Antolak, John A.

Abstract Background Spatially fractionated radiation therapy (SFRT) is a technique that delivers heterogenous dose distributions consisting of alternating regions of high dose “peaks” and low dose “valleys”. Current delivery methods for SFRT using megavoltage x‐rays usually treat large and bulky tumors with brass grid or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) lattice techniques. The size and spacing of high dose regions in these approaches are typically on the order of centimeters. However, multiple studies have suggested that decreasing these dimensions may improve the therapeutic ratio. Furthermore, a more compact approach to SFRT would allow for a greater number of high dose regions within the tumor, as well as application to smaller and more irregularly shaped targets thereby increasing the number of patients that could benefit from SFRT. Purpose This study describes the commissioning and first patient treatment using mini‐lattice radiation therapy (MLRT). MLRT uses a clinical linear accelerator and decreases the size and spacing of standard lattice SFRT by using individual multileaf collimator (MLC) leaves to deliver 5 mm wide high dose regions. Methods MLRT plans were created in the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system for a Varian Truebeam equipped with Millennium 120 MLCs. MLRT uses 6 MV Flattening Filter Free high dose rate and the width of individual MLCs to define 5 mm by 5 mm openings separated by closed MLCs to deliver alternating opened and blocked regions. Dynamic conformal arcs were used to conform MLCs to 4 mm spherical mini‐lattice structures in the gross tumor volume (GTV). A MLRT‐specific beam model was commissioned to accurately model the small MLRT fields. Film measurements were performed to assess the accuracy of MLRT plans calculations. Plans for seven treatment sites in different parts of the body for retrospective patient candidates were created with varying numbers of mini‐lattices and separation distances to assess the impact of varying these parameters on treatment dose metrics. MLRT was used for the first time to treat a patient with two fractions of MLRT. Results The AcurosXB calculation algorithm with modified x and y spot sizes, dosimetric leaf gap, transmission factor, and output factor table was used to generate a beam model for accurate MLRT calculations. The MLRT‐specific beam model resulted in gamma passing rates (1%/0.5 mm criteria) of 90%–99% for retrospective patient MLRT film measurements. Dose volume histogram statistics, equivalent uniform dose, and mean dose showed a higher number of mini‐lattices with smaller separation increased the dose to the GTV and surrounding tissue. Separation distances between mini‐lattices did not impact plan heterogeneity as measured by D10%/D90%. The first patient treated with the MLRT technique reported pain relief, had stable disease, and no acute toxicities following both fractions. Conclusions MLRT is feasible using clinical linear accelerators and existing radiation oncology infrastructure. It enables targeting smaller tumors with SFRT, allows for a greater number of high dose regions within the target compared to standard VMAT lattice techniques, and may be a useful technique for challenging treatment scenarios.

AbstractRealizing the potential of user‐developed automation software interacting with a treatment planning system (TPS) requires rigorous testing to ensure patient safety and data integrity. We developed an automated test platform to allow comparison of the treatment planning database before and after the execution of a write‐enabled script interacting with a commercial TPS (Eclipse, Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) using the vendor‐provided Eclipse Scripting Application Programming Interface (ESAPI). The C#‐application known as Write‐Enable Script Testing Engine (WESTE) serializes the treatment planning objects (Patient, Structure Set, PlanSetup) accessible through ESAPI, and then compares the serialization acquired before and after the execution of the script being tested, documenting identified differences to highlight the changes made to the treatment planning data. The first two uses of WESTE demonstrated that the testing platform could acquire and analyze the data quickly (<4 s per test case) and facilitate the clinical implementation of write‐enabled scripts.

