The dosimetric error due to uncorrected tumor rotation during real-time adaptive prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy

BACKGROUND

During prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), prostate tumor translational motion may deteriorate the planned dose distribution. Most of the major advances in motion management to date have focused on correcting this one aspect of the tumor motion, translation. However, large prostate rotation up to 30° has been measured. As the technological innovation evolves toward delivering increasingly precise radiotherapy, it is important to quantify the clinical benefit of translational and rotational motion correction over translational motion correction alone.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this work was to quantify the dosimetric impact of intrafractional dynamic rotation of the prostate measured with a six degrees-of-freedom tumor motion monitoring technology.

METHODS

The delivered dose was reconstructed including (a) translational and rotational motion and (b) only translational motion of the tumor for 32 prostate cancer patients recruited on a 5-fraction prostate SBRT clinical trial. Patients on the trial received 7.25 Gy in a treatment fraction. A 5 mm clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume (PTV) margin was applied in all directions except the posterior direction where a 3 mm expansion was used. Prostate intrafractional translational motion was managed using a gating strategy, and any translation above the gating threshold was corrected by applying an equivalent couch shift. The residual translational motion is denoted as T r e s $T_{res}$ . Prostate intrafractional rotational motion R u n c o r r $R_{uncorr}$ was recorded but not corrected. The dose differences from the planned dose due to T r e s $T_{res}$ + R u n c o r r $R_{uncorr}$ , ΔD( T r e s $T_{res}$ + R u n c o r r $R_{uncorr}$ ) and due to T r e s $T_{res}$ alone, ΔD( T r e s $T_{res}$ ), were then determined for CTV D98, PTV D95, bladder V6Gy, and rectum V6Gy. The residual dose error due to uncorrected rotation, R u n c o r r $R_{uncorr}$ was then quantified: Δ D R e s i d u a l $\Delta D_{Residual}$ = ΔD( T r e s $T_{res}$ + R u n c o r r $R_{uncorr}$ ) - ΔD( T res ${T}_{\textit{res}}$ ).

RESULTS

Fractional data analysis shows that the dose differences from the plan (both ΔD( T r e s $T_{res}$ + R u n c o r r $R_{uncorr}$ ) and ΔD( T r e s $T_{res}$ )) for CTV D98 was less than 5% in all treatment fractions. ΔD( T r e s $T_{res}$ + R u n c o r r $R_{uncorr}$ ) was larger than 5% in one fraction for PTV D95, in one fraction for bladder V6Gy, and in five fractions for rectum V6Gy. Uncorrected rotation, R u n c o r r $R_{uncorr}$ induced residual dose error, Δ D R e s i d u a l $\Delta D_{Residual}$ , resulted in less dose to CTV and PTV in 43% and 59% treatment fractions, respectively, and more dose to bladder and rectum in 51% and 53% treatment fractions, respectively. The cumulative dose over five fractions, ∑D( T r e s $T_{res}$ + R u n c o r r $R_{uncorr}$ ) and ∑D( T r e s $T_{res}$ ), was always within 5% of the planned dose for all four structures for every patient.

CONCLUSIONS

The dosimetric impact of tumor rotation on a large prostate cancer patient cohort was quantified in this study. These results suggest that the standard 3-5 mm CTV-PTV margin was sufficient to account for the intrafraction prostate rotation observed for this cohort of patients, provided an appropriate gating threshold was applied to correct for translational motion. Residual dose errors due to uncorrected prostate rotation were small in magnitude, which may be corrected using different treatment adaptation strategies to further improve the dosimetric accuracy.

Experimental investigation of dynamic real-time rotation-including dose reconstruction during prostate tracking radiotherapy

BACKGROUND

Hypofractionation in prostate radiotherapy is of increasing interest. Steep dose gradients and a large weight on each individual fraction emphasize the need for motion management. Real-time motion management techniques such as multi-leaf collimator (MLC) tracking or couch tracking typically adjust for translational motion while rotations remain uncompensated with unknown dosimetric impact.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to demonstrate and validate dynamic real-time rotation-including dose reconstruction during radiotherapy experiments with and without MLC and couch tracking.

