Planning and delivery of intensity modulated bolus electron conformal therapy

Defining the role of intensity modulation in electron conformal therapy for the treatment of head and neck cancer

Bolus electron conformal therapy (BECT) in the treatment of cancers of the head and neck is often limited by an inability to reduce dosimetric hot spots resulting from surface irregularity or tissue heterogeneity. We examined the potential benefits of using intensity modulation for electron therapy (IM-BECT) to reduce hotspots in patients undergoing electron beam therapy for superficial cancers of the head and neck (HN). Twenty patients with HN cancer previously treated with BECT were identified. Each case included the treatment targets and a primary organ at risk (OAR) that were defined by the radiation oncologist. A target +2 cm rind structure was created for analysis of the dose deposition in areas surrounding the target volume as a measure of conformality. Each patient plan was transferred into the novel IM-BECT planning software and each case was recomputed as per the original parameters. Next, each case was replanned with the inclusion of intensity modulation, as well as a new custom conformal bolus that was redesigned for optimized range compensation when paired with an intensity modulator. The plans were then normalized to prescription dose and compared for target coverage/dose and OAR dose. For patients who had a hotspot of 125% or greater, the hotspot was on average reduced by 13.1% with IM-BECT. For IM-BECT, the average primary OAR means dose and target+2cm rind mean dose increased slightly by 10.6% and 6.4%, respectively (primary OAR mean [p = 0.0001], and Target+2cm rind mean [p = 0.0001], paired t-test). IM-BECT is an effective method of reducing hotspots in patients with superficial HN cancer. Improvements came at the expense of slight increases in dose to the underlying tissues. This retrospective planning study represents the first example of IM-BECT to actual HN patient cases. Expanding the role of IM-BECT in other disease sites could potentially compared to conventional BECT.

Dosimetric validation of intensity-modulated bolus electron conformal therapy planning and delivery using an anthropomorphic cylindrical head phantom

PURPOSE

This work investigated the dosimetric accuracy of the intensity-modulated bolus electron conformal therapy (IM-BECT) planning and delivery process using the decimal ElectronRT (eRT) treatment planning system.

METHODS

An IM-BECT treatment plan was designed using eRT for a cylindrical, anthropomorphic retromolar trigone phantom. Treatment planning involved specification of beam parameters and design of a variable thickness wax bolus and Passive Radiotherapy Intensity Modulator for Electrons (PRIME) device, which was comprised of 33 tungsten island blocks of discrete diameters from 0.158 to 0.223 cm (Intensity Reduction Factors from 0.937 to 0.875, respectively) inside a 10.1 × 6.7 cm2 copper cutout. For comparison of calculation accuracy, a BECT plan was generated by copying the IM-BECT plan and removing the intensity modulation. For both plans, a 16 MeV electron beam was used with 104.7 cm source-to-surface distance to bolus. In-phantom TLD-100 measurements (N = 47) were compared with both eRT planned dose distributions, which used the pencil beam redefinition algorithm with modifications for passive electron intensity modulation (IM-PBRA). Dose difference and distance to agreement (DTA) metrics were computed for each measurement point.

RESULTS

Comparison of measured dose distributions with planned dose distributions yielded dose differences (calculated minus measured) characterized by a mean and standard deviation of -0.36% ± 1.64% for the IM-BECT plan, which was similar to -0.36% ± 1.90% for the BECT plan. All dose measurements were within 5% of the planned dose distribution, with both the BECT and IM-BECT measurement sets having 46/47 (97.8%) points within 3% or within 3 mm of the respective treatment plans.

CONCLUSIONS

It was found that the IM-BECT treatment plan generated using eRT was sufficiently accurate for clinical use when compared to TLD measurements in a cylindrical, anthropomorphic phantom, and was similarly accurate to the BECT treatment plan in the same phantom.

Evaluation of intensity-modulated electron FLASH radiotherapy in a clinical setting using veterinary cases

PURPOSE

The increased normal tissue tolerance for FLASH radiotherapy (FLASH-RT), as compared to conventional radiotherapy, was first observed in ultra-high dose rate electron beams. Initial clinical trials in companion animals have revealed a high risk of developing osteoradionecrosis following high-dose single-fraction electron FLASH-RT, which may be related to inhomogeneities in the dose distribution. In the current study, we aim to evaluate the possibilities of intensity-modulated electron FLASH-RT in a clinical setting to ensure a homogeneous dose distribution in future veterinary and human clinical trials.

