1
|
Demir IH, Ozdemir DM, Yucel IK, Yılmaz EH, Bulut MO, Surucu M, Korun O, Aydemir NA, Celebi A. The Lifesaving Impact of Transcatheter Interventions in the Early Post-Fontan Palliation Period. Pediatr Cardiol 2024; 45:986-997. [PMID: 38509208 DOI: 10.1007/s00246-024-03455-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/02/2023] [Accepted: 02/16/2024] [Indexed: 03/22/2024]
Abstract
Despite advancements in postoperative outcomes after Fontan surgery, there remains a risk of suboptimal outcomes and significant morbidity in the early postoperative period. Anatomical obstructions in the Fontan pathway can lead to prolonged pleural effusion or ascites, cyanosis, and low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS). Transcatheter interventions offer an alternative to early re-surgery for treating these complications. Over a 13-year period, early catheter angiography, performed within 30 days post-index procedure, was administered to 41 patients, identifying anatomical issues that necessitated re-intervention in 39 cases. This led to transcatheter interventions in 37 (10.4%) of the 344 Fontan surgery patients. The median age was 4.8 years (IQR: 4-9.4), and the median weight was 16.5 kg (IQR: 15-25.2), with females comprising 51.4% (19/37) of this group. The primary indications for the procedures were persistent pleural effusion or ascites in 27 patients (66%), LCOS in 8 patients (20%), and cyanosis in 6 patients (14%). Among the 37 undergoing transcatheter intervention, 30 were treated solely with this method and discharged, three died in ICU follow-up, and four required early re-surgery. No procedural mortality was observed. Our findings demonstrate that transcatheter interventions, including stent implantation, balloon angioplasty, and fenestration dilation, are safe and effective in the early post-Fontan period. Therefore, they should be considered an integral part of the management strategy for this patient group.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ibrahim Halil Demir
- Department of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Health Sciences Dr. Siyami Ersek Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and Research Hospital, Tıbbiye Street, No 13 Uskudar, Istanbul, Turkey.
| | - Dursun Muhammed Ozdemir
- Department of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Health Sciences Dr. Siyami Ersek Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and Research Hospital, Tıbbiye Street, No 13 Uskudar, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Ilker Kemal Yucel
- Department of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Health Sciences Dr. Siyami Ersek Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and Research Hospital, Tıbbiye Street, No 13 Uskudar, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Emine Hekim Yılmaz
- Department of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Health Sciences Dr. Siyami Ersek Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and Research Hospital, Tıbbiye Street, No 13 Uskudar, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Mustafa Orhan Bulut
- Department of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Health Sciences Dr. Siyami Ersek Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and Research Hospital, Tıbbiye Street, No 13 Uskudar, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Murat Surucu
- Department of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Health Sciences Dr. Siyami Ersek Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and Research Hospital, Tıbbiye Street, No 13 Uskudar, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Oktay Korun
- Department of Pediatric Cardiovascular Surgery, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Numan Ali Aydemir
- Department of Pediatric Cardiovascular Surgery, University of Health Sciences Dr. Siyami Ersek Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Ahmet Celebi
- Department of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Health Sciences Dr. Siyami Ersek Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and Research Hospital, Tıbbiye Street, No 13 Uskudar, Istanbul, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Vitzthum LK, Surucu M, Gensheimer MF, Kovalchuk N, Han B, Pham D, Chang D, Shirvani SM, Aksoy D, Maniyedath A, Narayanan M, Da Silva AJ, Mazin S, Feghali KAA, Iyengar P, Dan T, Pompos A, Timmerman R, Öz O, Cai B, Garant A. BIOGUIDE-X: A First-in-Human Study of the Performance of Positron Emission Tomography-Guided Radiation Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024; 118:1172-1180. [PMID: 38147912 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.12.019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/15/2023] [Revised: 12/02/2023] [Accepted: 12/15/2023] [Indexed: 12/28/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Positron emission tomography (PET)-guided radiation therapy is a novel tracked dose delivery modality that uses real-time PET to guide radiation therapy beamlets. The BIOGUIDE-X study was performed with sequential cohorts of participants to (1) identify the fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) dose for PET-guided therapy and (2) confirm that the emulated dose distribution was consistent with a physician-approved radiation therapy plan. METHODS AND MATERIALS This prospective study included participants with at least 1 FDG-avid targetable primary or metastatic tumor (2-5 cm) in the lung or bone. For cohort I, a modified 3 + 3 design was used to determine the FDG dose that would result in adequate signal for PET-guided therapy. For cohort II, PET imaging data were collected on the X1 system before the first and last fractions among patients undergoing conventional stereotactic body radiation therapy. PET-guided therapy dose distributions were modeled on the patient's computed tomography anatomy using the collected PET data at each fraction as input to an "emulated delivery" and compared with the physician-approved plan. RESULTS Cohort I demonstrated adequate FDG activity in 6 of 6 evaluable participants (100.0%) with the first injected dose level of 15 mCi FDG. In cohort II, 4 patients with lung tumors and 5 with bone tumors were enrolled, and evaluable emulated delivery data points were collected for 17 treatment fractions. Sixteen of the 17 emulated deliveries resulted in dose distributions that were accurate with respect to the approved PET-guided therapy plan. The 17th data point was just below the 95% threshold for accuracy (dose-volume histogram score = 94.6%). All emulated fluences were physically deliverable. No toxicities were attributed to multiple FDG administrations. CONCLUSIONS PET-guided therapy is a novel radiation therapy modality in which a radiolabeled tumor can act as its own fiducial for radiation therapy targeting. Emulated therapy dose distributions calculated from continuously acquired real-time PET data were accurate and machine-deliverable in tumors that were 2 to 5 cm in size with adequate FDG signal characteristics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lucas K Vitzthum
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California.
| | - Murat Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California
| | - Michael F Gensheimer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California
| | - Nataliya Kovalchuk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California
| | - Bin Han
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California
| | - Daniel Pham
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California
| | - Daniel Chang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Puneeth Iyengar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Tu Dan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Arnold Pompos
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Robert Timmerman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Orhan Öz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Bin Cai
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Aurelie Garant
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Ashraf MR, Melemenidis S, Liu K, Grilj V, Jansen J, Velasquez B, Connell L, Schulz JB, Bailat C, Libed A, Manjappa R, Dutt S, Soto L, Lau B, Garza A, Larsen W, Skinner L, Yu AS, Surucu M, Graves EE, Maxim PG, Kry SF, Vozenin MC, Schüler E, Loo BW. Multi-Institutional Audit of FLASH and Conventional Dosimetry With a 3D Printed Anatomically Realistic Mouse Phantom. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024:S0360-3016(24)00433-4. [PMID: 38493902 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.03.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/19/2023] [Revised: 03/03/2024] [Accepted: 03/10/2024] [Indexed: 03/19/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE We conducted a multi-institutional dosimetric audit between FLASH and conventional dose rate (CONV) electron irradiations by using an anatomically realistic 3-dimensional (3D) printed mouse phantom. METHODS AND MATERIALS A computed tomography (CT) scan of a live mouse was used to create a 3D model of bony anatomy, lungs, and soft tissue. A dual-nozzle 3D printer was used to print the mouse phantom using acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (∼1.02 g/cm3) and polylactic acid (∼1.24 g/cm3) simultaneously to simulate soft tissue and bone densities, respectively. The lungs were printed separately using lightweight polylactic acid (∼0.64 g/cm3). Hounsfield units (HU), densities, and print-to-print stability of the phantoms were assessed. Three institutions were each provided a phantom and each institution performed 2 replicates of irradiations at selected anatomic regions. The average dose difference between FLASH and CONV dose distributions and deviation from the prescribed dose were measured with radiochromic film. RESULTS Compared with the reference CT scan, CT scans of the phantom demonstrated mass density differences of 0.10 g/cm3 for bone, 0.12 g/cm3 for lung, and 0.03 g/cm3 for soft tissue regions. Differences in HU between phantoms were <10 HU for soft tissue and bone, with lung showing the most variation (54 HU), but with minimal effect on dose distribution (<0.5%). Mean differences between FLASH and CONV decreased from the first to the second replicate (4.3%-1.2%), and differences from the prescribed dose decreased for both CONV (3.6%-2.5%) and FLASH (6.4%-2.7%). Total dose accuracy suggests consistent pulse dose and pulse number, although these were not specifically assessed. Positioning variability was observed, likely due to the absence of robust positioning aids or image guidance. CONCLUSIONS This study marks the first dosimetric audit for FLASH using a nonhomogeneous phantom, challenging conventional calibration practices reliant on homogeneous phantoms. The comparison protocol offers a framework for credentialing multi-institutional studies in FLASH preclinical research to enhance reproducibility of biologic findings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Ramish Ashraf
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Stavros Melemenidis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Kevin Liu
- Department of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Veljko Grilj
- Institute of Radiation Physics, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Jeannette Jansen
- Radiation Oncology Laboratory, Department of Radiation Oncology, Lausanne, University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Brett Velasquez
- Department of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Luke Connell
- Department of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Joseph B Schulz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Claude Bailat
- Institute of Radiation Physics, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Aaron Libed
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Rakesh Manjappa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Suparna Dutt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Luis Soto
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Brianna Lau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Aaron Garza
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - William Larsen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Lawrie Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Amy S Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Murat Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Edward E Graves
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Peter G Maxim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, California
| | - Stephen F Kry
- Department of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Marie-Catherine Vozenin
- Radiation Oncology Laboratory, Department of Radiation Oncology, Lausanne, University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland; Radiotherapy and Radiobiology Sector, Radiation Therapy Service, University Hospital of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
| | - Emil Schüler
- Department of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
| | - Billy W Loo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Oderinde OM, Narayanan M, Olcott P, Voronenko Y, Burns J, Xu S, Shao L, Feghali KAA, Shirvani SM, Surucu M, Kuduvalli G. Demonstration of real-time positron emission tomography biology-guided radiotherapy delivery to targets. Med Phys 2024. [PMID: 38452277 DOI: 10.1002/mp.16999] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/29/2023] [Revised: 02/05/2024] [Accepted: 02/05/2024] [Indexed: 03/09/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Biology-guided radiotherapy (BgRT) is a novel technology that uses positron emission tomography (PET) data to direct radiotherapy delivery in real-time. BgRT enables the precise delivery of radiation doses based on the PET signals emanating from PET-avid tumors on the fly. In this way, BgRT uniquely utilizes radiotracer uptake as a biological beacon for controlling and adjusting dose delivery in real-time to account for target motion. PURPOSE To demonstrate using real-time PET for BgRT delivery on the RefleXion X1 radiotherapy machine. The X1 radiotherapy machine is a rotating ring-gantry radiotherapy system that generates a nominal 6MV photon beam, PET, and computed tomography (CT) components. The system utilizes emitted photons from PET-avid targets to deliver effective radiation beamlets or pulses to the tumor in real-time. METHODS This study demonstrated a real-time PET BgRT delivery experiment under three scenarios. These scenarios included BgRT delivering to (S1 ) a static target in a homogeneous and heterogeneous environment, (S2 ) a static target with a hot avoidance structure and partial PET-avid target, and (S3 ) a moving target. The first step was to create stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and BgRT plans (offline PET data supported) using RefleXion's custom-built treatment planning system (TPS). Additionally, to create a BgRT plan using PET-guided delivery, the targets were filled with 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG), which represents a tumor/target, that is, PET-avid. The background materials were created in the insert with homogeneous water medium (for S1 ) and heterogeneous water with styrofoam mesh medium. A heterogeneous background medium simulated soft tissue surrounding the tumor. The treatment plan was then delivered to the experimental setups using a pre-commercial version of the X1 machine. As a final step, the dosimetric accuracy for S1 and S2 was assessed using the ArcCheck analysis tool-the gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm. For S3 , the delivery dose was quantified using EBT-XD radiochromic film. The accuracy criteria were based on coverage, where 100% of the clinical target volume (CTV) receives at least 97% of the prescription dose, and the maximum dose in the CTV was ≤130% of the maximum planned dose (97 % ≤ CTV ≤ 130%). RESULTS For the S1, both SBRT and BgRT deliveries had gamma pass rates greater than 95% (SBRT range: 96.9%-100%, BgRT range: 95.2%-98.9%), while in S2 , the gamma pass rate was 98% for SBRT and between 95.2% and 98.9% for BgRT plan delivering. For S3 , both SBRT and BgRT motion deliveries met CTV dose coverage requirements, with BgRT plans delivering a very high dose to the target. The CTV dose ranges were (a) SBRT:100.4%-120.4%, and (b) BgRT: 121.3%-139.9%. CONCLUSIONS This phantom-based study demonstrated that PET signals from PET-avid tumors can be utilized to direct real-time dose delivery to the tumor accurately, which is comparable to the dosimetric accuracy of SBRT. Furthermore, BgRT delivered a PET-signal controlled dose to the moving target, equivalent to the dose distribution to the static target. A future study will compare the performance of BgRT with conventional image-guided radiotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Oluwaseyi M Oderinde
- Advanced Molecular Imaging in Radiotherapy (AdMIRe) Research Laboratory, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA
- School of Health Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
| | | | - Peter Olcott
- RefleXion Medical, Inc, Hayward, California, USA
| | | | - Jon Burns
- RefleXion Medical, Inc, Hayward, California, USA
| | - Shiyu Xu
- RefleXion Medical, Inc, Hayward, California, USA
| | - Ling Shao
- RefleXion Medical, Inc, Hayward, California, USA
| | | | | | - Murat Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Demir IH, Celebi A, Ozdemir DM, Yilmaz EH, Bulut MO, Surucu M, Korun O, Aydemir NA, Yucel IK. Utility of Balloon Occlusion Testing in Determining Fontan Suitability Among Patients with Elevated Pulmonary Artery Pressure and Additional Antegrade Pulmonary Blood Flow. Pediatr Cardiol 2024; 45:632-639. [PMID: 38182891 DOI: 10.1007/s00246-023-03380-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2023] [Accepted: 12/07/2023] [Indexed: 01/07/2024]
Abstract
In individuals with a single ventricle undergoing evaluation before Fontan surgery, the presence of excessive pulmonary blood flow can contribute to increased pulmonary artery pressure, notably in those who had a Glenn procedure with antegrade pulmonary flow. 28 patients who had previously undergone Glenn anastomosis with antegrade pulmonary blood flow (APBF) and with elevated mean pulmonary artery (mPAP) pressure > 15 mmHg in diagnostic catheter angiography were included in the study. After addressing other anatomical factors that could affect pulmonary artery pressure, APBF was occluded with semi-compliant, Wedge or sizing balloons to measure pulmonary artery pressure accurately. 23 patients (82% of the cohort) advanced to Fontan completion. In this group, median mPAP dropped from 20.5 (IQR 19-22) mmHg to 13 (IQR 12-14) mmHg post-test (p < 0.001). Median PVR post-test was 1.8 (IQR 1.5-2.1) WU m2. SpO2 levels decreased from a median of 88% (IQR 86%-93%) pre-test to 80% (IQR 75%-84%) post-test (p < 0.001). In five patients, elevated mPAP post-test occlusion on diagnostic catheter angiography led to non-completion of Fontan circulation. In this group, median pre- and post-test mPAP were 23 mmHg (IQR 21.5-23.5) and 19 mmHg (IQR 18.5-20), respectively (p = 0.038). Median post-test PVR was 3.8 (IQR 3.6-4.5) WU m2. SpO2 levels decreased from a median of 79% (IQR 76%-81%) pre-test to 77% (IQR 73.5%-80%) post-test (p = 0.039). Our study presents a specialized approach for patients initially deemed unsuitable for Fontan due to elevated pulmonary artery pressures. We were able to successfully complete the Fontan procedure in the majority of these high-risk cases after temporary balloon occlusion test.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ibrahim Halil Demir
- Department of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Health Sciences Dr. Siyami Ersek Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and Research Hospital, Tıbbiye Street, No: 13 Uskudar, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Ahmet Celebi
- Department of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Health Sciences Dr. Siyami Ersek Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and Research Hospital, Tıbbiye Street, No: 13 Uskudar, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Dursun Muhammed Ozdemir
- Department of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Health Sciences Dr. Siyami Ersek Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and Research Hospital, Tıbbiye Street, No: 13 Uskudar, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Emine Hekim Yilmaz
- Department of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Health Sciences Dr. Siyami Ersek Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and Research Hospital, Tıbbiye Street, No: 13 Uskudar, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Mustafa Orhan Bulut
- Department of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Health Sciences Dr. Siyami Ersek Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and Research Hospital, Tıbbiye Street, No: 13 Uskudar, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Murat Surucu
- Department of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Health Sciences Dr. Siyami Ersek Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and Research Hospital, Tıbbiye Street, No: 13 Uskudar, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Oktay Korun
- Department of Pediatric Cardiovascular Surgery, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Numan Ali Aydemir
- Department of Pediatric Cardiovascular Surgery, University of Health Sciences Dr. Siyami Ersek Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Ilker Kemal Yucel
- Department of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Health Sciences Dr. Siyami Ersek Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and Research Hospital, Tıbbiye Street, No: 13 Uskudar, Istanbul, Turkey.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Shi M, Cui S, Chuang C, Oderinde O, Kovalchuk N, Surucu M, Xing L, Han B. A time- and space-saving Monte Carlo simulation method using post-collimation generative adversarial network for dose calculation of an O-ring gantry Linac. Phys Med 2024; 119:103318. [PMID: 38382210 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2024.103318] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/29/2023] [Revised: 02/06/2024] [Accepted: 02/09/2024] [Indexed: 02/23/2024] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE This study explores the feasibility of employing Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) to model the RefleXion X1 Linac. The aim is to investigate the accuracy of dose simulation and assess the potential computational benefits. METHODS The X1 Linac is a new radiotherapy machine with a binary multi-leaf collimation (MLC) system, facilitating innovative biology-guided radiotherapy. A total of 34 GAN generators, each representing a desired MLC aperture, were developed. Each generator was trained using a phase space file generated underneath the corresponding aperture, enabling the generation of particles and serving as a beam source for Monte Carlo simulation. Dose distributions in water were simulated for each aperture using both the GAN and phase space sources. The agreement between dose distributions was evaluated. The computational time reduction from bypassing the collimation simulation and storage space savings were estimated. RESULTS The percentage depth dose at 10 cm, penumbra, and full-width half maximum of the GAN simulation agree with the phase space simulation, with differences of 0.4 % ± 0.2 %, 0.32 ± 0.66 mm, and 0.26 ± 0.44 mm, respectively. The gamma passing rate (1 %/1mm) for the planar dose exceeded 90 % for all apertures. The estimated time-saving for simulating an plan using 5766 beamlets was 530 CPU hours. The storage usage was reduced by a factor of 102. CONCLUSION The utilization of the GAN in simulating the X1 Linac demonstrated remarkable accuracy and efficiency. The reductions in both computational time and storage requirements make this approach highly valuable for future dosimetry studies and beam modeling.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mengying Shi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, Orange, CA, USA.
