Technical note: Clinical evaluation of a newly released surface-guided radiation therapy system on DIBH for left breast radiation therapy.

BACKGROUND: It has been shown that a significant reduction of mean heart dose and left anterior descending artery (LAD) dose can be achieved through the use of DIBH for left breast radiation therapy. Surface-guided DIBH has been widely adopted during the last decade, and there are mainly three commercially available SGRT systems. The reports of the performance of a newly released SGRT system for DIBH application are currently very limited. PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical performance of a newly released SGRT system on DIBH for left breast radiation therapy. METHODS: Twenty-five left breast cancer patients treated with DIBH utilizing Varian's Identify system were included (total 493-fraction treatments). Four aspects of the clinical performance were evaluated: Identify offsets of free breathing post patient setup from tattoos, Identify offsets during DIBH, Identify agreement with radiographic ports during DIBH, and DIBH reference surface re-capture post patient shifts. The systematic and random errors of free breathing Identify offsets post patient setup were calculated for each patient, as well as for offsets during DIBH. Radiographic ports were taken when the patient's DIBH position was within the clinical tolerance of (± 0.3 cm, ± 30 ), and these were then compared with treatment field DRRs. If the ports showed that the patient alignment did not agree with the DRRs within 3 mm, a patient shift was performed. A new reference surface was captured and verification ports were taken. RESULTS: The all-patient average systematic and random errors of Identify offsets for free breathing were within (0.4 cm, 1.50 ) post tattoo setup. The maximum per-patient systematic and random errors were (1.1 cm, 6.20 ) and (0.9 cm, 20 ), and the maximum amplitude of Identify offsets were (2.59 cm, 90 ). All 493-fraction DIBH treatments were delivered and successfully guided by the Identify SGRT system. The systematic and random errors of Identify offsets for DIBH were within (0.2 cm, 2.30 ). Seven patients needed re-captured surface references due to surface variation or position shifts based on the ports. All patient DIBH verification ports guided by Identify were approved by attending physicians. CONCLUSION: This evaluation showed that the Identify system performed effectively for surface-guided patient setup and surface-guided DIBH imaging and treatment delivery. The feature of color-coded real-time patient surface matching feedback facilitated the evaluation of the patient alignment accuracy and the adjustment of the patient position to match the reference.

Surface-Guided Patient Setup Versus Traditional Tattoo Markers for Radiation Therapy: Is Tattoo-Less Setup Feasible for Thorax, Abdomen and Pelvis Treatment?

PURPOSE: In this study, patient setup accuracy was compared between surface guidance and tattoo markers for radiation therapy treatment sites of the thorax, abdomen and pelvis. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 608 setups performed on 59 patients using both surface-guided and tattoo-based patient setups were analyzed. During treatment setup, patients were aligned to room lasers using their tattoos, and then the six-degree-of-freedom (6DOF) surface-guided offsets were calculated and recorded using AlignRT system. While the patient remained in the same post-tattoo setup position, target localization imaging (radiographic or ultrasound) was performed and these image-guided shifts were recorded. Finally, surface-guided vs tattoo-based offsets were compared to the final treatment position (based on radiographic or ultrasound imaging) to evaluate the accuracy of the two setup methods. RESULTS: The overall average offsets of tattoo-based and surface-guidance-based patient setups were comparable within 3.2 mm in three principal directions, with offsets from tattoo-based setups being slightly less. The maximum offset for tattoo setups was 2.2 cm vs. 4.3 cm for surface-guidance setups. Larger offsets (ranging from 2.0 to 4.3 cm) were observed for surface-guided setups in 14/608 setups (2.3%). For these same cases, the maximum observed tattoo-based offset was 0.7 cm. Of the cases with larger surface-guided offsets, 13/14 were for abdominal/pelvic treatment sites. Additionally, larger rotations (>3°) were recorded in 18.6% of surface-guided setups. The majority of these larger rotations were observed for abdominal and pelvic sites (~84%). CONCLUSIONS: The small average differences observed between tattoo-based and surface-guidance-based patient setups confirm the general equivalence of the two potential methods, and the feasibility of tattoo-less patient setup. However, a significant number of larger surface-guided offsets (translational and rotational) were observed, especially in the abdominal and pelvic regions. These cases should be anticipated and contingency setup methods planned for.

Evaluation of the dosimetric impact of changes in shoulder position on target coverage for spine SBRT to metastases in the lower cervical spine region.

