Dosimetry in radiotherapy using a-Si EPIDs: Systems, methods, and applications focusing on 3D patient dose estimation

Comparison of deep learning models for building two-dimensional non-transit EPID Dosimetry on Varian Halcyon

Background

This study compared the effectiveness of five deep learning models in constructing non-transit dosimetry with an a-Si electronic portal imaging device (EPID) on Varian Halcyon. Deep learning model is increasingly used to support prediction and decision-making in several fields including oncology and radiotherapy.

Materials and methods

Forty-seven unique plans of data obtained from breast cancer patients were calculated using Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) and extracted from DICOM format as the ground truth. Varian Halcyon was then used to irradiate the a-Si 1200 EPID detector without an attenuator. The EPID and TPS images were augmented and divided randomly into two groups of equal sizes to distinguish the validation and training-test data. Five different deep learning models were then created and validated using a gamma index of 3%/3 mm.

Results

Four models successfully improved the similarity of the EPID images and the TPS-generated planned dose images. Meanwhile, the mismatch of the constituent components and number of parameters could cause the models to produce wrong results. The average gamma pass rates were 90.07 ± 4.96% for A-model, 77.42 ± 7.18% for B-model, 79.60 ± 6.56% for C-model, 80.21 ± 5.88% for D-model, and 80.47 ± 5.98% for E-model.

Conclusion

The deep learning model is proven to run fast and can increase the similarity of EPID images with TPS images to build non-transit dosimetry. However, more cases are needed to validate this model before being used in clinical activities.

IPEM topical report: guidance for the clinical implementation of online treatment monitoring solutions for IMRT/VMAT

This report provides guidance for the implementation of online treatment monitoring (OTM) solutions in radiotherapy (RT), with a focus on modulated treatments. Support is provided covering the implementation process, from identification of an OTM solution to local implementation strategy. Guidance has been developed by a RT special interest group (RTSIG) working party (WP) on behalf of the Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM). Recommendations within the report are derived from the experience of the WP members (in consultation with manufacturers, vendors and user groups), existing guidance or legislation and a UK survey conducted in 2020 (Stevenset al2021). OTM is an inclusive term representing any system capable of providing a direct or inferred measurement of the delivered dose to a RT patient. Information on each type of OTM is provided but, commensurate with UK demand, guidance is largely influenced byin vivodosimetry methods utilising the electronic portal imager device (EPID). Sections are included on the choice of OTM solutions, acceptance and commissioning methods with recommendations on routine quality control, analytical methods and tolerance setting, clinical introduction and staffing/resource requirements. The guidance aims to give a practical solution to sensitivity and specificity testing. Functionality is provided for the user to introduce known errors into treatment plans for local testing. Receiver operating characteristic analysis is discussed as a tool to performance assess OTM systems. OTM solutions can help verify the correct delivery of radiotherapy treatment. Furthermore, modern systems are increasingly capable of providing clinical decision-making information which can impact the course of a patient's treatment. However, technical limitations persist. It is not within the scope of this guidance to critique each available solution, but the user is encouraged to carefully consider workflow and engage with manufacturers in resolving compatibility issues.

Characterization of a commercial EPID-based in-vivo dosimetry and its feasibility and implementation for treatment verification in Malaysia

Introduction: In vivo dosimetry verification is currently a necessity in radiotherapy centres in Europe countries as one of the tools for patient-specific QA, and now its demand is currently rising in developed countries, such as Malaysia. The aim of this study is to characterize commercial EPID-based dosimetry and its implementation for radiotherapy treatment verification in Malaysia.

Materials and Methods: In this work, the sensitivity and performance of a commercially available in vivo dosimetry system, EPIgray® (DOSIsoft, Cachan, France), were qualitatively evaluated prior to its use at our centre. EPIgray response to dose linearity, field size, off-axis, position, and angle dependency tests were performed against TPS calculated dose for 6 MV and 10 MV photon beams. Relative deviations of the total dose were evaluated at isocentre and different depths in the water. EPIgray measured dose was validated by using IMRT and VMAT prostate plan. All calculation points were at the beam isocentre and at points suggested by TG-119 with accepted tolerance of ±10% dose threshold.