| | - Sunan Cui
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Cynthia Chuang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA
| | | | - Nataliya Kovalchuk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA
| | - Murat Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA
| | - Lei Xing
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA
| | - Bin Han
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Fu J, Yang Z, Melemenidis S, Viswanathan V, Dutt S, Manjappa R, Lau B, Soto LA, Ashraf MR, Skinner L, Yu SJ, Surucu M, Casey KM, Rankin EB, Graves E, Lu W, Loo BW, Gu X. Exploring Deep Learning for Estimating the Isoeffective Dose of FLASH Irradiation From Mouse Intestinal Histological Images. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024:S0360-3016(23)08306-2. [PMID: 38171387 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.12.032] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/05/2023] [Revised: 12/09/2023] [Accepted: 12/23/2023] [Indexed: 01/05/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE Ultrahigh-dose-rate (FLASH) irradiation has been reported to reduce normal tissue damage compared with conventional dose rate (CONV) irradiation without compromising tumor control. This proof-of-concept study aims to develop a deep learning (DL) approach to quantify the FLASH isoeffective dose (dose of CONV that would be required to produce the same effect as the given physical FLASH dose) with postirradiation mouse intestinal histology images. METHODS AND MATERIALS Eighty-four healthy C57BL/6J female mice underwent 16 MeV electron CONV (0.12 Gy/s; n = 41) or FLASH (200 Gy/s; n = 43) single fraction whole abdominal irradiation. Physical dose ranged from 12 to 16 Gy for FLASH and 11 to 15 Gy for CONV in 1 Gy increments. Four days after irradiation, 9 jejunum cross-sections from each mouse were hematoxylin and eosin stained and digitized for histological analysis. CONV data set was randomly split into training (n = 33) and testing (n = 8) data sets. ResNet101-based DL models were retrained using the CONV training data set to estimate the dose based on histological features. The classical manual crypt counting (CC) approach was implemented for model comparison. Cross-section-wise mean squared error was computed to evaluate the dose estimation accuracy of both approaches. The validated DL model was applied to the FLASH data set to map the physical FLASH dose into the isoeffective dose. RESULTS The DL model achieved a cross-section-wise mean squared error of 0.20 Gy2 on the CONV testing data set compared with 0.40 Gy2 of the CC approach. Isoeffective doses estimated by the DL model for FLASH doses of 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 Gy were 12.19 ± 0.46, 12.54 ± 0.37, 12.69 ± 0.26, 12.84 ± 0.26, and 13.03 ± 0.28 Gy, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Our proposed DL model achieved accurate CONV dose estimation. The DL model results indicate that in the physical dose range of 13 to 16 Gy, the biologic dose response of small intestinal tissue to FLASH irradiation is represented by a lower isoeffective dose compared with the physical dose. Our DL approach can be a tool for studying isoeffective doses of other radiation dose modifying interventions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jie Fu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington; Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Zi Yang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; Medical Artificial Intelligence and Automation (MAIA) Laboratory, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Stavros Melemenidis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Vignesh Viswanathan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Suparna Dutt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Rakesh Manjappa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Brianna Lau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Luis A Soto
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - M Ramish Ashraf
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Lawrie Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Shu-Jung Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Murat Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Kerriann M Casey
- Department of Comparative Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Erinn B Rankin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Edward Graves
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Weiguo Lu
- Medical Artificial Intelligence and Automation (MAIA) Laboratory, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Billy W Loo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
| | - Xuejun Gu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Shi M, Simiele E, Han B, Pham D, Palomares P, Aguirre M, Gensheimer M, Vitzthum L, Le QT, Surucu M, Kovalchuk N. First-Year Experience of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy/Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Treatment Using a Novel Biology-Guided Radiation Therapy Machine. Adv Radiat Oncol 2024; 9:101300. [PMID: 38260216 PMCID: PMC10801639 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2023.101300] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/17/2023] [Accepted: 05/16/2023] [Indexed: 01/24/2024] Open
Abstract
Purpose The aim of this study was to present the first-year experience of treating patients using intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) with a biology-guided radiation therapy machine, the RefleXion X1 system, installed in a clinical setting. Methods and Materials A total of 78 patients were treated on the X1 system using IMRT and SBRT from May 2021 to May 2022. Clinical and technical data including treatment sites, number of pretreatment kilovoltage computed tomography (kVCT) scans, beam-on time, patient setup time, and imaging time were collected and analyzed. Machine quality assurance (QA) results, machine performance, and user satisfactory survey were also collected and reported. Results The most commonly treated site was the head and neck (63%), followed by the pelvis (23%), abdomen (8%), and thorax (6%). Except for 5 patients (6%) who received SBRT treatments for bony metastases in the pelvis, all treatments were conventionally fractionated IMRT. The number of kVCT scans per fraction was 1.2 ± 0.5 (mean ± standard deviation). The beam-on time was 9.2 ± 3.5 minutes. The patient setup time and imaging time per kVCT was 4.8 ± 2.6 minutes and 4.6 ± 1.5 minutes, respectively. The daily machine output deviation was 0.4 ± 1.2% from the baseline. The patient QA had a passing rate of 97.4 ± 2.8% at 3%/2 mm gamma criteria. The machine uptime was 92% of the total treatment time. The daily QA and kVCT image quality received the highest level of satisfaction. The treatment workflow for therapists received the lowest level of satisfaction. Conclusions One year after the installation, 78 patients were successfully treated with the X1 system using IMRT and/or SBRT. With the recent Food and Drug Administration clearance of biology-guided radiation therapy, our department is preparing to treat patients using positron emission tomography-guidance via a new product release, which will address deficiencies in the current image-guided radiation therapy workflow.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mengying Shi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, Orange, California
| | - Eric Simiele
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama
| | - Bin Han
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Daniel Pham
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Paul Palomares
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Michaela Aguirre
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Michael Gensheimer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Lucas Vitzthum
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Quynh-Thu Le
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Murat Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Nataliya Kovalchuk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Barghouth PG, Melemenidis S, Montay-Gruel P, Ollivier J, Viswanathan V, Jorge PG, Soto LA, Lau BC, Sadeghi C, Edlabadkar A, Zhang R, Ru N, Baulch JE, Manjappa R, Wang J, Le Bouteiller M, Surucu M, Yu A, Bush K, Skinner L, Maxim PG, Loo BW, Limoli CL, Vozenin MC, Frock RL. FLASH-RT does not affect chromosome translocations and junction structures beyond that of CONV-RT dose-rates. Radiother Oncol 2023; 188:109906. [PMID: 37690668 PMCID: PMC10591966 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109906] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/29/2023] [Revised: 09/01/2023] [Accepted: 09/04/2023] [Indexed: 09/12/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The impact of radiotherapy (RT) at ultra high vs conventional dose rate (FLASH vs CONV) on the generation and repair of DNA double strand breaks (DSBs) is an important question that remains to be investigated. Here, we tested the hypothesis as to whether FLASH-RT generates decreased chromosomal translocations compared to CONV-RT. MATERIALS AND METHODS We used two FLASH validated electron beams and high-throughput rejoin and genome-wide translocation sequencing (HTGTS-JoinT-seq), employing S. aureus and S. pyogenes Cas9 "bait" DNA double strand breaks (DSBs) in HEK239T cells, to measure differences in bait-proximal repair and their genome-wide translocations to "prey" DSBs generated after various irradiation doses, dose rates and oxygen tensions (normoxic, 21% O2; physiological, 4% O2; hypoxic, 2% and 0.5% O2). Electron irradiation was delivered using a FLASH capable Varian Trilogy and the eRT6/Oriatron at CONV (0.08-0.13 Gy/s) and FLASH (1x102-5x106 Gy/s) dose rates. Related experiments using clonogenic survival and γH2AX foci in the 293T and the U87 glioblastoma lines were also performed to discern FLASH-RT vs CONV-RT DSB effects. RESULTS Normoxic and physioxic irradiation of HEK293T cells increased translocations at the cost of decreasing bait-proximal repair but were indistinguishable between CONV-RT and FLASH-RT. Although no apparent increase in chromosome translocations was observed with hypoxia-induced apoptosis, the combined decrease in oxygen tension with IR dose-rate modulation did not reveal significant differences in the level of translocations nor in their junction structures. Furthermore, RT dose rate modality on U87 cells did not change γH2AX foci numbers at 1- and 24-hours post-irradiation nor did this affect 293T clonogenic survival. CONCLUSION Irrespective of oxygen tension, FLASH-RT produces translocations and junction structures at levels and proportions that are indistinguishable from CONV-RT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul G Barghouth
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Stavros Melemenidis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Pierre Montay-Gruel
- Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-2695, USA
| | - Jonathan Ollivier
- Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Vignesh Viswanathan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Patrik G Jorge
- Institute of Radiation Physics/CHUV, Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland
| | - Luis A Soto
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Brianna C Lau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Cheyenne Sadeghi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Anushka Edlabadkar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Richard Zhang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-2695, USA
| | - Ning Ru
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-2695, USA
| | - Janet E Baulch
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-2695, USA
| | - Rakesh Manjappa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Jinghui Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Marie Le Bouteiller
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Murat Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Amy Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Karl Bush
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Lawrie Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Peter G Maxim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-2695, USA
| | - Billy W Loo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Charles L Limoli
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-2695, USA
| | - Marie-Catherine Vozenin
- Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Richard L Frock
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Shi M, Simiele EA, Han B, Pham D, Palomares P, Aguirre M, Gensheimer MF, Vitzthum L, Surucu M, Kovalchuk N. First-Year Experience of IMRT/SBRT Treatments Using a Novel Biology-Guided Radiation Therapy System. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:e717. [PMID: 37786094 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.2222] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) This study presents the first-year experience of treating patients using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) with the X1 system, the first biology-guided radiation therapy (BgRT) machine installed in a clinical setting. MATERIALS/METHODS A total of 78 patients underwent IMRT and SBRT treatments on the X1 system from May 2021 to May 2022. Clinical and technical data, such as treatment sites, number of pre-treatments kVCT scans, beam on time, patient setup time, imaging time per kVCT, and couch shifts after kVCT match, were collected and analyzed. Additionally, daily machine output stability, patient-specific quality assurance (QA) results, machine uptime, and user survey were also documented and reported. RESULTS The most commonly treated site was the head and neck (63%), followed by the pelvis (23%), thorax (6%), and abdomen (8%). All treatments, except for 5 pelvis patients (6%) who received SBRT treatments for bony metastases, were conventionally fractionated IMRT (CF IMRT). The average number of kVCT scans per fraction is 1.2 ± 0.5 for all treatments. The average beam on time in minutes was 9.2 ± 3.5 for all treatments, 8.4 ± 2.4 for head and neck, 6.7 ± 1.3 for thorax, 10.3 ± 1.6 for abdomen, 11.6 ± 5.1 for CF IMRT pelvis, and 10.8 ± 5.3 for SBRT pelvis. The average patient setup time and imaging time per kVCT was 4.8 ± 2.6 minutes and 4.6 ± 1.5 minutes, respectively. The average couch corrections based on kVCT images were 0.4 ± 4.4 mm, 1.0 ± 4.5 mm, and 1.3 ± 4.3 mm along the x, y, and z direction, respectively; the average couch rotation corrections were 0.1 ± 0.9° for pitch, 0.0 ± 0.9° for roll, and 0.2 ± 1.2° for yaw. The daily machine output was 0.4 ± 1.2% from the baseline. The patient QA had a gamma passing rate of 97.4 ± 2.8%. The machine uptime was 92% of the total treatment time. The kVCT image quality and daily QA process received the highest level of satisfaction, while the treatment workflow for therapists received the lowest level of satisfaction (table 1). CONCLUSION At one year after the installation of the X1 system, this study reports successful treatment of 78 patients using IMRT/ SBRT. With the recent FDA clearance of BgRT, our institution is preparing to treat patients using PET-guidance via a new product release, which should address deficiencies in the current IGRT workflow.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Shi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Irvine School of Medicine, Orange, CA
| | - E A Simiele
- University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL
| | - B Han
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - D Pham
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - P Palomares
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - M Aguirre
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - M F Gensheimer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - L Vitzthum
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - M Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - N Kovalchuk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Bal G, Xu S, Shi L, Voronenko Y, Narayanan M, Shao L, Kuduvalli G, Han B, Kovalchuk N, Surucu M. Evaluation of Treatment Interruptions and Recovery during Biology-Guided Radiotherapy Delivery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:e722-e723. [PMID: 37786107 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.2233] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) A Biology-guided Radiotherapy (BgRT) based device is designed to use Positron Emission Tomography (PET) signals to achieve tracked dose delivery. The goal of this study is to investigate the dose delivery accuracy in case of interruption during BgRT treatment, and resumption in a separate treatment session for a multi-target delivery, as the PET activity continues to decay. MATERIALS/METHODS A custom-built large anthropomorphic phantom (LAP) including a 26 mm spherical target with 3D independent motion and two 22 mm spherical targets with 1D sinusoidal motion embedded in water was used. All three targets were filled with FGD in an 8:1 target to background uptake ratio (41.52 kBq/ml in target and 5.19 kBq/ml in background). During BgRT delivery, the treatment was intentionally paused during delivery to the second target and the current treatment session was ended to generate a partial fraction. Then the partial fraction was continued in a new session, where the CT scan localization and PET pre-scan were repeated using the existing PET activity present in the phantom. The newly acquired PET pre-scan, was then used to determine if sufficient PET counts were present to resume treatment delivery. The interruption and recovery algorithm is designed to calculate the fluence that needs to be delivered to the remaining targets as well as the residual fluence to be given to the targets that have already received partial dose prior to the interruption. Once the new fluence is recomputed, the treatment is resumed. The delivered doses were captured using radiochromic film (EBT-XD) inserted in the target as well as post-treatment dose calculations based on the delivered beamlet sequence to evaluate the results in terms of dosimetric coverage and margin loss. The margin loss is calculated as the maximum difference between the distance from the Clinical Target Volume (CTV) contour to the 97% isodose contour in the treatment plan and the on the film. The dosimetric coverage is defined as the percentage of voxels within the CTV that lies within 97% and 130% of the prescribed dose. RESULTS As shown in the table below, a margin loss of less than 3 mm for all targets and 100% CTV coverage was achieved. After treatment interruptions, the PET safety evaluation based on the PET pre-scan helped to determine whether the treatment could be continued on the same day using the same injected PET activity (an NTS value ≧ 2 and AC value ≧ 5 kBq/ml). CONCLUSION This study demonstrated that the BgRT system is able to deliver the prescribed dose to all targets with independent motion, even when an interruption and resumption occurs during treatment. In case such an interruption if the remaining PET activity satisfies the BgRT safety evaluation, the treatment can continue to deliver the remainder of the BgRT doses.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- G Bal
