MODIFICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RPC HETEROGENEOUS THORAX PHANTOM FOR VERIFICATION OF PROTON THERAPY TREATMENT PROCEDURES

The Radiological Physics Center (RPC) provides heterogeneous phantoms that are used to evaluate radiation treatment procedures as part of a comprehensive quality assurance program for institutions participating in clinical trials. It was hypothesized that the existing RPC heterogeneous thorax phantom can be modified to assess lung tumor proton beam therapy procedures involving patient simulation, treatment planning, and treatment delivery, and could confirm agreement between the measured dose and calculated dose within 5%/3mm with a reproducibility of 5%. The Hounsfield Units (HU) for lung equivalent materials (balsa wood and cork) was measured using a CT scanner. The relative linear stopping power (RLSP) of these materials was measured. The linear energy transfer (LET) of Gafchromic EBT2 film was analyzed utilizing parallel and perpendicular orientations in a water tank and compared to ion chamber readings. Both parallel and perpendicular orientations displayed a quenching effect underperforming the ion chamber, with the parallel orientation showing an average 31 % difference and the perpendicular showing an average of 15% difference. Two treatment plans were created that delivered the prescribed dose to the target volume, while achieving low entrance doses. Both treatment plans were designed using smeared compensators and expanded apertures, as would be utilized for a patient in the clinic. Plan 1a contained two beams that were set to orthogonal angles and a zero degree couch kick. Plan 1b utilized two beams set to 10 and 80 degrees with a 15 degree couch kick. EBT2 film and TLD were inserted and the phantom was irradiated 3 times for each plan. Both plans passed the criteria for the TLD measurements where the TLD values were within 7% of the dose calculated by Eclipse. Utilizing the 5%/3mm criteria, the 3 trial average of overall pass rate was 71% for Plan 1a. The 3 trial average for the overall pass rate was 76% for Plan 1b. The trials were then analyzed using RPC conventional lung treatment guidelines set forth by the RTOG: 5%/5mm, and an overall pass rate of 85%. Utilizing these criteria, only Plan 1b passed for all 3 trials, with an average overall pass rate of 89%.

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.

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.

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.