1
|
Bertholet J, Guyer G, Mueller S, Loebner HA, Volken W, Aebersold DM, Manser P, Fix MK. Robust optimization and assessment of dynamic trajectory and mixed-beam arc radiotherapy: a preliminary study. Phys Med Biol 2024; 69:165032. [PMID: 39079553 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ad6950] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/02/2024] [Accepted: 07/30/2024] [Indexed: 08/13/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jenny Bertholet
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, 3010 Bern, Switzerland
| | - Gian Guyer
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, 3010 Bern, Switzerland
| | - Silvan Mueller
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, 3010 Bern, Switzerland
| | - Hannes A Loebner
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, 3010 Bern, Switzerland
| | - Werner Volken
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, 3010 Bern, Switzerland
| | - Daniel M Aebersold
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, 3010 Bern, Switzerland
| | - Peter Manser
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, 3010 Bern, Switzerland
| | - Michael K Fix
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, 3010 Bern, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Guyer G, Mueller S, Mackeprang PH, Frei D, Volken W, Aebersold DM, Loessl K, Manser P, Fix MK. Delivery time reduction for mixed photon-electron radiotherapy by using photon MLC collimated electron arcs. Phys Med Biol 2023; 68:215009. [PMID: 37816376 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ad021a] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/28/2023] [Accepted: 10/10/2023] [Indexed: 10/12/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gian Guyer
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Silvan Mueller
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Paul-Henry Mackeprang
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Daniel Frei
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Werner Volken
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Daniel M Aebersold
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Kristina Loessl
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Peter Manser
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Michael K Fix
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Fix MK, Frei D, Mueller S, Guyer G, Loebner HA, Volken W, Manser P. Auto-commissioning of a Monte Carlo electron beam model with application to photon MLC shaped electron fields. Phys Med Biol 2023; 68. [PMID: 36716491 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/acb755] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/30/2022] [Accepted: 01/30/2023] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]
Abstract
Objective.Presently electron beam treatments are delivered using dedicated applicators. An alternative is the usage of the already installed photon multileaf collimator (pMLC) enabling efficient electron treatments. Currently, the commissioning of beam models is a manual and time-consuming process. In this work an auto-commissioning procedure for the Monte Carlo (MC) beam model part representing the beam above the pMLC is developed for TrueBeam systems with electron energies from 6 to 22 MeV.Approach.The analytical part of the electron beam model includes a main source representing the primary beam and a jaw source representing the head scatter contribution each consisting of an electron and a photon component, while MC radiation transport is performed for the pMLC. The auto-commissioning of this analytical part relies on information pre-determined from MC simulations, in-air dose profiles and absolute dose measurements in water for different field sizes and source to surface distances (SSDs). For validation calculated and measured dose distributions in water were compared for different field sizes, SSDs and beam energies for eight TrueBeam systems. Furthermore, a sternum case in an anthropomorphic phantom was considered and calculated and measured dose distributions were compared at different SSDs.Main results.Instead of the manual commissioning taking up to several days of calculation time and several hours of user time, the auto-commissioning is carried out in a few minutes. Measured and calculated dose distributions agree generally within 3% of maximum dose or 2 mm. The gamma passing rates for the sternum case ranged from 96% to 99% (3% (global)/2 mm criteria, 10% threshold).Significance.The auto-commissioning procedure was successfully implemented and applied to eight TrueBeam systems. The newly developed user-friendly auto-commissioning procedure allows an efficient commissioning of an MC electron beam model and eases the usage of advanced electron radiotherapy utilizing the pMLC for beam shaping.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M K Fix
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - D Frei
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - S Mueller
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - G Guyer
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - H A Loebner
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - W Volken
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - P Manser
