AAPM WGPE report 394: Simulated error training for the physics plan and chart review.

BACKGROUND: Simulated error training is a method to practice error detection in situations where the occurrence of error is low. Such is the case for the physics plan and chart review where a physicist may check several plans before encountering a significant problem. By simulating potentially hazardous errors, physicists can become familiar with how they manifest and learn from mistakes made during a simulated plan review. PURPOSE: The purpose of this project was to develop a series of training datasets that allows medical physicists and trainees to practice plan and chart reviews in a way that is familiar and accessible, and to provide exposure to the various failure modes (FMs) encountered in clinical scenarios. METHODS: A series of training datasets have been developed that include a variety of embedded errors based on the risk-assessment performed by American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 275 for the physics plan and chart review. The training datasets comprise documentation, screen shots, and digital content derived from common treatment planning and radiation oncology information systems and are available via the Cloud-based platform ProKnow. RESULTS: Overall, 20 datasets have been created incorporating various software systems (Mosaiq, ARIA, Eclipse, RayStation, Pinnacle) and delivery techniques. A total of 110 errors representing 50 different FMs were embedded with the 20 datasets. The project was piloted at the 2021 AAPM Annual Meeting in a workshop where participants had the opportunity to review cases and answer survey questions related to errors they detected and their perception of the project's efficacy. In general, attendees detected higher-priority FMs at a higher rate, though no correlation was found between detection rate and the detectability of the FMs. Familiarity with a given system appeared to play a role in detecting errors, specifically when related to missing information at different locations within a given software system. Overall, 96% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that the ProKnow portal and training datasets were effective as a training tool, and 75% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they planned to use the tool at their local institution. CONCLUSIONS: The datasets and digital platform provide a standardized and accessible tool for training, performance assessment, and continuing education regarding the physics plan and chart review. Work is ongoing to expand the project to include more modalities, radiation oncology treatment planning and information systems, and FMs based on emerging techniques such as auto-contouring and auto-planning.

Prospective evaluation of patient-reported anxiety and experiences with adaptive radiation therapy on an MR-linac.

Purpose: An integrated magnetic resonance scanner and linear accelerator (MR-linac) was implemented with daily online adaptive radiation therapy (ART). This study evaluated patient-reported experiences with their overall hospital care as well as treatment in the MR-linac environment. Methods: Patients pre-screened for MR eligibility and claustrophobia were referred to simulation on a 1.5 T MR-linac. Patient-reported experience measures were captured using two validated surveys. The 15-item MR-anxiety questionnaire (MR-AQ) was administered immediately after the first treatment to rate MR-related anxiety and relaxation. The 40-item satisfaction with cancer care questionnaire rating doctors, radiation therapists, the services and care organization and their outpatient experience was administered immediately after the last treatment using five-point Likert responses. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: 205 patients were included in this analysis. Multiple sites were treated across the pelvis and abdomen with a median treatment time per fraction of 46 and 66 min respectively. Patients rated MR-related anxiety as "not at all" (87%), "somewhat" (11%), "moderately" (1%) and "very much so" (1%). Positive satisfaction responses ranged from 78 to 100% (median 93%) across all items. All radiation therapist-specific items were rated positively as 96-100%. The five lowest rated items (range 78-85%) were related to general provision of information, coordination, and communication. Overall hospital care was rated positively at 99%. Conclusion: In this large, single-institution prospective cohort, all patients had low MR-related anxiety and completed treatment as planned despite lengthy ART treatments with the MR-linac. Patients overall were highly satisfied with their cancer care involving ART using an MR-linac.

AAPM task group report 275.S: Survey strategy and results on plan review and chart check practices in US and Canada.

