Experimental verification of a commercial Monte Carlo-based dose calculation module for high-energy photon beams

Dose calculation accuracy in particle therapy: Comparing carbon ions with protons

PURPOSE

This work presents the validation of an analytical pencil beam dose calculation algorithm in a commercial treatment planning system (TPS) for carbon ions by measurements of dose distributions in heterogeneous phantom geometries. Additionally, a comparison study of carbon ions versus protons is performed considering current best solutions in commercial TPS.

METHODS

All treatment plans were optimized and calculated using the RayStation TPS (RaySearch, Sweden). The dose distributions calculated with the TPS were compared with measurements using a 24-pinpoint ionization chamber array (T31015, PTW, Germany). Tissue-like inhomogeneities (bone, lung, and soft tissue) were embedded in water, while a target volume of 4 x 4 x 4 cm3 was defined at two different depths behind the heterogeneities. In total, 10 different test cases, with and without range shifter as well as different air gaps, were investigated. Dose distributions inside as well as behind the target volume were evaluated.

RESULTS

Inside the target volume, the mean dose difference between calculations and measurements, averaged over all test cases, was 1.6% for carbon ions. This compares well to the final agreement of 1.5% obtained in water at the commissioning stage of the TPS for carbon ions and is also within the clinically acceptable interval of 3%. The mean dose difference and maximal dose difference obtained outside the target area were 1.8% and 13.4%, respectively. The agreement of dose distributions for carbon ions in the target volumes was comparable or better to that between Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculations and measurements for protons. Percentage dose differences of more than 10% were present outside the target area behind bone-lung structures, where the carbon ion calculations systematically over predicted the dose. MC dose calculations for protons were superior to carbon ion beams outside the target volumes.

CONCLUSION

The pencil beam dose calculations for carbon ions in RayStation were found to be in good agreement with dosimetric measurements in heterogeneous geometries for points of interest located within the target. Large local discrepancies behind the target may contribute to incorrect dose predictions for organs at risk.

Novel Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm for robotic radiosurgery with multi leaf collimator: Dosimetric evaluation

PURPOSE

At introduction in 2014, dose calculation for the first MLC on a robotic SRS/SBRT platform was limited to a correction-based Finite-Size Pencil Beam (FSPB) algorithm. We report on the dosimetric accuracy of a novel Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation algorithm for this MLC, included in the Precision™ treatment planning system.

METHODS

A phantom was built of one slab (5.0 cm) of lung-equivalent material (0.09…0.29 g/cc) enclosed by 3.5 cm (above) and 5 cm (below) slabs of solid water (1.045 g/cc). This was irradiated using rectangular (15.4 × 15.4 mm² to 53.8 × 53.7 mm²) and two irregular MLC-fields. Radiochromic film (EBT3) was positioned perpendicular to the slabs and parallel to the beam. Calculated dose distributions were compared to film measurements using line scans and 2D gamma analysis.

RESULTS

Measured and MC calculated percent depth dose curves showed a characteristic dose drop within the low-density region, which was not correctly reproduced by FSPB. Superior average gamma pass rates (2%/1 mm) were found for MC (91.2 ± 1.5%) compared to FSPB (55.4 ± 2.7%). However, MC calculations exhibited localized anomalies at mass density transitions around 0.15 g/cc, which were traced to a simplification in electron transport. Absence of these anomalies was confirmed in a modified build of the MC engine, which increased gamma pass rates to 96.6 ± 1.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

The novel MC algorithm greatly improves dosimetric accuracy in heterogeneous tissue, potentially expanding the clinical use of robotic radiosurgery with MLC. In-depth, independent validation is paramount to identify and reduce the residual uncertainties in any software solution.

Does intensity modulation increase target dose calculation errors of conventional algorithms for lung SBRT?

Purpose

Conventional dose algorithms (Type A and Type B) for lung SBRT can display considerable target dose errors compared to Type‐C algorithms. Intensity‐modulated techniques (IMRT/VMAT) are increasingly being utilized for lung SBRT. Therefore, our study aimed to assess whether intensity modulation increased target dose calculation errors by conventional algorithms over conformal techniques.

