Dose calculation of dynamic trajectory radiotherapy using Monte Carlo

Robust optimization and assessment of dynamic trajectory and mixed-beam arc radiotherapy: a preliminary study

Objective.Dynamic trajectory radiotherapy (DTRT) and dynamic mixed-beam arc therapy (DYMBARC) exploit non-coplanarity and, for DYMBARC, simultaneously optimized photon and electron beams. Margin concepts to account for set-up uncertainties during delivery are ill-defined for electron fields. We develop robust optimization for DTRT&DYMBARC and compare dosimetric plan quality and robustness for both techniques and both optimization strategies for four cases.Approach.Cases for different treatment sites and clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume (PTV) margins,m, were investigated. Dynamic gantry-table-collimator photon paths were optimized to minimize PTV/organ-at-risk (OAR) overlap in beam's-eye-view and minimize potential photon multileaf collimator (MLC) travel. For DYMBARC plans, non-isocentric partial electron arcs or static fields with shortened source-to-surface distance (80 cm) were added. Direct aperture optimization (DAO) was used to simultaneously optimize MLC-based intensity modulation for both photon and electron beams yielding deliverable PTV-based DTRT&DYMBARC plans. Robust-optimized plans used the same paths/arcs/fields. DAO with stochastic programming was used for set-up uncertainties with equal weights in all translational directions and magnitudeδsuch thatm= 0.7δ. Robust analysis considered random errors in all directions with or without an additional systematic error in the worst 3D direction for the adjacent OARs.Main results.Electron contribution was 7%-41% of target dose depending on the case and optimization strategy for DYMBARC. All techniques achieved similar CTV coverage in the nominal (no error) scenario. OAR sparing was overall better in the DYMBARC plans than in the DTRT plans and DYMBARC plans were generally more robust to the considered uncertainties. OAR sparing was better in the PTV-based than in robust-optimized plans for OARs abutting or overlapping with the target volume, but more affected by uncertainties.Significance.Better plan robustness can be achieved with robust optimization than with margins. Combining electron arcs/fields with non-coplanar photon trajectories further improves robustness and OAR sparing.

Organs-at-risk dose and normal tissue complication probability with dynamic trajectory radiotherapy (DTRT) for head and neck cancer

We compared dynamic trajectory radiotherapy (DTRT) to state-of-the-art volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for 46 head and neck cancer cases. DTRT had lower dose to salivary glands and swallowing structure, resulting in lower predicted xerostomia and dysphagia compared to VMAT. DTRT is deliverable on C-arm linacs with high dosimetric accuracy.

Impact of the gradient in gantry-table rotation on dynamic trajectory radiotherapy plan quality

BACKGROUND

To improve organ at risk (OAR) sparing, dynamic trajectory radiotherapy (DTRT) extends VMAT by dynamic table and collimator rotation during beam-on. However, comprehensive investigations regarding the impact of the gantry-table (GT) rotation gradient on the DTRT plan quality have not been conducted.

PURPOSE

To investigate the impact of a user-defined GT rotation gradient on plan quality of DTRT plans in terms of dosimetric plan quality, dosimetric robustness, deliverability, and delivery time.

METHODS

The dynamic trajectories of DTRT are described by GT and gantry-collimator paths. The GT path is determined by minimizing the overlap of OARs with planning target volume (PTV). This approach is extended to consider a GT rotation gradient by means of a maximum gradient of the path (G m a x ${G}_{max}$ ) between two adjacent control points (G = | Δ table angle / Δ gantry angle | $G = | \Delta {{\mathrm{table\ angle}}/\Delta {\mathrm{gantry\ angle}}} |$ ) and maximum absolute change of G (Δ G m a x ${{\Delta}}{G}_{max}$ ). Four DTRT plans are created with different maximum G&∆G:G m a x ${G}_{max}$ &Δ G m a x ${{\Delta}}{G}_{max}$  = 0.5&0.125 (DTRT-1), 1&0.125 (DTRT-2), 3&0.125 (DTRT-3) and 3&1‍(DTRT-4), including 3-4 dynamic trajectories, for three clinically motivated cases in the head and neck and brain region (A, B, and C). A reference VMAT plan for each case is created. For all plans, plan quality is assessed and compared. Dosimetric plan quality is evaluated by target coverage, conformity, and OAR sparing. Dosimetric robustness is evaluated against systematic and random patient-setup uncertainties between± 3 mm $ \pm 3\ {\mathrm{mm}}$ in the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical directions, and machine uncertainties between± 4 ∘ $ \pm 4^\circ \ $ in the dynamically rotating machine components (gantry, table, collimator rotation). Delivery time is recorded. Deliverability and delivery accuracy on a TrueBeam are assessed by logfile analysis for all plans and additionally verified by film measurements for one case. All dose calculations are Monte Carlo based.