BACKGROUND: AAPM Task Group (TG) 275 was charged with developing practical, evidence-based recommendations for physics plan and chart review clinical processes for radiation therapy. As part of this charge, and to characterize practices and clinical processes, a survey of the medical physics community was developed and conducted. Detailed analyses and trends based on the survey that exceeded TG report length constraints are presented herein. AIMS: The design, development, and detailed results of the TG- 275 survey as well as statistical analysis and trends are described in detail. This is complementary material to the TG 275 report. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The survey consisted of 100 multiple-choice questions divided into four main sections: 1) Demographics, 2) Initial Plan Check, 3) On-Treatment, and 4) End-of-Treatment Chart Check. The survey was released to all AAPM members who self-reported working in the radiation oncology field, and it was kept open for 7 weeks. Results were summarized using descriptive statistics. To study practice differences, tests of association were performed using data grouped by four demographic questions: 1) Institution Type, 2) Average number of patients treated daily, 3) Radiation Oncology Electronic Medical Record, and 4) Perceived Culture of Safety. RESULTS: The survey captured 1370 non-duplicate entries from the United States and Canada. Differences across practices were grouped and presented based on Process-Based and Check-Specific questions. A risk-based summary was created to show differences amongst the four demographic questions for checks associated with the highest risk failure modes identified by TG-275. CONCLUSION: The TG-275 survey captured a baseline of practices on initial plan, on-treatment, and end-of-treatment checks across a wide variety of clinics and institutions. The results of test of association showed practice heterogeneities as a function of demographic characteristics. Survey data were successfully used to inform TG-275 recommendations.

Medical physics practice guideline 4.b: Development, implementation, use and maintenance of safety checklists.

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education, and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the US. The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the US. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for the purpose of revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner. Each medical physics practice guideline represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice guidelines and technical standards by those entities not providing these services is not authorized. The following terms are used in the AAPM practice guidelines: Must and must not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline. While must is the term to be used in the guidelines, if an entity that adopts the guideline has shall as the preferred term, the AAPM considers that must and shall have the same meaning. Should and should not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances.

Competency-Based Medical Education in Radiation Therapy Treatment Planning.

PURPOSE: To develop a technology-enhanced education methodology with competency-based evaluation for radiation therapy treatment planning. The education program is designed for integration in the existing framework of Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP) accredited medical physics residency programs. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This education program pairs an accessible, multi-institutional infrastructure with established medical education evaluation tools to modernize treatment planning education. This program includes 3 evaluation components: (1) competency-based evaluation, (2) inter- and intramodality comparison, and (3) learner feedback. For this study, synchronous bilateral breast cancer was selected to demonstrate a complex treatment site and nonstandardized technique. Additionally, an online study was made available to a public cohort of worldwide participants of certified Medical Dosimetrists and Medical Physicists to benchmark performance. Before evaluation, learners were given a disease site-specific education session on potential clinical treatment strategies. During the assessment, learners generated treatment plans in their institutional planning system under the direct observation of an expert evaluator. Qualitative proficiency was evaluated for all learners on a 5-point scale of graduated task independence. Quantitative dosimetry was compared between the learner cohort and public cohort. A feedback session provided learners context of multi-institutional experience through multimodality and technique comparison. After study completion, learners were provided a survey that was used to gauge their perception of the education program. RESULTS: In the public study, 34 participants submitted treatment plans. Across 3 CAMPEP-accredited residency programs, 6 learners participated in the education and evaluation program. All learners successfully completed treatment plans that met the dosimetric constraints described in the case study. All learners favorably reviewed the study either comprehensively or in specified domains. CONCLUSIONS: The competency-based education and evaluation program developed in this work has been incorporated in CAMPEP-accredited residency programs and is adaptable to other residency programs with minimal resource commitment.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Breast Tumor Bed Delineation: Computed Tomography Comparison and Sequence Variation.

