Optimization of extracranial stereotactic radiation therapy of small lung lesions using accurate dose calculation algorithms

Difference in target dose distributions between Acuros XB and collapsed cone convolution/superposition and the impact of the tumor locations in clinical cases of stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy for lung cancer

Objectives

The objective of the study is to analyze the difference in target dose distributions between Acuros XB (AXB) and collapsed cone convolution (CCC)/superposition and the impact of the tumor locations in clinical cases of stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) for lung cancer.

Materials and Methods

Ninety-six patients underwent SABR for lung cancers Kyushu University Hospital from 2014 to 2017. We recalculated clinical plans originally calculated by AXB using CCC with the identical monitor units (MUs) and beam arrangements. We calculated the following dosimetric parameters: maximum dose (Dmax), minimum dose (Dmin), homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), and D95 of the planning target volume (PTV). We investigated the difference between the results of two calculations and examined the impact of tumor location. Moreover, we determined the target central dose using a thorax phantom and assessed the calculation accuracy of the two algorithms for each fraction.

Results

CCC significantly overestimated the dose to PTV, compared to AXB (P < 0.05). The mean differences of Dmax, Dmin, and D95 were 1.17, 1.95, and 1.85 Gy, respectively. The mean differences of HI and CI were 0.02 and - 0.06. Dmin, HI, and D95 had significant correlations with the tumor location, and the difference was greater when the PTV was included the chest wall (P < 0.05). The discrepancy between the calculated and irradiated dose was 2.48% for CCC, whereas it was 0.14% for AXB.

Conclusions

We demonstrated that CCC significantly overestimated the dose to PTV relative to AXB in clinical cases of lung SABR.

Evaluation of mega-voltage CT images for completed radiotherapy treatments for dogs and cats reveals uncommon but potentially consequential dose deviation in thoracic and abdominal tumors

As advanced delivery techniques such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) become conventional in veterinary radiotherapy, highly modulated radiation delivery helps to decrease dose to normal tissues. However, IMRT is only effective if patient setup and anatomy are accurately replicated for each treatment. Numerous techniques have been implemented to decrease patient setup error, however tumor shrinkage, variations in the patient's contour and weight loss continue to be hard to control and can result in clinically relevant dose deviation in radiotherapy plans. Adaptive radiotherapy (ART) is often the most effective means to account for gradual changes such as tumor shrinkage and weight loss, however it is often unclear when adaption is necessary. The goal of this retrospective, observational study was to review dose delivery in dogs and cats who received helical radiotherapy at University of Wisconsin, using detector dose data (D2%, D50%, D98%) and daily megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) images, and to determine whether ART should be considered more frequently than it currently is. A total of 52 treatment plans were evaluated and included cancers of the head and neck, thorax, and abdomen. After evaluation, 6% of the radiotherapy plan delivered had clinically relevant dose deviations in dose delivery. Dose deviations were more common in thoracic and abdominal targets. While adaptation may have been considered in these cases, the decision to adapt can be complex and all factors, such as treatment delay, cost, and imaging modality, must be considered when adaptation is to be pursued.

Clinical verification of treatment planning dose calculation in lung SBRT with GATE Monte Carlo simulation code

PURPOSE

This study aims to use GATE/Geant4 simulation code to evaluate the performance of dose calculations with Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) in the context of lung SBRT for complex treatments considering images of patients.

METHODS

Four cases of non-small cell lung cancer treated with SBRT were selected for this study. Irradiation plans were created with AAA and recalculated end to end using Monte Carlo (MC) method maintaining field configurations identical to the original plans. Each treatment plan was evaluated in terms of PTV and organs at risk (OARs) using dose-volume histograms (DVH). Dosimetric parameters obtained from DVHs were used to compare AAA and MC.

RESULTS

The comparison between the AAA and MC DVH using gamma analysis with the passing criteria of 3%/3% showed an average passing rate of more than 90% for the PTV structure and 97% for the OARs. Tightening the criteria to 2%/2% showed a reduction in the average passing rate of the PTV to 86%. The agreement between the AAA and MC dose calculations for PTV dosimetric parameters (V₁₀₀; V₉₀; Homogeneity index; maximum, minimum and mean dose; CI_Paddick and D_2cm) was within 18.4%. For OARs, the biggest differences were observed in the spinal cord and the great vessels.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, we did not find significant differences between AAA and MC. The results indicate that AAA could be used in complex SBRT cases that involve a larger number of small treatment fields in the presence of tissue heterogeneities.

