AN EVALUATION OF THE CONSISTENCY OF IMRT PATIENT-SPECIFIC QA TECHNIQUES

To ensure the integrity of an intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment, each plan must be validated through a measurement-based quality assurance (QA) procedure, known as patient specific IMRT QA. Many methods of measurement and analysis have evolved for this QA. There is not a standard among clinical institutions, and many devices and action levels are used. Since the acceptance criteria determines if the dosimetric tools’ output passes the patient plan, it is important to see how these parameters influence the performance of the QA device. While analyzing the results of IMRT QA, it is important to understand the variability in the measurements. Due to the different form factors of the many QA methods, this reproducibility can be device dependent. These questions of patient-specific IMRT QA reproducibility and performance were investigated across five dosimeter systems: a helical diode array, radiographic film, ion chamber, diode array (AP field-by-field, AP composite, and rotational composite), and an in-house designed multiple ion chamber phantom. The reproducibility was gauged for each device by comparing the coefficients of variation (CV) across six patient plans. The performance of each device was determined by comparing each one’s ability to accurately label a plan as acceptable or unacceptable compared to a gold standard. All methods demonstrated a CV of less than 4%. Film proved to have the highest variability in QA measurement, likely due to the high level of user involvement in the readout and analysis. This is further shown by how the setup contributed more variation than the readout and analysis for all of the methods, except film. When evaluated for ability to correctly label acceptable and unacceptable plans, two distinct performance groups emerged with the helical diode array, AP composite diode array, film, and ion chamber in the better group; and the rotational composite and AP field-by-field diode array in the poorer group. Additionally, optimal threshold cutoffs were determined for each of the dosimetry systems. These findings, combined with practical considerations for factors such as labor and cost, can aid a clinic in its choice of an effective and safe patient-specific IMRT QA implementation.

Clinical Impact of Couch Top and Rails on IMRT and Arc Therapy

Purpose: To evaluate the clinical impact of the Varian Exact Couch on dose and volume coverage to targets and critical structures and tumor control probability (TCP) for 6-MV IMRT and Arc Therapy. Methods: Five clinical prostate patients were planned with both, 6-MV 8-field IMRT and 6-MV 2-field RapidArc using the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS). These plans neglected treatment couch attenuation, as is standard clinical practice. Dose distributions were then recalculated in Eclipse with the inclusion of the Varian Exact Couch (imaging couch top) and the rails in varying configurations. The changes in dose and coverage were evaluated using the DVHs from each plan iteration. We used a tumor control probability (TCP) model to calculate losses in tumor control resulting from not accounting for the couch top and rails. We also verified dose measurements in a phantom. Results: Failure to account for the treatment couch and rails resulted in clinically unacceptable dose and volume coverage losses to the target for both IMRT and RapidArc. The couch caused average dose losses (relative to plans that ignored the couch) to the prostate of 4.2% and 2.0% for IMRT with the rails out and in, respectively, and 3.2% and 2.9% for RapidArc with the rails out and in, respectively. On average, the percentage of the target covered by the prescribed dose dropped to 35% and 84% for IMRT (rails out and in, respectively) and to 18% and 17% for RapidArc (rails out and in, respectively). The TCP was also reduced by as much as 10.5% (6.3% on average). Dose and volume coverage losses for IMRT plans were primarily due to the rails, while the imaging couch top contributed most to losses for RapidArc. Both the couch top and rails contribute to dose and coverage losses that can render plans clinically unacceptable. A follow-up study we performed found that the less attenuating unipanel mesh couch top available with the Varian Exact couch does not cause a clinically impactful loss of dose or coverage for IMRT but still causes an unacceptable loss for RapidArc. Conclusions: Both the imaging couch top and rails contribute to dose and coverage loss to a degree that, if included, would prevent the plan from meeting clinical planning criteria. Therefore, the imaging and mesh couch tops and rails should be accounted for in Arc Therapy and the imaging couch and rails only in IMRT treatment planning.