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to investigate the interobserver variability in breast tumor bed delineation using magnetic resonance (MR) compared with computed tomography (CT) at baseline and to quantify the change in tumor bed volume between pretreatment and end-of-treatment MR for patients undergoing whole breast radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Forty-eight patients with breast cancer planned for whole breast radiation therapy underwent CT and MR (T1, T1 fat-suppression [T1fs], and T2) simulation in the supine treatment position before radiation therapy and MR (T1, T1fs, and T2) at the end of treatment in the same position. Two observers delineated 50 tumor beds on the CT and all MR sequences and assigned cavity visualization scores to the images. The primary endpoint was interobserver variability, measured using the conformity index (CI). RESULTS: The mean cavity visualization scores at baseline were 3.14 (CT), 3.26 (T1), 3.41 (T1fs), and 3.58 (T2). The mean CIs were 0.65, 0.65, 0.72, and 0.68, respectively. T1fs significantly improved interobserver variability compared with CT, T1, or T2 (P < .001, P < .001, and P = .011, respectively). The CI for T1fs was significantly higher than T1 and T2 at the end of treatment (mean 0.72, 0.64, and 0.66, respectively; P < .001). The mean tumor bed volume on the T1fs sequence decreased from 18 cm3 at baseline to 13 cm3 at the end of treatment (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: T1fs reduced interobserver variability on both pre- and end-of-treatment scans and measured a reduction in tumor bed volume during whole breast radiation therapy. This rapid sequence could be easily used for adaptive boost or partial breast irradiation, especially on MR linear accelerators.

Performance stability evaluation of atlas-based machine learning radiation therapy treatment planning in prostate cancer.

Atlas-based machine learning (ML) for radiation therapy (RT) treatment planning is effective at tailoring dose distributions to account for unique patient anatomies by selecting the most appropriate patients from the training database (atlases) to inform dose prediction for new patients. However, variations in clinical practice between the training dataset and a new patient to be planned may impact ML performance by confounding atlas selection. In this study, we simulated various contouring practices in prostate cancer RT to investigate the impact of changing input data on atlas-based ML treatment planning. We generated 225 ML plans for nine bespoke contouring protocol scenarios (reduced target margins, modified organ-at-risk (OAR) definitions, and inclusion of optional OARs less represented in the training database) on 25 patient datasets by applying a single, previously trained and validated ML model for prostate cancer followed by dose mimicking to create a final deliverable plan. ML treatment plans for each scenario were compared to base ML treatment plans that followed a contouring protocol consistent with the model training data. ML performance was evaluated based on atlas distance metrics that are calculated during ML dose prediction. There were significant changes between atlases selected for the base ML treatment plans and treatment plans when planning target volume margins were reduced and/or optional OARs were included. The deliverability of ML predicted dose distributions based on gamma analysis between predicted and mimicked final deliverable dose showed significant differences for seven out of eight scenarios compared with the base ML treatment plans. Overall, there were small but statistically significant dosimetric changes in predicted and mimicked dose with addition of optional OAR contours. This work presents a framework for benchmarking and performance monitoring of ML treatment planning algorithms in the context of evolving clinical practices.

Clinical integration of machine learning for curative-intent radiation treatment of patients with prostate cancer.

Machine learning (ML) holds great promise for impacting healthcare delivery; however, to date most methods are tested in 'simulated' environments that cannot recapitulate factors influencing real-world clinical practice. We prospectively deployed and evaluated a random forest algorithm for therapeutic curative-intent radiation therapy (RT) treatment planning for prostate cancer in a blinded, head-to-head study with full integration into the clinical workflow. ML- and human-generated RT treatment plans were directly compared in a retrospective simulation with retesting (n = 50) and a prospective clinical deployment (n = 50) phase. Consistently throughout the study phases, treating physicians assessed ML- and human-generated RT treatment plans in a blinded manner following a priori defined standardized criteria and peer review processes, with the selected RT plan in the prospective phase delivered for patient treatment. Overall, 89% of ML-generated RT plans were considered clinically acceptable and 72% were selected over human-generated RT plans in head-to-head comparisons. RT planning using ML reduced the median time required for the entire RT planning process by 60.1% (118 to 47 h). While ML RT plan acceptability remained stable between the simulation and deployment phases (92 versus 86%), the number of ML RT plans selected for treatment was significantly reduced (83 versus 61%, respectively). These findings highlight that retrospective or simulated evaluation of ML methods, even under expert blinded review, may not be representative of algorithm acceptance in a real-world clinical setting when patient care is at stake.

