Comparison of transabdominal ultrasound and electromagnetic transponders for prostate localization.

The aim of this study is to compare two methodologies of prostate localization in a large cohort of patients. Daily prostate localization using B-mode ultrasound has been performed at the Nebraska Medical Center since 2000. More recently, a technology using electromagnetic transponders implanted within the prostate was introduced into our clinic (Calypso(R)). With each technology, patients were localized initially using skin marks. Localization error distributions were determined from offsets between the initial setup positions and those determined by ultrasound or Calypso. Ultrasound localization data was summarized from 16619 imaging sessions spanning 7 years; Calypso localization data consists of 1524 fractions in 41 prostate patients treated in the course of a clinical trial at five institutions and 640 localizations from the first 16 patients treated with our clinical system. Ultrasound and Calypso patients treated between March and September 2007 at the Nebraska Medical Center were analyzed and compared, allowing a single institutional comparison of the two technologies. In this group of patients, the isocenter determined by ultrasound-based localization is on average 5.3 mm posterior to that determined by Calypso, while the systematic and random errors and PTV margins calculated from the ultrasound localizations were 3 - 4 times smaller than those calculated from the Calypso localizations. Our study finds that there are systematic differences between Calypso and ultrasound for prostate localization.

Dosimetric consequences of intrafraction prostate motion.

PURPOSE: To analyze characteristics of intrafraction prostate motion, monitored using the Calypso system, and investigate dosimetric consequences of the motion for different clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume (PTV) margins. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Motion characteristics were analyzed for 1,267 tracking sessions and 35 patients. Using prostate-PTV margins of 0, 1, 2, 3, and 5 mm, dose metrics for the prostate gland, bladder, and rectum were evaluated for scenarios including patient population, individual patients showing the greatest motion during the course of treatment, and the individual session with the largest overall movement. Composite dose distributions incorporating motion blurring were calculated by convolving static intensity-modulated radiotherapy plans with corresponding motion probability functions. RESULTS: For prostate-PTV margins of 2 mm or greater, intrafraction motion did not compromise prostate dose coverage for either the patient population or individual patients. For the patient showing the largest overall movement, the prostate equivalent uniform dose was reduced by only 17.4 cGy (0.23%), and the minimum prostate dose remained greater than 95% of the nominal dose. For margins less than 2 mm, the prostate dose-volume histogram in the same patient was slightly compromised, and the equivalent uniform dose was reduced by 38.5 cGy (0.51%). Sparing of the bladder and rectum was improved substantially by reducing margins. CONCLUSIONS: Although significant motion can be observed during individual fractions, the dosimetric consequences are insignificant during a typical course of radiotherapy (30-40 fractions) with CTV-PTV margins of 2 mm or greater provided that the Calypso system is applied for pretreatment localization. Further reduction of the margin is possible if intrafraction realignment is performed.

Quantifying the interplay effect in prostate IMRT delivery using a convolution-based method.

The authors present a segment-based convolution method to account for the interplay effect between intrafraction organ motion and the multileaf collimator position for each particular segment in intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) delivered in a step-and-shoot manner. In this method, the static dose distribution attributed to each segment is convolved with the probability density function (PDF) of motion during delivery of the segment, whereas in the conventional convolution method ("average-based convolution"), the static dose distribution is convolved with the PDF averaged over an entire fraction, an entire treatment course, or even an entire patient population. In the case of IMRT delivered in a step-and-shoot manner, the average-based convolution method assumes that in each segment the target volume experiences the same motion pattern (PDF) as that of population. In the segment-based convolution method, the dose during each segment is calculated by convolving the static dose with the motion PDF specific to that segment, allowing both intrafraction motion and the interplay effect to be accounted for in the dose calculation. Intrafraction prostate motion data from a population of 35 patients tracked using the Calypso system (Calypso Medical Technologies, Inc., Seattle, WA) was used to generate motion PDFs. These were then convolved with dose distributions from clinical prostate IMRT plans. For a single segment with a small number of monitor units, the interplay effect introduced errors of up to 25.9% in the mean CTV dose compared against the planned dose evaluated by using the PDF of the entire fraction. In contrast, the interplay effect reduced the minimum CTV dose by 4.4%, and the CTV generalized equivalent uniform dose by 1.3%, in single fraction plans. For entire treatment courses delivered in either a hypofractionated (five fractions) or conventional (> 30 fractions) regimen, the discrepancy in total dose due to interplay effect was negligible.

A computational implementation and comparison of several intensity modulated proton therapy treatment planning algorithms.

