Commissioning and quality assurance of Dynamic WaveArc irradiation

Effect of angular dependence for small-field dosimetry using seven different detectors

BACKGROUND

Small-field dosimetry is challenging for radiotherapy dosimetry because of the loss of lateral charged equilibrium, partial occlusion of the primary photon source by the collimating devices, perturbation effects caused by the detector materials and their design, and the detector size relative to the radiation field size, which leads to a volume averaging effect. Therefore, a suitable tool for small-field dosimetry requires high spatial resolution, tissue equivalence, angular independence, and energy and dose rate independence to achieve sufficient accuracy. Recently, with the increasing use of combinations of coplanar and non-coplanar beams for small-field dosimetry, there is a need to clarify angular dependence for dosimetry where the detector is oriented at various angles to the incident beam. However, the effect of angular dependence on small-field dosimetry with coplanar and non-coplanar beams has not been fully clarified.

PURPOSE

This study clarified the effect of angular dependence on small-field dosimetry with coplanar and non-coplanar beams using various detectors.

METHODS

Seven different detectors were used: CC01, RAZOR, RAZOR Nano, Pinpoint 3D, stereotactic field diode (SFD), microSilicon, and microDiamond. All measurements were taken using a TrueBeam STx with 6 MV and 10 MV flattening filter-free (FFF) energies using a water-equivalent spherical phantom with a source-to-axis distance of 100 cm. The detector was inserted in a perpendicular orientation, and the gantry was rotated at 15° increments from the incidence beam angle. A multi-leaf collimator (MLC) with four field sizes of 0.5 × 0.5, 1 × 1, 2 × 2, and 3 × 3 cm² , and four couch angles from 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° (coplanar and non-coplanar) were adopted. The angular dependence response (AR) was defined as the ratio of the detector response at a given irradiation gantry angle normalized to the detector response at 0°. The maximum AR differences were calculated between the maximum and minimum AR values for each detector, field size, energy, and couch angle.

RESULTS

The maximum AR difference for the coplanar beam was within 3.3% for all conditions, excluding the maximum AR differences in 0.5 × 0.5 cm² field for CC01 and RAZOR. The maximum AR difference for non-coplanar beams was within 2.5% for fields larger than 1 × 1 cm² , excluding the maximum AR differences for RAZOR Nano, SFD, and microSilicon. The Pinpoint 3D demonstrated stable AR tendencies compared to other detectors. The maximum difference was within 2.0%, except for the 0.5 × 0.5 cm² field and couch angle at 90°. The tendencies of AR values for each detector were similar when using different energies.

CONCLUSION

This study clarified the inherent angular dependence of seven detectors that were suitable for small-field dosimetry. The Pinpoint 3D chamber had the smallest angular dependence of all detectors for the coplanar and non-coplanar beams. The findings of this study can contribute to the calculation of the AR correction factor, and it may be possible to adapt detectors with a large angular dependence on coplanar and non-coplanar beams. However, note that the gantry sag and detector-specific uncertainties increase as the field size decreases.

Treatment planning comparison between dynamic wave arc and volumetric modulated arc therapies for prostate-cancer treatment

The aim of this study was to compare the quality of dynamic wave arc (DWA) and coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (co-VMAT) plans for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. The planning target volume (PTV)-rectum, a section of the PTV comprising the PTV minus that of the rectum, received 78 Gy in 39 fractions as the mean dose to the PTV-rectum. The DWA and co-VMAT plans were generated for each patient using the RayStation treatment planning system for the Vero4DRT system. The PTV-rectum dose (D_95%: the percent dose irradiating 95% of the volume), homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), as well as doses to the bladder wall, rectum wall (V_10-70 Gy: the percent volume receiving 10-70 Gy), and bilateral femoral heads of the DWA and co-VMAT plans were compared. The output monitor unit (MU) and delivery time obtained for each set of plans were also investigated. In terms of target coverage, the DWA plans provided an average D_95% of 75.5 Gy, which was comparable to the co-VMAT-plan D_95% of 75.2 Gy (p < 0.05). The HI was significantly better with the DWA. As for the DWA plans, the bladder-wall volume receiving 10, 20, 30, and 40 Gy (V_{10-40 Gy}) was significantly smaller than that of the co-VMAT plans, and the volume of the rectal wall receiving 10 Gy (V_10Gy) was significantly larger than that of the co-VMAT plans. The DWA plans yielded a reduced dose to the bilateral femoral heads compared with the co-VMAT plans (p < 0.05). The values of the CI and MU, and the delivery time exhibited no significant differences between the DWA and co-VMAT plans. The DWA plan is a feasible treatment option for prostate cancer radiotherapy.

