A dosimetric comparison of real-time adaptive and non-adaptive radiotherapy: A multi-institutional study encompassing robotic, gimbaled, multileaf collimator and couch tracking

AbstractPurposeA study of real-time adaptive radiotherapy systems was performed to test the hypothesis that, across delivery systems and institutions, the dosimetric accuracy is improved with adaptive treatments over non-adaptive radiotherapy in the presence of patient-measured tumor motion.Methods and materialsTen institutions with robotic(2), gimbaled(2), MLC(4) or couch tracking(2) used common materials including CT and structure sets, motion traces and planning protocols to create a lung and a prostate plan. For each motion trace, the plan was delivered twice to a moving dosimeter; with and without real-time adaptation. Each measurement was compared to a static measurement and the percentage of failed points for γ-tests recorded.ResultsFor all lung traces all measurement sets show improved dose accuracy with a mean 2%/2mm γ-fail rate of 1.6% with adaptation and 15.2% without adaptation (p<0.001). For all prostate the mean 2%/2mm γ-fail rate was 1.4% with adaptation and 17.3% without adaptation (p<0.001). The difference between the four systems was small with an average 2%/2mm γ-fail rate of <3% for all systems with adaptation for lung and prostate.ConclusionsThe investigated systems all accounted for realistic tumor motion accurately and performed to a similar high standard, with real-time adaptation significantly outperforming non-adaptive delivery methods

Stability assessment of radiation isocenter with the gimbaled linac system

Purpose: We report the results of our year-long radiation isocenter accuracy verification for daily quality assurance (QA) implementation on a Vero4DRT system. Methods: The radiation isocenter was calculated using a cube phantom with a steel ball of diameter 10 mm fixed to the center of the phantom. A single photon beam was set with a field size of 100 × 100 mm2. Coincidence of the centroid of the steel ball at kiloVolt X-ray imaging isocenter and megaVolt beam radiation isocenter at each gantry and ring angle was tested. This procedure was performed for gantry angles of 0°, 90°, 180°, and 270°, and ring angles of 0°, 20°, and 340°. The centroid of the steel ball and the center of the radiation field were calculated to analyze the radiation isocenter error. This analysis was automatically calculated using the Daily Check tool in the Vero4DRT system. This QA was implemented between 24 August 2015 and 23 August 2016.Results: The average and standard deviation for pan and tilt directions were 0.12 ± 0.10 mm and -0.20 ± 0.13 mm, respectively. The maximum radiation isocenter accuracy error was 0.50 mm in both directions. Conclusion: The radiation isocenter alignment for the one year duration of the experiment was performed with high accuracy

Influence of respiratory motion management technique on radiation pneumonitis risk with robotic stereotactic body radiation therapy.

Purpose/objectivesFor lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), real-time tumor tracking (RTT) allows for less radiation to normal lung compared to the internal target volume (ITV) method of respiratory motion management. To quantify the advantage of RTT, we examined the difference in radiation pneumonitis risk between these two techniques using a normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) model.Materials/method20 lung SBRT treatment plans using RTT were replanned with the ITV method using respiratory motion information from a 4D-CT image acquired at the original simulation. Risk of symptomatic radiation pneumonitis was calculated for both plans using a previously derived NTCP model. Features available before treatment planning that identified significant increase in NTCP with ITV versus RTT plans were identified.ResultsPrescription dose to the planning target volume (PTV) ranged from 22 to 60 Gy in 1-5 fractions. The median tumor diameter was 3.5 cm (range 2.1-5.5 cm) with a median volume of 14.5 mL (range 3.6-59.9 mL). The median increase in PTV volume from RTT to ITV plans was 17.1 mL (range 3.5-72.4 mL), and the median increase in PTV/lung volume ratio was 0.46% (range 0.13-1.98%). Mean lung dose and percentage dose-volumes were significantly higher in ITV plans at all levels tested. The median NTCP was 5.1% for RTT plans and 8.9% for ITV plans, with a median difference of 1.9% (range 0.4-25.5%, pairwise P &lt; 0.001). Increases in NTCP between plans were best predicted by increases in PTV volume and PTV/lung volume ratio.ConclusionsThe use of RTT decreased the risk of radiation pneumonitis in all plans. However, for most patients the risk reduction was minimal. Differences in plan PTV volume and PTV/lung volume ratio may identify patients who would benefit from RTT technique before completing treatment planning

Image-guided Radiotherapy to Manage Respiratory Motion: Lung and Liver.

