Clinical comparison of head and neck and prostate IMRT plans using absorbed dose to medium and absorbed dose to water

Voxel-Level Dosimetry for Combined Iodine 131 Radiopharmaceutical Therapy and External Beam Radiation Therapy Treatment Paradigms for Head and Neck Cancer

PURPOSE

Targeted radiopharmaceutical therapy (RPT) in combination with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) shows promise as a method to increase tumor control and mitigate potential high-grade toxicities associated with re-treatment for patients with recurrent head and neck cancer. This work establishes a patient-specific dosimetry framework that combines Monte Carlo-based dosimetry from the 2 radiation modalities at the voxel level using deformable image registration (DIR) and radiobiological constructs for patients enrolled in a phase 1 clinical trial combining EBRT and RPT.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Serial single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)/computed tomography (CT) patient scans were performed at approximately 24, 48, 72, and 168 hours postinjection of 577.2 MBq/m2 (15.6 mCi/m2) CLR 131, an iodine 131-containing RPT agent. Using RayStation, clinical EBRT treatment plans were created with a treatment planning CT (TPCT). SPECT/CT images were deformably registered to the TPCT using the Elastix DIR module in 3D Slicer software and assessed by measuring mean activity concentrations and absorbed doses. Monte Carlo EBRT dosimetry was computed using EGSnrc. RPT dosimetry was conducted using RAPID, a GEANT4-based RPT dosimetry platform. Radiobiological metrics (biologically effective dose and equivalent dose in 2-Gy fractions) were used to combine the 2 radiation modalities.

RESULTS

The DIR method provided good agreement for the activity concentrations and calculated absorbed dose in the tumor volumes for the SPECT/CT and TPCT images, with a maximum mean absorbed dose difference of -11.2%. Based on the RPT absorbed dose calculations, 2 to 4 EBRT fractions were removed from patient EBRT treatments. For the combined treatment, the absorbed dose to target volumes ranged from 57.14 to 75.02 Gy. When partial volume corrections were included, the mean equivalent dose in 2-Gy fractions to the planning target volume from EBRT + RPT differed -3.11% to 1.40% compared with EBRT alone.

CONCLUSIONS

This work demonstrates the clinical feasibility of performing combined EBRT + RPT dosimetry on TPCT scans. Dosimetry guides treatment decisions for EBRT, and this work provides a bridge for the same paradigm to be implemented within the rapidly emerging clinical RPT space.

Dosimetric comparison of analytical anisotropic algorithm and the two dose reporting modes of Acuros XB dose calculation algorithm in volumetric modulated arc therapy of carcinoma lung and carcinoma prostate

Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) is an important modality for radical radiotherapy of all major treatment sites. This study aims to compare Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA) and the two dose-reporting modes of Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm -the dose to medium option (D_m) and the dose to water option (D_w) in Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) of carcinoma lung and carcinoma prostate. We also compared the measured dose with Treatment Planning System calculated dose for AAA and the two dose reporting options of Acuros XB using Electronic Portal Imaging Device (EPID) and ArcCHECK phantom. Treatment plans of twenty patients each who have already undergone radiotherapy for cancer of lung and cancer of prostate were selected for the study. Three sets of VMAT plans were generated in Eclipse Treatment Planning System (TPS), one with AAA and two plans with Acuros-D_m and Acuros-D_w options. The Dose Volume Histograms (DVHs) were compared and analyzed for Planning Target Volume (PTV) and critical structures for all the plans. Verification plans were created for each plan and measured doses were compared with TPS calculated doses using EPID and ArcCHECK phantom for all the three algorithms. For lung plans, the mean dose to PTV in the AXB-D_w plans was higher by 1.7% and in the AXB-D_m plans by 0.66% when compared to AAA plans. For prostate plans, the mean dose to PTV in the AXB-D_w plans was higher by 3.0% and in the AXB-D_m plans by 1.6% when compared to AAA plans. There was no difference in the Conformity Index (CI) between AAA and AXB-D_m and between AAA and AXB-D_w plans for both sites. But the homogeneity worsened in AXB-D_w and AXB-D_m plans when compared to AAA plans for both sites. AXB-D_w calculated higher dose values for PTV and all the critical structures with significant differences with one or two exceptions. Point dose measurements in ArcCHECK phantom showed that AXB-D_m and AXB-D_w options showed very small deviations with measured dose distributions than AAA for both sites. Results of EPID QA also showed better pass rates for AXB-D_w and AXB-D_m than AAA for both sites when gamma analysis was done for 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm criteria. With reference to the results, it is always better to choose Acuros algorithm for dose calculations if it is available in the TPS. AXB-D_w plans showed very high dose values in the PTV when compared to AAA and AXB-D_m in both sites studied. Also, the volume of PTV receiving 107% dose was significantly high in AXB-D_w plans compared to AXB-D_m plans in sites involving high density bones. Considering the results of dosimetric comparison and QA measurements, it is always better to choose AXB-D_m algorithm for dose calculations for all treatment sites especially when high density bony structures and complex treatment techniques are involved. For patient specific QA purposes, choosing AXB-D_m or AXB-D_w does not make any significant difference between calculated and measured dose distributions.

Treatment Planning Study for Microbeam Radiotherapy Using Clinical Patient Data

Microbeam radiotherapy (MRT) is a novel, still preclinical dose delivery technique. MRT has shown reduced normal tissue effects at equal tumor control rates compared to conventional radiotherapy. Treatment planning studies are required to permit clinical application. The aim of this study was to establish a dose comparison between MRT and conventional radiotherapy and to identify suitable clinical scenarios for future applications of MRT. We simulated MRT treatment scenarios for clinical patient data using an inhouse developed planning algorithm based on a hybrid Monte Carlo dose calculation and implemented the concept of equivalent uniform dose (EUD) for MRT dose evaluation. The investigated clinical scenarios comprised fractionated radiotherapy of a glioblastoma resection cavity, a lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), palliative bone metastasis irradiation, brain metastasis radiosurgery and hypofractionated breast cancer radiotherapy. Clinically acceptable treatment plans were achieved for most analyzed parameters. Lung SBRT seemed the most challenging treatment scenario. Major limitations comprised treatment plan optimization and dose calculation considering the tissue microstructure. This study presents an important step of the development towards clinical MRT. For clinical treatment scenarios using a sophisticated dose comparison concept based on EUD and EQD2, we demonstrated the capability of MRT to achieve clinically acceptable dose distributions.

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.

Evaluation of clinical implications in the use of dose to water versus dose to medium by using NTCP and TCP models for urinary bladder tumours

Purpose: To analyze the dosimetric and radiobiological differences between dose to water versus dose to medium for patients with carcinoma of the urinary bladder.

Materials and Methods: 15 patients with cancer of urinary bladder were selected for the study. VMAT plans were generated for each patient. The dose distributions were calculated in the modes dose to water and to medium with the Monaco treatment planning system. A dosimetric comparative analysis has been made between the two modes of planning in this study. Subsequently, NTCP and TCP were determined for OARs and targets respectively.