Implementation of Cardiac Stereotactic Radiotherapy: From Literature to the Linac.

Stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT) has been applied to treat cardiac arrhythmias, but our institution had not yet implemented this technique. Here, we explain how we used implementation science and knowledge translation to provide cardiac SBRT to a critically ill patient with malignancy-associated refractory ventricular tachycardia. We reviewed the critical factors that enabled the implementation of this urgent treatment, such as the context of the implementation, the characteristics of the intervention, and the stakeholders. These principles can be used by other radiation programs to implement novel treatments in urgent settings, where the gold standard process of planning and developing policies and protocols is not possible.

A retrospective analysis to demonstrate achievable dosimetry for the left anterior descending artery in left-sided breast cancer patients treated with radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate achievable dose for the left anterior descending artery (LAD) for left-sided breast cancer patients. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on all left-sided breast cancer patients receiving whole breast or post-mastectomy chest wall irradiation between 2013 and 2018. All patients in this study were treated with tangent-based techniques with the LAD prospectively contoured as routine clinical care. This large patient cohort was used to benchmark achievable mean doses to the LAD in the context of heart dose. The primary cohort of study were patients undergoing treatment with deep-inspiration breath-hold (DIBH), stratified by internal mammary nodes (IMN) inclusion. In all cases, the median (25th-75th percentile) is reported. RESULTS: A total of 1221 left-sided breast cancer patients were included in this study with 1045 in the DIBH cohort. The median heart mean dose for this cohort is 1.0 Gy (0.8-1.1). For patients treated in DIBH with IMNs included (n = 422), the median of the mean LAD dose is 3.6 Gy (2.9-4.4) and, for patients treated in DIBH with IMNs excluded (n = 623), the median of the mean LAD dose is 3.2 Gy (2.5-3.8). CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate respiratory management can be utilized to achieve low dose to the LAD for the majority of patients without compromising target coverage.

Strategies for effective physics plan and chart review in radiation therapy: Report of AAPM Task Group 275.

BACKGROUND: While the review of radiotherapy treatment plans and charts by a medical physicist is a key component of safe, high-quality care, very few specific recommendations currently exist for this task. AIMS: The goal of TG-275 is to provide practical, evidence-based recommendations on physics plan and chart review for radiation therapy. While this report is aimed mainly at medical physicists, others may benefit including dosimetrists, radiation therapists, physicians and other professionals interested in quality management. METHODS: The scope of the report includes photon/electron external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), proton radiotherapy, as well as high-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy for gynecological applications (currently the highest volume brachytherapy service in most practices). The following review time points are considered: initial review prior to treatment, weekly review, and end-of-treatment review. The Task Group takes a risk-informed approach to developing recommendations. A failure mode and effects analysis was performed to determine the highest-risk aspects of each process. In the case of photon/electron EBRT, a survey of all American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) members was also conducted to determine current practices. A draft of this report was provided to the full AAPM membership for comment through a 3-week open-comment period, and the report was revised in response to these comments. RESULTS: The highest-risk failure modes included 112 failure modes in photon/electron EBRT initial review, 55 in weekly and end-of-treatment review, 24 for initial review specific to proton therapy, and 48 in HDR brachytherapy. A 103-question survey on current practices was released to all AAPM members who self-reported as working in the radiation oncology field. The response rate was 33%. The survey data and risk data were used to inform recommendations. DISCUSSION: Tables of recommended checks are presented and recommendations for best practice are discussed. Suggestions to software vendors are also provided. CONCLUSIONS: TG-275 provides specific recommendations for physics plan and chart review which should enhance the safety and quality of care for patients receiving radiation treatments.

