Using 4D dose accumulation to calculate organ-at-risk dose deviations from motion-synchronized liver and lung tomotherapy treatments.

Tracking systems such as Radixact Synchrony change the planned delivery of radiation during treatment to follow the target. This is typically achieved without considering the location changes of organs at risk (OARs). The goal of this work was to develop a novel 4D dose accumulation framework to quantify OAR dose deviations due to the motion and tracked treatment. The framework obtains deformation information and the target motion pattern from a four-dimensional computed tomography dataset. The helical tomotherapy treatment plan is split into 10 plans and motion correction is applied separately to the jaw pattern and multi-leaf collimator (MLC) sinogram for each phase based on the location of the target in each phase. Deformable image registration (DIR) is calculated from each phase to the references phase using a commercial algorithm, and doses are accumulated according to the DIR. The effect of motion synchronization on OAR dose was analyzed for five lung and five liver subjects by comparing planned versus synchrony-accumulated dose. The motion was compensated by an average of 1.6 cm of jaw sway and by an average of 5.7% of leaf openings modified, indicating that most of the motion compensation was from jaw sway and not MLC changes. OAR dose deviations as large as 19 Gy were observed, and for all 10 cases, dose deviations greater than 7 Gy were observed. Target dose remained relatively constant (D95% within 3 Gy), confirming that motion-synchronization achieved the goal of maintaining target dose. Dose deviations provided by the framework can be leveraged during the treatment planning process by identifying cases where OAR doses may change significantly from their planned values with respect to the critical constraints. The framework is specific to synchronized helical tomotherapy treatments, but the OAR dose deviations apply to any real-time tracking technique that does not consider location changes of OARs.

Sequential monoscopic image-guided motion compensation in tomotherapy stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To manage intra-fractional motions, recent developments in tomotherapy enable a unique capability of adjusting MLC/jaw to track the moving target based on the intra-fractional motions detected by sequential monoscopic imaging. In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of motion compensation with a realistic imaging rate for prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). The obtained results will guide optimizing treatment parameters and image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) in tomotherapy using this approach. METHODS: Ten retrospective prostate cases with actual prostate motion curves previously recorded through the Calypso system were used in this study. Based on the recorded peak-to-peak motion, these cases represented either large (> 5 mm) or median (≤ 5 mm) intra-fractional prostate motions. All the cases were re-planned on tomotherapy using 35 Gy/5 fractions SBRT regimen and three different jaw settings of 1 cm static, 2.5 cm static, and 2.5 cm dynamic jaw. Two motion compensation methods were evaluated: a complete compensation that adjusted the jaw and MLC every 0.1 s (the same rate as the Calypso motion trace), and a realistic compensation that adjusted the jaw and MLC at an average imaging interval of 6 s from sequential monoscopic images. An in-house 4D dose calculation software was then applied to calculate the dosimetric outcomes from the original motion-free plan, the motion-contaminated plan, and the two abovementioned motion-compensated plans. During the process, various imaging rates were also simulated in one case with unusually large motions to quantify the impact of the KV-imaging rate on the effectiveness of motion compensation. RESULTS: The effectiveness of motion compensation was evaluated based on the PTV coverage and OAR sparing. Without any motion-compensation, the PTV coverage (PTV V100%) of patients with large prostate motions decreased remarkably to 55%-82% when planning with the 1 cm jaw but to a less level of 67-94% with the 2.5 cm jaw. In contrast, motion compensation improved the PTV coverage (>92%) when combined with the 2.5 cm jaw, but less effective, around 75%-94%, with the 1 cm jaw. For OAR sparing, the bladder D1cc, bladder D10cc, and rectum D1cc all increased in the motion-contaminated plans. Motion compensation improved OAR sparing to the equivalent level of the original motion-free plans. For patients with median prostate motion, motion-induced degradation in PTV coverage was only observed when planning with the 1 cm jaw. After motion compensation, the PTV coverage improved to better than 94% for all three jaw settings. Additionally, the effectiveness of motion compensation depends on the imaging rate. Motion compensation with a typical rate of two KV images per gantry rotation effectively reduces motion-induced dosimetric uncertainties. However, a higher imaging rate is recommended when planning with a 1 cm jaw for patients with large motions. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrated that the performance of sequential monoscopic imaging-guided motion compensation on tomotherapy depends on the amplitude of intra-fractional prostate motion, the plan parameter settings, especially jaw setting, gantry rotation, and the imaging rate for motion compensation. Creating a patient-specific imaging guidance protocol is essential to balance the effectiveness of motion compensation and achievable imaging rate for intra-fractional motion tracking.

Evaluation of TomoTherapy dose calculations with intrafractional motion and motion compensation.