Methods

Twenty lung SBRT patients were parallely planned with both IMRT and dynamic conformal arc (DCA) techniques using a Type‐A algorithm, and another 20 patients were parallely planned with IMRT, VMAT, and DCA using a Type‐B algorithm. All 100 plans were recalculated with Type‐C algorithms using identical beam and monitor unit settings, with the Type‐A/Type‐B algorithm dose errors defined using Type‐C recalculation as the ground truth. Target dose errors for PTV and GTV were calculated for a variety of dosimetric end points. Using Wilcoxon signed‐rank tests (p < 0.05 for statistical significance), target dose errors were compared between corresponding IMRT/VMAT and DCA plans for the two conventional algorithms. The levels of intensity modulation were also evaluated using the ratios of MUs in the IMRT/VMAT plans to those in the corresponding DCA plans. Linear regression was used to study the correlation between intensity modulation and relative dose error magnitudes.

Results

Overall, larger errors were found for the Type‐A algorithm than for the Type‐B algorithm. However, the IMRT/VMAT plans were not found to have statistically larger dose errors from their corresponding DCA plans. Linear regression did not identify a significant correlation between the intensity modulation level and the relative dose error.

Conclusion

Intensity modulation did not appear to increase target dose calculation errors for lung SBRT plans calculated with conventional algorithms.

Assessment of Monte Carlo algorithm for compliance with RTOG 0915 dosimetric criteria in peripheral lung cancer patients treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy

The purpose of the study was to evaluate Monte Carlo‐generated dose distributions with the X‐ray Voxel Monte Carlo (XVMC) algorithm in the treatment of peripheral lung cancer patients using stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) with non‐protocol dose‐volume normalization and to assess plan outcomes utilizing RTOG 0915 dosimetric compliance criteria. The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) protocols for non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) currently require radiation dose to be calculated using tissue density heterogeneity corrections. Dosimetric criteria of RTOG 0915 were established based on superposition/convolution or heterogeneities corrected pencil beam (PB‐hete) algorithms for dose calculations. Clinically, more accurate Monte Carlo (MC)‐based algorithms are now routinely used for lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) dose calculations. Hence, it is important to determine whether MC calculations in the delivery of lung SBRT can achieve RTOG standards. In this report, we evaluate iPlan generated MC plans for peripheral lung cancer patients treated with SBRT using dose‐volume histogram (DVH) normalization to determine if the RTOG 0915 compliance criteria can be met. This study evaluated 20 Stage I‐II NSCLC patients with peripherally located lung tumors, who underwent MC‐based SBRT with heterogeneity correction using X‐ray Voxel Monte Carlo (XVMC) algorithm (Brainlab iPlan version 4.1.2). Total dose of 50 to 54 Gy in 3 to 5 fractions was delivered to the planning target volume (PTV) with at least 95% of the PTV receiving 100% of the prescription dose (V100%≥95%). The internal target volume (ITV) was delineated on maximum intensity projection (MIP) images of 4D CT scans. The PTV included the ITV plus 5 mm uniform margin applied to the ITV. The PTV ranged from 11.1 to 163.0 cc (mean=46.1±38.7 cc). Organs at risk (OARs) including ribs were delineated on mean intensity projection (MeanIP) images of 4D CT scans. Optimal clinical MC SBRT plans were generated using a combination of 3D noncoplanar conformal arcs and nonopposing static beams for the Novalis‐TX linear accelerator consisting of high‐definition multileaf collimators (HD‐MLCs: 2.5 mm leaf width at isocenter) and 6 MV‐SRS (1000 MU/min) beam. All treatment plans were evaluated using the RTOG 0915 high‐ and intermediate‐dose spillage criteria: conformity index (R100%), ratio of 50% isodose volume to the PTV (R50%), maximum dose 2 cm away from PTV in any direction (D2cm), and percent of normal lung receiving 20 Gy V20 or more. Other OAR doses were documented, including the volume of normal lung receiving 5 Gy V5 or more, dose to <0.35 cc of spinal cord, and dose to 1000 cc of total normal lung tissue. The dose to <1 cc, <5 cc, <10 cc of ribs, as well as maximum point dose as a function of PTV, prescription dose, and a 3D distance from the tumor isocenter to the proximity of the rib contour were also examined. The biological effective dose (BED) with α/β ratio of 3 Gy for ribs was analyzed. All 20 patients either fully met or were within the minor deviation dosimetric compliance criteria of RTOG 0915 while using DVH normalization. However, only 5 of the 20 patients fully met all the criteria. Ten of 20 patients had minor deviations in R100% (mean=1.25±0.09), 13 in R50% (mean=4.5±0.6), and 11 in D2cm (mean=61.9±8.5). Lung V20, dose to 1000 cc of normal lung, and dose to <0.35 cc of spinal cord were met in accordance with RTOG criteria in 95%, 100%, and 100%, respectively, with exception of one patient who exhibited the largest PTV (163 cc) and experienced a minor deviation in lung V20 (mean=4.7±3.4%). The 3D distance from the tumor isocenter to the proximal rib contour strongly correlated with maximum rib dose. The average values of BED3Gy for maximum point dose and dose to <1 cc of ribs were higher by a factor of 1.5 using XVMC compared to RTOG 0915 guidelines. The preliminary results for our iPlan XVMC dose analyses indicate that the majority (i.e., 75% of patient population) of our patients had minor deviations when compared to the dosimetric guidelines set by RTOG 0915 protocol. When using an exclusively sophisticated XVMC algorithm and DVH normalization, the RTOG 0915 dosimetric compliance criteria such as R100%, R50%, and D2cm may need to be revised. On average, about 7% for R100%, 13% for R50%, and 14% for D2cm corrections from the mean values were necessary to pass the RTOG 0915 compliance criteria. Another option includes rescaling of the prescription dose. No further adjustment is necessary for OAR dose tolerances including normal lung V20 and total normal lung 1000 cc. Since all the clinical MC plans were generated without compromising the target coverage, rib dose was on the higher side of the protocol guidelines. As expected, larger tumor size and proximity to ribs correlated to higher absolute dose to ribs. These patients will be clinically followed to determine whether delivered MC‐computed dose to PTV and the ribs dose correlate with tumor control and severe chest wall pain and/or rib fractures. In order to establish new specific MC‐based dose parameters, further dosimetric studies with a large cohort of MC lung SBRT patients will need to be conducted.

