Développement et validation d'une méthode de calcul indépendant des unités moniteur basée sur les simulations Monte Carlo pour la vérification des traitements IMRT

Résumé : La radiothérapie par modulation d'intensité (IMRT) est une technique de traitement qui utilise des faisceaux dont la fluence de rayonnement est modulée. L'IMRT, largement utilisée dans les pays industrialisés, permet d'atteindre une meilleure homogénéité de la dose à l'intérieur du volume cible et de réduire la dose aux organes à risque. Une méthode usuelle pour réaliser pratiquement la modulation des faisceaux est de sommer de petits faisceaux (segments) qui ont la même incidence. Cette technique est appelée IMRT step-and-shoot. Dans le contexte clinique, il est nécessaire de vérifier les plans de traitement des patients avant la première irradiation. Cette question n'est toujours pas résolue de manière satisfaisante. En effet, un calcul indépendant des unités moniteur (représentatif de la pondération des chaque segment) ne peut pas être réalisé pour les traitements IMRT step-and-shoot, car les poids des segments ne sont pas connus à priori, mais calculés au moment de la planification inverse. Par ailleurs, la vérification des plans de traitement par comparaison avec des mesures prend du temps et ne restitue pas la géométrie exacte du traitement. Dans ce travail, une méthode indépendante de calcul des plans de traitement IMRT step-and-shoot est décrite. Cette méthode est basée sur le code Monte Carlo EGSnrc/BEAMnrc, dont la modélisation de la tête de l'accélérateur linéaire a été validée dans une large gamme de situations. Les segments d'un plan de traitement IMRT sont simulés individuellement dans la géométrie exacte du traitement. Ensuite, les distributions de dose sont converties en dose absorbée dans l'eau par unité moniteur. La dose totale du traitement dans chaque élément de volume du patient (voxel) peut être exprimée comme une équation matricielle linéaire des unités moniteur et de la dose par unité moniteur de chacun des faisceaux. La résolution de cette équation est effectuée par l'inversion d'une matrice à l'aide de l'algorithme dit Non-Negative Least Square fit (NNLS). L'ensemble des voxels contenus dans le volume patient ne pouvant être utilisés dans le calcul pour des raisons de limitations informatiques, plusieurs possibilités de sélection ont été testées. Le meilleur choix consiste à utiliser les voxels contenus dans le Volume Cible de Planification (PTV). La méthode proposée dans ce travail a été testée avec huit cas cliniques représentatifs des traitements habituels de radiothérapie. Les unités moniteur obtenues conduisent à des distributions de dose globale cliniquement équivalentes à celles issues du logiciel de planification des traitements. Ainsi, cette méthode indépendante de calcul des unités moniteur pour l'IMRT step-andshootest validée pour une utilisation clinique. Par analogie, il serait possible d'envisager d'appliquer une méthode similaire pour d'autres modalités de traitement comme par exemple la tomothérapie. Abstract : Intensity Modulated RadioTherapy (IMRT) is a treatment technique that uses modulated beam fluence. IMRT is now widespread in more advanced countries, due to its improvement of dose conformation around target volume, and its ability to lower doses to organs at risk in complex clinical cases. One way to carry out beam modulation is to sum smaller beams (beamlets) with the same incidence. This technique is called step-and-shoot IMRT. In a clinical context, it is necessary to verify treatment plans before the first irradiation. IMRT Plan verification is still an issue for this technique. Independent monitor unit calculation (representative of the weight of each beamlet) can indeed not be performed for IMRT step-and-shoot, because beamlet weights are not known a priori, but calculated by inverse planning. Besides, treatment plan verification by comparison with measured data is time consuming and performed in a simple geometry, usually in a cubic water phantom with all machine angles set to zero. In this work, an independent method for monitor unit calculation for step-and-shoot IMRT is described. This method is based on the Monte Carlo code EGSnrc/BEAMnrc. The Monte Carlo model of the head of the linear accelerator is validated by comparison of simulated and measured dose distributions in a large range of situations. The beamlets of an IMRT treatment plan are calculated individually by Monte Carlo, in the exact geometry of the treatment. Then, the dose distributions of the beamlets are converted in absorbed dose to water per monitor unit. The dose of the whole treatment in each volume element (voxel) can be expressed through a linear matrix equation of the monitor units and dose per monitor unit of every beamlets. This equation is solved by a Non-Negative Least Sqvare fif algorithm (NNLS). However, not every voxels inside the patient volume can be used in order to solve this equation, because of computer limitations. Several ways of voxel selection have been tested and the best choice consists in using voxels inside the Planning Target Volume (PTV). The method presented in this work was tested with eight clinical cases, which were representative of usual radiotherapy treatments. The monitor units obtained lead to clinically equivalent global dose distributions. Thus, this independent monitor unit calculation method for step-and-shoot IMRT is validated and can therefore be used in a clinical routine. It would be possible to consider applying a similar method for other treatment modalities, such as for instance tomotherapy or volumetric modulated arc therapy.

