Dosimetric accuracy of dynamic couch rotation during volumetric modulated arc therapy (DCR-VMAT) for primary brain tumours

Dosimetrically motivated beam-angle optimization for non-coplanar arc radiotherapy with and without dynamic collimator rotation

BACKGROUND

Non-coplanar techniques have shown to improve the achievable dose distribution compared to standard coplanar techniques for multiple treatment sites but finding optimal beam directions is challenging. Dynamic collimator trajectory radiotherapy (colli-DTRT) is a new intensity modulated radiotherapy technique that uses non-coplanar partial arcs and dynamic collimator rotation.

PURPOSE

To solve the beam angle optimization (BAO) problem for colli-DTRT and non-coplanar VMAT (NC-VMAT) by determining the table-angle and the gantry-angle ranges of the partial arcs through iterative 4π fluence map optimization (FMO) and beam direction elimination.

METHODS

BAO considers all available beam directions sampled on a gantry-table map with the collimator angle aligned to the superior-inferior axis (colli-DTRT) or static (NC-VMAT). First, FMO is performed, and beam directions are scored based on their contributions to the objective function. The map is thresholded to remove the least contributing beam directions, and arc candidates are formed by adjacent beam directions with the same table angle. Next, FMO and arc candidate trimming, based on objective function penalty score, is performed iteratively until a desired total gantry angle range is reached. Direct aperture optimization on the final set of colli-DTRT or NC-VMAT arcs generates deliverable plans. colli-DTRT and NC-VMAT plans were created for seven clinically-motivated cases with targets in the head and neck (two cases), brain, esophagus, lung, breast, and prostate. colli-DTRT and NC-VMAT were compared to coplanar VMAT plans as well as to class-solution non-coplanar VMAT plans for the brain and head and neck cases. Dosimetric validation was performed for one colli-DTRT (head and neck) and one NC-VMAT (breast) plan using film measurements.

RESULTS

Target coverage and conformity was similar for all techniques. colli-DTRT and NC-VMAT plans had improved dosimetric performance compared to coplanar VMAT for all treatment sites except prostate where all techniques were equivalent. For the head and neck and brain cases, mean dose reduction-in percentage of the prescription dose-to parallel organs was on average 0.7% (colli-DTRT), 0.8% (NC-VMAT) and 0.4% (class-solution) compared to VMAT. The reduction in D2% for the serial organs was on average 1.7% (colli-DTRT), 2.0% (NC-VMAT) and 0.9% (class-solution). For the esophagus, lung, and breast cases, mean dose reduction to parallel organs was on average 0.2% (colli-DTRT) and 0.3% (NC-VMAT) compared to VMAT. The reduction in D2% for the serial organs was on average 1.3% (colli-DTRT) and 0.9% (NC-VMAT). Estimated delivery times for colli-DTRT and NC-VMAT were below 4 min for a full gantry angle range of 720°, including transitions between arcs, except for the brain case where multiple arcs covered the whole table angle range. These times are in the same order as the class-solution for the head and neck and brain cases. Total optimization times were 25%-107% longer for colli-DTRT, including BAO, compared to VMAT.

CONCLUSIONS

We successfully developed dosimetrically motivated BAO for colli-DTRT and NC-VMAT treatment planning. colli-DTRT and NC-VMAT are applicable to multiple treatment sites, including body sites, with beneficial or equivalent dosimetric performances compared to coplanar VMAT and reasonable delivery times.

Enabling non-isocentric dynamic trajectory radiotherapy by integration of dynamic table translations

Objective. The purpose of this study is to develop a treatment planning process (TPP) for non-isocentric dynamic trajectory radiotherapy (DTRT) using dynamic gantry rotation, collimator rotation, table rotation, longitudinal, vertical and lateral table translations and intensity modulation and to validate the dosimetric accuracy. Approach. The TPP consists of two steps. First, a path describing the dynamic gantry rotation, collimator rotation and dynamic table rotation and translations is determined. Second, an optimization of the intensity modulation along the path is performed. We demonstrate the TPP for three use cases. First, a non-isocentric DTRT plan for a brain case is compared to an isocentric DTRT plan in terms of dosimetric plan quality and delivery time. Second, a non-isocentric DTRT plan for a craniospinal irradiation (CSI) case is compared to a multi-isocentric intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plan. Third, a non-isocentric DTRT plan for a bilateral breast case is compared to a multi-isocentric volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan. The non-isocentric DTRT plans are delivered on a TrueBeam in developer mode and their dosimetric accuracy is validated using radiochromic films. Main results. The non-isocentric DTRT plan for the brain case is similar in dosimetric plan quality and delivery time to the isocentric DTRT plan but is expected to reduce the risk of collisions. The DTRT plan for the CSI case shows similar dosimetric plan quality while reducing the delivery time by 45% in comparison with the IMRT plan. The DTRT plan for the breast case showed better treatment plan quality in comparison with the VMAT plan. The gamma passing rates between the measured and calculated dose distributions are higher than 95% for all three plans. Significance. The versatile benefits of non-isocentric DTRT are demonstrated with three use cases, namely reduction of collision risk, reduced setup and delivery time and improved dosimetric plan quality.