METHODS

Our beam model in the treatment planning system electronRT (.decimal, LLC, Sanford, FL, USA) was based on a 10-MeV electron beam from a clinical linear accelerator used to treat veterinary patients with FLASH-RT in a clinical setting. In electronRT, the beam can be intensity-modulated using tungsten island blocks in the electron block cutout, and range-modulated using a customized bolus with variable thickness. Modulations were first validated in a heterogeneous phantom by comparing measured and calculated dose distributions. To evaluate the impact of intensity modulation in superficial single-fraction FLASH-RT, a treatment planning study was conducted, including eight canine cancer patient cases with simulated tumors in the head-and-neck region. For each case, treatment plans with and without intensity modulation were created for a uniform bolus and a range-modulating bolus. Treatment plans were evaluated using a target dose homogeneity index (HI), a conformity index (CI), the near-maximum dose outside the target (D 2 % , Body - PTV ${D_{2{\mathrm{\% }},{\mathrm{\ Body}} - {\mathrm{PTV}}}}$ ), and the near-minimum dose to the target (D 98 % ${D_{98\% }}$ ).

RESULTS

By adding intensity modulation to plans with a uniform bolus, the HI could be improved (p = 0.017). The combination of a range-modulating bolus and intensity modulation provided a further significant improvement of the HI as compared to using intensity modulation in combination with a uniform bolus (p = 0.036). The range-modulating bolus also improved the CI compared to using a uniform bolus, both with an open beam (p = 0.046) and with intensity modulation (p = 0.018), as well as increased theD 98 % ${D_{98\% }}$ (p = 0.036 with open beam and p = 0.05 with intensity modulation) and reduced the medianD 2 % , Body - PTV ${D_{2\% ,{\mathrm{\ Body}} - {\mathrm{PTV}}}}$ (not significant).

CONCLUSIONS

By using intensity-modulated electron FLASH-RT in combination with range-modulating bolus, the target dose homogeneity and conformity in canine patients with simulated tumors in complex areas in the head-and-neck region could be improved. By utilizing this technique, we hope to decrease the dose outside the target volume and avoid hot spots in future clinical electron FLASH-RT studies, thereby reducing the risk of radiation-induced toxicity.

Factory quality assurance of passive radiotherapy intensity modulators for electrons using kilovoltage x-ray imaging

PURPOSE

This work developed an x-ray-based method for performing factory quality assurance (QA) of Passive Radiotherapy Intensity Modulators for Electrons (PRIME) device fabrication. This method measures errors in position, diameter, and orientation of cylindrical island blocks on a hexagonal grid that comprises PRIME devices and the impact of such errors on the underlying intensity distribution.

METHODS

X-ray images were acquired of six PRIME devices, which modeled three error cases (small random, large random, and systematic errors) for two island block diameters (0.158 and 0.352 cm). Island blocks in each device, 0.6 cm long tungsten cylinders of constant diameter, were spaced 0.6 cm on a hexagonal grid over approximately 8 cm square. Using a 50 kVp x-ray image, each island block projected a racetrack, whose perimeter was fit to a function that allowed determination of its position, diameter, and angular orientation (θ, ϕ). These measured parameters were input into a pencil beam algorithm (PBA) dose calculation performed in water (16 MeV, SSD = 103 cm) for each device. PBA calculated intensity distributions using measured and planned (exact) island block parameters were compared.

RESULTS

Θ distributions for the 0.158 and 0.352 cm devices were nearly identical for each error case, with θ values for most island blocks being within 3.2°, 8.5°, and 7.5° for the small random, large random, and systematic error PRIME devices, respectively. Corresponding intensity differences between using measured and planned island block parameters were within 1.0% and 2.8% (small random), 2.2% and 4.8% (large random), and 3.2% and 6.7% (systematic) for the 0.158 and 0.352 cm devices, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This approach provides a viable and economical method for factory QA of fabricated PRIME devices by determining errors in their planned intensity distribution from which their quality can be assessed prior to releasing to the customer.

