The rationale for a carbon ion radiation therapy facility in Australia.

Australia has taken a collaborative nationally networked approach to achieve particle therapy capability. This supports the under-construction proton therapy facility in Adelaide, other potential proton centres and an under-evaluation proposal for a hybrid carbon ion and proton centre in western Sydney. A wide-ranging overview is presented of the rationale for carbon ion radiation therapy, applying observations to the case for an Australian facility and to the clinical and research potential from such a national centre.

AAPM WGDCAB Report 372: A joint AAPM, ESTRO, ABG, and ABS report on commissioning of model-based dose calculation algorithms in brachytherapy.

The introduction of model-based dose calculation algorithms (MBDCAs) in brachytherapy provides an opportunity for a more accurate dose calculation and opens the possibility for novel, innovative treatment modalities. The joint AAPM, ESTRO, and ABG Task Group 186 (TG-186) report provided guidance to early adopters. However, the commissioning aspect of these algorithms was described only in general terms with no quantitative goals. This report, from the Working Group on Model-Based Dose Calculation Algorithms in Brachytherapy, introduced a field-tested approach to MBDCA commissioning. It is based on a set of well-characterized test cases for which reference Monte Carlo (MC) and vendor-specific MBDCA dose distributions are available in a Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine-Radiotherapy (DICOM-RT) format to the clinical users. The key elements of the TG-186 commissioning workflow are now described in detail, and quantitative goals are provided. This approach leverages the well-known Brachytherapy Source Registry jointly managed by the AAPM and the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) Houston Quality Assurance Center (with associated links at ESTRO) to provide open access to test cases as well as step-by-step user guides. While the current report is limited to the two most widely commercially available MBDCAs and only for 192 Ir-based afterloading brachytherapy at this time, this report establishes a general framework that can easily be extended to other brachytherapy MBDCAs and brachytherapy sources. The AAPM, ESTRO, ABG, and ABS recommend that clinical medical physicists implement the workflow presented in this report to validate both the basic and the advanced dose calculation features of their commercial MBDCAs. Recommendations are also given to vendors to integrate advanced analysis tools into their brachytherapy treatment planning system to facilitate extensive dose comparisons. The use of the test cases for research and educational purposes is further encouraged.

A generic TG-186 shielded applicator for commissioning model-based dose calculation algorithms for high-dose-rate 192 Ir brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: A joint working group was created by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM), the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), and the Australasian Brachytherapy Group (ABG) with the charge, among others, to develop a set of well-defined test case plans and perform calculations and comparisons with model-based dose calculation algorithms (MBDCAs). Its main goal is to facilitate a smooth transition from the AAPM Task Group No. 43 (TG-43) dose calculation formalism, widely being used in clinical practice for brachytherapy, to the one proposed by Task Group No. 186 (TG-186) for MBDCAs. To do so, in this work a hypothetical, generic high-dose rate (HDR) 192 Ir shielded applicator has been designed and benchmarked. METHODS: A generic HDR 192 Ir shielded applicator was designed based on three commercially available gynecological applicators as well as a virtual cubic water phantom that can be imported into any DICOM-RT compatible treatment planning system (TPS). The absorbed dose distribution around the applicator with the TG-186 192 Ir source located at one dwell position at its center was computed using two commercial TPSs incorporating MBDCAs (Oncentra® Brachy with Advanced Collapsed-cone Engine, ACE™, and BrachyVision ACUROS™) and state-of-the-art Monte Carlo (MC) codes, including ALGEBRA, BrachyDose, egs_brachy, Geant4, MCNP6, and Penelope2008. TPS-based volumetric dose distributions for the previously reported "source centered in water" and "source displaced" test cases, and the new "source centered in applicator" test case, were analyzed here using the MCNP6 dose distribution as a reference. Volumetric dose comparisons of TPS results against results for the other MC codes were also performed. Distributions of local and global dose difference ratios are reported. RESULTS: The local dose differences among MC codes are comparable to the statistical uncertainties of the reference datasets for the "source centered in water" and "source displaced" test cases and for the clinically relevant part of the unshielded volume in the "source centered in applicator" case. Larger local differences appear in the shielded volume or at large distances. Considering clinically relevant regions, global dose differences are smaller than the local ones. The most disadvantageous case for the MBDCAs is the one including the shielded applicator. In this case, ACUROS agrees with MC within [-4.2%, +4.2%] for the majority of voxels (95%) while presenting dose differences within [-0.12%, +0.12%] of the dose at a clinically relevant reference point. For ACE, 95% of the total volume presents differences with respect to MC in the range [-1.7%, +0.4%] of the dose at the reference point. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of the generic source and generic shielded applicator, together with the previously developed test cases and reference datasets (available in the Brachytherapy Source Registry), lay a solid foundation in supporting uniform commissioning procedures and direct comparisons among treatment planning systems for HDR 192 Ir brachytherapy.