METHODS

Real-time dose reconstruction was performed using the in-house developed software DoseTracker. DoseTracker receives streamed target positions and accelerator parameters during treatment delivery and uses a pencil beam algorithm with water density assumption to reconstruct the dose in a moving target. DoseTracker's ability to reconstruct motion-induced dose errors in a dynamically rotating and translating target was investigated during three different scenarios: (1) no motion compensation and translational motion correction with (2) MLC tracking and (3) couch tracking. In each scenario, dose reconstruction was performed online and in real-time during delivery of two dual-arc volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) prostate plans with a prescribed fraction dose of 7 Gy to the prostate and simultaneous intraprostatic lesion boosts with doses of at least 8 Gy, but up to 10 Gy as long as the organs-at-risk dose constraints were fulfilled. The plans were delivered to a pelvis phantom that replicated three patient-measured motion traces using a rotational insert with 21 layers of EBT3 film spaced 2.5 mm apart. DoseTracker repeatedly calculated the actual motion-including dose increment and the planned static dose increment since the last calculation in 84500 points in the film stack. The experiments were performed with a TrueBeam accelerator with MLC and couch tracking based on electromagnetic transponders embedded in the film stack. The motion-induced dose error was quantified as the difference between the final cumulative dose with motion and without motion using the 2D 2%/2mm γ-failure rate and the difference in dose to 95% of the clinical target volume (CTV ΔD_95% ) and the gross target volume (GTV ΔD_95% ) as well as the difference in dose to 0.1 cm³ of the urethra, bladder, and rectum (ΔD_0.1CC ). The motion-induced errors were compared between dose reconstructions and film measurements.

RESULTS

The dose was reconstructed in all calculation points at a mean frequency of 4.7 Hz. The root-mean-square difference between real-time reconstructed and film measured motion-induced errors was 3.1%-points (γ-failure rate), 0.13 Gy (CTV ΔD_95% ), 0.23 Gy (GTV ΔD_95% ), 0.19 Gy (urethra ΔD_0.1CC ), 0.09 Gy (bladder ΔD_0.1CC ), and 0.07 Gy (rectum ΔD_0.1CC ).

CONCLUSIONS

In a series of phantom experiments, online real-time rotation-including dose reconstruction was performed for the first time. The calculated motion-induced errors agreed well with film measurements. The dose reconstruction provides a valuable tool for monitoring dose delivery and investigating the efficacy of advanced motion-compensation techniques in the presence of translational and rotational motion. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Six degrees of freedom dynamic motion-including dose reconstruction in a commercial treatment planning system

PURPOSE

Intrafractional motion during radiotherapy delivery can deteriorate the delivered dose. Dynamic rotational motion of up to 38 degrees has been reported during prostate cancer radiotherapy, but methods to determine the dosimetric consequences of such rotations are lacking. Here, we create and experimentally validate a dose reconstruction method that accounts for dynamic rotations and translations in a commercial treatment planning system (TPS). Interplay effects are quantified by comparing dose reconstructions with dynamic and constant rotations.

METHODS

The dose reconstruction accumulates the dose in points of interest while the points are moved in six degrees of freedom (6DoF) in a precalculated time-resolved four-dimensional (4D) dose matrix to emulate dynamic motion in a patient. The required 4D dose matrix was generated by splitting the original treatment plan into multiple sub-beams, each representing 0.4 s dose delivery, and recalculating the dose of the split plan in the TPS (Eclipse). The dose accumulation was performed via TPS scripting by querying the dose of each sub-beam in dynamically moving points, allowing dose reconstruction with any dynamic motion. The dose reconstruction was validated with film dosimetry for two prostate dual arc VMAT plans with intra-prostatic lesion boosts. The plans were delivered to a pelvis phantom with internal dynamic rotational motion of a film stack (21 films with 2.5 mm separation). Each plan was delivered without motion and with three prostate motion traces. Motion-including dose reconstruction was performed for each motion experiment using the actual dynamic rotation as well as a constant rotation equal to the mean rotation during the experiment. For each experiment, the 3%/2 mm γ failure rate of the TPS dose reconstruction was calculated with the film measurement being the reference. For each motion experiment, the motion-induced 3%/2 mm γ failure rate was calculated using the static delivery as the reference and compared between film measurements and TPS dose reconstruction. DVH metrics for RT structures fully contained in the film volume were also compared between film and TPS.