AbstractBackgroundAlthough intensity‐modulated radiation therapy and volumetric arc therapy have revolutionized photon external beam therapies, the technological advances associated with electron beam therapy have fallen behind. Modern linear accelerators contain technologies that would allow for more advanced forms of electron treatments, such as beam collimation, using the conventional photon multi‐leaf collimator (MLC); however, no commercial solutions exist that calculate dose from such beam delivery modes. Additionally, for clinical adoption to occur, dose calculation times would need to be on par with that of modern dose calculation algorithms.PurposeThis work developed a graphics processing unit (GPU)‐accelerated Monte Carlo (MC) engine incorporating the Varian TrueBeam linac head geometry for a rapid calculation of electron beams collimated using the conventional photon MLC.MethodsA compute unified device architecture framework was created for the following: (1) transport of electrons and photons through the linac head geometry, considering multiple scattering, Bremsstrahlung, Møller, Compton, and pair production interactions; (2) electron and photon propagation through the CT geometry, considering all interactions plus the photoelectric effect; and (3) secondary particle cascades through the linac head and within the CT geometry. The linac head collimating geometry was modeled according to the specifications provided by the vendor, who also provided phase‐space files. The MC was benchmarked against EGSnrc/DOSXYZnrc/GEANT by simulating individual interactions with simple geometries, pencil, and square beam dose calculations in various phantoms. MC‐calculated dose distributions for MLC and jaw‐collimated electron fields were compared to measurements in a water phantom and with radiochromic film.ResultsPencil and square beam dose distributions are in good agreement with DOSXYZnrc. Angular and spatial distributions for multiple scattering and secondary particle production in thin slab geometries are in good agreement with EGSnrc and GEANT. Dose profiles for MLC and jaw‐collimated 6–20‐MeV electron beams showed an average absolute difference of 1.1 and 1.9 mm for the FWHM and 80%–20% penumbra from measured profiles. Percent depth doses showed differences of <5% for as compared to measurement. The computation time on an NVIDIA Tesla V100 card was 2.5 min to achieve a dose uncertainty of <1%, which is ∼300 times faster than published results in a similar geometry using a single‐CPU core.ConclusionsThe GPU‐based MC can quickly calculate dose for electron fields collimated using the conventional photon MLC. The fast calculation times will allow for a rapid calculation of electron fields for mixed photon and electron particle therapy.

Metal implants which saturate the CT number scale may require dosimetrist and physicist involvement to manually contour and assign an appropriate value to the metal for accurate dose calculation. This study investigated dose calculation based directly on extended CT scale images for different metals and geometries. The aim was to evaluate extended CT accuracy as a suitable alternative to standard CT methods in the presence of high‐Z materials and artifacts, despite the reduced HU resolution of extended CT. Gafchromic film measurements were made for comparison to calculated doses. The method of direct dose calculation on extended CT scale was compared to our institution's standard method of manually contouring and assigning metal values on saturated CT images for each of the metal samples. Clinical patient plans with metal implants were investigated and DVHs were compared between standard CT and extended CT dose calculations. Dose calculations showed agreement within 2% between the two methods of metal characterization and the film measurement in the case of the strongest metal attenuator, cobalt‐chromium. In the clinical treatment plans, the greatest dose discrepancy between the two methods was 1.2%. This study suggests that direct dose calculation on an extended scale CT image in the presence of metal implants can produce accurate clinically viable treatment plans, thereby improving efficiency of clinical workflow and eliminating a potential source of human error by manual CT number assignment.PACS number(s): 87.55.dk

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and calculation speed of electron dose distributions calculated by the Eclipse electron Monte Carlo (eMC) algorithm for use with bolus electron conformal therapy (ECT). The recent commercial availability of bolus ECT technology requires further validation of the eMC dose calculation algorithm. eMC‐calculated electron dose distributions for bolus ECT have been compared to previously measured TLD‐dose points throughout patient‐based cylindrical phantoms (retromolar trigone and nose), whose axial cross sections were based on the mid‐PTV (planning treatment volume) CT anatomy. The phantoms consisted of SR4 muscle substitute, SR4 bone substitute, and air. The treatment plans were imported into the Eclipse treatment planning system, and electron dose distributions calculated using 1% and statistical uncertainties. The accuracy of the dose calculations using moderate smoothing and no smoothing were evaluated. Dose differences (eMC‐calculated less measured dose) were evaluated in terms of absolute dose difference, where 100% equals the given dose, as well as distance to agreement (DTA). Dose calculations were also evaluated for calculation speed. Results from the eMC for the retromolar trigone phantom using 1% statistical uncertainty without smoothing showed calculated dose at of the measured TLD‐dose points was within 3% dose difference or 3 mm DTA of the measured value. The average dose difference was , and the net standard deviation was 2.32%. Differences as large as 3.7% occurred immediately distal to the mandible bone. Results for the nose phantom, using 1% statistical uncertainty without smoothing, showed calculated dose at of the measured TLD‐dose points within 3% dose difference or 3 mm DTA. The average dose difference was 1.08%, and the net standard deviation was 3.17%. Differences as large as 10% occurred lateral to the nasal air cavities. Including smoothing had insignificant effects on the accuracy of the retromolar trigone phantom calculations, but reduced the accuracy of the nose phantom calculations in the high‐gradient dose areas. Dose calculation times with 1% statistical uncertainty for the retromolar trigone and nose treatment plans were 30 s and 24 s, respectively, using 16 processors (Intel Xeon E5‐2690, 2.9 GHz) on a framework agent server (FAS). In comparison, the eMC was significantly more accurate than the pencil beam algorithm (PBA). The eMC has comparable accuracy to the pencil beam redefinition algorithm (PBRA) used for bolus ECT planning and has acceptably low dose calculation times. The eMC accuracy decreased when smoothing was used in high‐gradient dose regions. The eMC accuracy was consistent with that previously reported for accuracy of the eMC electron dose algorithm and shows that the algorithm is suitable for clinical implementation of bolus ECT.PACS number(s): 87.55.kd