Radioterapia de intensidade modulada (IMRT) para pacientes do SUS: análise de 508 tratamentos em dois anos de instalação da técnica

Objetivo: A oferta de radioterapia de alta tecnologia para população atendida pelo Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS) é limitada, por não pertencer ao rol de procedimentos e, muitas vezes, pela capacidade instalada frente à demanda e dificuldade de retenção de recursos humanos especializados. Dessa forma, o acesso à radioterapia de intensidade modulada (IMRT) é restrito a poucos serviços no Brasil. Pretendemos apresentar as características dos primeiros 508 tratamentos de IMRT durante os primeiros anos de instalação da técnica em um hospital universitário. Materiais e Métodos: Foram analisados 508 tratamentos de IMRT, de maio de 2011 a setembro de 2013, que completaram a radioterapia. A técnica empregada foi multilâminas estático. Resultados: De um total de 4.233 pacientes tratados no período, 12,5% realizaram IMRT. As principais indicações foram para crânio, cabeça e pescoço, e próstata. Aproximadamente 30% das radioterapias de crânio e 50% das de próstata foram por IMRT. A toxicidade total foi 4%. Conclusão: Em razão das restrições de acesso à radioterapia e da não cobertura deste procedimento, as indicações de IMRT para pacientes do SUS devem ser apoiadas nos protocolos clínicos das instituições em acordo com sua realidade, com especial atenção à redução da toxicidade.

Efeitos agudos do tratamento de radioterapia em doentes com carcinoma de cabeça e pescoço: IMRT vs RapidArc

A Radioterapia é parte integrante, standart, da abordagem multidisciplinar do tratamento de Carcinomas de Cabeça e Pescoço (CPP). A perceção e descrição dos efeitos provocados pelo tratamento ao nível dos tecidos normais é importante para avaliação clínica do doente, já que com o aparecimento de efeitos agudos severos/graves ao tratamento, este é interrompido, o que afetando diretamente a sobrevida do doente. Este estudo incidiu na avaliação de 6 semanas de tratamento de 46 doentes, contemplando a avaliação dos efeitos agudos do tratamento em cinco áreas anatómicas distintas: Pele, Mucosa, Glândulas Salivares, Faringe/Esófago e Laringe. Fundamentada nos critérios de classificação do Acute Radiation Morbidity Scoring Criteria da Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG). Após a avaliação e análise dos dados, verificou-se que os efeitos agudos obtidos com a técnica de RapidArcTM surgiram mais precocemente, quando comparados com técnica de IMRT. Por outro lado, com a técnica de IMRT registaram-se efeitos mais exacerbados, de alto Grau.