Comparison of five dose calculation algorithms in a heterogeneous media using design of experiment

PURPOSE

Design of experiments (DoE) provides a methodology to reveal the influence of input values on the measured output with a limited number of trials. The purpose of this study was to describe how DoE can be used to evaluate the performances of several dose calculation systems in heterogeneous media, including algorithms like Pencil Beam (PB), Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA), Acuros XB (AXB), Monte Carlo (MC) and Collapsed Cone Volume (CCV).

METHOD

This study was carried out using a CIRS Model 002LFC IMRT Thorax Phantom customized with a water-equivalent heterogeneity inside the lung. The calculated dose distributions were compared to Gafchromic® EBT3 film measurements. The beam configurations were selected using DoE to study the influence of five parameters simultaneously (energy, collimator angulation, gantry angulation, X and Y jaws) and to optimize the number of experiments. An analysis of variance was performed over the entire irradiation field and over various regions of interest (tumour, shadow of tumour and lungs).

RESULTS

DoE enabled to quantify and determine the statistically significant factors, leading to an evaluation of the dose calculation systems in the lung case. The resulting scoring could be as follow (from best to worst): AXB_D_m, CCV, AXB_D_w, XVMC_D_m, XVMC_D_w, AAA and last PB. Differences between the algorithms were specially observed in the tumour and the shadow regions.

CONCLUSION

DoE is a robust statistical method to compare several dose calculation systems. The various analyses lead to the conclusion that AXB handled more accurately most of the situations investigated in heterogeneous media.

Impact of dose calculation algorithms on the dosimetric and radiobiological indices for lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) plans calculated using LQ–L model

Purpose

To investigate discrepancies in dose calculation algorithms used for lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) plans.

Methods and materials

In total, 30 patients lung SBRT treatment plans, initially generated using BrainLab Pencil Beam (BL_PB) algorithm for 10 Gy×5 Fractions to the planning target volume (PTV) were included in the study. These plans were recalculated using BrainLab Monte Carlo (BL_MC), Eclipse AAA (EC_AAA), Eclipse Acuros XB (EC_AXB) and ADAC Pinnacle CCC (AP_CCC) algorithms. Dose volume histograms of PTV were used to calculate dosimetric and radiobiological quality indices, and equivalent dose to 2 Gy per fraction using linear-quadratic-linear model. The BL_MC algorithm is considered gold standard tool to compare PTV parameters and quality indices to investigate dose calculation discrepancies of abovementioned plans.

Results

BL_PB overestimates doses that may be due to inability of the algorithm to properly account for electron scattering and transport in inhomogeneous medium. Compared with BL_MCNO plans, the EC_AAA and EC_AXB yield lower homogeneity indices and overestimate the dose in the penumbra region, whereas AP_CCC plans were comparable for small PTV (≈8 cc) and had significant difference for large PTV.

Conclusion

BL_PB algorithm overestimates PTV doses than BL_MC calculated doses. The EC_AAA, EC_AXB and AP_CCC algorithms calculate doses within acceptable limits of radiotherapy dose delivery recommendations.

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

Stereotactic radiotherapy of intrapulmonary lesions: comparison of different dose calculation algorithms for Oncentra MasterPlan®

BACKGROUND

The use of high accuracy dose calculation algorithms, such as Monte Carlo (MC) and Collapsed Cone (CC) determine dose in inhomogeneous tissue more accurately than pencil beam (PB) algorithms. However, prescription protocols based on clinical experience with PB are often used for treatment plans calculated with CC. This may lead to treatment plans with changes in field size (FS) and changes in dose to organs at risk (OAR), especially for small tumor volumes in lung tissue treated with SABR.

