Imaging prior to radiotherapy impacts in-vitro survival.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) is routinely used in radiotherapy to identify the position of the target volume. The aim of this study was to determine whether the CBCT dose, when followed by the treatment, influences the therapeutic outcomes as determined by in-vitro clonogenic cell survival in a radiobiological experiment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Human cell lines, four cancer and one normal, were exposed to a 6 MV photon beam, produced by a linear accelerator. For half of each sample, a prior imaging dose was delivered using the on-board CBCT. A sample size of n = 103 was used to achieve statistical power. RESULTS: The experimental group of cell lines exposed to CBCT imaging prior to treatment exhibited a reduction in mean cancer cell survival of ~17 times (p = 0.02) greater than predicted from the average dose response and equivalent to more than 5% of the therapeutic dose, compared to 11 times greater than predicted for normal cells (n.s.). CONCLUSION: The greater than predicted reduction in survival resulting from the additional CBCT dose is consistent with radiation-induced bystander effects.

Australasian recommendations for quality assurance in kilovoltage radiation therapy from the Kilovoltage Dosimetry Working Group of the Australasian College of Physical Scientists and Engineers in Medicine.

The Australasian College of Physical Scientists and Engineers in Medicine (ACPSEM) Radiation Oncology Specialty Group (ROSG) formed a series of working groups to develop recommendations for guidance of radiation oncology medical physics practice within the Australasian setting. These recommendations provide a standard for safe work practices and quality control. It is the responsibility of the medical physicist to ensure that locally available equipment and procedures are sufficiently sensitive to establish compliance. The recommendations are endorsed by the ROSG, have been subject to independent expert reviews and have also been approved by the ACPSEM Council. For the Australian audience, these recommendations should be read in conjunction with the Tripartite Radiation Oncology Practice Standards and should be read in conjunction with relevant national, state or territory legislation which take precedence over the ACPSEM publication Radiation Oncology Reform Implementation Committee (RORIC) Quality Working Group, RANZCR, 2011a; Kron et al. Clin Oncol 27(6):325-329, 2015; Radiation Oncology Reform Implementation Committee (RORIC) Quality Working Group, RANZCR, 2018a, b).

Issues involved in the quantitative 3D imaging of proton doses using optical CT and chemical dosimeters.

Dosimetry of proton beams using 3D imaging of chemical dosimeters is complicated by a variation with proton linear energy transfer (LET) of the dose-response (the so-called 'quenching effect'). Simple theoretical arguments lead to the conclusion that the total absorbed dose from multiple irradiations with different LETs cannot be uniquely determined from post-irradiation imaging measurements on the dosimeter. Thus, a direct inversion of the imaging data is not possible and the proposition is made to use a forward model based on appropriate output from a planning system to predict the 3D response of the dosimeter. In addition to the quenching effect, it is well known that chemical dosimeters have a non-linear response at high doses. To the best of our knowledge it has not yet been determined how this phenomenon is affected by LET. The implications for dosimetry of a number of potential scenarios are examined.Dosimeter response as a function of depth (and hence LET) was measured for four samples of the radiochromic plastic PRESAGE(®), using an optical computed tomography readout and entrance doses of 2.0 Gy, 4.0 Gy, 7.8 Gy and 14.7 Gy, respectively. The dosimeter response was separated into two components, a single-exponential low-LET response and a LET-dependent quenching. For the particular formulation of PRESAGE(®) used, deviations from linearity of the dosimeter response became significant for doses above approximately 16 Gy. In a second experiment, three samples were each irradiated with two separate beams of 4 Gy in various different configurations. On the basis of the previous characterizations, two different models were tested for the calculation of the combined quenching effect from two contributions with different LETs. It was concluded that a linear superposition model with separate calculation of the quenching for each irradiation did not match the measured result where two beams overlapped. A second model, which used the concept of an 'effective dose' matched the experimental results more closely. An attempt was made to measure directly the quench function for two proton beams as a function of all four variables of interest (two physical doses and two LET values). However, this approach was not successful because of limitations in the response of the scanner.

