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.

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.

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.

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.

A 3-D CT assisted Monte Carlo evaluation of intracavitary brachytherapy implants

Intracavitary brachytherapy (ICB) combined with external beam irradiation for treatment of cervical cancer is highly successful in achieving local control. The M.D. Anderson Cancer Center employs Fletcher Suit Delclos (FSD) applicators. FSD applicators contain shields to limit dose to critical structures. Dosimetric evaluation of ICB implants is limited to assessing dose at reference points. These points serve as surrogates for treatment intensity and critical structure dose. Several studies have mentioned that the ICRU38 reference points inadequately characterize the dose distribution. Also, the ovoid shields are rarely considered in dosimetry. ^ The goal of this dissertation was to ascertain the influence of the ovoid shields on patient dose distributions. Monte Carlo dosimetry (MCD) was applied to patient computed tomography(CT) scans. These data were analyzed to determine the effect of the shields on dose to standard reference points and the bladder and rectum. The hypothesis of this work is that the ICRU38 bladder and rectal points computed conventionally are not clinically acceptable surrogates for the maximum dose points as determined by MCD. ^ MCD was applied to the tandem and ovoids. The FSD ovoids and tandem were modeled in a single input file that allowed dose to be calculated for any patient. Dose difference surface histograms(DDSH) were computed for the bladder and rectum. Reference point doses were compared between shielded and unshielded ovoids, and a commercial treatment planning system. ^ The results of this work showed the tandem tip screw caused a 33% reduction in dose. The ovoid shields reduced the dose by a maximum of 48.9%. DDSHs revealed on average 5% of the bladder surface area was spared 53 cGy and 5% of the rectal surface area was spared 195 cGy. The ovoid shields on average reduced the dose by 18% for the bladder point and 25% for the rectal point. The Student's t-test revealed the ICRU38 bladder and rectal points do not predict the maximum dose for these organs. ^ It is concluded that modeling the tandem and ovoid internal structures is necessary for accurate dose calculations, the bladder shielding segments may not be necessary, and that the ICRU38 bladder point is irrelevant. ^

Verification of intensity modulated stereotactic radiotherapy using Monte Carlo calculations and EPID dosimetry

The purpose of this work was to develop a comprehensive IMSRT QA procedure that examined, using EPID dosimetry and Monte Carlo (MC) calculations, each step in the treatment planning and delivery process. These steps included verification of the field shaping, treatment planning system (RTPS) dose calculations, and patient dose delivery. Verification of each step in the treatment process is assumed to result in correct dose delivery to the patient. ^ The accelerator MC model was verified against commissioning data for field sizes from 0.8 × 0.8 cm 2 to 10 × 10 cm 2. Depth doses were within 2% local percent difference (LPD) in low gradient regions and 1 mm distance to agreement (DTA) in high gradient regions. Lateral profiles were within 2% LPD in low gradient regions and 1 mm DTA in high gradient regions. Calculated output factors were within 1% of measurement for field sizes ≥1 × 1 cm2. ^ The measured and calculated pretreatment EPID dose patterns were compared using criteria of 5% LPD, 1 mm DTA, or 2% of central axis pixel value with ≥95% of compared points required to pass for successful verification. Pretreatment field verification resulted in 97% percent of the points passing. ^ The RTPS and Monte Carlo phantom dose calculations were compared using 5% LPD, 2 mm DTA, or 2% of the maximum dose with ≥95% of compared points required passing for successful verification. RTPS calculation verification resulted in 97% percent of the points passing. ^ The measured and calculated EPID exit dose patterns were compared using criteria of 5% LPD, 1 mm DTA, or 2% of central axis pixel value with ≥95% of compared points required to pass for successful verification. Exit dose verification resulted in 97% percent of the points passing. ^ Each of the processes above verified an individual step in the treatment planning and delivery process. The combination of these verification steps ensures accurate treatment delivery to the patient. This work shows that Monte Carlo calculations and EPID dosimetry can be used to quantitatively verify IMSRT treatments resulting in improved patient care and, potentially, improved clinical outcome. ^

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. ^

Proton therapy versus intensity modulated x-ray therapy in the treatment of prostate cancer: Estimating secondary cancer risks

