Using 4D dose accumulation to calculate organ-at-risk dose deviations from motion-synchronized liver and lung tomotherapy treatments

Tracking systems such as Radixact Synchrony change the planned delivery of radiation during treatment to follow the target. This is typically achieved without considering the location changes of organs at risk (OARs). The goal of this work was to develop a novel 4D dose accumulation framework to quantify OAR dose deviations due to the motion and tracked treatment. The framework obtains deformation information and the target motion pattern from a four-dimensional computed tomography dataset. The helical tomotherapy treatment plan is split into 10 plans and motion correction is applied separately to the jaw pattern and multi-leaf collimator (MLC) sinogram for each phase based on the location of the target in each phase. Deformable image registration (DIR) is calculated from each phase to the references phase using a commercial algorithm, and doses are accumulated according to the DIR. The effect of motion synchronization on OAR dose was analyzed for five lung and five liver subjects by comparing planned versus synchrony-accumulated dose. The motion was compensated by an average of 1.6 cm of jaw sway and by an average of 5.7% of leaf openings modified, indicating that most of the motion compensation was from jaw sway and not MLC changes. OAR dose deviations as large as 19 Gy were observed, and for all 10 cases, dose deviations greater than 7 Gy were observed. Target dose remained relatively constant (D95% within 3 Gy), confirming that motion-synchronization achieved the goal of maintaining target dose. Dose deviations provided by the framework can be leveraged during the treatment planning process by identifying cases where OAR doses may change significantly from their planned values with respect to the critical constraints. The framework is specific to synchronized helical tomotherapy treatments, but the OAR dose deviations apply to any real-time tracking technique that does not consider location changes of OARs.

Assessing the dose rate delivery of helical TomoTherapy prostate and head & neck treatments

The dose rate distributions delivered to 55 prostate and head & neck (H&N) cancer patients treated with a helical TomoTherapy (HT) system were resolved and assessed with regard to pitch and field width defined during treatment planning. Statistical analysis of the studied cases showed that the median treatment delivery time was 4.4 min and 6.3 min for the prostate and H&N cases, respectively. Dose rate volume histogram data for the studied cases showed that the 25% and 12% of the volume of the planning target volumes of the prostate and H&N cases are irradiated with a dose rate of greater or equal to 1 Gy min^-1. Quartile dose rate (QDR) data confirmed that in HT, where the target is irradiated in slices, most of the dose is delivered to each voxel of the target when it travels within the beam. Analysis of the planning data from all cases showed that this lasts for 68 s (median value). QDRs results showed that using the 2.5 cm field width, 75% of the prescribed dose is delivered to target voxels with a median dose rate of at least 3.2 Gy min^-1and 4.5 Gy min^-1, for the prostate and H&N cases, respectively. Systematically higher dose rates were observed for the H&N cases due to the shallower depths of the lesions in this anatomical site. Delivered dose rates were also found to increase with field width and pitch setting, due to the higher output of the system which, in general, results in accordingly decreased total treatment time. The biological effect of the dose rate findings of this work needs to be further investigated using in-vitro studies and clinical treatment data.

Implementation of TomoEDGE in the independent dose calculator CheckTomo

Purpose

CheckTomo is an independent dose calculation software for tomotherapy. Recently, Accuray (Accuray Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA) released an upgrade of its tomotherapy treatment device, called TomoEDGE Dynamic Jaws, which improves the quality of treatment plans by enhancing the dose delivery with the help of jaws motion. This study describes the upgrade of CheckTomo to that new feature.

Methods

To account for the varying width and off‐axis shift of dynamic jaws fields, the calculation engine of CheckTomo multiplies the treatment field profile by a penumbral filter and shifts the dose calculation grid. Penumbral filters were obtained by dividing the edge field profiles by that of the corresponding nominal field. They were sampled at widths 1.0, 1.8, and 2.5 cm at isocenter in the edges of the 2.5 and 5 cm treatment field.

Results

The upgrade of CheckTomo was tested on 30 patient treatments planned with dynamic jaws. The gamma pass rate averaged over 10 abdomen plans was 95.9%, with tolerances of 3 mm/3%. For 10 head and neck plans, the mean pass rate was 95.9% for tolerances of 4 mm/4%. Finally, misplacement and overdosage errors were simulated. In each tested cases, the 2 mm/3% gamma pass rate fell below 95% when a 4 mm shift or 3% dose difference was applied.