Organ-at-risk sparing with dynamic trajectory radiotherapy for head and neck cancer: comparison with volumetric arc therapy on a publicly available library of cases

Background

Dynamic trajectory radiotherapy (DTRT) extends volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with dynamic table and collimator rotation during beam-on. The aim of the study is to establish DTRT path-finding strategies, demonstrate deliverability and dosimetric accuracy and compare DTRT to state-of-the-art VMAT for common head and neck (HN) cancer cases.

Methods

A publicly available library of seven HN cases was created on an anthropomorphic phantom with all relevant organs-at-risk (OARs) delineated. DTRT plans were generated with beam incidences minimizing fractional target/OAR volume overlap and compared to VMAT. Deliverability and dosimetric validation was carried out on the phantom.

Results

DTRT and VMAT had similar target coverage. For three locoregionally advanced oropharyngeal carcinomas and one adenoid cystic carcinoma, mean dose to the contralateral salivary glands, pharynx and oral cavity was reduced by 2.5, 1.7 and 3.1 Gy respectively on average with DTRT compared to VMAT. For a locally recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma, D_0.03 cc to the ipsilateral optic nerve was above tolerance (54.0 Gy) for VMAT (54.8 Gy) but within tolerance for DTRT (53.3 Gy). For a laryngeal carcinoma, DTRT resulted in higher dose than VMAT to the pharynx and brachial plexus but lower dose to the upper oesophagus, thyroid gland and contralateral carotid artery. For a single vocal cord irradiation case, DTRT spared most OARs better than VMAT. All plans were delivered successfully on the phantom and dosimetric validation resulted in gamma passing rates of 93.9% and 95.8% (2%/2 mm criteria, 10% dose threshold).

Conclusions

This study provides a proof of principle of DTRT for common HN cases with plans that were deliverable on a C-arm linac with high accuracy. The comparison with VMAT indicates substantial OAR sparing could be achieved.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13014-022-02092-5.

Dosimetric accuracy of delivering SBRT using dynamic arcs on Cyberknife

PURPOSE

Several studies have demonstrated potential improvements in treatment time through the use of dynamic arcs for delivery of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) on Cyberknife. However, the delivery system has a finite accuracy, so that potential exists for dosimetric uncertainties. This study estimates the expected dosimetric accuracy of dynamic delivery of SBRT, based on realistic estimates of the uncertainties in delivery parameters.

METHODS

Five SBRT patient cases (prostate A - conventional, prostate B - brachytherapy-type, lung, liver, partial left breast) were retrospectively studied. Treatment plans were produced for a fixed arc trajectory using fluence optimization, segmentation, and direct aperture optimization. Dose rate uncertainty was modeled as a smoothly varying random fluctuation of ± 1.0%, ±2.0% or ± 5.0% over a time period of 10, 30 or 60 s. Multileaf collimator uncertainty was modeled as a lag in position of each leaf up to 0.25 or 0.5 mm. Robot pointing error was modeled as a shift of the target location, with the direction of the shift chosen as a random angle with respect to the multileaf collimator and with a random magnitude in the range 0.0-1.0 mm at the delivery nodes and with an additional random magnitude of 0.5-1.0 mm in between the delivery nodes. The impact of the errors was investigated using dose-volume histograms.

RESULTS

Uncertainty in dose rate has the effect of varying the total monitor units delivered, which in turn produces a variation in mean dose to the planning target volume. The random sampling of dose rate error produces a distribution of mean doses with a standard deviation proportional to the magnitude of the dose rate uncertainty. A lag in multileaf collimator position of 0.25 or 0.5 mm produces a small impact on the delivered dose. In general, an increase in the PTV mean dose of around 1% is observed. An error in robot pointing of the order of 1 mm produces a small increase in dose inhomogeneity to the planning target volume, sometimes accompanied by an increase in mean dose by around 1%.