METHODS

We re-evaluated 17 3D-conformal treatment plans for small intrapulmonary lesions with a prescription of 60 Gy in fractions of 7.5 Gy to the 80% isodose. All treatment plans were initially calculated in Oncentra MasterPlan® using a PB algorithm and recalculated with CC (CCre-calc). Furthermore, a CC-based plan with coverage similar to the PB plan (CCcov) and a CC plan with relaxed coverage criteria (CCclin), were created. The plans were analyzed in terms of Dmean, Dmin, Dmax and coverage for GTV, PTV and ITV. Changes in mean lung dose (MLD), V10Gy and V20Gy were evaluated for the lungs. The re-planned CC plans were compared to the original PB plans regarding changes in total monitor units (MU) and average FS.

RESULTS

When PB plans were recalculated with CC, the average V60Gy of GTV, ITV and PTV decreased by 13.2%, 19.9% and 41.4%, respectively. Average Dmean decreased by 9% (GTV), 11.6% (ITV) and 14.2% (PTV). Dmin decreased by 18.5% (GTV), 21.3% (ITV) and 17.5% (PTV). Dmax declined by 7.5%. PTV coverage correlated with PTV volume (p < 0.001). MLD, V10Gy, and V20Gy were significantly reduced in the CC plans. Both, CCcov and CCclin had significantly increased MUs and FS compared to PB.

CONCLUSIONS

Recalculation of PB plans for small lung lesions with CC showed a strong decline in dose and coverage in GTV, ITV and PTV, and declined dose in the lung. Thus, switching from a PB algorithm to CC, while aiming to obtain similar target coverage, can be associated with application of more MU and extension of radiotherapy fields, causing greater OAR exposition.

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.

A clinical study of lung cancer dose calculation accuracy with Monte Carlo simulation

Background

The accuracy of dose calculation is crucial to the quality of treatment planning and, consequently, to the dose delivered to patients undergoing radiation therapy. Current general calculation algorithms such as Pencil Beam Convolution (PBC) and Collapsed Cone Convolution (CCC) have shortcomings in regard to severe inhomogeneities, particularly in those regions where charged particle equilibrium does not hold. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the PBC and CCC algorithms in lung cancer radiotherapy using Monte Carlo (MC) technology.

Methods and materials

Four treatment plans were designed using Oncentra Masterplan TPS for each patient. Two intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans were developed using the PBC and CCC algorithms, and two three-dimensional conformal therapy (3DCRT) plans were developed using the PBC and CCC algorithms. The DICOM-RT files of the treatment plans were exported to the Monte Carlo system to recalculate. The dose distributions of GTV, PTV and ipsilateral lung calculated by the TPS and MC were compared.

Result

For 3DCRT and IMRT plans, the mean dose differences for GTV between the CCC and MC increased with decreasing of the GTV volume. For IMRT, the mean dose differences were found to be higher than that of 3DCRT. The CCC algorithm overestimated the GTV mean dose by approximately 3% for IMRT. For 3DCRT plans, when the volume of the GTV was greater than 100 cm³, the mean doses calculated by CCC and MC almost have no difference. PBC shows large deviations from the MC algorithm. For the dose to the ipsilateral lung, the CCC algorithm overestimated the dose to the entire lung, and the PBC algorithm overestimated V₂₀ but underestimated V₅; the difference in V₁₀ was not statistically significant.

Conclusions

PBC substantially overestimates the dose to the tumour, but the CCC is similar to the MC simulation. It is recommended that the treatment plans for lung cancer be developed using an advanced dose calculation algorithm other than PBC. MC can accurately calculate the dose distribution in lung cancer and can provide a notably effective tool for benchmarking the performance of other dose calculation algorithms within patients.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy for small lung tumors in the University of Tokyo Hospital

Our work on stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for primary and metastatic lung tumors will be described. The eligibility criteria for SBRT, our previous SBRT method, the definition of target volume, heterogeneity correction, the position adjustment using four-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography (4D CBCT) immediately before SBRT, volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) method for SBRT, verifying of tumor position within internal target volume (ITV) using in-treatment 4D-CBCT during VMAT-SBRT, shortening of treatment time using flattening-filter-free (FFF) techniques, delivery of 4D dose calculation for lung-VMAT patients using in-treatment CBCT and LINAC log data with agility multileaf collimator, and SBRT method for centrally located lung tumors in our institution will be shown. In our institution, these efforts have been made with the goal of raising the local control rate and decreasing adverse effects after SBRT.

