Treatment verification using Varian's dynalog files in the Monte Carlo system PRIMO

Experience with patient-specific quality assurance of dosimetrist-led online adaptive prostate SBRT

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to assess the results of the local pre-treatment verifications of online adaptive prostate SBRT plans performed by dosimetrists METHODS AND MATERIALS: Prostate SBRT treatments are planned in our department using an online adaptive method developed and validated by our group. The adaptive plans were computed on the daily CBCT scan using the Acuros XB v. 16.1 algorithm of the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system. Adaptive plans consisted of a single VMAT with 6 MV flattening-filter-free (FFF) energy performed on a Varian TrueBeam linac. Pre-treatment verification of the adaptive "plan-of-the-day" (POD) created in each treatment session was performed using the Mobius 3D v. 3.1 secondary dose calculation program (M3D). Commissioning of M3D included the tuning of the dosimetric leaf gap correction (DLGc) parameter. Generic and specific DLGc values were then derived using a set of plans for typical sites (prostate, head and neck, brain, lung and bone palliative) and another set were determined for specific online SBRT PODs (gDLGc and sDLGc, respectively). The first 50 prostate patients treated with the PACE-B schedule (5 × 7.25 Gy) were included, i.e., 250 adaptive SBRT PODs were collected in this study. For each online adaptive POD, a global 3D gamma comparison between the Eclipse 3D dose and the M3D dose in the patient CBCT was performed. Gamma passing rates (GPRs) for the whole external patient contour (Body) and the PTV were recorded, using the 5 % global /3 mm criteria. The target mean dose and target coverage differences between the Eclipse and M3D doses were also analyzed (ΔDmean and ΔD90 %, respectively). The accuracy of M3D was assessed against PRIMO Monte Carlo software. Twenty-five online prostate SBRT PODs were randomly selected from the set of 250 adaptive plans and simulated with PRIMO.

RESULTS

Values of -1 mm and -0.14 mm were found as optimal gDLGc and sDLGc, respectively. Over the 250 online adaptive PODs, excellent GPR values ∼ 100 % were obtained for the Body and PTV structures, regardless the type of DLGc used. The use of the sDLGc instead of the gDLGc provided better results for ΔDmean (0.1 % ± 0.5% vs. -1.9 ± 0.7 %) and ΔD90 % (-1.0 % ± 0.5 %. vs. -3.5 % ± 0.8 %). This issue was also observed when M3D calculations were compared to PRIMO simulations.

CONCLUSIONS

M3D can be effectively used for independent pre-treatment verifications of online adaptive prostate SBRT plans. The use of a specific DLGc value is advised for this SBRT online adaptive technique.

Validation of an in vivo transit dosimetry algorithm using Monte Carlo simulations and ionization chamber measurements

PURPOSE

Transit dosimetry is a safety tool based on the transit images acquired during treatment. Forward-projection transit dosimetry software, as PerFRACTION, compares the transit images acquired with an expected image calculated from the DICOM plan, the CT, and the structure set. This work aims to validate PerFRACTION expected transit dose using PRIMO Monte Carlo simulations and ionization chamber measurements, and propose a methodology based on MPPG5a report.

METHODS

The validation process was divided into three groups of tests according to MPPG5a: basic dose validation, IMRT dose validation, and heterogeneity correction validation. For the basic dose validation, the fields used were the nine fields needed to calibrate PerFRACTION and three jaws-defined. For the IMRT dose validation, seven sweeping gaps fields, the MLC transmission and 29 IMRT fields from 10 breast treatment plans were measured. For the heterogeneity validation, the transit dose of these fields was studied using three phantoms: 10 , 30 , and a 3 cm cork slab placed between 10 cm of solid water. The PerFRACTION expected doses were compared with PRIMO Monte Carlo simulation results and ionization chamber measurements.

RESULTS

Using the 10 cm solid water phantom, for the basic validation fields, the root mean square (RMS) of the difference between PerFRACTION and PRIMO simulations was 0.6%. In the IMRT fields, the RMS of the difference was 1.2%. When comparing respect ionization chamber measurements, the RMS of the difference was 1.0% both for the basic and the IMRT validation. The average passing rate with a γ(2%/2 mm, TH = 20%) criterion between PRIMO dose distribution and PerFRACTION expected dose was 96.0% ± 5.8%.