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Mueller S, Guyer G, Volken W, Frei D, Torelli N, Aebersold DM, Manser P, Fix MK. Efficiency enhancements of a Monte Carlo beamlet based treatment planning process: implementation and parameter study. Phys Med Biol 2023; 68. [PMID: 36655485 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/acb480] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/30/2022] [Accepted: 01/18/2023] [Indexed: 01/20/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Mueller
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - G Guyer
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - W Volken
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - D Frei
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - N Torelli
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - D M Aebersold
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - P Manser
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - M K Fix
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Mueller S, Guyer G, Risse T, Tessarini S, Aebersold DM, Stampanoni MFM, Fix MK, Manser P. A hybrid column generation and simulated annealing algorithm for direct aperture optimization. Phys Med Biol 2022; 67. [DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ac58db] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/19/2021] [Accepted: 02/25/2022] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
The purpose of this work was to develop a hybrid column generation (CG) and simulated annealing (SA) algorithm for direct aperture optimization (H-DAO) and to show its effectiveness in generating high quality treatment plans for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and mixed photon-electron beam radiotherapy (MBRT). The H-DAO overcomes limitations of the CG-DAO with two features improving aperture selection (branch-feature) and enabling aperture shape changes during optimization (SA-feature). The H-DAO algorithm iteratively adds apertures to the plan. At each iteration, a branch is created for each field provided. First, each branch determines the most promising aperture of its assigned field and adds it to a copy of the current apertures. Afterwards, the apertures of each branch undergo an MU-weight optimization followed by an SA-based simultaneous shape and MU-weight optimization and a second MU-weight optimization. The next H-DAO iteration continues the branch with the lowest objective function value. IMRT and MBRT treatment plans for an academic, a brain and a head and neck case generated using the CG-DAO and H-DAO were compared. For every investigated case and both IMRT and MBRT, the H-DAO leads to a faster convergence of the objective function value with number of apertures compared to the CG-DAO. In particular, the H-DAO needs about half the apertures to reach the same objective function value as the CG-DAO. The average aperture areas are 27% smaller for H-DAO than for CG-DAO leading to a slightly larger discrepancy between optimized and final dose. However, a dosimetric benefit remains. The H-DAO was successfully developed and applied to IMRT and MBRT. The faster convergence with number of apertures of the H-DAO compared to the CG-DAO allows to select a better compromise between plan quality and number of apertures.
Collapse
|
6
|
Beam modeling and commissioning for Monte Carlo photon beam on an Elekta Versa HD LINAC. Appl Radiat Isot 2021; 180:110054. [PMID: 34875475 DOI: 10.1016/j.apradiso.2021.110054] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/08/2021] [Revised: 11/23/2021] [Accepted: 11/28/2021] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE This study aims at analyzing beam data commissioning along with verifying Monte Carlo-based treatment planning system on the basis of the manufacturer guidelines for Elekta Versa HD Linear Accelerator. Moreover, evaluating the beam match process in terms of quality index, photon profile and multi leaf collimator (MLC) offset is aimed as well. MATERIALS AND METHODS The process of collecting beam data for Monaco 5.51 Treatment Planning System commissioning was done based on the instructions provided by the manufacturer as well as AAPM TG-106. Monte Carlo analysis was done for output factors in water, percent depth dose and beam profiles. A set of eight static and intensity modulated radiation therapy fields were used to verify the MLC parameters. RESULTS The difference between the measured and modeled penetrative quality (D10) was achieved to be 0.54%. The output factors for 6 MV photon energy were measured and the difference between the measured and Monte Carlo output results was smaller than 1% for all the fields. The average percentage of passing the gamma criteria for commissioning test fields was (95+-4)%, however, the minimum agreement was 87.5% belonging to "7SEGA". Additionally, the agreement between both LINAC is 96%, however, the second LINAC reveals a positive offset in the point of approximately -4 cm on the x-axis at the crossplane. CONCLUSION Test commissioning was successfully verified using a homogeneous phantom for point dose measurements, post modelling MLC parameters and patient QA plans. All plan parameters pass the gamma criteria. 6 MV photon beam was successfully commissioned for Elekta VersaHD LINAC and is ready for clinical implementation.
