Evaluation of a multi-atlas CT synthesis approach for MRI-only radiotherapy treatment planning

Background and purposeComputed tomography (CT) imaging is the current gold standard for radiotherapy treatment planning (RTP). The establishment of a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) only RTP workflow requires the generation of a synthetic CT (sCT) for dose calculation. This study evaluates the feasibility of using a multi-atlas sCT synthesis approach (sCT_a) for head and neck and prostate patients.Material and methodsThe multi-atlas method was based on pairs of non-rigidly aligned MR and CT images. The sCT_a was obtained by registering the MRI atlases to the patient’s MRI and by fusing the mapped atlases according to morphological similarity to the patient. For comparison, a bulk density assignment approach (sCT_bda) was also evaluated. The sCT_bda was obtained by assigning density values to MRI tissue classes (air, bone and soft-tissue). After evaluating the synthesis accuracy of the sCTs (mean absolute error), sCT-based delineations were geometrically compared to the CT-based delineations. Clinical plans were re-calculated on both sCTs and a dose-volume histogram and a gamma analysis was performed using the CT dose as ground truth.ResultsResults showed that both sCTs were suitable to perform clinical dose calculations with mean dose differences less than 1% for both the planning target volume and the organs at risk. However, only the sCT_a provided an accurate and automatic delineation of bone.ConclusionsCombining MR delineations with our multi-atlas CT synthesis method could enable MRI-only treatment planning and thus improve the dosimetric and geometric accuracy of the treatment, and reduce the number of imaging procedures.     

Evaluation of a cycle-generative adversarial network-based cone-beam CT to synthetic CT conversion algorithm for adaptive radiation therapy

PurposeImage-guided radiation therapy could benefit from implementing adaptive radiation therapy (ART) techniques. A cycle-generative adversarial network (cycle-GAN)-based cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-to-synthetic CT (sCT) conversion algorithm was evaluated regarding image quality, image segmentation and dosimetric accuracy for head and neck (H&N), thoracic and pelvic body regions.MethodsUsing a cycle-GAN, three body site-specific models were priorly trained with independent paired CT and CBCT datasets of a kV imaging system (XVI, Elekta). sCT were generated based on first-fraction CBCT for 15 patients of each body region. Mean errors (ME) and mean absolute errors (MAE) were analyzed for the sCT. On the sCT, manually delineated structures were compared to deformed structures from the planning CT (pCT) and evaluated with standard segmentation metrics. Treatment plans were recalculated on sCT. A comparison of clinically relevant dose-volume parameters (D₉₈, D₅₀ and D₂ of the target volume) and 3D-gamma (3%/3mm) analysis were performed.ResultsThe mean ME and MAE were 1.4, 29.6, 5.4 Hounsfield units (HU) and 77.2, 94.2, 41.8 HU for H&N, thoracic and pelvic region, respectively. Dice similarity coefficients varied between 66.7 ± 8.3% (seminal vesicles) and 94.9 ± 2.0% (lungs). Maximum mean surface distances were 6.3 mm (heart), followed by 3.5 mm (brainstem). The mean dosimetric differences of the target volumes did not exceed 1.7%. Mean 3D gamma pass rates greater than 97.8% were achieved in all cases.ConclusionsThe presented method generates sCT images with a quality close to pCT and yielded clinically acceptable dosimetric deviations. Thus, an important prerequisite towards clinical implementation of CBCT-based ART is fulfilled.     

Validation of dose distribution computation on sCT images generated from MRI scans by Philips MRCAT

