Assessing software upgrades, plan properties and patient geometry using intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) complexity metrics

Purpose: The aim of this study is to compare the sensitivity of different metrics to detect differences in complexity of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans following upgrades, changes to planning parameters, and patient geometry. Correlations between complexity metrics are also assessed.

In-vitro investigation of out-of-field cell survival following the delivery of conformal, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans

The aim of this work is to determine the out-of-field survival of cells irradiated with either the primary field or scattered radiation in the presence and absence of intercellular communication following delivery of conformal, IMRT and VMAT treatment plans. Single beam, conformal, IMRT and VMAT plans were created to deliver 3 Gy to half the area of a T80 flask containing either DU-145 or AGO-1522 cells allowing intercellular communication between the in-and out-of-field cell populations. The same plans were delivered to a similar custom made phantom used to hold two T25 culture flasks, one flask in-field and one out-of-field to allow comparison of cell survival responses when intercellular communication is physically inhibited. Plans were created for the delivery of 8 Gy to the more radio-resistant DU-145 cells only in the presence and absence of intercellular communication. Cell survival was determined by clonogenic assay. In both cell lines, the out-of-field survival was not statistically different between delivery techniques for either cell line or dose. There was however, a statistically significant difference between survival out-of-field when intercellular communication was intact (single T80 culture flask) or inhibited (multiple T25 culture flasks) to in-field for all plans. No statistically significant difference was observed in-field with or without cellular communication to out-of-field for all plans. These data demonstrate out-of-field effects as important determinants of cell survival following exposure to modulated irradiation fields when cellular communication between differentially irradiated cell populations is present. This data is further evidence that refinement of existing radiobiological models to include indirect cell killing effects is required.

Improvement in clinical step and shoot intensity modulated radiation therapy delivery accuracy on an integrated linear accelerator control system

Purpose: The dose delivery accuracy of 30 clinical step and shoot intensity modulated radiation therapy plans was investigated using the single integrated multileaf collimator controller of the Varian Truebeam linear accelerator (linac) (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) and compared with the dose delivery accuracy on a previous generation Varian 2100CD C-Series linac.

Methods and Materials: Ten prostate, 10 prostate and pelvic node, and 10 head-and-neck cases were investigated in this study. Dose delivery accuracy on each linac was assessed using Farmer ionization chamber point dose measurements, 2-dimensional planar ionization chamber array measurements, and the corresponding Varian dynamic log files. Absolute point dose measurements, fluence delivery accuracy, leaf position accuracy, and the overshoot effect were assessed for each plan.

Results: Absolute point dose delivery accuracy increased by 1.5% on the Truebeam compared with the 2100CD linac. No improvement in fluence delivery accuracy between the linacs, at a gamma criterion of 3%/3 mm was measured using the 2-dimensional ionization chamber array, with median (interquartile range) gamma passing rates of 98.99% (97.70%-99.72%) and 99.28% (98.26%-99.75%) for the Truebeam and 2100CD linacs, respectively. Varian log files also showed no improvement in fluence delivery between the linacs at 3%/3 mm, with median gamma passing rates of 99.97% (99.93%-99.99%) and 99.98% (99.94%-100%) for the Truebeam and 2100CD linacs, respectively. However, log files revealed improved leaf position accuracy and fluence delivery at 1%/1 mm criterion on the Truebeam (99.87%; 99.78%-99.94%) compared with the 2100CD linac (97.87%; 91.93%-99.49%). The overshoot effect, characterized on the 2100CD linac, was not observed on the Truebeam.

Conclusions: The integrated multileaf collimator controller on the Varian Truebeam improves clinical treatment delivery accuracy of step and shoot intensity modulated radiation therapy fields compared with delivery on a Varian C-series linac. © 2014.

High-dose (80 Gy) intensity-modulated radiation therapy with daily image-guidance as primary treatment for localized prostate cancer

to report acute and late toxicity in prostate cancer patients treated by high-dose intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with daily image-guidance.

Urethral toxicity vs. cancer control-Lessons to be learned from high-dose rate brachytherapy combined with intensity-modulated radiation therapy in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer

To describe biochemical relapse-free survival (BRFS) and late toxicity after combined high-dose rate brachytherapy (HDR-B) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer patients.