CONCLUSION

We validated PerFRACTION calculated transit dose with PRIMO Monte Carlo and ionization chamber measurements adapting the methodology of the MMPG5a report. The methodology presented can be applied to validate other forward-projection transit dosimetry software.

Monte Carlo simulation of the Varian TrueBeam flattened-filtered beams using a surrogate geometry in PRIMO

BACKGROUND

Monte Carlo simulation of radiation transport for medical linear accelerators (linacs) requires accurate knowledge of the geometrical description of the linac head. Since the geometry of Varian TrueBeam machines has not been disclosed, the manufacturer distributes phase-space files of the linac patient-independent part to allow researchers to compute absorbed dose distributions using the Monte Carlo method. This approach limits the possibility of achieving an arbitrarily small statistical uncertainty. This work investigates the use of the geometry of the Varian Clinac 2100, which is included in the Monte Carlo system PRIMO, as a surrogate.

METHODS

Energy, radial and angular distributions extracted from the TrueBeam phase space files published by the manufacturer and from phase spaces tallied with PRIMO for the Clinac 2100 were compared for the 6, 8, 10 and 15 MV flattened-filtered beams. Dose distributions in water computed for the two sets of PSFs were compared with the Varian Representative Beam Data (RBD) for square fields with sides ranging from 3 to 30 cm. Output factors were calculated for square fields with sides ranging from 2 to 40 cm.

RESULTS

Excellent agreement with the RBD was obtained for the simulations that employed the phase spaces distributed by Varian as well as for those that used the surrogate geometry, reaching in both cases Gamma ([Formula: see text], 2 mm) pass rates larger than [Formula: see text], except for the 15 MV surrogate. This result supports previous investigations that suggest a change in the material composition of the TrueBeam 15 MV flattening filter. In order to get the said agreement, PRIMO simulations were run using enlarged transport parameters to compensate the discrepancies between the actual and surrogate geometries.

CONCLUSIONS

This work sustains the claim that the simulation of the 6, 8 and 10 MV flattening-filtered beams of the TrueBeam linac can be performed using the Clinac 2100 model of PRIMO without significant loss of accuracy.

Monte-Carlo techniques for radiotherapy applications I: introduction and overview of the different Monte-Carlo codes

Introduction:

The dose calculation plays a crucial role in many aspects of contemporary clinical radiotherapy treatment planning process. It therefore goes without saying that the accuracy of the dose calculation is of very high importance. The gold standard for absorbed dose calculation is the Monte-Carlo algorithm.

Methods:

This first of two papers gives an overview of the main openly available and supported codes that have been widely used for radiotherapy simulations.

Results:

The paper aims to provide an overview of Monte-Carlo in the field of radiotherapy and point the reader in the right direction of work that could help them get started or develop their existing understanding and use of Monte-Carlo algorithms in their practice.

Conclusions:

It also serves as a useful companion to a curated collection of papers on Monte-Carlo that have been published in this journal.

Dosimetric accuracy of Acuros® XB and AAA algorithms for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) lung treatments: evaluation with PRIMO Monte Carlo code

Purpose:

The study aimed to compare the dosimetric performance of Acuros® XB (AXB) and anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) for lung SBRT plans using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations.

Methods:

We compared the dose calculation algorithms AAA and either of the dose reporting modes of AXB (dose to medium (AXB-Dm) or dose to water (AXB-Dw)) algorithms implemented in Eclipse® (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) Treatment planning system (TPS) with MC. PRIMO code was used for the MC simulations. The TPS-calculated dose profiles obtained with a multi-slab heterogeneity phantom were compared to MC. A lung phantom with a tumour was used to validate TPS algorithms using different beam delivery techniques. 2D gamma values obtained from Gafchromic film measurements in the tumour isocentre plane were compared with TPS algorithms and MC. Ten VMAT SBRT plans generated in TPS with each algorithm were recalculated with a PRIMO MC system for identical beam parameters for the clinical plan validation. A dose–volume histogram (DVH) based plan comparison and a 3D global gamma analysis were performed.