AimTo evaluate calculation of treatment plans based on synthetic-CT (sCT) images generated from MRI.BackgroundBecause of better soft tissue contrast, MR images are used in addition to CT images for radiotherapy planning. However, registration of CT and MR images or repositioning between scanning sessions introduce systematic errors, hence suggestions for MRI-only therapy. The lack of information on electron density necessary for dose calculation leads to sCT (synthetic CT) generation. This work presents a comparison of dose distribution calculated on standard CT and sCT.Materials and methods10 prostate patients were included in this study. CT and MR images were collected for each patient and then water equivalent (WE) and MRCAT images were generated. The radiation plans were optimized on CT and then recalculated on MRCAT and WE data. 2D gamma analysis was also performed.ResultsThe mean differences in the majority of investigated DVH points were in order of 1% up to 10%, including both MRCAT and WE dose distributions. Mean gamma pass for acceptance criteria 1%/1 mm were greater than 82.5%. Prescribed doses for target volumes and acceptable doses for organs at risk were met in almost all cases.ConclusionsThe dose calculation accuracy on MRCAT was not significantly compromised in the majority of clinical relevant DVH points. The introduction of MRCAT into practise would eliminate systematic errors, increase patients’ comfort and reduce treatment expenses. Institutions interested in MRCAT commissioning must, however, consider changes to established workflow.     

Accuracy of dose calculation on iterative CBCT for head and neck radiotherapy

PurposeTo evaluate the feasibility of the use of iterative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) for dose calculation in the head and neck region.MethodsThis study includes phantom and clinical studies. All acquired CBCT images were reconstructed with Feldkamp–Davis–Kress algorithm-based CBCT (FDK-CBCT) and iterative CBCT (iCBCT) algorithm. The Hounsfield unit (HU) consistency between the head and body phantoms was determined in both reconstruction techniques. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were generated for 16 head and neck patients on a planning CT scan, and the doses were recalculated on FDK-CBCT and iCBCT with Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB (AXB). As a comparison of the accuracy of dose calculations, the absolute dosimetric difference and 1%/1 mm gamma passing rate analysis were analyzed.ResultsThe difference in the mean HU values between the head and body phantoms was larger for FDK-CBCT (max value: 449.1 HU) than iCBCT (260.0 HU). The median dosimetric difference from the planning CT were <1.0% for both FDK-CBCT and iCBCT but smaller differences were found with iCBCT (planning target volume D_50%: 0.38% (0.15–0.59%) for FDK-CBCT, 0.28% (0.13–0.49%) for iCBCT, AAA; 0.14% (0.04–0.19%) for FDK-CBCT, 0.07% (0.02–0.20%) for iCBCT). The mean gamma passing rate was significantly better in iCBCT than FDK-CBCT (AAA: 98.7% for FDK-CBCT, 99.4% for iCBCT; AXB: 96.8% for FDK_CBCT, 97.5% for iCBCT).ConclusionThe iCBCT-based dose calculation in VMAT for head and neck cancer was accurate compared to FDK-CBCT.     

A study to determine the impact of IMPT optimization techniques on prostate synthetic CT image sets dose comparison against CT image sets

BackgroundThe objective of this study is to determine the impact of intensity modulated proton therapty (IMPT) optimization techniques on the proton dose comparison of commercially available magnetic resonance for calculating attenuation (MRCA T) images, a synthetic computed tomography CT (sCT) based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan against the CT images and find out the optimization technique which creates plans with the least dose differences against the regular CT image sets.Material and methodsRegular CT data sets and sCT image sets were obtained for 10 prostate patients for the study. Six plans were created using six distinct IMPT optimization techniques including multi-field optimization (MFO), single field uniform dose (SFUD) optimization, and robust optimization (RO) in CT image sets. These plans were copied to MRCA T, sCT datasets and doses were computed. Doses from CT and MRCA T data sets were compared for each patient using 2D dose distribution display, dose volume histograms (DVH), homogeneity index (HI), conformation number (CN) and 3D gamma analysis. A two tailed t-test was conducted on HI and CN with 5% significance level with a null hypothesis for CT and sCT image sets.ResultsAnalysis of ten CT and sCT image sets with different IMPT optimization techniques shows that a few of the techniques show significant differences between plans for a few evaluation parameters. Isodose lines, DVH, HI, CN and t-test analysis shows that robust optimizations with 2% range error incorporated results in plans, when re-computed in sCT image sets results in the least dose differences against CT plans compared to other optimization techniques. The second best optimization technique with the least dose differences was robust optimization with 5% range error.ConclusionThis study affirmatively demonstrates the impact of IMPT optimization techniques on synthetic CT image sets dose comparison against CT images and determines the robust optimization with 2% range error as the optimization technique which gives the least dose difference when compared to CT plans.     