RESULTS

The extension of the DTRT planning process with user-definedG m a x & Δ G m a x ${G}_{max}\& {{\Delta}}{G}_{max}$ to investigate the impact of the GT rotation gradient on plan quality is successfully demonstrated. With increasingG m a x & Δ G m a x ${G}_{max}\& {{\Delta}}{G}_{max}$ , slight (case C,D m e a n , p a r o t i d l . ${D}_{mean,\ parotid\ l.}$ : up to‍-1‍Gy) and substantial (case A,D 0.03 c m 3 , o p t i c n e r v e r . ${D}_{0.03c{m}^3,\ optic\ nerve\ r.}$ : up to -9.3 Gy, case‍B,D m e a n , b r a i n $\ {D}_{mean,\ brain}$ : up to -4.7‍Gy) improvements in OAR sparing are observed compared to VMAT, while maintaining similar target coverage. All plans are delivered on the TrueBeam. Expected and actual machine position values recorded in the logfiles deviated by <0.2° for gantry, table and collimator rotation. The film measurements agreed by >96% (2%‍global/2 mm Gamma passing rate) with the dose calculation. With increasingG m a x & Δ G m a x ${G}_{max}\& {{\Delta}}{G}_{max}$ , delivery time is prolonged by <2 min/trajectory (DTRT-4) compared to VMAT and DTRT-1. The DTRT plans for case A and B and the VMAT plan for case C plan reveal the best dosimetric robustness for the considered uncertainties.

CONCLUSION

The impact of the GT rotation gradient on DTRT plan quality is comprehensively investigated for three cases in the head and neck and brain region. Increasing freedom in this gradient improves dosimetric plan quality at the cost of increased delivery time for the investigated cases. No clear dependency of GT rotation gradient on dosimetric robustness is observed.

Technical note: A collision prediction tool using Blender

Non-coplanar radiotherapy treatment techniques on C-arm linear accelerators have the potential to reduce dose to organs-at-risk in comparison with coplanar treatment techniques. Accurately predicting possible collisions between gantry, table and patient during treatment planning is needed to ensure patient safety. We offer a freely available collision prediction tool using Blender, a free and open-source 3D computer graphics software toolset. A geometric model of a C-arm linear accelerator including a library of patient models is created inside Blender. Based on the model, collision predictions can be used both to calculate collision-free zones and to check treatment plans for collisions. The tool is validated for two setups, once with and once without a full body phantom with the same table position. For this, each gantry-table angle combination with a 2° resolution is manually checked for collision interlocks at a TrueBeam system and compared to simulated collision predictions. For the collision check of a treatment plan, the tool outputs the minimal distance between the gantry, table and patient model and a video of the movement of the gantry and table, which is demonstrated for one use case. A graphical user interface allows user-friendly input of the table and patient specification for the collision prediction tool. The validation resulted in a true positive rate of 100%, which is the rate between the number of correctly predicted collision gantry-table combinations and the number of all measured collision gantry-table combinations, and a true negative rate of 89%, which is the ratio between the number of correctly predicted collision-free combinations and the number of all measured collision-free combinations. A collision prediction tool is successfully created and able to produce maps of collision-free zones and to test treatment plans for collisions including visualisation of the gantry and table movement.

