Monte-Carlo techniques for radiotherapy applications II: equipment and source modelling, dose calculations and radiobiology

Introduction:

This is the second of two papers giving an overview of the use of Monte-Carlo techniques for radiotherapy applications.

Methods:

The first paper gave an introduction and introduced some of the codes that are available to the user wishing to model the different aspects of radiotherapy treatment. It also aims to serve as a useful companion to a curated collection of papers on Monte-Carlo that have been published in this journal.

Results and Conclusions:

This paper focuses on the application of Monte-Carlo to specific problems in radiotherapy. These include radiotherapy and imaging beam production, brachytherapy, phantom and patient dosimetry, detector modelling and track structure calculations for micro-dosimetry, nano-dosimetry and radiobiology.

AAPM MEDICAL PHYSICS PRACTICE GUIDELINE 5.b: Commissioning and QA of treatment planning dose calculations-Megavoltage photon and electron beams

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education, and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States. The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for the purpose of revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner. Each medical physics practice guideline represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice guidelines and technical standards by those entities not providing these services is not authorized. The following terms are used in the AAPM practice guidelines:

Must and Must Not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline. While must is the term to be used in the guidelines, if an entity that adopts the guideline has shall as the preferred term, the AAPM considers that must and shall have the same meaning.

Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances.

Accuracy Evaluation of Collapsed Cone Convolution Superposition Algorithms for the Nasopharynx Interface in the Early Stage of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma

This study combined the use of radiation dosimeteric measurements and a custom-made anthropomorphic phantom in order to evaluate the accuracy of therapeutic dose calculations at the nasopharyngeal air-tissue interface. The doses at the nasopharyngeal air-tissue interface obtained utilizing the Pinnacle and TomoTherapy TPS, which are based on collapsed cone convolution superposition (CCCS) algorithms, were evaluated and measured under single $10\times 10\text{c}{\text{m}}^2$ , $2\times 2\text{c}{\text{m}}^2$ , two parallel opposed $2\times 2\text{c}{\text{m}}^2$ and clinical fields for early stage of nasopharyngeal carcinoma by using EBT3, GR-200F, and TLD 100. At the air-tissue interface under a $10\times 10\text{c}{\text{m}}^2$ field, the TPS dose calculation values were in good agreement with the dosimeter measurement with all differences within 3.5%. When measured the single field $2\times 2\text{c}{\text{m}}^2$ , the differences between the average dose were measured at the distal interface for EBT3, GR-200F, and TLD-100 and the calculation values were -15.8%, -16.4%, and -4.9%, respectively. When using the clinical techniques such as IMRT, VMAT, and tomotherapy, the measurement results at the interface for all three techniques did not imply under dose. Small-field sizes will lead to dose overestimation at the nasopharyngeal air-tissue interface due to electronic disequilibrium when using CCCS algorithms. However, under clinical applications of multiangle irradiation, the dose errors caused by this effect were not significant.

Skin DVHs predict cutaneous toxicity in Head and Neck Cancer patients treated with Tomotherapy

PURPOSE

To explore the association between planning skin dose-volume data and acute cutaneous toxicity after Radio-chemotherapy for Head and Neck (HN) cancer patients.

METHODS

Seventy HN patients were treated with Helical Tomotherapy (HT) with radical intent (SIB technique: 54/66 Gy to PTV1/PTV2 in 30fr) ± chemotherapy superficial body layer 2 mm thick (SL2) was delineated on planning CT. CTCAE v4.0 acute skin toxicity data were available. Absolute average Dose-Volume Histograms (DVH) of SL2 were calculated for patients with severe (G3) and severe/moderate (G3/G2) skin acute toxicities. Differences against patients with none/mild toxicity (G0/G1) were analyzed to define the most discriminative regions of SL2 DVH; univariable and multivariable logistic analyses were performed on DVH values, CTV volume, age, sex, chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Sixty-one % of patients experienced G2/G3 toxicity (rate of G3 = 19%). Differences in skin DVHs were significant in the range 53-68Gy (p-values: 0.005-0.01). V56/V64 were the most predictive parameters for G2/G3 (OR = 1.12, 95%CI = 1.03-1.21, p = 0.001) and G3 (OR = 1.13, 95%CI = 1.01-1.26, p = 0.027) with best cut-off of 7.7cc and 2.7cc respectively. The logistic model for V56 was well calibrated being both, slope and R2, close to 1. Average V64 were 2.2cc and 6cc for the two groups (G3 vs G0-G2 toxicity); the logistic model for V64 was quite well calibrated, with a slope close to 1 and R2 equal to 0.60.

