Technical note: A collision prediction tool using Blender.

Non-coplanar radiotherapy treatment techniques on C-arm linear accelerators have the potential to reduce dose to organs-at-risk in comparison with coplanar treatment techniques. Accurately predicting possible collisions between gantry, table and patient during treatment planning is needed to ensure patient safety. We offer a freely available collision prediction tool using Blender, a free and open-source 3D computer graphics software toolset. A geometric model of a C-arm linear accelerator including a library of patient models is created inside Blender. Based on the model, collision predictions can be used both to calculate collision-free zones and to check treatment plans for collisions. The tool is validated for two setups, once with and once without a full body phantom with the same table position. For this, each gantry-table angle combination with a 2° resolution is manually checked for collision interlocks at a TrueBeam system and compared to simulated collision predictions. For the collision check of a treatment plan, the tool outputs the minimal distance between the gantry, table and patient model and a video of the movement of the gantry and table, which is demonstrated for one use case. A graphical user interface allows user-friendly input of the table and patient specification for the collision prediction tool. The validation resulted in a true positive rate of 100%, which is the rate between the number of correctly predicted collision gantry-table combinations and the number of all measured collision gantry-table combinations, and a true negative rate of 89%, which is the ratio between the number of correctly predicted collision-free combinations and the number of all measured collision-free combinations. A collision prediction tool is successfully created and able to produce maps of collision-free zones and to test treatment plans for collisions including visualisation of the gantry and table movement.

Organs-at-risk dose and normal tissue complication probability with dynamic trajectory radiotherapy (DTRT) for head and neck cancer.

We compared dynamic trajectory radiotherapy (DTRT) to state-of-the-art volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for 46 head and neck cancer cases. DTRT had lower dose to salivary glands and swallowing structure, resulting in lower predicted xerostomia and dysphagia compared to VMAT. DTRT is deliverable on C-arm linacs with high dosimetric accuracy.

Robustness analysis of dynamic trajectory radiotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy plans for head and neck cancer.

Background and purpose: Dynamic trajectory radiotherapy (DTRT) has been shown to improve healthy tissue sparing compared to volumetric arc therapy (VMAT). This study aimed to assess and compare the robustness of DTRT and VMAT treatment-plans for head and neck (H&N) cancer to patient-setup (PS) and machine-positioning uncertainties. Materials and methods: The robustness of DTRT and VMAT plans previously created for 46 H&N cases, prescribed 50-70 Gy to 95 % of the planning-target-volume, was assessed. For this purpose, dose distributions were recalculated using Monte Carlo, including uncertainties in PS (translation and rotation) and machine-positioning (gantry-, table-, collimator-rotation and multi-leaf collimator (MLC)). Plan robustness was evaluated by the uncertainties' impact on normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) for xerostomia and dysphagia and on dose-volume endpoints. Differences between DTRT and VMAT plan robustness were compared using Wilcoxon matched-pair signed-rank test (α = 5 %). Results: Average NTCP for moderate-to-severe xerostomia and grade ≥ II dysphagia was lower for DTRT than VMAT in the nominal scenario (0.5 %, p = 0.01; 2.1 %, p < 0.01) and for all investigated uncertainties, except MLC positioning, where the difference was not significant. Average differences compared to the nominal scenario were ≤ 3.5 Gy for rotational PS (≤ 3°) and machine-positioning (≤ 2°) uncertainties, <7 Gy for translational PS uncertainties (≤ 5 mm) and < 20 Gy for MLC-positioning uncertainties (≤ 5 mm). Conclusions: DTRT and VMAT plan robustness to the investigated uncertainties depended on uncertainty direction and location of the structure-of-interest to the target. NTCP remained on average lower for DTRT than VMAT even when considering uncertainties.

Dosimetrically motivated beam-angle optimization for non-coplanar arc radiotherapy with and without dynamic collimator rotation.