Collapse
|
7
|
Heath E, Mueller S, Guyer G, Duetschler A, Elicin O, Aebersold D, Fix MK, Manser P. Implementation and experimental validation of a robust hybrid direct aperture optimization approach for mixed-beam radiotherapy. Med Phys 2021; 48:7299-7312. [PMID: 34585756 PMCID: PMC9292851 DOI: 10.1002/mp.15258] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/27/2021] [Revised: 08/30/2021] [Accepted: 09/16/2021] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose The objectives of the work presented in this paper were to (1) implement a robust‐optimization method for deliverable mixed‐beam radiotherapy (MBRT) plans within a previously developed MBRT planning framework; (2) perform an experimental validation of the delivery of robust‐optimized MBRT plans; and (3) compare PTV‐based and robust‐optimized MBRT plans in terms of target dose robustness and organs at risk (OAR) sparing for clinical head and neck and brain patient cases. Methods A robust‐optimization method, which accounts for translational setup errors, was implemented within a previously developed treatment planning framework for MBRT. The framework uses a hybrid direct aperture optimization method combining column generation and simulated annealing. A robust plan was developed and then delivered to an anthropomorphic head phantom using the Developer Mode of a TrueBeam linac. Planar dose distributions were measured and compared to the planned dose. Robust‐optimized and PTV‐based plans were developed for three clinical patient cases consisting of two head and neck cases and one brain case. The plans were compared in terms of the robustness to 5 mm shifts of the target volume dose as well as in terms of OAR sparing. Results Using a gamma criterion of 3%/2 mm and a dose threshold of 10%, the agreement between film measurements and dose calculations was better than 97.7% for the total plan and better than 95.5% for the electron component of the plan. For the two head and neck patient cases, the average clinical target volume (CTV) dose homogeneity index (V95%–V107%) over all the considered setup error scenarios was on average 19% lower for the PTV‐based plans and it had a larger standard deviation. The robust‐optimized plans achieved, on average, a 20% reduction in the OAR doses compared to the PTV‐based plans. For the brain patient case, the CTV dose homogeneity index was similar for the two plans, while the OAR doses were 22% lower, on average, for the robust‐optimized plan. No clear trend in terms of electron contributions was found across the three patient cases, although robust‐optimized plans tended toward higher electron beam energies. Conclusions A framework for robust optimization of deliverable MBRT plans has been developed and validated. PTV‐based MBRT were found to not be robust to setup errors, while the dose delivered by the robust‐optimized plans were clinically acceptable for all considered error scenarios and had better OAR sparing. This study shows that the robust optimization is a promising alternative to conventional PTV margins for MBRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emily Heath
- Carleton Laboratory for Radiotherapy Physics, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Silvan Mueller
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Gian Guyer
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Alisha Duetschler
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.,Department of Physics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.,Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
| | - Olgun Elicin
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Daniel Aebersold
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Michael K Fix
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Peter Manser
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Kueng R, Oborn B, Roberts N, Causer T, Stampanoni M, Manser P, Keall P, Fix M. Towards MR-guided electron therapy: Measurement and simulation of clinical electron beams in magnetic fields. Phys Med 2020; 78:83-92. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2020.09.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/10/2020] [Revised: 08/17/2020] [Accepted: 09/01/2020] [Indexed: 10/23/2022] Open
|
9
|
Kaluarachchi MM, Saleh ZH, Schwer ML, Klein EE. Validation of a Monte Carlo model for multi leaf collimator based electron delivery. Med Phys 2020; 47:3586-3599. [PMID: 32324289 DOI: 10.1002/mp.14194] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/29/2019] [Revised: 03/12/2020] [Accepted: 03/31/2020] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To develop and validate a Monte Carlo model of the Varian TrueBeam to study electron collimation using the existing photon multi-leaf collimators (pMLC), instead of conventional electron applicators and apertures. MATERIALS AND METHODS A complete Monte Carlo model of the Varian TrueBeam was developed using Tool for particle simulation (TOPAS) (version 3.1.p3). Vendor-supplied information was used to model the treatment head components and the source parameters. A phase space plane was setup above the collimating jaws and captured particles were reused until a statistical uncertainty of 1% was achieved in the central axis. Electron energies 6, 9, 12, 16, and 20 MeV with a jaw-defined field of 20 × 20 cm2 at iso-center, pMLC-defined fields of 6.8 × 6.8 cm2 and 11.4 × 11.4 cm2 at 80 cm source-to-surface distance (SSD) and an applicator-defined field of 10 × 10 