Conclusions

These results are equivalent to what CheckTomo achieves in static jaws cases. So, in terms of dose calculation accuracy and errors detection, the upgraded version of CheckTomo is as reliable for dynamic jaws plans as the former release was for static cases.

Recalculation of dose for each fraction of treatment on TomoTherapy

Objective:

The VoxTox study, linking delivered dose to toxicity requires recalculation of typically 20–37 fractions per patient, for nearly 2000 patients. This requires a non-interactive interface permitting batch calculation with multiple computers.

Methods:

Data are extracted from the TomoTherapy^® archive and processed using the computational task-management system GANGA. Doses are calculated for each fraction of radiotherapy using the daily megavoltage (MV) CT images. The calculated dose cube is saved as a digital imaging and communications in medicine RTDOSE object, which can then be read by utilities that calculate dose–volume histograms or dose surface maps. The rectum is delineated on daily MV images using an implementation of the Chan–Vese algorithm.

Results:

On a cluster of up to 117 central processing units, dose cubes for all fractions of 151 patients took 12 days to calculate. Outlining the rectum on all slices and fractions on 151 patients took 7 h. We also present results of the Hounsfield unit (HU) calibration of TomoTherapy MV images, measured over an 8-year period, showing that the HU calibration has become less variable over time, with no large changes observed after 2011.

Conclusion:

We have developed a system for automatic dose recalculation of TomoTherapy dose distributions. This does not tie up the clinically needed planning system but can be run on a cluster of independent machines, enabling recalculation of delivered dose without user intervention.

Advances in knowledge:

The use of a task management system for automation of dose calculation and outlining enables work to be scaled up to the level required for large studies.

Measurement-guided volumetric dose reconstruction for helical tomotherapy

It was previously demonstrated that dose delivered by a conventional linear accelerator using IMRT or VMAT can be reconstructed - on patient or phantom datasets - using helical diode array measurements and a technique called planned dose perturbation (PDP). This allows meaningful and intuitive analysis of the agreement between the planned and delivered dose, including direct comparison of the dose-volume histograms. While conceptually similar to modulated arc techniques, helical tomotherapy introduces significant challenges to the PDP formalism, arising primarily from TomoTherapy delivery dynamics. The temporal characteristics of the delivery are of the same order or shorter than the dosimeter's update interval (50 ms). Additionally, the prevalence of often small and complex segments, particularly with the 1 cm Y jaw setting, lead to challenges related to detector spacing. Here, we present and test a novel method of tomotherapy-PDP (TPDP) designed to meet these challenges. One of the novel techniques introduced for TPDP is organization of the subbeams into larger subunits called sectors, which assures more robust synchronization of the measurement and delivery dynamics. Another important change is the optional application of a correction based on ion chamber (IC) measurements in the phantom. The TPDP method was validated by direct comparisons to the IC and an independent, biplanar diode array dosimeter previously evaluated for tomotherapy delivery quality assurance. Nineteen plans with varying complexity were analyzed for the 2.5 cm tomotherapy jaw setting and 18 for the 1 cm opening. The dose differences between the TPDP and IC were 1.0% ± 1.1% and 1.1% ± 1.1%, for 2.5 and 1.0 cm jaw plans, respectively. Gamma analysis agreement rates between TPDP and the independent array were: 99.1%± 1.8% (using 3% global normalization/3 mm criteria) and 93.4% ± 7.1% (using 2% global/2 mm) for the 2.5 cm jaw plans; for 1 cm plans, they were 95.2% ± 6.7% (3% G/3) and 83.8% ± 12% (2% G/2). We conclude that TPDP is capable of volumetric dose reconstruction with acceptable accuracy. However, the challenges of fast tomotherapy delivery dynamics make TPDP less precise than the IMRT/VMAT PDP version, particularly for the 1 cm jaw setting.

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.

Independent calculation of dose distributions for helical tomotherapy using a conventional treatment planning system

PURPOSE

The dosimetric verification of treatment plans in helical tomotherapy usually is carried out via verification measurements. In this study, a method for independent dose calculation of tomotherapy treatment plans is presented, that uses a conventional treatment planning system with a pencil kernel dose calculation algorithm for generation of verification dose distributions based on patient CT data.