For patients treated with SBRT for spinal metastases in the cervical area, a thermoplastic mask is the usual immobilization technique. This project investigates the impact of shoulder position variability on target coverage for such cases. Eight HN patients treated in a suite equipped with a CT-on-rails system (CTOR) were randomly chosen. Of these, three were treated with shoulder depressors. For each patient, their planning CT was used to contour spine targets at the C5, C6 and C7 levels for which two VMAT plans were developed to deliver 18 Gy to each target per the RTOG 0631 protocol. One plan used full arcs while the other used avoidance sectors around the lateral positions. For each patient, IGRT CTOR images were used to recalculate doses that would have been delivered from these plans. Target coverage and dose to the spinal cord were compared for four scenarios: full and partial arcs, with or without depressors. A Dunn test showed significant differences between groups with and without shoulder depressors, but not between those with full versus partial arcs. For most of the investigated cases, the coverage ended up being higher than planned due to the shoulder position being inferior at treatment compared to simulation. In some cases, this led to higher spinal cord doses than allowed per protocol. The results of this study confirm that, when treating lower cervical spine lesions with SBRT, special care should be taken to ensure that the shoulders are positioned as they were during planning CT acquisition.

ACR-ABS-ASTRO practice parameter for the performance of radionuclide-based high-dose-rate brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: This practice parameter aims to detail the processes, qualifications of personnel, patient selection, equipment, patient and personnel safety, documentation, and quality control and improvement necessary for an HDR brachytherapy program. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This practice parameter was revised collaboratively by the American College of Radiology (ACR), the American Brachytherapy Society (ABS), and the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO). RESULTS: Brachytherapy is a radiotherapeutic modality in which radionuclide or electronic sources are used to deliver a radiation dose at a distance of up to a few centimeters by surface, intracavitary, intraluminal, or interstitial application. Brachytherapy alone or combined with external beam radiotherapy plays an important role in the management and treatment of patients with cancer. High-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy uses radionuclides, such as iridium-192, at dose rates of ≥12 Gy/hr to a designated target point or volume, and it is an important treatment for a variety of malignant and benign conditions. Its use allows for application of high doses of radiation to defined target volumes with relative sparing of adjacent critical structures. CONCLUSIONS: HDR brachytherapy requires detailed attention to personnel, equipment, patient and personnel safety, and continuing staff education. Coordination between the radiation oncologist and treatment planning staff and effective quality assurance procedures are important components of successful HDR brachytherapy programs.

Practice Patterns of Pediatric Total Body Irradiation Techniques: A Children's Oncology Group Survey.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine current practice patterns in pediatric total body irradiation (TBI) techniques among COG member institutions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between November 2019 and February 2020, a questionnaire containing 52 questions related to the technical aspects of TBI was sent to medical physicists at 152 COG institutions. The questions were designed to obtain technical information on commonly used TBI treatment techniques. Another set of 9 questions related to the clinical management of patients undergoing TBI was sent to 152 COG member radiation oncologists at the same institutions. RESULTS: Twelve institutions were excluded because TBI was not performed in their institutions. A total of 88 physicists from 88 institutions (63% response rate) and 96 radiation oncologists from 96 institutions (69% response rate) responded. The anterior-posterior/posterior-anterior (AP/PA) technique was the most common technique reported (49 institutions [56%]); 44 institutions (50%) used the lateral technique, and 14 (16%) used volumetric modulated arc therapy or tomotherapy. Midplane dose rates of 6 to 15 cGy/min were most commonly used. The most common specification for lung dose was the midlung dose for both AP/PA techniques (71%) and lateral techniques (63%). Almost all physician responders agreed with the need to refine current TBI techniques, and 79% supported the investigation of new TBI techniques to further lower the lung dose. CONCLUSIONS: There was no consistency in the practice patterns, methods for dose measurement, and reporting of TBI doses among COG institutions. The lack of standardization precludes meaningful correlation between TBI doses and clinical outcomes including disease control and normal tissue toxicity. The COG radiation oncology discipline is currently undertaking several steps to standardize the practice and dose reporting of pediatric TBI using detailed questionnaires and phantom-based credentialing for all COG centers.

Seismic reinforcement of a linac installation.