Delivery time reduction for mixed photon-electron radiotherapy by using photon MLC collimated electron arcs

Objective. Electron arcs in mixed-beam radiotherapy (Arc-MBRT) consisting of intensity-modulated electron arcs with dynamic gantry rotation potentially reduce the delivery time compared to mixed-beam radiotherapy containing electron beams with static gantry angle (Static-MBRT). This study aims to develop and investigate a treatment planning process (TPP) for photon multileaf collimator (pMLC) based Arc-MBRT.Approach. An existing TPP for Static-MBRT plans is extended to integrate electron arcs with a dynamic gantry rotation and intensity modulation using a sliding window technique. The TPP consists of a manual setup of electron arcs, and either static photon beams or photon arcs, shortening of the source-to-surface distance for the electron arcs, initial intensity modulation optimization, selection of a user-defined number of electron beam energies based on dose contribution to the target volume and finally, simultaneous photon and electron intensity modulation optimization followed by full Monte Carlo dose calculation. Arc-MBRT plans, Static-MBRT plans, and photon-only plans were created and compared for four breast cases. Dosimetric validation of two Arc-MBRT plans was performed using film measurements.Main results. The generated Arc-MBRT plans are dosimetrically similar to the Static-MBRT plans while outperforming the photon-only plans. The mean heart dose is reduced by 32% on average in the MBRT plans compared to the photon-only plans. The estimated delivery times of the Arc-MBRT plans are similar to the photon-only plans but less than half the time of the Static-MBRT plans. Measured and calculated dose distributions agree with a gamma passing rate of over 98% (3% global, 2 mm) for both delivered Arc-MBRT plans.Significance. A TPP for Arc-MBRT is successfully developed and Arc-MBRT plans showed the potential to improve the dosimetric plan quality similar as Static-MBRT while maintaining short delivery times of photon-only treatments. This further facilitates integration of pMLC-based MBRT into clinical practice.

Efficiency enhancements of a Monte Carlo beamlet based treatment planning process: implementation and parameter study

Objective.The computational effort to perform beamlet calculation, plan optimization and final dose calculation of a treatment planning process (TPP) generating intensity modulated treatment plans is enormous, especially if Monte Carlo (MC) simulations are used for dose calculation. The goal of this work is to improve the computational efficiency of a fully MC based TPP for static and dynamic photon, electron and mixed photon-electron treatment techniques by implementing multiple methods and studying the influence of their parameters.Approach.A framework is implemented calculating MC beamlets efficiently in parallel on each available CPU core. The user can specify the desired statistical uncertainty of the beamlets, a fractional sparse dose threshold to save beamlets in a sparse format and minimal distances to the PTV surface from which 2 × 2 × 2 = 8 (medium) or even 4 × 4 × 4 = 64 (large) voxels are merged. The compromise between final plan quality and computational efficiency of beamlet calculation and optimization is studied for several parameter values to find a reasonable trade-off. For this purpose, four clinical and one academic case are considered with different treatment techniques.Main results.Setting the statistical uncertainty to 5% (photon beamlets) and 15% (electron beamlets), the fractional sparse dose threshold relative to the maximal beamlet dose to 0.1% and minimal distances for medium and large voxels to the PTV to 1 cm and 2 cm, respectively, does not lead to substantial degradation in final plan quality compared to using 2.5% (photon beamlets) and 5% (electron beamlets) statistical uncertainty and no sparse format nor voxel merging. Only OAR sparing is slightly degraded. Furthermore, computation times are reduced by about 58% (photon beamlets), 88% (electron beamlets) and 96% (optimization).Significance.Several methods are implemented improving computational efficiency of beamlet calculation and plan optimization of a fully MC based TPP without substantial degradation in final plan quality.

Enabling non-isocentric dynamic trajectory radiotherapy by integration of dynamic table translations

Objective. The purpose of this study is to develop a treatment planning process (TPP) for non-isocentric dynamic trajectory radiotherapy (DTRT) using dynamic gantry rotation, collimator rotation, table rotation, longitudinal, vertical and lateral table translations and intensity modulation and to validate the dosimetric accuracy. Approach. The TPP consists of two steps. First, a path describing the dynamic gantry rotation, collimator rotation and dynamic table rotation and translations is determined. Second, an optimization of the intensity modulation along the path is performed. We demonstrate the TPP for three use cases. First, a non-isocentric DTRT plan for a brain case is compared to an isocentric DTRT plan in terms of dosimetric plan quality and delivery time. Second, a non-isocentric DTRT plan for a craniospinal irradiation (CSI) case is compared to a multi-isocentric intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plan. Third, a non-isocentric DTRT plan for a bilateral breast case is compared to a multi-isocentric volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan. The non-isocentric DTRT plans are delivered on a TrueBeam in developer mode and their dosimetric accuracy is validated using radiochromic films. Main results. The non-isocentric DTRT plan for the brain case is similar in dosimetric plan quality and delivery time to the isocentric DTRT plan but is expected to reduce the risk of collisions. The DTRT plan for the CSI case shows similar dosimetric plan quality while reducing the delivery time by 45% in comparison with the IMRT plan. The DTRT plan for the breast case showed better treatment plan quality in comparison with the VMAT plan. The gamma passing rates between the measured and calculated dose distributions are higher than 95% for all three plans. Significance. The versatile benefits of non-isocentric DTRT are demonstrated with three use cases, namely reduction of collision risk, reduced setup and delivery time and improved dosimetric plan quality.