Monte Carlo simulation of 6-MV dynamic wave VMAT deliveries by Vero4DRT linear accelerator using EGSnrc moving sources

The commissioning and benchmark of a Monte Carlo (MC) model of the 6‐MV Brainlab‐Mitsubishi Vero4DRT linear accelerator for the purpose of quality assurance of clinical dynamic wave arc (DWA) treatment plans is reported. Open‐source MC applications based on EGSnrc particle transport codes are used to simulate the medical linear accelerator head components. Complex radiotherapy irradiations can be simulated in a single MC run using a shared library format combined with BEAMnrc “source20.” Electron energy tuning is achieved by comparing measured vs simulated percentage depth doses (PDDs) for MLC‐defined field sizes in a water phantom. Electron spot size tuning is achieved by comparing measured and simulated inplane and crossplane beam profiles. DWA treatment plans generated from RayStation (RaySearch) treatment planning system (TPS) are simulated on voxelized (2.5 mm³) patient CT datasets. Planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OAR) dose–volume histograms (DVHs) are compared to TPS‐calculated doses for clinically deliverable dynamic volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) trajectories. MC simulations with an electron beam energy of 5.9 MeV and spot size FWHM of 1.9 mm had the closest agreement with measurement. DWA beam deliveries simulated on patient CT datasets results in DVH agreement with TPS‐calculated doses. PTV coverage agreed within 0.1% and OAR max doses (to 0.035 cc volume) agreed within 1 Gy. This MC model can be used as an independent dose calculation from the TPS and as a quality assurance tool for complex, dynamic radiotherapy treatment deliveries. Full patient CT treatment simulations are performed in a single Monte Carlo run in 23 min. Simulations are run in parallel using the Condor High‐Throughput Computing software¹ on a cluster of eight servers. Each server has two physical processors (Intel Xeon CPU E5‐2650 0 @2.00 GHz), with 8 cores per CPU and two threads per core for 256 calculation nodes.

Dosimetric advantages afforded by a new irradiation technique, Dynamic WaveArc, used for accelerated partial breast irradiation

PURPOSE

To identify dosimetric advantages of the novel Dynamic WaveArc (DWA) technique for accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI), compared with non-coplanar three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (nc3D-CRT) and coplanar tangential volumetric modulated arc therapy (tVMAT) with dual arcs of 45-65°.

METHODS

Vero4DRT enables DWA by continuous gantry rotation and O-ring skewing with movement of the multi-leaf collimator. We compared the dose distributions of DWA, nc3D-CRT and tVMAT in 24 consecutive left-sided breast cancer patients treated with APBI (38.5 Gy in 10 fractions). The average doses and volumes to the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk, especially heart and left anterior descending artery (LAD) were compared among DWA, nc3D-CRT and tVMAT.

RESULTS

The doses and volumes to the PTVs did not differ significantly among the three plans. For the DWA plans, the mean dose to the heart was 0.2 ± 0.1 Gy, less than those of the nc3D-CRT and tVMAT plans. The D_2% values of the planning organ at risk volume of the LAD were 9.3 ± 10.9%, 28.2 ± 31.9% and 20.3 ± 25.7% for DWA, nc3D-CRT and tVMAT, respectively. The V_20Gy and V_10Gy of the ipsilateral lung for the DWA plans were also significantly lower.

CONCLUSIONS

DWA allowed to find a better compromise for OAR which overlapped with the PTV. Use of the DWA for APBI improved the dose distributions compared with those of nc3D-CRT and tVMAT.