Radioterapia de Intensidade Modulada (IMRT): princípios e técnicas

Neste trabalho, o tema central será a Radioterapia de Intensidade Modulada (IMRT). Quanto a metodologia, trata-se fundamentalmente de uma pesquisa bibliográfica somada ao acompanhamento da rotina da IMRT no Hospital Sírio Libanês e do acompanhamento do controle de qualidade do planejamento com o equipamento MapCHECK no Hospital A. C. Camargo. Os principais objetivos deste trabalho são: descrever a técnica, os seus princípios de funcionamento, os testes de aceite, o comissionamento, o controle de qualidade e a rotina clínica. Para desta maneira, avaliar a IMRT, a sua viabilidade e a importância do físico e da equipe multiprofissional no processo de implementação

Trattamento radioterapico ipofrazionato ad alte dosi del carcinoma prostatico con tecnica ad intensità modulata (IMRT) guidata dalle immagini (IGRT)

Obiettivo: valutare la tossicità ed il controllo di malattia di un trattamento radioterapico ipofrazionato ad alte dosi con tecnica ad intensità modulata (IMRT) guidata dalle immagini (IGRT) in pazienti affetti da carcinoma prostatico a rischio intermedio, alto ed altissimo di recidiva. Materiali e metodi: tutti i pazienti candidati al trattamento sono stati stadiati e sottoposti al posizionamento di tre “markers” fiduciali intraprostatici necessari per l’IGRT. Mediante tecnica SIB – IMRT sono stati erogati alla prostata 67,50 Gy in 25 frazioni (EQD2 = 81 Gy), alle vescichette 56,25 Gy in 25 frazioni (EQD2 = 60,35 Gy) e ai linfonodi pelvici, qualora irradiati, 50 Gy in 25 frazioni. La tossicità gastrointestinale (GI) e genitourinaria (GU) è stata valutata mediante i CTCAE v. 4.03. Per individuare una possibile correlazione tra i potenziali fattori di rischio e la tossicità registrata è stato utilizzato il test esatto di Fisher e la sopravvivenza libera da malattia è stata calcolata mediante il metodo di Kaplan-Meier. Risultati: sono stati arruolati 71 pazienti. Il follow up medio è di 19 mesi (3-35 mesi). Nessun paziente ha dovuto interrompere il trattamento per la tossicità acuta. Il 14% dei pazienti (10 casi) ha presentato una tossicità acuta GI G ≥ 2 e il 15% (11 pazienti) ha riportato una tossicità acuta GU G2. Per quanto riguarda la tossicità tardiva GI e GU G ≥ 2, essa è stata documentata, rispettivamente, nel 14% dei casi (9 pazienti) e nell’11% (7 pazienti). Non è stata riscontrata nessuna tossicità, acuta o cronica, G4. Nessun fattore di rischio correlava con la tossicità. La sopravvivenza libera da malattia a 2 anni è del 94%. Conclusioni: il trattamento radioterapico ipofrazionato ad alte dosi con IMRT-IGRT appare essere sicuro ed efficace. Sono comunque necessari ulteriori studi per confermare questi dati ed i presupposti radiobiologici dell’ipofrazionamento del carcinoma prostatico.

The Swiss IMRT dosimetry intercomparison using a thorax phantom

In 2008, a national intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) dosimetry intercomparison was carried out for all 23 radiation oncology institutions in Switzerland. It was the aim to check the treatment chain focused on the planning, dose calculation, and irradiation process.

Leaf transmission reduction using moving jaws for dynamic MLC IMRT

The aim of this work is to investigate to what extent it is possible to use the secondary collimator jaws to reduce the transmitted radiation through the multileaf collimator (MLC) during an intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). A method is developed and introduced where the jaws follow the open window of the MLC dynamically (dJAW method). With the aid of three academic cases (Closed MLC, Sliding-gap, and Chair) and two clinical cases (prostate and head and neck) the feasibility of the dJAW method and the influence of this method on the applied dose distributions are investigated. For this purpose the treatment planning system Eclipse and the Research-Toolbox were used as well as measurements within a solid water phantom were performed. The transmitted radiation through the closed MLC leads to an inhomogeneous dose distribution. In this case, the measured dose within a plane perpendicular to the central axis differs up to 40% (referring to the maximum dose within this plane) for 6 and 15 MV. The calculated dose with Eclipse is clearly more homogeneous. For the Sliding-gap case this difference is still up to 9%. Among other things, these differences depend on the depth of the measurement within the solid water phantom and on the application method. In the Chair case, the dose in regions where no dose is desired is locally reduced by up to 50% using the dJAW method instead of the conventional method. The dose inside the chair-shaped region decreased up to 4% if the same number of monitor units (MU) as for the conventional method was applied. The undesired dose in the volume body minus the planning target volume in the clinical cases prostate and head and neck decreased up to 1.8% and 1.5%, while the number of the applied MU increased up to 3.1% and 2.8%, respectively. The new dJAW method has the potential to enhance the optimization of the conventional IMRT to a further step.