Organ-at-risk sparing with dynamic trajectory radiotherapy for head and neck cancer: comparison with volumetric arc therapy on a publicly available library of cases

Background

Dynamic trajectory radiotherapy (DTRT) extends volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with dynamic table and collimator rotation during beam-on. The aim of the study is to establish DTRT path-finding strategies, demonstrate deliverability and dosimetric accuracy and compare DTRT to state-of-the-art VMAT for common head and neck (HN) cancer cases.

Methods

A publicly available library of seven HN cases was created on an anthropomorphic phantom with all relevant organs-at-risk (OARs) delineated. DTRT plans were generated with beam incidences minimizing fractional target/OAR volume overlap and compared to VMAT. Deliverability and dosimetric validation was carried out on the phantom.

Results

DTRT and VMAT had similar target coverage. For three locoregionally advanced oropharyngeal carcinomas and one adenoid cystic carcinoma, mean dose to the contralateral salivary glands, pharynx and oral cavity was reduced by 2.5, 1.7 and 3.1 Gy respectively on average with DTRT compared to VMAT. For a locally recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma, D_0.03 cc to the ipsilateral optic nerve was above tolerance (54.0 Gy) for VMAT (54.8 Gy) but within tolerance for DTRT (53.3 Gy). For a laryngeal carcinoma, DTRT resulted in higher dose than VMAT to the pharynx and brachial plexus but lower dose to the upper oesophagus, thyroid gland and contralateral carotid artery. For a single vocal cord irradiation case, DTRT spared most OARs better than VMAT. All plans were delivered successfully on the phantom and dosimetric validation resulted in gamma passing rates of 93.9% and 95.8% (2%/2 mm criteria, 10% dose threshold).

Conclusions

This study provides a proof of principle of DTRT for common HN cases with plans that were deliverable on a C-arm linac with high accuracy. The comparison with VMAT indicates substantial OAR sparing could be achieved.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13014-022-02092-5.

Development of a Monte Carlo based robustness calculation and evaluation tool

Background

Evaluating plan robustness is a key step in radiotherapy.

Purpose

To develop a flexible Monte Carlo (MC)‐based robustness calculation and evaluation tool to assess and quantify dosimetric robustness of intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment plans by exploring the impact of systematic and random uncertainties resulting from patient setup, patient anatomy changes, and mechanical limitations of machine components.

Methods

The robustness tool consists of two parts: the first part includes automated MC dose calculation of multiple user‐defined uncertainty scenarios to populate a robustness space. An uncertainty scenario is defined by a certain combination of uncertainties in patient setup, rigid intrafraction motion and in mechanical steering of the following machine components: angles of gantry, collimator, table‐yaw, table‐pitch, table‐roll, translational positions of jaws, multileaf‐collimator (MLC) banks, and single MLC leaves. The Swiss Monte Carlo Plan (SMCP) is integrated in this tool to serve as the backbone for the MC dose calculations incorporating the uncertainties. The calculated dose distributions serve as input for the second part of the tool, handling the quantitative evaluation of the dosimetric impact of the uncertainties. A graphical user interface (GUI) is developed to simultaneously evaluate the uncertainty scenarios according to user‐specified conditions based on dose‐volume histogram (DVH) parameters, fast and exact gamma analysis, and dose differences. Additionally, a robustness index (RI) is introduced with the aim to simultaneously evaluate and condense dosimetric robustness against multiple uncertainties into one number. The RI is defined as the ratio of scenarios passing the conditions on the dose distributions. Weighting of the scenarios in the robustness space is possible to consider their likelihood of occurrence. The robustness tool is applied on IMRT, a volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), a dynamic trajectory radiotherapy (DTRT), and a dynamic mixed beam radiotherapy (DYMBER) plan for a brain case to evaluate the robustness to uncertainties of gantry‐, table‐, collimator angle, MLC, and intrafraction motion. Additionally, the robustness of the IMRT, VMAT, and DTRT plan against patient setup uncertainties are compared. The robustness tool is validated by Delta4 measurements for scenarios including all uncertainty types available.

