The importance of accurate linear accelerator head modelling for IMRT Monte Carlo calculations

Characterization of cylindrical ionization chambers for patient specific IMRT QA

Proven conventional dosimetry techniques do not provide accuracy and precision in the measurement of inverse planned intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) fields. Dynamic and step-and-shoot multileaf collimation (DMLC/SMLC) challenge current ionization chamber dosimetry practices. Ionization chamber performance in these fields is evaluated for three cylindrical chambers of varying volumes (PinPoint (PP): 0.015 cm3, IC10: 0.13 cm3, Farmer type NE2571 (FT): 0.69 cm3) in terms of measurement reproducibility, dose measurement linearity, and IMRT dose measurements. Fifty IMRT patient specific quality assurance dose measurements were performed with each chamber. DMLC measurements are compared between chambers, and to dose calculations from a commercial treatment planning system (TPS) that used a finite size pencil beam model (FSPB). Ten SMLC measurements are compared to Monte Carlo simulations available in the TPS. The three chambers demonstrated adequate measurement reproducibility characteristics for both open and DMLC fields with each chamber able to perform within 2% (2SD) for DMLC fields. Both smaller volume chambers over responded (> 5%) when irradiated with a small number of monitor units in open fields. FT and IC10 chambers demonstrated dose linearity in DMLC fields down to 10 monitor units, while dose linearity for the PP chamber broke down at 100 monitor units. The evaluation of fifty DMLC treatment plan quality assurance procedures revealed that the FT chamber measurements were closest to the FSPB calculated values (FSPB: 1.0, FT: 0.973 +/- 0.044, IC10: 0.963 +/- 0.048, PP: 0.944 +/- 0.071). Quality assurance plans calculated independently with Monte Carlo more closely matched chamber measurements (FSPB: 1.0, MC: 0.97, FT: 0.95). Measurements of absorbed dose to water in IMRT fields are highly chamber and IMRT plan dependent.

Monte carlo evaluation of the AAA treatment planning algorithm in a heterogeneous multilayer phantom and IMRT clinical treatments for an Elekta SL25 linear accelerator

The Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) is a new pencil beam convolution/superposition algorithm proposed by Varian for photon dose calculations. The configuration of AAA depends on linear accelerator design and specifications. The purpose of this study was to investigate the accuracy of AAA for an Elekta SL25 linear accelerator for small fields and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatments in inhomogeneous media. The accuracy of AAA was evaluated in two studies. First, AAA was compared both with Monte Carlo (MC) and the measurements in an inhomogeneous phantom simulating lung equivalent tissues and bone ribs. The algorithm was tested under lateral electronic disequilibrium conditions, using small fields (2 x 2 cm(2)). Good agreement was generally achieved for depth dose and profiles, with deviations generally below 3% in lung inhomogeneities and below 5% at interfaces. However, the effects of attenuation and scattering close to the bone ribs were not fully taken into account by AAA, and small inhomogeneities may lead to planning errors. Second, AAA and MC were compared for IMRT plans in clinical conditions, i.e., dose calculations in a computed tomography scan of a patient. One ethmoid tumor, one orophaxynx and two lung tumors are presented in this paper. Small differences were found between the dose volume histograms. For instance, a 1.7% difference for the mean planning target volume dose was obtained for the ethmoid case. Since better agreement was achieved for the same plans but in homogeneous conditions, these differences must be attributed to the handling of inhomogeneities by AAA. Therefore, inherent assumptions of the algorithm, principally the assumption of independent depth and lateral directions in the scaling of the kernels, were slightly influencing AAA's validity in inhomogeneities. However, AAA showed a good accuracy overall and a great ability to handle small fields in inhomogeneous media compared to other pencil beam convolution algorithms.

Quantification of the impact of MLC modeling and tissue heterogeneities on dynamic IMRT dose calculations