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.

The effect of shoulder variation on IMRT and SmartArc for Head and Neck Cancer

Purpose: First, to determine an average and maximum displacement of the shoulder relative to isocenter over the course of treatment. Second, to establish the dosimetric effect of shoulder displacements relative to correct isocenter alignment on the dose delivered to the target and the surrounding structures for head and neck cancer patients. Method and Materials: The frequency of shoulder shifts of various magnitudes relative to isocenter was assessed for 4 patients using image registration software. The location of the center of the right and left humeral head relative to isocenter (usually C2) was found daily from CT on rails scans, and was compared to the location of the humeral heads relative to isocenter on the initial simulation CT. Three Baseline head and neck IMRT and SmartArc plans were generated in Pinnacle based on simulation CTs. The CT datasets (external contour and boney structures) were then modified to represent shifts of the shoulder (relative to isocenter) between 3 mm and 15 mm in the SI, AP, and LR directions. The initial plans were recalculated on the image sets with shifted shoulders. Results: On average, shoulder variation was 2-5 mm in each direction, although displacements of over 1 cm in the inferior and posterior directions occurred. Shoulder shifts induced perturbations in the dose distribution, although generally only for large shifts. Most substantially, large, superior shifts resulted in coverage loss by the 95% isodose line for targets in the lower neck. Inferior shifts elevated the dose to the brachial plexus by 0.6-4.1 Gy. SmartArc plans showed similar loss of target coverage as IMRT plans. Conclusions: The position of the shoulder can have an impact on target coverage and critical structure dose. Shoulder position may need to be considered for setup of head and neck patients depending on target location.

EVALUATION OF INTENSITY MODULATED RADIATION THERAPY (IMRT) DELIVERY ERROR DUE TO IMRT TREATMENT PLAN COMPLEXITY AND IMPROPERLY MATCHED DOSIMETRY DATA

Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is a technique that delivers a highly conformal dose distribution to a target volume while attempting to maximally spare the surrounding normal tissues. IMRT is a common treatment modality used for treating head and neck (H&N) cancers, and the presence of many critical structures in this region requires accurate treatment delivery. The Radiological Physics Center (RPC) acts as both a remote and on-site quality assurance agency that credentials institutions participating in clinical trials. To date, about 30% of all IMRT participants have failed the RPC’s remote audit using the IMRT H&N phantom. The purpose of this project is to evaluate possible causes of H&N IMRT delivery errors observed by the RPC, specifically IMRT treatment plan complexity and the use of improper dosimetry data from machines that were thought to be matched but in reality were not. Eight H&N IMRT plans with a range of complexity defined by total MU (1460-3466), number of segments (54-225), and modulation complexity scores (MCS) (0.181-0.609) were created in Pinnacle v.8m. These plans were delivered to the RPC’s H&N phantom on a single Varian Clinac. One of the IMRT plans (1851 MU, 88 segments, and MCS=0.469) was equivalent to the median H&N plan from 130 previous RPC H&N phantom irradiations. This average IMRT plan was also delivered on four matched Varian Clinac machines and the dose distribution calculated using a different 6MV beam model. Radiochromic film and TLD within the phantom were used to analyze the dose profiles and absolute doses, respectively. The measured and calculated were compared to evaluate the dosimetric accuracy. All deliveries met the RPC acceptance criteria of ±7% absolute dose difference and 4 mm distance-to-agreement (DTA). Additionally, gamma index analysis was performed for all deliveries using a ±7%/4mm and ±5%/3mm criteria. Increasing the treatment plan complexity by varying the MU, number of segments, or varying the MCS resulted in no clear trend toward an increase in dosimetric error determined by the absolute dose difference, DTA, or gamma index. Varying the delivery machines as well as the beam model (use of a Clinac 6EX 6MV beam model vs. Clinac 21EX 6MV model), also did not show any clear trend towards an increased dosimetric error using the same criteria indicated above.