Retrospective review of locally set tolerances for VMAT prostate patient specific QA using the COMPASS® system

PurposeThis study retrospectively reviewed locally set pass rates/tolerances for COMPASS^® pre-treatment quality assurance results for RapidArc prostate plans to determine if these are appropriate. This was performed via quantifying the agreement between treatment planning system calculations and measurements based on absolute dose comparisons (3% tolerance for all dose points) and global gamma index assessment (3%/3 mm criterion for 97% of points).MethodSeventy-three prostate one-arc RapidArc plans, delivered by four dosimetrically matched linacs, were measured using the MatriXX Evolution two-dimensional array and analysed using COMPASS^® (v.3, IBA Dosimetry). For the planning target volumes (PTV) considered, the D_99%, D_50%, D_1% and D_Mean differences were analysed. The percentage volume with gamma greater than 1, average gamma and D_Mean difference were investigated for all structures. Nine plans were also assessed across the linac fleet to investigate potential linac dependence of results.Results and ConclusionsRegarding PTV D_Mean differences, all plans fell within the 3% tolerance and mostly within 2%, although there was a relatively small systematic difference. The absolute percentage differences of average and median doses suggested a weak linac dependence of the results which was found to be clinically insignificant. New stricter tolerances were established both for dose comparisons and gamma evaluation. Correlation between the gamma pass rates and the differences in the D_99%, D_50% and D_1% was found to be moderate suggesting that gamma analysis in isolation has questionable clinical meaning and should only be used to indicate outliers for further analysis.     

Clinical verification of treatment planning dose calculation in lung SBRT with GATE Monte Carlo simulation code

PurposeThis study aims to use GATE/Geant4 simulation code to evaluate the performance of dose calculations with Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) in the context of lung SBRT for complex treatments considering images of patients.MethodsFour cases of non-small cell lung cancer treated with SBRT were selected for this study. Irradiation plans were created with AAA and recalculated end to end using Monte Carlo (MC) method maintaining field configurations identical to the original plans. Each treatment plan was evaluated in terms of PTV and organs at risk (OARs) using dose-volume histograms (DVH). Dosimetric parameters obtained from DVHs were used to compare AAA and MC.ResultsThe comparison between the AAA and MC DVH using gamma analysis with the passing criteria of 3%/3% showed an average passing rate of more than 90% for the PTV structure and 97% for the OARs. Tightening the criteria to 2%/2% showed a reduction in the average passing rate of the PTV to 86%. The agreement between the AAA and MC dose calculations for PTV dosimetric parameters (V₁₀₀; V₉₀; Homogeneity index; maximum, minimum and mean dose; CI_Paddick and D_2cm) was within 18.4%. For OARs, the biggest differences were observed in the spinal cord and the great vessels.ConclusionsIn general, we did not find significant differences between AAA and MC. The results indicate that AAA could be used in complex SBRT cases that involve a larger number of small treatment fields in the presence of tissue heterogeneities.     

Dose-escalated volumetric modulated arc therapy for total marrow irradiation: A feasibility dosimetric study with 4DCT planning and simultaneous integrated boost