This study quantifies the dose prediction errors (DPEs) in dynamic IMRT dose calculations resulting from (a) use of an intensity matrix to estimate the multi-leaf collimator (MLC) modulated photon fluence (DPE(IGfluence) instead of an explicit MLC particle transport, and (b) handling of tissue heterogeneities (DPE(hetero)) by superposition/convolution (SC) and pencil beam (PB) dose calculation algorithms. Monte Carlo (MC) computed doses are used as reference standards. Eighteen head-and-neck dynamic MLC IMRT treatment plans are investigated. DPEs are evaluated via comparing the dose received by 98% of the GTV (GTV D 98%), the CTV D 95%, the nodal D 90%, the cord and the brainstem D 02%, the parotid D 50%, the parotid mean dose (D (Mean)), and generalized equivalent uniform doses (gEUDs) for the above structures. For the MC-generated intensity grids, DPE(IGfluence) is within +/- 2.1% for all targets and critical structures. The SC algorithm DPE(hetero) is within +/- 3% for 98.3% of the indices tallied, and within +/- 3.4% for all of the tallied indices. The PB algorithm DPE(hetero) is within +/- 3% for 92% of the tallied indices. Statistical equivalence tests indicate that PB DPE(hetero) requires a +/- 3.6% interval to state equivalence with the MC standard, while the intervals are < 1.5% for SC DPE(hetero) and DPE(IGfluence). Overall, these results indicate that SC and MC IMRT dose calculations which use MC-derived intensity matrices for fluence prediction do not introduce significant dose errors compared with full Monte Carlo dose computations; however, PB algorithms may result in clinically significant dose deviations.

A Monte Carlo model for calculating out-of-field dose from a varian 6 MV beam

Dose to the patient outside of the treatment field is important when evaluating the outcome of radiotherapy treatments. However, determining out-of-field doses for any particular treatment plan currently requires either time-consuming measurements or calculated estimations that may be highly uncertain. A Monte Carlo model may allow these doses to be determined quickly, accurately, and with a great degree of flexibility. MCNPX was used to create a Monte Carlo model of a Varian Clinac 2100 accelerator head operated at 6 MV. Simulations of the dose out-of-field were made and measurements were taken with thermoluminescent dosimeters in an acrylic phantom and with an ion chamber in a water tank to validate the Monte Carlo model. Although local differences between the out-of-field doses calculated by the model and those measured did exceed 50% at some points far from the treatment field, the average local difference was only 16%. This included a range of doses as low as 0.01% of the central axis dose, and at distances in excess of 50 cm from the central axis of the treatment field. The out-of-field dose was found to vary with field size and distance from the central axis, but was almost independent of the depth in the phantom except where the dose increased substantially at depths less than dmax. The relationship between dose and kerma was also investigated, and kerma was found to be a good estimate of dose (within 3% on average) except near the surface and in the field penumbra. Our Monte Carlo model was found to well represent typical Varian 2100 accelerators operated at 6 MV.

Comparison of dose-volume histograms of IMRT treatment plans for ethmoid sinus cancer computed by advanced treatment planning systems including Monte Carlo

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

To recompute clinical intensity-modulated treatment plans for ethmoid sinus cancer and to compare quantitatively the dose-volume histograms (DVHs) of the planning target volume (PTV) and the optic organs at risk.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Ten step-and-shoot intensity-modulated treatment plans were enrolled in this study. Large natural and surgical air cavities challenged the calculation systems. Each optimized treatment plan was recalculated by two superposition convolution (TMS and Pinnacle) and a Monte Carlo system (MCDE). To compare the resulting DVHs, a one-way ANOVA for repeated measurements was performed and multiple pairwise comparisons were made.

RESULTS

The tails of the PTV-DVHs were significantly higher for the Monte Carlo system. The DVHs of the critical organs displayed some statistically but not always clinically significant differences. For the individual patients, the three planning systems sometimes reproduced clinically discrepant DVHs that were not significantly different when averaged over all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Dose to air cavities contains computational uncertainty. As this dose is clinically irrelevant and optimizing it is meaningless, we recommended extracting the air from the PTV when constructing the PTV-DVH. The planning systems considered reproduce DVHs that are significantly different, especially in the tail region of PTV-DVHs.

Accuracy of patient dose calculation for lung IMRT: A comparison of Monte Carlo, convolution/superposition, and pencil beam computations