On the use of a convolution-superposition algorithm for plan checking in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) aims to deliver a highly conformal ablative dose to a small target. Dosimetric verification of SBRT for lung tumors presents a challenge due to heterogeneities, moving targets, and small fields. Recent software (M3D) designed for dosimetric verification of lung SBRT treatment plans using an advanced convolution-superposition algorithm was evaluated. Ten lung SBRT patients covering a range of tumor volumes were selected. 3D CRT plans were created using the XiO treatment planning system (TPS) with the superposition algorithm. Dose was recalculated in the Eclipse TPS using the AAA algorithm, M3D verification software using the collapsed-cone-convolution algorithm, and in-house Monte Carlo (MC). Target point doses were calculated with RadCalc software. Near-maximum, median, and near-minimum target doses, conformity indices, and lung doses were compared with MC as the reference calculation. M3D 3D gamma passing rates were compared with the XiO and Eclipse. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare each calculation method with XiO with a threshold of significance of p < 0.05. M3D and RadCalc point dose calculations were greater than MC by up to 7.7% and 13.1%, respectively, with M3D being statistically significant (s.s.). AAA and XiO calculated point doses were less than MC by 11.3% and 5.2%, respectively (AAA s.s.). Median and near-minimum and near-maximum target doses were less than MC when calculated with AAA and XiO (all s.s.). Near-maximum and median target doses were higher with M3D compared with MC (s.s.), but there was no difference in near-minimum M3D doses compared with MC. M3D-calculated ipsilateral lung V20 Gy and V5 Gy were greater than that calculated with MC (s.s.); AAA- and XiO-calculated V20 Gy was lower than that calculated with MC, but not statistically different to MC for V5 Gy. Nine of the 10 plans achieved M3D gamma passing rates greater than 95% and 80%for 5%/1 mm and 3%/1 mm criteria, respectively. M3D typically calculated a higher target and lung dose than MC for lung SBRT plans. The results show a range of calculated doses with different algorithms and suggest that M3D is in closer agree-ment with Monte Carlo, thus discrepancies between the TPS and M3D software will be observed for lung SBRT plans. M3D provides a useful supplement to verification of lung SBRT plans by direct measurement, which typically excludes patient specific heterogeneities.

Testing the Assessment of New Radiation Oncology Technology and Treatments framework using the evaluation of post-prostatectomy radiotherapy techniques.

INTRODUCTION: We tested the ability of the Assessment of New Radiation Oncology Technology and Treatments framework to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) compared with 3-dimensional radiation therapy (3DCRT) for post-prostatectomy radiation therapy (PPRT) to support its timely health economic evaluation. METHODS: Treatment plans produced using FROGG guidelines provided dosimetry parameters for both techniques at 64 Gy and 70 Gy and were also used to model early and late outcome probabilities. Clinical parameters were derived from early toxicity and quality of life patient data, systematic literature review and expert opinion. Dosimetry parameters were correlated with the measures of clinical efficacy and safety. RESULTS: Data from two patient cohorts (29 and 27 respectively) were collected within the project timeframe, providing evidence for acute toxicity and quality of life, and dosimetric comparisons. Relative rates of tumour control probability (TCP) and normal tissue control probability (NTCP) modelling were readily derived from the planning exercise and demonstrated advantages in uncomplicated TCP for IMRT over 3DCRT, predominantly due to normal tissue sparing. The safety of IMRT delivery was demonstrated with TCP uncompromised by IMRT protocol violations, which achieved rectal sparing only by reducing minimum target dose and coverage. CONCLUSION: Sources of desk-top and patient-based evidence were successfully used to demonstrate potential improved clinical efficacy and safety of applying dose escalation using IMRT instead of 3DCRT in PPRT.

A generic high-dose rate (192)Ir brachytherapy source for evaluation of model-based dose calculations beyond the TG-43 formalism.

