Comparing dose in the build-up region between compensator- and MLC-based IMRT

Cobalt compensator-based IMRT device: A treatment planning study of head and neck cases

PURPOSE

Our goal is to develop a novel cobalt-compensator-based IMRT device for low- and middle-income countries that is reliable and cost-effective while delivering treatment plans of equal quality to those from linac-MLC devices. The present study examines the quality of treatment plans using this device.

METHODS

A commercial treatment planning system (TPS; RayStation v.8B) was commissioned for this device using Monte Carlo simulations from the Geant4 toolkit. Patient-specific compensators were created as regions-of-interest. Thirty clinical head & neck cases were planned and compared to clinical plans with a 6MV linac using IMRT. The mock head and neck plan from TG-119 was used for further validation.

RESULTS

PTV objectives were achieved in all 30 plans with PTV V95% >95 %. OAR sparing was similar to clinical plans. There were 14 cases where OAR dose limits exceeded the recommended QUANTEC limits in the clinical plan in order to achieve target coverage. OAR sparing was better in the cobalt compensator plan in 8 cases and worse in 3 cases, in the latter cases exceeding the clinical plan doses by an average of 8.22 % (0.0 %-13.5 %). Average field-by-field gamma pass-rate were 93.7 % (2 %/2mm). Estimated treatment times using the Co-60 compensator device were 1 min 27 s vs 1 min 2 s for the clinical system.

CONCLUSION

This system is the first of its kind to allow for IMRT with a Co-60 device. Data here suggests that the delivery meets plan quality criteria while maintaining short treatment times which may offer a sustainable and cost-low option for IMRT on the global scale.

Assessment of radiation-induced secondary cancer risk in the Brazilian population from left-sided breast-3D-CRT using MCNPX

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this work was to simulate a 6MV conventional breast 3D conformational radiation therapy (3D-CRT) with physical wedges (50 Gy/25#) in the left breast, calculate the mean absorbed dose in the body organs using robust models and computational tools and estimate the secondary cancer-incidence risk to the Brazilian population.

METHODS

The VW female phantom was used in the simulations. Planning target volume (PTV) was defined in the left breast. The 6MV parallel-opposed fields breast-radiotherapy (RT) protocol was simulated with MCNPx code. The absorbed doses were evaluated in all the organs. The secondary cancer-incidence risk induced by radiotherapy was calculated for different age groups according to the BEIR VII methodology.

RESULTS

RT quality indexes indicated that the protocol was properly simulated. Significant absorbed dose values in red bone marrow, RBM (0.8 Gy) and stomach (0.6 Gy) were observed. The contralateral breast presented the highest risk of incidence of a secondary cancer followed by leukaemia, lung and stomach. The risk of a secondary cancer-incidence by breast-RT, for the Brazilian population, ranged between 2.2-1.7% and 0.6-0.4%.

CONCLUSION

RBM and stomach, usually not considered as OAR, presented high second cancer incidence risks of 0.5-0.3% and 0.4-0.1%, respectively. This study may be helpful for breast-RT risk/benefit assessment. Advances in knowledge: MCNPX-dosimetry was able to provide the scatter radiation and dose for all body organs in conventional breast-RT. It was found a relevant risk up to 2.2% of induced-cancer from breast-RT, considering the whole thorax organs and Brazilian cancer-incidence.

