Clinical experience using a video-guided spirometry system for deep inhalation breath-hold radiotherapy of left-sided breast cancer.

The purpose was to report clinical experience of a video-guided spirometry system in applying deep inhalation breath-hold (DIBH) radiotherapy for left-sided breast cancer, and to study the systematic and random uncertainties, intra- and interfraction motion and impact on cardiac dose associated with DIBH. The data from 28 left-sided breast cancer patients treated with spirometer-guided DIBH radiation were studied. Dosimetric comparisons between free-breathing (FB) and DIBH plans were performed. The distance between the heart and chest wall measured on the digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRR) and MV portal images, dDRR(DIBH) and dport(DIBH), respectively, was compared as a measure of DIBH setup uncertainty. The difference (Δd) between dDRR(DIBH) and dport(DIBH) was defined as the systematic uncertainty. The standard deviation of Δd for each patient was defined as the random uncertainty. MV cine images during radiation were acquired. Affine registrations of the cine images acquired during one fraction and multiple fractions were performed to study the intra- and interfraction motion of the chest wall. The median chest wall motion was used as the metric for intra- and interfraction analysis. Breast motions in superior-inferior (SI) direction and "AP" (defined on the DRR or MV portal image as the direction perpendicular to the SI direction) are reported. Systematic and random uncertainties of 3.8 mm and 2mm, respectively, were found for this spirometer-guided DIBH treatment. MV cine analysis showed that intrafraction chest wall motions during DIBH were 0.3mm in "AP" and 0.6 mm in SI. The interfraction chest wall motions were 3.6 mm in "AP" and 3.4 mm in SI. Utilization of DIBH with this spirometry system led to a statistically significant reduction of cardiac dose relative to FB treatment. The DIBH using video-guided spirometry provided reproducible cardiac sparing with minimal intra- and interfraction chest wall motion, and thus is a valuable adjunct to modern breast treatment techniques.

AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 5.a.: Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations - Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams.

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 8,000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States. 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 United States. 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.• Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances.

The effect of dose gradients on gamma comparison insensitivity in patient specific QA comparisons.

BACKGROUND: While many have speculated on the reasons for gamma comparison insensitivity for patient-specific quality assurance analysis, the true reasons for insensitivity have not yet been elucidated. Failing to understand the reasons for this technique's insensitivity limits our ability to either improve the gamma metric to increase sensitivity of the comparison or the capacity to develop new comparison techniques that circumvent the limitations of the gamma comparison. PURPOSE: To understand the underlying cause(s) for gamma comparison insensitivity and determine if simple plan characteristics can quantitatively predict for gamma comparison sensitivity. METHODS: Known MLC and MU errors of varying magnitudes were induced on simple test fields to preliminarily investigate where gamma failures first begin to appear as error magnitude is increased. Gamma value maps between error-induced plan calculations and error-free plan calculations were created for 20 IMRT and 20 VMAT cases, each on three different detector geometries-ArcCHECK, MapCHECK, and Delta4. Gamma value maps were qualitatively compared to dose-gradient maps, and quantitative comparisons were performed between various plan descriptors and the computed gamma sensitivity for five different classes of induced errors were utilized to determine if any plan descriptor could predict the gamma sensitivity on a case-by-case basis. All comparisons were performed in a calculation-only scenario to remove uncertainties introduced by comparisons made with real patient specific QA measurements. RESULTS: Gamma value maps with increasing induced error magnitude illustrated that gamma comparisons fail first in high-dose, low-gradient regions of the field. Conversely, in areas of high gradient, gamma values typically remain low, even in the presence of large errors, regardless of detector geometry and gamma normalization setting. Thus, the complex, and often overlapping, high dose gradients in plans appear to be a limiting factor in gamma comparison sensitivity as the number of points along these gradients may often outnumber the points available for failing the comparison in lower gradient regions of the field. None of the simple plan descriptors studied were able to quantitively predict gamma comparison sensitivity, suggesting that quantitatively predicting the sensitivity of gamma comparisons on a case-by-case basis may require a combination of multiple factors or metrics not studied here. CONCLUSIONS: Simple plan descriptors and the number of points in high-dose, low-gradient regions of the field did not quantitively predict for gamma comparison sensitivity. However, it is clear from gradient and gamma value maps that gamma comparisons fail first in high-dose, low-gradient regions of the field in the presence of known induced errors, which we have shown to be independent of detector geometry and gamma comparison normalization setting. Gamma comparison sensitivity is thus limited by the ever-increasing complexity of plans and is particularly important to consider as treatment volumes become smaller and the complexity of overlapping plan gradients increases. This suggests that new methods for patient-specific QA comparisons are required to circumvent this limitation.