BACKGROUND: Non-coplanar techniques have shown to improve the achievable dose distribution compared to standard coplanar techniques for multiple treatment sites but finding optimal beam directions is challenging. Dynamic collimator trajectory radiotherapy (colli-DTRT) is a new intensity modulated radiotherapy technique that uses non-coplanar partial arcs and dynamic collimator rotation. PURPOSE: To solve the beam angle optimization (BAO) problem for colli-DTRT and non-coplanar VMAT (NC-VMAT) by determining the table-angle and the gantry-angle ranges of the partial arcs through iterative 4π fluence map optimization (FMO) and beam direction elimination. METHODS: BAO considers all available beam directions sampled on a gantry-table map with the collimator angle aligned to the superior-inferior axis (colli-DTRT) or static (NC-VMAT). First, FMO is performed, and beam directions are scored based on their contributions to the objective function. The map is thresholded to remove the least contributing beam directions, and arc candidates are formed by adjacent beam directions with the same table angle. Next, FMO and arc candidate trimming, based on objective function penalty score, is performed iteratively until a desired total gantry angle range is reached. Direct aperture optimization on the final set of colli-DTRT or NC-VMAT arcs generates deliverable plans. colli-DTRT and NC-VMAT plans were created for seven clinically-motivated cases with targets in the head and neck (two cases), brain, esophagus, lung, breast, and prostate. colli-DTRT and NC-VMAT were compared to coplanar VMAT plans as well as to class-solution non-coplanar VMAT plans for the brain and head and neck cases. Dosimetric validation was performed for one colli-DTRT (head and neck) and one NC-VMAT (breast) plan using film measurements. RESULTS: Target coverage and conformity was similar for all techniques. colli-DTRT and NC-VMAT plans had improved dosimetric performance compared to coplanar VMAT for all treatment sites except prostate where all techniques were equivalent. For the head and neck and brain cases, mean dose reduction-in percentage of the prescription dose-to parallel organs was on average 0.7% (colli-DTRT), 0.8% (NC-VMAT) and 0.4% (class-solution) compared to VMAT. The reduction in D2% for the serial organs was on average 1.7% (colli-DTRT), 2.0% (NC-VMAT) and 0.9% (class-solution). For the esophagus, lung, and breast cases, mean dose reduction to parallel organs was on average 0.2% (colli-DTRT) and 0.3% (NC-VMAT) compared to VMAT. The reduction in D2% for the serial organs was on average 1.3% (colli-DTRT) and 0.9% (NC-VMAT). Estimated delivery times for colli-DTRT and NC-VMAT were below 4 min for a full gantry angle range of 720°, including transitions between arcs, except for the brain case where multiple arcs covered the whole table angle range. These times are in the same order as the class-solution for the head and neck and brain cases. Total optimization times were 25%-107% longer for colli-DTRT, including BAO, compared to VMAT. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully developed dosimetrically motivated BAO for colli-DTRT and NC-VMAT treatment planning. colli-DTRT and NC-VMAT are applicable to multiple treatment sites, including body sites, with beneficial or equivalent dosimetric performances compared to coplanar VMAT and reasonable delivery times.

Technical note: Feasibility of gating for dynamic trajectory radiotherapy - Mechanical accuracy and dosimetric performance.

BACKGROUND: Dynamic trajectory radiotherapy (DTRT) extends state-of-the-art volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) by dynamic table and collimator rotations during beam-on. The effects of intrafraction motion during DTRT delivery are unknown, especially regarding the possible interplay between patient and machine motion with additional dynamic axes. PURPOSE: To experimentally assess the technical feasibility and quantify the mechanical and dosimetric accuracy of respiratory gating during DTRT delivery. METHODS: A DTRT and VMAT plan are created for a clinically motivated lung cancer case and delivered to a dosimetric motion phantom (MP) placed on the table of a TrueBeam system using Developer Mode. The MP reproduces four different 3D motion traces. Gating is triggered using an external marker block, placed on the MP. Mechanical accuracy and delivery time of the VMAT and DTRT deliveries with and without gating are extracted from the logfiles. Dosimetric performance is assessed by means of gamma evaluation (3% global/2 mm, 10% threshold). RESULTS: The DTRT and VMAT plans are successfully delivered with and without gating for all motion traces. Mechanical accuracy is similar for all experiments with deviations <0.14° (gantry angle), <0.15° (table angle), <0.09° (collimator angle) and <0.08 mm (MLC leaf positions). For DTRT (VMAT), delivery times are 1.6-2.3 (1.6- 2.5) times longer with than without gating for all motion traces except one, where DTRT (VMAT) delivery is 5.0 (3.6) times longer due to a substantial uncorrected baseline drift affecting only DTRT delivery. Gamma passing rates with (without) gating for DTRT/VMAT were ≥96.7%/98.5% (≤88.3%/84.8%). For one VMAT arc without gating it was 99.6%. CONCLUSION: Gating is successfully applied during DTRT delivery on a TrueBeam system for the first time. Mechanical accuracy is similar for VMAT and DTRT deliveries with and without gating. Gating substantially improved dosimetric performance for DTRT and VMAT.