Superficial and peripheral dose in compensator-based FFF beam IMRT

Flattening filter-free (FFF) beams produce higher dose rates. Combined with compensator-based intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) techniques, the dose delivery for each beam can be much shorter compared to the flattened beam MLC-based or flattened beam compensator-based IMRT. This 'snap shot' IMRT delivery is beneficial to patients for tumor motion management. Due to softer energy, superficial doses in FFF beam treatment are usually higher than those from flattened beams. Due to no flattening filter, thus less photon scattering, peripheral doses are usually lower in FFF beam treatment. However, in compensator-based IMRT using FFF beams, the compensator is in the beam pathway. Does it introduce beam hardening effects and scattering such that the superficial dose is lower and peripheral dose is higher compared to FFF beam MLC-based IMRT? This study applied Monte Carlo techniques to investigate the superficial and peripheral doses in compensator-based IMRT using FFF beams and compared it to the MLC-based IMRT using FFF beams and flattened beams. Besides varying thicknesses of brass slabs to simulate varying thicknesses of compensators, a simple cone-shaped compensator was simulated to mimic a clinical application. The dose distribution in water phantom by the cone-shaped compensator was then simulated by multiple MLC-defined FFF and flattened beams with varying apertures. After normalization to the maximum dose, D_max, the superficial and peripheral doses were compared between the FFF beam compensator-based IMRT and FFF/flattened beam MLC-based IMRT. The superficial dose at the central 0.5 mm depth was about 1% (of D_max) lower in the compensator-based 6 MV FFF (6FFF) IMRT compared to the MLC-based 6FFF IMRT, and about 8% higher than the flattened 6 MV MLC-based IMRT dose. At 8 cm off-axis at depth of central maximum dose, d_max, the peripheral dose between the 6FFF and flattened 6 MV MLC demonstrated similar doses, while the compensator dose was about 1% (of D_max) higher. Compensators reduce the superficial doses slightly compared to open FFF beams, but increases the peripheral doses due to scatter in the compensator.

Quantitative analysis of brass compensators for commissioning of the Pinnacle planning system for IMRT

Brass compensators for beam modulation present an alternative method for IMRT treatment planning to traditional dynamic leaf modulation. In this work, we present a detailed method to commission the Pinnacle treatment planning system for IMRT using brass compensators. Beam attenuation from various brass thicknesses were measured using an ion chamber, as well as a MapCHECK device, for a representative seven-field IMRT plan. We show that Pinnacle's parameters for compensators can be optimized to match the measured results while still maintaining the original open-beam model. Only Pinnacle's modified scatter factor and brass density value were adjusted. Beam attenuation in several brass slabs were optimized by minimizing a χ(2) function of measured and modeled data for several depths in solid water. Using MapCHECK, Pinnacle's parameters were optimized by minimizing the number of points that fail during a gamma analysis of seven fields in a typical IMRT plan. Our results show that Pinnacle's 10X beam is best modeled using a brass density of 7.8 g/cm(3) and a modified scatter factor of 0.1 cm(-1).

Monte Carlo comparison of superficial dose between flattening filter free and flattened beams

This study investigates the superficial dose from FFF beams in comparison with the conventional flattened ones using a Monte Carlo (MC) method. Published phase-space files which incorporated real geometry of a TrueBeam accelerator were used for the dose calculation in phantom and clinical cases. The photon fluence on the central axis is 3 times that of a flattened beam for a 6 MV FFF beam and 5 times for a 10 MV beam. The mean energy across the field in air at the phantom surface is 0.92-0.95 MeV for the 6 MV FFF beam and 1.18-1.30 MeV for the corresponding flattened beam. At 10 MV, the values are 1.52-1.72 and 2.15-2.87 MeV for the FFF and flattened beams, respectively. The phantom dose at the depth of 1 mm in the 6 MV FFF beam is 6% ± 2.5% (of the maximum dose) higher compared to the flattened beam for a 25 × 25 cm(2) field and 14.6% ± 1.9% for the 2 × 2 cm(2) field. For the 10 MV beam, the corresponding differences are 3.4% ± 1.5% and 10.7% ± 0.6%. The skin dose difference at selected points on the patient's surface between the plans using FFF and flattened beams in the head-and-neck case was 6.5% ± 2.3% (1SD), and for the breast case it was 6.4% ± 2.3%. The Monte Carlo simulations showed that due to the lower mean energy in the FFF beam, the clinical superficial dose is higher without the flattening filter compared to the flattened beam.