Robustness of IMPT treatment plans with respect to inter-fractional set-up uncertainties: impact of various beam arrangements for cranial targets.

UNLABELLED: In the current study IMPT plan robustness was evaluated with respect to inter-fractional patient positioning for various beam arrangements and two tumor indications in the cranial region. MATERIAL AND METHODS: For 14 patients suffering from tumors in the cranial region [skull base (SB; n = 7) and paranasal sinus (PS; n = 7)] the CTV and OARs were delineated. A safety margin of 3 mm was applied to the CTV. A prescribed dose of 2 GyE was planned via three beam arrangements (α, ß, γ). Beam arrangement α consisted of lateral opposed fields for both tumor groups while beam arrangement ß was optimized according to respective tumor and OAR locations, using two beams only. Beam arrangement γ applied four beams in the SB group and three beams in the PS group. Dose distributions were recalculated subjected to virtual patient translations along the major anatomical axes. The following dosimetric indices were evaluated and compared to original plans: target coverage (TC), target dose homogeneity (HI), CTV median and average dose (D(median), D(mean)). For OARs near maximum dose and average dose (D2%, D(mean)) were evaluated. RESULTS: Dose distributions were distorted after introducing shifts. In the SB group, TC and HI were significantly different for caudal, cranial and anterior shifts for all beam arrangements. For PS patients, all but right shifts differed significantly from the original plans for all beam arrangements, although clinical relevance was not reached for arrangement γ (ΔTC < 1.5%). In general, beam arrangement γ exhibited the least spread of data regarding target indices and was consequently considered the most robust. Dosimetric parameters regarding the brainstem were mostly influenced by shifts along the anterio-posterior axis. CONCLUSION: For cranial IMPT, set-up uncertainties may lead to pronounced deterioration of dose distributions. According to our investigations, multi-beam arrangements were dosimetrically more robust and hence preferable over two beam arrangements.

The technological basis for adaptive ion beam therapy at MedAustron: Status and outlook.

The ratio of patients who need a treatment adaptation due to anatomical variations at least once during the treatment course is significantly higher in light ion beam therapy (LIBT) than in photon therapy. The ballistic behaviour of ion beams makes them more sensitive to changes. Hence, the delivery of LIBT has always been supported by state of art image guidance. On the contrary CBCT technology was adapted for LIBT quite late. Adaptive concepts are being implemented more frequently in photon therapy and also efficient workflows are needed for LIBT. The MedAustron Ion Beam Therapy Centre was designed to allow the clinical implementation of adaptive image-guided concepts. The aim of this paper is to describe the current status and the potential future use of the technology installed at MedAustron. Specifically addressed is the beam delivery system, the patient alignment system, the treatment planning system as well as the Record & Verify system. Finally, an outlook is given on how high quality X-ray imaging, MR image guidance, fast and automated treatment planning as well as in vivo range verification methods could be integrated.

Dosimetric challenges of small animal irradiation with a commercial X-ray unit.

INTRODUCTION: A commercial X-ray unit was recently installed at the Medical University Vienna for partial and whole body irradiation of small experimental animals. For 200 kV X-rays the dose deviations with respect to the reference dose measured in the geometrical center of the potential available field size was investigated for various experimental setup plates used for mouse irradiations. Furthermore, the HVL was measured in mm Al and mm Cu at 200 kV for two types of filtration. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three different setup constructions for small animal irradiation were dosimetrically characterized, covering field sizes from 9×20 mm2 to 210×200 mm2. Different types of detectors were investigated. Additionally LiF:MG,Ti TLD chips were used for mouse in-vivo dosimetry. RESULTS: The use of an additional 0.5 mm Cu filter reduced the deviation of the dose between each irradiation position on the setup plates. Multiple animals were irradiated at the same time using an individual setup plate for each experimental purpose. The dose deviations of each irradiation position to the center was measured to be ±4% or better. The depth dose curve measured in a solid water phantom was more pronounced for smaller field sizes. The comparison between estimated dose and measured dose in a PMMA phantom regarding the dose decline yielded in a difference of 3.9% at 20 mm depth. In-vivo measurements in a mouse snouts irradiation model confirmed the reference dosimetry, accomplished in PMMA phantoms, in terms of administered dose and deviation within different points of measurement. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The outlined experiments dealt with a wide variety of dosimetric challenges during the installation of a new X-ray unit in the laboratory. The depth dose profiles measured for different field sizes were in good agreement with literature data. Different field sizes and spatial arrangement of the animals (depending on each purpose) provide additional challenges for the dosimetric measurements. Thorough dosimetric commissioning has to be performed before a new experimental setup is approved for biological experiments.