PACS number(s): 87.55.k

The significance of PTV dose coverage on cancer control outcomes in early stage non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with highly ablative stereotactic body radiation therapy

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated whether patients with early-stage non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) without full prescription dose coverage of the planning target volume (PTV) had inferior outcomes.

METHODS

The SBRT regimen was 54 Gy in three fractions. Dosimetric constraints were as per the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0236 guidelines. All patients underwent four-dimensional CT (4D-CT) simulation. The internal target volume (ITV) was defined using 4D-CT, and the PTV was defined as a 6-mm longitudinal and a 3-mm axial expansion from the ITV. If normal tissue constraints were beyond tolerance, ITV-based dosing was employed where priority was made for full ITV coverage at the expense of PTV coverage. Patients with and without full PTV dose coverage were compared, and control rates were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

120 NSCLC cases were evaluated with 81% having adequate PTV dose coverage. ITV and PTV were significantly larger in the cohort with inadequate PTV dose coverage (p = 0.0085 and p = 0.0038, respectively), and the mean ITV and PTV doses were higher in patients with adequate PTV dose coverage (p = 0.002 and p < 0.0001, respectively). The 3-year local control rate was 100% for both cohorts. There was no difference in 3-year regional control (p = 0.36), disease-specific survival (p = 0.79) or overall survival (p = 0.73).

CONCLUSION

When delivering a highly ablative SBRT regimen for early-stage NSCLC, full-dose coverage of the ITV is sufficient for local control.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

Our data are among the first to evaluate the utility of PTV margins in a highly ablative SBRT regimen and suggest that when dosing constraints cannot be met, full tumouricidal dose coverage of the ITV is sufficient for local control.

Dose differences in intensity-modulated radiotherapy plans calculated with pencil beam and Monte Carlo for lung SBRT

For patients with medically inoperable early‐stage non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy, early treatment plans were based on a simpler dose calculation algorithm, the pencil beam (PB) calculation. Because these patients had the longest treatment follow‐up, identifying dose differences between the PB calculated dose and Monte Carlo calculated dose is clinically important for understanding of treatment outcomes. Previous studies found significant dose differences between the PB dose calculation and more accurate dose calculation algorithms, such as convolution‐based or Monte Carlo (MC), mostly for three‐dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D CRT) plans. The aim of this study is to investigate whether these observed dose differences also exist for intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans for both centrally and peripherally located tumors. Seventy patients (35 central and 35 peripheral) were retrospectively selected for this study. The clinical IMRT plans that were initially calculated with the PB algorithm were recalculated with the MC algorithm. Among these paired plans, dosimetric parameters were compared for the targets and critical organs. When compared to MC calculation, PB calculation overestimated doses to the planning target volumes (PTVs) of central and peripheral tumors with different magnitudes. The doses to 95% of the central and peripheral PTVs were overestimated by 9.7%±5.6% and 12.0%±7.3%, respectively. This dose overestimation did not affect doses to the critical organs, such as the spinal cord and lung. In conclusion, for NSCLC treated with IMRT, dose differences between the PB and MC calculations were different from that of 3D CRT. No significant dose differences in critical organs were observed between the two calculations.