The effect of shoulder variation on IMRT and SmartArc for Head and Neck Cancer

Purpose: First, to determine an average and maximum displacement of the shoulder relative to isocenter over the course of treatment. Second, to establish the dosimetric effect of shoulder displacements relative to correct isocenter alignment on the dose delivered to the target and the surrounding structures for head and neck cancer patients. Method and Materials: The frequency of shoulder shifts of various magnitudes relative to isocenter was assessed for 4 patients using image registration software. The location of the center of the right and left humeral head relative to isocenter (usually C2) was found daily from CT on rails scans, and was compared to the location of the humeral heads relative to isocenter on the initial simulation CT. Three Baseline head and neck IMRT and SmartArc plans were generated in Pinnacle based on simulation CTs. The CT datasets (external contour and boney structures) were then modified to represent shifts of the shoulder (relative to isocenter) between 3 mm and 15 mm in the SI, AP, and LR directions. The initial plans were recalculated on the image sets with shifted shoulders. Results: On average, shoulder variation was 2-5 mm in each direction, although displacements of over 1 cm in the inferior and posterior directions occurred. Shoulder shifts induced perturbations in the dose distribution, although generally only for large shifts. Most substantially, large, superior shifts resulted in coverage loss by the 95% isodose line for targets in the lower neck. Inferior shifts elevated the dose to the brachial plexus by 0.6-4.1 Gy. SmartArc plans showed similar loss of target coverage as IMRT plans. Conclusions: The position of the shoulder can have an impact on target coverage and critical structure dose. Shoulder position may need to be considered for setup of head and neck patients depending on target location.

EVALUATION OF INTENSITY MODULATED RADIATION THERAPY (IMRT) DELIVERY ERROR DUE TO IMRT TREATMENT PLAN COMPLEXITY AND IMPROPERLY MATCHED DOSIMETRY DATA

Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is a technique that delivers a highly conformal dose distribution to a target volume while attempting to maximally spare the surrounding normal tissues. IMRT is a common treatment modality used for treating head and neck (H&N) cancers, and the presence of many critical structures in this region requires accurate treatment delivery. The Radiological Physics Center (RPC) acts as both a remote and on-site quality assurance agency that credentials institutions participating in clinical trials. To date, about 30% of all IMRT participants have failed the RPC’s remote audit using the IMRT H&N phantom. The purpose of this project is to evaluate possible causes of H&N IMRT delivery errors observed by the RPC, specifically IMRT treatment plan complexity and the use of improper dosimetry data from machines that were thought to be matched but in reality were not. Eight H&N IMRT plans with a range of complexity defined by total MU (1460-3466), number of segments (54-225), and modulation complexity scores (MCS) (0.181-0.609) were created in Pinnacle v.8m. These plans were delivered to the RPC’s H&N phantom on a single Varian Clinac. One of the IMRT plans (1851 MU, 88 segments, and MCS=0.469) was equivalent to the median H&N plan from 130 previous RPC H&N phantom irradiations. This average IMRT plan was also delivered on four matched Varian Clinac machines and the dose distribution calculated using a different 6MV beam model. Radiochromic film and TLD within the phantom were used to analyze the dose profiles and absolute doses, respectively. The measured and calculated were compared to evaluate the dosimetric accuracy. All deliveries met the RPC acceptance criteria of ±7% absolute dose difference and 4 mm distance-to-agreement (DTA). Additionally, gamma index analysis was performed for all deliveries using a ±7%/4mm and ±5%/3mm criteria. Increasing the treatment plan complexity by varying the MU, number of segments, or varying the MCS resulted in no clear trend toward an increase in dosimetric error determined by the absolute dose difference, DTA, or gamma index. Varying the delivery machines as well as the beam model (use of a Clinac 6EX 6MV beam model vs. Clinac 21EX 6MV model), also did not show any clear trend towards an increased dosimetric error using the same criteria indicated above.