- RefleXion Medical, Inc., Hayward, CA
| | - S Xu
- RefleXion Medical, Inc., Hayward, CA
| | - L Shi
- RefleXion Medical, Inc., Hayward, CA
| | | | | | - L Shao
- RefleXion Medical, Inc., Hayward, CA
| | | | - B Han
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - N Kovalchuk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - M Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
No HJ, Wu YF, Dworkin ML, Manjappa R, Skinner L, Ashraf MR, Lau B, Melemenidis S, Viswanathan V, Yu ASJ, Surucu M, Schüler E, Graves EE, Maxim PG, Loo BW. Clinical Linear Accelerator-Based Electron FLASH: Pathway for Practical Translation to FLASH Clinical Trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:482-492. [PMID: 37105403 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.04.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/19/2022] [Revised: 03/03/2023] [Accepted: 04/11/2023] [Indexed: 04/29/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Ultrahigh-dose-rate (UHDR) radiation therapy (RT) has produced the FLASH effect in preclinical models: reduced toxicity with comparable tumor control compared with conventional-dose-rate RT. Early clinical trials focused on UHDR RT feasibility using specialized devices. We explore the technical feasibility of practical electron UHDR RT on a standard clinical linear accelerator (LINAC). METHODS AND MATERIALS We tuned the program board of a decommissioned electron energy for UHDR electron delivery on a clinical LINAC without hardware modification. Pulse delivery was controlled using the respiratory gating interface. A short source-to-surface distance (SSD) electron setup with a standard scattering foil was configured and tested on an anthropomorphic phantom using circular blocks with 3- to 20-cm field sizes. Dosimetry was evaluated using radiochromic film and an ion chamber profiler. RESULTS UHDR open-field mean dose rates at 100, 80, 70, and 59 cm SSD were 36.82, 59.52, 82.01, and 112.83 Gy/s, respectively. At 80 cm SSD, mean dose rate was ∼60 Gy/s for all collimated field sizes, with an R80 depth of 6.1 cm corresponding to an energy of 17.5 MeV. Heterogeneity was <5.0% with asymmetry of 2.2% to 6.2%. The short SSD setup was feasible under realistic treatment conditions simulating broad clinical indications on an anthropomorphic phantom. CONCLUSIONS Short SSD and tuning for high electron beam current on a standard clinical LINAC can deliver flat, homogenous UHDR electrons over a broad, clinically relevant range of field sizes and depths with practical working distances in a configuration easily reversible to standard clinical use.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hyunsoo Joshua No
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Yufan Fred Wu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Michael Louis Dworkin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Rakesh Manjappa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Lawrie Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - M Ramish Ashraf
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Brianna Lau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Stavros Melemenidis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Vignesh Viswanathan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Amy Shu-Jung Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Murat Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Emil Schüler
- Department of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Edward Elliot Graves
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Peter Gregor Maxim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, Orange, California
| | - Billy W Loo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Jiang H, Fu J, Melemenidis S, Viswanathan V, Dutt S, Lau B, Soto LA, Manjappa R, Skinner L, Yu SJ, Surucu M, Graves EE, Casey K, Rankin E, Lu W, Loo BW, Gu X. An Online AI-Powered Interactive Histological Image Annotation Platform for Analyzing Intestinal Regenerating Crypts in Post-Irradiated Mice. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:e676. [PMID: 37785993 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.2130] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) The goal of this project is to build an online AI-powered interactive annotation platform to accurately and efficiently annotate intestinal regenerating crypts in histological images of mice after abdominal irradiation. MATERIALS/METHODS The proposed platform is developed by the seamless integration of a front-end web client and a back-end server. Such client/server design allows the users to access the platform without software installation on local computers. Our front-end client is developed with SvelteJS + WebGL technology stack, allowing access from any common web browsers and enabling user interaction, such as image importing/visualization, interactive crypt annotating, and annotation saving/deleting. The back-end server is responsible for executing the tasks requested from the web client, for instance, image pre-processing, AI-based crypts automatic identification, and database management. The image preprocessing is designed to extract a single cross section image using morphological operations because multiple hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained jejunum cross sections from post-irradiated mice are scanned within one slide. The auto-crypt identification is powered by a trained and validated AI engine U-Net, classifying image grid tiles into two groups with and without regenerating crypts. The database is implemented with the self-contained SQLite to support recording and indexing the annotated grid tiles with regenerating crypts. The workflow for crypt analysis on this interactive platform has 5 steps: 1) manually import a whole H&E slide image; 2) auto-preprocess the slide by extracting single cross-section images; 3) auto-identify regenerating crypts with an AI engine; 4) interactively annotate (add, delete, modify) auto-identified crypt markers; 5) save and/or output the annotation to the database or the local drive. RESULTS The performance of the developed interactive crypt analysis platform was evaluated in aspects of accuracy and efficiency. The AI-powered crypt auto-identification accuracy was assessed by computing the mean absolute error (MAE) on crypt number per cross section between manual and auto annotation using a testing dataset containing 80 cross sections. It achieved an MAE of 3.5±4.8 crypts per cross section, and 81.25% of the cross sections have no more than 5 crypts difference. The efficiency was assessed under two conditions with the server on the cloud and a local computer. It took about 2-3 minutes to finish the entire workflow on the cloud, while 1-2 minutes on the local by saving ∼1 minute on image uploading. CONCLUSION The developed web client/server platform enables online automatic identification and interactive annotation of mice crypts in minutes. It is a convenient tool that allows accurate and efficient crypt analysis and can be extended for other histologic image analyses.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - J Fu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - S Melemenidis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - V Viswanathan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - S Dutt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - B Lau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - L A Soto
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - R Manjappa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - L Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - S J Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - M Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - E E Graves
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - K Casey
- Department of Comparative Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - E Rankin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - W Lu
- University of Texas Southwestern Department of Radiation Oncology, Dallas, TX
| | - B W Loo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - X Gu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Bal G, Kovalchuk N, Schmall J, Voronenko Y, Bailey T, Xu S, Shi L, Groll A, Sharma S, Ramos K, Shao L, Narayanan M, Kuduvalli G, Han B, Surucu M. Intrafraction Dosimetric Evaluation of Biology-Guided Radiotherapy to a Target Under Respiratory Motion. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:e680-e681. [PMID: 37786004 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.2141] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) To evaluate the reproducibility and variability of biology-guided radiotherapy (BgRT) treatments using a large anthropomorphic phantom modeling the motion amplitude of a lung tumor. MATERIALS/METHODS RefleXion X1 is equipped with two opposing 90 degrees PET detector arcs to capture the radionuclide emissions and direct the 6MV Linac to treat the lesions in real time. A custom-built phantom filled with a liquid [¹⁸F]Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) solution was used. Fillable target and OAR structures were 3D printed and attached to motion stages. The GTV = CTV was matched to the spherical 22 mm diameter target, and the PTV was a 5 mm expansion from the CTV volume. The Biology Tracking Zone (BTZ) was generated after adding 5 mm margin to the motion extent of the CTV. The OAR was a large C-shape annulus (emulating a heart) that was approximately 3 cm from the target. The 3D independent motion trajectory of the target was designed to mimic lung motion: range of +5.8 mm to -4.9 mm in LR, range of +14.4 mm to -11.3 mm in SI, and range of +5.2 mm to -5.1 mm in AP directions. The OAR motion waveform used a 1D sinusoidal pattern with a 5 mm amplitude in SI direction. The target and the OAR were filled with 40 kBq/mL while the background had 5 kBq/mL FDG. A BgRT Modeling (imaging-only) PET acquisition was performed using RefleXion X1 and used to generate a 4-fraction BgRT treatment plan prescribing 10 Gy/fraction to PTV. For each delivery, target, OAR and background were filled with the same FDG concentrations as in the BgRT Modeling PET planning scan. Dosimetry to the target and OAR were both measured using an ion-chamber (Exradin A14SL) and film in the coronal plane through the center of the GTV for all 4 fractions. RESULTS The mean activity concentration within the (BTZ) was 7.4 ± 0.8 kBq/mL. The calculated signal-to-noise ratio metric (Normalized Target Signal) within the BTZ was 4.0 ± 0.3. Total treatment times were all less than 35 minutes (34.3 ± 0.2). Prescription dose coverage to the CTV for all 4 fractions was 100%. Ion chamber measurements in the CTV were -1.6 ± 1.3% relative to the planned dose over the active area of the ion-chamber. Minimum and maximum doses to the CTV, measured on film, were -7.7 ± 2.2% and 1.3 ± 1.4%, calculated relative to the planned dose distribution, respectively. The OAR maximum point dose measured on film was -8.7 ± 2.9%, calculated relative to the maximum OAR dose predicted on the bounded dose-volume histogram. CONCLUSION Based on this initial study, accurate and reproducible dosimetry can be achieved for targets under respiratory motion using biology-guided radiotherapy over the course of a complete course of treatment. Further studies are needed to evaluate the intrafraction dosimetry of BgRT delivery under various motion models and tumor sizes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- G Bal
- RefleXion Medical, Inc., Hayward, CA
| | - N Kovalchuk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - J Schmall
- RefleXion Medical, Inc., Hayward, CA
| | | | - T Bailey
- RefleXion Medical, Inc., Hayward, CA
| | - S Xu
- RefleXion Medical, Inc., Hayward, CA
| | - L Shi
- RefleXion Medical, Inc., Hayward, CA
| | - A Groll
- RefleXion Medical, Inc., Hayward, CA
| | - S Sharma
- RefleXion Medical, Inc., Hayward, CA
| | - K Ramos
- RefleXion Medical, Inc., Hayward, CA
| | - L Shao
- RefleXion Medical, Inc., Hayward, CA
| | | | | | - B Han
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - M Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Schmall J, Bal G, Khan S, Xu S, Voronenko Y, Shi L, Mitra A, Groll A, Sharma S, Ramos K, Shao L, Narayanan M, Olcott P, Kuduvalli G, Han B, Kovalchuk N, Surucu M. Dosimetric Accuracy of Multi-Target Biology-Guided Radiotherapy Treatments in a Single Session. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:e722. [PMID: 37786108 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.2232] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) We present the first dosimetric measurements of single session, multi-target BgRT deliveries using a clinically realistic motion phantom on a research-only version of the RefleXion X1 system. MATERIALS/METHODS A custom-made anthropomorphic phantom of a human torso with embedded fillable targets mimicking 18F-FDG-avid lesions was used. From the three embedded spherical targets, Target 1 was 26 mm in diameter coupled with a 3D independent respiratory motion with 22 mm range, whereas Target 2 and 3 were 22 mm in diameter and moved with a 1D 5 mm maximum sinusoidal motion. The 18F-FDG concentration in the background cavity of the phantom was 5 kBq/ml, and the targets were loaded with 10:1, 8:1 and 6:1 contrast relative to the background for Targets 1, 2, 3, respectively. Spherical structures were contoured as GTVs (CTV = GTV) and a 5 mm margin was added to create PTVs. Motion extent of the tumors were captured to create biological tracking zones for each target. Treatment plans were generated using a research version of the Reflexion treatment planning software to deliver 8 Gy/fx to the PTVs. The treatment delivery was repeated 2 times, and each time the phantom was refilled according to the plan. PET image evaluation metrics for each of the three targets were also recorded. Target dosimetry was measured using a combination of radiographic film and ion chamber. The maximum distance between the 97% prescription isodose line from the plan and the film measurements was used to characterize the dosimetric accuracy of the tracked deliveries. CTV and PTV min, max, and mean doses measured on film were also recorded for each target. RESULTS Treatment plans were successfully created with 100% prescription dose coverage to each target loaded with different FDG ratios. Total treatment times for the single-plan, three-target deliveries were less than 80 minutes. PET evaluation metrics at imaging-only and pre-scan, and planning and film dosimetry to the GTV and PTV for each of the three targets is shown in table below (mean ± standard deviation of both deliveries). The CTV dose coverage was maintained for all targets. The shrinkage distance of the 97% prescription dose isodose line on the film plane for all three targets was less than 3 mm for both tests, and ranged from -0.4 to -2.34 mm. CONCLUSION These results demonstrate that high tracking accuracy and dosimetric accuracy can be achieved in single session, multi-target deliveries over a range of target-to-background 18F-FDG concentrations and target motion patterns.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Schmall
- RefleXion Medical, Inc., Hayward, CA
| | - G Bal
- RefleXion Medical, Inc., Hayward, CA
| | - S Khan
- RefleXion Medical, Inc., Hayward, CA
| | - S Xu
- RefleXion Medical, Inc., Hayward, CA
| | | | - L Shi
- RefleXion Medical, Inc., Hayward, CA
| | - A Mitra
- RefleXion Medical, Inc., Hayward, CA
| | - A Groll
- RefleXion Medical, Inc., Hayward, CA
| | - S Sharma
- RefleXion Medical, Inc., Hayward, CA
| | - K Ramos
- RefleXion Medical, Inc., Hayward, CA
| | - L Shao
- RefleXion Medical, Inc., Hayward, CA
| | | | - P Olcott
- RefleXion Medical, Inc., Hayward, CA
| | | | - B Han