Water and tissue equivalence of a new PRESAGE(®) formulation for 3D proton beam dosimetry: a Monte Carlo study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the water and tissue equivalence of a new PRESAGE(®) 3D dosimeter for proton therapy. METHODS: The GEANT4 software toolkit was used to calculate and compare total dose delivered by a proton beam with mean energy 62 MeV in a PRESAGE(®) dosimeter, water, and soft tissue. The dose delivered by primary protons and secondary particles was calculated. Depth-dose profiles and isodose contours of deposited energy were compared for the materials of interest. RESULTS: The proton beam range was found to be ≈27 mm for PRESAGE(®), 29.9 mm for soft tissue, and 30.5 mm for water. This can be attributed to the lower collisional stopping power of water compared to soft tissue and PRESAGE(®). The difference between total dose delivered in PRESAGE(®) and total dose delivered in water or tissue is less than 2% across the entire water∕tissue equivalent range of the proton beam. The largest difference between total dose in PRESAGE(®) and total dose in water is 1.4%, while for soft tissue it is 1.8%. In both cases, this occurs at the distal end of the beam. Nevertheless, the authors find that PRESAGE(®) dosimeter is overall more tissue-equivalent than water-equivalent before the Bragg peak. After the Bragg peak, the differences in the depth doses are found to be due to differences in primary proton energy deposition; PRESAGE(®) and soft tissue stop protons more rapidly than water. The dose delivered by secondary electrons in the PRESAGE(®) differs by less than 1% from that in soft tissue and water. The contribution of secondary particles to the total dose is less than 4% for electrons and ≈1% for protons in all the materials of interest. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that the new PRESAGE(®) formula may be considered both a tissue- and water-equivalent 3D dosimeter for a 62 MeV proton beam. The results further suggest that tissue-equivalent thickness may provide better dosimetric and geometric accuracy than water-equivalent thickness for 3D dosimetry of this proton beam.

Water equivalence evaluation of PRESAGE(®) formulations for megavoltage electron beams: a Monte Carlo study.

To investigate the radiological water equivalency of three different formulations of the radiochromic, polyurethane based dosimeter PRESAGE(®) for three dimensional (3D) dosimetry of electron beams. The EGSnrc/BEAMnrc Monte Carlo package was used to model 6-20 MeV electron beams and calculate the corresponding doses delivered in the three different PRESAGE(®) formulations and water. The depth of 50 % dose and practical range of electron beams were determined from the depth dose calculations and scaling factors were calculated for these electron beams. In the buildup region, a 1.0 % difference in dose was found for all PRESAGE(®) formulations relative to water for 6 and 9 MeV electron beams while the difference was negligible for the higher energy electron beams. Beyond the buildup region (at a depth range of 22-26 mm for the 6 MeV beam and 38 mm for the 9 MeV beam), the discrepancy from water was found to be 5.0 % for the PRESAGE(®) formulations with lower halogen content than the original formulation, which was found to have a discrepancy of up to 14 % relative to water. For a 16 MeV electron beam, the dose discrepancy from water increases and reaches about 7.0 % at 70 mm depth for the lower halogen content PRESAGE(®) formulations and 20 % at 66 mm depth for the original formulation. For the 20 MeV electron beam, the discrepancy drops to 6.0 % at 90 mm depth for the lower halogen content formulations and 18 % at 85 mm depth for the original formulation. For the lower halogen content PRESAGE(®), the depth of 50 % dose and practical range of electrons differ from water by up to 3.0 %, while the range of differences from water is between 6.5 and 8.0 % for the original PRESAGE(®) formulation. The water equivalent depth scaling factor required for the original formulation of PRESAGE(®) was determined to be 1.07-1.08, which is larger than that determined for the lower halogen content formulations (1.03) over the entire beam energy range of electrons. All three of the PRESAGE(®) formulations studied require a depth scaling factor to convert depth in PRESAGE(®) to water equivalent depth for megavoltage electron beam dosimetry. Compared to the original PRESAGE(®) formulation, the lower halogen content formulations require a significantly smaller scaling factor and are thus recommended over the original PRESAGE(®) formulation for electron beam dosimetry.

Radiological characterization and water equivalency of genipin gel for x-ray and electron beam dosimetry.

The genipin radiochromic gel offers enormous potential as a three-dimensional dosimeter in advanced radiotherapy techniques. We have used several methods (including Monte Carlo simulation), to investigate the water equivalency of genipin gel by characterizing its radiological properties, including mass and electron densities, photon interaction cross sections, mass energy absorption coefficient, effective atomic number, collisional, radiative and total mass stopping powers and electron mass scattering power. Depth doses were also calculated for clinical kilovoltage and megavoltage x-ray beams as well as megavoltage electron beams. The mass density, electron density and effective atomic number of genipin were found to differ from water by less than 2%. For energies below 150 keV, photoelectric absorption cross sections are more than 3% higher than water due to the strong dependence on atomic number. Compton scattering and pair production interaction cross sections for genipin gel differ from water by less than 1%. The mass energy absorption coefficient is approximately 3% higher than water for energies <60 keV due to the dominance of photoelectric absorption in this energy range. The electron mass stopping power and mass scattering power differ from water by approximately 0.3%. X-ray depth dose curves for genipin gel agree to within 1% with those for water. Our results demonstrate that genipin gel can be considered water equivalent for kilovoltage and megavoltage x-ray beam dosimetry. For megavoltage electron beam dosimetry, however, our results suggest that a correction factor may be needed to convert measured dose in genipin gel to that of water, since differences in some radiological properties of up to 3% compared to water are observed. Our results indicate that genipin gel exhibits greater water equivalency than polymer gels and PRESAGE formulations.