COMPREHENSIVE CALCULATION-BASED IMRT QA USING R&V DATA, TREATMENT RECORDS, AND A SECOND TREATMENT PLANNING SYSTEM

Purpose: Traditional patient-specific IMRT QA measurements are labor intensive and consume machine time. Calculation-based IMRT QA methods typically are not comprehensive. We have developed a comprehensive calculation-based IMRT QA method to detect uncertainties introduced by the initial dose calculation, the data transfer through the Record-and-Verify (R&V) system, and various aspects of the physical delivery. Methods: We recomputed the treatment plans in the patient geometry for 48 cases using data from the R&V, and from the delivery unit to calculate the “as-transferred” and “as-delivered” doses respectively. These data were sent to the original TPS to verify transfer and delivery or to a second TPS to verify the original calculation. For each dataset we examined the dose computed from the R&V record (RV) and from the delivery records (Tx), and the dose computed with a second verification TPS (vTPS). Each verification dose was compared to the clinical dose distribution using 3D gamma analysis and by comparison of mean dose and ROI-specific dose levels to target volumes. Plans were also compared to IMRT QA absolute and relative dose measurements. Results: The average 3D gamma passing percentages using 3%-3mm, 2%-2mm, and 1%-1mm criteria for the RV plan were 100.0 (σ=0.0), 100.0 (σ=0.0), and 100.0 (σ=0.1); for the Tx plan they were 100.0 (σ=0.0), 100.0 (σ=0.0), and 99.0 (σ=1.4); and for the vTPS plan they were 99.3 (σ=0.6), 97.2 (σ=1.5), and 79.0 (σ=8.6). When comparing target volume doses in the RV, Tx, and vTPS plans to the clinical plans, the average ratios of ROI mean doses were 0.999 (σ=0.001), 1.001 (σ=0.002), and 0.990 (σ=0.009) and ROI-specific dose levels were 0.999 (σ=0.001), 1.001 (σ=0.002), and 0.980 (σ=0.043), respectively. Comparing the clinical, RV, TR, and vTPS calculated doses to the IMRT QA measurements for all 48 patients, the average ratios for absolute doses were 0.999 (σ=0.013), 0.998 (σ=0.013), 0.999 σ=0.015), and 0.990 (σ=0.012), respectively, and the average 2D gamma(5%-3mm) passing percentages for relative doses for 9 patients was were 99.36 (σ=0.68), 99.50 (σ=0.49), 99.13 (σ=0.84), and 98.76 (σ=1.66), respectively. Conclusions: Together with mechanical and dosimetric QA, our calculation-based IMRT QA method promises to minimize the need for patient-specific QA measurements by identifying outliers in need of further review.

RANGE ADAPTIVE PROTON THERAPY FOR PROSTATE CANCER

Purpose: The rapid distal falloff of a proton beam allows for sparing of normal tissues distal to the target. However proton beams that aim directly towards critical structures are avoided due to concerns of range uncertainties, such as CT number conversion and anatomy variations. We propose to eliminate range uncertainty and enable prostate treatment with a single anterior beam by detecting the proton’s range at the prostate-rectal interface and adaptively adjusting the range in vivo and in real-time. Materials and Methods: A prototype device, consisting of an endorectal liquid scintillation detector and dual-inverted Lucite wedges for range compensation, was designed to test the feasibility and accuracy of the technique. Liquid scintillation filled volume was fitted with optical fiber and placed inside the rectum of an anthropomorphic pelvic phantom. Photodiode-generated current signal was generated as a function of proton beam distal depth, and the spatial resolution of this technique was calculated by relating the variance in detecting proton spills to its maximum penetration depth. The relative water-equivalent thickness of the wedges was measured in a water phantom and prospectively tested to determine the accuracy of range corrections. Treatment simulation studies were performed to test the potential dosimetric benefit in sparing the rectum. Results: The spatial resolution of the detector in phantom measurement was 0.5 mm. The precision of the range correction was 0.04 mm. The residual margin to ensure CTV coverage was 1.1 mm. The composite distal margin for 95% treatment confidence was 2.4 mm. Planning studies based on a previously estimated 2mm margin (90% treatment confidence) for 27 patients showed a rectal sparing up to 51% at 70 Gy and 57% at 40 Gy relative to IMRT and bilateral proton treatment. Conclusion: We demonstrated the feasibility of our design. Use of this technique allows for proton treatment using a single anterior beam, significantly reducing the rectal dose.