RESULTS

The mean γ failure rate of the TPS dose reconstructions when compared to film doses was 0.8% (two static experiments) and 1.7% (six dynamic experiments). The mean (range) of the motion-induced γ failure rate in film measurements was 35.4% (21.3-59.2%). The TPS dose reconstruction agreed with these experimental γ failure rates with root-mean-square errors of 2.1% (dynamic rotation dose reconstruction) and 17.1% (dose reconstruction assuming constant rotation). By DVH metrics, the mean (range) difference between dose reconstructions with dynamic and constant rotation was 4.3% (-0.3-10.6%) (urethra D 2 % ), -0.6% (-5.6%-2.5%) (urethra D 99 % ), 1.1% (-7.1-7.7%) (GTV D 2 % ), -1.4% (-17.4-7.1%) (GTV D 95 % ), -1.2% (-17.1-5.7%) (GTV D 99 % ), and -0.1% (-3.2-7.6%) (GTV mean dose). Dose reconstructions with dynamic motion revealed large interplay effects (cold and hot spots).

CONCLUSIONS

A method to perform dose reconstructions for dynamic 6DoF motion in a TPS was developed and experimentally validated. It revealed large differences in dose distribution between dynamic and constant rotations not identifiable through dose reconstructions with constant rotation.

Dosimetric impact of intrafraction prostate rotation and accuracy of gating, multi-leaf collimator tracking and couch tracking to manage rotation: An end-to-end validation using volumetric film measurements

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Both gating and tracking can mitigate the deteriorating dosimetric impact of intrafraction translation during prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). However, their ability to manage intrafraction rotation has not yet been thoroughly investigated. The dosimetric accuracy of gating, MLC tracking and couch tracking to manage intrafraction prostate rotation was investigated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Treatment plans for end-to-end tests of prostate SBRT with focal boosting were generated for a dynamic anthropomorphic pelvis phantom. The phantom applied internal lateral rotation (up to 25°) and coupled vertical and longitudinal translation of a radiochromic film stack that was used for dose measurements. Dose was delivered for each plan while the phantom applied motion according to three typical prostate motion traces without compensation (i), with gating (ii), with MLC tracking (iii) or with couch tracking (iv). Measured doses for the four motion compensation strategies were compared with the planned dose in terms of γ-index analysis, target coverage and organs at risk (OAR) sparing.

RESULTS

Intrafraction rotation reduced the 3%(global)/2mm γ-index passing rate (γPR) for the prostate target volume by median (range) -33.2% (-68.6%, -4.1%) when no motion compensation was applied. The use of motion compensation improved the γPR by 13.2% (-0.4%, 32.9%) for gating, by 6.0% (-0.8%, 27.7%) for MLC tracking and by 11.1% (1.2%, 22.9%) for couch tracking. The three compensation techniques improved the target coverage in most cases. Gating showed better OAR sparing than MLC tracking or couch tracking.

CONCLUSIONS

Compensation of intrafraction prostate rotation with gating, MLC tracking and couch tracking was investigated experimentally for the first time. All three techniques improved the dosimetric accuracy, but residual motion-related dose errors remained due to the lack of rotation correction.

First clinical real-time motion-including tumor dose reconstruction during radiotherapy delivery

PURPOSE

To clinically implement and characterize real-time motion-including tumor dose reconstruction during radiotherapy delivery.

METHODS

Seven patients with 2-3 fiducial markers implanted near liver tumors received stereotactic body radiotherapy on a conventional linear accelerator. The 3D marker motion during a setup CBCT scan was determined online from the CBCT projections and used to generate a correlation model between tumor and external marker block motion. During treatment, the correlation model was updated by kV imaging every three seconds and used for real-time tumor localization. Using streamed accelerator parameters and tumor positions, in-house developed software, DoseTracker, calculated the dose to the moving tumor in real-time assuming water density in the patient. Post-treatment, the real-time tumor localization was validated by comparison with independent marker segmentations and 3D motion estimations. Dose reconstruction was validated by comparison with treatment planning system (TPS) calculations that modeled motion as isocenter shifts and used both actual CT densities and water densities.

RESULTS

The real-time estimated tumor position had a mean 3D root-mean-square error of 1.7 mm (range: 0.9-2.6 mm). The motion-induced reduction in the minimum dose to 95% of the clinical target volume (CTV D95) per fraction was up to 12.3%-points. It was estimated in real-time by DoseTracker during patient treatment with a root-mean-square difference relative to the TPS of 1.3%-points (TPS CT) and 1.0%-points (TPS water).