Results: The mean dose to 2 cc of the rectum, small bowel, left and right femoral heads respectively was higher by 0.8, 1.2, 2.7, and 2.2% for the dose to water calculation. Similarly, the mean dose to D2, D50, and D98 for PTV was higher by 0.4, 0.3, and 0.3% for dose to water calculation. Such small dose differences had little effect on the values of TCP and NTCP.

Conclusion: For patients with the urinary bladder there were very small differences between results between calculations carried out in dose to medium and dose to water modes.

Towards the standardization of the absorbed dose report mode in high energy photon beams

The benefits of using an algorithm that reports absorbed dose-to-medium have been jeopardized by the clinical experience and the experimental protocols that have mainly relied on absorbed dose-to-water. The aim of the present work was to investigate the physical aspects that govern the dosimetry in heterogeneous media using Monte Carlo method and to introduce a formalism for the experimental validation of absorbed dose-to-medium reporting algorithms. Particle fluence spectra computed within the sensitive volume of two simulated detectors (T31016 Pinpoint 3D ionization chamber and EBT3 radiochromic film) placed in different media (water, RW3, lung and bone) were compared to those in the undisturbed media for 6 MV photon beams. A heterogeneity correction factor that takes into account the difference between the detector perturbation in medium and under reference conditions as well as the stopping-power ratios was then derived for all media using cema calculations. Furthermore, the different conversion approaches and Eclipse treatment planning system algorithms were compared against the Monte Carlo absorbed dose reports. The detectors electron fluence perturbation in RW3 and lung media were close to that in water (≤1.5%). However, the perturbation was greater in bone (∼4%) and impacted the spectral shape. It was emphasized that detectors readings should be corrected by the heterogeneity correction factor that ranged from 0.932 in bone to 0.985 in lung. Significant discrepancies were observed between all the absorbed dose reports and conversions, especially in bone (exceeding 10%) and to a lesser extent in RW3. Given the ongoing advances in dose calculation algorithms, it is essential to standardize the absorbed dose report mode with absorbed dose-to-medium as a favoured choice. It was concluded that a retrospective conversion should be avoided and switching from absorbed dose-to-water to absorbed dose-to-medium reporting algorithm should be carried out by a direct comparison of both algorithms.

Dosimetric impact of switching from AAA to Acuros dose-to-water and dose-to-medium for RapidArc plans of nasopharyngeal carcinomas

PURPOSE

This work aims to evaluate the dosimetric consequences of replacing the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) by Acuros XB (AXB), dose-to-water (Dw) or dose-to-medium (Dm), for RapidArc plans of nasopharyngeal carcinomas (NPC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventeen NPC plans created with AAA (v15.6) were recalculated with AXB (v15.6) Dw and Dm. The dose-volume parameters to the planning target volumes (PTV) and relevant organs at risk (OAR) were compared. The high dose PTV was divided into bone, air and tissue components and the comparison was performed for each of them.

RESULTS

AXB Dw revealed no significant differences in the PTVs compared to AAA. Lower values were observed to spinal cord, brainstem, oral cavity and parotids (0.5% to 2.3%), and higher values to cochleas (up to 5.4%) and mandible (up to 6.7%). AXB Dm predicted lower values than AAA for all PTVs and OARs (2.0% to 6.1%). For the bone PTV subvolume, AXB Dw and Dm predicted respectively higher (2.4%) and lower (2.2% to 3.4%) values. No significant differences were noted in air. AXB predicted lower values than AAA in soft tissues (0.4% to 1.6%). The largest difference was found to the mandible V_60Gy parameter, with median differences of 6.7% for AXB Dw and -6.0% for AXB Dm.

CONCLUSION

Significant dose differences are expected when switching from AAA to AXB in NPC cases. The dose prescriptions and the tolerance limits for some OARs, especially those of high density, may need to be adjusted depending on the selected dose calculation algorithm and reporting mode.

Experimental validation of Monte Carlo based treatment planning system in bone density equivalent media

Introduction Advanced, Monte Carlo (MC) based dose calculation algorithms, determine absorbed dose as dose to medium-in-medium (Dm,m) or dose to water-in-medium (Dw,m). Some earlier studies identified the differences in the absorbed doses related to the calculation mode, especially in the bone density equivalent (BDE) media. Since the calculation algorithms built in the treatment planning systems (TPS) should be dosimetrically verified before their use, we analyzed dose differences between two calculation modes for the Elekta Monaco TPS. We compared them with experimentally determined values, aiming to define a supplement to the existing TPS verification methodology. Materials and methods In our study, we used a 6 MV photon beam from a linear accelerator. To evaluate the accuracy of the TPS calculation approaches, measurements with a Farmer type chamber in a semi-anthropomorphic phantom were compared to those obtained by two calculation options. The comparison was made for three parts of the phantom having different densities, with a focus on the BDE part. Results Measured and calculated doses were in agreement for water and lung equivalent density materials, regardless of the calculation mode. However, in the BDE part of the phantom, mean dose differences between the calculation options ranged from 5.7 to 8.3%, depending on the method used. In the BDE part of the phantom, neither of the two calculation options were consistent with experimentally determined absorbed doses. Conclusions Based on our findings, we proposed a supplement to the current methodology for the verification of commercial MC based TPS by performing additional measurements in BDE material.

Artifact-free CT images for electron beam therapy using a patient-specific non metallic shield

Patient's CT images taken with metallic shields for radiotherapy suffer from artifacts. Furthermore, the treatment planning system (TPS) has a limitation on accurate dose calculations for high density materials. In this study, a Monte Carlo (MC)-based method was developed to accurately evaluate the dosimetric effect of the metallic shield. Two patients with a commercial tungsten shield of lens and two patients with a custom-made lead shield of lip were chosen to produce their non-metallic dummy shields using 3D scanner and printer. With these dummy shields, we generated artifact-free CT images. The maximum CT number allowed in TPS was assigned to metallic shields. MC simulations with real material information were carried out. In addition, clinically relevant dose-volumetric parameters were calculated for the comparison between MC and TPS. Relative dosimetry was performed using radiochromic films. The dose reductions below metallic structures were shown on MC dose distributions, but not evident on TPS dose distributions. The differences in dose-volumetric parameters of PTV between TPS and MC for eye shield cases were not clearly shown. However, the mean dose of lens from TPS and MC was different. The MC results were in superior agreement with measured data in relative dosimetry. The lens dose could be overestimated by TPS. The differences in dose-volumetric parameters of PTV between TPS and MC were generally larger in lip cases than in eye cases. The developed method is useful in predicting the realistic dose distributions around the organs blocked by the metallic shields.

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.