Results: EPIgray reported good agreement for linearity, field size, off-axis, and position dependency with TPS dose, being within 5% tolerance for both energy ranges. The average deviation was less than ±2% and ±7% in 6 MV and 10 MV photon beams, respectively, for the angle dependency test. A clinical evaluation performed for the IMRT prostate plan gave average agreement within ±3% at the plan isocentre for both energies. While for the VMAT plan, 95% and 100% of all points created lie below ±5% for 6 MV and 10 MV photon beam energy, respectively.

Conclusion: In summary, based on the results of preliminary characterization, EPID-based dosimetry is believed as an important tool and beneficial to be implemented for IMRT/VMAT plans verification in Malaysia, especially for in vivo verification, alongside existing pre-treatment verification.

Performance optimization of a tri-hybrid method for estimation of patient scatter into the EPID

On‐treatment EPID images are contaminated with patient‐generated scattered photons. If this component can be accurately estimated, its effect can be removed, and therefore a corresponding in vivo patient dose estimate will be more accurate. Our group previously developed a "tri‐hybrid" (TH) algorithm to provide fast but accurate estimates of patient‐generated photon scatter. The algorithm uses an analytical method to solve for singly‐scattered photon fluence, a modified Monte Carlo hybrid method to solve for multiply‐scattered photon fluence, and a pencil beam scatter kernel method to solve for electron interaction generated scattered photon fluence. However, for efficient clinical implementation, spatial and energy sampling must be optimized for speed while maintaining overall accuracy.

In this work, the most significant sampling issues were examined, including spatial sampling settings for the patient voxel size, the number of Monte Carlo histories used in the modified hybrid MC method, scatter order sampling for the hybrid method, and also a range of energy spectrum sampling (i.e., energy bin sizes).

The total predicted patient‐scattered photon fluence entering the EPID was compared with full MC simulation (EGSnrc) for validation. Three phantoms were tested with 6 and 18 MV beam energies, field sizes of 4 × 4, 10 × 10, and 20 × 20 cm², and source‐to‐imager distance of 140 cm to develop a set of optimal sampling settings.

With the recommended sampling, accuracy and precision of the total‐scattered energy fluence of the TH patient scatter prediction method are within 0.9% and 1.2%, respectively, for all test cases compared with full MC simulation results. For the mean energy spectrum across the imaging plane, comparison of TH with full MC simulation showed 95% overlap.

This study has optimized sampling settings so that they have minimal impact on patient scatter prediction accuracy while maintaining maximum execution speed, a critical step for future clinical implementation.

Biological imaging for individualized therapy in radiation oncology: part I physical and technical aspects

Recently, there has been an increase in the imaging modalities available for radiotherapy planning and radiotherapy prognostic outcome: dual energy computed tomography (CT), dynamic contrast enhanced CT, dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), diffusion-weighted MRI, positron emission tomography-CT, dynamic contrast enhanced ultrasound, MR spectroscopy and positron emission tomography-MR. These techniques enable more precise gross tumor volume definition than CT alone and moreover allow subvolumes within the gross tumor volume to be defined which may be given a boost dose or an individual voxelized dose prescription may be derived. With increased plan complexity care must be taken to immobilize the patient in an accurate and reproducible manner. Moreover the physical and technical limitations of the entire treatment planning chain need to be well characterized and understood, interdisciplinary collaboration ameliorated (physicians and physicists within nuclear medicine, radiology and radiotherapy) and image protocols standardized.

Clinical Implementation of a Model-Based In Vivo Dose Verification System for Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy-Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Treatments Using the Electronic Portal Imaging Device

PURPOSE

To report findings from an in vivo dosimetry program implemented for all stereotactic body radiation therapy patients over a 31-month period and discuss the value and challenges of utilizing in vivo electronic portal imaging device (EPID) dosimetry clinically.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

From December 2013 to July 2016, 117 stereotactic body radiation therapy-volumetric modulated arc therapy patients (100 lung, 15 spine, and 2 liver) underwent 602 EPID-based in vivo dose verification events. A developed model-based dose reconstruction algorithm calculates the 3-dimensional dose distribution to the patient by back-projecting the primary fluence measured by the EPID during treatment. The EPID frame-averaging was optimized in June 2015. For each treatment, a 3%/3-mm γ comparison between our EPID-derived dose and the Eclipse AcurosXB-predicted dose to the planning target volume (PTV) and the ≥20% isodose volume were performed. Alert levels were defined as γ pass rates <85% (lung and liver) and <80% (spine). Investigations were carried out for all fractions exceeding the alert level and were classified as follows: EPID-related, algorithmic, patient setup, anatomic change, or unknown/unidentified errors.