Results

The robustness tool performs simultaneous calculation of uncertainty scenarios, and the GUI enables their fast evaluation. For all evaluated plans and uncertainties, the planning target volume (PTV) margin prevented major clinical target volume (CTV) coverage deterioration (maximum observed standard deviation of D98%CTV was 1.3 Gy). OARs close to the PTV experienced larger dosimetric deviations (maximum observed standard deviation of D2%chiasma was 14.5 Gy). Robustness comparison by RI evaluation against patient setup uncertainties revealed better dosimetric robustness of the VMAT and DTRT plans as compared to the IMRT plan. Delta4 validation measurements agreed with calculations by >96% gamma‐passing rate (3% global/2 mm).

Conclusions

The robustness tool was successfully implemented. Calculation and evaluation of uncertainty scenarios with the robustness tool were demonstrated on a brain case. Effects of patient and machine‐specific uncertainties and the combination thereof on the dose distribution are evaluated in a user‐friendly GUI to quantitatively assess and compare treatment plans and their robustness.

Benchmarking Monte-Carlo dose calculation for MLC CyberKnife treatments

Background

Vendor-independent Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation (IDC) for patient-specific quality assurance of multi-leaf collimator (MLC) based CyberKnife treatments is used to benchmark and validate the commercial MC dose calculation engine for MLC based treatments built into the CyberKnife treatment planning system (Precision MC).

Methods

The benchmark included dose profiles in water in 15 mm depth and depth dose curves of rectangular MLC shaped fields ranging from 7.6 mm × 7.7 mm to 115.0 mm  × 100.1 mm, which were compared between IDC, Precision MC and measurements in terms of dose difference and distance to agreement. Dose distributions of three phantom cases and seven clinical lung cases were calculated using both IDC and Precision MC. The lung PTVs ranged from 14 cm³ to 93 cm³. Quantitative comparison of these dose distributions was performed using dose-volume parameters and 3D gamma analysis with 2% global dose difference and 1 mm distance criteria and a global 10% dose threshold. Time to calculate dose distributions was recorded and efficiency was assessed.

Results

Absolute dose profiles in 15 mm depth in water showed agreement between Precision MC and IDC within 3.1% or 1 mm. Depth dose curves agreed within 2.3% / 1 mm. For the phantom and clinical lung cases, mean PTV doses differed from − 1.0 to + 2.3% between IDC and Precision MC and gamma passing rates were > =98.1% for all multiple beam treatment plans. For the lung cases, lung V20 agreed within ±1.5%. Calculation times ranged from 2.2 min (for 39 cm³ PTV at 1.0 × 1.0 × 2.5 mm³ native CT resolution) to 8.1 min (93 cm³ at 1.1 × 1.1 × 1.0 mm³), at 2% uncertainty for Precision MC for the 7 examined lung cases and 4–6 h for IDC, which, however, is not optimized for efficiency but used as a gold standard for accuracy.

Conclusions

Both accuracy and efficiency of Precision MC in the context of MLC based planning for the CyberKnife M6 system were benchmarked against MC based IDC framework. Precision MC is used in clinical practice at our institute.

Quality assurance of non-coplanar, volumetric-modulated arc therapy employing a C-arm linear accelerator, featuring continuous patient couch rotation

PURPOSE

To perform quality assurance of non-coplanar, volumetric-modulated arc therapy featuring continuous couch rotation (CCR-VMAT) using a C-arm linear accelerator.