PURPOSE: In order to facilitate a smooth transition for brachytherapy dose calculations from the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group No. 43 (TG-43) formalism to model-based dose calculation algorithms (MBDCAs), treatment planning systems (TPSs) using a MBDCA require a set of well-defined test case plans characterized by Monte Carlo (MC) methods. This also permits direct dose comparison to TG-43 reference data. Such test case plans should be made available for use in the software commissioning process performed by clinical end users. To this end, a hypothetical, generic high-dose rate (HDR) (192)Ir source and a virtual water phantom were designed, which can be imported into a TPS. METHODS: A hypothetical, generic HDR (192)Ir source was designed based on commercially available sources as well as a virtual, cubic water phantom that can be imported into any TPS in DICOM format. The dose distribution of the generic (192)Ir source when placed at the center of the cubic phantom, and away from the center under altered scatter conditions, was evaluated using two commercial MBDCAs [Oncentra(®) Brachy with advanced collapsed-cone engine (ACE) and BrachyVision ACUROS™ ]. Dose comparisons were performed using state-of-the-art MC codes for radiation transport, including ALGEBRA, BrachyDose, GEANT4, MCNP5, MCNP6, and PENELOPE2008. The methodologies adhered to recommendations in the AAPM TG-229 report on high-energy brachytherapy source dosimetry. TG-43 dosimetry parameters, an along-away dose-rate table, and primary and scatter separated (PSS) data were obtained. The virtual water phantom of (201)(3) voxels (1 mm sides) was used to evaluate the calculated dose distributions. Two test case plans involving a single position of the generic HDR (192)Ir source in this phantom were prepared: (i) source centered in the phantom and (ii) source displaced 7 cm laterally from the center. Datasets were independently produced by different investigators. MC results were then compared against dose calculated using TG-43 and MBDCA methods. RESULTS: TG-43 and PSS datasets were generated for the generic source, the PSS data for use with the ace algorithm. The dose-rate constant values obtained from seven MC simulations, performed independently using different codes, were in excellent agreement, yielding an average of 1.1109 ± 0.0004 cGy/(h U) (k = 1, Type A uncertainty). MC calculated dose-rate distributions for the two plans were also found to be in excellent agreement, with differences within type A uncertainties. Differences between commercial MBDCA and MC results were test, position, and calculation parameter dependent. On average, however, these differences were within 1% for ACUROS and 2% for ace at clinically relevant distances. CONCLUSIONS: A hypothetical, generic HDR (192)Ir source was designed and implemented in two commercially available TPSs employing different MBDCAs. Reference dose distributions for this source were benchmarked and used for the evaluation of MBDCA calculations employing a virtual, cubic water phantom in the form of a CT DICOM image series. The implementation of a generic source of identical design in all TPSs using MBDCAs is an important step toward supporting univocal commissioning procedures and direct comparisons between TPSs.

Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group: Development of the Assessment of New Radiation Oncology Technology and Treatments (ANROTAT) Framework.

INTRODUCTION: The study aim was to develop a generic framework to derive the parameters to populate health-economic models for the rapid evaluation of new techniques and technologies in radiation oncology. METHODS: A draft framework was developed through horizon scanning for relevant technologies, literature review to identify framework models, and a workshop program with radiation oncology professionals, biostatisticians, health economists and consumers to establish the Framework's structure. It was tested using four clinical protocols, comparing intensity modulated with 3D conformal therapy (post-prostatectomy, anal canal and nasopharynx) and image-guided radiation therapy techniques with off-line review of portal imaging (in the intact prostate). RESULTS: The draft generic research framework consisted of five sequential stages, each with a number of components, and was assessed as to its suitability for deriving the evidence needed to populate the decision-analytic models required for the health-economic evaluations. A final Framework was established from this experience for use by future researchers to provide evidence of clinical efficacy and cost-utility for other novel techniques. The four clinical treatment sites tested during the project were considered suitable to use in future evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: Development of a generic research framework to predict early and long-term clinical outcomes, combined with health-economic data, produced a generally applicable method for the rapid evaluation of new techniques and technologies in radiation oncology. Its application to further health technology assessments in the radiation oncology sector will allow further refinement and support its generalisability.

A decision model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) compared to three dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) in patients receiving radiotherapy to the prostate bed.

BACKGROUND: Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is a radiation therapy technology that facilitates the delivery of an improved dose distribution with less dose to surrounding critical structures. This study estimates the longer term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of IMRT in patients post radical prostatectomy. METHODS: A Markov decision model was developed to calculate the incremental quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs of IMRT compared with three dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT). Costs were estimated from the perspective of the Australian health care system. RESULTS: IMRT was both more effective and less costly than 3DCRT over 20 years, with an additional 20 QALYs gained and over $1.1 million saved per 1000 patients treated. This result was robust to plausible levels of uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: IMRT was estimated to have a modest long term advantage over 3DCRT in terms of both improved effectiveness and reduced cost. This result was reliant on clinical judgement and interpretation of the existing literature, but provides quantitative guidance on the cost effectiveness of IMRT whilst long term trial evidence is awaited.