Delivery time reduction for mixed photon-electron radiotherapy by using photon MLC collimated electron arcs.

Objective. Electron arcs in mixed-beam radiotherapy (Arc-MBRT) consisting of intensity-modulated electron arcs with dynamic gantry rotation potentially reduce the delivery time compared to mixed-beam radiotherapy containing electron beams with static gantry angle (Static-MBRT). This study aims to develop and investigate a treatment planning process (TPP) for photon multileaf collimator (pMLC) based Arc-MBRT.Approach. An existing TPP for Static-MBRT plans is extended to integrate electron arcs with a dynamic gantry rotation and intensity modulation using a sliding window technique. The TPP consists of a manual setup of electron arcs, and either static photon beams or photon arcs, shortening of the source-to-surface distance for the electron arcs, initial intensity modulation optimization, selection of a user-defined number of electron beam energies based on dose contribution to the target volume and finally, simultaneous photon and electron intensity modulation optimization followed by full Monte Carlo dose calculation. Arc-MBRT plans, Static-MBRT plans, and photon-only plans were created and compared for four breast cases. Dosimetric validation of two Arc-MBRT plans was performed using film measurements.Main results. The generated Arc-MBRT plans are dosimetrically similar to the Static-MBRT plans while outperforming the photon-only plans. The mean heart dose is reduced by 32% on average in the MBRT plans compared to the photon-only plans. The estimated delivery times of the Arc-MBRT plans are similar to the photon-only plans but less than half the time of the Static-MBRT plans. Measured and calculated dose distributions agree with a gamma passing rate of over 98% (3% global, 2 mm) for both delivered Arc-MBRT plans.Significance. A TPP for Arc-MBRT is successfully developed and Arc-MBRT plans showed the potential to improve the dosimetric plan quality similar as Static-MBRT while maintaining short delivery times of photon-only treatments. This further facilitates integration of pMLC-based MBRT into clinical practice.

Impact of the gradient in gantry-table rotation on dynamic trajectory radiotherapy plan quality.