PurposeTo evaluate the planning feasibility of dose-escalated total marrow irradiation (TMI) with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) to the active bone marrow (ABM) using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and to assess the impact of using planning organs at risk (OAR) volumes (PRV) accounting for breathing motion in the optimization.MethodsFive patients underwent whole-body CT and thoraco-abdominal 4DCT. A planning target volume (PTV) including all bones and ABM was contoured on each whole-body CT. PRV of selected OAR (liver, heart, kidneys, lungs, spleen, stomach) were determined with 4DCT. Planning consisted of 9–10 full 6 MV photon VMAT arcs. Four plans were created for each patient with 12 Gy prescribed to the PTV, with or without an additional 4 Gy SIB to the ABM. Planning dose constraints were set on the OAR or on the PRV. Planning objective was a PTV D_mean < 110% of the prescribed dose, a PTV V_110% < 50%, and OAR D_mean ≤ 50–60%.ResultsPTV D_mean < 110% was accomplished for most plans (n = 18/20), while all achieved V_110%<50%. SIB plans succeeded to optimally cover the boost volume (median ABM D_mean = 16.3 Gy) and resulted in similar OAR sparing compared to plans without SIB (median OAR D_mean = 40–54% of the ABM prescribed dose). No statistically significant differences between plans optimized with constraints on OAR or PRV were found.ConclusionsAdding a 4 Gy SIB to the ABM for TMI is feasible with VMAT technique, and results in OAR sparing similar to plans without SIB. Setting dose constraints on PRV does not impair PTV dosimetric parameters.     

Deep learning methods to generate synthetic CT from MRI in radiotherapy: A literature review

PurposeIn radiotherapy, MRI is used for target volume and organs-at-risk delineation for its superior soft-tissue contrast as compared to CT imaging. However, MRI does not provide the electron density of tissue necessary for dose calculation. Several methods of synthetic-CT (sCT) generation from MRI data have been developed for radiotherapy dose calculation. This work reviewed deep learning (DL) sCT generation methods and their associated image and dose evaluation, in the context of MRI-based dose calculation.MethodsWe searched the PubMed and ScienceDirect electronic databases from January 2010 to March 2021. For each paper, several items were screened and compiled in figures and tables.ResultsThis review included 57 studies. The DL methods were either generator-only based (45% of the reviewed studies), or generative adversarial network (GAN) architecture and its variants (55% of the reviewed studies). The brain and pelvis were the most commonly investigated anatomical localizations (39% and 28% of the reviewed studies, respectively), and more rarely, the head-and-neck (H&N) (15%), abdomen (10%), liver (5%) or breast (3%). All the studies performed an image evaluation of sCTs with a diversity of metrics, with only 36 studies performing dosimetric evaluations of sCT.ConclusionsThe median mean absolute errors were around 76 HU for the brain and H&N sCTs and 40 HU for the pelvis sCTs. For the brain, the mean dose difference between the sCT and the reference CT was <2%. For the H&N and pelvis, the mean dose difference was below 1% in most of the studies. Recent GAN architectures have advantages compared to generator-only, but no superiority was found in term of image or dose sCT uncertainties. Key challenges of DL-based sCT generation methods from MRI in radiotherapy is the management of movement for abdominal and thoracic localizations, the standardization of sCT evaluation, and the investigation of multicenter impacts.     

Dosimetric comparison of dynamic conformal arc integrated with segment shape optimization and variable dose rate versus volumetric modulated arc therapy for liver SBRT

AimThe aim is a dosimetric comparison of dynamic conformal arc integrated with the segment shape optimization and variable dose rate (DCA_SSO_VDR) versus VMAT for liver SBRT and interaction of various treatment plan quality indices with PTV and degree of modulation (DoM) for both techniques.BackgroundThe DCA is the state-of-the-art technique but overall inferior to VMAT, and the DCA_SSO_VDR technique was not studied for liver SBRT.Materials and methodsTwenty-five patients of liver SBRT treated using the VMAT technique were selected. DCA_SSO_VDR treatment plans were also generated for all patients in Monaco TPS using the same objective constraint template and treatment planning parameters as used for the VMAT technique. For comparison purpose, organs at risk (OARs) doses and treatment plans quality indices, such as maximum dose of PTV (D_max%), mean dose of PTV (D_mean%), maximum dose at 2 cm in any direction from the PTV (D_2cm%), total monitor units (MU’s), gradient index R_50%, degree of modulation (DoM), conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), and healthy tissue mean dose (HTMD) were compared.ResultsSignificant dosimetric differences were observed in several OARs doses and lowered in VMAT plans. The D_2cm%, R_50%, CI, HI and HTMD are dosimetrically inferior in DCA_SSO_VDR plans. The higher DoM results in poor dose gradient and better dose gradient for DCA_SSO_VDR and VMAT treatment plans, respectively.ConclusionsFor liver SBRT, DCA_SSO_VDR treatment plans are neither dosimetrically superior nor better alternative to the VMAT delivery technique. A reduction of 69.75% MU was observed in DCA_SSO_VDR treatment plans. For the large size of PTV and high DoM, DCA_SSO_VDR treatment plans result in poorer quality.     