Results:

AXB demonstrated better agreement with MC and film measurements in the lung phantom validation, with good agreement in PDD, profiles and gamma analysis. AAA showed an overestimated PDD, a significant difference in dose profiles and a lower gamma pass rate near the field borders. With AAA, there was a dose overestimation at the periphery of the tumour. For clinical plan validation, AXB demonstrated higher agreement with MC than AAA.

Conclusions:

AXB provided better agreement with MC than AAA in the phantom and clinical plan evaluations.

Monte Carlo simulation of linac using PRIMO

Background

Monte Carlo simulation is considered as the most accurate method for dose calculation in radiotherapy. PRIMO is a Monte-Carlo program with a user-friendly graphical interface.

Material and method

A VitalBeam with 6MV and 6MV flattening filter free (FFF), equipped with the 120 Millennium multileaf collimator was simulated by PRIMO. We adjusted initial energy, energy full width at half maximum (FWHM), focal spot FWHM, and beam divergence to match the measurements. The water tank and ion-chamber were used in the measurement. Percentage depth dose (PDD) and off axis ratio (OAR) were evaluated with gamma passing rates (GPRs) implemented in PRIMO. PDDs were matched at different widths of standard square fields. OARs were matched at five depths. Transmission factor and dose leaf gap (DLG) were simulated. DLG was measured by electronic portal imaging device using a sweeping gap method.

Result

For the criterion of 2%/2 mm, 1%/2 mm and 1%/1 mm, the GPRs of 6MV PDD were 99.33–100%, 99–100%, and 99–100%, respectively; the GPRs of 6MV FFF PDD were 99.33–100%, 98.99–99.66%, and 97.64–98.99%, respectively; the GPRs of 6MV OAR were 96.4–100%, 90.99–100%, and 85.12–98.62%, respectively; the GPRs of 6MV FFF OAR were 95.15–100%, 89.32–100%, and 87.02–99.74%, respectively. The calculated DLG matched well with the measurement (6MV: 1.36 mm vs. 1.41 mm; 6MV FFF: 1.07 mm vs. 1.03 mm, simulation vs measurement). The transmission factors were similar (6MV: 1.25% vs. 1.32%; 6MV FFF: 0.8% vs. 1.12%, simulation vs measurement).

Conclusion

The calculated PDD, OAR, DLG and transmission factor were all in good agreement with measurements. PRIMO is an independent (with respect to analytical dose calculation algorithm) and accurate Monte Carlo tool.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13014-022-02149-5.

Comparison of PRIMO Monte Carlo code and Eclipse treatment planning system in calculation of dosimetric parameters in brain cancer radiotherapy

Background

It is important to evaluate the dose calculated by treatment planning systems (TPSs) and dose distribution in tumor and organs at risk (OARs). The aim of this study is to compare dose calculated by the PRIMO Monte Carlo code and Eclipse TPS in radiotherapy of brain cancer patients.

Materials and methods

PRIMO simulation code was used to simulate a Varian Clinac 600C linac. The simulations were validated for the linac by comparison of the simulation and measured results. In the case of brain cancer patients, the dosimetric parameters obtained by the PRIMO code were compared with those calculated by Eclipse TPS. Gamma function analysis with 3%, 3 mm criteria was utilized to compare the dose distributions. The evaluations were based on the dosimetric parameters for the planning target volume (PTV) and OAR including D min, D mean, and D max, homogeneity index (HI), and conformity index (CI).

Results

The gamma function analysis showed a 98% agreement between the results obtained by the PRIMO code and measurement for the percent depth dose (PDD) and dose profiles. The corresponding value in comparing the dosimetric parameters from PRIMO code and Eclipse TPS for the brain patients was 94%, on average. The results of the PRIMO simulation were in good agreement with the measured data and Eclipse TPS calculations.

Conclusions

Based on the results of this study, the PRIMO code can be utilized to simulate a medical linac with good accuracy and to evaluate the accuracy of treatment plans for patients with brain cancer.