CONCLUSION

SL2 DVH is associated with the risk of acute skin toxicity. Constraining V64 < 3cc (equivalent to a 4x4cm2 skin surface) should keep the risk of G3 toxicity below or around 10%.

Skin dose calculation during radiotherapy of head and neck cancer using deformable image registration of planning and mega-voltage computed tomography scans

Background and Purpose

Head-Neck (HN) patients may experience severe acute skin complications that can cause treatment interruption and increase the risk of late fibrosis. This study assessed a method for accurately monitoring skin dose changes during helical tomotherapy for HN cancer based on deformable image registration of planning computed tomography (CT) and mega-voltage CT (MVCT).

Materials and Methods

Planning CTs of nine patients were deformably registered to mid-treatment MVCT (MV15) images resulting in CTdef images. The original plans were recalculated on both CTdef and mid-treatment kilo-voltage CT (CT15) taken as ground truth. Superficial layers (SL) of the body with thicknesses of 2, 3 and 5 mm (SL2, SL3, SL5) were considered as derma surrogates. SL V95%, V97%, V98%, V100%, V102%, V105% and V107% of the prescribed PTV dose were extracted for CT15/CTdef and compared (considering patients with skin dose > 95%). For comparison, doses were calculated directly on the calibrated MVCT and analyzed in the same way.

Results

Differences between SL2/SL3/SL5 V95%-V107% in CT15/CTdef were very small: for eight of nine patients the difference between the considered SL2 Vd% computed on CTdef and CT15 was less than 1.4 cm³ for all d%. A larger value was found when using MVCT for skin dose calculation (4.8 cm³ for SL2), although CTdef body contour matched CT15 body with accuracy similar to that of MV15.

Conclusions

Deforming the planning CT-to-MVCT was shown to be accurate considering external body contours and skin DVHs. The method was able to accurately identify superficial overdosing.

Performance Characteristics of an Independent Dose Verification Program for Helical Tomotherapy

Helical tomotherapy with its advanced method of intensity-modulated radiation therapy delivery has been used clinically for over 20 years. The standard delivery quality assurance procedure to measure the accuracy of delivered radiation dose from each treatment plan to a phantom is time-consuming. RadCalc^®, a radiotherapy dose verification software, has released specifically for beta testing a module for tomotherapy plan dose calculations. RadCalc^®'s accuracy for tomotherapy dose calculations was evaluated through examination of point doses in ten lung and ten prostate clinical plans. Doses calculated by the TomoHDA™ tomotherapy treatment planning system were used as the baseline. For lung cases, RadCalc^® overestimated point doses in the lung by an average of 13%. Doses within the spinal cord and esophagus were overestimated by 10%. Prostate plans showed better agreement, with overestimations of 6% in the prostate, bladder, and rectum. The systematic overestimation likely resulted from limitations of the pencil beam dose calculation algorithm implemented by RadCalc^®. Limitations were more severe in areas of greater inhomogeneity and less prominent in regions of homogeneity with densities closer to 1 g/cm³. Recommendations for RadCalc^® dose calculation algorithms and anatomical representation were provided based on the results of the study.

AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 5.a.: Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations - Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8,000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States. The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for the purpose of revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner. Each medical physics practice guideline represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice guidelines and technical standards by those entities not providing these services is not authorized. The following terms are used in the AAPM practice guidelines:• Must and Must Not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline.• Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances.

