Study on the transferability of the knowledge-based VMAT model to predict IMRT plans in prostate cancer radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of VMAT library-derived model transfer in the prediction of IMRT plans by dosimetry comparison among with three groups of IMRT plans: two groups of automatic IMRT plans generated by the knowledge-based the volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) model and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) model and one group of manual IMRT plans. METHODS: 52 prostate cancer patients who had completed radiotherapy were selected and randomly divided into 2 groups with 40 and 12 separately. Then both VMAT and IMRT plans were manually designed for all patients. The total plans in the group with 40 cases as training datasets were added to the knowledge-based planning (KBP) models for learning and finally obtained VMAT and IMRT training models. Another 12 cases were selected as the validation group to be used to generated auto IMRT plans by KBP VMAT and IMRT models. At last, the radiotherapy plans from three groups were obtained: the automated IMRT plan (V-IMRT) predicted by the VMAT model, the automated IMRT plan (I-IMRT) predicted by the IMRT model and the manual IMRT plan (M-IMRT) designed before. The dosimetric parameters of planning target volume (PTV) and organ at risks (OARs) as well as the time parameters (monitor unit, MU) were statistically analyzed. RESULTS: The dose limit of all plans in the training datasets met the clinical requirements. Compared with the training plans added to VMAT model, the dosimetry parameters have no statistical differences in PTV (P > 0.05); the dose of X% volume (Dx%) with D25% and D35% in rectal and the maximum dose (Dmax) in the right femoral head were lower (P = 0.04, P = 0.01, P = 0.00) while D50% in rectal was higher (< 0.05) in the IMRT model plans. In the 12 validation cases, both automated plans showed better dose distribution compared with the M-IMRT plan: the Dmax of PTV in the I-IMRT plans and the dose in volume of interesting (VOI) of bladder and bilateral femoral heads were lower with a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). Compared with the I-IMRT plans, dosimetric parameters in PTV and VOI of all OARs had no statistically significant differences (P > 0.05), but the Dmax in left femoral heard and D15% in the right femoral head were lower and have significant differences (P < 0.05). Furthermore, the low-dose regions, which was defined as all volumes outside of the PTV (RV) with the statistical parameters of mean dose (Dmean), the volume of covering more than 5 Gy dose (V5Gy), and also the time parameter (MU) required to perform the plan were considered. The results showed that Dmean in V-IMRT was smaller than that in the I-IMRT plan (P = 0.02) and there was no significant difference in V5Gy and MU (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Compared with the manual plan, the IMRT plans generated by the KBP models had a significant advantage in dose control of both OARs and PTV. Compared to the I-IMRT plans, the V-IMRT plans was not only without significant disadvantages, but it also achieved slightly better control of the low-dose region, which meet the clinical requirements and can used in the clinical treatment. This study demonstrates that it is feasible to transfer the KBP VMAT model in the prediction of IMRT plans.

Quantifying 6D tumor motion and calculating PTV margins during liver stereotactic radiotherapy with fiducial tracking.

Objective: Our study aims to estimate intra-fraction six-dimensional (6D) tumor motion with rotational correction and the related correlations between motions of different degrees of freedom (DoF), as well as quantify sufficient anisotropic clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume (PTV) margins during stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) of liver cancer with fiducial tracking technique. Methods: A cohort of 12 patients who were implanted with 3 or 4 golden markers were included in this study, and 495 orthogonal kilovoltage (kV) pairs of images acquired during the first fraction were used to extract the spacial position of each golden marker. Translational and rotational motions of tumor were calculated based on the marker coordinates by using an iterative closest point (ICP) algorithm. Moreover, the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients (r) were applied to quantify the correlations between motions with different degrees of freedom (DoFs). The population mean displacement ( M P ¯ ), systematic error (Σ) and random error (σ) were obtained to calculate PTV margins based on published recipes. Results: The mean translational variability of tumors were 0.56, 1.24 and 3.38 mm in the left-right (LR, X), anterior-posterior (AP, Y), and superior-inferior (SI, Z) directions, respectively. The average rotational angles θ X , θ Y and θ Z around the three coordinate axes were 0.88, 1.24 and 1.12, respectively. (|r|>0.4) was obtainted between Y -Z , Y - θ Z , Z -θ Z and θ X - θ Y . The PTV margins calculated based on 13 published recipes in X, Y, and Z directions were 1.08, 2.26 and 5.42 mm, and the 95% confidence interval (CI) of them were (0.88,1.28), (1.99,2.53) and (4.78,6.05), respectively. Conclusions: The maximum translational motion was in SI direction, and the largest correlation coefficient of Y-Z was obtained. We recommend margins of 2, 3 and 7 mm in LR, AP and SI directions, respectively.

Monte Carlo simulation of linac using PRIMO.

BACKGROUND: Monte Carlo simulation is considered as the most accurate method for dose calculation in radiotherapy. PRIMO is a Monte-Carlo program with a user-friendly graphical interface. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A VitalBeam with 6MV and 6MV flattening filter free (FFF), equipped with the 120 Millennium multileaf collimator was simulated by PRIMO. We adjusted initial energy, energy full width at half maximum (FWHM), focal spot FWHM, and beam divergence to match the measurements. The water tank and ion-chamber were used in the measurement. Percentage depth dose (PDD) and off axis ratio (OAR) were evaluated with gamma passing rates (GPRs) implemented in PRIMO. PDDs were matched at different widths of standard square fields. OARs were matched at five depths. Transmission factor and dose leaf gap (DLG) were simulated. DLG was measured by electronic portal imaging device using a sweeping gap method. RESULT: For the criterion of 2%/2 mm, 1%/2 mm and 1%/1 mm, the GPRs of 6MV PDD were 99.33-100%, 99-100%, and 99-100%, respectively; the GPRs of 6MV FFF PDD were 99.33-100%, 98.99-99.66%, and 97.64-98.99%, respectively; the GPRs of 6MV OAR were 96.4-100%, 90.99-100%, and 85.12-98.62%, respectively; the GPRs of 6MV FFF OAR were 95.15-100%, 89.32-100%, and 87.02-99.74%, respectively. The calculated DLG matched well with the measurement (6MV: 1.36 mm vs. 1.41 mm; 6MV FFF: 1.07 mm vs. 1.03 mm, simulation vs measurement). The transmission factors were similar (6MV: 1.25% vs. 1.32%; 6MV FFF: 0.8% vs. 1.12%, simulation vs measurement). CONCLUSION: The calculated PDD, OAR, DLG and transmission factor were all in good agreement with measurements. PRIMO is an independent (with respect to analytical dose calculation algorithm) and accurate Monte Carlo tool.