3D printing in brachytherapy: A systematic review of gynecological applications.

PURPOSE: To provide a systematic review of the applications of 3D printing in gynecological brachytherapy. METHODS: Peer-reviewed articles relating to additive manufacturing (3D printing) from the 34 million plus biomedical citations in National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI/PubMed), and 53 million records in Web of Science (Clarivate) were queried for 3D printing applications. The results were narrowed sequentially to, (1) all literature in 3D printing with final publications prior to July 2022 (in English, and excluding books, proceedings, and reviews), and then to applications in, (2) radiotherapy, (3) brachytherapy, (4) gynecological brachytherapy. Brachytherapy applications were reviewed and grouped by disease site, with gynecological applications additionally grouped by study type, methodology, delivery modality, and device type. RESULTS: From 47,541 3D printing citations, 96 publications met the inclusion criteria for brachytherapy, with gynecological clinical applications compromising the highest percentage (32%), followed by skin and surface (19%), and head and neck (9%). The distribution of delivery modalities was 58% for HDR (Ir-192), 35% for LDR (I-125), and 7% for other modalities. In gynecological brachytherapy, studies included design of patient specific applicators and templates, novel applicator designs, applicator additions, quality assurance and dosimetry devices, anthropomorphic gynecological applicators, and in-human clinical trials. Plots of year-to-year growth demonstrate a rapid nonlinear trend since 2014 due to the improving accessibility of low-cost 3D printers. Based on these publications, considerations for clinical use are provided. CONCLUSIONS: 3D printing has emerged as an important clinical technology enabling customized applicator and template designs, representing a major advancement in the methodology for implantation and delivery in gynecological brachytherapy.

Inverse-optimized 3D conformal planning: minimizing complexity while achieving equivalence with beamlet IMRT in multiple clinical sites.