The local building requirements to secure medical equipment in seismically active areas in the United States are based on recommendations of the American Society of Civil Engineers. In our institution we have recently acquired new linear accelerators, one of which had to be installed in an existing vault and one in a new vault. Since we are in a seismic active area, changes in the local code required us to start placing the new linacs seismically stable. Here, we describe the necessary steps taken to ensure a seismically sound installation of our linacs. For the linac installation to be seismically stable, the linac base frame has to be seismically fixed into the vault floor. The installation of a new linac into an existing vault requires verification of a structurally sound base frame. Knowledge of the previously applied fixation of such is needed and exploratory removal of grouted floor helped in the verification. Understanding the additional load requirements for the locality allows to account for the existing fixation and can potentially reduce the work needed to achieve seismic fixation requirements. For a prospective seismic installation the new linac base frame can be directly installed with the necessary strength. In addition the actual workflow is straight forward and vendor recommendations can be used. In both cases the vendor provided seismic calculations serve as baseline from which a facility should be work from. It is the facilities task to verify the correct installation of a linac in their specific location. An understanding of the seismic landscape can facilitate an appropriate installation at minimal additional cost.

Evaluation of the effects of implementing a diode transmission device into the clinical workflow.

PURPOSE: This work investigated effects of implementing the Delta4 Discover diode transmission detector into the clinical workflow. METHODS: PDD and profile scans were completed with and without the Discover for a number of photon beam energies. Transmission factors were determined for all beam energies and included in Eclipse TPS to account for the attenuation of the Discover. A variety of IMRT plans were delivered to a Delta4 Phantom+ with and without the Discover to evaluate the Discover's effects on IMRT QA. An imaging QA phantom was used to assess the detector's effects on MV image quality. OSLDs placed on the Phantom+ were used to determine the detector's effects on superficial dose. RESULTS: The largest effect on PDDs after dmax was 0.5%. The largest change in beam profile symmetry and flatness was 0.2% and 0.1%, respectively. An average difference in gamma passing rates (2%/2 mm) of 0.2% was observed between plans that did not include the Discover in the measurement and calculation to plans that did include the Discover in the measurement and calculation. The Discover did not significantly change the MV image quality, and the largest observed increase in the relative superficial dose when the Discover was present was 1%. CONCLUSIONS: The effects the Discover has on the linac beam were found to be minimal. The device can be implemented into the clinic without the need to alter the TPS beam modeling, other than accounting for the device's attenuation. However, a careful workflow review to implement the Discover should be completed.

Evaluation of dose distribution differences from five algorithms implemented in three commercial treatment planning systems for lung SBRT.

Early stage lung cancer is increasingly being treated using stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Several advanced treatment planning algorithms are now available in various commercial treatment planning systems. This work compares the dose distributions calculated for the same treatment plan using, five algorithms, in three different treatment planning systems. All plans were normalized to ensure the prescription dose covers 95% of the planning target volume (PTV). Dose to the planning target volume (PTV) was compared using near-minimum dose (D98%), near-maximum dose (D2%) and dose homogeneity, while dose fall-off was compared using D2cm and R50. Dose to the lung was compared using V5Gy, V20Gy and mean lung dose. Statistical analysis shows that dose distributions calculated using Eclipse's Acuros XB and RayStation's Monte Carlo were significantly different from the other dose distributions for the PTV dose parameters investigated. For lung dosimetric parameters, this difference persisted for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans but not for conformal arc plans. While normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) differences were significant for some of the algorithms for VMAT delivery approaches, they were not significantly different for any algorithm for conformal arc plans. All parameters investigated here were within 5% between all algorithms. The results show that, while some small dosimetric differences can be expected around the PTV, the dose distribution to the rest of the treatment area, especially the lungs, should not be clinically-relevant when switching between one of the five algorithms investigated.

Using failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) to generate an initial plan check checklist for improved safety in radiation treatment.

PURPOSE: To apply failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) to generate an effective and efficient initial physics plan checklist. METHODS: A team of physicists, dosimetrists, and therapists was setup to reconstruct the workflow processes involved in the generation of a treatment plan beginning from simulation. The team then identified possible failure modes in each of the processes. For each failure mode, the severity (S), frequency of occurrence (O), and the probability of detection (D) was assigned a value and the risk priority number (RPN) was calculated. The values assigned were based on TG 100. Prior to assigning a value, the team discussed the values in the scoring system to minimize randomness in scoring. A local database of errors was used to help guide the scoring of frequency. RESULTS: Twenty-seven process steps and 50 possible failure modes were identified starting from simulation to the final approved plan ready for treatment at the machine. Any failure mode that scored an average RPN value of 20 or greater was deemed "eligible" to be placed on the second checklist. In addition, any failure mode with a severity score value of 4 or greater was also considered for inclusion in the checklist. As a by-product of this procedure, safety improvement methods such as automation and standardization of certain processes (e.g., dose constraint checking, check tools), removal of manual transcription of treatment-related information as well as staff education were implemented, although this was not the team's original objective. Prior to the implementation of the new FMEA-based checklist, an in-service for all the second checkers was organized to ensure further standardization of the process. CONCLUSION: The FMEA proved to be a valuable tool for identifying vulnerabilities in our workflow and processes in generating a treatment plan and subsequently a new, more effective initial plan checklist was created.