External beam radiation therapy is used to treat nearly half of the more than 200,000 new cases of prostate cancer diagnosed in the United States each year. During a radiation therapy treatment, healthy tissues in the path of the therapeutic beam are exposed to high doses. In addition, the whole body is exposed to a low-dose bath of unwanted scatter radiation from the pelvis and leakage radiation from the treatment unit. As a result, survivors of radiation therapy for prostate cancer face an elevated risk of developing a radiogenic second cancer. Recently, proton therapy has been shown to reduce the dose delivered by the therapeutic beam to normal tissues during treatment compared to intensity modulated x-ray therapy (IMXT, the current standard of care). However, the magnitude of stray radiation doses from proton therapy, and their impact on this incidence of radiogenic second cancers, was not known. ^ The risk of a radiogenic second cancer following proton therapy for prostate cancer relative to IMXT was determined for 3 patients of large, median, and small anatomical stature. Doses delivered to healthy tissues from the therapeutic beam were obtained from treatment planning system calculations. Stray doses from IMXT were taken from the literature, while stray doses from proton therapy were simulated using a Monte Carlo model of a passive scattering treatment unit and an anthropomorphic phantom. Baseline risk models were taken from the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII report. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to characterize the uncertainty of risk calculations to uncertainties in the risk model, the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of neutrons for carcinogenesis, and inter-patient anatomical variations. ^ The risk projections revealed that proton therapy carries a lower risk for radiogenic second cancer incidence following prostate irradiation compared to IMXT. The sensitivity analysis revealed that the results of the risk analysis depended only weakly on uncertainties in the risk model and inter-patient variations. Second cancer risks were sensitive to changes in the RBE of neutrons. However, the findings of the study were qualitatively consistent for all patient sizes and risk models considered, and for all neutron RBE values less than 100. ^

EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ANISOTROPIC ANALYTICAL ALGORITHM IN FLATTENED AND FLATTENING-FILTER-FREE BEAMS FOR HIGH ENERGY LUNG DOSE DELIVERY USING THE RADIOLOGICAL PHYSICS CENTER LUNG PHANTOM

The effectiveness of the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) implemented in the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) was evaluated using theRadiologicalPhysicsCenteranthropomorphic lung phantom using both flattened and flattening-filter-free high energy beams. Radiation treatment plans were developed following the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group and theRadiologicalPhysicsCenterguidelines for lung treatment using Stereotactic Radiation Body Therapy. The tumor was covered such that at least 95% of Planning Target Volume (PTV) received 100% of the prescribed dose while ensuring that normal tissue constraints were followed as well. Calculated doses were exported from the Eclipse TPS and compared with the experimental data as measured using thermoluminescence detectors (TLD) and radiochromic films that were placed inside the phantom. The results demonstrate that the AAA superposition-convolution algorithm is able to calculate SBRT treatment plans with all clinically used photon beams in the range from 6 MV to 18 MV. The measured dose distribution showed a good agreement with the calculated distribution using clinically acceptable criteria of ±5% dose or 3mm distance to agreement. These results show that in a heterogeneous environment a 3D pencil beam superposition-convolution algorithms with Monte Carlo pre-calculated scatter kernels, such as AAA, are able to reliably calculate dose, accounting for increased lateral scattering due to the loss of electronic equilibrium in low density medium. The data for high energy plans (15 MV and 18 MV) showed very good tumor coverage in contrast to findings by other investigators for less sophisticated dose calculation algorithms, which demonstrated less than expected tumor doses and generally worse tumor coverage for high energy plans compared to 6MV plans. This demonstrates that the modern superposition-convolution AAA algorithm is a significant improvement over previous algorithms and is able to calculate doses accurately for SBRT treatment plans in the highly heterogeneous environment of the thorax for both lower (≤12 MV) and higher (greater than 12 MV) beam energies.

Patient classification system: An integrated method for measuring nursing intensity and optimizing resource allocation

A patient classification system was developed integrating a patient acuity instrument with a computerized nursing distribution method based on a linear programming model. The system was designed for real-time measurement of patient acuity (workload) and allocation of nursing personnel to optimize the utilization of resources.^ The acuity instrument was a prototype tool with eight categories of patients defined by patient severity and nursing intensity parameters. From this tool, the demand for nursing care was defined in patient points with one point equal to one hour of RN time. Validity and reliability of the instrument was determined as follows: (1) Content validity by a panel of expert nurses; (2) predictive validity through a paired t-test analysis of preshift and postshift categorization of patients; (3) initial reliability by a one month pilot of the instrument in a practice setting; and (4) interrater reliability by the Kappa statistic.^ The nursing distribution system was a linear programming model using a branch and bound technique for obtaining integer solutions. The objective function was to minimize the total number of nursing personnel used by optimally assigning the staff to meet the acuity needs of the units. A penalty weight was used as a coefficient of the objective function variables to define priorities for allocation of staff.^ The demand constraints were requirements to meet the total acuity points needed for each unit and to have a minimum number of RNs on each unit. Supply constraints were: (1) total availability of each type of staff and the value of that staff member (value was determined relative to that type of staff's ability to perform the job function of an RN (i.e., value for eight hours RN = 8 points, LVN = 6 points); (2) number of personnel available for floating between units.^ The capability of the model to assign staff quantitatively and qualitatively equal to the manual method was established by a thirty day comparison. Sensitivity testing demonstrated appropriate adjustment of the optimal solution to changes in penalty coefficients in the objective function and to acuity totals in the demand constraints.^ Further investigation of the model documented: correct adjustment of assignments in response to staff value changes; and cost minimization by an addition of a dollar coefficient to the objective function. ^