Benchmarking techniques for stereotactic body radiotherapy for early-stage glottic laryngeal cancer: LINAC-based non-coplanar VMAT vs. Cyberknife planning

Introduction

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) was found effective in treating laryngeal cancer with only five treatment fractions by a recent clinical trial (NCT01984502, ClinicalTrials.gov). Nevertheless, this trial used the Cyberknife system, which is not widely accessible enough to benefit all patients affected by laryngeal cancer. Our study investigates the feasibility of larynx SBRT treatment planning on a conventional gantry-based LINAC and compares its plan quality with that from the Cyberknife.

Materials & methods

Ten larynx SBRT cases were originally treated by Cyberknife using fixed cones in our institution, with plans created and optimized using the Monte-Carlo algorithm in the MultiPlan treatment planning system. These cases were retrospectively planned in the Eclipse planning system for a LINAC with the same prescription dose. We used volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for larynx SBRT planning in Eclipse and incorporated non-coplanar arcs to approach the Cyberknife’s large solid angle delivery space. We used both anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm for dose calculation and compared their accuracy by measurements on an in-house larynx phantom. We compared the LINAC VMAT plans (VMAT-AAA and VMAT-AXB) with the original Cyberknife plans using dosimetric endpoints such as the conformity index, gradient indices (R50, R20), OAR maximum/mean doses, and the monitor units.

Results

Phantom measurement showed that both the AAA and the AXB algorithms provided adequate dose calculation accuracy (94.7% gamma pass rate on 2%/2 mm criteria for AAA vs. 97.3% for AXB), though AXB provided better accuracy in the air cavity. The LINAC-based VMAT plans achieved similar dosimetric endpoints as the Cyberknife planning, and all plans met the larynx SBRT dosimetric constraints. Cyberknife plans achieved an average conformity index of 1.13, compared to 1.20 of VMAT-AXB and 1.19 of VMAT-AAA. The VMAT plans spared the thyroid gland better with average Dmean of 2.4 Gy (VMAT-AXB) and 2.7 Gy (VMAT-AAA), as compared to 4.3 Gy for Cyberknife plans. The VMAT-AAA plans had a slightly lower contralateral arytenoid Dmax (average: 15.2 Gy) than Cyberknife plans (average: 17.9 Gy) with statistical significance, while the contralateral arytenoid Dmax was similar between VMAT-AXB and Cyberknife plans with no statistically significant difference. Cyberknife plans offered slightly better R50 (average: 5.0) than VMAT-AXB (5.9) and VMAT-AAA (5.7) plans. The VMAT plans substantially reduced the plan MUs to less than 1/3 of the Cyberknife plans, and the differences were statistically significant. The other metrics were similar between VMAT and Cyberknife plans with no statistically significant differences.

Conclusions

Gantry-based LINACs can achieve similar plan quality to Cyberknife systems. Treatment outcome with both methods remains to be investigated.

Dose to water versus dose to medium from cavity theory applied to small animal irradiation with kilovolt x-rays

Dose reporting is a matter of concern in the preclinical field as the different dose descriptors dose-to-water-in-medium [Formula: see text] and dose-to-medium-in-medium [Formula: see text] coexist. For kV photons differences between both quantities are expected to be amplified due to photon energy absorption coefficients differences for different media, and could represent a limiting factor for accurate translation of pre-clinical research into clinical trials. The main goal of this study was to analyse the relationship between [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] for kV irradiation of small animals, using different flavours of the intermediate cavity theory (ICT). Irradiations of mathematical phantoms and a mouse CT scan, both with different voxel sizes and materials, were investigated. A modified version of the Monte Carlo code DOSXYZnrc was used to derive [Formula: see text] and convert to [Formula: see text] using ICT. Local photon spectra were generated in different regions of the mouse. Depending on energy and cavity size, which we equate to the voxel size, [Formula: see text] ranged from 0.68 to 4.37 times [Formula: see text]. Higher kV energy combined with very small cavity sizes yielded decreased [Formula: see text] in comparison to [Formula: see text]; this behaviour was reversed for larger cavities combined with lower kV energies. Hence, the impact of the cavity dimensions on estimated [Formula: see text] is significant on pre-clinical kV beams. [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] in the ex vivo male mouse were found to differ by  -29% to 286%. Caution is advised when using the ICT due to a lack of consensus on weighting factor (d-parameter) deriving methods; for the same irradiation conditions, different d-values affected [Formula: see text] up to 20%. Pre-clinically, such divergence between dose descriptors could enable biological damage. The abiding debate over which quantity to favour is foreseen to linger while it is unclear which quantity correlates better with the biological effects of ionizing irradiation: preclinical radiotherapy might represent an ideal platform for measurement-based studies to settle this fundamental question. Finally, dose distribution comparisons require caution and should use the same reporting quantity.

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

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

In radiotherapy dose calculation, advanced type-B dose calculation algorithms can calculate dose to medium (Dm ), as opposed to Type-B algorithms which compute dose to varying densities of water (Dw ). We investigate the impact of Dm on calculated dose and target coverage metrics in head and neck cancer patients.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We reviewed 27 successfully treated (disease free at two-years post-(chemo)radiotherapy) human papillomavirus-associated (HPV) oropharyngeal cancer (ONC) patients treated with IMRT. Doses were calculated with Type-B and Linear Boltzman Transport Equation (LBTE) algorithms in a commercial treatment planning system, with the treated multi-leaf collimator patterns and monitor units. Coverage for primary Gross Tumour Volume (GTVp), high dose Planning Target Volume (PTV) (PTV_High), mandible within PTV_High (Mand ∩ PTV) and PTV_High excluding bone (PTV-bone) were compared between the algorithms.

RESULTS

Dose to 95% of PTV_High with LBTE was on average 1.1 Gy/1.7% lower than with Type-B (95%CI 1.5-1.9%, p < 0.0001). This magnitude was inversely linearly correlated with the relative volume of the PTV_High containing bone (pearson r = -0.81). Dose to 98% of the GTVp was 0.9 Gy/1.3% lower with LBTE compared with Type-B (95%CI 1.1-1.5%, p < 0.05). Dose to 98% of Mand ∩ PTV was on average 3.4 Gy/5.0% lower with LBTE than with Type-B (95%CI 4.6-5.4%, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

In OPC treated with IMRT, Dm results in significant reductions in dose to bone in high dose PTVs. Reported GTVp dose was reduced, but by a lower magnitude. Reduced coverage metrics should be expected for OPC patients treated with IMRT, with dose reductions limited to regions of bone.

Clinical evaluation for the difference of absorbed doses calculated to medium and calculated to water by Monte Carlo method

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the difference of absorbed doses calculated to medium and to water by a Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm based treatment planning system (TPS), and to assess the potential clinical impact to dose prescription.

METHODS

Thirty patients, 10 nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC), 10 lung cancer and 10 bone metastases cases, were selected for this study. For each case, the treatment plan was generated using a commercial MC based TPS and dose was calculated to medium (D_m). The plan was recalculated for dose to water (D_w) using the same Monitor Units (MU) and control points. The differences between D_m and D_w were qualitatively evaluated by dose-volume parameters and by the plan subtraction method. All plans were measured using the MapCheck2, and gamma passing rates were calculated.