Commissioning an Anthropomorphic Spine and Lung Phantom for Remote Dose Verification of Institutions Participating in RTOG 0631

The RPC developed a new phantom to ensure comparable and consistent radiation administration in spinal radiosurgery clinical trials. This study assessed the phantom’s dosimetric and anatomic utility. The ‘spine phantom’ is a water filled thorax with anatomy encountered in spinal radiosurgery: target volume, vertebral column, spinal canal, esophagus, heart, and lungs. The dose to the target volume was measured with axial and sagittal planes of radiochromic film and thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD). The dose distributions were measured with the radiochromic film calibrated to the absolute dose measured by the TLD. Four irradiations were administered: a four angle box plan, a seven angle conformal plan, a seven angle IMRT plan, and a nine angle IMRT plan (denoted as IMRT plan #1 and plan #2, respectively). In each plan, at least 95% of the defined tumor volume received 8 Gy. For each irradiation the planned and administered dose distributions were registered via pinpricks, and compared using point dose measurements, dose profiles, isodose distributions, and gamma analyses. Based on previous experience at the RPC, a gamma analysis was considering passing if greater than 95% of pixels passed the criteria of 5% dose difference and 3 mm distance-to-agreement. Each irradiation showed acceptable agreement in the qualitative assessments and exceeded the 95% passing rate at the 5% / 3 mm criteria, except IMRT plan #1, which was determined to have been poorly localized during treatment administration. The measured and planned dose distributions demonstrated acceptable agreement at the 5% / 3 mm criteria, and the spine phantom was determined to be a useful tool for the remote assessment of an institution’s treatment planning and dose delivery regimen.

Risk of Second Malignant Neoplasms Following Proton Arc Therapy and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Prostate Cancer

The risk of second malignant neoplasms (SMNs) following prostate radiotherapy is a concern due to the large population of survivors and decreasing age at diagnosis. It is known that parallel-opposed beam proton therapy carries a lower risk than photon IMRT. However, a comparison of SMN risk following proton and photon arc therapies has not previously been reported. The purpose of this study was to predict the ratio of excess relative risk (RRR) of SMN incidence following proton arc therapy to that after volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Additionally, we investigated the impact of margin size and the effect of risk-minimized proton beam weighting on predicted RRR. Physician-approved treatment plans were created for both modalities for three patients. Therapeutic dose was obtained with differential dose-volume histograms from the treatment planning system, and stray dose was estimated from the literature or calculated with Monte Carlo simulations. Then, various risk models were applied to the total dose. Additional treatment plans were also investigated with varying margin size and risk-minimized proton beam weighting. The mean RRR ranged from 0.74 to 0.99, depending on risk model. The additional treatment plans revealed that the RRR remained approximately constant with varying margin size, and that the predicted RRR was reduced by 12% using a risk-minimized proton arc therapy planning technique. In conclusion, proton arc therapy was found to provide an advantage over VMAT in regard to predicted risk of SMN following prostate radiotherapy. This advantage was independent of margin size and was amplified with risk-optimized proton beam weighting.

Is a 3-mm intrafractional margin sufficient for daily image-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy of prostate cancer?

PURPOSE: To determine whether a 3-mm isotropic target margin adequately covers the prostate and seminal vesicles (SVs) during administration of an intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment fraction, assuming that daily image-guided setup is performed just before each fraction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In-room computed tomographic (CT) scans were acquired immediately before and after a daily treatment fraction in 46 patients with prostate cancer. An eight-field IMRT plan was designed using the pre-fraction CT with a 3-mm margin and subsequently recalculated on the post-fraction CT. For convenience of comparison, dose plans were scaled to full course of treatment (75.6 Gy). Dose coverage was assessed on the post-treatment CT image set. RESULTS: During one treatment fraction (21.4+/-5.5 min), there were reductions in the volumes of the prostate and SVs receiving the prescribed dose (median reduction 0.1% and 1.0%, respectively, p<0.001) and in the minimum dose to 0.1 cm(3) of their volumes (median reduction 0.5 and 1.5 Gy, p<0.001). Of the 46 patients, three patients' prostates and eight patients' SVs did not maintain dose coverage above 70 Gy. Rectal filling correlated with decreased percentage-volume of SV receiving 75.6, 70, and 60 Gy (p<0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The 3-mm intrafractional margin was adequate for prostate dose coverage. However, a significant subset of patients lost SV dose coverage. The rectal volume change significantly affected SV dose coverage. For advanced-stage prostate cancers, we recommend to use larger margins or improve organ immobilization (such as with a rectal balloon) to ensure SV coverage.

