The use of an extra-focal electron source to model collimator-scattered electrons using the pencil-beam redefinition algorithm

Evaluation of a mixed beam therapy for postmastectomy breast cancer patients: Bolus electron conformal therapy combined with intensity modulated photon radiotherapy and volumetric modulated photon arc therapy

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess the potential benefits and limitations of a mixed beam therapy, which combined bolus electron conformal therapy (BECT) with intensity modulated photon radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated photon arc therapy (VMAT), for left-sided postmastectomy breast cancer patients.

METHODS

Mixed beam treatment plans were produced for nine postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) patients previously treated at our clinic with VMAT alone. The mixed beam plans consisted of 40 Gy to the chest wall area using BECT, 40 Gy to the supraclavicular area using parallel opposed IMRT, and 10 Gy to the total planning target volume (PTV) by optimizing VMAT on top of the BECT + IMRT dose distribution. The treatment plans were created in a commercial treatment planning system (TPS), and all plans were evaluated based on PTV coverage, dose homogeneity index (DHI), conformity index (CI), dose to organs at risk (OARs), normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), and secondary cancer complication probability (SCCP). The standard VMAT alone planning technique was used as the reference for comparison.

RESULTS

Both techniques produced clinically acceptable PMRT plans but with a few significant differences: VMAT showed significantly better CI (0.70 vs 0.53, P < 0.001) and DHI (0.12 vs 0.20, P < 0.001) over mixed beam therapy. For normal tissues, mixed beam therapy showed better OAR sparing and significantly reduced NTCP for cardiac mortality (0.23% vs 0.80%, P = 0.01) and SCCP for contralateral breast (1.7% vs 3.1% based on linear model, and 1.2% vs 1.9% based on linear-exponential model, P < 0.001 in both cases), but showed significantly higher mean (50.8 Gy vs 49.3 Gy, P < 0.001) and maximum skin doses (59.7 Gy vs 53.3 Gy, P < 0.001) compared with VMAT. Patients with more tissue (minimum distance between the distal PTV surface and lung approximately > 0.5 cm and volume of tissue between the distal PTV surface and heart or lung approximately > 250 cm³ ) between distal PTV surface and lung may benefit the most from mixed beam therapy.

CONCLUSION

This work has demonstrated that mixed beam therapy (BECT + IMRT:VMAT = 4:1) produces clinically acceptable plans having reduced OAR doses and risks of side effects compared with VMAT. Even though VMAT alone produces more homogenous and conformal dose distributions, mixed beam therapy remains as a viable option for treating postmastectomy patients, possibly leading to reduced normal tissue complications.

Calculating percent depth dose with the electron pencil-beam redefinition algorithm

In the present work, we investigated the accuracy of the electron pencil‐beam redefinition algorithm (PBRA) in calculating central‐axis percent depth dose in water for rectangular fields. The PBRA energy correction factor C(E) was determined so that PBRA‐calculated percent depth dose best matched the percent depth dose measured in water. The hypothesis tested was that a method can be implemented into the PBRA that will enable the algorithm to calculate central‐axis percent depth dose in water at a 100‐cm source‐to‐surface distance (SSD) with an accuracy of 2% or 1‐mm distance to agreement for rectangular field sizes ≥2×2 cm. Preliminary investigations showed that C(E), determined using a single percent depth dose for a large field (that is, having side‐scatter equilibrium), was insufficient for the PBRA to accurately calculate percent depth dose for all square fields ≥2×2 cm. Therefore, two alternative methods for determining C(E) were investigated. In Method 1, C(E), modeled as a polynomial in energy, was determined by fitting the PBRA calculations to individual rectangular‐field percent depth doses. In Method 2, C(E) for square fields, described by a polynomial in both energy and side of square W [that is, C=C(E,W)], was determined by fitting the PBRA calculations to measured percent depth dose for a small number of square fields. Using the function C(E, W), C(E) for other square fields was determined, and C(E) for rectangular field sizes was determined using the geometric mean of C(E) for the two measured square fields of the dimension of the rectangle (square root method). Using both methods, PBRA calculations were evaluated by comparison with measured square‐field and derived rectangular‐field percent depth doses at 100‐cm SSD for the Siemens Primus radiotherapy accelerator equipped with a 25×25‐cm applicator at 10 MeV and 15 MeV. To improve the fit of C(E) and C(E, W) to the electron component of percent depth dose, it was necessary to modify the PBRA's photon depth dose model to include dose buildup. Results showed that, using both methods, the PBRA was able to predict percent depth dose within criteria for all square and rectangular fields. Results showed that second‐ or third‐order polynomials in energy (Methods 1 and 2) and in field size (Method 2) were typically required. Although the time for dose calculation using Method 1 is approximately twice that using Method 2, we recommend that Method 1 be used for clinical implementation of the PBRA because it is more accurate (most measured depth doses predicted within approximately 1%) and simpler to implement.

PACS number: 87.53.Fs

A comparative dosimetric study on tangential photon beams, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and modulated electron radiotherapy (MERT) for breast cancer treatment

Recently, energy- and intensity-modulated electron radiotherapy (MERT) has garnered a growing interest for the treatment of superficial targets. In this work. we carried out a comparative dosimetry study to evaluate MERT, photon beam intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and conventional tangential photon beams for the treatment of breast cancer. A Monte Carlo based treatment planning system has been investigated, which consists of a set of software tools to perform accurate dose calculation, treatment optimization, leaf sequencing and plan analysis. We have compared breast treatment plans generated using this home-grown treatment optimization and dose calculation software forthese treatment techniques. The MERT plans were planned with up to two gantry angles and four nominal energies (6, 9, 12 and 16 MeV). The tangential photon treatment plans were planned with 6 MV wedged photon beams. The IMRT plans were planned using both multiple-gantry 6 MV photon beams or two 6 MV tangential beams. Our results show that tangential IMRT can reduce the dose to the lung, heart and contralateral breast compared to conventional tangential wedged beams (up to 50% reduction in high dose volume or 5 Gy in the maximum dose). MERT can reduce the maximum dose to the lung by up to 20 Gy and to the heart by up to 35 Gy compared to conventional tangential wedged beams. Multiple beam angle IMRT can significantly reduce the maximum dose to the lung and heart (up to 20 Gy) but it induces low and medium doses to a large volume of normal tissues including lung, heart and contralateral breast. It is concluded that MERT has superior capabilities to achieve dose conformity both laterally and in the depth direction, which will be well suited for treating superficial targets such as breast cancer.