Dosimetric considerations to determine the optimal technique for localized prostate cancer among external photon, proton, or carbon-ion therapy and high-dose-rate or low-dose-rate brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: To assess the dosimetric differences among volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), scanned proton therapy (intensity-modulated proton therapy, IMPT), scanned carbon-ion therapy (intensity-modulated carbon-ion therapy, IMIT), and low-dose-rate (LDR) and high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy (BT) treatment of localized prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ten patients were considered for this planning study. For external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), planning target volume was created by adding a margin of 5 mm (lateral/anterior-posterior) and 8 mm (superior-inferior) to the clinical target volume. Bladder wall (BW), rectal wall (RW), femoral heads, urethra, and pelvic tissue were considered as organs at risk. For VMAT and IMPT, 78 Gy(relative biological effectiveness, RBE)/2 Gy were prescribed. The IMIT was based on 66 Gy(RBE)/20 fractions. The clinical target volume planning aims for HDR-BT ((192)Ir) and LDR-BT ((125)I) were D(90%) ≥34 Gy in 8.5 Gy per fraction and D(90%) ≥145 Gy. Both physical and RBE-weighted dose distributions for protons and carbon-ions were converted to dose distributions based on 2-Gy(IsoE) fractions. From these dose distributions various dose and dose-volume parameters were extracted. RESULTS: Rectal wall exposure 30-70 Gy(IsoE) was reduced for IMIT, LDR-BT, and HDR-BT when compared with VMAT and IMPT. The high-dose region of the BW dose-volume histogram above 50 Gy(IsoE) of IMPT resembled the VMAT shape, whereas all other techniques showed a significantly lower high-dose region. For all 3 EBRT techniques similar urethra D(mean) around 74 Gy(IsoE) were obtained. The LDR-BT results were approximately 30 Gy(IsoE) higher, HDR-BT 10 Gy(IsoE) lower. Normal tissue and femoral head sparing was best with BT. CONCLUSION: Despite the different EBRT prescription and fractionation schemes, the high-dose regions of BW and RW expressed in Gy(IsoE) were on the same order of magnitude. Brachytherapy techniques were clearly superior in terms of BW, RW, and normal tissue sparing, with lowest values for HDR-BT.

Detector to detector corrections: a comprehensive experimental study of detector specific correction factors for beam output measurements for small radiotherapy beams.

PURPOSE: The aim of the present study is to provide a comprehensive set of detector specific correction factors for beam output measurements for small beams, for a wide range of real time and passive detectors. The detector specific correction factors determined in this study may be potentially useful as a reference data set for small beam dosimetry measurements. METHODS: Dose response of passive and real time detectors was investigated for small field sizes shaped with a micromultileaf collimator ranging from 0.6 × 0.6 cm(2) to 4.2 × 4.2 cm(2) and the measurements were extended to larger fields of up to 10 × 10 cm(2). Measurements were performed at 5 cm depth, in a 6 MV photon beam. Detectors used included alanine, thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs), stereotactic diode, electron diode, photon diode, radiophotoluminescent dosimeters (RPLDs), radioluminescence detector based on carbon-doped aluminium oxide (Al2O3:C), organic plastic scintillators, diamond detectors, liquid filled ion chamber, and a range of small volume air filled ionization chambers (volumes ranging from 0.002 cm(3) to 0.3 cm(3)). All detector measurements were corrected for volume averaging effect and compared with dose ratios determined from alanine to derive a detector correction factors that account for beam perturbation related to nonwater equivalence of the detector materials. RESULTS: For the detectors used in this study, volume averaging corrections ranged from unity for the smallest detectors such as the diodes, 1.148 for the 0.14 cm(3) air filled ionization chamber and were as high as 1.924 for the 0.3 cm(3) ionization chamber. After applying volume averaging corrections, the detector readings were consistent among themselves and with alanine measurements for several small detectors but they differed for larger detectors, in particular for some small ionization chambers with volumes larger than 0.1 cm(3). CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate how important it is for the appropriate corrections to be applied to give consistent and accurate measurements for a range of detectors in small beam geometry. The results further demonstrate that depending on the choice of detectors, there is a potential for large errors when effects such as volume averaging, perturbation and differences in material properties of detectors are not taken into account. As the commissioning of small fields for clinical treatment has to rely on accurate dose measurements, the authors recommend the use of detectors that require relatively little correction, such as unshielded diodes, diamond detectors or microchambers, and solid state detectors such as alanine, TLD, Al2O3:C, or scintillators.

Is there room for combined modality treatments? Dosimetric comparison of boost strategies for advanced head and neck and prostate cancer.