Benchmarking dosimetric quality assessment of prostate intensity-modulated radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To benchmark the dosimetric quality assessment of prostate intensity-modulated radiotherapy and determine whether the quality is influenced by disease or treatment factors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the data from 155 consecutive men treated radically for prostate cancer using intensity-modulated radiotherapy to 78 Gy between January 2007 and March 2009 across six radiotherapy treatment centers. The plan quality was determined by the measures of coverage, homogeneity, and conformity. Tumor coverage was measured using the planning target volume (PTV) receiving 95% and 100% of the prescribed dose (V(95%) and V(100%), respectively) and the clinical target volume (CTV) receiving 95% and 100% of the prescribed dose. Homogeneity was measured using the sigma index of the PTV and CTV. Conformity was measured using the lesion coverage factor, healthy tissue conformity index, and the conformity number. Multivariate regression models were created to determine the relationship between these and T stage, risk status, androgen deprivation therapy use, treatment center, planning system, and treatment date. RESULTS: The largest discriminatory measurements of coverage, homogeneity, and conformity were the PTV V(95%), PTV sigma index, and conformity number. The mean PTV V(95%) was 92.5% (95% confidence interval, 91.3-93.7%). The mean PTV sigma index was 2.10 Gy (95% confidence interval, 1.90-2.20). The mean conformity number was 0.78 (95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.79). The treatment center independently influenced the coverage, homogeneity, and conformity (all p < .0001). The planning system independently influenced homogeneity (p = .038) and conformity (p = .021). The treatment date independently influenced the PTV V(95%) only, with it being better at the start (p = .013). Risk status, T stage, and the use of androgen deprivation therapy did not influence any aspect of plan quality. CONCLUSION: Our study has benchmarked measures of coverage, homogeneity, and conformity for the treatment of prostate cancer using IMRT. The differences seen between centers and planning systems and the coverage deterioration over time highlight the need for every center to determine their own benchmarks and apply clinical vigilance with respect to maintaining these through quality assurance.

Lack of backscatter factor measurements in HDR applications with MOSkins.

Measurements of backscatter correction factors for intra operative (IOBT) HDR brachytherapy applicators were made using Centre for Medical Radiation Physics (CMRP), MOSFET devices. In clinical use there is an absence of backscatter material above the IOBT applicator, leading to a lower dose than predicted by conventional TG-43 dose calculations. To estimate the uncertainty in the MOSFET measurements, the dosimetric characteristics, including reproducibility, stability, linearity, and angular and energy response were measured using a HDR Ir-192 source, kilovoltage treatment unit and a high energy linac. Measurements were compared with previously published Monte Carlo data. Variability of the response of the MOSFETs due to angular variation contributed the largest uncertainty in dose measurements. Using the IOBT applicator without adequate scatter material resulted in a reduction of delivered dose of on average 10%, but was dependent on the location on the applicator and the treatment field size. Theoretical calculations based on previously published study indicated an expected reduced dose of on average 4%. MOSFET devices provide an ideal measurement tool in the presence of high dose gradients, however, the dosimetric characteristics of the detector must be accounted for when estimating the uncertainty.

Assessment of i-125 prostate implants by tumor bioeffect.

PURPOSE: A method of prostate implant dose distribution assessment using a bioeffect model that incorporates a distribution of tumor cell densities is demonstrated. This method provides both a quantitative method of describing implant quality and spatial information related to the location of underdosed regions of the prostate. This model, unlike any other, takes into account the likelihood of finding cancer cells in the underdosed region. METHODS AND MATERIAL: The prostate volumes of 5 patients were divided into multiple subsections and a unique cell density was assigned to each subsection. The assigned cell density was a function of probability of finding tumor foci in that subsection. The tumor control probability (TCP) for each subsection was then calculated to identify the location of any significantly underdosed part of the prostate. In addition, a single TCP value for the entire prostate was calculated to score the overall quality of the implant. RESULTS: Adequately dosed subsections scored TCP values greater than 0.80. The TCP for underdosed regions fell dramatically particularly in subsections at higher risk of containing tumor cells. CONCLUSIONS: Despite uncertainties in radiobiological parameters used to calculate the TCP and the distribution of cancer foci through the prostate, the bioeffect model was found to be useful in identifying regions of underdosed prostate that may be at risk of local recurrence due to inadequate dose. Unlike the isodose distribution, the model has the potential to demonstrate that small volumes of tissue underdosed in regions most likely to contain higher numbers of tumor cells may be more significant than larger volumes irradiated to a lower dose but with a lower probability of containing cancer cells.