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - N Kovalchuk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - M Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Fu J, Jiang H, Melemenidis S, Viswanathan V, Dutt S, Lau B, Soto LA, Manjappa R, Skinner L, Yu SJ, Surucu M, Graves EE, Casey K, Rankin E, Lu W, Loo BW, Gu X. Deep Learning-Based Pipeline for Automatic Identification of Intestinal Regenerating Crypts in Mouse Histological Images. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:S117-S118. [PMID: 37784305 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.451] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) A classical approach for evaluating normal tissue radiation response is to count the number of intestinal regenerating crypts in mouse histological images acquired after abdominal radiation. However, manual counting is time-consuming and subject to inter-observer variations. The goal of this study is to build a deep learning-based pipeline for automatically identifying intestinal regenerating crypts to facilitate high-throughput studies. MATERIALS/METHODS Sixty-six healthy C57BL/6 female mice underwent 16 MeV whole abdominal electron irradiation. The small bowel was collected from each mouse 4 days post-irradiation, and 9 jejunal cross-sections from each were processed together in a single slide. The slides were stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and subsequently scanned (x20), providing one electronic histological image per mouse. Regenerating crypts, consisting of more than 10 basophilic crypt epithelial cells, were manually identified using point annotations in histological images. The pipeline was built to take the input of the image containing 9 cross sections and automatically identify the regenerating crypts on each cross section. It mainly consists of two components, cross section segmentation using intensity thresholding and morphological operations and crypt identification using a UNet. The dataset was randomly split into 46, 10, and 10 slide images for UNet training, validation, and testing. Each slide image was split into grid tiles with a voxel size of 200 × 200, and 40 × 40 square masks were placed with centers at manual point annotations on tiles with regenerating crypts. 5203/5198 tiles (w/wo crypt mask) were extracted to train UNet by minimizing dice loss. The mask probability map generated by the UNet was post-processed to identify the crypt position. Postprocessing hyperparameters were tuned using the validation dataset. The model accuracy was evaluated using the testing dataset by computing the mean absolute error (MAE) of the crypt number averaged across all cross sections. RESULTS The number of regenerating crypts on testing cross sections ranges from 1 to 63. The testing cross-section-wise MAE achieved by the platform is 3.5±4.8 crypts. 81.25% of testing cross sections have absolute number differences less than or equal to 5 crypts. CONCLUSION Our established deep learning-based pipeline can accurately count the number of regenerating crypts in mouse intestinal histological images. We have integrated it into an online platform that enables automatic crypt identification and allows users to interactively modify auto-identified crypt annotations. The acquired annotations from the platform will be used to finetune the deep learning model to achieve better identification performance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Fu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | | | - S Melemenidis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - V Viswanathan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - S Dutt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - B Lau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - L A Soto
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - R Manjappa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - L Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - S J Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - M Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - E E Graves
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - K Casey
- Department of Comparative Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - E Rankin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - W Lu
- University of Texas Southwestern Department of Radiation Oncology, Dallas, TX
| | - B W Loo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - X Gu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Yang Z, Fu J, Melemenidis S, Viswanathan V, Dutt S, Lau B, Soto LA, Manjappa R, Skinner L, Yu SJ, Surucu M, Casey K, Rankin E, Lu W, Jr BWL, Gu X. Equivalent Dose Estimation in FLASH Irradiation with a Deep Learning Approach. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:e272. [PMID: 37785029 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.1241] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) Ultra-high dose rate (FLASH) irradiation has been reported to provide decreased normal tissue toxicity without compromising tumor control compared with conventional (CONV) irradiation. However, a comprehensive understanding of the FLASH biological effect requires precise quantification of radiobiology. The study is to explore whether deep learning (DL) can tackle the task. As a proof of concept, we investigate a DL model for estimating FLASH dose to its equivalent CONV dose. MATERIALS/METHODS Healthy C57Bl/6 female mice underwent FLASH (200Gy/s; n = 43) or CONV (0.12Gy/s; n = 41) whole abdominal irradiation using ∼16 MeV electron beams with a dose escalation scheme of 5 groups (n = 8 or 9) at 1Gy increments: 12-16Gy FLASH, 11-15Gy CONV. 4 days post-irradiation, 9 jejunum cross-sections per mouse were H&E stained for histological analysis. Each cross-section image was processed to remove lumen background and oversampled into multiple large-scale and small-scale patches along jejunal circumference. In CONV dataset, we randomly selected the data of 32 mice (80%) for model training and the rest (20%) for model validation. A ResNet101-based DL model, pre-trained with an unsupervised contrastive learning scheme, was retrained with only CONV training set to estimate corresponding CONV dose. For comparison, a crypt counting (CC) approach was implemented by manually counting the number of regenerating crypts on each cross-section image. An exponential function of dose vs crypt number was fitted with the CONV training set and used for dose estimation on the testing set. Mean squared error (MSE) was used to assess the accuracy of DL and CC approaches in estimating dose levels in CONV irradiation. The validated DL model was applied to the FLASH set to project FLASH dose into corresponding CONV dose that results in equivalent biological response. RESULTS The CONV dose estimated by DL and CC approaches and DL-estimated FLASH equivalent dose were summarized in Table 1. The DL model achieved an MSE of 0.21 Gy2 on CONV testing set compared with 0.32 Gy2 of the CC approach. FLASH equivalent dose estimated by DL model for 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16Gy were 12.16±0.40, 12.53±0.32, 12.72±0.24, 12.85±0.20 and 13.04±0.27 Sv, respectively. CONCLUSION Our proposed DL model can accurately estimate the CONV dose based on histological images. The DL predictions of FLASH dataset demonstrate that FLASH may reduce normal tissue toxicity with a lower equivalent dose, especially at high irradiated dose levels. Our study indicates that deep learning can be potentially used to assess the equivalent dose of FLASH irradiation to normal tissue.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Z Yang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX
| | - J Fu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - S Melemenidis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - V Viswanathan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - S Dutt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - B Lau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - L A Soto
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - R Manjappa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - L Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - S J Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - M Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - K Casey
- Department of Comparative Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - E Rankin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - W Lu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX
| | - B W Loo Jr
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - X Gu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX; Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Chen Y, Gensheimer MF, Bagshaw HP, Butler S, Yu L, Zhou Y, Shen L, Kovalchuk N, Surucu M, Chang DT, Xing L, Han B. Patient-Specific Auto-segmentation on Daily kVCT Images for Adaptive Radiation Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:505-514. [PMID: 37141982 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.04.026] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/10/2022] [Revised: 04/18/2023] [Accepted: 04/25/2023] [Indexed: 05/06/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE This study explored deep-learning-based patient-specific auto-segmentation using transfer learning on daily RefleXion kilovoltage computed tomography (kVCT) images to facilitate adaptive radiation therapy, based on data from the first group of patients treated with the innovative RefleXion system. METHODS AND MATERIALS For head and neck (HaN) and pelvic cancers, a deep convolutional segmentation network was initially trained on a population data set that contained 67 and 56 patient cases, respectively. Then the pretrained population network was adapted to the specific RefleXion patient by fine-tuning the network weights with a transfer learning method. For each of the 6 collected RefleXion HaN cases and 4 pelvic cases, initial planning computed tomography (CT) scans and 5 to 26 sets of daily kVCT images were used for the patient-specific learning and evaluation separately. The performance of the patient-specific network was compared with the population network and the clinical rigid registration method and evaluated by the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) with manual contours being the reference. The corresponding dosimetric effects resulting from different auto-segmentation and registration methods were also investigated. RESULTS The proposed patient-specific network achieved mean DSC results of 0.88 for 3 HaN organs at risk (OARs) of interest and 0.90 for 8 pelvic target and OARs, outperforming the population network (0.70 and 0.63) and the registration method (0.72 and 0.72). The DSC of the patient-specific network gradually increased with the increment of longitudinal training cases and approached saturation with more than 6 training cases. Compared with using the registration contour, the target and OAR mean doses and dose-volume histograms obtained using the patient-specific auto-segmentation were closer to the results using the manual contour. CONCLUSIONS Auto-segmentation of RefleXion kVCT images based on the patient-specific transfer learning could achieve higher accuracy, outperforming a common population network and clinical registration-based method. This approach shows promise in improving dose evaluation accuracy in RefleXion adaptive radiation therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yizheng Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | | | - Hilary P Bagshaw
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Santino Butler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Lequan Yu
- Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | - Yuyin Zhou
- Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California
| | - Liyue Shen
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Nataliya Kovalchuk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Murat Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Daniel T Chang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Lei Xing
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Bin Han
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Ashraf MR, Melemenidis S, Liu K, Velasquez BD, Manjappa R, Soto LA, Dutt S, Skinner L, Yu SJ, Surucu M, Graves EE, Maxim PG, Schueler E, Loo BW. Anatomically Realistic 3D Printed Mouse Phantom for Multi-Institutional Benchmarking of FLASH and CONV Irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:e697. [PMID: 37786044 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.2178] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) It is reported that about US$28B/year is spent on pre-clinical studies that are not reproducible. FLASH studies may suffer from the same reproducibility crisis due to the non-standard nature of the FLASH beamlines and the lack of dosimeters that can function at ultra-high dose-rates. There have been reports of different outcomes with regard to the FLASH effect across different institutions, even though similar beamlines, temporal structure, and nominal dose levels were used. This brings up the question of the accuracy of dosimetry under FLASH conditions for a fair comparison between FLASH and CONV. To answer this question, we develop and characterize an anatomically realistic 3D-printed mouse phantom to be used in a multi-institutional dosimetric benchmarking effort. MATERIALS/METHODS Mesh files for bony anatomy, lungs, and soft tissue derived from a CT scan of a mouse were converted to an editable 3D model. The 3D model was cut along the coronal plane and modified to allow the inclusion of radiographic film. A multi-material approach was employed to print the phantom. A dual-nozzle 3D printer was used, where one of the nozzles used Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) to mimic soft tissue and the other nozzle used Polyactic acid (PLA) to mimic bone density. The two materials were used together in a single print. Lungs were approximated by lightweight PLA and were printed separately and inserted into corresponding cavities in the phantom. Hounsfield Units (HU) and print-to-print stability were verified. Radiographic films were laser cut for different anatomical sites. Two institutes took part in this study with data pending from 3 more institutions. The institutes were instructed to deliver 10 Gy to the plane of the film for the whole abdomen, whole lung, and brain irradiations. 2D dose maps were compared between FLASH and CONV, and the deviation from the prescribed dose was also measured. RESULTS The 3D-printed soft tissue, bone, and lung densities were measured to be ∼ 1.01 g/cc, 1.22 g/cc, and 0.44 g/cc, respectively. For soft tissue and bone, the Hounsfield unit (HU) difference from one print to another was < 10 HU. The greatest variation was within the lungs (54 HU), but this had a minimal effect on the dose distribution (<1%). For the two institutions that completed the survey, the maximum average difference between FLASH and CONV for all irradiations was 0.75 Gy (7.48%). The maximum average difference from the prescribed dose for all irradiations was 0.7 Gy (7.20%) across both institutions. The largest discrepancy was generally observed to be for lung irradiation, indicating that lack of treatment planning systems limits our ability to prescribe accurately in areas of inhomogeneities. CONCLUSION A 3D printed anatomically realistic mouse phantom was developed, characterized, and used in a multi-institutional dosimetric benchmarking effort. Such a study is paramount for the clinical translation of FLASH as it facilitates reduced variability from one institution to another.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M R Ashraf
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA
| | - S Melemenidis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - K Liu
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - B D Velasquez
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - L A Soto
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - S Dutt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - L Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - S J Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - M Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - E E Graves
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - P G Maxim
- University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA
| | | | - B W Loo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Surucu M, Vitzthum L, Chang DT, Gensheimer MF, Kovalchuk N, Han B, Iagaru AH, Da Silva A, Narayanan M, Aksoy D, Feghali K, Shirvani SM, Maniyedath A, Cai B, Pompos A, Dan T, Öz OK, Iyengar P, Timmerman RD, Garant A. Analysis of the Measured FDG Uptake from the First-in-Human Clinical Trial of Biology-Guided Radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:e61-e62. [PMID: 37785835 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.782] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) The RefleXion X1 system is a novel linear accelerator equipped with dual 90° PET arcs incorporated into its architecture to capture emissions from tumors and designed to respond by directing the radiation beam towards target. This study reports on the measured FDG uptake from the first in human multi-institutional clinical trial (BIOGUIDE-X) evaluating the performance and safety of the RefleXion X1 PET-LINAC. MATERIALS/METHODS A total of nine patients treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for lung (5) and bone (4) tumors were enrolled in the Cohort II of this study after screening their pre-study diagnostic PET/CT, acquired up to 60 days prior to enrollment, to ensure their tumor size between 2 to 5 cm and SUVmax >6. After CT simulation, the tumor and OARs were delineated, and patients had a 4-pass Imaging-only (BgRT Modeling) PET/CT acquisition on the X1 system to generate biology-guided radiotherapy (BgRT) plans. Before the patients' first and last SBRT fractions, they were injected with FDG, and short PET pre-scan (1-pass) was performed on the X1 followed by a long-PET acquisition (4-pass) to emulate the expected BgRT dose distribution without firing beam. Patients were also imaged on a third-party diagnostic PET/CT scanner after the last-fraction X1 scan. This study compares the SUVmax from the screening PET/CT, X1 Imaging-only scan, X1 PET pre-scan and long scan before the first and last-fractions, and final diagnostic PET/CT. RESULTS The median time from injection to PET imaging was 84 ± 15.4 mins for X1 Imaging-only (used for generating BgRT plans), 77 ± 21.6 mins for X1 pre-scan (safety check before treatment start), 108+/- 22 mins for X1 long-PET (used to emulate treatment delivery), and 161 ± 23 mins for final diagnostic PET. For a nominal 10 mCi injection, the mean SUVmax for screening imaging performed on the diagnostic PET/CT was 10.8 ± 4.3. For a 15 mCi nominal injection, the mean SUVmax calculated on the X1 was 5.3 ± 2.6, 5.4 ± 2.0, 5.5 ± 2.6, 5.2 ± 1.8 and 5.4 ± 2.2 for the Imaging-only, first-fraction PET pre-scan, first-fraction long PET scan, last-fraction PET pre-scan, and last-fraction long PET scan, respectively. The overall median SUVmax for all patients across all timepoints and scans with X1 was calculated to be 4.8 with a range of 2.4 to 9.8. The median SUVmax for the diagnostic PET/CT scan after the last fraction X1 scan was 15.8 with a range of 8.5 to 27.7. CONCLUSION The dual PET arcs and limited axial extent of the X1 PET subsystem results in lower system sensitivity in comparison to diagnostic PET scanners equipped with full ring and larger axial extent, as expected. With the same FDG injection, the RefleXion X1 produced SUVmax values that were 30.4 % of the diagnostic PET/CT scanners' values. Nevertheless, the X1 collected sufficient emission data to enable successful completion of emulated BgRT deliveries that met dose accuracy criteria in a clinical setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - L Vitzthum
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - D T Chang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Department of Radiation Oncology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - M F Gensheimer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - N Kovalchuk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - B Han
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - A H Iagaru
- Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA
| | | | | | - D Aksoy
- RefleXion Medical, Inc., Hayward, CA
| | - K Feghali
- RefleXion Medical, Inc., Hayward, CA
| | | | | | - B Cai
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX
| | - A Pompos
- University of Texas Southwestern Department of Radiation Oncology, Dallas, TX
| | - T Dan
- University of Texas Southwestern Department of Radiation Oncology, Dallas, TX
| | - O K Öz
- University of Texas Southwestern Department of Radiation Oncology, Dallas, TX
| | - P Iyengar
- University of Texas Southwestern Department of Radiation Oncology, Dallas, TX
| | - R D Timmerman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX
| | - A Garant
- University of Texas Southwestern Department of Radiation Oncology, Dallas, TX
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Garant T, Iyengar P, Dan T, Pompos A, Timmerman RD, Öz OK, Cai B, Shirvani SM, Aksoy D, Al Feghali KA, Maniyedath A, Narayanan M, Da Silva A, Surucu M, Gensheimer MF, Kovalchuk N, Han B, Pham D, Chang DT, Vitzthum L. Imaging Performance of the PET Scan on a Novel Ring Gantry-Based PET/CT Linear Accelerator System in the First-in-Human Study of Biology-Guided Radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:e665. [PMID: 37785968 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.2105] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) Biology-guided radiotherapy (BgRT) is a novel tracked dose delivery modality using real-time positron emission tomography (PET) to guide radiotherapy beamlets. The present study was performed with sequential cohorts of participants to evaluate the performance and safety of BgRT. Primary endpoints were previously reported. We hereby report on one of the secondary endpoints assessing a novel treatment planning machine with integrated dual kVCT/PET imaging ("novel device") performance in comparison to a third-party diagnostic PET/CT scan. MATERIALS/METHODS This single-arm, open-label, prospective study included participants with at least 1 FDG-avid targetable primary or metastatic tumor (≥2cm and ≤5cm) in the lung or bone. PET imaging data were collected on the novel device and on a third-party diagnostic PET/CT performed in sequence once at the planning timepoint in Cohort I, and immediately before the last fraction among patients undergoing stereotactic radiotherapy in Cohort II. Three central read radiation oncologists (CRRO) provided an interpretation of the novel device PET scans which were compared to an agreement standard based on 3 central radiologists' review of the paired diagnostic PET/CT scan. Positive percent agreement for localization of the target tumor within the biology-tracking zone (BTZ) was the key metric because it reflects whether advancing patients to subsequent steps in the BgRT workflow based on the novel device's imaging was ultimately appropriate. RESULTS In Cohort 1, 6 image comparisons were performed. The positive (%) agreement for the aggregate radiation oncologist review was 100% (5/5), reflecting that in all 5 cases where the aggregate radiation oncologists deemed the tumor to fall within the BTZ based upon the novel device PET images, the central radiologists came to the same conclusion upon review of the paired diagnostic PET/CT images. The overall (%) agreement for the aggregate radiation oncologist review was 83.3% (5/6): localization was not established on the novel device in 1 case, even though it was established on the diagnostic PET/CT. This would not pose risk in real world practice as BgRT candidacy would be aborted for tumors not visible on the novel device. In Cohort II, among the 7 image comparisons, there was 100% positive percent agreement between the aggregate CRRO and the agreement standard as the localization criteria was met in both scans for all 7 patients. This was concordant with a 100% overall percent agreement. CONCLUSION This investigation demonstrated a 100% positive percent agreement between central review of this novel device images by radiation oncologists and central review of the accompanying third-party PET/CT images by radiologists. There were no cases where a positive localization by the aggregate CRRO was not confirmed by the third-party PET/CT standard, providing evidence against the likelihood of falsely positive localizations on the novel device that would inappropriately advance patients in the workflow.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- T Garant
- University of Texas Southwestern Department of Radiation Oncology, Dallas, TX
| | - P Iyengar
- University of Texas Southwestern Department of Radiation Oncology, Dallas, TX
| | - T Dan
- University of Texas Southwestern Department of Radiation Oncology, Dallas, TX
| | - A Pompos
- University of Texas Southwestern Department of Radiation Oncology, Dallas, TX
| | - R D Timmerman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX
| | - O K Öz
- University of Texas Southwestern Department of Radiation Oncology, Dallas, TX
| | - B Cai
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX
| | | | - D Aksoy
- RefleXion Medical, Inc., Hayward, CA
| | | | | | | | | | - M Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - M F Gensheimer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - N Kovalchuk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - B Han
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - D Pham
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - D T Chang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - L Vitzthum
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Ashraf MR, Skinner L, Melemenidis S, Dworkin ML, Wu YF, No HJ, Manjappa R, Yu SJ, Surucu M, Graves EE, Maxim PG, Loo BW. Technical Infrastructure for Clinical Translation of Electron FLASH. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:e639. [PMID: 37785904 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.2046] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) For safe clinical translation of electron FLASH, hardware tools for real-time beam control and software tools for treatment planning are necessary. The purpose of this study is to prototype high-throughput hardware for real-time beam control, along with accurate beam modeling of a modern clinical Linac configured to deliver FLASH dose-rates. MATERIALS/METHODS For real-time beam current monitoring, a beam current transformer (BCT) was initially coupled to a fast digitizer and its linearity was established by varying dose per pulse. The radiation pulse width was modified, and this change was measured using the BCT. The BCT was then used to measure the variability of dose per pulse and pulse width due to a mistuned linear accelerator system. Next, the BCT was interfaced with a field programmable gate array (FPGA) which provides the ability for high-throughput and deterministic control of the Linac based on dose accumulation. For beam modeling, the program, TOol for PArticle Simulation (TOPAS), was used to obtain beam parameters by using Bayesian optimization of the beam energy, source size, angular, and energy spread via comparison of simulated and representative dose profiles. The beam model would then be employed to calculate 3D dose distribution in a CT scan of a 3D-printed anatomically realistic mouse phantom. RESULTS The area under the current-time curve from the BCT exhibited excellent linearity (response = 12.80 nC/Gy) up to 2.5 Gy/Pulse (R2 = 0.99). The peak beam current for the electron FLASH beam was measured to be ∼10 mA for an instantaneous dose-rate of ∼5×105 Gy/s. The measured radiation pulse width agreed with the expected value (3.7 μs). The pulse width was then shortened and the measurement by the BCT indicated pulse widths of 1.8 μs and 0.5 μs corresponding to 0.7 Gy/pulse and 0.3 Gy/pulse, respectively. The beamline exhibited a ramp-up in dose per pulse and pulse width when using the automatic frequency controller (AFC). For the first pulse, the dose delivered was ∼0.1-0.3 Gy and the pulse width was 0.6 μs. The output stabilized to nominal values of dose and pulse width after 3-4 pulses. This ramp-up was mitigated by manually tuning the RF resonance with the AFC disabled, after which the BCT exhibited constant output and pulse width. The beam modeling work is in progress. CONCLUSION We demonstrated that a BCT can provide real-time measurement of per-pulse output suitable as input for FLASH beam control based on dose accumulation. The next steps are to quantify the accuracy of the dose control mechanism with the FPGA-based hardware. Potential failure modes will be identified and mitigated in parallel with the development of the hardware. A 3D-printed mouse phantom has been constructed to facilitate beam modeling work for treatment planning (in progress). On completion of this work, it is expected that we will have key infrastructure elements needed to move towards an eventual FDA investigational device exemption for clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M R Ashraf
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - L Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - S Melemenidis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - M L Dworkin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - Y F Wu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - H J No
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - R Manjappa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - S J Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - M Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - E E Graves
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - P G Maxim
- University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA
| | - B W Loo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford, CA
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Surucu M, Vitzthum L, Chang DT, Gensheimer MF, Kovalchuk N, Han B, Pham D, Da Silva A, Narayanan M, Aksoy D, Feghali K, Shirvani SM, Maniyedath A, Cai B, Pompos A, Dan T, Öz OK, Iyengar P, Timmerman RD, Garant A. Workflow Considerations for Biology-Guided Radiotherapy (BgRT) Implementation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:e441. [PMID: 37785431 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.1618] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) Biology-guided radiotherapy (BgRT) is a novel platform that combines real-time PET imaging with a 6MV Linac to target tumors. The performance and safety of BgRT was assessed in the BIOGUIDE-X clinical trial. This study aims to report on the BgRT workflow steps and assess the time required for each step of the BgRT process during this trial. MATERIALS/METHODS A total of nine patients were enrolled in the second Cohort of the BIOGUIDE-X study which included patients treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for lung tumors (5) and bone tumors (4). The pre-treatment BgRT workflow includes CT simulation, contouring, imaging-only (BgRT Modeling) PET acquisition, BgRT planning, patient specific QA and plan approval. The imaging-only PET acquisition on the X1 collects a representative PET volumetric 3D image and is an input to develop the BgRT treatment plan. The steps during the BgRT delivery session are kVCT localization, PET pre-scan, PET evaluation and BgRT delivery. The PET PreScan is a 1-pass short-duration PET acquisition that is used to confirm that the PET biodistribution on the day of treatment is consistent with that of the imaging-only PET. During BIOGUIDE-X, the BgRT delivery step was replaced by a 4-pass long-PET acquisition that was used to emulate the expected BgRT dose distribution without turning the beam on. To assess BgRT workflow, times from 18F-FDG injection to image-only PET acquisition, 18F-FDG injection to PET pre-scan, Pre-scan to PET evaluation, and PET evaluation to BgRT delivery (long PET acquisition) were recorded. RESULTS Time between the 18F-FDG injection and the X1 imaging-only PET scan was 84 ± 19 minutes which includes time for 18F-FDG update. Average time to perform imaging-only PET scan was 26 ± 4 minutes. During the BgRT 'delivery' session, the mean time between the kVCT acquisition and PET pre-scan acquisition was 7 ± 3 minutes. The mean time to acquire a 1-pass PET pre-scan was 6 ± 1 then followed by 6 ± 1 minutes for the PET pre-scan dose calculation to estimate the BgRT doses that it would have delivered for this fraction. On average, the PET reconstruction, the PET signal localization verification and the evaluation of safety metrics took 11 ± 4 minutes. The mean time for BgRT 'delivery' was 27 ± 5 minutes based on the 4-pass long PET acquisition. Time from the start of the BgRT session to the end of the BgRT 'delivery' with this version of the investigative product release was 65 ± 9 minutes. CONCLUSION The new processes introduced by the BgRT technology were evaluated and found clinically feasible. Improvements are being undertaken to shorten the time required for each step and to increase patient comfort ahead of BgRT clinical implementation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - L Vitzthum
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - D T Chang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Department of Radiation Oncology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - M F Gensheimer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - N Kovalchuk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - B Han
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - D Pham
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | | | | | - D Aksoy
- RefleXion Medical, Inc., Hayward, CA
| | - K Feghali
- RefleXion Medical, Inc., Hayward, CA
| | | | | | - B Cai
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX
| | - A Pompos
- University of Texas Southwestern Department of Radiation Oncology, Dallas, TX
| | - T Dan
- University of Texas Southwestern Department of Radiation Oncology, Dallas, TX
| | - O K Öz
- University of Texas Southwestern Department of Radiation Oncology, Dallas, TX
| | - P Iyengar
- University of Texas Southwestern Department of Radiation Oncology, Dallas, TX
| | - R D Timmerman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX
| | - A Garant
- University of Texas Southwestern Department of Radiation Oncology, Dallas, TX
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Melemenidis S, Viswanathan V, Dutt S, Manjappa R, Ashraf MR, Soto LA, Skinner L, Yu SJ, Surucu M, Graves EE, Loo B, Dirbas FM. Comparison of Tumor Control between FLASH and CONV in an Orthotopic Breast Cancer Model. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:e251-e252. [PMID: 37784977 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.1194] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) Post-lumpectomy radiotherapy (RT) reduces in-breast tumor recurrence by eradicating residual, occult breast cancer (BC) that may be in the mm size scale. The ability of FLASH-RT to eradicate BC relative to conventional dose rate (CONV) RT is unknown. ∼ 20Gy RT is currently used clinically for single-fraction breast IORT. Determine the effectiveness of FLASH compared to CONV in eradicating small tumors in an orthotopic, syngeneic model of BC using single-fraction 20 or 30Gy RT. MATERIALS/METHODS Radiation sensitive, mammary tumor cell line Py117 from the transgenic model of the mouse mammary tumor virus promoter driving the polyoma middle T antigen (MMTV- PyMT) efficiently forms non-metastatic, orthotopic tumors in C57BL/6 mice. 106 Py117 cells were injected orthotopically into the left 4th mammary fat pad of C57Bl/6J mice. Radiotherapy was performed with a custom jig that allows for fixed positioning of the target volume (2x2cm radiation field) with 5mm of margin into surrounding tissue. Tumors were irradiated at ∼30mm3 volume or, for comparison, at a range of greater volumes (200-800mm3) with 20 or 30Gy FLASH or CONV with 16-17 MeV electrons. RESULTS Small 30mm3 tumors regressed until ∼ day 15 after 20Gy single fraction RT then regrew for both FLASH and CONV. 30mm3 tumors were eradicated with both FLASH and CONV at 30Gy with no regrowth up to day 35 post-RT. Larger tumors irradiated with 30Gy regressed until ∼ day 12 post-RT then regrew for both FLASH and CONV. There was no significant difference in growth delay or tumor eradication between FLASH and CONV in any cohort. CONCLUSION FLASH was as effective as CONV in controlling growth and eradicating murine BC. Based on other preclinical studies, single-fraction doses between 20 and 30Gy, as well as hypofractioned RT schedules, may identify FLASH doses that achieve comparable tumor control with less toxicity than CONV. Such findings would encourage clinical trials of FLASH in human BC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Melemenidis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - V Viswanathan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - S Dutt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - R Manjappa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Stanford University, Stanford
| | - M R Ashraf
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA
| | - L A Soto
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - L Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - S J Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - M Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - E E Graves
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - B Loo
- TibaRay, Inc., STANFORD, CA
| | - F M Dirbas
- Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Simiele EA, Han B, Skinner L, Pham D, Lewis J, Gensheimer MF, Vitzthum L, Chang DT, Surucu M, Kovalchuk N. Mitigation of IMRT/SBRT Treatment Planning Errors on the First Biology-Guided Radiotherapy System Using FMEA within Six Sigma Framework. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:S145. [PMID: 37784370 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.560] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) Utilize the Six Sigma methodology and Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) to prevent and mitigate errors in IMRT/SBRT treatment planning with the first clinical installation of biology-guided radiotherapy (BgRT) system. MATERIALS/METHODS The Six Sigma approach consisted of five phases: Define-Measure-Analyze-Improve-Control. The Define-Measure-Analyze phases consisted of process mapping and an FMEA of the IMRT/SBRT treatment planning process on the BgRT system. The multidisciplinary team outlined the workflow process and identified the failure modes associated with the plan check items using AAPM TG-100 recommendations. Items with the highest average risk priority numbers (RPN) and Severity ≥7 were prioritized for automation using the treatment planning system scripting API (ESAPI). The Improve phase consisted of developing ESAPI scripts prior to the launch of the BgRT system to improve efficiency and safety. In the Control phase, the FMEA ranking was re-evaluated 1-year post-clinical launch. RESULTS Overall, 100 plan check items were identified where the RPN values ranged from 10.2 to 429.0. Fifty of these items (50%) were suitable for automation within ESAPI. Of the 10 highest-risk items (Table 1), 8 were suitable for automation. Based on the results of the FMEA, two scripts were developed: Planning Assistant used by the planner during preparation for planning and the Automated Plan Check used by the planner and the plan checker during plan preparation for treatment. At 1-year post-clinical launch, the scripts were used for 80 patients successfully treated in 1747 fractions. During this period only 3 errors were reported: omitted bolus during treatment, nomenclature error in the BgRT system plan prescription, and dose tracking plan not approved following physics plan check. The average RPN pre-scripts was 138.0 compared to the average post-scripts RPN of 47.8 (p < 0.05) signifying a safer process. CONCLUSION Implementing new technology into the clinic can be an error-prone process where the likelihood of errors increases with increasing pressure to implement the technology quickly. To limit errors in the clinical implementation of the first BgRT system, the Six Sigma methodology was utilized to identify failure modes, establish quality control checks, and re-evaluate these checks 1-year post-clinical launch.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E A Simiele
- University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL
| | - B Han
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - L Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - D Pham
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - J Lewis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - M F Gensheimer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - L Vitzthum
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - D T Chang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - M Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - N Kovalchuk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Han B, Schmall J, Bal G, Khan S, Voronenko Y, Xu S, Shi L, Mitra A, Groll A, Sharma S, Ramos K, Shao L, Narayanan M, Olcott P, Kuduvalli G, Kovalchuk N, Surucu M. Characterization of Biology-Guided Radiotherapy Accuracy as a Function of PET Tracer Uptake. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:e668-e669. [PMID: 37785972 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.2113] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) To characterize the tracking capability and dosimetric accuracy of biology-guided radiotherapy (BgRT) under clinically relevant PET tracer uptake scenarios relative to the background. MATERIALS/METHODS A custom-made anthropomorphic phantom filled with a liquid 18F-FDG solution including two embedded fillable 22 mm diameter spherical structures mimicking GTV (= CTV) and OAR was coupled to motion stages to create an independent 3D respiratory motion with 22 mm maximum range for target and a 5 mm 1D sinusoidal motion in the OAR. The biology-tracking zone (BTZ) was generated by adding 5 mm margin to the motion extent. The three BgRT scenarios studied were representative of tumors with good (8:1), borderline (4:1) and undesired (2:1) PET biodistributions compared to background. The clinical safety limit of BgRT uses Activity Concentration within the BTZ (AC ≥ 5 kBq/ml) and Normalized Target Signal as a contrast metric (NTS ≧ 2.7 for planning and ≧ 2 for delivery). The BgRT deliveries were repeated 3 times with radiochromic film and integrated ion chamber capturing the target and OAR doses. Tracked dosimetry was assessed using a margin-loss calculation defined as the maximum linear difference in distance between the planned and delivered 97% prescription iso-dose lines. RESULTS The imaging-only PET images used to create BgRT plans had an AC of 7.0, 5.3, and 1.6 kBq/ml with an NTS of 6.8, 5.3, and 1.8 for 8:1, 4:1, and 2:1 concentrations, respectively. Qualitatively, the target was not visible on the planning PET images 2:1 loading scenario. At delivery, the mean pre-scan activity concentrations were 6.8, 4.7, and 3.7 kBq/ml with corresponding mean NTS of 3.7, 2.6, 1.5 for 8:1, 4:1 and 2:1 deliveries. The pre-scan values of AC or NTS did not satisfy the clinical system safety limits for 4:1 and 2:1 ratio experiments, but the engineering software allowed for the delivery to capture the resulting doses. The deliveries showed a prescription dose coverage to the CTV of 100% for the 8:1 and 4:1 cases, but 88% for the 2:1 case. When compared to the planned dose values, the delivered minimum doses were -7.6%, -8.6% and -10.9%, whereas the maximum dose differences in CTV were 1.2%, 0% and -4.8% of the planned dose distributions of the 8:1, 4:1 and 2:1 cases, respectively. Calculated margin losses were -2.3, -3.8, and -5.5 mm, for the 8:1, 4:1, and 2:1 cases, respectively. The maximum OAR doses were less than the maximum doses predicted on the bounded DVH curves for all scenarios. CONCLUSION With sufficient tracer uptake in the target, BgRT can deliver tracked dosimetry for targets with a large respiratory motion profile. Both the good BgRT candidate and borderline cases produced clinically acceptable delivered doses, even though the borderline case was flagged by the clinical system safety checks. As expected, the delivered BgRT dose distributions were suboptimal with reduced tumor over background PET contrast.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B Han
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - J Schmall
- RefleXion Medical, Inc., Hayward, CA
| | - G Bal
- RefleXion Medical, Inc., Hayward, CA
| | - S Khan
- RefleXion Medical, Inc., Hayward, CA
| | | | - S Xu
- RefleXion Medical, Inc., Hayward, CA
| | - L Shi
- RefleXion Medical, Inc., Hayward, CA
| | - A Mitra
- RefleXion Medical, Inc., Hayward, CA
| | - A Groll
- RefleXion Medical, Inc., Hayward, CA
| | - S Sharma
- RefleXion Medical, Inc., Hayward, CA
| | - K Ramos
- RefleXion Medical, Inc., Hayward, CA
| | - L Shao
- RefleXion Medical, Inc., Hayward, CA
| | | | - P Olcott
- RefleXion Medical, Inc., Hayward, CA
| | | | - N Kovalchuk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - M Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Ashraf MR, Melemenidis S, Liu K, Grilj V, Jansen J, Velasquez B, Connell L, Schulz JB, Bailat C, Libed A, Manjappa R, Dutt S, Soto L, Lau B, Garza A, Larsen W, Skinner L, Yu AS, Surucu M, Graves EE, Maxim PG, Kry SF, Vozenin MC, Schüler E, Jr BWL. Multi-Institutional Audit of FLASH and Conventional Dosimetry with a 3D-Printed Anatomically Realistic Mouse Phantom. ArXiv 2023:arXiv:2309.16836v1. [PMID: 37808098 PMCID: PMC10557797] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/10/2023]
Abstract
We conducted a multi-institutional audit of dosimetric variability between FLASH and conventional dose rate (CONV) electron irradiations by using an anatomically realistic 3D-printed mouse phantom. A CT scan of a live mouse was used to create a 3D model of bony anatomy, lungs, and soft tissue. A dual-nozzle 3D printer was used to print the mouse phantom using acrylonitrile butadiene styrene ($~1.02 g/cm^3$) and polylactic acid ($~1.24 g/cm^3$) simultaneously to simulate soft tissue and bone densities, respectively. The lungs were printed separately using lightweight polylactic acid ($~0.64 g/cm^3$). Hounsfield units (HU) and densities were compared with the reference CT scan of the live mouse. Print-to-print reproducibility of the phantom was assessed. Three institutions were each provided a phantom, and each institution performed two replicates of irradiations at selected mouse anatomic regions. The average dose difference between FLASH and CONV dose distributions and deviation from the prescribed dose were measured with radiochromic film. Compared to the reference CT scan, CT scans of the phantom demonstrated mass density differences of $0.10 g/cm^3$ for bone, $0.12 g/cm^3$ for lung, and $0.03 g/cm^3$ for soft tissue regions. Between phantoms, the difference in HU for soft tissue and bone was <10 HU from print to print. Lung exhibited the most variation (54 HU) but minimally affected dose distribution (<0.5% dose differences between phantoms). The mean difference between FLASH and CONV from the first replicate to the second decreased from 4.3% to 1.2%, and the mean difference from the prescribed dose decreased from 3.6% to 2.5% for CONV and 6.4% to 2.7% for FLASH. The framework presented here is promising for credentialing of multi-institutional studies of FLASH preclinical research to maximize the reproducibility of biological findings.
Collapse
|
28
|
Zou W, Zhang R, Schüler E, Taylor PA, Mascia AE, Diffenderfer ES, Zhao T, Ayan AS, Sharma M, Yu SJ, Lu W, Bosch WR, Tsien C, Surucu M, Pollard-Larkin JM, Schuemann J, Moros EG, Bazalova-Carter M, Gladstone DJ, Li H, Simone CB, Petersson K, Kry SF, Maity A, Loo BW, Dong L, Maxim PG, Xiao Y, Buchsbaum JC. Framework for Quality Assurance of Ultrahigh Dose Rate Clinical Trials Investigating FLASH Effects and Current Technology Gaps. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 116:1202-1217. [PMID: 37121362 PMCID: PMC10526970 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.04.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/08/2023] [Revised: 03/28/2023] [Accepted: 04/17/2023] [Indexed: 05/02/2023]
Abstract
FLASH radiation therapy (FLASH-RT), delivered with ultrahigh dose rate (UHDR), may allow patients to be treated with less normal tissue toxicity for a given tumor dose compared with currently used conventional dose rate. Clinical trials are being carried out and are needed to test whether this improved therapeutic ratio can be achieved clinically. During the clinical trials, quality assurance and credentialing of equipment and participating sites, particularly pertaining to UHDR-specific aspects, will be crucial for the validity of the outcomes of such trials. This report represents an initial framework proposed by the NRG Oncology Center for Innovation in Radiation Oncology FLASH working group on quality assurance of potential UHDR clinical trials and reviews current technology gaps to overcome. An important but separate consideration is the appropriate design of trials to most effectively answer clinical and scientific questions about FLASH. This paper begins with an overview of UHDR RT delivery methods. UHDR beam delivery parameters are then covered, with a focus on electron and proton modalities. The definition and control of safe UHDR beam delivery and current and needed dosimetry technologies are reviewed and discussed. System and site credentialing for large, multi-institution trials are reviewed. Quality assurance is then discussed, and new requirements are presented for treatment system standard analysis, patient positioning, and treatment planning. The tables and figures in this paper are meant to serve as reference points as we move toward FLASH-RT clinical trial performance. Some major questions regarding FLASH-RT are discussed, and next steps in this field are proposed. FLASH-RT has potential but is associated with significant risks and complexities. We need to redefine optimization to focus not only on the dose but also on the dose rate in a manner that is robust and understandable and that can be prescribed, validated, and confirmed in real time. Robust patient safety systems and access to treatment data will be critical as FLASH-RT moves into the clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wei Zou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
| | - Rongxiao Zhang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA
| | - Emil Schüler
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Paige A Taylor
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | | | - Eric S Diffenderfer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Tianyu Zhao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Ahmet S Ayan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Manju Sharma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Shu-Jung Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Weiguo Lu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA
| | - Walter R Bosch
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Christina Tsien
- Department of Radiation Oncology, McGill University Health Center, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Murat Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Julianne M Pollard-Larkin
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jan Schuemann
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Eduardo G Moros
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | | | - David J Gladstone
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA
| | - Heng Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Charles B Simone
- Department of Radiation Oncology, New York Proton Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Kristoffer Petersson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Stephen F Kry
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Amit Maity
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Billy W Loo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Lei Dong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Peter G Maxim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
| | - Ying Xiao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Jeffrey C Buchsbaum
- Radiation Research Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Yucel IK, Epcacan S, Bulut MO, Demir IH, Surucu M, Yilmaz EH, Kardas M, Kanlioglu P, Celebi A. A Challenging Interventional Procedure: Transcatheter Closure of Tubular Patent Ductus Arteriosus in Patients with Pulmonary Hypertension. Pediatr Cardiol 2023:10.1007/s00246-023-03240-8. [PMID: 37474608 DOI: 10.1007/s00246-023-03240-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/09/2023] [Accepted: 07/11/2023] [Indexed: 07/22/2023]
Abstract
Transcatheter closure of the tubular ducts remains the most challenging procedure, with higher complication rates than other types. This study evaluates the characteristics of transcatheter closure of tubular ducts with pulmonary hypertension. 73 patients with tubular ducts who underwent cardiac catheterization for transcatheter PDA closure were analyzed. The mean age and weight were 1.93 ± 2.68 years and 8.83 ± 6.14 kg, respectively. Transcatheter closure was attempted in 72 patients. Four cases (5.5%) were referred to surgery, while the procedure was completed in the remaining (94.5%). Amplatzer duct occluder (ADO) I or Cardiofix duct occluder (CDO) was the most commonly used devices. However, the use of Amplatzer vascular plug (AVP) II raised in recent years. The most common concern was aortic protrusion/stenosis in ADO I/CDO devices, but most regressed during follow-up. Iatrogenic coarctation of the aorta was observed in two with ADO I/CDO. Embolization of the device to the pulmonary artery was observed in three with CDO, AVP II, and AVP I. Significant left pulmonary artery stenosis requiring stenting developed in one after closure with an MVSDO device. Tubular ducts are highly associated with pulmonary arterial hypertension, and transcatheter closure of them is still challenging despite the developing device armamentarium. Although ADO I or similar devices are widely used, off-label devices are usually needed at increasing rates. The AVP II device is unsuitable for short tubular ducts but seems the best option for long ones.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ilker Kemal Yucel
- Department of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Health Sciences Dr. Siyami Ersek Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
| | - Serdar Epcacan
- Department of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Health Sciences Van Training and Research Hospital, Van, Turkey
| | - Mustafa Orhan Bulut
- Department of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Health Sciences Dr. Siyami Ersek Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Ibrahim Halil Demir
- Department of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Health Sciences Dr. Siyami Ersek Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Murat Surucu
- Department of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Health Sciences Dr. Siyami Ersek Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Emine Hekim Yilmaz
- Department of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Health Sciences Dr. Siyami Ersek Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Murat Kardas
- Department of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Health Sciences Dr. Siyami Ersek Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Pinar Kanlioglu
- Department of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Health Sciences Dr. Siyami Ersek Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Ahmet Celebi
- Department of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Health Sciences Dr. Siyami Ersek Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Barghouth PG, Melemenidis S, Montay-Gruel P, Ollivier J, Viswanathan V, Jorge PG, Soto LA, Lau BC, Sadeghi C, Edlabadkar A, Manjappa R, Wang J, Le Bouteiller M, Surucu M, Yu A, Bush K, Skinner L, Maxim PG, Loo BW, Limoli CL, Vozenin MC, Frock RL. FLASH-RT does not affect chromosome translocations and junction structures beyond that of CONV-RT dose-rates. bioRxiv 2023:2023.03.27.534408. [PMID: 37034651 PMCID: PMC10081175 DOI: 10.1101/2023.03.27.534408] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/19/2023]
Abstract