The purpose of the study was to determine the dosimetric difference between three emerging treatment modalities--volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), intensity-modulated proton beam therapy (IMPT) and intensity-modulated carbon ion beam therapy (IMIT)--for two tumour sites where selective boosting of the tumour is applied. For 10 patients with locally advanced head and neck (H&N) cancer and 10 with high-risk prostate cancer (PC) a VMAT plan was generated for PTV initial that included lymph node regions, delivering 50 Gy (IsoE) for H&N and 50.4 Gy (IsoE) for PC patients. Furthermore, separate boost plans (VMAT, IMPT and IMIT) were created to boost PTV boost up to 70 Gy (IsoE) and 78 Gy (IsoE) for H&N and PC cases, respectively. Doses to brainstem, myelon, larynx and parotid glands were assessed for H&N cases. Additionally, various OARs (e.g. cochlea, middle ear, masticator space) were evaluated that are currently discussed with respect to quality of life after treatment. For PC cases, bladder, rectum and femoral heads were considered as OARs. For both tumour sites target goals were easily met. Looking at OAR sparing, generally VMAT + VMAT was worst. VMAT + IMIT had the potential to spare some structures in very close target vicinity (such as cochlea, middle ear, masticator space ) significantly better than VMAT + IMPT. Mean doses for rectal and bladder wall were on average 4 Gy (IsoE) and 1.5 Gy (IsoE) higher, respectively, compared to photons plus particles scenarios. Similar results were found for parotid glands and larynx. Concerning target coverage, no significant differences were observed between the three treatment concepts. Clear dosimetric benefits were observed for particle beam therapy as boost modality. However, the clinical benefit of combined modality treatments remains to be demonstrated.

Automated evaluation of setup errors in carbon ion therapy using PET: feasibility study.

PURPOSE: To investigate the possibility of detecting patient mispositioning in carbon-ion therapy with particle therapy positron emission tomography (PET) in an automated image registration based manner. METHODS: Tumors in the head and neck (H&N), pelvic, lung, and brain region were investigated. Biologically optimized carbon ion treatment plans were created with TRiP98. From these treatment plans, the reference ß(+)-activity distributions were calculated using a Monte Carlo simulation. Setup errors were simulated by shifting or rotating the computed tomography (CT). The expected ß(+) activity was calculated for each plan with shifts. Finally, the reference particle therapy PET images were compared to the "shifted" ß(+)-activity distribution simulations using the Pearson's correlation coefficient (PCC). To account for different PET monitoring options the inbeam PET was compared to three different inroom scenarios. Additionally, the dosimetric effects of the CT misalignments were investigated. RESULTS: The automated PCC detection of patient mispositioning was possible in the investigated indications for cranio-caudal shifts of 4 mm and more, except for prostate tumors. In the rather homogeneous pelvic region, the generated ß(+)-activity distribution of the reference and compared PET image were too much alike. Thus, setup errors in this region could not be detected. Regarding lung lesions the detection strongly depended on the exact tumor location: in the center of the lung tumor misalignments could be detected down to 2 mm shifts while resolving shifts of tumors close to the thoracic wall was more challenging. Rotational shifts in the H&N and lung region of +6° and more could be detected using inroom PET and partly using inbeam PET. Comparing inroom PET to inbeam PET no obvious trend was found. However, among the inroom scenarios a longer measurement time was found to be advantageous. CONCLUSIONS: This study scopes the use of various particle therapy PET verification techniques in four indications. The automated detection of patients' setup errors was investigated in a broad accumulation of data sets. The evaluation of introduced setup errors is performed automatically, which is of utmost importance to introduce highly required particle therapy monitoring devices into the clinical routine.

Feasibility of CBCT-based dose calculation: comparative analysis of HU adjustment techniques.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The aim of this work was to compare the accuracy of different HU adjustments for CBCT-based dose calculation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Dose calculation was performed on CBCT images of 30 patients. In the first two approaches phantom-based (Pha-CC) and population-based (Pop-CC) conversion curves were used. The third method (WAB) represents override of the structures with standard densities for water, air and bone. In ROI mapping approach all structures were overridden with average HUs from planning CT. All techniques were benchmarked to the Pop-CC and CT-based plans by DVH comparison and γ-index analysis. RESULTS: For prostate plans, WAB and ROI mapping compared to Pop-CC showed differences in PTV D(median) below 2%. The WAB and Pha-CC methods underestimated the bladder dose in IMRT plans. In lung cases PTV coverage was underestimated by Pha-CC method by 2.3% and slightly overestimated by the WAB and ROI techniques. The use of the Pha-CC method for head-neck IMRT plans resulted in difference in PTV coverage up to 5%. Dose calculation with WAB and ROI techniques showed better agreement with pCT than conversion curve-based approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Density override techniques provide an accurate alternative to the conversion curve-based methods for dose calculation on CBCT images.