PURPOSE: Inverse planned intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has helped many centers implement highly conformal treatment planning with beamlet-based techniques. The many comparisons between IMRT and 3D conformal (3DCRT) plans, however, have been limited because most 3DCRT plans are forward-planned while IMRT plans utilize inverse planning, meaning both optimization and delivery techniques are different. This work avoids that problem by comparing 3D plans generated with a unique inverse planning method for 3DCRT called inverse-optimized 3D (IO-3D) conformal planning. Since IO-3D and the beamlet IMRT to which it is compared use the same optimization techniques, cost functions, and plan evaluation tools, direct comparisons between IMRT and simple, optimized IO-3D plans are possible. Though IO-3D has some similarity to direct aperture optimization (DAO), since it directly optimizes the apertures used, IO-3D is specifically designed for 3DCRT fields (i.e., 1-2 apertures per beam) rather than starting with IMRT-like modulation and then optimizing aperture shapes. The two algorithms are very different in design, implementation, and use. The goals of this work include using IO-3D to evaluate how close simple but optimized IO-3D plans come to nonconstrained beamlet IMRT, showing that optimization, rather than modulation, may be the most important aspect of IMRT (for some sites). METHODS: The IO-3D dose calculation and optimization functionality is integrated in the in-house 3D planning/optimization system. New features include random point dose calculation distributions, costlet and cost function capabilities, fast dose volume histogram (DVH) and plan evaluation tools, optimization search strategies designed for IO-3D, and an improved, reimplemented edge/octree calculation algorithm. The IO-3D optimization, in distinction to DAO, is designed to optimize 3D conformal plans (one to two segments per beam) and optimizes MLC segment shapes and weights with various user-controllable search strategies which optimize plans without beamlet or pencil beam approximations. IO-3D allows comparisons of beamlet, multisegment, and conformal plans optimized using the same cost functions, dose points, and plan evaluation metrics, so quantitative comparisons are straightforward. Here, comparisons of IO-3D and beamlet IMRT techniques are presented for breast, brain, liver, and lung plans. RESULTS: IO-3D achieves high quality results comparable to beamlet IMRT, for many situations. Though the IO-3D plans have many fewer degrees of freedom for the optimization, this work finds that IO-3D plans with only one to two segments per beam are dosimetrically equivalent (or nearly so) to the beamlet IMRT plans, for several sites. IO-3D also reduces plan complexity significantly. Here, monitor units per fraction (MU/Fx) for IO-3D plans were 22%-68% less than that for the 1 cm × 1 cm beamlet IMRT plans and 72%-84% than the 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm beamlet IMRT plans. CONCLUSIONS: The unique IO-3D algorithm illustrates that inverse planning can achieve high quality 3D conformal plans equivalent (or nearly so) to unconstrained beamlet IMRT plans, for many sites. IO-3D thus provides the potential to optimize flat or few-segment 3DCRT plans, creating less complex optimized plans which are efficient and simple to deliver. The less complex IO-3D plans have operational advantages for scenarios including adaptive replanning, cases with interfraction and intrafraction motion, and pediatric patients.

Penalization of aperture complexity in inversely planned volumetric modulated arc therapy.

PURPOSE: Apertures obtained during volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning can be small and irregular, resulting in dosimetric inaccuracies during delivery. Our purpose is to develop and integrate an aperture-regularization objective function into the optimization process for VMAT, and to quantify the impact of using this objective function on dose delivery accuracy and optimized dose distributions. METHODS: An aperture-based metric ("edge penalty") was developed that penalizes complex aperture shapes based on the ratio of MLC side edge length and aperture area. To assess the utility of the metric, VMAT plans were created for example paraspinal, brain, and liver SBRT cases with and without incorporating the edge penalty in the cost function. To investigate the dose calculation accuracy, Gafchromic EBT2 film was used to measure the 15 highest weighted apertures individually and as a composite from each of two paraspinal plans: one with and one without the edge penalty applied. Films were analyzed using a triple-channel nonuniformity correction and measurements were compared directly to calculations. RESULTS: Apertures generated with the edge penalty were larger, more regularly shaped and required up to 30% fewer monitor units than those created without the edge penalty. Dose volume histogram analysis showed that the changes in doses to targets, organs at risk, and normal tissues were negligible. Edge penalty apertures that were measured with film for the paraspinal plan showed a notable decrease in the number of pixels disagreeing with calculation by more than 10%. For a 5% dose passing criterion, the number of pixels passing in the composite dose distributions for the non-edge penalty and edge penalty plans were 52% and 96%, respectively. Employing gamma with 3% dose/1 mm distance criteria resulted in a 79.5% (without penalty)/95.4% (with penalty) pass rate for the two plans. Gradient compensation of 3%/1 mm resulted in 83.3%/96.2% pass rates. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the edge penalty during optimization has the potential to markedly improve dose delivery accuracy for VMAT plans while still maintaining high quality optimized dose distributions. The penalty regularizes aperture shape and improves delivery efficiency.

Safety considerations for IMRT: executive summary.