Monte Carlo evaluation of the dose calculation algorithm of TomoTherapy for clinical cases in dynamic jaws mode

PURPOSE

For the TomoTherapy(®) system, longitudinal conformation can be improved by selecting a smaller field width but at the expense of longer treatment time. Recently, the TomoEdge(®) feature has been released with the possibility to move dynamically the jaws at the edges of the target volume, improving longitudinal penumbra and enabling faster treatments. Such delivery scheme requires additional modeling of treatment delivery. Using a previously validated Monte Carlo model (TomoPen), we evaluated the accuracy of the implementation of TomoEdge in the new dose engine of TomoTherapy for 15 clinical cases.

METHODS

TomoPen is based on PENELOPE. Particle tracking in the treatment head is performed almost instantaneously by 1) reading a particle from a phase-space file corresponding to the largest field and 2) correcting the weight of the particle depending on the actual jaw and MLC configurations using Monte Carlo pre-generated data. 15 clinical plans (5 head-and-neck, 5 lung and 5 prostate tumors) planned with TomoEdge and with the last release of the treatment planning system (VoLO(®)) were re-computed with TomoPen. The resulting dose-volume histograms were compared.

RESULTS

Good agreement was achieved overall, with deviations for the target volumes typically within 2% (D95), excepted for small lung tumors (17 cm(3)) where a maximum deviation of 4.4% was observed for D95. The results were consistent with previously reported values for static field widths.

CONCLUSIONS

For the clinical cases considered in the present study, the introduction of TomoEdge did not impact significantly the accuracy of the computed dose distributions.

A virtual source model for Monte Carlo simulation of helical tomotherapy

The purpose of this study was to present a Monte Carlo (MC) simulation method based on a virtual source, jaw, and MLC model to calculate dose in patient for helical tomotherapy without the need of calculating phase‐space files (PSFs). Current studies on the tomotherapy MC simulation adopt a full MC model, which includes extensive modeling of radiation source, primary and secondary jaws, and multileaf collimator (MLC). In the full MC model, PSFs need to be created at different scoring planes to facilitate the patient dose calculations. In the present work, the virtual source model (VSM) we established was based on the gold standard beam data of a tomotherapy unit, which can be exported from the treatment planning station (TPS). The TPS‐generated sinograms were extracted from the archived patient XML (eXtensible Markup Language) files. The fluence map for the MC sampling was created by incorporating the percentage leaf open time (LOT) with leaf filter, jaw penumbra, and leaf latency contained from sinogram files. The VSM was validated for various geometry setups and clinical situations involving heterogeneous media and delivery quality assurance (DQA) cases. An agreement of <1% was obtained between the measured and simulated results for percent depth doses (PDDs) and open beam profiles for all three jaw settings in the VSM commissioning. The accuracy of the VSM leaf filter model was verified in comparing the measured and simulated results for a Picket Fence pattern. An agreement of <2% was achieved between the presented VSM and a published full MC model for heterogeneous phantoms. For complex clinical head and neck (HN) cases, the VSM‐based MC simulation of DQA plans agreed with the film measurement with 98% of planar dose pixels passing on the 2%/2 mm gamma criteria. For patient treatment plans, results showed comparable dose‐volume histograms (DVHs) for planning target volumes (PTVs) and organs at risk (OARs). Deviations observed in this study were consistent with literature. The VSM‐based MC simulation approach can be feasibly built from the gold standard beam model of a tomotherapy unit. The accuracy of the VSM was validated against measurements in homogeneous media, as well as published full MC model in heterogeneous media.