IMRT credentialing for prospective trials using institutional virtual phantoms: results of a joint European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer and Radiological Physics Center project.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) credentialing for a EORTC study was performed using an anthropomorphic head phantom from the Radiological Physics Center (RPC; RPC(PH)). Institutions were retrospectively requested to irradiate their institutional phantom (INST(PH)) using the same treatment plan in the framework of a Virtual Phantom Project (VPP) for IMRT credentialing. MATERIALS AND METHODS CT data set of the institutional phantom and measured 2D dose matrices were requested from centers and sent to a dedicated secure EORTC uploader. Data from the RPC(PH) and INST(PH) were thereafter centrally analyzed and inter-compared by the QA team using commercially available software (RIT; ver.5.2; Colorado Springs, USA). RESULTS Eighteen institutions participated to the VPP. The measurements of 6 (33%) institutions could not be analyzed centrally. All other centers passed both the VPP and the RPC ±7%/4 mm credentialing criteria. At the 5%/5 mm gamma criteria (90% of pixels passing), 11(92%) as compared to 12 (100%) centers pass the credentialing process with RPC(PH) and INST(PH) (p = 0.29), respectively. The corresponding pass rate for the 3%/3 mm gamma criteria (90% of pixels passing) was 2 (17%) and 9 (75%; p = 0.01), respectively. CONCLUSIONS IMRT dosimetry gamma evaluations in a single plane for a H&N prospective trial using the INST(PH) measurements showed agreement at the gamma index criteria of ±5%/5 mm (90% of pixels passing) for a small number of VPP measurements. Using more stringent, criteria, the RPC(PH) and INST(PH) comparison showed disagreement. More data is warranted and urgently required within the framework of prospective studies.

IMRT with ¹⁸FDG-PET\CT based simultaneous integrated boost for treatment of nodal positive cervical cancer

BACKGROUND To evaluate toxicity and outcome of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) to the positive lymph nodes in patients with loco-regional advanced cervical cancer (LRACC). METHODS The study population comprised ten patients with 18FDG-PET\CT positive lymph nodes (LNs), who underwent chemoradiation with IMRT and SIB. A dose of 50.4 Gy, in daily fractions of 1.8 Gy, was delivered to primary tumor and draining LNs. Primary tumor received an additional external beam boost to a total dose of 55.8 Gy. A SIB of 62 Gy, in daily fractions of 2 Gy, was delivered to the 18FDG-PET\CT positive LNs. Finally, a high dose rate brachytherapy (HDRB) boost (15 - 18 Gy) was administered to the primary tumor. The primary goal of this study was to evaluate acute and early late toxicity and loco-regional control. RESULTS The median number of irradiated LNs per patient was 3 (range: 1-6) with a median middle nodal SIB-volume of 26.10 cm3 (range, 11.9-82.50 cm3). Median follow-up was 20 months (range, 12 to 30 months). Acute and late grade 3 toxicity was observed in 1 patient. Three of the patients developed a recurrence, one in the form of a local tumor relapse, one had a paraaortic LN metastasis outside the treated volume and the last one developed a distant metastasis. CONCLUSION IMRT with SIB in the region of 18FDG-PET positive lymph nodes appears to be an effective therapy with acceptable toxicity and might be useful in the treatment of patients with locally advanced cervical cancer.

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.