RESULTS

For NPC and Lung cases, the mean differences between D_w and D_m for the targets were less than 2% and the maximum difference was 3.9%. The maximum difference of D_2% for the organs at risk (OARs) was 6.7%. The maximum differences between D_w and D_m were as high as 10% in certain high density regions. For bone metastases cases, the mean differences between D_w and D_m for the targets were more than 2.2% and the maximum difference was 7.1%. The differences between D_w and D_m for the OARs were basically negligible. At 3%&3 mm criterion, the gamma passing rate of D_w plan and D_m plan were close (> 94%).

CONCLUSION

The differences between D_w and D_m has little clinical impact for most clinical cases. In bony structures the differences may become clinically significant if the target/OAR is receiving doses close to its tolerance limit which can potentially influence the selection or rejection of a particular plan.

Evaluation of two-dimensional dose distributions for pre-treatment patient-specific IMRT dosimetry

Background The accuracy of dose calculation is crucial for success of the radiotherapy treatment. One of the methods that represent the current standard for patient-specific dosimetry is the evaluation of dose distributions measured with an ionization chamber array inside a homogeneous phantom using gamma method. Nevertheless, this method does not replicate the realistic conditions present when a patient is undergoing therapy. Therefore, to more accurately evaluate the treatment planning system (TPS) capabilities, gamma passing rates were examined for beams of different complexity passing through inhomogeneous phantoms. Materials and methods The research was performed using Siemens Oncor Expression linear accelerator, Siemens Somatom Open CT simulator and Elekta Monaco TPS. A 2D detector array was used to evaluate dose distribution accuracy in homogeneous, semi-anthropomorphic and anthropomorphic phantoms. Validation was based on gamma analysis with 3%/3mm and 2%/2mm criteria, respectively. Results Passing rates of the complex dose distributions degrade depending on the thickness of non-water equivalent material. They also depend on dose reporting mode used. It is observed that the passing rate decreases with plan complexity. Comparison of the data for all set-ups of semi-anthropomorphic and anthropomorphic phantoms shows that passing rates are higher in the anthropomorphic phantom. Conclusions Presented results raise a question of possible limits of dose distribution verification in assessment of plan delivery quality. Consequently, good results obtained using standard patient specific dosimetry methodology do not guarantee the accuracy of delivered dose distribution in real clinical cases.

Comparison of calculated dose distributions reported as dose-to-water and dose-to-medium for intensity-modulated radiotherapy of nasopharyngeal cancer patients

Advanced dose calculation algorithms for radiation therapy treatment planning can report external beam photon dose 2-sided, in terms of dose-to-medium (D_m) and dose-to-water (D_w). The purpose of our study was to determinate the effect of D_w and D_m reporting modes built in Elekta Monaco treatment planning system on intensity-modulated radiotherapy dose distributions for patients with nasopharyngeal cancer. For 13 patients involved in this retrospective study, 2 plans were created: 1 using D_w and another according to D_m reporting mode. Treatment plans were normalized such that 100% planning target volume should be covered by 95% of prescribed dose. Dose-volume constraints were assigned according to international standards. The comparison between dose distributions was performed evaluating quantities important for respective volumes of interest. For target volumes, heterogeneity index and conformity index methodology were used along with the maximum dose concept. Also, for the comparisons over particular organ at risk, maximum dose or mean dose as well as dose-volume concepts were used. For all target volumes and majority of organs at risk, the differences between 2 reporting modes are statistically insignificant, but this is not the case for bony structured organs at risks: mandible and cochlea. It was observed that D_w is higher than D_m with mean difference of 9.91% (p = 0.000009) of the mandible volume covered with 70 Gy. The same trend was observed for left and right cochlea with difference in mean dose of 8.74% (p = 0.037) and 6.87% (p = 0.029), respectively. The comparative analysis of dosimetric parameters in this study shows that the selection of reporting modes in Monaco treatment planning system can produce dose differences up to 15% in high-density volumes such as mandible and cochlea, which might have clinical consequences.

Dose specification for hippocampal sparing whole brain radiotherapy (HS WBRT): considerations from the UK HIPPO trial QA programme

OBJECTIVE

The HIPPO trial is a UK randomized Phase II trial of hippocampal sparing (HS) vs conventional whole-brain radiotherapy after surgical resection or radiosurgery in patients with favourable prognosis with 1-4 brain metastases. Each participating centre completed a planning benchmark case as part of the dedicated radiotherapy trials quality assurance programme (RTQA), promoting the safe and effective delivery of HS intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in a multicentre trial setting.

METHODS

Submitted planning benchmark cases were reviewed using visualization for radiotherapy software (VODCA) evaluating plan quality and compliance in relation to the HIPPO radiotherapy planning and delivery guidelines.

RESULTS

Comparison of the planning benchmark data highlighted a plan specified using dose to medium as an outlier by comparison with those specified using dose to water. Further evaluation identified that the reported plan statistics for dose to medium were lower as a result of the dose calculated at regions of PTV inclusive of bony cranium being lower relative to brain.

CONCLUSION

Specification of dose to water or medium remains a source of potential ambiguity and it is essential that as part of a multicentre trial, consideration is given to reported differences, particularly in the presence of bone. Evaluation of planning benchmark data as part of an RTQA programme has highlighted an important feature of HS IMRT dosimetry dependent on dose being specified to water or medium, informing the development and undertaking of HS IMRT as part of the HIPPO trial. Advances in knowledge: The potential clinical impact of differences between dose to medium and dose to water are demonstrated for the first time, in the setting of HS whole-brain radiotherapy.

Heterogeneity correction for intensity-modulated frameless SRS in pituitary and cavernous sinus tumors: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Frameless immobilization allows for planning and quality assurance of intensity-modulated radiosurgery (IM-SRS) plans. We tested the hypothesis that IM-SRS planning with uniform tissue density corrections results in dose inaccuracy compared to heterogeneity-corrected algorithms.

METHODS

Fifteen patients with tumors of the pituitary or cavernous sinus underwent frameless IM-SRS. Treatment planning CT and MRI scans were obtained and fused to delineate the tumor, optic nerves, chiasm, and brainstem. The plan was developed with static gantry IM-SRS fields using a pencil beam (PB), analytical anisotropic (AAA), and Acuros XB (AXB) algorithms. We evaluated measures of target coverage as well as doses to organs at risk (OAR) for each algorithm. We compared the results of each algorithm in the cases where PTV overlapped OAR (n = 10) to cases without overlapping OAR with PTV (n = 5). Utilizing film dosimetry, we measured the dose distribution for each algorithm through a uniform density target to a rando phantom with non-uniform density of air, tissue, and bone.