Comparison of CCC and ETAR dose calculation algorithms in pituitary adenoma radiation treatment planning; Monte Carlo evaluation

Aims

To verify the accuracy of two common absorbed dose calculation algorithms in comparison to Monte Carlo (MC) simulation for the planning of the pituitary adenoma radiation treatment.

Materials and methods

After validation of Linac's head modelling by MC in water phantom, it was verified in Rando phantom as a heterogeneous medium for pituitary gland irradiation. Then, equivalent tissue-air ratio (ETAR) and collapsed cone convolution (CCC) algorithms were compared for a conventional three small non-coplanar field technique. This technique uses 30 degree physical wedge and 18 MV photon beams.

Results

Dose distribution findings showed significant difference between ETAR and CCC of delivered dose in pituitary irradiation. The differences between MC and dose calculation algorithms were 6.40 ± 3.44% for CCC and 10.36 ± 4.37% for ETAR. None of the algorithms could predict actual dose in air cavity areas in comparison to the MC method.

Conclusions

Difference between calculation and true dose value affects radiation treatment outcome and normal tissue complication probability. It is of prime concern to select appropriate treatment planning system according to our clinical situation. It is further emphasised that MC can be the method of choice for clinical dose calculation algorithms verification.

Dosimetric evaluation of the impacts of different heterogeneity correction algorithms on target doses in stereotactic body radiation therapy for lung tumors

Heterogeneity correction algorithms can have a large impact on the dose distributions of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for lung tumors. Treatment plans of 20 patients who underwent SBRT for lung tumors with the prescribed dose of 48 Gy in four fractions at the isocenter were reviewed retrospectively and recalculated with different heterogeneity correction algorithms: the pencil beam convolution algorithm with a Batho power-law correction (BPL) in Eclipse, the radiological path length algorithm (RPL), and the X-ray Voxel Monte Carlo algorithm (XVMC) in iPlan. The doses at the periphery (minimum dose and D95) of the planning target volume (PTV) were compared using the same monitor units among the three heterogeneity correction algorithms, and the monitor units were compared between two methods of dose prescription, that is, an isocenter dose prescription (IC prescription) and dose-volume based prescription (D95 prescription). Mean values of the dose at the periphery of the PTV were significantly lower with XVMC than with BPL using the same monitor units (P < 0.001). In addition, under IC prescription using BPL, RPL and XVMC, the ratios of mean values of monitor units were 1, 0.959 and 0.986, respectively. Under D95 prescription, they were 1, 0.937 and 1.088, respectively. These observations indicated that the application of XVMC under D95 prescription results in an increase in the actually delivered dose by 8.8% on average compared with the application of BPL. The appropriateness of switching heterogeneity correction algorithms and dose prescription methods should be carefully validated from a clinical viewpoint.

Clinical relevance of different dose calculation strategies for mediastinal IMRT in Hodgkin's disease

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Conventional algorithms show uncertainties in dose calculation already for three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT). Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) might even increase these. We wanted to assess differences in dose distribution for pencil beam (PB), collapsed cone (CC), and Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm for both 3D-CRT and IMRT in patients with mediastinal Hodgkin lymphoma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Based on 20 computed tomograph (CT) datasets of patients with mediastinal Hodgkin lymphoma, we created treatment plans according to the guidelines of the German Hodgkin Study Group (GHSG) with PB and CC algorithm for 3D-CRT and with PB and MC algorithm for IMRT. Doses were compared for planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk.

RESULTS

For 3D-CRT, PB overestimated PTV(95) and V(20) of the lung by 6.9% and 3.3% and underestimated V(10) of the lung by 5.8%, compared to the CC algorithm. For IMRT, PB overestimated PTV(95), V(20) of the lung, V(25) of the heart and V(10) of the female left/right breast by 8.1%, 25.8%, 14.0% and 43.6%/189.1%, and underestimated V(10) of the lung, V(4) of the heart and V(4) of the female left/right breast by 6.3%, 6.8% and 23.2%/15.6%, compared to MC.

CONCLUSION

The PB algorithm underestimates low doses to the organs at risk and overestimates dose to PTV and high doses to the organs at risk. For 3D-CRT, a well-modeled PB algorithm is clinically acceptable; for IMRT planning, however, an advanced algorithm such as CC or MC should be used at least for part of the plan optimization.

