Three-dimensional electron beam dose calculations

The MDAH pencil-beam algorithm developed by Hogstrom et al (1981) has been widely used in clinics for electron beam dose calculations for radiotherapy treatment planning. The primary objective of this research was to address several deficiencies of that algorithm and to develop an enhanced version. Two enhancements have been incorporated into the pencil-beam algorithm; one models fluence rather than planar fluence, and the other models the bremsstrahlung dose using measured beam data. Comparisons of the resulting calculated dose distributions with measured dose distributions for several test phantoms have been made. From these results it is concluded (1) that the fluence-based algorithm is more accurate to use for the dose calculation in an inhomogeneous slab phantom, and (2) the fluence-based calculation provides only a limited improvement to the accuracy the calculated dose in the region just downstream of the lateral edge of an inhomogeneity. The source of the latter inaccuracy is believed primarily due to assumptions made in the pencil beam's modeling of the complex phantom or patient geometry.^ A pencil-beam redefinition model was developed for the calculation of electron beam dose distributions in three dimensions. The primary aim of this redefinition model was to solve the dosimetry problem presented by deep inhomogeneities, which was the major deficiency of the enhanced version of the MDAH pencil-beam algorithm. The pencil-beam redefinition model is based on the theory of electron transport by redefining the pencil beams at each layer of the medium. The unique approach of this model is that all the physical parameters of a given pencil beam are characterized for multiple energy bins. Comparisons of the calculated dose distributions with measured dose distributions for a homogeneous water phantom and for phantoms with deep inhomogeneities have been made. From these results it is concluded that the redefinition algorithm is superior to the conventional, fluence-based, pencil-beam algorithm, especially in predicting the dose distribution downstream of a local inhomogeneity. The accuracy of this algorithm appears sufficient for clinical use, and the algorithm is structured for future expansion of the physical model if required for site specific treatment planning problems. ^

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. ^

Pencil -beam redefinition algorithm dose calculations for electron therapy treatment planning

The electron pencil-beam redefinition algorithm (PBRA) of Shiu and Hogstrom has been developed for use in radiotherapy treatment planning (RTP). Earlier studies of Boyd and Hogstrom showed that the PBRA lacked an adequate incident beam model, that PBRA might require improved electron physics, and that no data existed which allowed adequate assessment of the PBRA-calculated dose accuracy in a heterogeneous medium such as one presented by patient anatomy. The hypothesis of this research was that by addressing the above issues the PBRA-calculated dose would be accurate to within 4% or 2 mm in regions of high dose gradients. A secondary electron source was added to the PBRA to account for collimation-scattered electrons in the incident beam. Parameters of the dual-source model were determined from a minimal data set to allow ease of beam commissioning. Comparisons with measured data showed 3% or better dose accuracy in water within the field for cases where 4% accuracy was not previously achievable. A measured data set was developed that allowed an evaluation of PBRA in regions distal to localized heterogeneities. Geometries in the data set included irregular surfaces and high- and low-density internal heterogeneities. The data was estimated to have 1% precision and 2% agreement with accurate, benchmarked Monte Carlo (MC) code. PBRA electron transport was enhanced by modeling local pencil beam divergence. This required fundamental changes to the mathematics of electron transport (divPBRA). Evaluation of divPBRA with the measured data set showed marginal improvement in dose accuracy when compared to PBRA; however, 4% or 2mm accuracy was not achieved by either PBRA version for all data points. Finally, PBRA was evaluated clinically by comparing PBRA- and MC-calculated dose distributions using site-specific patient RTP data. Results show PBRA did not agree with MC to within 4% or 2mm in a small fraction (<3%) of the irradiated volume. Although the hypothesis of the research was shown to be false, the minor dose inaccuracies should have little or no impact on RTP decisions or patient outcome. Therefore, given ease of beam commissioning, documentation of accuracy, and calculational speed, the PBRA should be considered a practical tool for clinical use. ^

COMPARISON OF MEASUREMENTS OF ABSORBED DOSE TO WATER USING A WATER CALORIMETER AND IONIZATION CHAMBERS FOR CLINICAL RADIOTHERAPY PHOTON AND ELECTRON BEAMS

With the development of the water calorimeter direct measurement of absorbed dose in water becomes possible. This could lead to the establishment of an absorbed dose rather than an exposure related standard for ionization chambers for high energy electrons and photons. In changing to an absorbed dose standard it is necessary to investigate the effect of different parameters, among which are the energy dependence, the air volume, wall thickness and material of the chamber. The effect of these parameters is experimentally studied and presented for several commercially available chambers and one experimental chamber, for photons up to 25 MV and electrons up to 20 MeV, using a water calorimeter as the absorbed dose standard and the most recent formalism to calculate the absorbed dose with ion chambers.^ For electron beams, the dose measured with the calorimeter was 1% lower than the dose calculated with the chambers, independent of beam energy and chamber.^ For photon beams, the absorbed dose measured with the calorimeter was 3.8% higher than the absorbed dose calculated from the chamber readings. Such differences were found to be chamber and energy independent.^ The results for the photons were found to be statistically different from the results with the electron beams. Such difference could not be attributed to a difference in the calorimeter response. ^