cm2 at iso-center were evaluated. All the measurements except the applicator-defined fields were measured using an ionization chamber in a water tank using 80 cm SSD. The dose difference, distance-to-agreement and gamma index were used to evaluate the agreement between the Monte Carlo calculations and measurements. Contributions of electron scattering off pMLC leaves and inter-leaf leakage on dose profiles were evaluated and compared with Monte Carlo calculations. Electron transport through a heterogeneous phantom was simulated and the resulting dose distributions were compared with film measurements. The validated Monte Carlo model was used to simulate several clinically motivated cases to demonstrate the benefit of pMLC-based electron delivery compared to applicator-based electron delivery. RESULTS Calculated and measured percentage depth-dose (PDD) curves agree within 2% after normalization. The agreement between normalized percentage depth dose curves were evaluated using one-dimensional gamma analysis with a local tolerance of 2%/1 mm and the %points passing gamma criteria was 100% for all energies. For jaw-defined fields, calculated profiles agree with measurements with pass rates of >97% for 2%/2 mm gamma criteria. Calculated FWHM and penumbra width agree with measurements within 0.4 cm. For fields with tertiary collimation using an pMLC or applicator, the average gamma pass rate of compared profiles was 98% with 2%/2 mm gamma criteria. The profiles measured to evaluate the pMLC leaf scattering agreed with Monte Carlo calculations with an average gamma pass rate of 96.5% with 3%/2 mm gamma criteria. Measured dose profiles below the heterogenous phantom agreed well with calculated profiles and matched within 2.5% for most points. The calculated clinically applicable cases using TOPAS MC and Eclipse TPS for single enface electron beam, electron-photon mixed beam and a matched electron-electron beam exhibited a reasonable agreement in PDDs, profiles and dose volume histograms. CONCLUSION We present a validation of a Monte Carlo model of Varian TrueBeam for pMLC-based electron delivery. Monte Carlo calculations agreed with measurements satisfying gamma criterion of 1%/1 mm for depth dose curves and 2%/1 mm for dose profiles. The simulation of clinically applicable cases demonstrated the clinical utility of pMLC-based electrons and the use of MC simulations for development of advanced radiation therapy techniques.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maduka M Kaluarachchi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rhode Island Hospital/Brown University, Providence, RI, 02905, USA
| | - Ziad H Saleh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rhode Island Hospital/Brown University, Providence, RI, 02905, USA
| | - Michelle L Schwer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rhode Island Hospital/Brown University, Providence, RI, 02905, USA
| | - Eric E Klein
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rhode Island Hospital/Brown University, Providence, RI, 02905, USA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Miloichikova I, Bulavskaya A, Cherepennikov Y, Gavrikov B, Gargioni E, Belousov D, Stuchebrov S. Feasibility of clinical electron beam formation using polymer materials produced by fused deposition modeling. Phys Med 2019; 64:188-194. [PMID: 31515019 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2019.07.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/07/2019] [Revised: 07/17/2019] [Accepted: 07/17/2019] [Indexed: 10/26/2022] Open
Abstract
The main challenge in electron external beam radiation therapy with clinical accelerators is the absence of integrated systems to form irregular fields. The current approach to provide conformal irradiation is to use additional metallic shaping blocks, with inefficient and expensive workflows. This work presents a simple method to form therapeutic electron fields using 3D printed samples. These samples are manufactured by fused deposition modeling, which can affect crucial properties, such as material homogeneity, due to the presence of residual air-filled cavities. The applicability of this method was therefore investigated with a set of experiments and Monte Carlo simulations aimed at determining the electron depth dose distribution in polymer materials. The results show that therapeutic electron beams with energies 6-20 MeV can be effectively absorbed using these polymeric samples. The model developed in this study provides a way to assess the dose distribution in such materials and to calculate the appropriate thickness of polymer samples for therapeutic electron beam formation. It is shown that for total absorption of 6 MeV electron beams the material thickness should be at least 4 cm, while this value should be at least 8 cm for 12 MeV and 11 cm for 20 MeV, respectively. The results can be used to further develop 3D printing procedures for medical electron beam profile formation, allowing the creation of a collimator or absorber with patient-specific configuration using rapid prototyping systems, thus contributing to improve the accuracy of dose delivery in electron radiotherapy within a short manufacturing time.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Irina Miloichikova
- National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, Lenina Avenue 30, 634050 Tomsk, Russia; Cancer Research Institute of Tomsk NRMC RAS, Kooperativny Street 5, 634050 Tomsk, Russia.