Modeling scatter through sides of island blocks used for intensity-modulated bolus electron conformal therapy

PURPOSE

Passive Radiotherapy Intensity Modulators for Electrons (PRIME) devices are comprised of cylindrical tungsten island blocks imbedded in a machinable foam slab within the patient's cutout. Intensity-modulated bolus electron conformal therapy (IM-BECT) uses PRIME devices to reduce dose heterogeneity caused by the irregular bolus surface. Heretofore, IM-BECT dose calculations used the pencil beam redefinition algorithm (PBRA) assuming perfect collimation. This study investigates modeling electron scatter into and out the sides of island blocks.

METHODS

Dose distributions were measured in a water phantom at 7, 13, and 20 MeV for devices having nominal intensity reduction factors of 1.000 (foam only), 0.937, 0.812, and 0.688, corresponding to nominal island block diameters (d_nom ) of 0.158, 0.273, and 0.352 cm, respectively. Pencil beam theory derived an effective diameter (d_IS ) to account for in-scattered electrons as a function of d_nom and beam energy (E_p,0 ). However, for out-scattered electrons, an effective diameter (d_mod ) was estimated by best fitting measured data.

RESULTS

In the modulated region (under island blocks, depth < R₉₀ ), modified PBRA-calculated dose distributions showed 2%/2 mm passing rates for d_nom  = 0.158, 0.273, and 0.352 cm of (100%, 100%, 100%) at 7 MeV, (100%, 100%, 93.5%) at 13 MeV, and (99.8%, 85.4%, and 71.5%) at 20 MeV. The largest dose differences (≤ 6%) occurred at the highest energy (20 MeV), largest d_nom , shallowest depths (≤ 2 cm), and on central axis.

CONCLUSIONS

An equation for modeling island block scatter, d_mod (d_nom , E_p,0 ), has been developed for use in the PBRA, insignificantly impacting calculation time. Although inaccuracy sometimes exceeded our 2%/2 mm criteria, it could be clinically acceptable, as superficial dose differences often fall inside the bolus. Also, patient PRIME devices are expected to have fewer large diameter island blocks than did test devices. Inaccuracies are attributed to out-scattered electrons having energy spectra different than the primary beams.

Dosimetric benefits of 3D-printed modulated electron bolus following lumpectomy and whole-breast radiotherapy for left breast cancer

Radiotherapy with electrons is commonly applied to the tumor bed after whole-breast radiotherapy following breast conservation surgery for breast cancer patients. However, the radiation dose to adjacent organs-at-risk (OARs) and conformity of planning target volume (PTV) cannot be optimized. In this study, we examine the feasibility of using modulated electron bolus (MEB) to improve PTV conformity and reduce the dose to these OARs. Twenty-seven patients with left breast cancer were retrospectively selected in this study. For each patient, a tangential photon plan in RayStation treatment planning system with prescription of 26 Gy in 5 fractions was created as base plan. Two electron plans, one without bolus and one with MEB using Adaptiiv software based on the PTV were created. Various dosimetric parameters of OARs including left lung, heart, left anterior descending artery (LAD) and ribs and the conformity indices of PTV of these 2 electron plans together with the base plans were compared. Statistically significant decreases in the dosimetric parameters (V_5Gy, V_10Gy, V_20Gy, and mean dose) of the ipsilateral left lung and the heart were observed with MEB. The median maximum dose to the LAD and the ribs decreased by 6.2% and 4.5% respectively. The median conformity index was improved by 14.3% with median increases of monitor units by 1.7%. Our results show that MEB is feasible resulting in reduction of doses to the predefined OARs and an improved conformity of PTV. By using 3D printing, MEB might be considered as an alternative to conventional electron boost.