This report on intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is part of a series of white papers addressing patient safety commissioned by the American Society for Radiation Oncology's (ASTRO) Target Safely Campaign. The document has been approved by the ASTRO Board of Directors, endorsed by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) and American Association of Medical Dosimetrists (AAMD), and reviewed and accepted by the American College of Radiology's Commission on Radiation Oncology. This report is related to other reports of the ASTRO white paper series on patient safety which are still in preparation, and when appropriate it defers to guidance that will be published by those groups in future white papers. This document takes advantage of the large body of work on quality assurance and quality control principles within radiation oncology whenever possible. IMRT provides increased capability to conform isodose distributions to the shape of the target(s), thereby reducing dose to some adjacent critical structures. This promise of IMRT is one of the reasons for its widespread use. However, the promise of IMRT is counterbalanced by the complexity of the IMRT planning and delivery processes, and the associated risks, some of which have been demonstrated by the New York Times reports on serious accidents involving both IMRT and other radiation treatment modalities. This report provides an opportunity to broadly address safe delivery of IMRT, with a primary focus on recommendations for human error prevention and methods to reduce the occurrence of errors or machine malfunctions that can lead to catastrophic failures or errors.

IMRT QA and gamma comparisons: The impact of detector geometry, spatial sampling, and delivery technique on gamma comparison sensitivity.

PURPOSE: To separately quantify sensitivity differences in patient-specific quality assurance comparisons analyzed with the gamma comparison for different measurement geometries, spatial samplings, and delivery techniques [intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT)]. METHODS: Error-free calculations for 20 IMRT and 20 VMAT cases were compared to calculations with known induced errors of varying magnitudes, using gamma comparisons. Five error types (MU scaling, three different MLC errors, and collimator errors) were induced in plan calculations on three different detector geometries - ArcCHECK, MapCHECK, and Delta 4. To study detector geometry sensitivity effects alone, gamma comparisons were made with 1 mm error-free calculations compared to 1 mm error-induced calculations for each device. Effects of spatial sampling were studied by making the same gamma comparisons, but down-sampling the error-induced calculations to the real spatial sampling of each device. Additionally, 1 mm vs 1 mm comparisons between the IMRT and VMAT cases were compared to investigate sensitivity differences between IMRT and VMAT using IMRT and VMAT cohorts with similar ranges of plan complexity and average aperture size. For each case, induced error type, and device, five different gamma criteria were studied to ensure sensitivity differences between devices, spatial sampling scenarios, and delivery technique were not gamma criterion specific, resulting in over 36,000 gamma comparisons. RESULTS: For IMRT cases, Delta4 and MapCHECK devices had similar error sensitivities for lagging leaf, bank shift, and MU errors, while the ArcCHECK had considerably lower sensitivity than the planar-type devices. For collimator errors and perturbational leaf errors the ArcCHECK had higher error sensitivity than planar-type devices. This behavior was independent of gamma parameters (percent dose difference, distance-to-agreement, and low dose threshold), though use of local normalization resulted in error sensitivites that were markedly similar between all three devices. Differences between detector geometries were less pronounced for VMAT deliveries. Error sensitivity for a given gamma criterion when comparing IMRT and VMAT deliveries on the same devices showed that VMAT plans were more sensitive to some specific error types and less sensitive to others, when compared to IMRT plans. For the ArcCHECK device, the sensitivity of IMRT and VMAT cases was quite similar, whereas this was not the case for the planar-type devices. When comparing error sensitivity between 1 mm vs 1 mm calculations and 1 mm vs the real spatial sampling for each device, results showed that increased spatial sampling did not systematically increase error sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: Noticeable differences in error sensitivity were observed for different detector geometries, but differences were dependent on induced error type, and a particular device geometry did not offer universal improvements in error sensitivity across studied error types. This study demonstrates that the sensitivity of the gamma comparison does not largely hinge on detector spatial sampling. VMAT deliveries were generally less sensitive to errors when compared to IMRT plans for the planar-type devices, while similar sensitivities were observed between delivery techniques for the ArcCHECK device. Results of this work suggest that a universal gamma criterion is inappropriate for IMRT QA and that the percent pixels passing is an insufficient metric for evaluating quality assurance checks in the clinic.