Investigation of radiological properties and water equivalency of PRESAGE dosimeters.

PURPOSE: PRESAGE is a dosimeter made of polyurethane, which is suitable for 3D dosimetry in modern radiation treatment techniques. Since an ideal dosimeter is radiologically water equivalent, the authors investigated water equivalency and the radiological properties of three different PRESAGE formulations that differ primarily in their elemental compositions. Two of the formulations are new and have lower halogen content than the original formulation. METHODS: The radiological water equivalence was assessed by comparing the densities, interaction probabilities, and radiation dosimetry properties of the three different PRESAGE formulations to the corresponding values for water. The relative depth doses were calculated using Monte Carlo methods for 50, 100, 200, and 350 kVp and 6 MV x-ray beams. RESULTS: The mass densities of the three PRESAGE formulations varied from 5.3% higher than that of water to as much as 10% higher than that of water for the original formulation. The probability of photoelectric absorption in the three different PRESAGE formulations varied from 2.2 times greater than that of water for the new formulations to 3.5 times greater than that of water for the original formulation. The mass attenuation coefficient for the three formulations is 12%-50% higher than the value for water. These differences occur over an energy range (10-100 keV) in which the photoelectric effect is the dominant interaction. The collision mass stopping powers of the relatively lower halogen-containing PRESAGE formulations also exhibit marginally better water equivalency than the original higher halogen-containing PRESAGE formulation. Furthermore, the depth dose curves for the lower halogen-containing PRESAGE formulations are slightly closer to that of water for a 6 MV beam. In the kilovoltage energy range, the depth dose curves for the lower halogen-containing PRESAGE formulations are in better agreement with water than the original PRESAGE formulation. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this study, the new PRESAGE formulations with lower halogen content are more radiologically water equivalent overall than the original formulation. This indicates that the new PRESAGE formulations are better suited to clinical applications and are more accurate dosimeters and phantoms than the original PRESAGE formulation. While correction factors are still needed to convert the dose measured by the dosimeter to an absorbed dose in water in the kilovoltage energy range, these correction factors are considerably smaller for the new PRESAGE formulations compared to the original PRESAGE and the existing polymer gel dosimeters.

Assessment of pixel shift in ultrasound images due to local temperature changes during the laser interstitial thermotherapy of liver: in vitro study.

Laser interstitial thermotherapy (LITT) is an internal ablation therapy consisting of percutaneous or intraoperative insertion of laser fibers directly into the liver tumor with maximum diameter of 5 cm. It is very important to control the temperature increase, because tissue carbonization occurs with high temperatures, which can damage normal tissues. In this research, pixel shift changes on ultrasound B-mode images with temperature changes were measured. LITT in vitro was performed on 12 freshly excised sheep liver tissues using a Nd:YAG laser with a bare-tip optical fiber. The 1 W power setting was used for 700 s exposure time (2477 J/mm2). Invasive temperature monitoring was performed during the heating and cooling by attaching microthermocouples to the tissue. At the same time, ultrasound B-mode images were saved on the computer for each 5 degrees C temperature increase from 25 degrees C to 100 degrees C, for noninvasive temperature monitoring. These pixel shifts were measured by an echo-tracking algorithm. Linear and nonlinear regression analyses between the independent variable (temperature change) and the dependent variable (pixel shift on images) were performed. Regression functions and correlation coefficients were determined. It was shown that with a correlation coefficient of 0.998, the cubic function was suitable. Pixel shift increased for each 5 degrees C temperature increase and the maximum shift was observed during 60 to 70 degrees C. Beyond these temperatures, the pixel shift decreased. In this method, because of evaporation of tissue water and bubble formation and tissue carbonization, monitoring greater than 100 degrees C was difficult. It is possible to monitor temperature changes on the ultrasound B-mode images in interstitial laser thermotherapy of liver. Also, with the improvement of image processing, this method could be used for noninvasive temperature monitoring for a large number of patients during LITT.