A total skin electron (TSE) floor technique is presented for treating patients who are unable to safely stand for extended durations. A customized flattening filter is used to eliminate the need for field junctioning, improve field uniformity, and reduce setup time. The flattening filter is constructed from copper and polycarbonate, fits into the linac's accessory slot, and is optimized to extend the useful height and width of the beam such that no field junctions are needed during treatment. A TSE floor with flattening filter (TSE FF) treatment course consisted of six patient positions: three supine and three prone. For all treatment fields, electron beam energy was 6 MeV; collimator settings were an x of 30 cm, y of 40 cm, and of 0°; and a 0.4 cm thick polycarbonate spoiler was positioned in front of the patient. Percent depth dose (PDD) and photon contamination for the TSE FF technique were compared with our standard technique, which is similar to the Stanford technique. Beam profiles were measured using radiochromic film, and dose uniformity was verified using an anthropomorphic radiological phantom. The TSE FF technique met field uniformity requirements specified by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 30. TSE FF ranges from 4 to 4.8 mm. TSE FF photon contamination was ~ 3%. Anthropomorphic radiological phantom verification demonstrated that dose to the entire skin surface was expected to be within about of the prescription dose, except for the perineum, scalp vertex, top of shoulder, and soles of the feet. The TSE floor technique presented herein eliminates field junctioning, is suitable for patients who cannot safely stand during treatment, and provides comparable quality and uniformity to the Stanford technique.PACS number: 87

In the present work, we investigated the accuracy of the electron pencil‐beam redefinition algorithm (PBRA) in calculating central‐axis percent depth dose in water for rectangular fields. The PBRA energy correction factor C(E) was determined so that PBRA‐calculated percent depth dose best matched the percent depth dose measured in water. The hypothesis tested was that a method can be implemented into the PBRA that will enable the algorithm to calculate central‐axis percent depth dose in water at a 100‐cm source‐to‐surface distance (SSD) with an accuracy of 2% or 1‐mm distance to agreement for rectangular field sizes cm. Preliminary investigations showed that C(E), determined using a single percent depth dose for a large field (that is, having side‐scatter equilibrium), was insufficient for the PBRA to accurately calculate percent depth dose for all square fields cm. Therefore, two alternative methods for determining C(E) were investigated. In Method 1, C(E), modeled as a polynomial in energy, was determined by fitting the PBRA calculations to individual rectangular‐field percent depth doses. In Method 2, C(E) for square fields, described by a polynomial in both energy and side of square W [that is, ], was determined by fitting the PBRA calculations to measured percent depth dose for a small number of square fields. Using the function C(E, W), C(E) for other square fields was determined, and C(E) for rectangular field sizes was determined using the geometric mean of C(E) for the two measured square fields of the dimension of the rectangle (square root method). Using both methods, PBRA calculations were evaluated by comparison with measured square‐field and derived rectangular‐field percent depth doses at 100‐cm SSD for the Siemens Primus radiotherapy accelerator equipped with a ‐cm applicator at 10 MeV and 15 MeV. To improve the fit of C(E) and C(E, W) to the electron component of percent depth dose, it was necessary to modify the PBRA's photon depth dose model to include dose buildup. Results showed that, using both methods, the PBRA was able to predict percent depth dose within criteria for all square and rectangular fields. Results showed that second‐ or third‐order polynomials in energy (Methods 1 and 2) and in field size (Method 2) were typically required. Although the time for dose calculation using Method 1 is approximately twice that using Method 2, we recommend that Method 1 be used for clinical implementation of the PBRA because it is more accurate (most measured depth doses predicted within approximately 1%) and simpler to implement.PACS number: 87.53.Fs