METHODS

We planned and delivered CCR-VMAT using the TrueBeam Developer Mode. Treatment plans were created for both a C-shaped phantom and five prostate cancer patients using seven CCR trajectories that lacked collisions; we used RayStation software (ver. 4.7) to this end. Subsequently, verification plans were generated. The mean absolute error (MAE) between the center of an MV-imaged steel ball and the radiation field was calculated using the Winston-Lutz test. The MAEs between planned and actual irradiation values were also calculated from trajectory logs. In addition, correlation coefficients (r values) among the MAEs of gantry angle, couch angle, and multi-leaf collimator (MLC) position, and mechanical parameters including gantry speed, couch speed, MLC speed, and beam output, were estimated. The dosimetric accuracies of planned and measured values were also assessed using ArcCHECK.

RESULTS

The MAEs ±2 standard deviations as revealed by the Winston-Lutz test for all trajectories were 0.3 ± 0.3 mm in two dimensions. The MAEs of the gantry, couch, and MLC positions calculated from all trajectory logs were within 0.04°, 0.08°, and 0.02 mm, respectively. Deviations in the couch angle (r = 0.98, p < 0.05) and MLC position (r = 0.86, p < 0.05) increased significantly with speed. The MAE of the beam output error was less than 0.01 MU. The mean gamma passing rate ± 2 SD (range) of the 3%/3 mm, 3%/1 mm, and 5%/1 mm was 98.1 ± 1.9% (95.7-99.6%), 87.2 ± 2.8% (80.2-96.7%), and 96.3 ± 2.8% (93.9-99.6%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

CCR-VMAT delivered via the TrueBeam Developer Mode was associated with high-level geometric and mechanical accuracy, thus affording to high dosimetric accuracy. The CCR-VMAT performance was stable regardless of the trajectory chosen.

Dosimetric accuracy of dynamic couch rotation during volumetric modulated arc therapy (DCR-VMAT) for primary brain tumours

Radiotherapy treatment plans using dynamic couch rotation during volumetric modulated arc therapy (DCR-VMAT) reduce the dose to organs at risk (OARs) compared to coplanar VMAT, while maintaining the dose to the planning target volume (PTV). This paper seeks to validate this finding with measurements. DCR-VMAT treatment plans were produced for five patients with primary brain tumours and delivered using a commercial linear accelerator (linac). Dosimetric accuracy was assessed using point dose and radiochromic film measurements. Linac-recorded mechanical errors were assessed by extracting deviations from log files for multi-leaf collimator (MLC), couch, and gantry positions every 20 ms. Dose distributions, reconstructed from every fifth log file sample, were calculated and used to determine deviations from the treatment plans. Median (range) treatment delivery times were 125 s (123-133 s) for DCR-VMAT, compared to 78 s (64-130 s) for coplanar VMAT. Absolute point doses were 0.8% (0.6%-1.7%) higher than prediction. For coronal and sagittal films, respectively, 99.2% (96.7%-100%) and 98.1% (92.9%-99.0%) of pixels above a 20% low dose threshold reported gamma  <1 for 3% and 3 mm criteria. Log file analysis showed similar gantry rotation root-mean-square error (RMSE) for VMAT and DCR-VMAT. Couch rotation RMSE for DCR-VMAT was 0.091° (0.086-0.102°). For delivered dose reconstructions, 100% of pixels above a 5% low dose threshold reported gamma  <1 for 2% and 2 mm criteria in all cases. DCR-VMAT, for the primary brain tumour cases studied, can be delivered accurately using a commercial linac.

Part 2: Dynamic mixed beam radiotherapy (DYMBER): Photon dynamic trajectories combined with modulated electron beams

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to develop a treatment technique for dynamic mixed beam radiotherapy (DYMBER) utilizing increased degrees of freedom (DoF) of a conventional treatment unit including different particle types (photons and electrons), intensity and energy modulation and dynamic gantry, table, and collimator rotations.

METHODS

A treatment planning process has been developed to create DYMBER plans combining photon dynamic trajectories (DTs) and step and shoot electron apertures collimated with the photon multileaf collimator (pMLC). A gantry-table path is determined for the photon DTs with minimized overlap of the organs at risk (OARs) with the target. In addition, an associated dynamic collimator rotation is established with minimized area between the pMLC leaves and the target contour. pMLC sequences of photon DTs and electron pMLC apertures are then simultaneously optimized using direct aperture optimization (DAO). Subsequently, the final dose distribution of the electron pMLC apertures is calculated using the Swiss Monte Carlo Plan (SMCP). The pMLC sequences of the photon DTs are then re-optimized with a finer control point resolution and with the final electron dose distribution taken into account. Afterwards, the final photon dose distribution is calculated also using the SMCP and summed together with the one of the electrons. This process is applied for a brain and two head and neck cases. The resulting DYMBER dose distributions are compared to those of dynamic trajectory radiotherapy (DTRT) plans consisting only of photon DTs and clinically applied VMAT plans. Furthermore, the deliverability of the DYMBER plans is verified in terms of dosimetric accuracy, delivery time and collision avoidance. For this purpose, The DYMBER plans are delivered to Gafchromic EBT3 films placed in an anthropomorphic head phantom on a Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator.