Dosimetric effect of uncorrected rotations in lung SBRT with stereotactic imaging guidance

PurposeTo evaluate the dosimetric impact of uncorrected rotations on the planning target volume (PTV) coverage for early stage non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy using Brainlab ExacTrac image guidance.MethodsTwenty-two patients were retrospectively selected. Two scenarios of uncorrected rotations were simulated with magnitude of 1°, 2°, 3° and 5°: (1) rotation around the treatment isocenter; and (2) roll and yaw rotations around a setup isocenter. The D₉₅ of PTV from recalculated dose on the rotated CT was compared to that from the clinical plan. A logistic regression model was used to predict the probability of dose differences between recalculated and original plans that are less than 2% based on the rotation angle, PTV volume, and distance between the treatment and setup isocenter.ResultsLogistic regression model showed the uncorrected isocentric rotations of up to 2.5° in all directions have negligible dosimetric impact. For non-isocentric rotations, a rotational error of 2° may cause significant under-dose of the PTV. Statistically significant (p < 0.05) parameters in the logistic regression model were angle for isocentric rotations, angle and distance for non-isocentric roll rotations, and angle, distance and the PTV volume for non-isocentric yaw rotations.ConclusionsThe severity of the dose deviations due to uncorrected rotations depends on the type and magnitude of the rotation, the volume of the PTV, and the distance between the treatment and setup isocenter, which should be taken into consideration when making clinical judgment of whether the rotational error could be ignored.     

A comparative analysis of Acuros XB and the analytical anisotropic algorithm for volumetric modulation arc therapy

BackgroundThis study aimed to verify the dosimetric impact of Acuros XB (AXB) (AXB, Varian Medical Systems Palo Alto CA, USA), a two model-based algorithm, in comparison with Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA ) calculations for prostate, head and neck and lung cancer treatment by volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT ), without primary modification to AA. At present, the well-known and validated AA algorithm is clinically used in our department for VMAT treatments of different pathologies. AXB could replace it without extra measurements. The treatment result and accuracy of the dose delivered depend on the dose calculation algorithm.Materials and methodNinety-five complex VMAT plans for different pathologies were generated using the Eclipse version 15.0.4 treatment planning system (TPS). The dose distributions were calculated using AA and AXB (dose-to-water, AXB_w and dose-to-medium, AXB_m), with the same plan parameters for all VMAT plans. The dosimetric parameters were calculated for each planning target volume (PTV) and involved organs at risk (OA R). The patient specific quality assurance of all VMAT plans has been verified by Octavius^®-4D phantom for different algorithms.ResultsThe relative differences among AA, AXB_w and AXB_m, with respect to prostate, head and neck were less than 1% for PTV D_95%. However, PTV D_95% calculated by AA tended to be overestimated, with a relative dose difference of 3.23% in the case of lung treatment. The absolute mean values of the relative differences were 1.1 ± 1.2% and 2.0 ± 1.2%, when comparing between AXB_w and AA, AXB_m and AA, respectively. The gamma pass rate was observed to exceed 97.4% and 99.4% for the measured and calculated doses in most cases of the volumetric 3D analysis for AA and AXB_m, respectively.ConclusionThis study suggests that the dose calculated to medium using AXB_m algorithm is better than AAA and it could be used clinically. Switching the dose calculation algorithm from AA to AXB does not require extra measurements.     