AN EVALUATION OF THE CONSISTENCY OF IMRT PATIENT-SPECIFIC QA TECHNIQUES

To ensure the integrity of an intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment, each plan must be validated through a measurement-based quality assurance (QA) procedure, known as patient specific IMRT QA. Many methods of measurement and analysis have evolved for this QA. There is not a standard among clinical institutions, and many devices and action levels are used. Since the acceptance criteria determines if the dosimetric tools’ output passes the patient plan, it is important to see how these parameters influence the performance of the QA device. While analyzing the results of IMRT QA, it is important to understand the variability in the measurements. Due to the different form factors of the many QA methods, this reproducibility can be device dependent. These questions of patient-specific IMRT QA reproducibility and performance were investigated across five dosimeter systems: a helical diode array, radiographic film, ion chamber, diode array (AP field-by-field, AP composite, and rotational composite), and an in-house designed multiple ion chamber phantom. The reproducibility was gauged for each device by comparing the coefficients of variation (CV) across six patient plans. The performance of each device was determined by comparing each one’s ability to accurately label a plan as acceptable or unacceptable compared to a gold standard. All methods demonstrated a CV of less than 4%. Film proved to have the highest variability in QA measurement, likely due to the high level of user involvement in the readout and analysis. This is further shown by how the setup contributed more variation than the readout and analysis for all of the methods, except film. When evaluated for ability to correctly label acceptable and unacceptable plans, two distinct performance groups emerged with the helical diode array, AP composite diode array, film, and ion chamber in the better group; and the rotational composite and AP field-by-field diode array in the poorer group. Additionally, optimal threshold cutoffs were determined for each of the dosimetry systems. These findings, combined with practical considerations for factors such as labor and cost, can aid a clinic in its choice of an effective and safe patient-specific IMRT QA implementation.

Development and Testing of An Automatic Lung IMRT Planning Algorithm

Knowledge-based radiation treatment is an emerging concept in radiotherapy. It

mainly refers to the technique that can guide or automate treatment planning in

clinic by learning from prior knowledge. Dierent models are developed to realize

it, one of which is proposed by Yuan et al. at Duke for lung IMRT planning. This

model can automatically determine both beam conguration and optimization ob-

jectives with non-coplanar beams based on patient-specic anatomical information.

Although plans automatically generated by this model demonstrate equivalent or

better dosimetric quality compared to clinical approved plans, its validity and gener-

ality are limited due to the empirical assignment to a coecient called angle spread

constraint dened in the beam eciency index used for beam ranking. To eliminate

these limitations, a systematic study on this coecient is needed to acquire evidences

for its optimal value.

To achieve this purpose, eleven lung cancer patients with complex tumor shape

with non-coplanar beams adopted in clinical approved plans were retrospectively

studied in the frame of the automatic lung IMRT treatment algorithm. The primary

and boost plans used in three patients were treated as dierent cases due to the

dierent target size and shape. A total of 14 lung cases, thus, were re-planned using

the knowledge-based automatic lung IMRT planning algorithm by varying angle

spread constraint from 0 to 1 with increment of 0.2. A modied beam angle eciency

index used for navigate the beam selection was adopted. Great eorts were made to assure the quality of plans associated to every angle spread constraint as good

as possible. Important dosimetric parameters for PTV and OARs, quantitatively

re

ecting the plan quality, were extracted from the DVHs and analyzed as a function

of angle spread constraint for each case. Comparisons of these parameters between

clinical plans and model-based plans were evaluated by two-sampled Students t-tests,

and regression analysis on a composite index built on the percentage errors between

dosimetric parameters in the model-based plans and those in the clinical plans as a

function of angle spread constraint was performed.

Results show that model-based plans generally have equivalent or better quality

than clinical approved plans, qualitatively and quantitatively. All dosimetric param-

eters except those for lungs in the automatically generated plans are statistically

better or comparable to those in the clinical plans. On average, more than 15% re-

duction on conformity index and homogeneity index for PTV and V40, V60 for heart

while an 8% and 3% increase on V5, V20 for lungs, respectively, are observed. The

intra-plan comparison among model-based plans demonstrates that plan quality does

not change much with angle spread constraint larger than 0.4. Further examination

on the variation curve of the composite index as a function of angle spread constraint

shows that 0.6 is the optimal value that can result in statistically the best achievable

plans.