FLASH radiotherapy treatment planning and models for electron beams

The FLASH effect designates normal tissue sparing at ultra-high dose rate (UHDR, >40 Gy/s) compared to conventional dose rate (∼0.1 Gy/s) irradiation while maintaining tumour control and has the potential to improve the therapeutic ratio of radiotherapy (RT). UHDR high-energy electron (HEE, 4-20 MeV) beams are currently a mainstay for investigating the clinical potential of FLASH RT for superficial tumours. In the future very-high energy electron (VHEE, 50-250 MeV) UHDR beams may be used to treat deep-seated tumours. UHDR HEE treatment planning focused at its initial stage on accurate dosimetric modelling of converted and dedicated UHDR electron RT devices for the clinical transfer of FLASH RT. VHEE treatment planning demonstrated promising dosimetric performance compared to clinical photon RT techniques in silico and was used to evaluate and optimise the design of novel VHEE RT devices. Multiple metrics and models have been proposed for a quantitative description of the FLASH effect in treatment planning, but an improved experimental characterization and understanding of the FLASH effect is needed to allow for an accurate and validated modelling of the effect in treatment planning. The importance of treatment planning for electron FLASH RT will augment as the field moves forward to treat more complex clinical indications and target sites. In this review, TPS developments in HEE and VHEE are presented considering beam models, characteristics, and future FLASH applications.

Treatment planning for Flash radiotherapy: general aspects and applications to proton beams

The increased radioresistence of healthy tissues when irradiated at very high dose rates (known as the Flash effect) is a radiobiological mechanism that is currently investigated in order to increase the therapeutic ratio of radiotherapy treatments. To maximize the benefits of the clinical application of Flash, a patient-specific balance between different properties of the dose distribution should be found, i.e. Flash needs to be one of the variables considered in treatment planning. We investigated the Flash potential of three proton therapy planning and beam delivery techniques, each on a different anatomical region. Based on a set of beam delivery parameters, on hypotheses on the dose and dose rate thresholds needed for the Flash effect to occur, and on two definitions of Flash dose rate, we generated exemplary illustrations of the capabilities of current proton therapy equipment to generate Flash dose distributions. All techniques investigated could both produce dose distributions comparable with a conventional proton plan and reach the Flash regime, to an extent that was strongly dependent on the dose per fraction and the Flash dose threshold. The beam current, Flash dose rate threshold and dose rate definition typically had a more moderate effect on the amount of Flash dose in normal tissue. A systematic estimation of the impact of Flash on different patient anatomies and treatment protocols is possible only if Flash-specific treatment planning features become readily available. Planning evaluation tools such as a voxel-based dose delivery time structure, and the inclusion in the optimization cost function of parameters directly associated with Flash (e.g. beam current, spot delivery sequence and scanning speed), are needed to generate treatment plans that are taking full advantage of the potential benefits of the Flash effect. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Planning and delivery of intensity modulated bolus electron conformal therapy

PURPOSE

Bolus electron conformal therapy (BECT) is a clinically useful, well-documented, and available technology. The addition of intensity modulation (IM) to BECT reduces volumes of high dose and dose spread in the planning target volume (PTV). This paper demonstrates new techniques for a process that should be suitable for planning and delivering IM-BECT using passive radiotherapy intensity modulation for electrons (PRIME) devices.

METHODS

The IM-BECT planning and delivery process is an addition to the BECT process that includes intensity modulator design, fabrication, and quality assurance. The intensity modulator (PRIME device) is a hexagonal matrix of small island blocks (tungsten pins of varying diameter) placed inside the patient beam-defining collimator (cutout). Its design process determines a desirable intensity-modulated electron beam during the planning process, then determines the island block configuration to deliver that intensity distribution (segmentation). The intensity modulator is fabricated and quality assurance performed at the factory (.decimal, LLC, Sanford, FL). Clinical quality assurance consists of measuring a fluence distribution in a plane perpendicular to the beam in a water or water-equivalent phantom. This IM-BECT process is described and demonstrated for two sites, postmastectomy chest wall and temple. Dose plans, intensity distributions, fabricated intensity modulators, and quality assurance results are presented.

RESULTS

IM-BECT plans showed improved D90-10 over BECT plans, 6.4% versus 7.3% and 8.4% versus 11.0% for the postmastectomy chest wall and temple, respectively. Their intensity modulators utilized 61 (single diameter) and 246 (five diameters) tungsten pins, respectively. Dose comparisons for clinical quality assurance showed that for doses greater than 10%, measured agreed with calculated dose within 3% or 0.3 cm distance-to-agreement (DTA) for 99.9% and 100% of points, respectively.

CONCLUSION

These results demonstrated the feasibility of translating IM-BECT to the clinic using the techniques presented for treatment planning, intensity modulator design and fabrication, and quality assurance processes.