The authors present a comparative study of intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) treatment planning employing algorithms of three-dimensional (3D) modulation, and 2.5-dimensional (2.5D) modulation, and intensity modulated distal edge tracking (DET) [A. Lomax, Phys. Med. Biol. 44, 185-205 (1999)] applied to the treatment of head-and-neck cancer radiotherapy. These three approaches were also compared with 6 MV photon intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). All algorithms were implemented in the University of Florida Optimized Radiation Therapy system using a finite sized pencil beam dose model and a convex fluence map optimization model. The 3D IMPT and the DET algorithms showed considerable advantages over the photon IMRT in terms of dose conformity and sparing of organs at risk when the beam number was not constrained. The 2.5D algorithm did not show an advantage over the photon IMRT except in the dose reduction to the distant healthy tissues, which is inherent in proton beam delivery. The influences of proton beam number and pencil beam size on the IMPT plan quality were also studied. Out of 24 cases studied, three cases could be adequately planned with one beam and 12 cases could be adequately planned with two beams, but the dose uniformity was often marginally acceptable. Adding one or two more beams in each case dramatically improved the dose uniformity. The finite pencil beam size had more influence on the plan quality of the 2.5D and DET algorithms than that of the 3D IMPT. To obtain a satisfactory plan quality, a 0.5 cm pencil beam size was required for the 3D IMPT and a 0.3 cm size was required for the 2.5D and the DET algorithms. Delivery of the IMPT plans produced in this study would require a proton beam spot scanning technique that has yet to be developed clinically.

A fourier analysis on the maximum acceptable grid size for discrete proton beam dose calculation.

We developed an analytical method for determining the maximum acceptable grid size for discrete dose calculation in proton therapy treatment plan optimization, so that the accuracy of the optimized dose distribution is guaranteed in the phase of dose sampling and the superfluous computational work is avoided. The accuracy of dose sampling was judged by the criterion that the continuous dose distribution could be reconstructed from the discrete dose within a 2% error limit. To keep the error caused by the discrete dose sampling under a 2% limit, the dose grid size cannot exceed a maximum acceptable value. The method was based on Fourier analysis and the Shannon-Nyquist sampling theorem as an extension of our previous analysis for photon beam intensity modulated radiation therapy [J. F. Dempsey, H. E. Romeijn, J. G. Li, D. A. Low, and J. R. Palta, Med. Phys. 32, 380-388 (2005)]. The proton beam model used for the analysis was a near monoenergetic (of width about 1% the incident energy) and monodirectional infinitesimal (nonintegrated) pencil beam in water medium. By monodirection, we mean that the proton particles are in the same direction before entering the water medium and the various scattering prior to entrance to water is not taken into account. In intensity modulated proton therapy, the elementary intensity modulation entity for proton therapy is either an infinitesimal or finite sized beamlet. Since a finite sized beamlet is the superposition of infinitesimal pencil beams, the result of the maximum acceptable grid size obtained with infinitesimal pencil beam also applies to finite sized beamlet. The analytic Bragg curve function proposed by Bortfeld [T. Bortfeld, Med. Phys. 24, 2024-2033 (1997)] was employed. The lateral profile was approximated by a depth dependent Gaussian distribution. The model included the spreads of the Bragg peak and the lateral profiles due to multiple Coulomb scattering. The dependence of the maximum acceptable dose grid size on the orientation of the beam with respect to the dose grid was also investigated. The maximum acceptable dose grid size depends on the gradient of dose profile and in turn the range of proton beam. In the case that only the phantom scattering was considered and that the beam was aligned with the dose grid, grid sizes from 0.4 to 6.8 mm were required for proton beams with ranges from 2 to 30 cm for 2% error limit at the Bragg peak point. A near linear relation between the maximum acceptable grid size and beam range was observed. For this analysis model, the resolution requirement was not significantly related to the orientation of the beam with respect to the grid.

Direct dose mapping versus energy/mass transfer mapping for 4D dose accumulation: fundamental differences and dosimetric consequences.

The direct dose mapping (DDM) and energy/mass transfer (EMT) mapping are two essential algorithms for accumulating the dose from different anatomic phases to the reference phase when there is organ motion or tumor/tissue deformation during the delivery of radiation therapy. DDM is based on interpolation of the dose values from one dose grid to another and thus lacks rigor in defining the dose when there are multiple dose values mapped to one dose voxel in the reference phase due to tissue/tumor deformation. On the other hand, EMT counts the total energy and mass transferred to each voxel in the reference phase and calculates the dose by dividing the energy by mass. Therefore it is based on fundamentally sound physics principles. In this study, we implemented the two algorithms and integrated them within the Eclipse treatment planning system. We then compared the clinical dosimetric difference between the two algorithms for ten lung cancer patients receiving stereotactic radiosurgery treatment, by accumulating the delivered dose to the end-of-exhale (EE) phase. Specifically, the respiratory period was divided into ten phases and the dose to each phase was calculated and mapped to the EE phase and then accumulated. The displacement vector field generated by Demons-based registration of the source and reference images was used to transfer the dose and energy. The DDM and EMT algorithms produced noticeably different cumulative dose in the regions with sharp mass density variations and/or high dose gradients. For the planning target volume (PTV) and internal target volume (ITV) minimum dose, the difference was up to 11% and 4% respectively. This suggests that DDM might not be adequate for obtaining an accurate dose distribution of the cumulative plan, instead, EMT should be considered.