BENCHMARKING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A NEW INDEPENDENT MONTE CARLO DOSE CALCULATION QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDIT TOOL FOR CLINICAL TRIALS

Introduction Commercial treatment planning systems employ a variety of dose calculation algorithms to plan and predict the dose distributions a patient receives during external beam radiation therapy. Traditionally, the Radiological Physics Center has relied on measurements to assure that institutions participating in the National Cancer Institute sponsored clinical trials administer radiation in doses that are clinically comparable to those of other participating institutions. To complement the effort of the RPC, an independent dose calculation tool needs to be developed that will enable a generic method to determine patient dose distributions in three dimensions and to perform retrospective analysis of radiation delivered to patients who enrolled in past clinical trials. Methods A multi-source model representing output for Varian 6 MV and 10 MV photon beams was developed and evaluated. The Monte Carlo algorithm, know as the Dose Planning Method (DPM), was used to perform the dose calculations. The dose calculations were compared to measurements made in a water phantom and in anthropomorphic phantoms. Intensity modulated radiation therapy and stereotactic body radiation therapy techniques were used with the anthropomorphic phantoms. Finally, past patient treatment plans were selected and recalculated using DPM and contrasted against a commercial dose calculation algorithm. Results The multi-source model was validated for the Varian 6 MV and 10 MV photon beams. The benchmark evaluations demonstrated the ability of the model to accurately calculate dose for the Varian 6 MV and the Varian 10 MV source models. The patient calculations proved that the model was reproducible in determining dose under similar conditions described by the benchmark tests. Conclusions The dose calculation tool that relied on a multi-source model approach and used the DPM code to calculate dose was developed, validated, and benchmarked for the Varian 6 MV and 10 MV photon beams. Several patient dose distributions were contrasted against a commercial algorithm to provide a proof of principal to use as an application in monitoring clinical trial activity.

THE EQUILIBRIUM CONSTANT FOR THE GLYCINE SYNTHASE REACTION (ONE-CARBON, METABOLISM, FOLATE)

The equilibrium constant (K(,c)) under physiological conditions (38(DEGREES)C, 0.25 M ionic strength (I), pH 7.0) for the glycine synthase (GS) reaction (E C 2.1.2.1.0) (Equation 1) has been determined. (UNFORMATTED TABLE FOLLOWS)^ 5,10-CH(,2)-H(,4)Folate NADH NH (,4)+ CO(,2) ^ K(,c) = Eq. 1^ H(,4)Folate NAD('+) GLY ^(TABLE ENDS)^ The enzymatic instability of the GS enzyme complex itself has made it necessary to determine the overall K(,c) from the product of constants for the partial reactions of GS determined separately under the same conditions. The partial reactions are the H(,4)Folate-formaldehyde (CH(,2)(OH)(,2)) condensation reaction (Reaction 1) the K(,c) for which has been reported by this laboratory (3.0 x 10('4)), the lipoate (LipS(,2)) dehydrogenase reaction (LipDH) (Reaction 2) and the Gly-Lip^ decarboxylase reaction (Reaction 3) forming reduced lipoate (Lip(SH)(,2)), NH(,4)('+), CO(,2) and CH(,2)(OH)(,2.) (UNFORMATTED TABLE FOLLOWS)(,)^ H(,4)Fote + CH(,2)(OH)(,2) 5,10-CH(,2)-H(,4)Folate (1)^ Lip(SH)(,2) + NAD('+) LipS(,2) + NADH + H('+) (2)^ H('+) + Gly + LipS(,2) Lip(SH)(,2) + NH(,4)('+) CO(,2) + CH(,2)(OH)(,2) (3)^(TABLE ENDS)^ In this work the K(,c) for Reactions 2 and 3 are reported.^ The K(,c)' for the LipDH reaction described by other authors was reported with unexplainable conclusions regarding the pH depend- ence for the reaction. These conclusions would imply otherwise unexpected acid dissociation constants for reduced and oxidized lipoate. The pK(,a)',s for these compounds have been determined to resolve discrepancy. The conclusions are as follows: (1) The K(,c) for the LipDH reaction is 2.08 x 10('-8); (2) The pK(,a)',s for Lip(SH)(,2) are 4.77(-COOH), 9.91(-SH), 11.59(-SH); for LipS(,2) the carboxyl pK(,a)' is 4.77; (3) Contrary to previous literature, the log K(,c)' for the LipDH reaction is a linear function of the pH, a conclusion supported by the values for the dissociation constants.^ The K(,c) for Reaction 3 is the product of constants for Reactions 4-7. (UNFORMATTED TABLE FOLLOWS)^ LipSHSCH(,2)OH + H(,2)O Lip(SH)(,2) + CH(,2)(OH)(,2) (4)^ H(,2)O + LipSHSCH(,2)NH(,3)('+) LipSHSCH(,2)OH + NH(,4)('+) (5)^ LipSHSCH(,2)NH(,2) + H('+) LipSHSCH(,2)NH(,3)('+) (6)^ Gly + LipS(,2) LipSHSCH(,2)NH(,2) + CO(,2) (7)^(TABLE ENDS)^ Reactions 4-6 are non-enzymatic reactions whose constants were determined spectrophotometrically. Reaction 7 was catalyzed by the partially purified P-protein of GS with equilibrium approached from both directions. The value for K(,c) for this reaction is 8.15 x 10('-3). The combined K(,c) for Reactions 4-7 or Reaction 3 is 2.4 M.^ The overall K(,c) for the GS reaction determined by combination of values for Reactions 1-3 is 1.56 x 10('-3). ^

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.

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.