Errors in radiotherapy: motivation for development of new radiotherapy quality assurance paradigms.

Modern radiotherapy practice has rapidly evolved during the past decade, making use of many highly complex and/or automated processes for planning and delivery, including new techniques, like intensity-modulated radiotherapy driven by inverse planning optimization methods, or near real-time image-guided adaptive therapy based on fluoroscopic or tomographic imaging on the treatment machine. In spite of the modern technology, or potentially because of it in some instances, errors and other problems continue to have a significant impact on the field. This report reviews example errors and problems, discusses some of the quality assurance issues that these types of problems raise, and motivates the development of more modern and sophisticated approaches to assure quality for our clinical radiotherapy treatment methods.

QA issues for computer-controlled treatment delivery: this is not your old R/V system any more!

State-of-the-art radiotherapy treatment delivery has changed dramatically during the past decade, moving from manual individual field setup and treatment to automated computer-controlled delivery of complex treatments, including intensity-modulated radiotherapy and other similarly complex delivery strategies. However, the quality assurance methods typically used to ensure treatment is performed precisely and correctly have not evolved in a similarly dramatic way. This paper reviews the old manual treatment process and use of record-and-verify systems, and describes differences with modern computer-controlled treatment delivery. The process and technology used for computer-controlled treatment delivery are analyzed in terms of potential (and actual) problems, as well as relevant published guidance on quality assurance. The potential for improved quality assurance for computer-controlled delivery is discussed.

Evaluation of multiple breathing states using a multiple instance geometry approximation (MIGA) in inverse-planned optimization for locoregional breast treatment.

PURPOSE: Although previous work demonstrated superior dose distributions for left-sided breast cancer patients planned for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) at deep inspiration breath hold compared with conventional techniques with free-breathing, such techniques are not always feasible to limit the impact of respiration on treatment delivery. This study assessed whether optimization based on multiple instance geometry approximation (MIGA) could derive an IMRT plan that is less sensitive to known respiratory motions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: CT scans were acquired with an active breathing control device at multiple breath-hold states. Three inverse optimized plans were generated for eight left-sided breast cancer patients: one static IMRT plan optimized at end exhale, two (MIGA) plans based on a MIGA representation of normal breathing, and a MIGA representation of deep breathing, respectively. Breast and nodal targets were prescribed 52.2 Gy, and a simultaneous tumor bed boost was prescribed 60 Gy. RESULTS: With normal breathing, doses to the targets, heart, and left anterior descending (LAD) artery were equivalent whether optimizing with MIGA or on a static data set. When simulating motion due to deep breathing, optimization with MIGA appears to yield superior tumor-bed coverage, decreased LAD mean dose, and maximum heart and LAD dose compared with optimization on a static representation. CONCLUSIONS: For left-sided breast-cancer patients, inverse-based optimization accounting for motion due to normal breathing may be similar to optimization on a static data set. However, some patients may benefit from accounting for deep breathing with MIGA with improvements in tumor-bed coverage and dose to critical structures.

A method for evaluating quality assurance needs in radiation therapy.

The increasing complexity of modern radiation therapy planning and delivery techniques challenges traditional prescriptive quality control and quality assurance programs that ensure safety and reliability of treatment planning and delivery systems under all clinical scenarios. Until now quality management (QM) guidelines published by concerned organizations (e.g., American Association of Physicists in Medicine [AAPM], European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology [ESTRO], International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA]) have focused on monitoring functional performance of radiotherapy equipment by measurable parameters, with tolerances set at strict but achievable values. In the modern environment, however, the number and sophistication of possible tests and measurements have increased dramatically. There is a need to prioritize QM activities in a way that will strike a balance between being reasonably achievable and optimally beneficial to patients. A systematic understanding of possible errors over the course of a radiation therapy treatment and the potential clinical impact of each is needed to direct limited resources in such a way to produce maximal benefit to the quality of patient care. Task Group 100 of the AAPM has taken a broad view of these issues and is developing a framework for designing QM activities, and hence allocating resources, based on estimates of clinical outcome, risk assessment, and failure modes. The report will provide guidelines on risk assessment approaches with emphasis on failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) and an achievable QM program based on risk analysis. Examples of FMEA to intensity-modulated radiation therapy and high-dose-rate brachytherapy are presented. Recommendations on how to apply this new approach to individual clinics and further research and development will also be discussed.