PACS number: 87.53.Ly

Dosimetric impact of orthopedic metal artifact reduction (O-MAR) on Spine SBRT patients

The dosimetric impact of orthopedic metal artifact reduction (O‐MAR) on spine SBRT patients has not been comprehensively studied, particularly with spinal prostheses in high‐dose gradient regions. Using both phantom and patient datasets, we investigated dosimetric effects of O‐MAR in combination of various metal locations and dose calculation algorithms. A physical phantom, with and without a titanium insert, was scanned. A clinical patient plan was applied to the artifact‐free reference, non‐O‐MAR, and O‐MAR phantom images with the titanium located either inside or outside of the tumor. Subsequently, five clinical patient plans were calculated with pencil beam and Monte Carlo (iPlan) on non‐O‐MAR and O‐MAR patient images using an extended CT‐density table. The dose differences for phantom plans and patient plans were analyzed using dose distributions, dose‐volume histograms (DVHs), gamma index, and selected dosimetric endpoints. From both phantom plans and patient plans, O‐MAR did not affect dose distributions and DVHs while minimizing metal artifacts. Among patient plans, we found that, when the same dose calculation method was used, the difference in the dosimetric endpoints between non‐O‐MAR and O‐MAR datasets were small. In conclusion, for spine SBRT patients with spinal prostheses, O‐MAR image reconstruction does not affect dose calculation accuracy while minimizing metal artifacts. Therefore, O‐MAR images can be safely used for clinical spine SBRT treatment planning.

PACS numbers: 87.53.Bn, 87.55.K‐, 87.57.Q‐, 87.57.cp

Technical Note: Dosimetric evaluation of Monte Carlo algorithm in iPlan for stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) for lung cancer patients using RTOG 0813 parameters

For stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) in lung cancer patients, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) protocols currently require radiation dose to be calculated using tissue heterogeneity corrections. Dosimetric criteria of RTOG 0813 were established based on the results obtained from non-Monte Carlo (MC) algorithms, such as superposition/convolutions. Clinically, MC-based algorithms are now routinely used for lung SABR dose calculations. It is essential to confirm that MC calculations in lung SABR meet RTOG guidelines. This report evaluates iPlan MC plans for SABR in lung cancer patients using dose-volume histogram normalization per current RTOG 0813 compliance criteria. Eighteen Stage I-II non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with centrally located tumors, who underwent MC-based lung SABR with heterogeneity correction using X-ray Voxel Monte Carlo (XVMC) algorithm (BrainLAB iPlan version 4.1.2), were analyzed. Total dose of 60 Gy in 5 fractions was delivered to planning target volume (PTV) with at least V100% = 95%. Internal target volumes (ITVs) were delineated on maximum intensity projection (MIP) images of 4D CT scans. PTV (ITV + 5 mm margin) volumes ranged from 10.0 to 99.9 cc (mean = 36.8 ± 20.7 cc). Organs at risk (OARs) were delineated on average images of 4D CT scans. Optimal clinical MC SABR plans were generated using a combination of non-coplanar conformal arcs and beams for the Novalis-TX consisting of high definition multileaf collimators (MLCs) and 6 MV-SRS (1000 MU/min) mode. All plans were evaluated using the RTOG 0813 high and intermediate dose spillage criteria: conformity index (R100%), ratio of 50% isodose volume to the PTV (R50%), maximum dose 2 cm away from PTV in any direction (D2 cm), and percent of normal lung receiving 20 Gy (V20) or more. Other organs-at-risk (OARs) doses were tabulated, including the volume of normal lung receiving 5 Gy (V5), maximum cord dose, dose to < 15 cc of heart, and dose to <5 cc of esophagus. Only six out of 18 patients met all RTOG 0813 compliance criteria. Eight of 18 patients had minor deviations in R100%, four in R50%, and nine in D2 cm. However, only one patient had minor deviation in V20. All other OARs doses, such as maximum cord dose, dose to < 15 cc of heart, and dose to < 5 cc of esophagus, were satisfactory for RTOG criteria, except for one patient, for whom the dose to < 15 cc of heart was higher than RTOG guidelines. The preliminary results for our limited iPlan XVMC dose calculations indicate that the majority (i.e., 2/3) of our patients had minor deviations in the dosimetric guidelines set by RTOG 0813 protocol in one way or another. When using an exclusive highly sophisticated XVMC algorithm, the RTOG 0813 dosimetric compliance criteria such as R100% and D2 cm may need to be revisited. Based on our limited number of patient datasets, in general, about 6% for R100% and 9% for D2 cm corrections could be applied to pass the RTOG 0813 compliance criteria in most of those patients. More patient plans need to be evaluated to make recommendation for R50%. No adjustment is necessary for OAR dose tolerances, including normal lung V20. In order to establish new MC specific dose parameters, further investigation with a large cohort of patients including central, as well as peripheral lung tumors, is anticipated and strongly recommended.