Clinical implementation of AXB from AAA for breast: Plan quality and subvolume analysis.

PURPOSE: Two dose calculation algorithms are available in Varian Eclipse software: Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) and Acuros External Beam (AXB). Many Varian Eclipse-based centers have access to AXB; however, a thorough understanding of how it will affect plan characteristics and, subsequently, clinical practice is necessary prior to implementation. We characterized the difference in breast plan quality between AXB and AAA for dissemination to clinicians during implementation. METHODS: Locoregional irradiation plans were created with AAA for 30 breast cancer patients with a prescription dose of 50 Gy to the breast and 45 Gy to the regional node, in 25 fractions. The internal mammary chain (IMCCTV ) nodes were covered by 80% of the breast dose. AXB, both dose-to-water and dose-to-medium reporting, was used to recalculate plans while maintaining constant monitor units. Target coverage and organ-at-risk doses were compared between the two algorithms using dose-volume parameters. An analysis to assess location-specific changes was performed by dividing the breast into nine subvolumes in the superior-inferior and left-right directions. RESULTS: There were minimal differences found between the AXB and AAA calculated plans. The median difference between AXB and AAA for breastCTV V95% , was <2.5%. For IMCCTV , the median differences V95% , and V80% were <5% and 0%, respectively; indicating IMCCTV coverage only decreased when marginally covered. Mean superficial dose increased by a median of 3.2 Gy. In the subvolume analysis, the medial subvolumes were "hotter" when recalculated with AXB and the lateral subvolumes "cooler" with AXB; however, all differences were within 2 Gy. CONCLUSION: We observed minimal difference in magnitude and spatial distribution of dose when comparing the two algorithms. The largest observable differences occurred in superficial dose regions. Therefore, clinical implementation of AXB from AAA for breast radiotherapy is not expected to result in changes in clinical practice for prescribing or planning breast radiotherapy.

Appropriate timing for postimplant imaging in permanent breast seed implant: Results from a serial CT study.

PURPOSE: Postimplant analysis in permanent breast seed implant (PBSI) is performed at inconsistent times subsequent to seed implantation across cancer centers, creating challenges in the interpretation of dosimetric data and ultimately the correlation with clinical outcomes. The purpose of this study is to determine the most appropriate time postimplant to perform this analysis. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Nine patients treated at our institution with PBSI were included in this analysis. Each underwent 4 postimplant CT scans: 0, 15, 30, and 60 days postimplant. A model of the accumulated dose was created by deformably registering the Day 15, 30, and 60 postimplant CT scans and dose matrices to the Day 0 scan, scaling for seed decay. The results from this model were compared to each individual postplan by integral comparison of dose-volume histogram curves for a dose evaluation volume. RESULTS: The Day 30 postplan showed the best agreement with the accumulated dose model and the smallest interpatient variability across the patient cohort. The mean (±SD) for the dose evaluation volume V90, V100, V150, and V200 for the accumulated dose model was 90 ± 7%, 86 ± 8%, 66 ± 14%, and 41 ± 16%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this patient cohort, we recommend that postimplant dosimetric analysis for PBSI be performed approximately 30 days following the implant.