Acute and late toxicity in prostate cancer patients treated by dose escalated intensity modulated radiation therapy and organ tracking

BACKGROUND: To report acute and late toxicity in prostate cancer patients treated by dose escalated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and organ tracking. METHODS: From 06/2004 to 12/2005 39 men were treated by 80 Gy IMRT along with organ tracking. Median age was 69 years, risk of recurrence was low 18%, intermediate 21% and high in 61% patients. Hormone therapy (HT) was received by 74% of patients. Toxicity was scored according to the CTC scale version 3.0. Median follow-up (FU) was 29 months. RESULTS: Acute and maximal late grade 2 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity was 3% and 8%, late grade 2 GI toxicity dropped to 0% at the end of FU. No acute or late grade 3 GI toxicity was observed. Grade 2 and 3 pre-treatment genitourinary (GU) morbidity (PGUM) was 20% and 5%. Acute and maximal late grade 2 GU toxicity was 56% and 28% and late grade 2 GU toxicity decreased to 15% of patients at the end of FU. Acute and maximal late grade 3 GU toxicity was 8% and 3%, respectively. Decreased late > or = grade 2 GU toxicity free survival was associated with higher age (P = .025), absence of HT (P = .016) and higher PGUM (P < .001). DISCUSSION: GI toxicity rates after IMRT and organ tracking are excellent, GU toxicity rates are strongly related to PGUM.

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.

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.

Multimodal treatment for high-risk prostate cancer with high-dose intensity-modulated radiation therapy preceded or not by radical prostatectomy, concurrent intensified-dose docetaxel and long-term androgen deprivation therapy: results of a prospective phase II trial.

BACKGROUND The optimal management of high-risk prostate cancer remains uncertain. In this study we assessed the safety and efficacy of a novel multimodal treatment paradigm for high-risk prostate cancer. METHODS This was a prospective phase II trial including 35 patients with newly diagnosed high-risk localized or locally advanced prostate cancer treated with high-dose intensity-modulated radiation therapy preceded or not by radical prostatectomy, concurrent intensified-dose docetaxel-based chemotherapy and long-term androgen deprivation therapy. Primary endpoint was acute and late toxicity evaluated with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0. Secondary endpoint was biochemical and clinical recurrence-free survival explored with the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS Acute gastro-intestinal and genito-urinary toxicity was grade 2 in 23% and 20% of patients, and grade 3 in 9% and 3% of patients, respectively. Acute blood/bone marrow toxicity was grade 2 in 20% of patients. No acute grade ≥ 4 toxicity was observed. Late gastro-intestinal and genito-urinary toxicity was grade 2 in 9% of patients each. No late grade ≥ 3 toxicity was observed. Median follow-up was 63 months (interquartile range 31-79). Actuarial 5-year biochemical and clinical recurrence-free survival rate was 55% (95% confidence interval, 35-75%) and 70% (95% confidence interval, 52-88%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS In our phase II trial testing a novel multimodal treatment paradigm for high-risk prostate cancer, toxicity was acceptably low and mid-term oncological outcome was good. This treatment paradigm, thus, may warrant further evaluation in phase III randomized trials.

Dose-painting intensity-modulated proton therapy for intermediate- and high-risk meningioma.

BACKGROUND Newly diagnosed WHO grade II-III or any WHO grade recurrent meningioma exhibit an aggressive behavior and thus are considered as high- or intermediate risk tumors. Given the unsatisfactory rates of disease control and survival after primary or adjuvant radiation therapy, optimization of treatment strategies is needed. We investigated the potential of dose-painting intensity-modulated proton beam-therapy (IMPT) for intermediate- and high-risk meningioma. MATERIAL AND METHODS Imaging data from five patients undergoing proton beam-therapy were used. The dose-painting target was defined using [68]Ga-[1,4,7,10-tetraazacyclododecane tetraacetic acid]- d-Phe(1),Tyr(3)-octreotate ([68]Ga-DOTATATE)-positron emission tomography (PET) in target delineation. IMPT and photon intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment plans were generated for each patient using an in-house developed treatment planning system (TPS) supporting spot-scanning technology and a commercial TPS, respectively. Doses of 66 Gy (2.2 Gy/fraction) and 54 Gy (1.8 Gy/fraction) were prescribed to the PET-based planning target volume (PTVPET) and the union of PET- and anatomical imaging-based PTV, respectively, in 30 fractions, using simultaneous integrated boost. RESULTS Dose coverage of the PTVsPET was equally good or slightly better in IMPT plans: dose inhomogeneity was 10 ± 3% in the IMPT plans vs. 13 ± 1% in the IMRT plans (p = 0.33). The brain Dmean and brainstem D50 were small in the IMPT plans: 26.5 ± 1.5 Gy(RBE) and 0.002 ± 0.0 Gy(RBE), respectively, vs. 29.5 ± 1.5 Gy (p = 0.001) and 7.5 ± 11.1 Gy (p = 0.02) for the IMRT plans, respectively. The doses delivered to the optic structures were also decreased with IMPT. CONCLUSIONS Dose-painting IMPT is technically feasible using currently available planning tools and resulted in dose conformity of the dose-painted target comparable to IMRT with a significant reduction of radiation dose delivered to the brain, brainstem and optic apparatus. Dose escalation with IMPT may improve tumor control and decrease radiation-induced toxicity.