On multichannel film dosimetry with channel-independent perturbations

PURPOSE

Different multichannel methods for film dosimetry have been proposed in the literature. Two of them are the weighted mean method and the method put forth by Micke et al. ["Multichannel film dosimetry with nonuniformity correction," Med. Phys. 38, 2523-2534 (2011)] and Mayer et al. ["Enhanced dosimetry procedures and assessment for EBT2 radiochromic film," Med. Phys. 39, 2147-2155 (2012)]. The purpose of this work was to compare their results and to develop a generalized channel-independent perturbations framework in which both methods enter as special cases.

METHODS

Four models of channel-independent perturbations were compared: weighted mean, Micke-Mayer method, uniform distribution, and truncated normal distribution. A closed-form formula to calculate film doses and the associated type B uncertainty for all four models was deduced. To evaluate the models, film dose distributions were compared with planned and measured dose distributions. At the same time, several elements of the dosimetry process were compared: film type EBT2 versus EBT3, different waiting-time windows, reflection mode versus transmission mode scanning, and planned versus measured dose distribution for film calibration and for γ-index analysis. The methods and the models described in this study are publicly accessible through IRISEU. Alpha 1.1 (http://www.iriseu.com). IRISEU. is a cloud computing web application for calibration and dosimetry of radiochromic films.

RESULTS

The truncated normal distribution model provided the best agreement between film and reference doses, both for calibration and γ-index verification, and proved itself superior to both the weighted mean model, which neglects correlations between the channels, and the Micke-Mayer model, whose accuracy depends on the properties of the sensitometric curves. With respect to the selection of dosimetry protocol, no significant differences were found between transmission and reflection mode scanning, between 75 ± 5 min and 20 ± 1 h waiting-time windows or between employing EBT2 or EBT3 films. Significantly better results were obtained when a measured dose distribution was used instead of a planned one as reference for the calibration, and when a planned dose distribution was used instead of a measured one as evaluation for the γ-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The truncated normal distribution model of channel-independent perturbations was found superior to the other three models under comparison and the authors propose its use for multichannel dosimetry.

A quantitative comparison of the performance of three deformable registration algorithms in radiotherapy

We present an evaluation of various non-rigid registration algorithms for the purpose of compensating interfractional motion of the target volume and organs at risk areas when acquiring CBCT image data prior to irradiation. Three different deformable registration (DR) methods were used: the Demons algorithm implemented in the iPlan Software (BrainLAB AG, Feldkirchen, Germany) and two custom-developed piecewise methods using either a Normalized Correlation or a Mutual Information metric (featurelet_NC and featurelet_MI). These methods were tested on data acquired using a novel purpose-built phantom for deformable registration and clinical CT/CBCT data of prostate and lung cancer patients. The Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) between manually drawn contours and the contours generated by a derived deformation field of the structures in question was compared to the result obtained with rigid registration (RR). For the phantom, the piecewise methods were slightly superior, the featurelet_NC for the intramodality and the featurelet_MI for the intermodality registrations. For the prostate cases in less than 50% of the images studied the DSC was improved over RR. Deformable registration methods improved the outcome over a rigid registration for lung cases and in the phantom study, but not in a significant way for the prostate study. A significantly superior deformation method could not be identified.