Organ motion as a result of respiratory and cardiac motion poses significant challenges for the accurate delivery of radiotherapy to both the thorax and the upper abdomen. Modern imaging techniques during radiotherapy simulation and delivery now permit better quantification of organ motion, which in turn reduces tumour and organ at risk position uncertainty. These imaging advances, coupled with respiratory correlated radiotherapy delivery techniques, have led to the development of a range of approaches to manage respiratory motion. This review summarises the key strategies of image-guided respiratory motion management with a focus on lung and liver radiotherapy

Effect of MLC tracking latency on conformal volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans in 4D stereotactic lung treatment

AbstractBackground and purposeThe latency of a multileaf collimator (MLC) tracking system used to overcome respiratory motion causes misalignment of the treatment beam with respect to the gross tumour volume, which may result in reduced target coverage. This study investigates the magnitude of this effect.Material and methodsSimulated superior–inferior breathing motion was used to construct histograms of isocentre offset with respect to the gross tumour volume (GTV) for a variety of tracking latencies. Dose distributions for conformal volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) arcs were then calculated at a range of offsets and summed according to these displacement histograms. The results were verified by delivering the plans to a Delta4 phantom on a motion platform.ResultsIn the absence of an internal target margin, a tracking latency of 150ms reduces the GTV D95% by approximately 2%. With a margin of 2mm, the same drop in dose occurs for a tracking latency of 450ms. Lung V13Gy is unaffected by a range of latencies. These results are supported by the phantom measurements.ConclusionsAssuming that internal motion can be modelled by a rigid translation of the patient, MLC tracking of conformal VMAT can be effectively accomplished in the absence of an internal target margin for substantial breathing motion (4s period and 20mm peak–peak amplitude) so long as the system latency is less than 150ms

Technical note: Feasibility of gating for dynamic trajectory radiotherapy - Mechanical accuracy and dosimetric performance.

BACKGROUND Dynamic trajectory radiotherapy (DTRT) extends state-of-the-art volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) by dynamic table and collimator rotations during beam-on. The effects of intrafraction motion during DTRT delivery are unknown, especially regarding the possible interplay between patient and machine motion with additional dynamic axes. PURPOSE To experimentally assess the technical feasibility and quantify the mechanical and dosimetric accuracy of respiratory gating during DTRT delivery. METHODS A DTRT and VMAT plan are created for a clinically motivated lung cancer case and delivered to a dosimetric motion phantom (MP) placed on the table of a TrueBeam system using Developer Mode. The MP reproduces four different 3D motion traces. Gating is triggered using an external marker block, placed on the MP. Mechanical accuracy and delivery time of the VMAT and DTRT deliveries with and without gating are extracted from the logfiles. Dosimetric performance is assessed by means of gamma evaluation (3% global/2 mm, 10% threshold). RESULTS The DTRT and VMAT plans are successfully delivered with and without gating for all motion traces. Mechanical accuracy is similar for all experiments with deviations <0.14° (gantry angle), <0.15° (table angle), <0.09° (collimator angle) and <0.08 mm (MLC leaf positions). For DTRT (VMAT), delivery times are 1.6-2.3 (1.6- 2.5) times longer with than without gating for all motion traces except one, where DTRT (VMAT) delivery is 5.0 (3.6) times longer due to a substantial uncorrected baseline drift affecting only DTRT delivery. Gamma passing rates with (without) gating for DTRT/VMAT were ≥96.7%/98.5% (≤88.3%/84.8%). For one VMAT arc without gating it was 99.6%. CONCLUSION Gating is successfully applied during DTRT delivery on a TrueBeam system for the first time. Mechanical accuracy is similar for VMAT and DTRT deliveries with and without gating. Gating substantially improved dosimetric performance for DTRT and VMAT

Time-resolved dose reconstruction by motion encoding of volumetric modulated arc therapy fields delivered with and without dynamic multi-leaf collimator tracking.