Combined PET/CT for IMRT treatment planning of NSCLC: Contrast-enhanced CT images for Monte Carlo dose calculation

PurposeCombined PET/CT imaging has been proposed as an integral part of radiotherapy treatment planning (TP). Contrast-enhanced CT (ceCT) images are frequently acquired as part of the PET/CT examination to support target delineation. The aim of this dosimetric planning study was to investigate the error introduced by using a ceCT for intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) TP with Monte Carlo dose calculation for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Material and methodsNine patients with NSCLC prior to chemo-RT were included in this retrospective study. For each patient non-enhanced, low-dose CT (neCT), ceCT and [¹⁸F]-FDG-PET emission data were acquired within a single examination. Manual contouring and TP were performed on the ceCT. An additional set of independent target volumes was auto-segmented in PET images. Dose distributions were recalculated on the neCT. Differences in dosimetric parameters were evaluated.ResultsDose differences in PTV and lungs were small for all patients. The maximum difference in all PTVs when using ceCT images for dose calculation was ?2.1%, whereas the mean difference was less than ?1.7%. Maximum differences in the lungs ranged from ?1.8% to 2.1% (mean: ?0.1%). In four patients an underestimation of the maximum spinal cord dose between 2% and 3.2% was observed, but treatment plans remained clinically acceptable.ConclusionsMonte Carlo based IMRT planning for NSCLC patients using ceCT allows for correct dose calculation. A direct comparison to neCT-based treatment plans revealed only small dose differences. Therefore, ceCT-based TP is clinically safe as long as the maximum acceptable dose to organs at risk is not approached.     

Dosimetric study of Hounsfield number correction effect in areas influenced by contrast product in lungs case

BackgroundThe aim of the study was dosimetric effect quantification of exclusive computed tomography (CT) use with an intravenous (IV) contrast agent (CA ), on dose distribution of 3D-CRT treatment plans for lung cancer. Furthermore, dosimetric advantage investigation of manually contrast-enhanced region overriding, especially the heart.Materials and methodsTen patients with lung cancer were considered. For each patient two planning CT sets were initially taken with and without CA. Treatment planning were optimized based on CT scans without CA. All plans were copied and recomputed on scans with CA. In addition, scans with IV contrast were copied and density correction was performed for heart contrast enhanced. Same plans were copied and replaced to undo dose calculation errors that may be caused by CA. Eventually, dosimetric evaluations based on dose volume histograms (DVHs) of planning target volumes (PTV) and organs at-risk were studied and analyzed using the Wilcoxon’s signed rank test.ResultsThere is no statistically significant difference in dose calculation for the PTV maximum, mean, minimum doses, spinal cord maximum doses and lung volumes that received 20 and 30 Gy, between planes calculated with and without contrast scans (p > 0.05) and also for contrast scan, with manual regions overriding.ConclusionsDose difference caused by the contrast agent is negligible and not significant. Therefore, there is no justification to perform two scans, and using an IV contrast enhanced scan for dose calculation is sufficient.     

Machine log file-based dose verification using novel iterative CBCT reconstruction algorithm in commercial software during volumetric modulated arc therapy for prostate cancer patients

PurposeTo evaluate the utility of the use of iterative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) for machine log file-based dose verification during volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for prostate cancer patients.MethodsAll CBCT acquisition data were used to reconstruct images with the Feldkamp-Davis-Kress algorithm (FDK-CBCT) and the novel iterative algorithm (iCBCT). The Hounsfield unit (HU)-electron density curves for CBCT images were created using the Advanced Electron Density Phantom. The I’mRT and anthropomorphic phantoms were irradiated with VMAT after CBCT registration. Subsequently, fourteen prostate cancer patients received VMAT after CBCT registration. Machine log files and both CBCT images were exported to the PerFRACTION software, and a 3D patient dose was reconstructed. Mean dose for planning target volume (PTV), the bladder, and rectum and the 3D gamma analysis were evaluated.ResultsFor the phantom studies, the variation of HU values was observed at the central position surrounding the bones in FDK-CBCT. There were almost no changes in the difference of doses at the isocenter between measurement and reconstructed dose for planning CT (pCT), FDK-CBCT, and iCBCT. Mean dose differences of PTV, rectum, and bladder between iCBCT and pCT were approximately 2% lower than those between FDK-CBCT and pCT. For the clinical study, average gamma analysis for 2%/2 mm was 98.22% ± 1.07 and 98.81% ± 1.25% in FDK-CBCT and iCBCT, respectively.ConclusionsA similar machine log file-based dose verification accuracy is obtained for FDK-CBCT and iCBCT during VMAT for prostate cancer patients.     