Adaptive diffusion smoothing: a diffusion-based method to reduce IMRT field complexity.

Inverse-planned intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is often able to achieve complex treatment planning goals that are unattainable with forward three-dimensional (3D) conformal planning. However, the common use of IMRT has introduced several new challenges. The potentially high degree of modulation in IMRT beams risks the loss of some advantages of 3D planning, such as excellent target coverage and high delivery efficiency. Previous attempts to reduce beam complexity by smoothing often result in plan degradation because the smoothing algorithm cannot distinguish between areas of desirable and undesirable modulation. The purpose of this work is to introduce and evaluate adaptive diffusion smoothing (ADS), a novel procedure designed to preferentially reduce IMRT beam complexity. In this method, a discrete diffusion equation is used to smooth IMRT beams using diffusion coefficients, automatically defined for each beamlet, that dictate the degree of smoothing allowed for each beamlet. This yields a method that can distinguish between areas of desirable and undesirable modulation. The ADS method has been incorporated into our optimization system as a weighted cost function penalty, with two diffusion coefficient definitions designed to promote: (1) uniform smoothing everywhere or (2) smoothing based on cost function gradients with respect to the plan beamlet intensities. The ADS method (with both coefficient types) has been tested in a phantom and in two clinical examples (prostate and head/neck). Both types of diffusion coefficients produce plans with reduced modulation and minimal dosimetric impact, but the cost function gradient-based coefficients show more potential for reducing beam modulation without affecting dosimetric plan quality. In summary, adaptive diffusion smoothing is a promising tool for ensuring that only the necessary amount of beam modulation is used, promoting more efficient and accurate IMRT planning, QA, and delivery.

Novel 4D-MRI of tumor infiltrating vasculature: characterizing tumor and vessel volume motion for selective boost volume definition in pancreatic radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma has dismal prognosis. Most patients receive radiation therapy (RT), which is complicated by respiration induced organ motion in upper abdomen. The purpose of this study is to report our early clinical experience in a novel self-gated k-space sorted four-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging (4D-MRI) with slab-selective (SS) excitation to highlight tumor infiltrating blood vessels for pancreatic RT. METHODS: Ten consecutive patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic cancer were recruited to the study. Non-contrast 4D-MRI with and without slab-selective excitation and 4D-CT with delay contrast were performed on all patients. Vessel-tissue CNR were calculated for aorta and critical vessels (superior mesenteric artery or superior mesenteric vein) encompassed by tumor. Respiratory motion trajectories for tumor, as well as involved vessels were analyzed on SS-4D-MRI. Intra-class cross correlation (ICC) between tumor volume and involved vessels were calculated. RESULTS: Among all 4D imaging modalities evaluated, SS-4D-MRI sampling trajectory results in images with highest vessel-tissue CNR comparing to non-slab-selective 4D-MRI and 4D-CT for all patients studied. Average (±standard deviation) CNR for involved vessels are 13.1 ± 8.4 and 3.2 ± 2.7 for SS-4D-MRI and 4D-CT, respectively. The ICC factors comparing tumor and involved vessels motion trajectories are 0.93 ± 0.10, 0.65 ± 0.31 and 0.77 ± 0.23 for superior-inferior, anterior-posterior and medial-lateral directions respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A novel 4D-MRI sequence based on 3D-radial sampling and slab-selective excitation has been assessed for pancreatic cancer patients. The non-contrast 4D-MRI images showed significantly better contrast to noise ratio for the vessels that limit tumor resectability compared to 4D-CT with delayed contrast. The sequence has great potential in accurately defining both the tumor and boost volume margins for pancreas RT with simultaneous integrated boost.