BACKGROUND: To improve organ at risk (OAR) sparing, dynamic trajectory radiotherapy (DTRT) extends VMAT by dynamic table and collimator rotation during beam-on. However, comprehensive investigations regarding the impact of the gantry-table (GT) rotation gradient on the DTRT plan quality have not been conducted. PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of a user-defined GT rotation gradient on plan quality of DTRT plans in terms of dosimetric plan quality, dosimetric robustness, deliverability, and delivery time. METHODS: The dynamic trajectories of DTRT are described by GT and gantry-collimator paths. The GT path is determined by minimizing the overlap of OARs with planning target volume (PTV). This approach is extended to consider a GT rotation gradient by means of a maximum gradient of the path ( G m a x ${G}_{max}$ ) between two adjacent control points ( G = | Δ table angle / Δ gantry angle | $G = | \Delta {{\mathrm{table\ angle}}/\Delta {\mathrm{gantry\ angle}}} |$ ) and maximum absolute change of G ( Δ G m a x ${{\Delta}}{G}_{max}$ ). Four DTRT plans are created with different maximum G&∆G: G m a x ${G}_{max}$ & Δ G m a x ${{\Delta}}{G}_{max}$  = 0.5&0.125 (DTRT-1), 1&0.125 (DTRT-2), 3&0.125 (DTRT-3) and 3&1|(DTRT-4), including 3-4 dynamic trajectories, for three clinically motivated cases in the head and neck and brain region (A, B, and C). A reference VMAT plan for each case is created. For all plans, plan quality is assessed and compared. Dosimetric plan quality is evaluated by target coverage, conformity, and OAR sparing. Dosimetric robustness is evaluated against systematic and random patient-setup uncertainties between ± 3 mm $ \pm 3\ {\mathrm{mm}}$ in the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical directions, and machine uncertainties between ± 4 ∘ $ \pm 4^\circ \ $ in the dynamically rotating machine components (gantry, table, collimator rotation). Delivery time is recorded. Deliverability and delivery accuracy on a TrueBeam are assessed by logfile analysis for all plans and additionally verified by film measurements for one case. All dose calculations are Monte Carlo based. RESULTS: The extension of the DTRT planning process with user-defined G m a x & Δ G m a x ${G}_{max}\& {{\Delta}}{G}_{max}$ to investigate the impact of the GT rotation gradient on plan quality is successfully demonstrated. With increasing G m a x & Δ G m a x ${G}_{max}\& {{\Delta}}{G}_{max}$ , slight (case C, D m e a n , p a r o t i d l . ${D}_{mean,\ parotid\ l.}$ : up to|-1|Gy) and substantial (case A, D 0.03 c m 3 , o p t i c n e r v e r . ${D}_{0.03c{m}^3,\ optic\ nerve\ r.}$ : up to -9.3 Gy, case|B, D m e a n , b r a i n $\ {D}_{mean,\ brain}$ : up to -4.7|Gy) improvements in OAR sparing are observed compared to VMAT, while maintaining similar target coverage. All plans are delivered on the TrueBeam. Expected and actual machine position values recorded in the logfiles deviated by <0.2° for gantry, table and collimator rotation. The film measurements agreed by >96% (2%|global/2 mm Gamma passing rate) with the dose calculation. With increasing G m a x & Δ G m a x ${G}_{max}\& {{\Delta}}{G}_{max}$ , delivery time is prolonged by <2 min/trajectory (DTRT-4) compared to VMAT and DTRT-1. The DTRT plans for case A and B and the VMAT plan for case C plan reveal the best dosimetric robustness for the considered uncertainties. CONCLUSION: The impact of the GT rotation gradient on DTRT plan quality is comprehensively investigated for three cases in the head and neck and brain region. Increasing freedom in this gradient improves dosimetric plan quality at the cost of increased delivery time for the investigated cases. No clear dependency of GT rotation gradient on dosimetric robustness is observed.

Development of a Monte Carlo based robustness calculation and evaluation tool.

BACKGROUND: Evaluating plan robustness is a key step in radiotherapy. PURPOSE: To develop a flexible Monte Carlo (MC)-based robustness calculation and evaluation tool to assess and quantify dosimetric robustness of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment plans by exploring the impact of systematic and random uncertainties resulting from patient setup, patient anatomy changes, and mechanical limitations of machine components. METHODS: The robustness tool consists of two parts: the first part includes automated MC dose calculation of multiple user-defined uncertainty scenarios to populate a robustness space. An uncertainty scenario is defined by a certain combination of uncertainties in patient setup, rigid intrafraction motion and in mechanical steering of the following machine components: angles of gantry, collimator, table-yaw, table-pitch, table-roll, translational positions of jaws, multileaf-collimator (MLC) banks, and single MLC leaves. The Swiss Monte Carlo Plan (SMCP) is integrated in this tool to serve as the backbone for the MC dose calculations incorporating the uncertainties. The calculated dose distributions serve as input for the second part of the tool, handling the quantitative evaluation of the dosimetric impact of the uncertainties. A graphical user interface (GUI) is developed to simultaneously evaluate the uncertainty scenarios according to user-specified conditions based on dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters, fast and exact gamma analysis, and dose differences. Additionally, a robustness index (RI) is introduced with the aim to simultaneously evaluate and condense dosimetric robustness against multiple uncertainties into one number. The RI is defined as the ratio of scenarios passing the conditions on the dose distributions. Weighting of the scenarios in the robustness space is possible to consider their likelihood of occurrence. The robustness tool is applied on IMRT, a volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), a dynamic trajectory radiotherapy (DTRT), and a dynamic mixed beam radiotherapy (DYMBER) plan for a brain case to evaluate the robustness to uncertainties of gantry-, table-, collimator angle, MLC, and intrafraction motion. Additionally, the robustness of the IMRT, VMAT, and DTRT plan against patient setup uncertainties are compared. The robustness tool is validated by Delta4 measurements for scenarios including all uncertainty types available. RESULTS: The robustness tool performs simultaneous calculation of uncertainty scenarios, and the GUI enables their fast evaluation. For all evaluated plans and uncertainties, the planning target volume (PTV) margin prevented major clinical target volume (CTV) coverage deterioration (maximum observed standard deviation of D 98 % CTV $D98{\% _{{\rm{CTV}}}}$ was 1.3 Gy). OARs close to the PTV experienced larger dosimetric deviations (maximum observed standard deviation of D 2 % chiasma $D2{\% _{{\rm{chiasma}}}}$ was 14.5 Gy). Robustness comparison by RI evaluation against patient setup uncertainties revealed better dosimetric robustness of the VMAT and DTRT plans as compared to the IMRT plan. Delta4 validation measurements agreed with calculations by >96% gamma-passing rate (3% global/2 mm). CONCLUSIONS: The robustness tool was successfully implemented. Calculation and evaluation of uncertainty scenarios with the robustness tool were demonstrated on a brain case. Effects of patient and machine-specific uncertainties and the combination thereof on the dose distribution are evaluated in a user-friendly GUI to quantitatively assess and compare treatment plans and their robustness.