Deep inspiration breath hold level variability and deformation in locoregional breast irradiation.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the dosimetric effect of breath hold level variability and deformation on breast, chest wall, internal mammary chain (IMC) nodes, and heart. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Left-sided post-lumpectomy (n = 12) and postmastectomy (n = 3) patients underwent deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) and exhale breath hold (EBH) computed tomography (CT) scans. Forward-planned locoregional breast plans were created on the DIBH scan. Two effects were modeled assuming no setup uncertainties: residual motion within the gating window and systematically shallow breath hold levels (BHLs). Real-time position management (RPM) was used to monitor BHL at simulation and during treatment. The RPM data were scaled to simulate BHL variation within symmetric gating window widths of ±1, 3, 5, and 7 mm; the dosimetric impact of this motion was simulated in the treatment planning system. Systematically "shallow" BHL errors were modeled using deformable image registration to map the patient trajectory from DIBH to EBH (n = 12). The deformable vector fields were scaled to produce synthetic CT scans modeling patient position during breath holds 1, 3, 5, and 7 mm shallower than simulator BHL. The original treatment plans were applied to the synthetic CTs and dose was recalculated. RESULTS: Acceptable plan quality was maintained for most patients with motion within gating windows up to ±7 mm. Patients with shallow median BHLs experienced loss of coverage at simulated gating windows ±5 mm or larger. At systematic 3 mm shallow BHL error, 4/12 patients had clinical target volume IMC V80% < 99%; this increased to 11/12 patients at 5 mm. Change in heart dose from systematic BHL errors was negligible. CONCLUSIONS: Motion within gating windows has minimal dosimetric impact for most BHL variability; however, loss of IMC coverage can occur even for small gating windows when BHLs are systematically shallow. This can be mitigated by restricting lower BHL tolerances or accounting for known uncertainties in planning.

Deep inspiration breath-hold produces a clinically meaningful reduction in ipsilateral lung dose during locoregional radiation therapy for some women with right-sided breast cancer.

PURPOSE: The goal of the work described here was to determine whether deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) produces a clinically meaningful reduction in pulmonary dose compared with free breathing (FB) during locoregional radiation for right-sided breast cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Four-field, modified-wide tangent plans with full nodal coverage were developed for 30 consecutive patients on paired DIBH and FB CT scans. Nodes were contoured according to European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology guidelines. Plan metrics were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank testing. RESULTS: In 21 patients (70%), there was a ≥5% reduction in ipsilateral lung V20Gy with DIBH compared with FB. The mean decrease in ipsilateral lung V20Gy was 7.8% (0%-20%, P < .001). The mean lung dose decreased on average by 3.4 Gy with DIBH (-0.2 to 9.1, P < .001). The mean reduction in liver volume receiving 50% of the prescribed dose was 42.3 cm3 (0-178.9 cm3, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: DIBH reduced ipsilateral lung V20Gy by ≥5% in the majority of patients. For some patients, the volume of liver receiving a potentially toxic dose decreased with DIBH. DIBH should be available as a treatment strategy to reduce ipsilateral lung V20Gy prior to compromising internal mammary chain nodal coverage for patients with right-sided breast cancer during locoregional radiation therapy if the V20Gy on FB exceeds 30%.

Technical Note: Issues related to external marker block placement for deep inspiration breath hold breast radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: It has been suggested that the Real-time Position Management (RPM) marker block should be placed directly on the breast or sternum to verify deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) level for breast radiotherapy. We explore three potential issues with this practice: (a) surface dose effect of placing the marker block in the primary beam; (b) effect of marker block tilt on the accuracy of the RPM system; and (c) correlation between marker block positions on the patient surface and internal chest wall position. METHODS: (a) The surface dose under the two-, four-, and six-dot marker blocks was measured at incident angles of 0° and 30°; (b) the motion amplitude detected when using the two- and six-dot marker blocks was recorded for block tilts from 0° to 60° about the RPM camera line of sight; (c) the correlation between median displacement of the chest wall and median displacement of the surface contour between breath holds was investigated for superior, middle, and inferior block positions using contours extracted from portal images of eight left-sided breast cancer patients. RESULTS: (a) The marker blocks increased the surface dose for a 6 MV direct field by 48.2-52.2% of Dmax ; (b) at lateral tilts greater than 10°, the two-dot marker block overestimated the motion amplitude; however, the six-dot marker block amplitude remained accurate up to 60°; (c) the whole, superior, and middle surface positions were strongly correlated with chest wall displacement (R2 = 0.83; R2 = 0.90; R2 = 0.83), whereas the inferior position was moderately correlated (R2 = 0.36). CONCLUSIONS: The RPM marker block can be placed on the breast for DIBH treatments; however, caution should be used regarding surface dose effects. The two-dot marker block should not be used for block tilts beyond 20°. Marker block placement at a middle or superior position on the breast results in the strongest correlation with chest wall position.