The molecular and cellular mechanisms driving the enhanced therapeutic ratio of ultra-high dose-rate radiotherapy (FLASH-RT) over slower conventional (CONV-RT) radiotherapy dose-rate remain to be elucidated. However, attenuated DNA damage and transient oxygen depletion are among several proposed models. Here, we tested whether FLASH-RT under physioxic (4% O 2 ) and hypoxic conditions (≤2% O 2 ) reduces genome-wide translocations relative to CONV-RT and whether any differences identified revert under normoxic (21% O 2 ) conditions. We employed high-throughput rejoin and genome-wide translocation sequencing ( HTGTS-JoinT-seq ), using S. aureus and S. pyogenes Cas9 "bait" DNA double strand breaks (DSBs), to measure differences in bait-proximal repair and their genome-wide translocations to "prey" DSBs generated by electron beam CONV-RT (0.08-0.13Gy/s) and FLASH-RT (1×10 2 -5×10 6 Gy/s), under varying ionizing radiation (IR) doses and oxygen tensions. Normoxic and physioxic irradiation of HEK293T cells increased translocations at the cost of decreasing bait-proximal repair but were indistinguishable between CONV-RT and FLASH-RT. Although no apparent increase in chromosome translocations was observed with hypoxia-induced apoptosis, the combined decrease in oxygen tension with IR dose-rate modulation did not reveal significant differences in the level of translocations nor in their junction structures. Thus, Irrespective of oxygen tension, FLASH-RT produces translocations and junction structures at levels and proportions that are indistinguishable from CONV-RT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul G. Barghouth
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Stavros Melemenidis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Pierre Montay-Gruel
- Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology. Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-2695, USA
| | - Jonathan Ollivier
- Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology. Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Vignesh Viswanathan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Patrik G. Jorge
- Institute of Radiation Physics/CHUV, Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland
| | - Luis A. Soto
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Brianna C. Lau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Cheyenne Sadeghi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Anushka Edlabadkar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Rakesh Manjappa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Jinghui Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Marie Le Bouteiller
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Murat Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Amy Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Karl Bush
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Lawrie Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Peter G. Maxim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-2695, USA
| | - Billy W. Loo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Charles L. Limoli
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-2695, USA
| | - Marie-Catherine Vozenin
- Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology. Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Richard L. Frock
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Simiele E, Han B, Skinner L, Pham D, Lewis J, Gensheimer M, Vitzthum L, Chang D, Surucu M, Kovalchuk N. Mitigation of IMRT/SBRT treatment planning errors on the novel RefleXion X1 system using FMEA within Six Sigma framework. Adv Radiat Oncol 2023; 8:101186. [PMID: 37035034 PMCID: PMC10073615 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2023.101186] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/09/2022] [Accepted: 01/16/2023] [Indexed: 01/27/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose The aim of this study was to apply the Six Sigma methodology and failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) to mitigate errors in intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) treatment planning with the first clinical installation of RefleXion X1. Methods and Materials The Six Sigma approach consisted of 5 phases: define, measure, analyze, improve, and control. The define, measure, and analyze phases consisted of process mapping and an FMEA of IMRT and SBRT treatment planning on the X1. The multidisciplinary team outlined the workflow process and identified and ranked the failure modes associated with the plan check items using the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 100 recommendations. Items with the highest average risk priority numbers (RPNs) and severity ≥7 were prioritized for automation using the Eclipse Scripting Application Programming Interface (ESAPI). The "improve" phase consisted of developing ESAPI scripts before the clinical launch of X1 to improve efficiency and safety. In the "control" phase, the FMEA ranking was re-evaluated 1 year after clinical launch. Results Overall, 100 plan check items were identified in which the RPN values ranged from 10.2 to 429.0. Fifty of these items (50%) were suitable for automation within ESAPI. Of the 10 highest-risk items, 8 were suitable for automation. Based on the results of the FMEA, 2 scripts were developed: Planning Assistant, used by the planner during preparation for planning, and Automated Plan Check, used by the planner and the plan checker during plan preparation for treatment. After 12 months of clinical use of the X1 and developed scripts, only 3 errors were reported. The average prescript RPN was 138.0, compared with the average postscript RPN of 47.8 (P < .05), signifying a safer process. Conclusions Implementing new technology in the clinic can be an error-prone process in which the likelihood of errors increases with increasing pressure to implement the technology quickly. To limit errors in clinical implementation of the novel RefleXion X1 system, the Six Sigma method was used to identify failure modes, establish quality control checks, and re-evaluate these checks 1 year after clinical implementation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eric Simiele
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey
| | - Bin Han
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Lawrie Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Daniel Pham
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Jonathan Lewis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Michael Gensheimer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Lucas Vitzthum
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Daniel Chang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Murat Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Nataliya Kovalchuk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
- Corresponding author: Nataliya Kovalchuk, PhD
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Hu Z, Bieniosek M, Ferri V, Iagaru A, Kovalchuk N, Han B, Xing L, Vitzthum L, Olcott P, Narayanan M, Laurence T, Ren Y, Oderinde OM, Shirvani SM, Chang D, Surucu M. Image-mode performance characterisation of a positron emission tomography subsystem designed for Biology-guided radiotherapy (BgRT). Br J Radiol 2023; 96:20220387. [PMID: 36317922 PMCID: PMC10997023 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20220387] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/08/2022] [Revised: 09/19/2022] [Accepted: 10/17/2022] [Indexed: 11/07/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES In this study, we characterise the imaging-mode performance of the positron emission tomography (PET) subsystem of the RefleXion X1 machine using the NEMA NU-2 2018 standard. METHODS The X1 machine consists of two symmetrically opposing 900 arcs of PET detectors incorporated into the architecture of a ring-gantry linear accelerator rotating up to 60 RPM. PET emissions from a tumour are detected by the PET detectors and used to guide the delivery of radiation beam. Imaging performance of the PET subsystem on X1 machine was evaluated based on sensitivity of the PET detectors, spatial resolution, count-loss performance, image quality, and daily system performance check. RESULTS PET subsystem sensitivity was measured as 0.183 and 0.161 cps/kBq at the center and off-center positions, respectively. Spatial resolution: average FWHM values of 4.3, 5.1, and 6.7 mm for the point sources at 1, 10, and 20 cm off center, respectively were recorded. For count loss, max NECR: 2.63 kcps, max true coincidence rate: 5.56 kcps, and scatter fraction: 39.8%. The 10 mm sphere was not visible. Image-quality contrast values were: 29.6%, 64.9%, 66.5%, 81.8%, 81.2%, and background variability: 14.8%, 12.4%, 10.3%, 8.8%, 8.3%, for the 13, 17, 22, 28, 37 mm sphere sizes, respectively. CONCLUSIONS When operating in an imaging mode, the spatial resolution and image contrast of the X1 PET subsystem were comparable to those of typical diagnostic imaging systems for large spheres, while the sensitivity and count rate were lower due to the significantly smaller PET detector area in the X1 system. Clinical efficacy when used in BgRT remains to be validated. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE This is the first performance evaluation of the PET subsystem on the novel BgRT machine. The dual arcs rotating PET subsystem on RefleXion X1 machine performance is comparable to those of the typical diagnostic PET system based on the spatial resolution and image contrast for larger spheres.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Andrei Iagaru
- Department of Radiology, Stanford University,
Stanford, CA
| | | | - Bin Han
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA
| | - Lei Xing
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA
| | - Lucas Vitzthum
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA
| | | | | | | | - Yulan Ren
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA
| | | | | | - Daniel Chang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA
| | - Murat Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Wu Y, No H, Dworkin M, Manjappa R, Ashraf R, Skinner L, Lau B, Melemenidis S, Viswanathan V, Yu S, Surucu M, Schueler E, Graves E, Maxim P, Loo B. Assessing Clinical Feasibility of a LINAC-Based Electron FLASH Radiotherapy System Using an Anthropomorphic Phantom under Realistic Clinical Conditions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.07.605] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
|
34
|
No H, Wu Y, Dworkin M, Ashraf R, Manjappa R, Skinner L, Lau B, Melemenidis S, Viswanathan V, Yu S, Surucu M, Schueler E, Graves E, Maxim P, Loo B. Clinical LINAC-Based Electron FLASH: Pathway for Practical Translation to Trials of FLASH Radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.07.2152] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/31/2022]
|
35
|
Khan S, Narayanan M, Olcott P, Oderinde O, Bal G, Schmall J, Xu S, Voronenko Y, Shao L, Kuduvalli G, Surucu M. Robustness of Biology-Guided Radiotherapy Delivery to PET Biodistribution Changes within Target. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.07.2180] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/31/2022]
|
36
|
Kavak AG, Surucu M, Ahn KH, Pearson E, Aydogan B. Impact of respiratory motion on lung dose during total marrow irradiation. Front Oncol 2022; 12:924961. [PMID: 36330489 PMCID: PMC9622752 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.924961] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/21/2022] [Accepted: 09/16/2022] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
We evaluated the impact of respiratory motion on the lung dose during linac-based intensity-modulated total marrow irradiation (IMTMI) using two different approaches: (1) measurement of doses within the lungs of an anthropomorphic phantom using thermoluminescent detectors (TLDs) and (2) treatment delivery measurements using ArcCHECK where gamma passing rates (GPRs) and the mean lung doses were calculated and compared with and without motion. In the first approach, respiratory motions were simulated using a programmable motion platform by using typical published peak-to-peak motion amplitudes of 5, 8, and 12 mm in the craniocaudal (CC) direction, denoted here as M1, M2, and M3, respectively, with 2 mm in both anteroposterior (AP) and lateral (LAT) directions. TLDs were placed in five selected locations in the lungs of a RANDO phantom. Average TLD measurements obtained with motion were normalized to those obtained with static phantom delivery. The mean dose ratios were 1.01 (0.98–1.03), 1.04 (1.01–1.09), and 1.08 (1.04–1.12) for respiratory motions M1, M2, and M3, respectively. To determine the impact of directional respiratory motion, we repeated the experiment with 5-, 8-, and 12-mm motion in the CC direction only. The differences in average TLD doses were less than 1% when compared with the M1, M2, and M3 motions indicating a minimal impact from CC motion on lung dose during IMTMI. In the second experimental approach, we evaluated extreme respiratory motion 15 mm excursion in only the CC direction. We placed an ArcCHECK device on a commercial motion platform and delivered the clinical IMTMI plans of five patients. We compared, with and without motion, the dose volume histograms (DVHs) and mean lung dose calculated with the ArcCHECK-3DVH tool as well as GPR with 3%, 5%, and 10% dose agreements and a 3-mm constant distance to agreement (DTA). GPR differed by 11.1 ± 2.1%, 3.8 ± 1.5%, and 0.1 ± 0.2% with dose agreement criteria of 3%, 5%, and 10%, respectively. This indicates that respiratory motion impacts dose distribution in small and isolated parts of the lungs. More importantly, the impact of respiratory motion on the mean lung dose, a critical indicator for toxicity in IMTMI, was not statistically significant (p > 0.05) based on the Student’s t-test. We conclude that most patients treated with IMTMI will have negligible dose uncertainty due to respiratory motion. This is particularly reassuring as lung toxicity is the main concern for future IMTMI dose escalation studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ayse Gulbin Kavak
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey
| | - Murat Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States
| | - Kang-Hyun Ahn
- Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, United States
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Illinois at Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL, United States
| | - Erik Pearson
- Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, United States
| | - Bulent Aydogan
- Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, United States
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Illinois at Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL, United States
- *Correspondence: Bulent Aydogan, ;
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Jorge PG, Melemenidis S, Grilj V, Buchillier T, Manjappa R, Viswanathan V, Gondré M, Vozenin MC, Germond JF, Bochud F, Moeckli R, Limoli C, Skinner L, No HJ, Wu YF, Surucu M, Yu AS, Lau B, Wang J, Schüler E, Bush K, Graves EE, Maxim PG, Loo BW, Bailat C. Design and validation of a dosimetric comparison scheme tailored for ultra-high dose-rate electron beams to support multicenter FLASH preclinical studies. Radiother Oncol 2022; 175:203-209. [PMID: 36030934 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.08.023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/29/2022] [Revised: 08/18/2022] [Accepted: 08/19/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE We describe a multicenter cross validation of ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) (>= 40 Gy/s) irradiation in order to bring a dosimetric consensus in absorbed dose to water. UHDR refers to dose rates over 100-1000 times those of conventional clinical beams. UHDR irradiations have been a topic of intense investigation as they have been reported to induce the FLASH effect in which normal tissues exhibit reduced toxicity relative to conventional dose rates. The need to establish optimal beam parameters capable of achieving the in vivo FLASH effect has become paramount. It is therefore necessary to validate and replicate dosimetry across multiple sites conducting UHDR studies with distinct beam configurations and experimental set-ups. MATERIALS AND METHODS Using a custom cuboid phantom with a cylindrical cavity (5 mm diameter by 10.4 mm length) designed to contain three type of dosimeters (thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs), alanine pellets, and Gafchromic films), irradiations were conducted at expected doses of 7.5 to 16 Gy delivered at UHDR or conventional dose rates using various electron beams at the Radiation Oncology Departments of the CHUV in Lausanne, Switzerland and Stanford University, CA. RESULTS Data obtained between replicate experiments for all dosimeters were in excellent agreement (±3%). In general, films and TLDs were in closer agreement with each other, while alanine provided the closest match between the expected and measured dose, with certain caveats related to absolute reference dose. CONCLUSION In conclusion, successful cross-validation of different electron beams operating under different energies and configurations lays the foundation for establishing dosimetric consensus for UHDR irradiation studies, and, if widely implemented, decrease uncertainty between different sites investigating the mechanistic basis of the FLASH effect.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Patrik Gonçalves Jorge
- Institute of Radiation Physics, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Stavros Melemenidis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Veljko Grilj
- Institute of Radiation Physics, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Thierry Buchillier
- Institute of Radiation Physics, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Rakesh Manjappa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Vignesh Viswanathan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Maude Gondré
- Institute of Radiation Physics, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Marie-Catherine Vozenin
- CHUV - Radiation-oncology Laboratory, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Jean-François Germond
- Institute of Radiation Physics, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - François Bochud
- Institute of Radiation Physics, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Raphaël Moeckli
- Institute of Radiation Physics, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Charles Limoli
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA
| | - Lawrie Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Hyunsoo Joshua No
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Yufan Fred Wu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Murat Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Amy S Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Brianna Lau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Jinghui Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Emil Schüler