Treatment of left sided breast cancer for a patient with funnel chest: volumetric-modulated arc therapy vs. 3D-CRT and intensity-modulated radiotherapy

This case study presents a rare case of left-sided breast cancer in a patient with funnel chest, which is a technical challenge for radiation therapy planning. To identify the best treatment technique for this case, 3 techniques were compared: conventional tangential fields (3D conformal radiotherapy [3D-CRT]), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). The plans were created for a SynergyS® (Elekta, Ltd, Crawley, UK) linear accelerator with a BeamModulator™ head and 6-MV photons. The planning system was Oncentra Masterplan® v3.3 SP1 (Nucletron BV, Veenendal, Netherlands). Calculations were performed with collapsed cone algorithm. Dose prescription was 50.4 Gy to the average of the planning target volume (PTV). PTV coverage and homogeneity was comparable for all techniques. VMAT allowed reducing dose to the ipsilateral organs at risk (OAR) and the contralateral breast compared with IMRT and 3D-CRT: The volume of the left lung receiving 20 Gy was 19.3% for VMAT, 26.1% for IMRT, and 32.4% for 3D-CRT. In the heart, a D(15%) of 9.7 Gy could be achieved with VMAT compared with 14 Gy for IMRT and 46 Gy for 3D-CRT. In the contralateral breast, D(15%) was 6.4 Gy for VMAT, 8.8 Gy for IMRT, and 10.2 Gy for 3D-CRT. In the contralateral lung, however, the lowest dose was achieved with 3D-CRT with D(10%) of 1.7 Gy for 3D-CRT, and 6.7 Gy for both IMRT and VMAT. The lowest number of monitor units (MU) per 1.8-Gy fraction was required by 3D-CRT (192 MU) followed by VMAT (518 MU) and IMRT (727 MU). Treatment time was similar for 3D-CRT (3 min) and VMAT (4 min) but substantially increased for IMRT (13 min). VMAT is considered the best treatment option for the presented case of a patient with funnel chest. It allows reducing dose in most OAR without compromising target coverage, keeping delivery time well below 5 minutes.

A dosimetric phantom study of dose accuracy and build-up effects using IMRT and RapidArc in stereotactic irradiation of lung tumours

Background and purpose

Stereotactic lung radiotherapy (SLRT) has emerged as a curative treatment for medically inoperable patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and the use of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc treatments (VMAT) have been proposed as the best practical approaches for the delivery of SLRT. However, a large number of narrow field shapes are needed in the dose delivery of intensity-modulated techniques and the probability of underdosing the tumour periphery increases as the effective field size is decreased. The purpose of this study was to evaluate small lung tumour doses irradiated by intensity-modulated techniques to understand the risk for dose calculation errors in precision radiotherapy such as SLRT.

Materials and methods

The study was executed with two heterogeneous phantoms with targets of Ø1.5 and Ø4.0 cm. Dose distributions in the simulated tumours delivered by small sliding window apertures (SWAs), IMRT and RapidArc treatment plans were measured with radiochromic film. Calculation algorithms of pencil beam convolution (PBC) and anisotropic analytic algorithm (AAA) were used to calculate the corresponding dose distributions.

Results

Peripheral doses of the tumours were decreased as SWA decreased, which was not modelled by the calculation algorithms. The smallest SWA studied was 2 mm, which reduced the 90% isodose line width by 4.2 mm with the Ø4.0 cm tumour as compared to open field irradiation. PBC was not able to predict the dose accurately as the gamma evaluation failed to meet the criteria of ±3%/±1 mm on average in 61% of the defined volume with the smaller tumour. With AAA the corresponding value was 16%. The dosimetric inaccuracy of AAA was within ±3% with the optimized treatment plans of IMRT and RapidArc. The exception was the clinical RapidArc plan with dose overestimation of 4%.

Conclusions

Overall, the peripheral doses of the simulated lung tumours were decreased by decreasing the SWA. To achieve adequate surface dose coverage to small lung tumours with a difference less than 1 mm in the isodose line radius between the open and modulated field, a larger than 6 mm SWA should be used in the dose delivery of SLRT.