Evaluation of target and cardiac position during visually monitored deep inspiration breath-hold for breast radiotherapy.

A low-resource visually monitored deep inspiration breath-hold (VM-DIBH) technique was successfully implemented in our clinic to reduce cardiac dose in left-sided breast radiotherapy. In this study, we retrospectively characterized the chest wall and heart positioning accuracy of VM-DIBH using cine portal images from 42 patients. Central chest wall position from field edge and in-field maximum heart distance (MHD) were manually measured on cine images and compared to the planned positions based on the digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs). An in-house program was designed to measure left anterior descending artery (LAD) and chest wall separation on the planning DIBH CT scan with respect to breath-hold level (BHL) during simulation to determine a minimum BHL for VM-DIBH eligibility. Systematic and random setup uncertainties of 3.0 mm and 2.6 mm, respectively, were found for VM-DIBH treatment from the chest wall measurements. Intrabeam breath-hold stability was found to be good, with over 96% of delivered fields within 3 mm. Average treatment MHD was significantly larger for those patients where some of the heart was planned in the field compared to patients whose heart was completely shielded in the plan (p < 0.001). No evidence for a minimum BHL was found, suggesting that all patients who can tolerate DIBH may yield a benefit from it.

Cardiac dose reduction with deep inspiration breath hold for left-sided breast cancer radiotherapy patients with and without regional nodal irradiation.

BACKGROUND: Deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) reduces heart and left anterior descending artery (LAD) dose during left-sided breast radiation therapy (RT); however there is limited information about which patients derive the most benefit from DIBH. The primary objective of this study was to determine which patients benefit the most from DIBH by comparing percent reduction in mean cardiac dose conferred by DIBH for patients treated with whole breast RT ± boost (WBRT) versus those receiving breast/chest wall plus regional nodal irradiation, including internal mammary chain (IMC) nodes (B/CWRT + RNI) using a modified wide tangent technique. A secondary objective was to determine if DIBH was required to meet a proposed heart dose constraint of Dmean < 4 Gy in these two cohorts. METHODS: Twenty consecutive patients underwent CT simulation both free breathing (FB) and DIBH. Patients were grouped into two cohorts: WBRT (n = 11) and B/CWRT + RNI (n = 9). 3D-conformal plans were developed and FB was compared to DIBH for each cohort using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests for continuous variables and McNemar's test for discrete variables. The percent relative reduction conferred by DIBH in mean heart and LAD dose, as well as lung V20 were compared between the two cohorts using Wilcox rank-sum testing. The significance level was set at 0.05 with Bonferroni correction for multiple testing. RESULTS: All patients had comparable target coverage on DIBH and FB. DIBH statistically significantly reduced mean heart and LAD dose for both cohorts. Percent reduction in mean heart and LAD dose with DIBH was significantly larger in the B/CWRT + RNI cohort compared to WBRT group (relative reduction in mean heart and LAD dose: 55.9 % and 72.1 % versus 29.2 % and 43.5 %, p < 0.02). All patients in the WBRT group and five patients (56 %) in the B/CWBRT + RNI group met heart Dmean <4 Gy with FB. All patients met this constraint with DIBH. CONCLUSIONS: All patients receiving WBRT met Dmean Heart < 4 Gy on FB, while only slightly over half of patients receiving B/CWRT + RNI were able to meet this constraint in FB. DIBH allowed a greater reduction in mean heart and LAD dose in patients receiving B/CWRT + RNI, including IMC nodes than patients receiving WBRT. These findings suggest greatest benefit from DIBH treatment for patients receiving regional nodal irradiation.