Intact flagellar motor of Borrelia burgdorferi revealed by cryo-electron tomography: evidence for stator ring curvature and rotor/C-ring assembly flexion.

The bacterial flagellar motor is a remarkable nanomachine that provides motility through flagellar rotation. Prior structural studies have revealed the stunning complexity of the purified rotor and C-ring assemblies from flagellar motors. In this study, we used high-throughput cryo-electron tomography and image analysis of intact Borrelia burgdorferi to produce a three-dimensional (3-D) model of the in situ flagellar motor without imposing rotational symmetry. Structural details of B. burgdorferi, including a layer of outer surface proteins, were clearly visible in the resulting 3-D reconstructions. By averaging the 3-D images of approximately 1,280 flagellar motors, a approximately 3.5-nm-resolution model of the stator and rotor structures was obtained. flgI transposon mutants lacked a torus-shaped structure attached to the flagellar rod, establishing the structural location of the spirochetal P ring. Treatment of intact organisms with the nonionic detergent NP-40 resulted in dissolution of the outermost portion of the motor structure and the C ring, providing insight into the in situ arrangement of the stator and rotor structures. Structural elements associated with the stator followed the curvature of the cytoplasmic membrane. The rotor and the C ring also exhibited angular flexion, resulting in a slight narrowing of both structures in the direction perpendicular to the cell axis. These results indicate an inherent flexibility in the rotor-stator interaction. The FliG switching and energizing component likely provides much of the flexibility needed to maintain the interaction between the curved stator and the relatively symmetrical rotor/C-ring assembly during flagellar rotation.

Assessment of Collimator Jaw Optimization in Reducing Normal Tissue Irradiation with Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy

Purpose: To evaluate normal tissue dose reduction in step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) on the Varian 2100 platform by tracking the multileaf collimator (MLC) apertures with the accelerator jaws. Methods: Clinical radiation treatment plans for 10 thoracic, 3 pediatric and 3 head and neck patients were converted to plans with the jaws tracking each segment’s MLC apertures. Each segment was then renormalized to account for the change in collimator scatter to obtain target coverage within 1% of that in the original plan. The new plans were compared to the original plans in a commercial radiation treatment planning system (TPS). Reduction in normal tissue dose was evaluated in the new plan by using the parameters V5, V10, and V20 in the cumulative dose-volume histogram for the following structures: total lung minus GTV (gross target volume), heart, esophagus, spinal cord, liver, parotids, and brainstem. In order to validate the accuracy of our beam model, MLC transmission measurements were made and compared to those predicted by the TPS. Results: The greatest change between the original plan and new plan occurred at lower dose levels. The reduction in V20 was never more than 6.3% and was typically less than 1% for all patients. The reduction in V5 was 16.7% maximum and was typically less than 3% for all patients. The variation in normal tissue dose reduction was not predictable, and we found no clear parameters that indicated which patients would benefit most from jaw tracking. Our TPS model of MLC transmission agreed with measurements with absolute transmission differences of less than 0.1 % and thus uncertainties in the model did not contribute significantly to the uncertainty in the dose determination. Conclusion: The amount of dose reduction achieved by collimating the jaws around each MLC aperture in step-and-shoot IMRT does not appear to be clinically significant.

The design and evaluation of a 2D dose verification system for intensity modulated radiotherapy