Evaluation of dose prediction error and optimization convergence error in four-dimensional inverse planning of robotic stereotactic lung radiotherapy

Inverse optimization of robotic stereotactic lung radiotherapy is typically performed using relatively simple dose calculation algorithm on a single instance of breathing geometry. Variations of patient geometry and tissue density during respiration could reduce the dose accuracy of these 3D optimized plans. To quantify the potential benefits of direct four-dimensional (4D) optimization in robotic lung radiosurgery, 4D optimizations using 1) ray-tracing algorithm with equivalent path-length heterogeneity correction (4EPL(opt)), and 2) Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm (4MC(opt)), were performed in 25 patients. The 4EPL(opt) plans were recalculated using MC algorithm (4MC(recal)) to quantify the dose prediction errors (DPEs). Optimization convergence errors (OCEs) were evaluated by comparing the 4MC(recal) and 4MC(opt) dose results. The results were analyzed by dose-volume histogram indices for selected organs. Statistical equivalence tests were performed to determine the clinical significance of the DPEs and OCEs, compared with a 3% tolerance. Statistical equivalence tests indicated that the DPE and the OCE are significant predominately in GTV D98%. The DPEs in V20 of lung, and D2% of cord, trachea, and esophagus are within 1.2%, while the OCEs are within 10.4% in lung V20 and within 3.5% in trachea D2%. The marked DPE and OCE suggest that 4D MC optimization is important to improve the dosimetric accuracy in robotic-based stereotactic body radiotherapy, despite the longer computation time.

Dose calculation differences between Monte Carlo and pencil beam depend on the tumor locations and volumes for lung stereotactic body radiation therapy

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has been increasingly used as an efficacious treatment modality for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. The accuracy of dose calculations is compromised due to the presence of inhomogeneity. For the purpose of a consistent prescription, radiation doses were calculated without heterogeneity correction in several RTOG trials. For patients participating in these trials, recalculations of the planned doses with more accurate dose methods could provide better correlations between the treatment outcomes and the planned doses. Using a Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation algorithm as a gold standard, we compared the recalculated doses with the MC algorithm to the original pencil beam (PB) calculations for our institutional clinical lung SBRT plans. The focus of this comparison is to investigate the volume and location dependence on the differences between the two dose calculations. Thirty-one clinical plans that followed RTOG and other protocol guidelines were retrospectively investigated in this study. Dosimetric parameters, such as D1, D95, and D99 for the PTV and D1 for organs at risk, were compared between two calculations. Correlations of mean lung dose and V20 of lungs between two calculations were investigated. Significant dependence on tumor size and location was observed from the comparisons between the two dose calculation methods. When comparing the PB calculations without heterogeneity correction to the MC calculations with heterogeneity correction, we found that in terms of D95 of PTV: (1) the two calculations resulted in similar D95 for edge tumors with volumes greater than 25.1 cc; (2) an average overestimation of 5% in PB calculations for edge tumors with volumes less than 25.1 cc; and (3) an average overestimation of 9% or underestimation of 3% in PB calculations for island tumors with volumes smaller or greater than 22.6 cc, respectively. With heterogeneity correction, the PB calculations resulted in an average reduction of 23.8% and 15.3% in the D95 for the PTV for island and edge lesions, respectively, when compared to the MC calculations. For organs at risks, very small differences were found among all the comparisons. Excellent correlations for mean dose and V20 of lungs were observed between the two calculations. This study demonstrated that using a single scaling factor may be overly simplified when accounting for the effects of heterogeneity correction. Accurate dose calculations, such as the Monte Carlo algorithms, are highly recommended to understand dose responses in lung SBRT.