Geometric and dosimetric quality assurance using logfiles and a 3D helical diode detector for Dynamic WaveArc

PurposeTo conduct patient-specific geometric and dosimetric quality assurance (QA) for the Dynamic WaveArc (DWA) using logfiles and ArcCHECK (Sun Nuclear Inc., Melbourne, FL, USA).MethodsTwenty DWA plans, 10 for pituitary adenoma and 10 for prostate cancer, were created using RayStation version 4.7 (RaySearch Laboratories, Stockholm, Sweden). Root mean square errors (RMSEs) between the actual and planned values in the logfiles were evaluated. Next, the dose distributions were reconstructed based on the logfiles. The differences between dose-volumetric parameters in the reconstructed plans and those in the original plans were calculated. Finally, dose distributions were assessed using ArcCHECK. In addition, the reconstructed dose distributions were compared with planned ones.ResultsThe means of RMSEs for the gantry, O-ring, MLC position, and MU for all plans were 0.2°, 0.1°, 0.1 mm, and 0.4 MU, respectively. Absolute means of the change in PTV D_99% were 0.4 ± 0.4% and 0.1 ± 0.1% points between the original and reconstructed plans for pituitary adenoma and prostate cancer, respectively. The mean of the gamma passing rate (3%/3 mm) between the measured and planned dose distributions was 97.7%. In addition, that between the reconstructed and planned dose distributions was 99.6%.ConclusionsWe have demonstrated that the geometric accuracy and gamma passing rates were within AAPM 119 and 142 criteria during DWA. Dose differences in the dose-volumetric parameters using the logfile-based dose reconstruction method were also clinically acceptable in DWA.     

Dose warping performance in deformable image registration in lung

PurposeIt is unclear that spatial accuracy can reflect the impact of deformed dose distribution. In this study, we used dosimetric parameters to compare an in-house deformable image registration (DIR) system using NiftyReg, with two commercially available systems, MIM Maestro (MIM) and Velocity AI (Velocity).MethodsFor 19 non-small-cell lung cancer patients, the peak inspiration (0%)-4DCT images were deformed to the peak expiration (50%)-4DCT images using each of the three DIR systems, which included computation of the deformation vector fields (DVF). The 0%-gross tumor volume (GTV) and the 0%-dose distribution were also then deformed using the DVFs. The agreement in the dose distributions for the GTVs was evaluated using generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD), mean dose (D_mean), and three-dimensional (3D) gamma index (criteria: 3 mm/3%). Additionally, a Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) was used to measure the similarity of the GTV volumes.ResultsD_mean and gEUD demonstrated good agreement between the original and deformed dose distributions (differences were generally less than 3%) in 17 of the patients. In two other patients, the Velocity system resulted in differences in gEUD of 50.1% and 29.7% and in D_mean of 11.8% and 4.78%. The gamma index comparison showed statistically significant differences for the in-house DIR vs. MIM, and MIM vs. Velocity.ConclusionsThe finely tuned in-house DIR system could achieve similar spatial and dose accuracy to the commercial systems. Care must be taken, as we found errors of more than 5% for D_mean and 30% for gEUD, even with a commercially available DIR tool.     