| | - Angelina Bulavskaya
- National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, Lenina Avenue 30, 634050 Tomsk, Russia
| | - Yury Cherepennikov
- National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, Lenina Avenue 30, 634050 Tomsk, Russia
| | - Boris Gavrikov
- Moscow City Oncology Hospital №62, Istra 27, 143423 Moscow, Russia
| | - Elisabetta Gargioni
- University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246 Hamburg, Germany
| | - Dmitrij Belousov
- Institute of Automation and Electrometry SB RAS, Academician Koptyug Avenue 1, 630090 Novosibirsk, Russia
| | - Sergei Stuchebrov
- National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, Lenina Avenue 30, 634050 Tomsk, Russia
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Mueller S, Manser P, Volken W, Frei D, Kueng R, Herrmann E, Elicin O, Aebersold DM, Stampanoni MFM, Fix MK. Part 2: Dynamic mixed beam radiotherapy (DYMBER): Photon dynamic trajectories combined with modulated electron beams. Med Phys 2018; 45:4213-4226. [PMID: 29992574 DOI: 10.1002/mp.13085] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/09/2018] [Revised: 06/27/2018] [Accepted: 06/28/2018] [Indexed: 11/08/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Mueller
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, CH-3010, Bern, Switzerland
| | - P Manser
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, CH-3010, Bern, Switzerland
| | - W Volken
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, CH-3010, Bern, Switzerland
| | - D Frei
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, CH-3010, Bern, Switzerland
| | - R Kueng
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, CH-3010, Bern, Switzerland
| | - E Herrmann
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, CH-3010, Bern, Switzerland
| | - O Elicin
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, CH-3010, Bern, Switzerland
| | - D M Aebersold
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, CH-3010, Bern, Switzerland
| | - M F M Stampanoni
- Institute for Biomedical Engineering, ETH Zürich and PSI, CH-5232, Villigen, Switzerland
| | - M K Fix
- Division of Medical Radiation Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, CH-3010, Bern, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Joosten A, Müller S, Henzen D, Volken W, Frei D, Aebersold DM, Manser P, Fix MK. A dosimetric evaluation of different levels of energy and intensity modulation for inversely planned multi-field MERT. Biomed Phys Eng Express 2018. [DOI: 10.1088/2057-1976/aabe40] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
|
13
|
Mueller S, Fix MK, Henzen D, Frei D, Frauchiger D, Loessl K, Stampanoni MFM, Manser P. Electron beam collimation with a photon MLC for standard electron treatments. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2018; 63:025017. [DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/aa9fb6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
|
14
|
Renaud M, Serban M, Seuntjens J. On mixed electron–photon radiation therapy optimization using the column generation approach. Med Phys 2017; 44:4287-4298. [DOI: 10.1002/mp.12338] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/23/2016] [Revised: 05/01/2017] [Accepted: 05/03/2017] [Indexed: 01/02/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Marc‐André Renaud
- Department of Physics & Medical Physics Unit McGill University Montreal Canada
| | - Monica Serban
- Medical Physics Unit McGill University Health Centre Montreal Canada
| | - Jan Seuntjens
- Medical Physics Unit McGill University and Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre Montreal Canada
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Mueller S, Fix MK, Joosten A, Henzen D, Frei D, Volken W, Kueng R, Aebersold DM, Stampanoni MFM, Manser P. Simultaneous optimization of photons and electrons for mixed beam radiotherapy. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2017; 62:5840-5860. [DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/aa70c5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/06/2023]