Reduction of IMRT beam complexity through the use of beam modulation penalties in the objective function.

Inverse planned intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has become commonplace in treatment centers across the world. Due to the implications of beam complexity on treatment planning, delivery, and quality assurance, several methods have been proposed to reduce the complexity. These methods include beamlet intensity restrictions, smoothing procedures, and direct aperture optimization. Many of these methods typically sacrifice target coverage and/or normal tissue sparing in return for increased beam smoothness and delivery efficiency. In the present work, we penalize beam modulation in the inverse planning cost function to reduce beam complexity and increase delivery efficiency, while maintaining dosimetric quality. Three modulation penalties were tested: two that penalized deviation from Savitzky-Golay filtered versions of the optimized beams, and one that penalized the plan intensity map variation (a measure of overall beam modulation). The modulation penalties were applied at varying weights in a weighted sum objective (or cost) function to investigate their ability to reduce beam complexity while preserving IMRT plan quality. The behavior of the penalties was characterized on a CT phantom, and then clinical optimization comparisons were performed in the brain, prostate, and head/neck. Comparisons were made between (i) plans with a baseline cost function (ii) plans with a baseline cost function employing maximum beamlet intensity limits, and (iii) plans with each of the modulation penalties added to the baseline cost function. Plan analysis was based upon dose-volume histograms, relevant dose metrics, beam modulation, and monitor units required for step and shoot delivery. Each of the techniques yielded improvements over a baseline cost function in terms of MU reduction. In most cases, this was achieved with minimal change to the plan DVHs and metrics. In all cases, an acceptable plan was reached with each of the methods while reducing MU substantially. Each individual method has merit as a tool for reducing IMRT beam complexity and could be easily applied in the clinic to improve overall inverse plan quality. However, the penalty based upon the plan intensity map variation consistently produced the most delivery-efficient plans with the fewest computations.

Experimental verification of a Monte Carlo-based MLC simulation model for IMRT dose calculation.

Inter- and intra-leaf transmission and head scatter can play significant roles in intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)-based treatment deliveries. In order to accurately calculate the dose in the IMRT planning process, it is therefore important that the detailed geometry of the multi-leaf collimator (MLC), in addition to other components in the accelerator treatment head, be accurately modeled. In this paper, we have used the Monte Carlo method (MC) to develop a comprehensive model of the Varian 120 leaf MLC and have compared it against measurements in homogeneous phantom geometries under different IMRT delivery circumstances. We have developed a geometry module within the DPM MC code to simulate the detailed MLC design and the collimating jaws. Tests consisting of leakage, leaf positioning and static MLC shapes were performed to verify the accuracy of transport within the MLC model. The calculations show agreement within 2% in the high dose region for both film and ion-chamber measurements for these static shapes. Clinical IMRT treatment plans for the breast [both segmental MLC (SMLC) and dynamic MLC (DMLC)], prostate (SMLC) and head and neck split fields (SMLC) were also calculated and compared with film measurements. Such a range of cases were chosen to investigate the accuracy of the model as a function of modulation in the beamlet pattern, beamlet width, and field size. The overall agreement is within 2% /2 mm of the film data for all IMRT beams except the head and neck split field, which showed differences up to 5% in the high dose regions. Various sources of uncertainties in these comparisons are discussed.

Performance of a direct-detection active matrix flat panel dosimeter (AMFPD) for IMRT measurements.