Evaluation of heterogeneity dose distributions for Stereotactic Radiotherapy (SRT): comparison of commercially available Monte Carlo dose calculation with other algorithms

Background

The purpose of this study was to compare dose distributions from three different algorithms with the x-ray Voxel Monte Carlo (XVMC) calculations, in actual computed tomography (CT) scans for use in stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) of small lung cancers.

Methods

Slow CT scan of 20 patients was performed and the internal target volume (ITV) was delineated on Pinnacle³. All plans were first calculated with a scatter homogeneous mode (SHM) which is compatible with Clarkson algorithm using Pinnacle³ treatment planning system (TPS). The planned dose was 48 Gy in 4 fractions. In a second step, the CT images, structures and beam data were exported to other treatment planning systems (TPSs). Collapsed cone convolution (CCC) from Pinnacle³, superposition (SP) from XiO, and XVMC from Monaco were used for recalculating. The dose distributions and the Dose Volume Histograms (DVHs) were compared with each other.

Results

The phantom test revealed that all algorithms could reproduce the measured data within 1% except for the SHM with inhomogeneous phantom. For the patient study, the SHM greatly overestimated the isocenter (IC) doses and the minimal dose received by 95% of the PTV (PTV95) compared to XVMC. The differences in mean doses were 2.96 Gy (6.17%) for IC and 5.02 Gy (11.18%) for PTV95. The DVH's and dose distributions with CCC and SP were in agreement with those obtained by XVMC. The average differences in IC doses between CCC and XVMC, and SP and XVMC were -1.14% (p = 0.17), and -2.67% (p = 0.0036), respectively.

Conclusions

Our work clearly confirms that the actual practice of relying solely on a Clarkson algorithm may be inappropriate for SRT planning. Meanwhile, CCC and SP were close to XVMC simulations and actual dose distributions obtained in lung SRT.

Verification measurements and clinical evaluation of the iPlan RT Monte Carlo dose algorithm for 6 MV photon energy

This study presents data for verification of the iPlan RT Monte Carlo (MC) dose algorithm (BrainLAB, Feldkirchen, Germany). MC calculations were compared with pencil beam (PB) calculations and verification measurements in phantoms with lung-equivalent material, air cavities or bone-equivalent material to mimic head and neck and thorax and in an Alderson anthropomorphic phantom. Dosimetric accuracy of MC for the micro-multileaf collimator (MLC) simulation was tested in a homogeneous phantom. All measurements were performed using an ionization chamber and Kodak EDR2 films with Novalis 6 MV photon beams. Dose distributions measured with film and calculated with MC in the homogeneous phantom are in excellent agreement for oval, C and squiggle-shaped fields and for a clinical IMRT plan. For a field with completely closed MLC, MC is much closer to the experimental result than the PB calculations. For fields larger than the dimensions of the inhomogeneities the MC calculations show excellent agreement (within 3%/1 mm) with the experimental data. MC calculations in the anthropomorphic phantom show good agreement with measurements for conformal beam plans and reasonable agreement for dynamic conformal arc and IMRT plans. For 6 head and neck and 15 lung patients a comparison of the MC plan with the PB plan was performed. Our results demonstrate that MC is able to accurately predict the dose in the presence of inhomogeneities typical for head and neck and thorax regions with reasonable calculation times (5-20 min). Lateral electron transport was well reproduced in MC calculations. We are planning to implement MC calculations for head and neck and lung cancer patients.

Fast kilovoltage/megavoltage (kVMV) breathhold cone-beam CT for image-guided radiotherapy of lung cancer

