Auto-commissioning of a Monte Carlo electron beam model with application to photon MLC shaped electron fields

Objective.Presently electron beam treatments are delivered using dedicated applicators. An alternative is the usage of the already installed photon multileaf collimator (pMLC) enabling efficient electron treatments. Currently, the commissioning of beam models is a manual and time-consuming process. In this work an auto-commissioning procedure for the Monte Carlo (MC) beam model part representing the beam above the pMLC is developed for TrueBeam systems with electron energies from 6 to 22 MeV.Approach.The analytical part of the electron beam model includes a main source representing the primary beam and a jaw source representing the head scatter contribution each consisting of an electron and a photon component, while MC radiation transport is performed for the pMLC. The auto-commissioning of this analytical part relies on information pre-determined from MC simulations, in-air dose profiles and absolute dose measurements in water for different field sizes and source to surface distances (SSDs). For validation calculated and measured dose distributions in water were compared for different field sizes, SSDs and beam energies for eight TrueBeam systems. Furthermore, a sternum case in an anthropomorphic phantom was considered and calculated and measured dose distributions were compared at different SSDs.Main results.Instead of the manual commissioning taking up to several days of calculation time and several hours of user time, the auto-commissioning is carried out in a few minutes. Measured and calculated dose distributions agree generally within 3% of maximum dose or 2 mm. The gamma passing rates for the sternum case ranged from 96% to 99% (3% (global)/2 mm criteria, 10% threshold).Significance.The auto-commissioning procedure was successfully implemented and applied to eight TrueBeam systems. The newly developed user-friendly auto-commissioning procedure allows an efficient commissioning of an MC electron beam model and eases the usage of advanced electron radiotherapy utilizing the pMLC for beam shaping.

A fast GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo engine for calculation of MLC-collimated electron fields

BACKGROUND

Although intensity-modulated radiation therapy and volumetric arc therapy have revolutionized photon external beam therapies, the technological advances associated with electron beam therapy have fallen behind. Modern linear accelerators contain technologies that would allow for more advanced forms of electron treatments, such as beam collimation, using the conventional photon multi-leaf collimator (MLC); however, no commercial solutions exist that calculate dose from such beam delivery modes. Additionally, for clinical adoption to occur, dose calculation times would need to be on par with that of modern dose calculation algorithms.

PURPOSE

This work developed a graphics processing unit (GPU)-accelerated Monte Carlo (MC) engine incorporating the Varian TrueBeam linac head geometry for a rapid calculation of electron beams collimated using the conventional photon MLC.

METHODS

A compute unified device architecture framework was created for the following: (1) transport of electrons and photons through the linac head geometry, considering multiple scattering, Bremsstrahlung, Møller, Compton, and pair production interactions; (2) electron and photon propagation through the CT geometry, considering all interactions plus the photoelectric effect; and (3) secondary particle cascades through the linac head and within the CT geometry. The linac head collimating geometry was modeled according to the specifications provided by the vendor, who also provided phase-space files. The MC was benchmarked against EGSnrc/DOSXYZnrc/GEANT by simulating individual interactions with simple geometries, pencil, and square beam dose calculations in various phantoms. MC-calculated dose distributions for MLC and jaw-collimated electron fields were compared to measurements in a water phantom and with radiochromic film.

RESULTS

Pencil and square beam dose distributions are in good agreement with DOSXYZnrc. Angular and spatial distributions for multiple scattering and secondary particle production in thin slab geometries are in good agreement with EGSnrc and GEANT. Dose profiles for MLC and jaw-collimated 6-20-MeV electron beams showed an average absolute difference of 1.1 and 1.9 mm for the FWHM and 80%-20% penumbra from measured profiles. Percent depth doses showed differences of <5% for as compared to measurement. The computation time on an NVIDIA Tesla V100 card was 2.5 min to achieve a dose uncertainty of <1%, which is ∼300 times faster than published results in a similar geometry using a single-CPU core.

CONCLUSIONS

The GPU-based MC can quickly calculate dose for electron fields collimated using the conventional photon MLC. The fast calculation times will allow for a rapid calculation of electron fields for mixed photon and electron particle therapy.

FLASH radiotherapy treatment planning and models for electron beams

The FLASH effect designates normal tissue sparing at ultra-high dose rate (UHDR, >40 Gy/s) compared to conventional dose rate (∼0.1 Gy/s) irradiation while maintaining tumour control and has the potential to improve the therapeutic ratio of radiotherapy (RT). UHDR high-energy electron (HEE, 4-20 MeV) beams are currently a mainstay for investigating the clinical potential of FLASH RT for superficial tumours. In the future very-high energy electron (VHEE, 50-250 MeV) UHDR beams may be used to treat deep-seated tumours. UHDR HEE treatment planning focused at its initial stage on accurate dosimetric modelling of converted and dedicated UHDR electron RT devices for the clinical transfer of FLASH RT. VHEE treatment planning demonstrated promising dosimetric performance compared to clinical photon RT techniques in silico and was used to evaluate and optimise the design of novel VHEE RT devices. Multiple metrics and models have been proposed for a quantitative description of the FLASH effect in treatment planning, but an improved experimental characterization and understanding of the FLASH effect is needed to allow for an accurate and validated modelling of the effect in treatment planning. The importance of treatment planning for electron FLASH RT will augment as the field moves forward to treat more complex clinical indications and target sites. In this review, TPS developments in HEE and VHEE are presented considering beam models, characteristics, and future FLASH applications.

TriB-RT: Simultaneous optimization of photon, electron and proton beams

PURPOSE

To develop a novel treatment planning process (TPP) with simultaneous optimization of modulated photon, electron and proton beams for improved treatment plan quality in radiotherapy.