Realistic respiratory motion margins for external beam partial breast irradiation.

PURPOSE: Respiratory margins for partial breast irradiation (PBI) have been largely based on geometric observations, which may overestimate the margin required for dosimetric coverage. In this study, dosimetric population-based respiratory margins and margin formulas for external beam partial breast irradiation are determined. METHODS: Volunteer respiratory data and anterior-posterior (AP) dose profiles from clinical treatment plans of 28 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) PBI patient plans were used to determine population-based respiratory margins. The peak-to-peak amplitudes (A) of realistic respiratory motion data from healthy volunteers were scaled from A = 1 to 10 mm to create respiratory motion probability density functions. Dose profiles were convolved with the respiratory probability density functions to produce blurred dose profiles accounting for respiratory motion. The required margins were found by measuring the distance between the simulated treatment and original dose profiles at the 95% isodose level. RESULTS: The symmetric dosimetric respiratory margins to cover 90%, 95%, and 100% of the simulated treatment population were 1.5, 2, and 4 mm, respectively. With patient set up at end exhale, the required margins were larger in the anterior direction than the posterior. For respiratory amplitudes less than 5 mm, the population-based margins can be expressed as a fraction of the extent of respiratory motion. The derived formulas in the anterior/posterior directions for 90%, 95%, and 100% simulated population coverage were 0.45A/0.25A, 0.50A/0.30A, and 0.70A/0.40A. The differences in formulas for different population coverage criteria demonstrate that respiratory trace shape and baseline drift characteristics affect individual respiratory margins even for the same average peak-to-peak amplitude. CONCLUSIONS: A methodology for determining population-based respiratory margins using real respiratory motion patterns and dose profiles in the AP direction was described. It was found that the currently used respiratory margin of 5 mm in partial breast irradiation may be overly conservative for many 3DCRT PBI patients. Amplitude alone was found to be insufficient to determine patient-specific margins: individual respiratory trace shape and baseline drift both contributed to the dosimetric target coverage. With respiratory coaching, individualized respiratory margins smaller than the full extent of motion could reduce planning target volumes while ensuring adequate coverage under respiratory motion.

Measurement of time delays in gated radiotherapy for realistic respiratory motions.

PURPOSE: Gated radiotherapy is used to reduce internal motion margins, escalate target dose, and limit normal tissue dose; however, its temporal accuracy is limited. Beam-on and beam-off time delays can lead to treatment inefficiencies and/or geographic misses; therefore, AAPM Task Group 142 recommends verifying the temporal accuracy of gating systems. Many groups use sinusoidal phantom motion for this, under the tacit assumption that use of sinusoidal motion for determining time delays produces negligible error. The authors test this assumption by measuring gating time delays for several realistic motion shapes with increasing degrees of irregularity. METHODS: Time delays were measured on a linear accelerator with a real-time position management system (Varian TrueBeam with RPM system version 1.7.5) for seven motion shapes: regular sinusoidal; regular realistic-shape; large (40%) and small (10%) variations in amplitude; large (40%) variations in period; small (10%) variations in both amplitude and period; and baseline drift (30%). Film streaks of radiation exposure were generated for each motion shape using a programmable motion phantom. Beam-on and beam-off time delays were determined from the difference between the expected and observed streak length. RESULTS: For the system investigated, all sine, regular realistic-shape, and slightly irregular amplitude variation motions had beam-off and beam-on time delays within the AAPM recommended limit of less than 100 ms. In phase-based gating, even small variations in period resulted in some time delays greater than 100 ms. Considerable time delays over 1 s were observed with highly irregular motion. CONCLUSIONS: Sinusoidal motion shapes can be considered a reasonable approximation to the more complex and slightly irregular shapes of realistic motion. When using phase-based gating with predictive filters even small variations in period can result in time delays over 100 ms. Clinical use of these systems for patients with highly irregular patterns of motion is not advised due to large beam-on and beam-off time delays.