CONCLUSIONS

Based upon the limited data available on the dose rate stability and geometric accuracy of the Cyberknife system, this study estimates that dynamic arc delivery can be accomplished with sufficient accuracy for clinical application. Dose rate variation produces a change in dose to the planning target volume according to the perturbation of total monitor units delivered, while multileaf collimator lag and robot pointing error typically increase the mean dose to the planning target volume by up to 1%.

Many-isocenter optimization for robotic radiotherapy

Despite significant dosimetric gains, clinical implementation of the 4π non-coplanar radiotherapy on the widely available C-arm gantry system is hindered by limited clearance, and the need to perform complex coordinated gantry and couch motion. A robotic radiotherapy platform would be conducive to such treatment but a new conflict between field size and MLC modulation resolution needs to be managed for versatile applications. This study investigates the dosimetry and delivery efficiency of purposefully creating many isocenters to achieve simultaneously high MLC modulation resolution and large tumor coverage. An integrated optimization framework was proposed for simultaneous beam orientation optimization (BOO), isocenter selection, and fluence map optimization (FMO). The framework includes a least-square dose fidelity objective, a total variation term for regularizing the fluence smoothness, and a group sparsity term for beam selection. A minimal number of isocenters were identified for efficient target coverage. Colliding beams excluded, high-resolution small-field 4π intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment plans with 50 cm source-to-isocenter distance (SID-50) on 10 Head and Neck (H&N) cancer patients were compared with low-resolution large-field plans with 100 cm SID (SID-100). With the same or better target coverage, the average reduction of [Dmean, Dmax] of 20-beam SID-50 plans from 20-beam SID-100 plans were [2.09 Gy, 1.19 Gy] for organs at risk (OARs) overall, [3.05 Gy, 0.04 Gy] for parotid gland, [3.62 Gy, 5.19 Gy] for larynx, and [3.27 Gy, 1.10 Gy] for mandible. R50 and integral dose were reduced by 5.3% and 9.6%, respectively. Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed significant difference (p   <  0.05) in planning target volume (PTV) homogeneity, PTV Dmax, R50, Integral dose, and OAR Dmean and Dmax. The estimated delivery time of 20-beam [SID-50, SID-100] plans were [19, 18] min and [14, 9] min, assuming 5 fractions and 30 fractions, respectively. With clinically acceptable delivery efficiency, many-isocenter optimization is dosimetrically desirable for treating large targets with high modulation resolution on the robotic platform.

Treatment planning optimization with beam motion modeling for dynamic arc delivery of SBRT using Cyberknife with multileaf collimation

PURPOSE

The use of dynamic arcs for delivery of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) on Cyberknife is investigated, with a view to improving treatment times. This study investigates the required modeling of robot and multileaf collimator (MLC) motion between control points in the trajectory and then uses this to develop an optimization method for treatment planning of a dynamic arc with Cyberknife. The resulting plans are compared in terms of dose-volume histograms and estimated treatment times with those produced by a conventional beam arrangement.

METHODS

Five SBRT patient cases (prostate A - conventional, prostate B - brachytherapy-type, lung, liver, and partial left breast) were retrospectively studied. A suitable arc trajectory with control points spaced at 5° was proposed and treatment plans were produced for typical clinical protocols. The optimization consisted of a fluence optimization, segmentation, and direct aperture optimization using a gradient descent method. Dose delivered by the moving MLC was either taken to be the dose delivered discretely at the control points or modeled using effective fluence delivered between control points. The accuracy of calculated dose was assessed by recalculating after optimization using five interpolated beams and 100 interpolated apertures between each optimization control point. The resulting plans were compared using dose-volume histograms and estimated treatment times with those for a conventional Cyberknife beam arrangement.

RESULTS

If optimization is performed based on discrete doses delivered at the arc control points, large differences of up to 40% of the prescribed dose are seen when recalculating with interpolation. When the effective fluence between control points is taken into account during optimization, dosimetric differences are <2% for most structures when the plans are recalculated using intermediate nodes, but there are differences of up to 15% peripherally. Treatment plan quality is comparable between the arc trajectory and conventional body path. All plans meet the relevant clinical goals, with the exception of specific structures which overlap with the planning target volume. Median estimated treatment time is 355 s (range 235-672 s) for arc delivery and 675 s (range 554-1025 s) for conventional delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

The method of using effective fluence to model MLC motion between control points is sufficiently accurate to provide for accurate inverse planning of dynamic arcs with Cyberknife. The proposed arcing method produces treatment plans with comparable quality to the body path, with reduced estimated treatment delivery time.