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. ^

Implementation of phantom-less IMRT delivery verification using Varian DynaLog files and R/V output

This study aims to evaluate the use of Varian radiotherapy dynamic treatment log (DynaLog) files to verify IMRT plan delivery as part of a routine quality assurance procedure. Delivery accuracy in terms of machine performance was quantified by multileaf collimator (MLC) position errors and fluence delivery accuracy for patients receiving intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment. The relationship between machine performance and plan complexity, quantified by the modulation complexity score (MCS) was also investigated. Actual MLC positions and delivered fraction of monitor units (MU), recorded every 50 ms during IMRT delivery, were extracted from the DynaLog files. The planned MLC positions and fractional MU were taken from the record and verify system MLC control file. Planned and delivered beam data were compared to determine leaf position errors with and without the overshoot effect. Analysis was also performed on planned and actual fluence maps reconstructed from the MLC control file and delivered treatment log files respectively. This analysis was performed for all treatment fractions for 5 prostate, 5 prostate and pelvic node (PPN) and 5 head and neck (H&N) IMRT plans, totalling 82 IMRT fields in ∼5500 DynaLog files. The root mean square (RMS) leaf position errors without the overshoot effect were 0.09, 0.26, 0.19 mm for the prostate, PPN and H&N plans respectively, which increased to 0.30, 0.39 and 0.30 mm when the overshoot effect was considered. Average errors were not affected by the overshoot effect and were 0.05, 0.13 and 0.17 mm for prostate, PPN and H&N plans respectively. The percentage of pixels passing fluence map gamma analysis at 3%/3 mm was 99.94 ± 0.25%, which reduced to 91.62 ± 11.39% at 1%/1 mm criterion. Leaf position errors, but not gamma passing rate, were directly related to plan complexity as determined by the MCS. Site specific confidence intervals for average leaf position errors were set at -0.03-0.12 mm for prostate and -0.02-0.28 mm for more complex PPN and H&N plans. For all treatment sites confidence intervals for RMS errors with the overshoot was set at 0-0.50 mm and for the percentage of pixels passing a gamma analysis at 1%/1 mm a confidence interval of 68.83% was set also for all treatment sites. This work demonstrates the successful implementation of treatment log files to validate IMRT deliveries and how dynamic log files can diagnose delivery errors not possible with phantom based QC. Machine performance was found to be directly related to plan complexity but this is not the dominant determinant of delivery accuracy.

Dose, dose-rate and field size effects on cell survival following exposure to non-uniform radiation fields

For the delivery of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), highly modulated fields are used to achieve dose conformity across a target tumour volume. Recent in vitro evidence has demonstrated significant alterations in cell survival occurring out-of-field which cannot be accounted for on the basis of scattered dose. The radiobiological effect of area, dose and dose-rate on out-of-field cell survival responses following exposure to intensity-modulated radiation fields is presented in this study. Cell survival was determined by clonogenic assay in human prostate cancer (DU-145) and primary fibroblast (AG0-1522) cells following exposure to different modulated field configurations delivered using a X-Rad 225 kVp x-ray source. Uniform survival responses were compared to in- and out-of-field responses in which 25-99% of the cell population was shielded. Dose delivered to the out-of-field region was varied from 1.6-37.2% of that delivered to the in-field region using different levels of brass shielding. Dose rate effects were determined for 0.2-4 Gy min⁻¹ for uniform and modulated exposures with no effect seen in- or out-of-field. Survival responses showed little dependence on dose rate and area in- and out-of-field with a trend towards increased survival with decreased in-field area. Out-of-field survival responses were shown to scale in proportion to dose delivered to the in-field region and also local dose delivered out-of-field. Mathematical modelling of these findings has shown survival response to be highly dependent on dose delivered in- and out-of-field but not on area or dose rate. These data provide further insight into the radiobiological parameters impacting on cell survival following exposure to modulated irradiation fields highlighting the need for refinement of existing radiobiological models to incorporate non-targeted effects and modulated dose distributions.