Organ-at-risk sparing with dynamic trajectory radiotherapy for head and neck cancer: comparison with volumetric arc therapy on a publicly available library of cases.

BACKGROUND: Dynamic trajectory radiotherapy (DTRT) extends volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with dynamic table and collimator rotation during beam-on. The aim of the study is to establish DTRT path-finding strategies, demonstrate deliverability and dosimetric accuracy and compare DTRT to state-of-the-art VMAT for common head and neck (HN) cancer cases. METHODS: A publicly available library of seven HN cases was created on an anthropomorphic phantom with all relevant organs-at-risk (OARs) delineated. DTRT plans were generated with beam incidences minimizing fractional target/OAR volume overlap and compared to VMAT. Deliverability and dosimetric validation was carried out on the phantom. RESULTS: DTRT and VMAT had similar target coverage. For three locoregionally advanced oropharyngeal carcinomas and one adenoid cystic carcinoma, mean dose to the contralateral salivary glands, pharynx and oral cavity was reduced by 2.5, 1.7 and 3.1 Gy respectively on average with DTRT compared to VMAT. For a locally recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma, D0.03 cc to the ipsilateral optic nerve was above tolerance (54.0 Gy) for VMAT (54.8 Gy) but within tolerance for DTRT (53.3 Gy). For a laryngeal carcinoma, DTRT resulted in higher dose than VMAT to the pharynx and brachial plexus but lower dose to the upper oesophagus, thyroid gland and contralateral carotid artery. For a single vocal cord irradiation case, DTRT spared most OARs better than VMAT. All plans were delivered successfully on the phantom and dosimetric validation resulted in gamma passing rates of 93.9% and 95.8% (2%/2 mm criteria, 10% dose threshold). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a proof of principle of DTRT for common HN cases with plans that were deliverable on a C-arm linac with high accuracy. The comparison with VMAT indicates substantial OAR sparing could be achieved.

