Dose to medium in head and neck radiotherapy: Clinical implications for target volume metrics

Considerations for radiotherapy planning with MV photons using dose-to-medium

Background and purpose

Radiotherapy planning considerations were developed for the previous calculation algorithms yielding dose to water-in-water (D_w,w). Advanced algorithms improve accuracy, but their dose values in terms of dose to medium-in-medium (D_m,m) depend on the medium considered. This work aimed to show how mimicking D_w,w planning with D_m,m can introduce new issues.

Materials and methods

A head and neck case involving bone and metal heterogeneities outside the CTV was considered. Two different commercial algorithms were used to obtain D_m,m and D_w,w distributions. First, a plan was optimised to irradiate the PTV uniformly and get a homogeneous D_w,w distribution. Second, another plan was optimised to achieve homogeneous D_m,m. Both plans were calculated with D_w,w and D_m,m, and the differences between their dose distributions, clinical impact, and robustness were evaluated.

Results

Uniform irradiation produced D_m,m cold spots in bone (-4%) and implants (-10%). Uniform D_m,m compensated them by increasing fluence but, when recalculated in D_w,w, the fluence compensations produced higher doses that affected homogeneity. Additionally, doses were 1% higher for the target, and + 4% for the mandible, thus increasing toxicity risk. Robustness was impaired when increased fluence regions and heterogeneities mismatched.

Conclusion

Planning with D_m,m as with D_w,w can impact clinical outcome and impair robustness. In optimisation, uniform irradiation instead of homogeneous D_m,m distributions should be pursued when media with different D_m,m responses are involved. However, this requires adapting evaluation criteria or avoiding medium effects. Regardless of the approach, there can be systematic differences in dose prescription and constraints.

Maintaining dosimetric quality when switching to a Monte Carlo dose engine for head and neck volumetric-modulated arc therapy planning

Head and neck cancers present challenges in radiation treatment planning due to the large number of critical structures near the target(s) and highly heterogeneous tissue composition. While Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculations currently offer the most accurate approximation of dose deposition in tissue, the switch to MC presents challenges in preserving the parameters of care. The differences in dose‐to‐tissue were widely discussed in the literature, but mostly in the context of recalculating the existing plans rather than reoptimizing with the MC dose engine. Also, the target dose homogeneity received less attention. We adhere to strict dose homogeneity objectives in clinical practice. In this study, we started with 21 clinical volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans previously developed in Pinnacle treatment planning system. Those plans were recalculated “as is” with RayStation (RS) MC algorithm and then reoptimized in RS with both collapsed cone (CC) and MC algorithms. MC statistical uncertainty (0.3%) was selected carefully to balance the dose computation time (1–2 min) with the planning target volume (PTV) dose‐volume histogram (DVH) shape approaching that of a “noise‐free” calculation. When the hot spot in head and neck MC‐based treatment planning is defined as dose to 0.03 cc, it is exceedingly difficult to limit it to 105% of the prescription dose, as we were used to with the CC algorithm. The average hot spot after optimization and calculation with RS MC was statistically significantly higher compared to Pinnacle and RS CC algorithms by 1.2 and 1.0 %, respectively. The 95% confidence interval (CI) observed in this study suggests that in most cases a hot spot of ≤107% is achievable. Compared to the 95% CI for the previous clinical plans recalculated with RS MC “as is” (upper limit 108%), in real terms this result is at least as good or better than the historic plans.

Dose calculation and reporting with a linear Boltzman transport equation solver in vertebral SABR

Vertebral Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) involves substantial tumour density heterogeneities. We evaluated the impact of a linear Boltzmann transport equation (LBTE) solver dose calculation on vertebral SABR dose distributions. A sequential cohort of 20 patients with vertebral metastases treated with SABR were selected. Treatment plans were initially planned with a convolution style dose calculation algorithm. The plan was copied and recalculated with a LBTE algorithm reporting both dose to water (D_w) or dose to medium (D_m). Target dose as a function of CT number, and spinal cord dose was compared between algorithms. Compared with a convolution algorithm, there was minimal change in PTV D90% with LBTE. LBTE reporting D_m resulted in reduced GTV D50% by (mean, 95% CI) 2.2% (1.9-2.6%) and reduced Spinal Cord PRV near-maximum dose by 3.0% (2.0-4.1%). LBTE reporting D_w resulted in increased GTV D50% by 2.4% (1.8-3.0%). GTV D50% decreased or increased with increasing CT number with D_m or D_w respectively. LBTE, reporting either D_m or D_w resulted in decreased central spinal cord dose by 8.7% (7.1-10.2%) and 7.2% (5.7-8.8%) respectively. Reported vertebral SABR tumour dose when calculating with an LBTE algorithm depends on tumour density. Spinal cord near-maximum dose was lower when using LBTE algorithm reporting D_m, which may result in higher spinal cord doses being delivered than with a convolution style algorithm. Spinal cord central dose was significantly lower with LBTE, potentially reflecting LBTE transport approximations.