PACS numbers: 87.53.‐j, 87.55.K‐

Advances in the implementation of helical tomotherapy-based total marrow irradiation with a novel field junction technique

Given the limitations in the travel ability of the helical tomotherapy (HT) couch, total marrow irradiation (TMI) has to be split in 2 segments, with the lower limbs treated with feet first orientation. The aim of this work is to present a planning technique useful to reduce the dose inhomogeneity resulting from the matching of the 2 helical dose distributions. Three HT plans were generated for each of the 18 patients enrolled. Upper TMI (UTMI) and lower TMI (LTMI) were planned onto the whole-body computed tomography (CT) and on the lower-limb CT, respectively. A twin lower TMI plan (tLTMI) was designed on the whole-body CT. Agreement between LTMI and tLTMI plans was assessed by computing for each dose-volume histogram (DVH) structure the γ index scored with 1% of dose and volume difference thresholds. UTMI and tLTMI plans were summed together on the whole-body CT, enabling the evaluation of dose inhomogeneity. Moreover, a couple of transition volumes were used to improve the dose uniformity in the abutment region. For every DVH, a number of points >99% passed the γ analysis, validating the method used to generate the twin plan. The planned dose inhomogeneity at the junction level resulted within ±10% of the prescribed dose. Median dose reduction to organs at risk ranged from 30-80% of the prescribed dose. Mean conformity index was 1.41 (range 1.36-1.44) for the whole-body target. The technique provided a "full helical" dose distribution for TMI treatments, which can be considered effective only if the dose agreement between LTMI and tLTMI plans is met. The planning of TMI with HT for the whole body with adequate dose homogeneity and conformity was shown to be feasible.

Dosimetric and clinical review of helical tomotherapy

As a modality for delivering rotational therapy, helical tomotherapy offers dosimetric advantages by combining a continuously rotating gantry with a binary multileaf collimator. Helical tomotherapy, embodied in the TomoTherapy(®) Hi-Art II(®) system, delivers intensity-modulated fan beams in a helical pattern using binary multileaf collimator leaves while the couch is translated through the gantry. Helical tomotherapy offers the possibility of treating a variety of cases--from simple to complex--with improved target conformality and sensitive structure sparing compared with 3D or conventional static field IMRT plans, thereby allowing biologically effective dose escalation. For precise irradiation and possible treatment adaptation, the fully integrated on-board image-guidance system provides online volumetric images of patient anatomy using 3.5-MV x-ray beams and the xenon computed tomography detector. Several review articles were published before the year 2007 but emphasized the technical aspects of helical tomotherapy. In this article, we review very recent papers and focus on the dosimetric and clinical aspects of helical tomotherapy.

Dosimetric accuracy of tomotherapy dose calculation in thorax lesions

BACKGROUND

To analyse limits and capabilities in dose calculation of collapsed-cone-convolution (CCC) algorithm implemented in helical tomotherapy (HT) treatment planning system for thorax lesions.

METHODS

The agreement between measured and calculated dose was verified both in homogeneous (Cheese Phantom) and in a custom-made inhomogeneous phantom. The inhomogeneous phantom was employed to mimic a patient's thorax region with lung density encountered in extreme cases and acrylic inserts of various dimensions and positions inside the lung cavity. For both phantoms, different lung treatment plans (single or multiple metastases and targets in the mediastinum) using HT technique were simulated and verified. Point and planar dose measurements, both with radiographic extended-dose-range (EDR2) and radiochromic external-beam-therapy (EBT2) films, were performed. Absolute point dose measurements, dose profile comparisons and quantitative analysis of gamma function distributions were analyzed.

RESULTS

An excellent agreement between measured and calculated dose distributions was found in homogeneous media, both for point and planar dose measurements. Absolute dose deviations <3% were found for all considered measurement points, both inside the PTV and in critical structures. Very good results were also found for planar dose distribution comparisons, where at least 96% of all points satisfied the gamma acceptance criteria (3%-3 mm), both for EDR2 and for EBT2 films. Acceptable results were also reported for the inhomogeneous phantom. Similar point dose deviations were found with slightly worse agreement for the planar dose distribution comparison: 96% of all points passed the gamma analysis test with acceptable levels of 4%-4 mm and 5%-4 mm, for EDR2 and EBT2 films respectively. Lower accuracy was observed in high dose/low density regions, where CCC seems to overestimate the measured dose around 4-5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Very acceptable accuracy was found for complex lung treatment plans calculated with CCC algorithm implemented in the tomotherapy TPS even in the heterogeneous phantom with very low lung-density.