CONCLUSIONS

The world's first clinical real-time motion-including tumor dose reconstruction during radiotherapy was demonstrated. This marks an important milestone for real-time in-treatment quality assurance and paves the way for real-time dose-guided treatment adaptation.

Validation of fast motion-including dose reconstruction for proton scanning therapy in the liver

This study validates a method of fast motion-including dose reconstruction for proton pencil beam scanning in the liver. The method utilizes a commercial treatment planning system (TPS) and calculates the delivered dose for any translational 3D target motion. Data from ten liver patients previously treated with photon radiotherapy with intrafraction tumour motion monitoring were used. The dose reconstruction method utilises an in-house developed program to incorporate beam's-eye-view tumour motion by shifting each spot in the opposite direction of the tumour and in-depth motion as beam energy changes for each spot. The doses are then calculated on a single CT phase in the TPS. Two aspects of the dose reconstruction were assessed: (1) The accuracy of reconstruction, by comparing dose reconstructions created using 4DCT motion with ground truth doses obtained by calculating phase specific doses in all 4DCT phases and summing up these partial doses. (2) The error caused by assuming 4DCT motion, by comparing reconstructions with 4DCT motion and actual tumour motion. The CTV homogeneity index (HI) and the root-mean-square (rms) dose error for all dose points receiving  >70%, >80% and  >90% of the prescribed dose were calculated. The dose reconstruction resulted in mean (range) absolute CTV HI errors of 1.0% (0.0-3.0)% and rms dose errors of 2.5% (1.0%-5.3%), 2.1% (0.9%-4.5%), and 1.8% (0.7%-3.7%) for  >70%, >80% and  >90% doses, respectively, when compared with the ground truth. The assumption of 4DCT motion resulted in mean (range) absolute CTV HI errors of 5.9% (0.0-15.0)% and rms dose errors of 6.3% (3.9%-12.6%), 5.9% (3.4%-12.5%), and 5.4% (2.6%-12.1%) for  >70%, >80% and  >90% doses, respectively. The investigated method allows tumour dose reconstruction with the actual tumour motion and results in significantly smaller dose errors than those caused by assuming that motion at treatment is identical to the 4DCT motion.

First online real-time evaluation of motion-induced 4D dose errors during radiotherapy delivery

PURPOSE

In radiotherapy, dose deficits caused by tumor motion often far outweigh the discrepancies typically allowed in plan-specific quality assurance (QA). Yet, tumor motion is not usually included in present QA. We here present a novel method for online treatment verification by real-time motion-including four-dimensional (4D) dose reconstruction and dose evaluation and demonstrate its use during stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) delivery with and without MLC tracking.

METHODS

Five volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were delivered with and without MLC tracking to a motion stage carrying a Delta4 dosimeter. The VMAT plans have previously been used for (nontracking) liver SBRT with intratreatment tumor motion recorded by kilovoltage intrafraction monitoring (KIM). The motion stage reproduced the KIM-measured tumor motions in three dimensions (3D) while optical monitoring guided the MLC tracking. Linac parameters and the target position were streamed to an in-house developed software program (DoseTracker) that performed real-time 4D dose reconstructions and 3%/3 mm γ-evaluations of the reconstructed cumulative dose using a concurrently reconstructed planned dose without target motion as reference. Offline, the real-time reconstructed doses and γ-evaluations were validated against 4D dosimeter measurements performed during the experiments.

RESULTS

In total, 181,120 dose reconstructions and 5,237 γ-evaluations were performed online and in real time with median computation times of 30 ms and 1.2 s, respectively. The mean (standard deviation) difference between reconstructed and measured doses was -1.2% (4.9%) for transient doses and -1.5% (3.9%) for cumulative doses. The root-mean-square deviation between reconstructed and measured motion-induced γ-fail rates was 2.0%-point. The mean (standard deviation) sensitivity and specificity of DoseTracker to predict γ-fail rates above a given threshold was 96.8% (3.5%) and 99.2% (0.4%), respectively, for clinically relevant thresholds between 1% and 30% γ-fail rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-time delivery-specific QA during radiotherapy of moving targets was demonstrated for the first time. It allows supervision of treatment accuracy and action on treatment discrepancy within 2 s with high sensitivity and specificity.