Radiation Therapy Medical Physics Review – Delivery, Interactions, Safety, Feasibility, and Head to Head Comparisons of the Leading Radiation Therapy Techniques

Radiation therapy uses high energy radiation to kill cancer cells. Radiation therapy for cancer treatment can take the form of photon therapy (using x-rays and gamma rays), or charged particle therapy including proton therapy and electron therapy. Within these categories, numerous methods of delivery have been developed. For example, a certain type of radiation can be administered by a machine outside of the body, called external-beam radiation therapy, or by a “seed” placed inside of the body near cancer cells, called internal radiation therapy or brachytherapy. Approximately half of all cancer patients receive radiation therapy, and the form of radiation treatment depends on the type of tumor, location of the tumor, available resources, and characteristics of the individual receiving treatment. In the current paper, we discuss and review the various forms of radiation therapy, the physics behind these treatments, the effectiveness of each treatment type compared with the others, the latest research on radiation therapy treatment, and future research directions. We found that proton therapy is the most promising and effective form of radiation therapy, with photon methods such as intensity modulated radiation therapy, 3D-conformal radiation therapy, image guided radiation therapy, and volumetric modulated radiation therapy also showing very good comparative performance

Dosimetric comparison study between intensity modulated radiation therapy and three-dimensional conformal proton therapy for pelvic bone marrow sparing in the treatment of cervical cancer.

The objective was to compare intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with 3D conformal proton therapy (3DCPT) in the treatment of cervical cancer. In particular, each technique's ability to spare pelvic bone marrow (PBM) was of primary interest in this study. A total of six cervical cancer patients (3 postoperative and 3 intact) were planned and analyzed. All plans had uniform 1.0 cm CTV-PTV margin and satisfied the 95% PTV with 100% isodose (prescription dose = 45 Gy) coverage. Dose-volume histograms (DVH) were analyzed for comparison. The overall PTV and PBM volumes were 1035.9 ± 192.2 cc and 1151.4 ± 198.3 cc, respectively. In terms of PTV dose conformity index (DCI) and dose homogeneity index (DHI), 3DCPT was slightly superior to IMRT with 1.00 ± 0.001, 1.01 ± 0.02, and 1.10 ± 0.02, 1.13 ± 0.01, respectively. In addition, 3DCPT demonstrated superiority in reducing lower doses (i.e., V30 or less) to PBM, small bowel and bladder. Particularly in PBM, average V10 and V20 reductions of 10.8% and 7.4% (p = 0.001 and 0.04), respectively, were observed. However, in the higher dose range, IMRT provided better sparing (> V30). For example, in small bowel and PBM, average reductions in V45 of 4.9% and 10.0% (p = 0.048 and 0.008), respectively, were observed. Due to its physical characteristics such as low entrance dose, spread-out Bragg peak and finite particle range of protons, 3DCPT illustrated superior target coverage uniformity and sparing of the lower doses in PBM and other organs. Further studies are, however, needed to fully exploit the benefits of protons for general use in cervical cancer

The scenario-based generalization of radiation therapy margins

We give a scenario-based treatment plan optimization formulation that is equivalent to planning with geometric margins if the scenario doses are calculated using the static dose cloud approximation. If the scenario doses are instead calculated more accurately, then our formulation provides a novel robust planning method that overcomes many of the difficulties associated with previous scenario-based robust planning methods. In particular, our method protects only against uncertainties that can occur in practice, it gives a sharp dose fall-off outside high dose regions, and it avoids underdosage of the target in ``easy'' scenarios. The method shares the benefits of the previous scenario-based robust planning methods over geometric margins for applications where the static dose cloud approximation is inaccurate, such as irradiation with few fields and irradiation with ion beams. These properties are demonstrated on a suite of phantom cases planned for treatment with scanned proton beams subject to systematic setup uncertainty

Commissioning and Evaluation of an Electronic Portal Imaging Device-Based In-Vivo Dosimetry Software.

This study reports on our experience with the in-vivo dose verification software, EPIgray® (DOSIsoft, Cachan, France). After the initial commissioning process, clinical experiments on phantom treatments were evaluated to assess the level of accuracy of the electronic portal imaging device (EPID) based in-vivo dose verification. EPIgray was commissioned based on the company's instructions. This involved ion chamber measurements and portal imaging of solid water blocks of various thicknesses between 5 and 35 cm. Field sizes varied between 2 x 2 cm2 and 20 x 20 cm2. The determined conversion factors were adjusted through an additional iterative process using treatment planning system calculations. Subsequently, evaluation was performed using treatment plans of single and opposed beams, as well as intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans, based on recommendations from the task group report TG-119 to test for dose reconstruction accuracy. All tests were performed using blocks of solid water slabs as a phantom. For single square fields, the dose at isocenter was reconstructed within 3% accuracy in EPIgray compared to the treatment planning system dose. Similarly, the relative deviation of the total dose was accurately reconstructed within 3% for all IMRT plans with points placed inside a high-dose region near the isocenter. Predictions became less accurate than < 5% when the evaluation point was outside the treatment target. Dose at points 5 cm or more away from the isocenter or within an avoidance structure was reconstructed less reliably. EPIgray formalism accuracy is adequate for an efficient error detection system with verifications performed in high-dose volumes. It provides immediate intra-fractional feedback on the delivery of treatment plans without affecting the treatment beam. Besides the EPID, no additional hardware is required. The software evaluates local point dose measurements to verify treatment plan delivery and patient positioning within 5% accuracy, depending on the placement of evaluation points

The grid-dose-spreading algorithm for dose distribution calculation in heavy charged particle radiotherapy

A new variant of the pencil-beam (PB) algorithm for dose distribution calculation for radiotherapy with protons and heavier ions, the grid-dose spreading (GDS) algorithm, is proposed. The GDS algorithm is intrinsically faster than conventional PB algorithms due to approximations in convolution integral, where physical calculations are decoupled from simple grid-to-grid energy transfer. It was effortlessly implemented to a carbon-ion radiotherapy treatment planning system to enable realistic beam blurring in the field, which was absent with the broad-beam (BB) algorithm. For a typical prostate treatment, the slowing factor of the GDS algorithm relative to the BB algorithm was 1.4, which is a great improvement over the conventional PB algorithms with a typical slowing factor of several tens. The GDS algorithm is mathematically equivalent to the PB algorithm for horizontal and vertical coplanar beams commonly used in carbon-ion radiotherapy while dose deformation within the size of the pristine spread occurs for angled beams, which was within 3 mm for a single proton pencil beam of $30^\circ$ incidence, and needs to be assessed against the clinical requirements and tolerances in practical situations.Comment: 7 pages, 3 figure