Practical methods for improving dose distributions in Monte Carlo-based IMRT planning of lung wall-seated tumors treated with SBRT

Current commercially available planning systems with Monte Carlo (MC)‐based final dose calculation in IMRT planning employ pencil‐beam (PB) algorithms in the optimization process. Consequently, dose coverage for SBRT lung plans can feature cold‐spots at the interface between lung and tumor tissue. For lung wall (LW)‐seated tumors, there can also be hot spots within nearby normal organs (example: ribs). This study evaluated two different practical approaches to limiting cold spots within the target and reducing high doses to surrounding normal organs in MC‐based IMRT planning of LW‐seated tumors. First, “iterative reoptimization”, where the MC calculation (with PB‐based optimization) is initially performed. The resultant cold spot is then contoured and used as a simultaneous boost volume. The MC‐based dose is then recomputed. The second technique uses noncoplanar beam angles with limited path through lung tissue. Both techniques were evaluated against a conventional coplanar beam approach with a single MC calculation. In all techniques the prescription dose was normalized to cover 95% of the PTV. Fifteen SBRT lung cases with LW‐seated tumors were planned. The results from iterative reoptimization showed that conformity index (CI) and/or PTV dose uniformity (UPTV) improved in 12/15 plans. Average improvement was 13%, and 24%, respectively. Nonimproved plans had PTVs near the skin, trachea, and/or very small lung involvement. The maximum dose to 1cc volume (D1cc) of surrounding OARs decreased in 14/15 plans (average 10%). Using noncoplanar beams showed an average improvement of 7% in 10/15 cases and 11% in 5/15 cases for CI and UPTV, respectively. The D1cc was reduced by an average of 6% in 10/15 cases to surrounding OARs. Choice of treatment planning technique did not statistically significantly change lung V5. The results showed that the proposed practical approaches enhance dose conformity in MC‐based IMRT planning of lung tumors treated with SBRT, improving target dose coverage and potentially reducing toxicities to surrounding normal organs.

PACS numbers: 87.55.de, 87.55.kh

Calculation of correction factors for ionization chamber measurements with small fields in low-density media

The quantity of interest for high-energy photon beam therapy recommended by most dosimetric protocols is the absorbed dose to water. Thus, ionization chambers are calibrated in absorbed dose to water, which is the same quantity as what is calculated by most treatment planning systems (TPS). However, when measurements are performed in a low-density medium, the presence of the ionization chamber generates a perturbation at the level of the secondary particle range. Therefore, the measured quantity is close to the absorbed dose to a volume of water equivalent to the chamber volume. This quantity is not equivalent to the dose calculated by a TPS, which is the absorbed dose to an infinitesimally small volume of water. This phenomenon can lead to an overestimation of the absorbed dose measured with an ionization chamber of up to 40% in extreme cases. In this paper, we propose a method to calculate correction factors based on the Monte Carlo simulations. These correction factors are obtained by the ratio of the absorbed dose to water in a low-density medium □D(w,Q,V1)(low) averaged over a scoring volume V₁ for a geometry where V₁ is filled with the low-density medium and the absorbed dose to water □D(w,QV2)(low) averaged over a volume V₂ for a geometry where V₂ is filled with water. In the Monte Carlo simulations, □D(w,QV2)(low) is obtained by replacing the volume of the ionization chamber by an equivalent volume of water, according to the definition of the absorbed dose to water. The method is validated in two different configurations which allowed us to study the behavior of this correction factor as a function of depth in phantom, photon beam energy, phantom density and field size.

Four-dimensional dosimetry validation and study in lung radiotherapy using deformable image registration and Monte Carlo techniques

Thoracic cancer treatment presents dosimetric difficulties due to respiratory motion and lung inhomogeneity. Monte Carlo and deformable image registration techniques have been proposed to be used in four-dimensional (4D) dose calculations to overcome the difficulties. This study validates the 4D Monte Carlo dosimetry with measurement, compares 4D dosimetry of different tumor sizes and tumor motion ranges, and demonstrates differences of dose-volume histograms (DVH) with the number of respiratory phases that are included in 4D dosimetry. BEAMnrc was used in dose calculations while an optical flow algorithm was used in deformable image registration and dose mapping. Calculated and measured doses of a moving phantom agreed within 3% at the center of the moving gross tumor volumes (GTV). 4D CT image sets of lung cancer cases were used in the analysis of 4D dosimetry. For a small tumor (12.5 cm³) with motion range of 1.5 cm, reduced tumor volume coverage was observed in the 4D dose with a beam margin of 1 cm. For large tumors and tumors with small motion range (around 1 cm), the 4D dosimetry did not differ appreciably from the static plans. The dose-volume histogram (DVH) analysis shows that the inclusion of only extreme respiratory phases in 4D dosimetry is a reasonable approximation of all-phase inclusion for lung cancer cases similar to the ones studied, which reduces the calculation in 4D dosimetry.