Implementation and experimental validation of a robust hybrid direct aperture optimization approach for mixed-beam radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: The objectives of the work presented in this paper were to (1) implement a robust-optimization method for deliverable mixed-beam radiotherapy (MBRT) plans within a previously developed MBRT planning framework; (2) perform an experimental validation of the delivery of robust-optimized MBRT plans; and (3) compare PTV-based and robust-optimized MBRT plans in terms of target dose robustness and organs at risk (OAR) sparing for clinical head and neck and brain patient cases. METHODS: A robust-optimization method, which accounts for translational setup errors, was implemented within a previously developed treatment planning framework for MBRT. The framework uses a hybrid direct aperture optimization method combining column generation and simulated annealing. A robust plan was developed and then delivered to an anthropomorphic head phantom using the Developer Mode of a TrueBeam linac. Planar dose distributions were measured and compared to the planned dose. Robust-optimized and PTV-based plans were developed for three clinical patient cases consisting of two head and neck cases and one brain case. The plans were compared in terms of the robustness to 5 mm shifts of the target volume dose as well as in terms of OAR sparing. RESULTS: Using a gamma criterion of 3%/2 mm and a dose threshold of 10%, the agreement between film measurements and dose calculations was better than 97.7% for the total plan and better than 95.5% for the electron component of the plan. For the two head and neck patient cases, the average clinical target volume (CTV) dose homogeneity index (V95%-V107%) over all the considered setup error scenarios was on average 19% lower for the PTV-based plans and it had a larger standard deviation. The robust-optimized plans achieved, on average, a 20% reduction in the OAR doses compared to the PTV-based plans. For the brain patient case, the CTV dose homogeneity index was similar for the two plans, while the OAR doses were 22% lower, on average, for the robust-optimized plan. No clear trend in terms of electron contributions was found across the three patient cases, although robust-optimized plans tended toward higher electron beam energies. CONCLUSIONS: A framework for robust optimization of deliverable MBRT plans has been developed and validated. PTV-based MBRT were found to not be robust to setup errors, while the dose delivered by the robust-optimized plans were clinically acceptable for all considered error scenarios and had better OAR sparing. This study shows that the robust optimization is a promising alternative to conventional PTV margins for MBRT.

Part 1: Optimization and evaluation of dynamic trajectory radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: Although volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is a well-accepted treatment technique in radiotherapy using a coplanar delivery approach, VMAT might be further improved by including dynamic table and collimator rotations leading to dynamic trajectory radiotherapy (DTRT). In this work, an optimization procedure for DTRT was developed and the potential benefit of DTRT was investigated for different treatment sites. METHODS: For this purpose, a dedicated optimization framework for DTRT was developed using the Eclipse Scripting Research Application Programming Interface (ESRAPI). The contours of the target and organs at risk (OARs) structures were exported by applying the ESRAPI and were used to determine the fractional volume-overlap of the OARs with the target from several potential beam directions. Thereby, an additional weighting was applied taking into account the relative position of the OAR with respect to the target and radiation beam, that is, penalizing directions where the OAR is proximal to the target. The resulting two-dimensional gantry-table map was used as input for an A* path finding algorithm returning an optimized gantry-table path. Thereby, the process is also taking into account CT scan length and collision restrictions. The A* algorithm was used again to determine the dynamic collimator angle path by optimizing the area between the MLC leaves and the target contour for each gantry-table path leading to gantry-collimator paths. The resulting gantry-table and gantry-collimator paths are combined and serve as input for the intensity modulation optimization using a research VMAT optimizer and the ESRAPI resulting in dynamic trajectories. This procedure was evaluated for five clinically motivated cases: two head and neck, one lung, one esophagus, and one prostate. Final dose calculations were performed using the Swiss Monte Carlo Plan (SMCP). Resulting dose distributions for the DTRT treatment plans and for the standard VMAT plans were compared based on dose distributions and dose volume histogram (DVH) parameters. For this comparison, the dose distribution for the VMAT plans were recalculated using the SMCP. In addition, the suitability of the delivery of a DTRT treatment plan was demonstrated by means of gafchromic film measurements on a TrueBeam linear accelerator. RESULTS: DVHs for the target volumes showed similar or improved coverage and dose homogeneity for DTRT compared with VMAT using equal or less number of dynamic trajectories for DTRT than arcs for VMAT for all cases studied. Depending on the case, improvements in mean and maximum dose for the DTRT plans were achieved for almost all OARs compared with the VMAT plans. Improvements in DTRT treatment plans for mean and maximum dose compared to VMAT plans were up to 16% and 38% relative to the prescribed dose, respectively. The measured and calculated dose values resulted in a passing rate of more than 99.5% for the two-dimensional gamma analysis using 2% and 2 mm criteria and a threshold of 10%. CONCLUSIONS: DTRT plans for different treatment sites were generated and compared with VMAT plans. The delivery is suitable and dose comparisons demonstrate a high potential of DTRT to reduce dose to OARs using less dynamic trajectories than arcs, while target coverage is preserved.