The usage of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatments necessitates a significant amount of patient-specific quality assurance (QA). This research has investigated the precision and accuracy of Kodak EDR2 film measurements for IMRT verifications, the use of comparisons between 2D dose calculations and measurements to improve treatment plan beam models, and the dosimetric impact of delivery errors. New measurement techniques and software were developed and used clinically at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center. The software implemented two new dose comparison parameters, the 2D normalized agreement test (NAT) and the scalar NAT index. A single-film calibration technique using multileaf collimator (MLC) delivery was developed. EDR2 film's optical density response was found to be sensitive to several factors: radiation time, length of time between exposure and processing, and phantom material. Precision of EDR2 film measurements was found to be better than 1%. For IMRT verification, EDR2 film measurements agreed with ion chamber results to 2%/2mm accuracy for single-beam fluence map verifications and to 5%/2mm for transverse plane measurements of complete plan dose distributions. The same system was used to quantitatively optimize the radiation field offset and MLC transmission beam modeling parameters for Varian MLCs. While scalar dose comparison metrics can work well for optimization purposes, the influence of external parameters on the dose discrepancies must be minimized. The ability of 2D verifications to detect delivery errors was tested with simulated data. The dosimetric characteristics of delivery errors were compared to patient-specific clinical IMRT verifications. For the clinical verifications, the NAT index and percent of pixels failing the gamma index were exponentially distributed and dependent upon the measurement phantom but not the treatment site. Delivery errors affecting all beams in the treatment plan were flagged by the NAT index, although delivery errors impacting only one beam could not be differentiated from routine clinical verification discrepancies. Clinical use of this system will flag outliers, allow physicists to examine their causes, and perhaps improve the level of agreement between radiation dose distribution measurements and calculations. The principles used to design and evaluate this system are extensible to future multidimensional dose measurements and comparisons. ^

Electron intensity modulation for mixed-beam radiation therapy with an x-ray multi-leaf collimator

The current standard treatment for head and neck cancer at our institution uses intensity-modulated x-ray therapy (IMRT), which improves target coverage and sparing of critical structures by delivering complex fluence patterns from a variety of beam directions to conform dose distributions to the shape of the target volume. The standard treatment for breast patients is field-in-field forward-planned IMRT, with initial tangential fields and additional reduced-weight tangents with blocking to minimize hot spots. For these treatment sites, the addition of electrons has the potential of improving target coverage and sparing of critical structures due to rapid dose falloff with depth and reduced exit dose. In this work, the use of mixed-beam therapy (MBT), i.e., combined intensity-modulated electron and x-ray beams using the x-ray multi-leaf collimator (MLC), was explored. The hypothesis of this study was that addition of intensity-modulated electron beams to existing clinical IMRT plans would produce MBT plans that were superior to the original IMRT plans for at least 50% of selected head and neck and 50% of breast cases. Dose calculations for electron beams collimated by the MLC were performed with Monte Carlo methods. An automation system was created to facilitate communication between the dose calculation engine and the treatment planning system. Energy and intensity modulation of the electron beams was accomplished by dividing the electron beams into 2x2-cm2 beamlets, which were then beam-weight optimized along with intensity-modulated x-ray beams. Treatment plans were optimized to obtain equivalent target dose coverage, and then compared with the original treatment plans. MBT treatment plans were evaluated by participating physicians with respect to target coverage, normal structure dose, and overall plan quality in comparison with original clinical plans. The physician evaluations did not support the hypothesis for either site, with MBT selected as superior in 1 out of the 15 head and neck cases (p=1) and 6 out of 18 breast cases (p=0.95). While MBT was not shown to be superior to IMRT, reductions were observed in doses to critical structures distal to the target along the electron beam direction and to non-target tissues, at the expense of target coverage and dose homogeneity. ^

Development and Implementation of the Use of Optically Stimulated Luminescent Detectors in the Radiological Physics Center Anthropomorphic Quality Assurance Phantoms