Quality assurance of geometric accuracy based on an electronic portal imaging device and log data analysis for Dynamic WaveArc irradiation

The purpose of this study was to develop a simple verification method for the routine quality assurance (QA) of Dynamic WaveArc (DWA) irradiation using electronic portal imaging device (EPID) images and log data analysis. First, an automatic calibration method utilizing the outermost multileaf collimator (MLC) slits was developed to correct the misalignment between the center of the EPID and the beam axis. Moreover, to verify the detection accuracy of the MLC position according to the EPID images, various positions of the MLC with intentional errors in the range 0.1–1 mm were assessed. Second, to validate the geometric accuracy during DWA irradiation, tests were designed in consideration of three indices. Test 1 evaluated the accuracy of the MLC position. Test 2 assessed dose output consistency with variable dose rate (160–400 MU/min), gantry speed (2.2–6°/s), and ring speed (0.5–2.7°/s). Test 3 validated dose output consistency with variable values of the above parameters plus MLC speed (1.6–4.2 cm/s). All tests were delivered to the EPID and compared with those obtained using a stationary radiation beam with a 0° gantry angle. Irradiation log data were recorded simultaneously. The 0.1‐mm intentional error on the MLC position could be detected by the EPID, which is smaller than the EPID pixel size. In Test 1, the MLC slit widths agreed within 0.20 mm of their exposed values. The averaged root‐mean‐square error (RMSE) of the dose outputs was less than 0.8% in Test 2 and Test 3. Using log data analysis in Test 3, the RMSE between the planned and recorded data was 0.1 mm, 0.12°, and 0.07° for the MLC position, gantry angle, and ring angle, respectively. The proposed method is useful for routine QA of the accuracy of DWA.

Monitoring of mechanical errors and their dosimetric impact throughout the course of non-coplanar continuous volumetric-modulated arc therapy

BACKGROUND

Volumetric-modulated Dynamic WaveArc therapy (VMDWAT) is a non-coplanar continuous volumetric modulated radiation therapy (VMAT) delivery technique. Here, we monitored mechanical errors and their impact on dose distributions in VMDWAT using logfiles throughout the course of treatment.

METHODS

Fifteen patients were enrolled (2 skull base tumor patients and 13 prostate cancer patients). VMDWAT plans were created for the enrolled patients. The prescribed dose for the skull base tumor was set as 54 Gy at 1.8 Gy per fraction, and that for the prostate cancer was set as 72 to 78 Gy at 2 Gy per fraction. We acquired logfiles to monitor mechanical errors and their impact on dose distribution in each fraction. The root mean square error (RMSE) in the multi-leaf collimator (MLC), gantry angle, O-ring angle and monitor unit (MU) were calculated using logfiles throughout the course of VMDWAT for each patient. The dosimetric impact of mechanical errors throughout the course of VMDWAT was verified using a logfile-based dose reconstruction method. Dosimetric errors between the reconstructed plans and the original plans were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 517 datasets, including 55 datasets for the 2 skull base tumor patients and 462 datasets for the 13 prostate cancer patients, were acquired. The RMSE values were less than 0.1 mm, 0.2°, 0.1°, and 0.4 MU for MLC position, gantry angle, O-ring angle, and MU, respectively. For the skull base tumors, the absolute mean dosimetric errors and two standard deviations throughout the course of treatment were less than 1.4% and 1.1%, respectively. For prostate cancer, these absolute values were less than 0.3% and 0.5%, respectively. The largest dosimetric error of 2.5% was observed in a skull base tumor patient. The resultant dosimetric error in the accumulated daily delivered dose distribution, in the patient with the largest error, was up to 1.6% for all dose-volumetric parameters relative to the planned dose distribution.

CONCLUSIONS

MLC position, gantry rotation, O-ring rotation and MU were highly accurate and stable throughout the course of treatment. The daily dosimetric errors due to mechanical errors were small. VMDWAT provided high delivery accuracy and stability throughout the course of treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN000023870 . Registered: 1 October 2016.

Geometric and dosimetric quality assurance using logfiles and a 3D helical diode detector for Dynamic WaveArc

PURPOSE

To conduct patient-specific geometric and dosimetric quality assurance (QA) for the Dynamic WaveArc (DWA) using logfiles and ArcCHECK (Sun Nuclear Inc., Melbourne, FL, USA).