RESULTS

There was no difference in target coverage measured by DMaxPTV, DMinPTV, D95%PTV, or the isodose surface (IDS) covering 95% of the PTV regardless of algorithm. However, there were differences in dose to OAR. PB predicted higher (p < 0.05) Dmax for the brainstem, chiasm, right optic nerve, and left optic nerve. In cases of PTV overlapping an optic nerve (n = 7), PB was unable to limit dose to 8 Gy while achieving PTV coverage (PB 855 cGy vs. AAA 769 cGy, p = 0.05 vs. AXB 658 cGy, p = 0.03). Within the rando phantom, the PB and AAA algorithms over-estimated the dose delivered in the bone-tissue-air interface of the sinus (+17%), while the AXB algorithm closely predicted the actual dose delivered through the inhomogeneous tissue (+/- 1 % max, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing frameless SRS benefit from heterogeneity corrected dose plans when the lesion lies in areas of widely varying tissue density and near critical normal structures such as the skull base. Film dosimetry confirms that the AXB dose calculation algorithm more accurately predicts actual dose delivered though tissues of varying densities than PB or AAA dose calculation algorithms.

Dose to 'water-like' media or dose to tissue in MV photons radiotherapy treatment planning: still a matter of debate

The difference between Monte Carlo Treatment Planning (MCTP) based on the assumption of 'water-like' tissues with densities obtained from CT procedures, or on tissue compositions derived from CT-determined densities, have been investigated. Stopping powers and electron fluences have been calculated for a range of media and body tissues for 6 MV photon beams, including changes in their physical data (density and stopping powers). These quantities have been used to determine absorbed doses using cavity theory. It is emphasized that tissue compositions given in ICRU or ICRP reports should not be given the standing of physical constants as they correspond to average values obtained for a limited number of human-body samples. It has been shown that mass stopping-power ratios to water are more dependent on patient-to-patient composition differences, and therefore on their mean excitation energies (I-values), than on mass density. Electron fluence in different media are also more dependent on media composition (and their I-values) than on density. However, as a consequence of the balance between fluence and stopping powers, doses calculated from their product are more constant than what the independent stopping powers and fluence variations suggest. Additionally, cancelations in dose ratios minimize the differences between the 'water-like' and 'tissue' approaches, yielding practically identical results except for bone, and to a lesser extent for adipose tissue. A priori, changing from one approach to another does not seem to be justified considering the large number of approximations and uncertainties involved throughout the treatment planning tissue segmentation and dose calculation procedures. The key issue continues to be the composition of tissues and their I-values, and as these cannot be obtained for individual patients, whatever approach is selected does not lead to significant differences from a water reference dose, the maximum of these being of the order of 5% for bone tissues. Considering, however, current developments in advanced dose calculation methods, planning in terms of dose-to-tissue should be the preferred choice, under the expectancy that progress in the field will gradually improve some of the crude approximations included in MCTP and numerical transport methods. The small differences obtained also show that a retrospective conversion from dose-to-tissue to dose-to-water, based on a widely used approach, would mostly increase the final uncertainty of the treatment planning process. It is demonstrated that, due to the difference between electron fluence distributions in water and in body tissues, the conversion requires an additional fluence correction that has so far been neglected. An improved expression for the conversion and data for the fluence correction factor are provided. These will be necessary even in a dose-to-tissue environment, for the normalization of the treatment plan to the reference dosimetry of the treatment unit, always calibrated in terms of absorbed dose to water.

Experimental verification of the Acuros XB and AAA dose calculation adjacent to heterogeneous media for IMRT and RapidArc of nasopharygeal carcinoma

PURPOSE

To compare the doses calculated by the Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm and analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) with experimentally measured data adjacent to and within heterogeneous medium using intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and RapidArc(®) (RA) volumetric arc therapy plans for nasopharygeal carcinoma (NPC).

METHODS

Two-dimensional dose distribution immediately adjacent to both air and bone inserts of a rectangular tissue equivalent phantom irradiated using IMRT and RA plans for NPC cases were measured with GafChromic(®) EBT3 films. Doses near and within the nasopharygeal (NP) region of an anthropomorphic phantom containing heterogeneous medium were also measured with thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) and EBT3 films. The measured data were then compared with the data calculated by AAA and AXB. For AXB, dose calculations were performed using both dose-to-medium (AXB_Dm) and dose-to-water (AXB_Dw) options. Furthermore, target dose differences between AAA and AXB were analyzed for the corresponding real patients. The comparison of real patient plans was performed by stratifying the targets into components of different densities, including tissue, bone, and air.

RESULTS

For the verification of planar dose distribution adjacent to air and bone using the rectangular phantom, the percentages of pixels that passed the gamma analysis with the ± 3%/3mm criteria were 98.7%, 99.5%, and 97.7% on the axial plane for AAA, AXB_Dm, and AXB_Dw, respectively, averaged over all IMRT and RA plans, while they were 97.6%, 98.2%, and 97.7%, respectively, on the coronal plane. For the verification of planar dose distribution within the NP region of the anthropomorphic phantom, the percentages of pixels that passed the gamma analysis with the ± 3%/3mm criteria were 95.1%, 91.3%, and 99.0% for AAA, AXB_Dm, and AXB_Dw, respectively, averaged over all IMRT and RA plans. Within the NP region where air and bone were present, the film measurements represented the dose close to unit density water in a heterogeneous medium, produced the best agreement with the AXB_Dw. For the verification of point doses within the target using TLD in the anthropomorphic phantom, the absolute percentage deviations between the calculated and measured data when averaged over all IMRT and RA plans were 1.8%, 1.7%, and 1.8% for AAA, AXB_Dm and AXB_Dw, respectively. From all the verification results, no significant difference was found between the IMRT and RA plans. The target dose analysis of the real patient plans showed that the discrepancies in mean doses to the PTV component in tissue among the three dose calculation options were within 2%, but up to about 4% in the bone content, with AXB_Dm giving the lowest values and AXB_Dw giving the highest values.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, the verification measurements demonstrated that both algorithms produced acceptable accuracy when compared to the measured data. GafChromic(®) film results indicated that AXB produced slightly better accuracy compared to AAA for dose calculation adjacent to and within the heterogeneous media. Users should be aware of the differences in calculated target doses between options AXB_Dm and AXB_Dw, especially in bone, for IMRT and RA in NPC cases.

A review on the use of grid-based Boltzmann equation solvers for dose calculation in external photon beam treatment planning

Deterministic linear Boltzmann transport equation (D-LBTE) solvers have recently been developed, and one of the latest available software codes, Acuros XB, has been implemented in a commercial treatment planning system for radiotherapy photon beam dose calculation. One of the major limitations of most commercially available model-based algorithms for photon dose calculation is the ability to account for the effect of electron transport. This induces some errors in patient dose calculations, especially near heterogeneous interfaces between low and high density media such as tissue/lung interfaces. D-LBTE solvers have a high potential of producing accurate dose distributions in and near heterogeneous media in the human body. Extensive previous investigations have proved that D-LBTE solvers were able to produce comparable dose calculation accuracy as Monte Carlo methods with a reasonable speed good enough for clinical use. The current paper reviews the dosimetric evaluations of D-LBTE solvers for external beam photon radiotherapy. This content summarizes and discusses dosimetric validations for D-LBTE solvers in both homogeneous and heterogeneous media under different circumstances and also the clinical impact on various diseases due to the conversion of dose calculation from a conventional convolution/superposition algorithm to a recently released D-LBTE solver.