Report dose-to-medium in clinical trials where available; a consensus from the Global Harmonisation Group to maximize consistency

PURPOSE

To promote consistency in clinical trials by recommending a uniform framework as it relates to radiation transport and dose calculation in water versus in medium.

METHODS

The Global Quality Assurance of Radiation Therapy Clinical Trials Harmonisation Group (GHG; www.rtqaharmonization.org) compared the differences between dose to water in water (D_w,w), dose to water in medium (D_w,m), and dose to medium in medium (D_m,m). This was done based on a review of historical frameworks, existing literature and standards, clinical issues in the context of clinical trials, and the trajectory of radiation dose calculations. Based on these factors, recommendations were developed.

RESULTS

No framework was found to be ideal or perfect given the history, complexity, and current status of radiation therapy. Nevertheless, based on the evidence available, the GHG established a recommendation preferring dose to medium in medium (D_m,m).

CONCLUSIONS

Dose to medium in medium (D_m,m) is the preferred dose calculation and reporting framework. If an institution's planning system can only calculate dose to water in water (D_w,w), this is acceptable.

Dose accuracy improvement on head and neck VMAT treatments by using the Acuros algorithm and accurate FFF beam calibration

Background

The purpose of this study was to assess dose accuracy improvement and dosimetric impact of switching from the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AA) to the Acuros XB algorithm (AXB) when performing an accurate beam calibration in head and neck (H&N) FFF-VMAT treatments.

Materials and methods

Twenty H&N cancer patients treated with FFF-VMAT techniques were included. Calculations were performed with the AA and AXB algorithm (dose-to-water - AXB_w- and dose-to-medium - AXB_m-). An accurate beam calibration was used for AXB calculations. Dose prescription to the tumour (PTV70) and at-risk-nodal region (PTV58.1) were 70 Gy and 58.1 Gy, respectively. A PTV70_{_bone} including bony structures in PTV70 was contoured. Dose-volume parameters were compared between the algorithms. Statistical tests were used to analyze the differences in mean values and the correlation between compliance with the D95 > 95% requirement and occurrence of local recurrence.

Results

AA systematically overestimated the dose compared to AXB algorithm with mean dose differences within 1.3 Gy/2%, except for the PTV70_{_bone} (2.2 Gy/3.2%). Dose differences were significantly higher for AXB_m calculations when including accurate beam calibration (maximum dose differences up to 2.8 Gy/4.1% and 4.2 Gy/6.3% for PTV70 and PTV70_{_bone}, respectively). 80% of AA-calculated plans did not meet the D95 > 95% requirement after recalculation with AXB_m and accurate beam calibration. The reduction in D95 coverage in the tumour was not clinically relevant.

Conclusions

Using the AXB_m algorithm and carefully reviewing the beam calibration procedure in H&N FFF-VMAT treatments ensures (1) dose accuracy increase by approximately 3%; (2) a consequent dose increase in targets; and (3) a dose reporting mode that is consistent with the trend of current algorithms.

Credentialing of vertebral stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy in a multi-centre trial

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) in multi-centre trials requires rigorous quality assurance to ensure safe and consistent treatment for all trial participants. We report results of vertebral SABR dosimetry credentialing for the ALTG/TROG NIVORAD trial.

MATERIAL/METHODS

Centres with a previous SABR site visit performed axial film measurement of the benchmarking vertebral plan in a local phantom and submitted radiochromic film images for analysis. Remaining centres had on-site review of SABR processes and axial film measurement of the vertebral benchmarking plan. Films were analysed for dosimetric and positional accuracy: gamma analysis (>90% passing 2%/2mm/10% threshold) and ≤ 1 mm positional accuracy at target-cord interface was required.

RESULTS

19 centres were credentialed; 11 had on-site measurement. Delivery devices included linear accelerator, TomoTherapy and CyberKnife systems. Five centres did not achieve 90% gamma passing rate. Of these, three were out of tolerance (OOT) in low (<5Gy) dose regions and > 80% passing rate and deemed acceptable. Two were OOT over the full dose range: one elected not to remeasure; the other also had positional discrepancy greater than 1 mm and repeat measurement with a new plan was in tolerance. The original OOT was attributed to inappropriate MLC constraints. All centres delivered planned target-cord dose gradient within 1 mm.

CONCLUSION

Credentialing measurements for vertebral SABR in a multi-centre trial showed although the majority of centres delivered accurate vertebral SABR, there is high value in independent audit measurements. One centre with inappropriate MLC settings was detected, which may have resulted in delivery of clinically unacceptable vertebral SABR plans.