METHODS

Twenty DWA plans, 10 for pituitary adenoma and 10 for prostate cancer, were created using RayStation version 4.7 (RaySearch Laboratories, Stockholm, Sweden). Root mean square errors (RMSEs) between the actual and planned values in the logfiles were evaluated. Next, the dose distributions were reconstructed based on the logfiles. The differences between dose-volumetric parameters in the reconstructed plans and those in the original plans were calculated. Finally, dose distributions were assessed using ArcCHECK. In addition, the reconstructed dose distributions were compared with planned ones.

RESULTS

The means of RMSEs for the gantry, O-ring, MLC position, and MU for all plans were 0.2°, 0.1°, 0.1 mm, and 0.4 MU, respectively. Absolute means of the change in PTV D_99% were 0.4 ± 0.4% and 0.1 ± 0.1% points between the original and reconstructed plans for pituitary adenoma and prostate cancer, respectively. The mean of the gamma passing rate (3%/3 mm) between the measured and planned dose distributions was 97.7%. In addition, that between the reconstructed and planned dose distributions was 99.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

We have demonstrated that the geometric accuracy and gamma passing rates were within AAPM 119 and 142 criteria during DWA. Dose differences in the dose-volumetric parameters using the logfile-based dose reconstruction method were also clinically acceptable in DWA.

Geometric and dosimetric accuracy of dynamic tumor tracking during volumetric-modulated arc therapy using a gimbal mounted linac

PURPOSE

The aim was to examine the feasibility of a dynamic tumor-tracking volumetric modulated arc therapy (DTT-VMAT) technique using a gimbal-mounted linac and assess its positional, mechanical and dosimetric accuracy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

DTT-VMAT was performed using a surrogated signal-based technique. The positional tracking accuracy was evaluated as the difference between the predicted and detected target positions for various wave patterns. Mechanical accuracy measurements included gantry, multileaf collimator (MLC) and gimbal positions. The differences between the command and the measured positions were evaluated for various wave patterns. Dosimetric verification was performed using Gafchromic EBT3 films in the benchmark phantom and two clinical cases.

RESULTS

The root mean square error (RMSE) of the positional accuracy was within 0.31 mm. The RMSE of mechanical accuracy was within 0.14° for the gantry, 0.11 ± 0.02 mm for the MLC and 0.13 mm for the gimbal positions. The passing rate of the 3%/3 mm gamma index was greater than 83.3% and 91.2% for the benchmark phantom and two clinical cases, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The positional, mechanical and dosimetric accuracy of DTT-VMAT were evaluated. DTT-VMAT with a gimbal-mounted linac had sufficient accuracy and presents a new strategy for treatment of several tumors with respiratory motion.

Effect of VERO pan-tilt motion on the dose distribution

Tumor tracking is an option for intra-fractional motion management in radiotherapy. The VERO gimbal tracking system creates a unique beam geometry and understanding the effect of the gimbal motion in terms of dose distribution is important to assess the dose deviation from the reference conditions. Beam profiles, output factors (OF) and percentage depth doses (PDD) were measured and evaluated to investigate this effect. In order to find regions affected by the pan-tilt motion, synthesized 2D dose distributions were generated. An evaluation of the 2D dose distribution with the reference position was done using dose difference criteria 1%-4%. The OF and point dose at central axis were measured and compared with the reference position. Furthermore, the PDDs were measured using a special monitoring approach to filtering inaccurate points during the acquisition. Beam profiles evaluation showed that the effect of pan-tilt at inline direction was stronger than at the crossline direction. The maximum average deviation of the full width half maximum (FWHM), flatness, symmetry, penumbra left and right were 0.39 ± 0.25 mm, 0.62 ± 0.50%, 0.76 ± 0.59%, 0.22 ± 0.16 mm, and 0.19 ± 0.15 mm respectively. The ÔF and the measured dose average deviation were <0.5%. The mechanical accuracies during the PDD measurements were 0.28 ± 0.09 mm and 0.21 ± 0.09 mm for pan and tilt and pan or tilt position. The PDD average deviations were 0.58 ± 0.26 % and 0.54 ± 0.25 % for pan-or-tilt and pan-and-tilt position respectively. All the results showed that the deviation at pan and tilt position are higher than pan or tilt. The most influences were observed for the penumbra region and the shift of radiation beam path.

