Generation, validation, and benchmarking of a commercial independent Monte Carlo calculation beam model for multi-target SRS.

BACKGROUND: Dosimetric validation of single isocenter multi-target radiosurgery plans is difficult due to conditions of electronic disequilibrium and the simultaneous irradiation of multiple off-axis lesions dispersed throughout the volume. Here we report the benchmarking of a customizable Monte Carlo secondary dose calculation algorithm specific for multi-target radiosurgery which future users may use to guide their commissioning and clinical implementation. PURPOSE: To report the generation, validation, and clinical benchmarking of a volumetric Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation beam model for single isocenter radiosurgery of intracranial multi-focal disease. METHODS: The beam model was prepared within SciMoCa (ScientificRT, Munich Germany), a commercial independent dose calculation software, with the aim of broad availability via the commercial software for use with single isocenter radiosurgery. The process included (1) definition & acquisition of measurement data required for beam modeling, (2) tuning model parameters to match measurements, (3) validation of the beam model via independent measurements and end-to-end testing, and finally, (4) clinical benchmarking and validation of beam model utility in a patient specific QA setting. We utilized a 6X Flattening-Filter-Free photon beam from a TrueBeam STX linear accelerator (Siemens Healthineers, Munich Germany). RESULTS: In addition to the measured data required for standard IMRT/VMAT (depth dose, central axis profiles & output factors, leaf gap), beam modeling and validation for single-isocenter SRS required central axis and off axis (5 cm & 9 cm) small field output factors and comparison between measurement and simulation of backscatter with aperture for jaw much greater than MLCs. Validation end-to-end measurements included SRS MapCHECK in StereoPHAN geometry (2%/1 mm Gamma = 99.2% ±â€¯2.2%), and OSL & scintillator measurements in anthropomorphic STEEV phantom (6 targets, volume = 0.1-4.1cc, distance from isocenter = 1.2-7.9 cm) for which mean difference was -1.9% ±â€¯2.2%. For 10 patient cases, MC for individual PTVs was -0.8% ±â€¯1.5%, -1.3% ±â€¯1.7%, and -0.5% ±â€¯1.8% for mean dose, D95%, and D1%, respectively. This corresponded to custom passing rates action limits per AAPM TG-218 guidelines of ±5.2%, ±6.4%, and ±6.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The beam modeling, validation, and clinical action criteria outlined here serves as a benchmark for future users of the customized beam model within SciMoCa for single isocenter radiosurgery of multi-focal disease.

Uncertainties in the dosimetric heterogeneity correction and its potential effect on local control in lung SBRT.

Objective. Dose calculation in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is challenging due to the low density of the lungs and small volumes. Here we assess uncertainties associated with tissue heterogeneities using different dose calculation algorithms and quantify potential associations with local failure for lung SBRT.Approach. 164 lung SBRT plans were used. The original plans were prepared using Pencil Beam Convolution (PBC, n = 8) or Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA, n = 156). Each plan was recalculated with AcurosXB (AXB) leaving all plan parameters unchanged. A subset (n = 89) was calculated with Monte Carlo to verify accuracy. Differences were calculated for the planning target volume (PTV) and internal target volume (ITV) Dmean[Gy], D99%[Gy], D95%[Gy], D1%[Gy], and V100%[%]. Dose metrics were converted to biologically effective doses (BED) usingα/ß= 10Gy. Regression analysis was performed for AAA plans investigating the effects of various parameters on the extent of the dosimetric differences. Associations between the magnitude of the differences for all plans and outcome were investigated using sub-distribution hazards analysis.Main results. For AAA cases, higher energies increased the magnitude of the difference (ΔDmean of -3.6%, -5.9%, and -9.1% for 6X, 10X, and 15X, respectively), as did lung volume (ΔD99% of -1.6% per 500cc). Regarding outcome, significant hazard ratios (HR) were observed for the change in the PTV and ITV D1% BEDs upon univariate analysis (p = 0.042, 0.023, respectively). When adjusting for PTV volume and prescription, the HRs for the change in the ITV D1% BED remained significant (p = 0.039, 0.037, respectively).Significance. Large differences in dosimetric indices for lung SBRT can occur when transitioning to advanced algorithms. The majority of the differences were not associated with local failure, although differences in PTV and ITV D1% BEDs were associated upon univariate analysis. This shows uncertainty in near maximal tumor dose to potentially be predictive of treatment outcome.

The Effect of Various Dose Normalization Strategies When Implementing Linear Boltzmann Transport Equation Dose Calculation for Lung Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Planning.

PURPOSE: To explore implications of various plan normalizations when implementing a linear Boltzmann transport equation solver dose calculation algorithm (LBTE) for lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eighty-seven plans originally calculated with a convolution-superposition algorithm (CS) were recalculated with LBTE and normalized in 3 ways: prescription covering 95% of planning target volume (PTV), 99% of internal target volume (ITV), and keeping the original planned PTV coverage. Effect on delivered dose after implementing the new algorithm was quantified using change in total monitor units for each renormalization strategy. Treatment planning system-reported changes in PTV, ITV, and organ at risk (OAR) doses were also quantified, along with the feasibility of LBTE plans to meet institutional OAR planning objectives. RESULTS: LBTE renormalization resulted in monitor unit increases of 7.0 ± 8.8%, 0.31 ± 5.8%, and 7.9 ± 8.6% when normalizing to the PTV D95%, ITV D99%, and planned coverage, respectively. When normalizing to PTV D95%, the LBTE reported increased PTV and ITV D1% (Gy) relative to CS (median, 3.4% and 3.2%, respectively), and normalizing to ITV D99% showed a median 1.9% decrease. For LBTE plans, reported OAR doses were increased when normalizing to PTV D95% or planned coverage (median chest wall V30 Gy [cc] increase of 0.85 and 1.7 cc, respectively) and normalizing to ITV D99% resulted in decreased dose (median chest wall V30 Gy [cc] decrease of 1.8 cc). LBTE plans normalized to PTV D95% showed inferior ability to meet the OAR objectives, but reoptimizing kept the objectives manageable while maintaining PTV coverage. CONCLUSIONS: When transitioning from CS to LBTE dose calculation for lung SBRT, maintaining a PTV coverage-based normalization generally results in increased dose delivered relative to CS and increased reported target and OAR dose. In cases where PTV normalization results in unacceptably high doses to targets or OARs, normalizing based on ITV coverage can be considered to maintain similar target dose as CS.