The Radiological Physics Center (RPC) uses both on-site and remote reviews to credential institutions for participation in clinical trials. Anthropomorphic quality assurance (QA) phantoms are one tool the RPC uses to remotely audit institutions, which include thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and radiochromic film. The RPC desires to switch from TLD as the absolute dosimeter in the phantoms, to optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters (OSLDs), but a problem lies in the angular dependence exhibited by the OSLD. The purpose of this study was to characterize the angular dependence of OSLD and establish a correction factor if necessary, to provide accurate dosimetric measurements as a replacement for TLD in the QA phantoms. A 10 cm diameter high-impact polystyrene spherical phantom was designed and constructed to hold an OSLD to study the angular response of the dosimeter under the simplest of circumstances for both coplanar and non-coplanar treatment deliveries. OSLD were irradiated in the spherical phantom, and the responses of the dosimeter from edge-on angles were normalized to the response when irradiated with the beam incident normally on the surface of the dosimeter. The average normalized response was used to establish an angular correction factor for 6 MV and 18 coplanar treatments, and for 6 MV non-coplanar treatments specific to CyberKnife. The RPC pelvic phantom dosimetry insert was modified to hold OSLD, in addition to the TLD, adjacent to the planes of film. Treatment plans of increasing angular beam delivery were developed, three in Pinnacle v9.0 (4-field box, IMRT, and VMAT) and one in Accuray’s MultiPlan v3.5.3 (CyberKnife). The plans were delivered to the pelvic phantom containing both TLD and OSLD in the target volume. The pelvic phantom was also sent to two institutions to be irradiated as trials, one delivering IMRT, and the other a CyberKnife treatment. For the IMRT deliveries and the two institution trials, the phantom also included film in the sagittal and coronal planes. The doses measured from the TLD and OSLD were calculated for each irradiation, and the angular correction factors established from the spherical phantom irradiations were applied to the OSLD dose. The ratio of the TLD dose to the angular corrected OSLD dose was calculated for each irradiation. The corrected OSLD dose was found to be within 1% of the TLD measured dose for all irradiations, with the exception of the in-house CyberKnife deliveries. The films were normalized to both TLD measured dose and the corrected OSLD dose. Dose profiles were obtained and gamma analysis was performed using a 7%/4 mm criteria, to compare the ability of the OSLD, when corrected for the angular dependence, to provide equivalent results to TLD. The results of this study indicate that the OSLD can effectively be used as a replacement for TLD in the RPC’s anthropomorphic QA phantoms for coplanar treatment deliveries when a correction is applied for the dosimeter’s angular dependence.

Improving Cervical Cancer Nodal Boost Radiation Therapy by Quantifying Uncertainties and Exploring Advanced Radiation Therapy Modalities

Radiation therapy for patients with intact cervical cancer is frequently delivered using primary external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) followed by two fractions of intracavitary brachytherapy (ICBT). Although the tumor is the primary radiation target, controlling microscopic disease in the lymph nodes is just as critical to patient treatment outcome. In patients where gross lymphadenopathy is discovered, an extra EBRT boost course is delivered between the two ICBT fractions. Since the nodal boost is an addendum to primary EBRT and ICBT, the prescription and delivery must be performed considering previously delivered dose. This project aims to address the major issues of this complex process for the purpose of improving treatment accuracy while increasing dose sparing to the surrounding normal tissues. Because external beam boosts to involved lymph nodes are given prior to the completion of ICBT, assumptions must be made about dose to positive lymph nodes from future implants. The first aim of this project was to quantify differences in nodal dose contribution between independent ICBT fractions. We retrospectively evaluated differences in the ICBT dose contribution to positive pelvic nodes for ten patients who had previously received external beam nodal boost. Our results indicate that the mean dose to the pelvic nodes differed by up to 1.9 Gy between independent ICBT fractions. The second aim is to develop and validate a volumetric method for summing dose of the normal tissues during prescription of nodal boost. The traditional method of dose summation uses the maximum point dose from each modality, which often only represents the worst case scenario. However, the worst case is often an exaggeration when highly conformal therapy methods such as intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) are used. We used deformable image registration algorithms to volumetrically sum dose for the bladder and rectum and created a voxel-by-voxel validation method. The mean error in deformable image registration results of all voxels within the bladder and rectum were 5 and 6 mm, respectively. Finally, the third aim explored the potential use of proton therapy to reduce normal tissue dose. A major physical advantage of protons over photons is that protons stop after delivering dose in the tumor. Although theoretically superior to photons, proton beams are more sensitive to uncertainties caused by interfractional anatomical variations, and must be accounted for during treatment planning to ensure complete target coverage. We have demonstrated a systematic approach to determine population-based anatomical margin requirements for proton therapy. The observed optimal treatment angles for common iliac nodes were 90° (left lateral) and 180° (posterior-anterior [PA]) with additional 0.8 cm and 0.9 cm margins, respectively. For external iliac nodes, lateral and PA beams required additional 0.4 cm and 0.9 cm margins, respectively. Through this project, we have provided radiation oncologists with additional information about potential differences in nodal dose between independent ICBT insertions and volumetric total dose distribution in the bladder and rectum. We have also determined the margins needed for safe delivery of proton therapy when delivering nodal boosts to patients with cervical cancer.