The development of Monte Carlo techniques for the verification of radiotherapy treatments

Introduction: Recent advances in the planning and delivery of radiotherapy treatments have resulted in improvements in the accuracy and precision with which therapeutic radiation can be administered. As the complexity of the treatments increases it becomes more difficult to predict the dose distribution in the patient accurately. Monte Carlo (MC) methods have the potential to improve the accuracy of the dose calculations and are increasingly being recognised as the ‘gold standard’ for predicting dose deposition in the patient [1]. This project has three main aims: 1. To develop tools that enable the transfer of treatment plan information from the treatment planning system (TPS) to a MC dose calculation engine. 2. To develop tools for comparing the 3D dose distributions calculated by the TPS and the MC dose engine. 3. To investigate the radiobiological significance of any errors between the TPS patient dose distribution and the MC dose distribution in terms of Tumour Control Probability (TCP) and Normal Tissue Complication Probabilities (NTCP). The work presented here addresses the first two aims. Methods: (1a) Plan Importing: A database of commissioned accelerator models (Elekta Precise and Varian 2100CD) has been developed for treatment simulations in the MC system (EGSnrc/BEAMnrc). Beam descriptions can be exported from the TPS using the widespread DICOM framework, and the resultant files are parsed with the assistance of a software library (PixelMed Java DICOM Toolkit). The information in these files (such as the monitor units, the jaw positions and gantry orientation) is used to construct a plan-specific accelerator model which allows an accurate simulation of the patient treatment field. (1b) Dose Simulation: The calculation of a dose distribution requires patient CT images which are prepared for the MC simulation using a tool (CTCREATE) packaged with the system. Beam simulation results are converted to absolute dose per- MU using calibration factors recorded during the commissioning process and treatment simulation. These distributions are combined according to the MU meter settings stored in the exported plan to produce an accurate description of the prescribed dose to the patient. (2) Dose Comparison: TPS dose calculations can be obtained using either a DICOM export or by direct retrieval of binary dose files from the file system. Dose difference, gamma evaluation and normalised dose difference algorithms [2] were employed for the comparison of the TPS dose distribution and the MC dose distribution. These implementations are spatial resolution independent and able to interpolate for comparisons. Results and Discussion: The tools successfully produced Monte Carlo input files for a variety of plans exported from the Eclipse (Varian Medical Systems) and Pinnacle (Philips Medical Systems) planning systems: ranging in complexity from a single uniform square field to a five-field step and shoot IMRT treatment. The simulation of collimated beams has been verified geometrically, and validation of dose distributions in a simple body phantom (QUASAR) will follow. The developed dose comparison algorithms have also been tested with controlled dose distribution changes. Conclusion: The capability of the developed code to independently process treatment plans has been demonstrated. A number of limitations exist: only static fields are currently supported (dynamic wedges and dynamic IMRT will require further development), and the process has not been tested for planning systems other than Eclipse and Pinnacle. The tools will be used to independently assess the accuracy of the current treatment planning system dose calculation algorithms for complex treatment deliveries such as IMRT in treatment sites where patient inhomogeneities are expected to be significant. Acknowledgements: Computational resources and services used in this work were provided by the HPC and Research Support Group, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. Pinnacle dose parsing made possible with the help of Paul Reich, North Coast Cancer Institute, North Coast, New South Wales.

The effect of organ motion of radiotherapy plans

Organ motion as a result of respiration is an important field of research for medical physics. Knowledge of magnitude and direction of this motion is necessary to allow for more accurate radiotherapy treatment planning. This will result in higher doses to the tumour whilst sparing healthy tissue. This project involved human trials, where the radiation therapy patient's kidneys were CT scanned under three different conditions; whilst free breathing (FB), breath-hold at normal tidal inspiration (BHIN), and breath-hold at normal tidal expiration (BHEX). The magnitude of motion was measured by recording the outline of the kidney from a Beam's Eye View (BEV). The centre of mass of this 2D shape was calculated for each set using "ImageJ" software and the magnitude of movement determined from the change in the centroid's coordinates between the BHIN and BHEX scans. The movement ranged from, for the left and right kidneys, 4-46mm and 2-44mm in the superior/inferior (axial) plane, 1-21mm and 2- 16mm in the anterior/posterior (coronal) plane, and 0-6mm and 0-8mm in the lateral/medial (sagittal) plane. From exhale to inhale, the kidneys tended to move inferiorly, anteriorly and laterally. A standard radiotherapy plan, designed to treat the para-aortics with opposed lateral fields was performed on the free breathing (planning) CT set. The field size and arrangement was set up using the same parameters for each subject. The prescription was to deliver 45 Gray in 25 fractions. This field arrangement and prescription was then copied over to the breath hold CT sets, and the dosimetric differences were compared using Dose Volume Histograms (DVH). The point of comparison for the three sets was recorded as the percentage volume of kidney receiving less than or equal to 10 Gray. The QUASAR respiratory motion phantom was used with the range of motion determined from the human study. The phantom was imaged, planned and treated with a linear accelerator with dose determined by film. The effect of the motion was measured by the change in the penumbra of the film and compared to the penumbra from the treatment planning system.