Dosimetric impact of Acuros XB deterministic radiation transport algorithm for heterogeneous dose calculation in lung cancer

PURPOSE

The novel deterministic radiation transport algorithm, Acuros XB (AXB), has shown great potential for accurate heterogeneous dose calculation. However, the clinical impact between AXB and other currently used algorithms still needs to be elucidated for translation between these algorithms. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of AXB for heterogeneous dose calculation in lung cancer for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT).

METHODS

The thorax phantom from the Radiological Physics Center (RPC) was used for this study. IMRT and VMAT plans were created for the phantom in the Eclipse 11.0 treatment planning system. Each plan was delivered to the phantom three times using a Varian Clinac iX linear accelerator to ensure reproducibility. Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and Gafchromic EBT2 film were placed inside the phantom to measure delivered doses. The measurements were compared with dose calculations from AXB 11.0.21 and the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) 11.0.21. Two dose reporting modes of AXB, dose-to-medium in medium (Dm,m) and dose-to-water in medium (Dw,m), were studied. Point doses, dose profiles, and gamma analysis were used to quantify the agreement between measurements and calculations from both AXB and AAA. The computation times for AAA and AXB were also evaluated.

RESULTS

For the RPC lung phantom, AAA and AXB dose predictions were found in good agreement to TLD and film measurements for both IMRT and VMAT plans. TLD dose predictions were within 0.4%-4.4% to AXB doses (both Dm,m and Dw,m); and within 2.5%-6.4% to AAA doses, respectively. For the film comparisons, the gamma indexes (± 3%∕3 mm criteria) were 94%, 97%, and 98% for AAA, AXB_Dm,m, and AXB_Dw,m, respectively. The differences between AXB and AAA in dose-volume histogram mean doses were within 2% in the planning target volume, lung, heart, and within 5% in the spinal cord. However, differences up to 8% between AXB and AAA were found at lung∕soft tissue interface regions for individual IMRT fields. AAA was found to be 5-6 times faster than AXB for IMRT, while AXB was 4-5 times faster than AAA for VMAT plan.

CONCLUSIONS

AXB is satisfactorily accurate for the dose calculation in lung cancer for both IMRT and VMAT plans. The differences between AXB and AAA are generally small except in heterogeneous interface regions. AXB Dw,m and Dm,m calculations are similar inside the soft tissue and lung regions. AXB can benefit lung VMAT plans by both improving accuracy and reducing computation time.

Development of a Geant4 based Monte Carlo Algorithm to evaluate the MONACO VMAT treatment accuracy

A method to evaluate the dosimetric accuracy of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment plans, generated with the MONACO™ (version 3.0) treatment planning system in realistic CT-data with an independent Geant4 based dose calculation algorithm is presented. Therefore a model of an Elekta Synergy linear accelerator treatment head with an MLCi2 multileaf collimator was implemented in Geant4. The time dependent linear accelerator components were modeled by importing either logfiles of an actual plan delivery or a DICOM-RT plan sequence. Absolute dose calibration, depending on a reference measurement, was applied. The MONACO as well as the Geant4 treatment head model was commissioned with lateral profiles and depth dose curves of square fields in water and with film measurements in inhomogeneous phantoms. A VMAT treatment plan for a patient with a thoracic tumor and a VMAT treatment plan of a patient, who received treatment in the thoracic spine region including metallic implants, were used for evaluation. MONACO, as well as Geant4, depth dose curves and lateral profiles of square fields had a mean local gamma (2%, 2mm) tolerance criteria agreement of more than 95% for all fields. Film measurements in inhomogeneous phantoms with a global gamma of (3%, 3mm) showed a pass rate above 95% in all voxels receiving more than 25% of the maximum dose. A dose-volume-histogram comparison of the VMAT patient treatment plans showed mean deviations between Geant4 and MONACO of -0.2% (first patient) and 2.0% (second patient) for the PTVs and (0.5±1.0)% and (1.4±1.1)% for the organs at risk in relation to the prescription dose. The presented method can be used to validate VMAT dose distributions generated by a large number of small segments in regions with high electron density gradients. The MONACO dose distributions showed good agreement with Geant4 and film measurements within the simulation and measurement errors.

On the dosimetric impact of inhomogeneity management in the Acuros XB algorithm for breast treatment

Background

A new algorithm for photon dose calculation, Acuros XB, has been recently introduced in the Eclipse, Varian treatment planning system, allowing, similarly to the classic Monte Carlo methods, for accurate modelling of dose deposition in media. Aim of the present study was the assessment of its behaviour in clinical cases.

Methods

Datasets from ten breast patients scanned under different breathing conditions (free breathing and deep inspiration) were used to calculate dose plans using the simple two tangential field setting, with Acuros XB (in its versions 10 and 11) and the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) for a 6MV beam. Acuros XB calculations were performed as dose-to-medium distributions. This feature was investigated to appraise the capability of the algorithm to distinguish between different elemental compositions in the human body: lobular vs. adipose tissue in the breast, lower (deep inspiration condition) vs. higher (free breathing condition) densities in the lung.

Results

The analysis of the two breast structures presenting densities compatible with muscle and with adipose tissue showed an average difference in dose calculation between Acuros XB and AAA of 1.6%, with AAA predicting higher dose than Acuros XB, for the muscle tissue (the lobular breast); while the difference for adipose tissue was negligible. From histograms of the dose difference plans between AAA and Acuros XB (version 10), the dose of the lung portion inside the tangential fields presented an average difference of 0.5% in the free breathing conditions, increasing to 1.5% for the deep inspiration cases, with AAA predicting higher doses than Acuros XB. In lung tissue significant differences are found also between Acuros XB version 10 and 11 for lower density lung.

Conclusions

Acuros XB, differently from AAA, is capable to distinguish between the different elemental compositions of the body, and suggests the possibility to further improve the accuracy of the dose plans computed for actual treatment of patients.

Dosimetric comparison of Acuros XB deterministic radiation transport method with Monte Carlo and model-based convolution methods in heterogeneous media

PURPOSE

The deterministic Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm was recently implemented in the Eclipse treatment planning system. The goal of this study was to compare AXB performance to Monte Carlo (MC) and two standard clinical convolution methods: the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and the collapsed-cone convolution (CCC) method.

METHODS

Homogeneous water and multilayer slab virtual phantoms were used for this study. The multilayer slab phantom had three different materials, representing soft tissue, bone, and lung. Depth dose and lateral dose profiles from AXB v10 in Eclipse were compared to AAA v10 in Eclipse, CCC in Pinnacle3, and EGSnrc MC simulations for 6 and 18 MV photon beams with open fields for both phantoms. In order to further reveal the dosimetric differences between AXB and AAA or CCC, three-dimensional (3D) gamma index analyses were conducted in slab regions and subregions defined by AAPM Task Group 53.