The dosimetric performance of a direct-detection active matrix flat panel dosimeter (AMFPD) is reported for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) measurements. The AMFPD consists of a-Si : H photodiodes and thin-film transistors deposited on a glass substrate with no overlying scintillator screen or metal plate. The device is operated at 0.8 frames per second in a continuous acquisition or fluoroscopic mode. The effect of the applied bias voltage across the photodiodes on the response of the AMFPD was evaluated because this parameter affects dark signal, lag contributions, and pixel sensitivity. In addition, the AMPFD response was evaluated as a function of dose, dose rate, and energy, for static fields at 10 cm depth. In continuous acquisition mode, the AMFPD maintained a linear dose response (r2 > 0.99999) up to at least 1040 cGy. In order to obtain reliable integrated dose results for IMRT fields, the effects of lag on the radiation signal were minimized by operating the system at the highest frame rate and at an appropriate reverse bias voltage. Segmental MLC and dynamic MLC IMRT fields were measured with the AMFPD, and the results were compared to film, using standard methods for reliable film dosimetry. Both AMFPD and film measurements were independently converted to dose in cGy. Gamma and chi values were calculated as indices of agreement. The results from the AMFPD were in excellent agreement with those from film. When 2% of D(max) and 2 mm of distance to agreement were used as the criteria, 98% of the region of interest (defined as the region where dose is greater than 5% of D(max)) satisfied [chi] < or = 1 on average across the cases that were tested.

Potential for dose-escalation and reduction of risk in pancreatic cancer using IMRT optimization with lexicographic ordering and gEUD-based cost functions.

Radiotherapy for pancreatic cancer is limited by the tolerance of local organs at risk (OARs) and frequent overlap of the planning target volume (PTV) and OAR volumes. Using lexicographic ordering (LO), a hierarchical optimization technique, with generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD) cost functions, we studied the potential of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to increase the dose to pancreatic tumors and to areas of vascular involvement that preclude surgical resection [surgical boost volume (SBV)]. We compared 15 forward planned three-dimensional conformal (3DCRT) and IMRT treatment plans for locally advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer. We created IMRT plans optimized using LO with gEUD-based cost functions that account for the contribution of each part of the resulting inhomogeneous dose distribution. LO-IMRT plans allowed substantial PTV dose escalation compared with 3DCRT; median increase from 52 Gy to 66 Gy (a=-5,p<0.005) and median increase from 50 Gy to 59 Gy (a=-15,p<0.005). LO-IMRT also allowed increases to 85 Gy in the SBV, regardless of a value, along with significant dose reductions in OARs. We conclude that LO-IMRT with gEUD cost functions could allow dose escalation in pancreas tumors with concomitant reduction in doses to organs at risk as compared with traditional 3DCRT.

Lexicographic ordering: intuitive multicriteria optimization for IMRT.

Optimization problems in IMRT inverse planning are inherently multicriterial since they involve multiple planning goals for targets and their neighbouring critical tissue structures. Clinical decisions are generally required, based on tradeoffs among these goals. Since the tradeoffs cannot be quantitatively determined prior to optimization, the decision-making process is usually indirect and iterative, requiring many repetitive optimizations. This situation becomes even more challenging for cases with a large number of planning goals. To address this challenge, a multicriteria optimization strategy called lexicographic ordering (LO) has been implemented and evaluated for IMRT planning. The LO approach is a hierarchical method in which the planning goals are categorized into different priority levels and a sequence of sub-optimization problems is solved in order of priority. This prioritization concept is demonstrated using two clinical cases (a simple prostate case and a relatively complex head and neck case). In addition, a unique feature of LO in a decision support role is discussed. We demonstrate that a comprehensive list of planning goals (e.g., approximately 23 for the head and neck case) can be optimized using only a few priority levels. Tradeoffs between different levels have been successfully prohibited using the LO method, making the large size problem representations simpler and more manageable. Optimization time needed for each level was practical, ranging from approximately 26 s to approximately 217 s. Using prioritization, the LO approach mimics the mental process often used by physicians as they make decisions handling the various conflicting planning goals. This method produces encouraging results for difficult IMRT planning cases in a highly intuitive manner.