METHODS

A pencil beam algorithm that directly uses measured beam data was configured for dose calculation for a tomotherapy machine. Tomotherapy treatment plans were converted into a format readable by an in-house treatment planning system by assigning each projection to one static treatment field and shifting the calculation isocenter for each field in order to account for the couch movement. The modulation of the fluence for each projection is read out of the delivery sinogram, and with the kernel-based dose calculation, this information can directly be used for dose calculation without the need for decomposition of the sinogram. The sinogram values are only corrected for leaf output and leaf latency. Using the converted treatment plans, dose was recalculated with the independent treatment planning system. Multiple treatment plans ranging from simple static fields to real patient treatment plans were calculated using the new approach and either compared to actual measurements or the 3D dose distribution calculated by the tomotherapy treatment planning system. In addition, dose-volume histograms were calculated for the patient plans.

RESULTS

Except for minor deviations at the maximum field size, the pencil beam dose calculation for static beams agreed with measurements in a water tank within 2%/2 mm. A mean deviation to point dose measurements in the cheese phantom of 0.89% ± 0.81% was found for unmodulated helical plans. A mean voxel-based deviation of -0.67% ± 1.11% for all voxels in the respective high dose region (dose values >80%), and a mean local voxel-based deviation of -2.41% ± 0.75% for all voxels with dose values >20% were found for 11 modulated plans in the cheese phantom. Averaged over nine patient plans, the deviations amounted to -0.14% ± 1.97% (voxels >80%) and -0.95% ± 2.27% (>20%, local deviations). For a lung case, mean voxel-based deviations of more than 4% were found, while for all other patient plans, all mean voxel-based deviations were within ± 2.4%.

CONCLUSIONS

The presented method is suitable for independent dose calculation for helical tomotherapy within the known limitations of the pencil beam algorithm. It can serve as verification of the primary dose calculation and thereby reduce the need for time-consuming measurements. By using the patient anatomy and generating full 3D dose data, and combined with measurements of additional machine parameters, it can substantially contribute to overall patient safety.

Comparison of dose calculations between pencil-beam and Monte Carlo algorithms of the iPlan RT in arc therapy using a homogenous phantom with 3DVH software

BACKGROUND

To create an arc therapy plan, certain current general calculation algorithms such as pencil-beam calculation (PBC) are based on discretizing the continuous arc into multiple fields to simulate an arc. The iPlan RT™ treatment planning system incorporates not only a PBC algorithm, but also a more recent Monte Carlo calculation (MCC) algorithm that does not need beam discretization. The objective of this study is to evaluate the dose differences in a homogenous phantom between PBC and MCC by using a three-dimensional (3D) diode array detector (ArcCHECK™) and 3DVH software.

METHODS

A cylindrically shaped 'target' region of interest (ROI) and a 'periphery ROI' surrounding the target were designed. An arc therapy plan was created to deliver 600 cGy to the target within a 350° rotation angle, calculated using the PBC and MCC algorithms. The radiation doses were measured by the ArcCHECK, and reproduced by the 3DVH software. Through this process, we could compare the accuracy of both algorithms with regard to the 3D gamma passing rate (for the entire area and for each ROI).

RESULTS

Comparing the PBC and MCC planned dose distributions directly, the 3D gamma passing rates for the entire area were 97.7% with the gamma 3%/3 mm criterion. Comparing the planned dose to the measured dose, the 3D gamma passing rates were 98.8% under the PBC algorithm and 100% under the MCC algorithm. The difference was statistically significant (p = 0.034). Furthermore the gamma passing rate decreases 7.5% in the PBC when using the 2%/2 mm criterion compared to only a 0.4% decrease under the MCC. Each ROI as well as the entire area showed statistically significant higher gamma passing rates under the MCC algorithm. The failure points that did not satisfy the gamma criteria showed a regular pattern repeated every 10°.

CONCLUSIONS

MCC showed better accuracy than the PBC of the iPlan RT in calculating the dose distribution in arc therapy, which was validated with the ArcCHECK and the 3DVH software. This may suggest that the arc step of 10° is too large in the PBC algorithm in the iPlan RT.