Volumetric modulated Dynamic WaveArc therapy reduces the dose to the hippocampus in patients with pituitary adenomas and craniopharyngiomas

PURPOSE

Reducing the radiation dose to the hippocampus is important to preserve cognitive function in patients with brain tumors. The Vero4DRT system can realize a new irradiation technique, termed volumetric-modulated Dynamic WaveArc therapy (VMDWAT), which allows the safe use of sequential noncoplanar volumetric-modulated beams without couch rotation. Because VMDWAT appears to reduce the hippocampal dose in patients with pituitary adenomas and craniopharyngiomas, we performed a planning study to compare the dose distribution of volumetric-modulated arc therapy using only a coplanar arc (coVMAT) and VMDWAT.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

CoVMAT and VMDWAT plans were created for 30 patients with pituitary adenomas and craniopharyngiomas. The prescription dose was 52.2 Gy in 29 fractions, with 99% of each planning target volume covered by 90% of the prescribed dose. Optimization was performed for maximal reduction of the dose to the hippocampus. Treatment time was defined as the beam-on time.

RESULTS

The mean equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions to 40% of the volume of the bilateral hippocampus (EQD40%) for coVMAT/VMDWAT were 9.90/5.31 Gy, respectively (P < .001). The mean EQD40% in VMDWAT was less than 7.3 Gy, which is the threshold for predicting cognitive impairment. Although the volume of normal brain receiving 5 Gy (V5) was significantly larger in VMDWAT, compared with coVMAT, the normal brain volume receiving 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, and 50 Gy (V10-50) was significantly smaller in VMDWAT. The conformity and homogeneity indices were significantly better in VMDWAT. The mean VMDWAT treatment time was longer compared with coVMAT (70.1 vs 67.1 seconds, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Although VMDWAT increased brain V5 and the treatment time compared with coVMAT, it significantly reduced the dose to the hippocampus and brain V10 to V50 and improved target conformity and homogeneity. VMDWAT could be a promising treatment technique for pituitary adenomas and craniopharyngiomas.

Initial characterization, dosimetric benchmark and performance validation of Dynamic Wave Arc

Background

Dynamic Wave Arc (DWA) is a clinical approach designed to maximize the versatility of Vero SBRT system by synchronizing the gantry-ring noncoplanar movement with D-MLC optimization. The purpose of this study was to verify the delivery accuracy of DWA approach and to evaluate the potential dosimetric benefits.

Methods

DWA is an extended form of VMAT with a continuous varying ring position. The main difference in the optimization modules of VMAT and DWA is during the angular spacing, where the DWA algorithm does not consider the gantry spacing, but only the Euclidian norm of the ring and gantry angle. A preclinical version of RayStation v4.6 (RaySearch Laboratories, Sweden) was used to create patient specific wave arc trajectories for 31 patients with various anatomical tumor regions (prostate, oligometatstatic cases, centrally-located non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and locally advanced pancreatic cancer-LAPC). DWA was benchmarked against the current clinical approaches and coplanar VMAT. Each plan was evaluated with regards to dose distribution, modulation complexity (MCS), monitor units and treatment time efficiency. The delivery accuracy was evaluated using a 2D diode array that takes in consideration the multi-dimensionality of DWA during dose reconstruction.

Results

In centrally-located NSCLC cases, DWA improved the low dose spillage with 20 %, while the target coverage was increased with 17 % compared to 3D CRT. The structures that significantly benefited from using DWA were proximal bronchus and esophagus, with the maximal dose being reduced by 17 % and 24 %, respectively. For prostate and LAPC, neither technique seemed clearly superior to the other; however, DWA reduced with more than 65 % of the delivery time over IMRT. A steeper dose gradient outside the target was observed for all treatment sites (p < 0.01) with DWA. Except the oligometastatic cases, where the DWA-MCSs indicate a higher modulation, both DWA and VMAT modalities provide plans of similar complexity. The average ɣ (3 % /3 mm) passing rate for DWA plans was 99.2 ± 1 % (range from 96.8 to 100 %).

Conclusions

DWA proven to be a fully functional treatment technique, allowing additional flexibility in dose shaping, while preserving dosimetrically robust delivery and treatment times comparable with coplanar VMAT.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13014-016-0633-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.