RESULTS

The percentages of fractions exceeding the alert levels were 22.6% for lung before frame-average optimization and 8.0% for lung, 20.0% for spine, and 10.0% for liver after frame-average optimization. Overall, mean (± standard deviation) planning target volume γ pass rates were 90.7% ± 9.2%, 87.0% ± 9.3%, and 91.2% ± 3.4% for the lung, spine, and liver patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from the clinical implementation of our model-based in vivo dose verification method using on-treatment EPID images is reported. The method is demonstrated to be valuable for routine clinical use for verifying delivered dose as well as for detecting errors.

Implementation and evaluation of a transit dosimetry system for treatment verification

PURPOSE

To evaluate a formalism for transit dosimetry using a phantom study and prospectively evaluate the protocol on a patient population undergoing 3D conformal radiotherapy.

METHODS

Amorphous silicon EPIDs were calibrated for dose and used to acquire images of delivered fields. The measured EPID dose map was back-projected using the planning CT images to calculate dose at pre-specified points within the patient using commercially available software, EPIgray (DOSIsoft, France). This software compared computed back-projected dose with treatment planning system dose. A series of tests were performed on solid water phantoms (linearity, field size effects, off-axis effects). 37 patients were enrolled in the prospective study.

RESULTS

The EPID dose response was stable and linear with dose. For all tested field sizes the agreement was good between EPID-derived and treatment planning system dose in the central axis, with performance stability up to a measured depth of 18cm (agreement within -0.5% at 10cm depth on the central axis and within -1.4% at 2cm off-axis). 126 transit images were analysed of 37 3D-conformal patients. Patient results demonstrated the potential of EPIgray with 91% of all delivered fields achieved the initial set tolerance level of ΔD of 0±5-cGy or %ΔD of 0±5%.

CONCLUSIONS

The in vivo dose verification method was simple to implement, with very few commissioning measurements needed. The system required no extra dose to the patient, and importantly was able to detect patient position errors that impacted on dose delivery in two of cases.

Clinical Experience and Evaluation of Patient Treatment Verification With a Transit Dosimeter

PURPOSE

To prospectively evaluate a protocol for transit dosimetry on a patient population undergoing intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and to assess the issues in clinical implementation of electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs) for treatment verification.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Fifty-eight patients were enrolled in the study. Amorphous silicon EPIDs were calibrated for dose and used to acquire images of delivered fields. Measured EPID dose maps were back-projected using the planning computed tomographic (CT) images to calculate dose at prespecified points within the patient and compared with treatment planning system dose offline using point dose difference and point γ analysis. The deviation of the results was used to inform future action levels.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-five transit images were analyzed, composed of breast, prostate, and head and neck IMRT fields. Patient measurements demonstrated the potential of the dose verification protocol to model dose well under complex conditions: 83.8% of all delivered beams achieved the initial set tolerance level of ΔD of 0 ± 5 cGy or %ΔD of 0% ± 5%. Importantly, the protocol was also sensitive to anatomic changes and spotted that 3 patients from 20 measured prostate patients had undergone anatomic change in comparison with the planning CT. Patient data suggested an EPID-reconstructed versus treatment planning system dose difference action level of 0% ± 7% for breast fields. Asymmetric action levels were more appropriate for inversed IMRT fields, using absolute dose difference (-2 ± 5 cGy) or summed field percentage dose difference (-6% ± 7%).

CONCLUSIONS

The in vivo dose verification method was easy to use and simple to implement, and it could detect patient anatomic changes that impacted dose delivery. The system required no extra dose to the patient or treatment time delay and so could be used throughout the course of treatment to identify and limit systematic and random errors in dose delivery for patient groups.