RESULTS

The AXB calculations were found to be closer to MC than both AAA and CCC for all the investigated plans, especially in bone and lung regions. The average differences of depth dose profiles between MC and AXB, AAA, or CCC was within 1.1, 4.4, and 2.2%, respectively, for all fields and energies. More specifically, those differences in bone region were up to 1.1, 6.4, and 1.6%; in lung region were up to 0.9, 11.6, and 4.5% for AXB, AAA, and CCC, respectively. AXB was also found to have better dose predictions than AAA and CCC at the tissue interfaces where backscatter occurs. 3D gamma index analyses (percent of dose voxels passing a 2%/2 mm criterion) showed that the dose differences between AAA and AXB are significant (under 60% passed) in the bone region for all field sizes of 6 MV and in the lung region for most of field sizes of both energies. The difference between AXB and CCC was generally small (over 90% passed) except in the lung region for 18 MV 10 x 10 cm2 fields (over 26% passed) and in the bone region for 5 x 5 and 10 x 10 cm2 fields (over 64% passed). With the criterion relaxed to 5%/2 mm, the pass rates were over 90% for both AAA and CCC relative to AXB for all energies and fields, with the exception of AAA 18 MV 2.5 x 2.5 cm2 field, which still did not pass.

CONCLUSIONS

In heterogeneous media, AXB dose prediction ability appears to be comparable to MC and superior to current clinical convolution methods. The dose differences between AXB and AAA or CCC are mainly in the bone, lung, and interface regions. The spatial distributions of these differences depend on the field sizes and energies.

Monte Carlo dose mapping on deforming anatomy

This paper proposes a Monte Carlo-based energy and mass congruent mapping (EMCM) method to calculate the dose on deforming anatomy. Different from dose interpolation methods, EMCM separately maps each voxel's deposited energy and mass from a source image to a reference image with a displacement vector field (DVF) generated by deformable image registration (DIR). EMCM was compared with other dose mapping methods: energy-based dose interpolation (EBDI) and trilinear dose interpolation (TDI). These methods were implemented in EGSnrc/DOSXYZnrc, validated using a numerical deformable phantom and compared for clinical CT images. On the numerical phantom with an analytically invertible deformation map, EMCM mapped the dose exactly the same as its analytic solution, while EBDI and TDI had average dose errors of 2.5% and 6.0%. For a lung patient's IMRT treatment plan, EBDI and TDI differed from EMCM by 1.96% and 7.3% in the lung patient's entire dose region, respectively. As a 4D Monte Carlo dose calculation technique, EMCM is accurate and its speed is comparable to 3D Monte Carlo simulation. This method may serve as a valuable tool for accurate dose accumulation as well as for 4D dosimetry QA.

Dose to water versus dose to medium in proton beam therapy

Dose in radiation therapy is traditionally reported as the water-equivalent dose, or dose to water. Monte Carlo dose calculations report dose to medium and thus a methodology is needed to convert dose to medium into dose to water (or vice versa) for comparison of Monte Carlo results with results from planning systems. This paper describes the development of a formalism to convert dose to medium into dose to water for proton fields when simulating the dose with Monte Carlo techniques. The conversion is based on relative stopping power but also considers energy transferred via nuclear interactions. The influence of different interaction mechanisms of proton beams (electromagnetic versus nuclear) is demonstrated. Further, an approximate method for converting doses retroactively is presented. Based on the outlined formalism, five proton therapy patients with a total of 33 fields were analyzed. Dose distributions, dose volume histograms and absolute doses to assess the clinical significance of differences between dose to medium and dose to water are presented. We found that the difference between the two dose reporting definitions can be up to 10% for high CT numbers if analyzing the mean dose to the target. The difference is clinically insignificant for soft tissues. For the structures analyzed, the mean dose to water could be converted to dose to medium by applying a correction factor increasing linearly with increasing average CT number in the volume. We determined that an approximate conversion method, done retroactively with an energy-independent stopping power ratio and without considering nuclear interaction events separately (as compared to on-the-fly conversion during simulation), is sufficiently accurate to compute mean doses. It is insufficient, however, when analyzing the beam range. For proton beams stopping in bony anatomy, the predicted beam range can differ by 2-3 mm when comparing dose to tissue and dose to water.

Monte Carlo dose verification of prostate patients treated with simultaneous integrated boost intensity modulated radiation therapy

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the dosimetric differences between Superposition/Convolution (SC) and Monte Carlo (MC) calculated dose distributions for simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) prostate cancer intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) compared to experimental (film) measurements and the implications for clinical treatments.

METHODS

Twenty-two prostate patients treated with an in-house SIB-IMRT protocol were selected. SC-based plans used for treatment were re-evaluated with EGS4-based MC calculations for treatment verification. Accuracy was evaluated with-respect-to film-based dosimetry. Comparisons used gamma (gamma)-index, distance-to-agreement (DTA), and superimposed dose distributions. The treatment plans were also compared based on dose-volume indices and 3-D gamma index for targets and critical structures.

RESULTS

Flat-phantom comparisons demonstrated that the MC algorithm predicted measurements better than the SC algorithm. The average PTVprostate D98 agreement between SC and MC was 1.2% +/- 1.1. For rectum, the average differences in SC and MC calculated D50 ranged from -3.6% to 3.4%. For small bowel, there were up to 30.2% +/- 40.7 (range: 0.2%, 115%) differences between SC and MC calculated average D50 index. For femurs, the differences in average D50 reached up to 8.6% +/- 3.6 (range: 1.2%, 14.5%). For PTVprostate and PTVnodes, the average gamma scores were >95.0%.

CONCLUSION

MC agrees better with film measurements than SC. Although, on average, SC-calculated doses agreed with MC calculations within the targets within 2%, there were deviations up to 5% for some patient's treatment plans. For some patients, the magnitude of such deviations might decrease the intended target dose levels that are required for the treatment protocol, placing the patients in different dose levels that do not satisfy the protocol dose requirements.

Comparison of two methods to compute the absorbed dose to water for photon beams

Cross-validation was performed between an in-house dose-to-water (D(water)) calculation method used at Virginia Commonwealth University and the VMC++ D(water) calculation during particle transport. The effect of Monte Carlo statistical precision was observed. The results of the two calculations on homogeneous phantoms with densities varying from 0.3 g cm(-3) to 2.95 g cm(-3) were compared. Depth and field size dependence were tested. D(water) calculations were compared in a bone-lung-bone phantom to observe how the calculations differed in steep density gradients. The methods were compared for five prostate and five head-and-neck (H/N) patient cases as well. In all phantom tests, the differences between the two D(water) calculations were less than 1%. The largest differences in patient cases was a prostate case in which 1% of the voxels with doses greater than 50% of the maximum dose had a systematic difference corresponding to 1.16% of the maximum dose. All differences were clinically insignificant.