|
16
|
Lloyd SAM, Gagne IM, Bazalova-Carter M, Zavgorodni S. Validation of Varian TrueBeam electron phase-spaces for Monte Carlo simulation of MLC-shaped fields. Med Phys 2016; 43:2894-2903. [PMID: 27277038 DOI: 10.1118/1.4949000] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/07/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE This work evaluates Varian's electron phase-space sources for Monte Carlo simulation of the TrueBeam for modulated electron radiation therapy (MERT) and combined, modulated photon and electron radiation therapy (MPERT) where fields are shaped by the photon multileaf collimator (MLC) and delivered at 70 cm SSD. METHODS Monte Carlo simulations performed with EGSnrc-based BEAMnrc/DOSXYZnrc and penelope-based PRIMO are compared against diode measurements for 5 × 5, 10 × 10, and 20 × 20 cm(2) MLC-shaped fields delivered with 6, 12, and 20 MeV electrons at 70 cm SSD (jaws set to 40 × 40 cm(2)). Depth dose curves and profiles are examined. In addition, EGSnrc-based simulations of relative output as a function of MLC-field size and jaw-position are compared against ion chamber measurements for MLC-shaped fields between 3 × 3 and 25 × 25 cm(2) and jaw positions that range from the MLC-field size to 40 × 40 cm(2). RESULTS Percent depth dose curves generated by BEAMnrc/DOSXYZnrc and PRIMO agree with measurement within 2%, 2 mm except for PRIMO's 12 MeV, 20 × 20 cm(2) field where 90% of dose points agree within 2%, 2 mm. Without the distance to agreement, differences between measurement and simulation are as large as 7.3%. Characterization of simulated dose parameters such as FWHM, penumbra width and depths of 90%, 80%, 50%, and 20% dose agree within 2 mm of measurement for all fields except for the FWHM of the 6 MeV, 20 × 20 cm(2) field which falls within 2 mm distance to agreement. Differences between simulation and measurement exist in the profile shoulders and penumbra tails, in particular for 10 × 10 and 20 × 20 cm(2) fields of 20 MeV electrons, where both sets of simulated data fall short of measurement by as much as 3.5%. BEAMnrc/DOSXYZnrc simulated outputs agree with measurement within 2.3% except for 6 MeV MLC-shaped fields. Discrepancies here are as great as 5.5%. CONCLUSIONS TrueBeam electron phase-spaces available from Varian have been implemented in two distinct Monte Carlo simulation packages to produce dose distributions and outputs that largely reflect measurement. Differences exist in the profile shoulders and penumbra tails for the 20 MeV phase-space off-axis and in the outputs for the 6 MeV phase-space.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Samantha A M Lloyd
- Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia V8P 3P6 5C2, Canada
| | - Isabelle M Gagne
- Department of Medical Physics, BC Cancer Agency-Vancouver Island Centre, Victoria, British Columbia V8R 6V5, Canada and Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia V8W 3P6 5C2, Canada
| | - Magdalena Bazalova-Carter
- Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia V8W 3P6 5C2, Canada
| | - Sergei Zavgorodni
- Department of Medical Physics, BC Cancer Agency-Vancouver Island Centre, Victoria, British Columbia V8R 6V5, Canada and Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia V8W 3P6 5C2, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Henzen D, Manser P, Frei D, Volken W, Neuenschwander H, Born EJ, Joosten A, Lössl K, Aebersold DM, Chatelain C, Stampanoni MFM, Fix MK. Beamlet based direct aperture optimization for MERT using a photon MLC. Med Phys 2014; 41:121711. [DOI: 10.1118/1.4901638] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
|
18
|
Henzen D, Manser P, Frei D, Volken W, Neuenschwander H, Born EJ, Lössl K, Aebersold DM, Stampanoni MFM, Fix MK. Forward treatment planning for modulated electron radiotherapy (MERT) employing Monte Carlo methods. Med Phys 2014; 41:031712. [DOI: 10.1118/1.4866227] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/07/2022] Open
|