DEVELOPMENT OF A BEAM-SPECIFIC PLANNING TARGET VOLUME AND A ROBUST PLAN ANALYSIS TOOL FOR PROTON THERAPY

Proton therapy is growing increasingly popular due to its superior dose characteristics compared to conventional photon therapy. Protons travel a finite range in the patient body and stop, thereby delivering no dose beyond their range. However, because the range of a proton beam is heavily dependent on the tissue density along its beam path, uncertainties in patient setup position and inherent range calculation can degrade thedose distribution significantly. Despite these challenges that are unique to proton therapy, current management of the uncertainties during treatment planning of proton therapy has been similar to that of conventional photon therapy. The goal of this dissertation research was to develop a treatment planning method and a planevaluation method that address proton-specific issues regarding setup and range uncertainties. Treatment plan designing method adapted to proton therapy: Currently, for proton therapy using a scanning beam delivery system, setup uncertainties are largely accounted for by geometrically expanding a clinical target volume (CTV) to a planning target volume (PTV). However, a PTV alone cannot adequately account for range uncertainties coupled to misaligned patient anatomy in the beam path since it does not account for the change in tissue density. In order to remedy this problem, we proposed a beam-specific PTV (bsPTV) that accounts for the change in tissue density along the beam path due to the uncertainties. Our proposed method was successfully implemented, and its superiority over the conventional PTV was shown through a controlled experiment.. Furthermore, we have shown that the bsPTV concept can be incorporated into beam angle optimization for better target coverage and normal tissue sparing for a selected lung cancer patient. Treatment plan evaluation method adapted to proton therapy: The dose-volume histogram of the clinical target volume (CTV) or any other volumes of interest at the time of planning does not represent the most probable dosimetric outcome of a given plan as it does not include the uncertainties mentioned earlier. Currently, the PTV is used as a surrogate of the CTV’s worst case scenario for target dose estimation. However, because proton dose distributions are subject to change under these uncertainties, the validity of the PTV analysis method is questionable. In order to remedy this problem, we proposed the use of statistical parameters to quantify uncertainties on both the dose-volume histogram and dose distribution directly. The robust plan analysis tool was successfully implemented to compute both the expectation value and its standard deviation of dosimetric parameters of a treatment plan under the uncertainties. For 15 lung cancer patients, the proposed method was used to quantify the dosimetric difference between the nominal situation and its expected value under the uncertainties.

Evaluation of PRESAGE® dosimeters for brachytherapy sources and the 3D dosimetry and characterization of the new AgX100 125I seed model

With continuous new improvements in brachytherapy source designs and techniques, method of 3D dosimetry for treatment dose verifications would better ensure accurate patient radiotherapy treatment. This study was aimed to first evaluate the 3D dose distributions of the low-dose rate (LDR) Amersham 6711 OncoseedTM using PRESAGE® dosimeters to establish PRESAGE® as a suitable brachytherapy dosimeter. The new AgX100 125I seed model (Theragenics Corporation) was then characterized using PRESAGE® following the TG-43 protocol. PRESAGE® dosimeters are solid, polyurethane-based, 3D dosimeters doped with radiochromic leuco dyes that produce a linear optical density response to radiation dose. For this project, the radiochromic response in PRESAGE® was captured using optical-CT scanning (632 nm) and the final 3D dose matrix was reconstructed using the MATLAB software. An Amersham 6711 seed with an air-kerma strength of approximately 9 U was used to irradiate two dosimeters to 2 Gy and 11 Gy at 1 cm to evaluate dose rates in the r=1 cm to r=5 cm region. The dosimetry parameters were compared to the values published in the updated AAPM Report No. 51 (TG-43U1). An AgX100 seed with an air-kerma strength of about 6 U was used to irradiate two dosimeters to 3.6 Gy and 12.5 Gy at 1 cm. The dosimetry parameters for the AgX100 were compared to the values measured from previous Monte-Carlo and experimental studies. In general, the measured dose rate constant, anisotropy function, and radial dose function for the Amersham 6711 showed agreements better than 5% compared to consensus values in the r=1 to r=3 cm region. The dose rates and radial dose functions measured for the AgX100 agreed with the MCNPX and TLD-measured values within 3% in the r=1 to r=3 cm region. The measured anisotropy function in PRESAGE® showed relative differences of up to 9% with the MCNPX calculated values. It was determined that post-irradiation optical density change over several days was non-linear in different dose regions, and therefore the dose values in the r=4 to r=5 cm regions had higher uncertainty due to this effect. This study demonstrated that within the radial distance of 3 cm, brachytherapy dosimetry in PRESAGE® can be accurate within 5% as long as irradiation times are within 48 hours.