Treatment verification in the presence of inhomogeneities using EPID-based three-dimensional dose reconstruction

Treatment verification is a prerequisite for the verification of complex treatments, checking both the treatment planning process and the actual beam delivery. Pretreatment verification can detect errors introduced by the treatment planning system (TPS) or differences between planned and delivered dose distributions. In a previous paper we described the reconstruction of three-dimensional (3-D) dose distributions in homogeneous phantoms using an in-house developed model based on the beams delivered by the linear accelerator measured with an amorphous silicon electronic portal imaging device (EPID), and a dose calculation engine using the Monte Carlo code XVMC. The aim of the present study is to extend the method to situations in which tissue inhomogeneities are present and to make a comparison with the dose distributions calculated by the TPS. Dose distributions in inhomogeneous phantoms, calculated using the fast-Fourier transform convolution (FFTC) and multigrid superposition (MGS) algorithms present in the TPS, were verified using the EPID-based dose reconstruction method and compared to film and ionization chamber measurements. Differences between dose distributions were evaluated using the gamma-evaluation method (3%/3 mm) and expressed as a mean gamma and the percentage of points with gamma> 1 (P(gamma>1)). For rectangular inhomogeneous phantoms containing a low-density region, the differences between film and reconstructed dose distributions were smaller than 3%. In low-density regions there was an overestimation of the planned dose using the FFTC and MGS algorithms of the TPS up to 20% and 8%, respectively, for a 10 MV photon beam and a 3 x 3 cm2 field. For lower energies and larger fields (6 MV, 5 x 5 cm2), these differences reduced to 6% and 3%, respectively. Dose reconstruction performed in an anthropomorphic thoracic phantom for a 3-D conformal and an IMRT plan, showed good agreement between film data and reconstructed dose values (P(gamma>1) <6%). The algorithms of the TPS underestimated the dose in the low-dose regions outside the treatment field, due to an implementation error of the jaws and multileaf collimator of the linac in the TPS. The FFTC algorithm of the TPS showed differences up to 6% or 6 mm at the interface between lung and breast. Two intensity-modulated radiation therapy head and neck plans, reconstructed in a commercial phantom having a bone-equivalent insert and an air cavity, showed good agreement between film measurement, reconstructed and planned dose distributions using the FFTC and MGS algorithm, except in the bone-equivalent regions where both TPS algorithms underestimated the dose with 4%. Absolute dose verification was performed at the isocenter where both planned and reconstructed dose were within 2% of the measured dose. Reproducibility for the EPID measurements was assessed and found to be of negligible influence on the reconstructed dose distribution. Our 3-D dose verification approach is based on the actual dose measured with an EPID in combination with a Monte Carlo dose engine, and therefore independent of a TPS. Because dose values are reconstructed in 3-D, isodose surfaces and dose-volume histograms can be used to detect dose differences in target volume and normal tissues. Using our method, the combined planning and treatment delivery process is verified, offering an easy to use tool for the verification of complex treatments.

Dose calculation validation of VMC++ for photon beams

The radiation therapy specific Voxel Monte Carlo (VMC+ +) dose calculation algorithm achieves a dramatic improvement in MC dose calculation efficiency for radiation therapy treatment planning dose evaluation compared with other MC algorithms. This work aims to validate VMC+ + for radiation therapy photon beam planning. VMC++ was validated with respect to the well-benchmarked EGS-based DOSXYZnrc by comparing depth dose and lateral profiles for field sizes ranging from 1 X 1 to 40 x 40 cm(2) for 6 and 18 MV beams in a homogeneous water phantom and in a simulated bone-lung-bone phantom. Patient treatment plan dose distributions were compared for five prostate plans and five head-and-neck (H/N) plans, all using intensity-modulated radiotherapy beams. For all tests, the same incident particles were used in both codes to isolate differences due to modeling of the radiation source. Voxel-by-voxel observed differences were analyzed to distinguish between systematic and purely statistical differences. Dose-volume-histogram-derived dose indices were compared for the patient plans. For the homogeneous water phantom and the bone-lung-bone phantom, the depth dose curve predicted by VMC+ + agreed with that predicted by DOSXYZnrc within expected statistical uncertainty in all voxels except the surface voxel of the water phantom, where VMC+ + predicted a lower dose. When the electron cutoff parameter was decreased for both codes, the surface voxel agreed within expected statistical uncertainty. For prostate plans, the most severe difference between the codes resulted in 55% of the voxels showing a systematic difference of 0.32% of maximum dose. For H/N plans, the largest difference observed resulted in 2% of the voxels showing a systematic difference of 0.98% of maximum dose. For the prostate plans, the most severe difference in the planning target volume D95 was 0.4%, the rectum D35 was 0.2%, the rectum DI7 was 0.2%, the bladder D50 was 0.3% and the bladder D25 was 0.3%. For the H/N plans, the most severe difference in the gross tumor volume D98 was 0.4%, the clinical target volume D90 was 0.2%, the nodes D90 was 0.2%, the parotids D95 was 0.8%, and the cord D2 was 0.8%. All of these differences are clinically insignificant. VMC++ showed an average efficiency gain over DOSXYZnrc of at least an order of magnitude without introducing significant systematic bias. VMC + + can be used for photon beam MC patient dose computations without a clinically significant loss in accuracy.

Quantification of the impact of MLC modeling and tissue heterogeneities on dynamic IMRT dose calculations

This study quantifies the dose prediction errors (DPEs) in dynamic IMRT dose calculations resulting from (a) use of an intensity matrix to estimate the multi-leaf collimator (MLC) modulated photon fluence (DPE(IGfluence) instead of an explicit MLC particle transport, and (b) handling of tissue heterogeneities (DPE(hetero)) by superposition/convolution (SC) and pencil beam (PB) dose calculation algorithms. Monte Carlo (MC) computed doses are used as reference standards. Eighteen head-and-neck dynamic MLC IMRT treatment plans are investigated. DPEs are evaluated via comparing the dose received by 98% of the GTV (GTV D 98%), the CTV D 95%, the nodal D 90%, the cord and the brainstem D 02%, the parotid D 50%, the parotid mean dose (D (Mean)), and generalized equivalent uniform doses (gEUDs) for the above structures. For the MC-generated intensity grids, DPE(IGfluence) is within +/- 2.1% for all targets and critical structures. The SC algorithm DPE(hetero) is within +/- 3% for 98.3% of the indices tallied, and within +/- 3.4% for all of the tallied indices. The PB algorithm DPE(hetero) is within +/- 3% for 92% of the tallied indices. Statistical equivalence tests indicate that PB DPE(hetero) requires a +/- 3.6% interval to state equivalence with the MC standard, while the intervals are < 1.5% for SC DPE(hetero) and DPE(IGfluence). Overall, these results indicate that SC and MC IMRT dose calculations which use MC-derived intensity matrices for fluence prediction do not introduce significant dose errors compared with full Monte Carlo dose computations; however, PB algorithms may result in clinically significant dose deviations.