- Department of Radiation Physics, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Karl Bush
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Edward E Graves
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Peter G Maxim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA
| | - Billy W Loo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Claude Bailat
- Institute of Radiation Physics, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Simiele E, Capaldi D, Breitkreutz D, Han B, Yeung T, White J, Zaks D, Owens M, Maganti S, Xing L, Surucu M, Kovalchuk N. Treatment planning system commissioning of the first clinical biology‐guided radiotherapy machine. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2022; 23:e13638. [PMID: 35644039 PMCID: PMC9359035 DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13638] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/01/2021] [Revised: 02/18/2022] [Accepted: 04/22/2022] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Methods Results Conclusions
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eric Simiele
- Department of Radiation Oncology Stanford University Stanford California USA
| | - Dante Capaldi
- Department of Radiation Oncology Stanford University Stanford California USA
| | - Dylan Breitkreutz
- Department of Radiation Oncology Stanford University Stanford California USA
| | - Bin Han
- Department of Radiation Oncology Stanford University Stanford California USA
| | | | - John White
- RefleXion Medical, Inc. Hayward California USA
| | - Daniel Zaks
- RefleXion Medical, Inc. Hayward California USA
| | | | | | - Lei Xing
- Department of Radiation Oncology Stanford University Stanford California USA
| | - Murat Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology Stanford University Stanford California USA
| | - Nataliya Kovalchuk
- Department of Radiation Oncology Stanford University Stanford California USA
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Khan S, Surucu M, Narayanan M, Haytmyradov M, Xu S, Olcott P, Voronenko Y, Oderinde O, Kuduvalli G, Shirvani S. PO-1660 Assessment of biology-guided radiotherapy (BgRT) Accuracy using Emulated delivery technique. Radiother Oncol 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/s0167-8140(22)03624-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
|
40
|
Han B, Capaldi D, Kovalchuk N, Simiele E, White J, Zaks D, Xing L, Surucu M. Beam commissioning of the first clinical biology-guided radiotherapy system. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2022; 23:e13607. [PMID: 35482018 PMCID: PMC9194984 DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13607] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/11/2021] [Revised: 03/15/2022] [Accepted: 03/22/2022] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Abstract
This study reports the beam commissioning results for the first clinical RefleXion Linac. Methods: The X1 produces a 6 MV photon beam and the maximum clinical field size is 40 × 2 cm2 at source‐to‐axis distance of 85 cm. Treatment fields are collimated by a binary multileaf collimator (MLC) system with 64 leaves with width of 0.625 cm and y‐jaw pairs to provide either a 1 or 2 cm opening. The mechanical alignment of the radiation source, the y‐jaw, and MLC were checked with film and ion chambers. The beam parameters were characterized using a diode detector in a compact water tank. In‐air lateral profiles and in‐water percentage depth dose (PDD) were measured for beam modeling of the treatment planning system (TPS). The lateral profiles, PDDs, and output factors were acquired for field sizes from 1.25 × 1 to 40 × 2 cm2 field to verify the beam modeling. The rotational output variation and synchronicity were tested to check the gantry angle, couch motion, and gantry rotation. Results: The source misalignments were 0.049 mm in y‐direction, 0.66% out‐of‐focus in x‐direction. The divergence of the beam axis was 0.36 mm with a y‐jaw twist of 0.03°. Clinical off‐axis treatment fields shared a common center in y‐direction were within 0.03 mm. The MLC misalignment and twist were 0.57 mm and 0.15°. For all measured fields ranging from the size from 1.25 × 1 to 40 × 2 cm2, the mean difference between measured and TPS modeled PDD at 10 cm depth was −0.3%. The mean transverse profile difference in the field core was −0.3% ± 1.1%. The full‐width half maximum (FWHM) modeling was within 0.5 mm. The measured output factors agreed with TPS within 0.8%. Conclusions: This study summarizes our specific experience commissioning the first novel RefleXion linac, which may assist future users of this technology when implementing it into their own clinics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bin Han
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| | - Dante Capaldi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| | - Nataliya Kovalchuk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| | - Eric Simiele
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| | - John White
- RefleXion Medical, Hayward, California, USA
| | | | - Lei Xing
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| | - Murat Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Dworkin M, No HJ, Wu Y, Binkley M, Rieger K, Graves E, Barcellos-Hoff M, Von Eyben R, Ashraf R, Manjappa R, Yu A, Skinner L, Surucu M, Kim Y, Loo B, Hoppe R. A RANDOMIZED SPLIT-BODY FEASIBILITY TRIAL OF SINGLE-FRACTION FLASH VS CONVENTIONAL ELECTRON RADIOTHERAPY USING A STANDARD CLINICAL LINEAR ACCELERATOR FOR ADULTS WITH MULTILESIONAL PRIMARY CUTANEOUS LYMPHOMAS. Phys Med 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/s1120-1797(22)01654-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
|
42
|
Pham D, Simiele E, Breitkreutz D, Capaldi D, Han B, Surucu M, Oderinde S, Vitzthum L, Gensheimer M, Bagshaw H, Chin A, Xing L, Chang DT, Kovalchuk N. IMRT and SBRT Treatment Planning Study for the First Clinical Biology-Guided Radiotherapy System. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2022; 21:15330338221100231. [PMID: 35579876 PMCID: PMC9118457 DOI: 10.1177/15330338221100231] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose: The first clinical biology-guided radiation therapy (BgRT) system—RefleXionTM X1—was installed and commissioned for clinical use at our institution. This study aimed at evaluating the treatment plan quality and delivery efficiency for IMRT/SBRT cases without PET guidance. Methods: A total of 42 patient plans across 6 cancer sites (conventionally fractionated lung, head, and neck, anus, prostate, brain, and lung SBRT) planned with the EclipseTM treatment planning system (TPS) and treated with either a TrueBeam® or Trilogy® were selected for this retrospective study. For each Eclipse VMAT plan, 2 corresponding plans were generated on the X1 TPS with 10 mm jaws (X1-10mm) and 20 mm jaws (X1-20mm) using our institutional planning constraints. All clinically relevant metrics in this study, including PTV D95%, PTV D2%, Conformity Index (CI), R50, organs-at-risk (OAR) constraints, and beam-on time were analyzed and compared between 126 VMAT and RefleXion plans using paired t-tests. Results: All but 3 planning metrics were either equivalent or superior for the X1-10mm plans as compared to the Eclipse VMAT plans across all planning sites investigated. The Eclipse VMAT and X1-10mm plans generally achieved superior plan quality and sharper dose fall-off superior/inferior to targets as compared to the X1-20mm plans, however, the X1-20mm plans were still considered acceptable for treatment. On average, the required beam-on time increased by a factor of 1.6 across all sites for X1-10mm compared to X1-20mm plans. Conclusions: Clinically acceptable IMRT/SBRT treatment plans were generated with the X1 TPS for both the 10 mm and 20 mm jaw settings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel Pham
- Department of Radiation Oncology, 6429Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Eric Simiele
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | - Dylan Breitkreutz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, 6429Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Dante Capaldi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, 6429Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Bin Han
- Department of Radiation Oncology, 6429Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Murat Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, 6429Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | | | - Lucas Vitzthum
- Department of Radiation Oncology, 6429Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Michael Gensheimer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, 6429Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Hilary Bagshaw
- Department of Radiation Oncology, 6429Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Alex Chin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, 6429Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Lei Xing
- Department of Radiation Oncology, 6429Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - D T Chang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, 6429Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Natalyia Kovalchuk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, 6429Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Han B, Kovalchuk N, Capaldi D, Simiele E, White J, Purwar A, Yeung T, Maganti S, Mitra A, Voronenko Y, Oderinde O, Shirvani S, Kuduvalli G, Vitzthum L, Chang D, Xing L, Surucu M. First Beam Commissioning Report of a Novel Medical Linear Accelerator Designed for Biologically Guided Radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.07.1404] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
|
44
|
No H, Wu Y, Manjappa R, Skinner L, Lau B, Melemenidis S, Yu S, Surucu M, Schueler E, Bush K, Graves E, Maxim P, Loo B. Feasibility of Clinically Practical Ultra-High Dose Rate (FLASH) Radiation Delivery by a Reversible Configuration of a Standard Clinical-Use Linear Accelerator. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.07.099] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
|
45
|
Surucu M, Isler Y, Perc M, Kara R. Convolutional neural networks predict the onset of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: Theory and applications. Chaos 2021; 31:113119. [PMID: 34881615 DOI: 10.1063/5.0069272] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/30/2021] [Accepted: 10/04/2021] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
In this study, we aimed to detect paroxysmal atrial fibrillation episodes before they occur so that patients can take precautions before putting their and others' lives in potentially life-threatening danger. We used the atrial fibrillation prediction database, open data from PhysioNet, and assembled our process based on convolutional neural networks. Conventional heart rate variability features are calculated from time-domain measures, frequency-domain measures using power spectral density estimations, time-frequency-domain measures using wavelet transform, and nonlinear Poincaré plot measures. In addition, we also applied an alternative heart rate normalization, which gave promising results only in a few studies, before calculating these heart rate variability features. We used these features directly and their normalized versions using min-max normalization and z-score normalization methods. Thus, heart rate variability features extracted from six different combinations of these normalizations, in addition to no normalization cases, were applied to the convolutional neural network classifier. We tuned the classifiers' hyperparameters using 90% of feature sets and tested the classifiers' performances using 10% of feature sets. The proposed approach resulted in 87.76% accuracy, 91.30% precision, 80.04% recall, and 87.50% f1-score in heart rate variability with z-score feature normalization. When the heart rate normalization was also utilized, the suggested method gave 100% accuracy, 100% precision, 100% recall, and 100% f1-score in heart rate variability with z-score feature normalization. The proposed method with heart rate normalization and z-score normalization methods resulted in better classification performance than similar studies in the literature. By comparing the existing studies, we conclude that our approach provides a much better tool to determine a near-future paroxysmal atrial fibrillation episode. However, although the achieved benchmarks are impressive, we note that the approach needs to be supported by other studies and on other datasets before clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Surucu
- Department of Computer Engineering, Duzce University, 81620 Duzce, Turkey
| | - Y Isler
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Izmir Katip Celebi University, Cigli, 35620 Izmir, Turkey
| | - M Perc
- Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, University of Maribor, Koroška cesta 160, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia
| | - R Kara
- Department of Computer Engineering, Duzce University, 81620 Duzce, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Han B, Kovalchuk N, Capaldi D, Purwar A, Sun Z, Ye J, Moghadam A, Laurence T, Vitzthum L, Chang D, Xing L, Surucu M. The kVCT System Commissioning of a Novel Medical Linear Accelerator Designed for Biology-Guided Radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.07.1452] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
|
47
|
Pham D, Breitkreutz D, Simiele E, Capaldi D, Ngo N, Vitzthum L, Gensheimer M, Chin A, Han B, Surucu M, Xing L, Chang D, Kovalchuk N. SBRT Treatment Planning Study for the First Clinical Biology-Guided Radiotherapy System. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.07.1490] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
|
48
|
Wu Y, No H, Manjappa R, Skinner L, Yu S, Lau B, Surucu M, Schueler E, Bush K, Graves E, Maxim P, Loo B. Validation of a Novel Cone-Less Set-up for Electron FLASH Radiation Delivery on a Clinical-Use Linear Accelerator. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.07.314] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
|
49
|
Surucu M, Maniyedath A, Narayanan M, Han B, Kovalchuk N, Gensheimer M, Vitzthum L, Iagaru A, Ferri V, Xing L, Shirvani S, Chang D. Comparison of a First-in-Class LINAC-Integrated PET System and a Diagnostic PET/CT Scanner. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.07.1411] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
|
50
|
Shi M, Chuang CF, Kovalchuk N, Bush K, Zaks D, Xing L, Surucu M, Han B. Small-field measurement and Monte Carlo model validation of a novel image-guided radiotherapy system. Med Phys 2021; 48:7450-7460. [PMID: 34628666 DOI: 10.1002/mp.15273] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/04/2021] [Revised: 09/09/2021] [Accepted: 09/25/2021] [Indexed: 02/02/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The RefleXion™ X1 is a novel radiotherapy system that is designed for image-guided radiotherapy, and eventually, biology-guided radiotherapy (BgRT). BgRT is a treatment paradigm that tracks tumor motion using real-time positron emission signals. This study reports the small-field measurement results and the validation of a Monte Carlo (MC) model of the first clinical RefleXion unit. METHODS The RefleXion linear accelerator (linac) produces a 6 MV flattening filter free (FFF) photon beam and consists of a binary multileaf collimator (MLC) system with 64 leaves and two pairs of y-jaws. The maximum clinical field size achievable is 400 × 20 mm2 . The y-jaws provide either a 10 or 20 mm opening at source-to-axis distance (SAD) of 850 mm. The width of each MLC leaf at SAD is 6.25 mm. Percentage depth doses (PDDs) and relative beam profiles were acquired using an Edge diode detector in a water tank for field sizes from 12.5 × 10 to 100 × 20 mm2 . Beam profiles were also measured using films. Output factors of fields ranging from 6.25 × 10 to 100 × 20 mm2 were measured using W2 scintillator detector, Edge detector, and films. Output correction factors k of the Edge detector for RefleXion were calculated. An MC model of the linac including pre-MLC beam sources and detailed structures of MLC and lower y-jaws was validated against the measurements. Simulation codes BEAMnrc and GATE were utilized. RESULTS The diode measured PDD at 10 cm depth (PDD10) increases from 53.6% to 56.9% as the field opens from 12.5 × 10 to 100 × 20 mm2 . The W2-measured output factor increases from 0.706 to 1 as the field opens from 6.25 × 10 to 100 × 20 mm2 (reference field size). The output factors acquired by diode and film differ from the W2 results by 1.65% (std = 1.49%) and 2.09% (std = 1.41%) on average, respectively. The profile penumbra and full-width half-maximum (FWHM) measured by diode agree well with the film results with a deviation of 0.60 mm and 0.73% on average, respectively. The averaged beam profile consistency calculated between the diode- and film-measured profiles among different depths is within 1.72%. By taking the W2 measurements as the ground truth, the output correction factors k for Edge detector ranging from 0.958 to 1 were reported. For the MC model validation, the simulated PDD10 agreed within 0.6% to the diode measurement. The MC-simulated output factor differed from the W2 results by 2.3% on average (std = 3.7%), while the MC simulated beam penumbra differed from the diode results by 0.67 mm on average (std = 0.42 mm). The MC FWHM agreed with the diode results to within 1.40% on average. The averaged beam profile consistency calculated between the diode and MC profiles among different depths is less than 1.29%. CONCLUSIONS This study represents the first small-field dosimetry of a clinical RefleXion system. A complete and accurate MC model of the RefleXion linac has been validated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mengying Shi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| | - Cynthia F Chuang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| | - Nataliya Kovalchuk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| | - Karl Bush
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| | | | - Lei Xing
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| | - Murat Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| | - Bin Han
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| |
Collapse
|