Incorrect dosimetric leaf separation in IMRT and VMAT treatment planning: Clinical impact and correlation with pretreatment quality assurance

PurposeDynamic treatment planning algorithms use a dosimetric leaf separation (DLS) parameter to model the multi-leaf collimator (MLC) characteristics. Here, we quantify the dosimetric impact of an incorrect DLS parameter and investigate whether common pretreatment quality assurance (QA) methods can detect this effect.Methods16 treatment plans with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique for multiple treatment sites were calculated with a correct and incorrect setting of the DLS, corresponding to a MLC gap difference of 0.5 mm. Pretreatment verification QA was performed with a bi-planar diode array phantom and the electronic portal imaging device (EPID). Measurements were compared to the correct and incorrect planned doses using gamma evaluation with both global (G) and local (L) normalization. Correlation, specificity and sensitivity between the dose volume histogram (DVH) points for the planning target volume (PTV) and the gamma passing rates were calculated.ResultsThe change in PTV and organs at risk DVH parameters were 0.4–4.1%. Good correlation (>0.83) between the PTV_mean dose deviation and measured gamma passing rates was observed. Optimal gamma settings with 3%L/3 mm (per beam and composite plan) and 3%G/2 mm (composite plan) for the diode array phantom and 2%G/2 mm (composite plan) for the EPID system were found. Global normalization and per beam ROC analysis of the diode array phantom showed an area under the curve <0.6.ConclusionsA DLS error can worsen pretreatment QA using gamma analysis with reasonable credibility for the composite plan. A low detectability was demonstrated for a 3%G/3 mm per beam gamma setting.     

Characterization of robust optimization for VMAT plan for liver cancer

PurposeWe investigated the feasibility of robust optimization for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for liver cancer in comparison with planning target volume (PTV)-based optimized plans. Treatment plan quality, robustness, complexity, and accuracy of dose delivery were assessed.MethodsTen liver cancer patients were selected for this study. PTV-based optimized plans with an 8-mm PTV margin and robust optimized plans with an 8-mm setup uncertainty were generated. Plan perturbed doses were evaluated using a setup error of 8 mm in all directions from the isocenter. The dosimetric comparison parameters were clinical target volume (CTV) doses (D_98%, D_50%, and D_2%), liver doses, and monitor unit (MU). Plan complexity was evaluated using the modulation complexity score for VMAT (MCSv).ResultsThere was no significant difference between the two optimizations with respect to CTV doses and MUs. Robust optimized plans had a higher liver dose than did PTV-based optimized plans. Plan perturbed dose evaluations showed that doses to the CTV for the robust optimized plans had small variations. Robust optimized plans were less complex than PTV-based optimized plans. Robust optimized plans had statistically significant fewer leaf position errors than did PTV-based optimized plans.ConclusionsComparison of treatment plan quality, robustness, and plan complexity of both optimizations showed that robust optimization could be feasibile for VMAT of liver cancer.     

Use of a second-dose calculation algorithm to check dosimetric parameters for the dose distribution of a first-dose calculation algorithm for lung SBRT plans

PurposeTo verify lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) plans using a secondary treatment planning system (TPS) as an independent method of verification and to define tolerance levels (TLs) in lung SBRT between the primary and secondary TPSs.MethodsA total of 147 lung SBRT plans calculated using X-ray voxel Monte Carlo (XVMC) were exported from iPlan to Eclipse in DICOM format. Dose distributions were recalculated using the Acuros XB (AXB) and the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA), while maintaining monitor units (MUs) and the beam arrangement. Dose to isocenter and dose-volumetric parameters, such as D₂, D₅₀, D₉₅ and D₉₈, were evaluated for each patient. The TLs of all parameters between XVMC and AXB (TL_AXB) and between XVMC and AAA (TL_AAA) were calculated as the mean ± 1.96 standard deviations.ResultsAXB values agreed with XVMC values within 3.5% for all dosimetric parameters in all patients. By contrast, AAA sometimes calculated a 10% higher dose in PTV D₉₅ and D₉₈ than XVMC. The TL_AXB and TL_AAA of the dose to isocenter were −0.3 ± 1.4% and 0.6 ± 2.9%, respectively. Those of D₉₅ were 1.3 ± 1.8% and 1.7 ± 3.6%, respectively.ConclusionsThis study quantitatively demonstrated that the dosimetric performance of AXB is almost equal to that of XVMC, compared with that of AAA. Therefore, AXB is a more appropriate algorithm for an independent verification method for XVMC.