The accuracy of dose computation within the lungs depends strongly on the performance of the calculation algorithm in regions of electronic disequilibrium that arise near tissue inhomogeneities with large density variations. There is a lack of data evaluating the performance of highly developed analytical dose calculation algorithms compared to Monte Carlo computations in a clinical setting. We compared full Monte Carlo calculations (performed by our Monte Carlo dose engine MCDE) with two different commercial convolution/superposition (CS) implementations (Pinnacle-CS and Helax-TMS's collapsed cone model Helax-CC) and one pencil beam algorithm (Helax-TMS's pencil beam model Helax-PB) for 10 intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) lung cancer patients. Treatment plans were created for two photon beam qualities (6 and 18 MV). For each dose calculation algorithm, patient, and beam quality, the following set of clinically relevant dose-volume values was reported: (i) minimal, median, and maximal dose (Dmin, D50, and Dmax) for the gross tumor and planning target volumes (GTV and PTV); (ii) the volume of the lungs (excluding the GTV) receiving at least 20 and 30 Gy (V20 and V30) and the mean lung dose; (iii) the 33rd percentile dose (D33) and Dmax delivered to the heart and the expanded esophagus; and (iv) Dmax for the expanded spinal cord. Statistical analysis was performed by means of one-way analysis of variance for repeated measurements and Tukey pairwise comparison of means. Pinnacle-CS showed an excellent agreement with MCDE within the target structures, whereas the best correspondence for the organs at risk (OARs) was found between Helax-CC and MCDE. Results from Helax-PB were unsatisfying for both targets and OARs. Additionally, individual patient results were analyzed. Within the target structures, deviations above 5% were found in one patient for the comparison of MCDE and Helax-CC, while all differences between MCDE and Pinnacle-CS were below 5%. For both Pinnacle-CS and Helax-CC, deviations from MCDE above 5% were found within the OARs: within the lungs for two (6 MV) and six (18 MV) patients for Pinnacle-CS, and within other OARs for two patients for Helax-CC (for Dmax of the heart and D33 of the expanded esophagus) but only for 6 MV. For one patient, all four algorithms were used to recompute the dose after replacing all computed tomography voxels within the patient's skin contour by water. This made all differences above 5% between MCDE and the other dose calculation algorithms disappear. Thus, the observed deviations mainly arose from differences in particle transport modeling within the lungs, and the commissioning of the algorithms was adequately performed (or the commissioning was less important for this type of treatment). In conclusion, not one pair of the dose calculation algorithms we investigated could provide results that were consistent within 5% for all 10 patients for the set of clinically relevant dose-volume indices studied. As the results from both CS algorithms differed significantly, care should be taken when evaluating treatment plans as the choice of dose calculation algorithm may influence clinical results. Full Monte Carlo provides a great benchmarking tool for evaluating the performance of other algorithms for patient dose computations.

Monte Carlo modelling of a-Si EPID response: The effect of spectral variations with field size and position

This study focused on predicting the electronic portal imaging device (EPID) image of intensity modulated radiation treatment (IMRT) fields in the absence of attenuation material in the beam with Monte Carlo methods. As IMRT treatments consist of a series of segments of various sizes that are not always delivered on the central axis, large spectral variations may be observed between the segments. The effect of these spectral variations on the EPID response was studied with fields of various sizes and off-axis positions. A detailed description of the EPID was implemented in a Monte Carlo model. The EPID model was validated by comparing the EPID output factors for field sizes between 1 x 1 and 26 x 26 cm2 at the isocenter. The Monte Carlo simulations agreed with the measurements to within 1.5%. The Monte Carlo model succeeded in predicting the EPID response at the center of the fields of various sizes and offsets to within 1% of the measurements. Large variations (up to 29%) of the EPID response were observed between the various offsets. The EPID response increased with field size and with field offset for most cases. The Monte Carlo model was then used to predict the image of a simple test IMRT field delivered on the beam axis and with an offset. A variation of EPID response up to 28% was found between the on- and off-axis delivery. Finally, two clinical IMRT fields were simulated and compared to the measurements. For all IMRT fields, simulations and measurements agreed within 3%-0.2 cm for 98% of the pixels. The spectral variations were quantified by extracting from the spectra at the center of the fields the total photon yield (Ytotal), the photon yield below 1 MeV (Ylow), and the percentage of photons below 1 MeV (Plow). For the studied cases, a correlation was shown between the EPID response variation and Ytotal, Ylow, and Plow.

The IMRT information process—mastering the degrees of freedom in external beam therapy

The techniques and procedures for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) are reviewed in the context of the information process central to treatment planning and delivery of IMRT. A presentation is given of the evolution of the information based radiotherapy workflow and dose delivery techniques, as well as the volume and planning concepts for relating the dose information to image based patient representations. The formulation of the dose shaping process as an optimization problem is described. The different steps in the calculation flow for determination of machine parameters for dose delivery are described starting from the formulation of optimization objectives over dose calculation to optimization procedures. Finally, the main elements of the quality assurance procedure necessary for implementing IMRT clinically are reviewed.