BACKGROUND: Organ motion during treatment delivery in radiotherapy (RT) may lead to deterioration of the planned dose, but can be mitigated by dynamic multi-leaf collimator (DMLC) tracking. The purpose of this study was to implement and experimentally validate a method for time-resolved motion including dose reconstruction for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatments delivered with and without DMLC tracking. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Tracking experiments were carried out on a linear accelerator (Trilogy, Varian) with a prototype DMLC tracking system. A motion stage carrying a biplanar dosimeter phantom (Delta4PT, Scandidos) reproduced eight representative clinical tumor trajectories (four lung, four prostate). For each trajectory, two single-arc 6 MV VMAT treatments with low and high modulation were delivered to the moving phantom with and without DMLC tracking. An existing in-house developed program that adds target motion to treatment plans was extended with the ability to split an arc plan into any number of sub-arcs, allowing the calculated dose for different parts of the treatment to be examined individually. For each VMAT sub-arc, reconstructed and measured doses were compared using dose differences and 3%/3 mm γ-tests. RESULTS: For VMAT sub-arcs the reconstructed dose distributions had a mean root-mean-square (rms) dose difference of 2.1% and mean γ failure rate of 2.0% when compared with the measured doses. For final accumulated doses the mean rms dose difference was 1.6% and the γ failure rate was 0.7%. CONCLUSION: The time-resolved motion including dose reconstruction was experimentally validated for complex tracking and non-tracking treatments with patient-measured tumor motion trajectories. The reconstructed dose will be of high value for evaluation of treatment plan robustness facing organ motion and adaptive RT

Technical Note: In silico and experimental evaluation of two leaf-fitting algorithms for MLC tracking based on exposure error and plan complexity.

PURPOSE: Multileaf collimator (MLC) tracking is being clinically pioneered to continuously compensate for thoracic and pelvic motion during radiotherapy. The purpose of this work was to characterize the performance of two MLC leaf-fitting algorithms, direct optimization and piecewise optimization, for real-time motion compensation with different plan complexity and tumor trajectories. METHODS: To test the algorithms, both in silico and phantom experiments were performed. The phantom experiments were performed on a Trilogy Varian linac and a HexaMotion programmable motion platform. High and low modulation VMAT plans for lung and prostate cancer cases were used along with eight patient-measured organ-specific trajectories. For both MLC leaf-fitting algorithms, the plans were run with their corresponding patient trajectories. To compare algorithms, the average exposure errors, i.e., the difference in shape between ideal and fitted MLC leaves by the algorithm, plan complexity and system latency of each experiment were calculated. RESULTS: Comparison of exposure errors for the in silico and phantom experiments showed minor differences between the two algorithms. The average exposure errors for in silico experiments with low/high plan complexity were 0.66/0.88 cm2 for direct optimization and 0.66/0.88 cm2 for piecewise optimization, respectively. The average exposure errors for the phantom experiments with low/high plan complexity were 0.73/1.02 cm2 for direct and 0.73/1.02 cm2 for piecewise optimization, respectively. The measured latency for the direct optimization was 226 ± 10 ms and for the piecewise algorithm was 228 ± 10 ms. In silico and phantom exposure errors quantified for each treatment plan demonstrated that the exposure errors from the high plan complexity (0.96 cm2 mean, 2.88 cm2 95% percentile) were all significantly different from the low plan complexity (0.70 cm2 mean, 2.18 cm2 95% percentile) (P < 0.001, two-tailed, Mann-Whitney statistical test). CONCLUSIONS: The comparison between the two leaf-fitting algorithms demonstrated no significant differences in exposure errors, neither in silico nor with phantom experiments. This study revealed that plan complexity impacts the overall exposure errors significantly more than the difference between the algorithms