FMEA-guided transition from microSelectron to Flexitron for HDR brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: To utilize failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) to effectively direct the transition from the Elekta microSelectron to the Flexitron high dose-rate afterloader system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our FMEA was performed in two stages. In the first stage, the lead brachytherapy physicists used FMEA to guide the brainstorming sessions and to identify vulnerabilities during this transition. The second stage of FMEA was carried out 2 months after the clinical release of the Flexitron system. The process map was examined again to further refine and improve the entire process. RESULTS: In the first-stage FMEA, 81 process steps were identified. Moreover, 80 failure modes and their categorized causes were recognized. Checklists and data books containing the corresponding applicator information were verified and updated. Next, based on outcomes of our first-stage FMEA, we chose to implement the commissioning process in two phases. The second stage of FMEA identified error-prone steps in our newly updated processes. This second stage of analysis resulted in the development of new tools and checklist items. CONCLUSIONS: The two-stage FMEA approach successfully directed the transition to the Flexitron system by identifying the necessary changes in the checklists and workflows for all applicators utilized in our clinic. It also led to the decision to use a two-phase commissioning approach. This allowed for minimization clinical downtime, avoidance of an extra source change, and facilitation of efficient staff training. Additionally, multiple project-level failures were discovered. Our experience and outcomes from this FMEA-guided transition should provide valuable information to the brachytherapy community.

Four-dimensional tissue deformation reconstruction (4D TDR) validation using a real tissue phantom.

Calculation of four-dimensional (4D) dose distributions requires the remapping of dose calculated on each available binned phase of the 4D CT onto a reference phase for summation. Deformable image registration (DIR) is usually used for this task, but unfortunately almost always considers only endpoints rather than the whole motion path. A new algorithm, 4D tissue deformation reconstruction (4D TDR), that uses either CT projection data or all available 4D CT images to reconstruct 4D motion data, was developed. The purpose of this work is to verify the accuracy of the fit of this new algorithm using a realistic tissue phantom. A previously described fresh tissue phantom with implanted electromagnetic tracking (EMT) fiducials was used for this experiment. The phantom was animated using a sinusoidal and a real patient-breathing signal. Four-dimensional computer tomography (4D CT) and EMT tracking were performed. Deformation reconstruction was conducted using the 4D TDR and a modified 4D TDR which takes real tissue hysteresis (4D TDR(Hysteresis)) into account. Deformation estimation results were compared to the EMT and 4D CT coordinate measurements. To eliminate the possibility of the high contrast markers driving the 4D TDR, a comparison was made using the original 4D CT data and data in which the fiducials were electronically masked. For the sinusoidal animation, the average deviation of the 4D TDR compared to the manually determined coordinates from 4D CT data was 1.9 mm, albeit with as large as 4.5 mm deviation. The 4D TDR calculation traces matched 95% of the EMT trace within 2.8 mm. The motion hysteresis generated by real tissue is not properly projected other than at endpoints of motion. Sinusoidal animation resulted in 95% of EMT measured locations to be within less than 1.2 mm of the measured 4D CT motion path, enabling accurate motion characterization of the tissue hysteresis. The 4D TDR(Hysteresis) calculation traces accounted well for the hysteresis and matched 95% of the EMT trace within 1.6 mm. An irregular (in amplitude and frequency) recorded patient trace applied to the same tissue resulted in 95% of the EMT trace points within less than 4.5 mm when compared to both the 4D CT and 4D TDR(Hysteresis) motion paths. The average deviation of 4D TDR(Hysteresis) compared to 4D CT datasets was 0.9 mm under regular sinusoidal and 1.0 mm under irregular patient trace animation. The EMT trace data fit to the 4D TDR(Hysteresis) was within 1.6 mm for sinusoidal and 4.5 mm for patient trace animation. While various algorithms have been validated for end-to-end accuracy, one can only be fully confident in the performance of a predictive algorithm if one looks at data along the full motion path. The 4D TDR, calculating the whole motion path rather than only phase- or endpoints, allows us to fully characterize the accuracy of a predictive algorithm, minimizing assumptions. This algorithm went one step further by allowing for the inclusion of tissue hysteresis effects, a real-world effect that is neglected when endpoint-only validation is performed. Our results show that the 4D TDR(Hysteresis) correctly models the deformation at the endpoints and any intermediate points along the motion path.