PURPOSE: Anatomical motion, both cyclical and aperiodic, can impact the dose delivered during external beam radiation. In this work, we evaluate the use of a research version of the clinical TomoTherapy® dose calculator to calculate dose with intrafraction rigid motion. We also evaluate the feasibility of a method of motion compensation for helical tomotherapy using the jaws and MLC. METHODS: Treatment plans were created using the TomoTherapy treatment planning system. Dose was recalculated for several simple rigid motion traces including a 4 mm step motion applied either longitudinally or transversely, and a sinusoidal motion. The calculated dose volumes were compared to dose measurements that were performed by translating the phantom with the same motion traces used in the calculations. Measurements were made using film and ion chambers. Finally, the delivery plans were modified to compensate for the motion by sweeping the jaws for longitudinal motion and shifting the MLC leaves for transverse motion, and the calculations and measurements were repeated. RESULTS: A transverse step motion shifted the dose that was delivered after the step occurred, but otherwise did not impact the dose distribution. Film measurements agreed with dose calculations to within 2%/2 mm for 99% of dose points within the 50% isodose line. A shift in the MLC leaf delivery pattern successfully compensated for the step motion to within the 3 mm accuracy allowed by the finite leaf widths. A longitudinal step motion impacted the dose in the interior of the target volume to a degree that was dependent on the planning field width and step size. Film measurements agreed with dose calculations to within 2%/2 mm for 98% of dose points within the 50% isodose line. Shifts in the jaw position successfully compensated for the longitudinal step motion. Sinusoidal (breathing-like) motion was also studied, with similar results. CONCLUSIONS: A research version of the clinical TomoTherapy dose calculator has been shown to accurately calculate the dose from treatment plans delivered in the presence of arbitrary rigid motion. Modifications to the delivery plan using jaw and MLC leaf shifts that follow the motion can successfully compensate for the target motion.

Feasibility of real-time motion management with helical tomotherapy.

PURPOSE: This study investigates the potential application of image-based motion tracking and real-time motion correction to a helical tomotherapy system. METHODS: A kV x-ray imaging system was added to a helical tomotherapy system, mounted 90 degrees offset from the MV treatment beam, and an optical camera system was mounted above the foot of the couch. This experimental system tracks target motion by acquiring an x-ray image every few seconds during gantry rotation. For respiratory (periodic) motion, software correlates internal target positions visible in the x-ray images with marker positions detected continuously by the camera, and generates an internal-external correlation model to continuously determine the target position in three-dimensions (3D). Motion correction is performed by continuously updating jaw positions and MLC leaf patterns to reshape (effectively re-pointing) the treatment beam to follow the 3D target motion. For motion due to processes other than respiration (e.g., digestion), no correlation model is used - instead, target tracking is achieved with the periodically acquired x-ray images, without correlating with a continuous camera signal. RESULTS: The system's ability to correct for respiratory motion was demonstrated using a helical treatment plan delivered to a small (10 mm diameter) target. The phantom was moved following a breathing trace with an amplitude of 15 mm. Film measurements of delivered dose without motion, with motion, and with motion correction were acquired. Without motion correction, dose differences within the target of up to 30% were observed. With motion correction enabled, dose differences in the moving target were less than 2%. Nonrespiratory system performance was demonstrated using a helical treatment plan for a 55 mm diameter target following a prostate motion trace with up to 14 mm of motion. Without motion correction, dose differences up to 16% and shifts of greater than 5 mm were observed. Motion correction reduced these to less than a 6% dose difference and shifts of less than 2 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Real-time motion tracking and correction is technically feasible on a helical tomotherapy system. In one experiment, dose differences due to respiratory motion were greatly reduced. Dose differences due to nonrespiratory motion were also reduced, although not as much as in the respiratory case due to less frequent tracking updates. In both cases, beam-on time was not increased by motion correction, since the system tracks and corrects for motion simultaneously with treatment delivery.

Quantitative characterization of tomotherapy MVCT dosimetry.

Megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) is used as image guidance for patient setup in almost every tomotherapy treatment. Frequent use of ionizing radiation for image guidance has raised concern of imaging dose. The purpose of this work is to quantify and characterize tomotherapy MVCT dosimetry. Our dose calculation was based on a commissioned dose engine, and the calculation result was compared with film measurement. We studied dose profiles, center dose, maximal dose, surface dose, and mean dose on homogeneous cylindrical water phantoms of various diameters for various scanning parameters, including 3 different jaw openings (of nominal value J4, J1, and J0.1) and couch speeds (fine, normal, and coarse). The comparison between calculation and film measurement showed good agreement. In particular, the thread pattern on the film of the helical delivery matched very well with calculation. For the J1 jaw and coarse imaging mode, the maximum difference between calculation and measurement was about 6% of the center dose. Calculation on various sizes of synthesized phantoms showed that the center dose decreases almost linearly as the phantom diameter increases, and that the fine mode (couch speed of 4mm/rotation) received twice the dose of the normal mode (couch speed of 8mm/rotation) and 3 times that of the coarse mode (couch speed of 12mm/rotation) as expected. The maximal dose ranged from 100% to ∼200% of the center dose, with increasing ratios for larger phantoms, smaller jaws, and faster couch speed. For all jaw settings and couch speeds, the mean dose and average surface dose vary from 95% to 125% of the center dose with increasing ratios for larger phantoms. We present a quantitative dosimetric characterization of the tomotherapy MVCT in terms of scanning parameters, phantom size, center dose, maximal dose, surface dose, and mean dose. The results can provide an overall picture of dose distribution and a reference data set that enables estimation of CT dose index for the tomotherapy MVCT.