital Singapore (multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf positions - bank A and bank B, gantry angles, coordinate of isocenters, and MU indexes). VDOSE GUI which was created in this study can display the distribution dose curve in each slice and beam angle. Dose distributions from various MLC settings and beam angles yield different dose distributions even though they used the same number of simulated particles. This was due to the differences in the MLC leaf openings in every field. The value of the relative dose error between the two dose ditributions for "body" was 51.23 %. The Monte Carlo (MC) data was normalized with the maximum dose but the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) data was normalized by the dose in the isocenter. In this study, we have presented a Monte Carlo simulation framework for IMRT dose calculation using DOSXYZnrc source 21. Further studies are needed in conducting IMRT simulations using EGSnrc to minimize the different dose error and dose volume histogram deviation.

Towards effective and efficient patient-specific quality assurance for spot scanning proton therapy

An intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) program based on measurement alone can be very time consuming due to the highly modulated dose distributions of IMPT fields. Incorporating independent dose calculation and treatment log file analysis could reduce the time required for measurements. In this article, we summarize our effort to develop an efficient and effective PSQA program that consists of three components: measurements, independent dose calculation, and analysis of patient-specific treatment delivery log files. Measurements included two-dimensional (2D) measurements using an ionization chamber array detector for each field delivered at the planned gantry angles with the electronic medical record (EMR) system in the QA mode and the accelerator control system (ACS) in the treatment mode, and additional measurements at depths for each field with the ACS in physics mode and without the EMR system. Dose distributions for each field in a water phantom were calculated independently using a recently developed in-house pencil beam algorithm and compared with those obtained using the treatment planning system (TPS). The treatment log file for each field was analyzed in terms of deviations in delivered spot positions from their planned positions using various statistical methods. Using this improved PSQA program, we were able to verify the integrity of the data transfer from the TPS to the EMR to the ACS, the dose calculation of the TPS, and the treatment delivery, including the dose delivered and spot positions. On the basis of this experience, we estimate that the in-room measurement time required for each complex IMPT case (e.g., a patient receiving bilateral IMPT for head and neck cancer) is less than 1 h using the improved PSQA program. Our experience demonstrates that it is possible to develop an efficient and effective PSQA program for IMPT with the equipment and resources available in the clinic.

Three-dimensional gamma analysis of dose distributions in individual structures for IMRT dose verification

Our purpose in this study was to implement three-dimensional (3D) gamma analysis for structures of interest such as the planning target volume (PTV) or clinical target volume (CTV), and organs at risk (OARs) for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) dose verification. IMRT dose distributions for prostate and head and neck (HN) cancer patients were calculated with an analytical anisotropic algorithm in an Eclipse (Varian Medical Systems) treatment planning system (TPS) and by Monte Carlo (MC) simulation. The MC dose distributions were calculated with EGSnrc/BEAMnrc and DOSXYZnrc user codes under conditions identical to those for the TPS. The prescribed doses were 76 Gy/38 fractions with five-field IMRT for the prostate and 33 Gy/17 fractions with seven-field IMRT for the HN. TPS dose distributions were verified by the gamma passing rates for the whole calculated volume, PTV or CTV, and OARs by use of 3D gamma analysis with reference to MC dose distributions. The acceptance criteria for the 3D gamma analysis were 3/3 and 2 %/2 mm for a dose difference and a distance to agreement. The gamma passing rates in PTV and OARs for the prostate IMRT plan were close to 100 %. For the HN IMRT plan, the passing rates of 2 %/2 mm in CTV and OARs were substantially lower because inhomogeneous tissues such as bone and air in the HN are included in the calculation area. 3D gamma analysis for individual structures is useful for IMRT dose verification.

Evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of independent dose calculation followed by machine log file analysis against conventional measurement based IMRT QA

Experimental methods are commonly used for patient-specific IMRT delivery verification. There are a variety of IMRT QA techniques which have been proposed and clinically used with a common understanding that not one single method can detect all possible errors. The aim of this work was to compare the efficiency and effectiveness of independent dose calculation followed by machine log file analysis to conventional measurement-based methods in detecting errors in IMRT delivery. Sixteen IMRT treatment plans (5 head-and-neck, 3 rectum, 3 breast, and 5 prostate plans) created with a commercial treatment planning system (TPS) were recalculated on a QA phantom. All treatment plans underwent ion chamber (IC) and 2D diode array measurements. The same set of plans was also recomputed with another commercial treatment planning system and the two sets of calculations were compared. The deviations between dosimetric measurements and independent dose calculation were evaluated. The comparisons included evaluations of DVHs and point doses calculated by the two TPS systems. Machine log files were captured during pretreatment composite point dose measurements and analyzed to verify data transfer and performance of the delivery machine. Average deviation between IC measurements and point dose calculations with the two TPSs for head-and-neck plans were 1.2 ± 1.3% and 1.4 ± 1.6%, respectively. For 2D diode array measurements, the mean gamma value with 3% dose difference and 3 mm distance-to-agreement was within 1.5% for 13 of 16 plans. The mean 3D dose differences calculated from two TPSs were within 3% for head-and-neck cases and within 2% for other plans. The machine log file analysis showed that the gantry angle, jaw position, collimator angle, and MUs were consistent as planned, and maximal MLC position error was less than 0.5 mm. The independent dose calculation followed by the machine log analysis takes an average 47 ± 6 minutes, while the experimental approach (using IC and 2D diode array measurements) takes an average about 2 hours in our clinic. Independent dose calculation followed by machine log file analysis can be a reliable tool to verify IMRT treatments. Additionally, independent dose calculations have the potential to identify several problems (heterogeneity calculations, data corruptions, system failures) with the primary TPS, which generally are not identifiable with a measurement-based approach. Additionally, machine log file analysis can identify many problems (gantry, collimator, jaw setting) which also may not be detected with a measurement-based approach. Machine log file analysis could also detect performance problems for individual MLC leaves which could be masked in the analysis of a measured fluence.