A feasibility study for in vivo treatment verification of IMRT using Monte Carlo dose calculation and deep learning-based modelling of EPID detector response

Background

This paper describes the development of a predicted electronic portal imaging device (EPID) transmission image (TI) using Monte Carlo (MC) and deep learning (DL). The measured and predicted TI were compared for two-dimensional in vivo radiotherapy treatment verification.

Methods

The plan CT was pre-processed and combined with solid water and then imported into PRIMO. The MC method was used to calculate the dose distribution of the combined CT. The U-net neural network-based deep learning model was trained to predict EPID TI based on the dose distribution of solid water calculated by PRIMO. The predicted TI was compared with the measured TI for two-dimensional in vivo treatment verification.

Results

The EPID TI of 1500 IMRT fields were acquired, among which 1200, 150, and 150 fields were used as the training set, the validation set, and the test set, respectively. A comparison of the predicted and measured TI was carried out using global gamma analyses of 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm (5% threshold) to validate the model's accuracy. The gamma pass rates were greater than 96.7% and 92.3%, and the mean gamma values were 0.21 and 0.32, respectively.

Conclusions

Our method facilitates the modelling process more easily and increases the calculation accuracy when using the MC algorithm to simulate the EPID response, and has potential to be used for in vivo treatment verification in the clinic.

Validation of virtual water phantom software for pre-treatment verification of single-isocenter multiple-target stereotactic radiosurgery

The aim of this study was to benchmark the accuracy of the VIrtual Phantom Epid dose Reconstruction (VIPER) software for pre-treatment dosimetric verification of multiple-target stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). VIPER is an EPID-based method to reconstruct a 3D dose distribution in a virtual phantom from in-air portal images. Validation of the VIPER dose calculation was assessed using several MLC-defined fields for a 6 MV photon beam. Central axis percent depth doses (PDDs) and output factors were measured with an ionization chamber in a water tank, while dose planes at a depth of 10 cm in a solid flat phantom were acquired with radiochromic films. The accuracy of VIPER for multiple-target SRS plan verification was benchmarked against Monte Carlo simulations. Eighteen multiple-target SRS plans designed with the Eclipse treatment planning system were mapped to a cylindrical water phantom. For each plan, the 3D dose distribution reconstructed by VIPER within the phantom was compared with the Monte Carlo simulation, using a 3D gamma analysis. Dose differences (VIPER vs. measurements) generally within 2% were found for the MLC-defined fields, while film dosimetry revealed gamma passing rates (GPRs) ≥95% for a 3%/1 mm criteria. For the 18 multiple-target SRS plans, average 3D GPRs greater than 93% and 98% for the 3%/2 mm and 5%/2 mm criteria, respectively. Our results validate the use of VIPER as a dosimetric verification tool for pre-treatment QA of single-isocenter multiple-target SRS plans. The method requires no setup time on the linac and results in an accurate 3D characterization of the delivered dose.

An Investigation of Multileaf Collimator Performance Dependence on Gantry Angle Using Machine Log Files

Background

Quality assurance of linear accelerators (linacs) is an important part of ensuring accurate radiotherapy treatment deliveries. The aim of this study is to investigate the role of gravity on the positional accuracy of multileaf collimator (MLC) leaves during complex radiotherapy treatments on linacs. This investigation is based on the analysis of the machine log files from five different linacs in multiple centers.

Materials and Methods

Three main categories of deliveries were considered: Picket fence, volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) (both delivering with continuous gantry rotation), and sliding gap tests delivered at cardinal gantry angles, to determine the error of the MLC in relation to the gantry angle.

Results

Analysis of picket fence tests revealed a dependence of the error upon the gantry angle. For the majority of deliveries, the MLC showed greater error at gantry angles 270 and 90. The errors computed for the cardinal angles for sliding gap tests were all statistically different with greatest error arising at gantry angle 270 and least error at gantry 90. For picket fence, sliding gap, and VMAT cases, MLC errors were dependent on the gantry angle.

Conclusions

The errors in leaf positioning were found to be dependent on the gantry angle. For sliding gap tests, the error was greater at gantry angle 270° and 90° and less when the leaf motion was perpendicular to the force of gravity.