METHODS

A framework for fluence map optimization of Monte Carlo (MC) calculated beamlet dose distributions is developed to generate treatment plans consisting of photon, electron and spot scanning proton fields. Initially, in-house intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans are compared to proton plans created by a commercial treatment planning system (TPS). A triple beam radiotherapy (TriB-RT) plan is generated for an exemplary academic case and the dose contributions of the three particle types are investigated. To investigate the dosimetric potential, a TriB-RT plan is compared to an in-house IMPT plan for two clinically motivated cases. Benefits of TriB-RT for a fixed proton beam line with a single proton field are investigated.

RESULTS

In-house optimized IMPT are of at least equal or better quality than TPS-generated proton plans, and MC-based optimization shows dosimetric advantages for inhomogeneous situations. Concerning TriB-RT, for the academic case, the resulting plan shows substantial contribution of all particle types. For the clinically motivated case, improved sparing of organs at risk close to the target volume is achieved compared to IMPT (e.g. myelon and brainstem [Formula: see text] -37%) at cost of an increased low dose bath (healthy tissue V _10% +22%). In the scenario of a fixed proton beam line, TriB-RT plans are able to compensate the loss in degrees of freedom to substantially improve plan quality compared to a single field proton plan.

CONCLUSION

A novel TPP which simultaneously optimizes photon, electron and proton beams was successfully developed. TriB-RT shows the potential for improved treatment plan quality and is especially promising for cost-effective single-room proton solutions with a fixed beamline in combination with a conventional linac delivering photon and electron fields.

Production of patient-specific electron beam aperture cut-outs using a low-cost, multi-purpose 3D printer

Electron beam collimators for non‐standard field sizes and shapes are typically fabricated using Styrofoam molds to cast the aperture cut‐out. These molds are often produced using a dedicated foam cutter, which may be expensive and only serves a single purpose. An increasing number of radiotherapy departments, however, has a 3D printer on‐site, to create a wide range of custom‐made treatment auxiliaries, such as bolus and dosimetry phantoms. The 3D printer can also be used to produce patient‐specific aperture cut‐outs, as elaborated in this note. Open‐source programming language was used to automatically generate the mold's shape in a generic digital file format readable by 3D printer software. The geometric mold model has the patient's identification number integrated and is to be mounted on a uniquely fitting, reusable positioning device, which can be 3D printed as well. This assembly likewise fits uniquely onto the applicator tray, ensuring correct and error‐free alignment of the mold during casting of the aperture. For dosimetric verification, two aperture cut‐outs were cast, one using a conventionally cut Styrofoam mold and one using a 3D printed mold. Using these cut‐outs, the clinical plan was delivered onto a phantom, for which the transversal dose distributions were measured at 2 cm depth using radiochromic film and compared using gamma‐index analysis. An agreement score of 99.9% between the measured 2D dose distributions was found in the (10%–80%) dose region, using 1% (local) dose‐difference and 1.0 mm distance‐to‐agreement acceptance criteria. The workflow using 3D printing has been clinically implemented and is in routine use at the author's institute for all patient‐specific electron beam aperture cut‐outs. It allows for a standardized, cost‐effective, and operator‐friendly workflow without the need for dedicated equipment. In addition, it offers possibilities to increase safety and quality of the process including patient identification and methods for accurate mold alignment.

Validation of Varian TrueBeam electron phase-spaces for Monte Carlo simulation of MLC-shaped fields

PURPOSE

This work evaluates Varian's electron phase-space sources for Monte Carlo simulation of the TrueBeam for modulated electron radiation therapy (MERT) and combined, modulated photon and electron radiation therapy (MPERT) where fields are shaped by the photon multileaf collimator (MLC) and delivered at 70 cm SSD.

METHODS

Monte Carlo simulations performed with EGSnrc-based BEAMnrc/DOSXYZnrc and penelope-based PRIMO are compared against diode measurements for 5 × 5, 10 × 10, and 20 × 20 cm(2) MLC-shaped fields delivered with 6, 12, and 20 MeV electrons at 70 cm SSD (jaws set to 40 × 40 cm(2)). Depth dose curves and profiles are examined. In addition, EGSnrc-based simulations of relative output as a function of MLC-field size and jaw-position are compared against ion chamber measurements for MLC-shaped fields between 3 × 3 and 25 × 25 cm(2) and jaw positions that range from the MLC-field size to 40 × 40 cm(2).

RESULTS

Percent depth dose curves generated by BEAMnrc/DOSXYZnrc and PRIMO agree with measurement within 2%, 2 mm except for PRIMO's 12 MeV, 20 × 20 cm(2) field where 90% of dose points agree within 2%, 2 mm. Without the distance to agreement, differences between measurement and simulation are as large as 7.3%. Characterization of simulated dose parameters such as FWHM, penumbra width and depths of 90%, 80%, 50%, and 20% dose agree within 2 mm of measurement for all fields except for the FWHM of the 6 MeV, 20 × 20 cm(2) field which falls within 2 mm distance to agreement. Differences between simulation and measurement exist in the profile shoulders and penumbra tails, in particular for 10 × 10 and 20 × 20 cm(2) fields of 20 MeV electrons, where both sets of simulated data fall short of measurement by as much as 3.5%. BEAMnrc/DOSXYZnrc simulated outputs agree with measurement within 2.3% except for 6 MeV MLC-shaped fields. Discrepancies here are as great as 5.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

TrueBeam electron phase-spaces available from Varian have been implemented in two distinct Monte Carlo simulation packages to produce dose distributions and outputs that largely reflect measurement. Differences exist in the profile shoulders and penumbra tails for the 20 MeV phase-space off-axis and in the outputs for the 6 MeV phase-space.