RESULTS

For each case, the dose homogeneity in the target is similar or better for DYMBER compared to DTRT and VMAT. Averaged over all three cases, the mean dose to the parallel OARs is 16% and 28% lower, D2% to the serial OARs is 17% and 37% lower and V10% to normal tissue is 12% and 4% lower for the DYMBER plans compared to the DTRT and VMAT plans, respectively. The DYMBER plans are delivered without collision and with a 4-5 min longer delivery time than the VMAT plans. The absolute dose measurements are compared to calculation by gamma analysis using 2% (global)/2 mm criteria with passing rates of at least 99%.

CONCLUSIONS

A treatment technique for DYMBER has been successfully developed and verified for its deliverability. The dosimetric superiority of DYMBER over DTRT and VMAT indicates utilizing increased DoF to be the key to improve brain and head and neck radiation treatments in future.

Part 1: Optimization and evaluation of dynamic trajectory radiotherapy

PURPOSE

Although volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is a well-accepted treatment technique in radiotherapy using a coplanar delivery approach, VMAT might be further improved by including dynamic table and collimator rotations leading to dynamic trajectory radiotherapy (DTRT). In this work, an optimization procedure for DTRT was developed and the potential benefit of DTRT was investigated for different treatment sites.

METHODS

For this purpose, a dedicated optimization framework for DTRT was developed using the Eclipse Scripting Research Application Programming Interface (ESRAPI). The contours of the target and organs at risk (OARs) structures were exported by applying the ESRAPI and were used to determine the fractional volume-overlap of the OARs with the target from several potential beam directions. Thereby, an additional weighting was applied taking into account the relative position of the OAR with respect to the target and radiation beam, that is, penalizing directions where the OAR is proximal to the target. The resulting two-dimensional gantry-table map was used as input for an A* path finding algorithm returning an optimized gantry-table path. Thereby, the process is also taking into account CT scan length and collision restrictions. The A* algorithm was used again to determine the dynamic collimator angle path by optimizing the area between the MLC leaves and the target contour for each gantry-table path leading to gantry-collimator paths. The resulting gantry-table and gantry-collimator paths are combined and serve as input for the intensity modulation optimization using a research VMAT optimizer and the ESRAPI resulting in dynamic trajectories. This procedure was evaluated for five clinically motivated cases: two head and neck, one lung, one esophagus, and one prostate. Final dose calculations were performed using the Swiss Monte Carlo Plan (SMCP). Resulting dose distributions for the DTRT treatment plans and for the standard VMAT plans were compared based on dose distributions and dose volume histogram (DVH) parameters. For this comparison, the dose distribution for the VMAT plans were recalculated using the SMCP. In addition, the suitability of the delivery of a DTRT treatment plan was demonstrated by means of gafchromic film measurements on a TrueBeam linear accelerator.

RESULTS

DVHs for the target volumes showed similar or improved coverage and dose homogeneity for DTRT compared with VMAT using equal or less number of dynamic trajectories for DTRT than arcs for VMAT for all cases studied. Depending on the case, improvements in mean and maximum dose for the DTRT plans were achieved for almost all OARs compared with the VMAT plans. Improvements in DTRT treatment plans for mean and maximum dose compared to VMAT plans were up to 16% and 38% relative to the prescribed dose, respectively. The measured and calculated dose values resulted in a passing rate of more than 99.5% for the two-dimensional gamma analysis using 2% and 2 mm criteria and a threshold of 10%.

CONCLUSIONS

DTRT plans for different treatment sites were generated and compared with VMAT plans. The delivery is suitable and dose comparisons demonstrate a high potential of DTRT to reduce dose to OARs using less dynamic trajectories than arcs, while target coverage is preserved.