Long image acquisition times of 60-120 s for cone-beam CT (CBCT) limit the number of patients with lung cancer who can undergo volume image guidance under breathhold. We developed a low-dose dual-energy kilovoltage-megavoltage-cone-beam CT (kVMV-CBCT) based on a clinical treatment unit reducing imaging time to < or =15 s. Simultaneous kVMV-imaging was achieved by dedicated synchronization hardware controlling the output of the linear accelerator (linac) based on detector panel readout signals, preventing imaging artifacts from interference of the linac's MV-irradiation and panel readouts. Optimization was performed to minimize the imaging dose. Single MV-projections, reconstructed MV-CBCT images and images of simultaneous 90 degrees kV- and 90 degrees MV-CBCT (180 degrees kVMV-CBCT) were acquired with different parameters. Image quality and imaging dose were evaluated and compared to kV-imaging. Hardware-based kVMV synchronization resulted in artifact-free projections. A combined 180 degrees kVMV-CBCT scan with a total MV-dose of 5 monitor units was acquired in 15 s and with sufficient image quality. The resolution was 5-6 line pairs cm(-1) (Catphan phantom). The combined kVMV-scan dose was equivalent to a kV-radiation scan dose of approximately 33 mGy. kVMV-CBCT based on a standard linac is promising and can provide ultra-fast online volume image guidance with low imaging dose and sufficient image quality for fast and accurate patient positioning for patients with lung cancer under breathhold.

Breath-hold target localization with simultaneous kilovoltage/megavoltage cone-beam computed tomography and fast reconstruction

PURPOSE

Hypofractionated high-dose radiotherapy for small lung tumors has typically been based on stereotaxy. Cone-beam computed tomography and breath-hold techniques have provided a noninvasive basis for precise cranial and extracranial patient positioning. The cone-beam computed tomography acquisition time of 60 s, however, is beyond the breath-hold capacity of patients, resulting in respiratory motion artifacts. By combining megavoltage (MV) and kilovoltage (kV) photon sources (mounted perpendicularly on the linear accelerator) and accelerating the gantry rotation to the allowed limit, the data acquisition time could be reduced to 15 s.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

An Elekta Synergy 6-MV linear accelerator, with iViewGT as the MV- and XVI as the kV-imaging device, was used with a Catphan phantom and an anthropomorphic thorax phantom. Both image sources performed continuous image acquisition, passing an angle interval of 90° within 15 s. For reconstruction, filtered back projection on a graphics processor unit was used. It reconstructed 100 projections acquired to a 512 × 512 × 512 volume within 6 s.

RESULTS

The resolution in the Catphan phantom (CTP528 high-resolution module) was 3 lines/cm. The spatial accuracy was within 2-3 mm. The diameters of different tumor shapes in the thorax phantom were determined within an accuracy of 1.6 mm. The signal-to-noise ratio was 68% less than that with a 180°-kV scan. The dose generated to acquire the MV frames accumulated to 82.5 mGy, and the kV contribution was <6 mGy.

CONCLUSION

The present results have shown that fast breath-hold, on-line volume imaging with a linear accelerator using simultaneous kV-MV cone-beam computed tomography is promising and can potentially be used for image-guided radiotherapy for lung cancer patients in the near future.

Monte Carlo vs. pencil beam based optimization of stereotactic lung IMRT

Background

The purpose of the present study is to compare finite size pencil beam (fsPB) and Monte Carlo (MC) based optimization of lung intensity-modulated stereotactic radiotherapy (lung IMSRT).

Materials and methods

A fsPB and a MC algorithm as implemented in a biological IMRT planning system were validated by film measurements in a static lung phantom. Then, they were applied for static lung IMSRT planning based on three different geometrical patient models (one phase static CT, density overwrite one phase static CT, average CT) of the same patient. Both 6 and 15 MV beam energies were used. The resulting treatment plans were compared by how well they fulfilled the prescribed optimization constraints both for the dose distributions calculated on the static patient models and for the accumulated dose, recalculated with MC on each of 8 CTs of a 4DCT set.

Results

In the phantom measurements, the MC dose engine showed discrepancies < 2%, while the fsPB dose engine showed discrepancies of up to 8% in the presence of lateral electron disequilibrium in the target. In the patient plan optimization, this translates into violations of organ at risk constraints and unpredictable target doses for the fsPB optimized plans. For the 4D MC recalculated dose distribution, MC optimized plans always underestimate the target doses, but the organ at risk doses were comparable. The results depend on the static patient model, and the smallest discrepancy was found for the MC optimized plan on the density overwrite one phase static CT model.

Conclusions

It is feasible to employ the MC dose engine for optimization of lung IMSRT and the plans are superior to fsPB. Use of static patient models introduces a bias in the MC dose distribution compared to the 4D MC recalculated dose, but this bias is predictable and therefore MC based optimization on static patient models is considered safe.