Scanned Ion Beam Therapy for Thoracic Tumors

Although frequently cured of Hodgkin lymphoma, adolescents and young adults can develop radiation induced second cancers. These patients could potentially benefit from scanned ion radiotherapy yet likely would require motion mitigation strategies. In theory, four-dimensional (4D) optimization of ion beam fields for individual motion states of respiration can enable superior sparing of healthy tissue near moving targets, compared to other motion mitigation strategies. Furthermore, carbon-ion therapy can sometimes provide greater relative biological effectiveness (RBE) for cell sterilization in a target but nearly equivalent RBE in tissue upstream of the target, compared to proton therapy. Thus, we expected that for some patients with Hodgkin lymphoma, carbon-ion therapy would reduce the predicted risk of second cancer incidence in the breast compared with proton therapy. The purpose of this work was to determine whether 4D-optimized carbon-ion therapy would significantly reduce the predicted risk of radiation induced second cancers in the breast for female Hodgkin lymphoma patients while preserving tumor control compared with proton therapy. To achieve our goals, we first investigated whether 4D-optimized carbon beam tracking could reduce dose to volumes outside a moving target compared with 3D-optimized carbon beam tracking while preserving target dose coverage. To understand the reliability of scanned carbon beam tracking, we studied the robustness of dose distributions in thoracic targets to uncertainties in patient motion. Finally, we investigated whether using carbon-ion therapy instead of proton therapy would significantly reduce the predicted risk of second cancer in the breast for a sample of Hodgkin lymphoma patients. We found that 4D-optimized ion beam tracking therapy can reduce the maximum dose to critical structures near a moving target by as much as 53%, compared to 3D-optimized ion beam tracking therapy. We validated these findings experimentally using a scanned carbon ion synchrotron and a motion phantom. We found scanned carbon beam tracking to be sensitive to a number of motion uncertainties, most notably phase delays in tracking, systematic spatial errors, and interfractional motion changes. Our findings indicate that a lower risk of second cancer in the breast might be expected for some Hodgkin lymphoma patients using carbon-ion therapy instead of proton therapy. For our reference scenario, we found the ratio of risk to be 0.77 ± 0.35 for radiogenic breast cancer after carbon-ion therapy versus proton therapy. Our findings were dependent on the RBE values for tumor induction and the radiosensitivity of breast tissue, as well as the physical dose distribution.

Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Evaluation with the Radiological Physics Center Head and Neck Phantom

Validation of treatment plan quality and dose calculation accuracy is essential for new radiotherapy techniques, including volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). VMAT delivers intensity modulated radiotherapy treatments while simultaneously rotating the gantry, adding an additional level of complexity to both the dose calculation and delivery of VMAT treatments compared to static gantry IMRT. The purpose of this project was to compare two VMAT systems, Elekta VMAT and Varian RapidArc, to the current standard of care, IMRT, in terms of both treatment plan quality and dosimetric delivery accuracy using the Radiological Physics Center (RPC) head and neck (H&N) phantom. Clinically relevant treatment plans were created for the phantom using typical prescription and dose constraints for Elekta VMAT (planned with Pinnacle3 Smart Arc) and RapidArc and IMRT (both planned with Eclipse). The treatment plans were evaluated to determine if they were clinically comparable using several dosimetric criteria, including ability to meet dose objectives, hot spots, conformity index, and homogeneity index. The planned treatments were delivered to the phantom and absolute doses and relative dose distributions were measured with thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and radiochromic film, respectively. The measured and calculated doses of each treatment were compared to determine if they were clinically acceptable based upon RPC criteria of ±7% dose difference and 4 mm distance-to-agreement. Gamma analysis was used to assess dosimetric accuracy, as well. All treatment plans were able to meet the dosimetric objectives set by the RPC and had similar hot spots in the normal tissue. The Elekta VMAT plan was more homogenous but less conformal than the RapidArc and IMRT plans. When comparing the measured and calculated doses, all plans met the RPC ±7%/4 mm criteria. The percent of points passing the gamma analysis for each treatment delivery was acceptable. Treatment plan quality of the Elekta VMAT, RapidArc and IMRT treatments were comparable for consistent dose prescriptions and constraints. Additionally, the dosimetric accuracy of the Elekta VMAT and RapidArc treatments was verified to be within acceptable tolerances.