Uncertainty in the positioning of patients receiving treatment for brain metastases and wearing surgical mask underneath thermoplastic mask during COVID-19 crisis.

Thermoplastic masks, used along with surgical masks, enable immobilization methods to reduce the risk of infection in patients undergoing intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery and stereotactic radiotherapy (SRS/SRT) during the COVID-19 crisis. The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of thermoplastic mask immobilization with a surgical mask using an ExacTrac system. Twelve patients each with brain metastases were immobilized using a thermoplastic mask and a surgical mask and only a thermoplastic mask. Two x-ray images were acquired to correct (XC) and verify (XV) the patient's position at a couch angle of 0°. Subsequently, the XC and XV images were acquired at each planned couch angle for non-coplanar beams. When the position errors were detected after couch rotation for non-coplanar beams, the errors were corrected at each planned couch angle until a clinically acceptable tolerance was attained. The position errors in the translational and rotational directions (vertical, lateral, longitudinal, pitch, roll, and yaw) were retrospectively investigated using data from the ExacTrac system database. A standard deviation of XC translational and rotational position errors with and without a surgical mask in the lateral (1.52 vs 2.07 mm), longitudinal (1.59 vs 1.87 mm), vertical (1.00 vs 1.73 mm), pitch (0.99 vs 0.79°), roll (1.24 vs 0.68°), and yaw (1.58 vs 0.90°) directions were observed at a couch angle of 0°. Most of patient positioning errors were less than 1.0 mm or 1.0° after the couch was rotated to the planned angle for non-coplanar beams. The overall absolute values of the translational and rotational XV position errors with and without the surgical mask were less than 0.5 mm and 0.5°, respectively. This study showed that a thermoplastic mask with a surgical mask is a feasible immobilization technique for brain SRS/SRT patients using the ExacTrac system.

A Multi-Institutional Retrospective Study of Repeated Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Intrahepatic Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Through this multi-institutional study, we aimed to retrospectively evaluate the safety and efficacy of repeated stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for intrahepatic recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 2005 and 2017, 709 patients with 835 HCCs underwent SBRT; those treated with repeated SBRT were eligible. The median prescribed dose was 40 Gy in 5 fractions. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients with 189 tumors underwent repeated SBRT (≥ 2 courses [median 2 times; range, 2-5 times]). The median follow-up periods from the first to the second SBRT were 41.5 (range, 12-99) and 20 (range, 1-81) months, respectively. The median interval between the first and second SBRT was 18 (range, 3-74) months. The 5-year local recurrence rate was 6.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.3%-13.4%). The 5-year overall survival (OS) and liver-related death rates from the first SBRT were 60.4% (95% CI, 47.0%-73.8%) and 32.9% (95% CI, 20.3%-46.0%), respectively, and the 3-year rates from the second SBRT were 61.0% (95% CI, 49.9%-75.2%) and 34.5% (95% CI, 20.6%-48.9%), respectively. The frequency of grade 3 toxicity was not significantly different between the first and second SBRT (first: 11% [95% CI, 5.2%-20%]; second: 15% [95% CI, 7.9%-24%]; P = .48). Among 39 patients with no intrahepatic recurrence for 1 year after the first and second SBRT, the deterioration in liver function after the first and second SBRT was not significantly different; the albumin-bilirubin score increased 1 year after the first versus second SBRT (first, 0.143 ± 0.23; second, 0.195 ± 0.38; P = .48). Multivariate analysis revealed that the intrahepatic recurrence-free interval was the only significant factor for OS. CONCLUSIONS: Repeated SBRT for intrahepatic recurrent HCC resulted in high local control with safety and a satisfactory OS comparable with that of other curative local treatments for patients with well-preserved liver function.

Variations Between Dose-Ventilation and Dose-Perfusion Metrics in Radiation Therapy Planning for Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Currently, several active clinical trials of functional lung avoidance radiation therapy using different imaging modalities for ventilation or perfusion are underway. Patients with lung cancer often show ventilation-perfusion mismatch, whereas the significance of dose-function metric remains unclear. The aim of the present study was to compare dose-ventilation metrics with dose-perfusion metrics for radiation therapy plan evaluation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Pretreatment 4-dimensional computed tomography and 99mTc-macroaggregated albumin single-photon emission computed tomography perfusion images of 60 patients with lung cancer treated with radiation therapy were analyzed. Ventilation images were created using the deformable image registration of 4-dimensional computed tomography image sets and image analysis for regional volume changes as a surrogate for ventilation. Ventilation and perfusion images were converted into percentile distribution images. Analyses included Pearson's correlation coefficient and comparison of agreements between the following dose-ventilation and dose-perfusion metrics: functional mean lung dose and functional percent lung function receiving 5, 10, 20, 30, and 40 Gy (fV5, fV10, fV20, fV30, and fV40, respectively). RESULTS: Overall, the dose-ventilation metrics were greater than the dose-perfusion metrics (ie, fV20, 26.3% ± 9.9% vs 23.9% ± 9.8%). Correlations between the dose-ventilation and dose-perfusion metrics were strong (range, r = 0.94-0.97), whereas the agreements widely varied among patients, with differences as large as 6.6 Gy for functional mean lung dose and 11.1% for fV20. Paired t test indicated that the dose-ventilation and dose-perfusion metrics were significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Strong correlations were present between the dose-ventilation and dose-perfusion metrics. However, the agreement between the dose-ventilation and dose-perfusion metrics widely varied among patients, suggesting that ventilation-based radiation therapy plan evaluation may not be comparable to that based on perfusion. Future studies should elucidate the correlation of dose-function metrics with clinical pulmonary toxicity metrics.

Development of geometrically ideal dose distribution as a reference for treatment planning in VMAT using filtered back-projection method.

PURPOSE: To determine optimal dose distribution in the treatment planning of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), a virtually ideal dose distribution was developed as a reference by applying filtered back-projection method. METHODS: Delineated structures in patient CT scans were identified using a treatment planning system. The projection of the planning target volume (PTV) was calculated along the X-ray direction for each angle of rotation. Each projection was Fourier transformed to the frequency space; a Shepp-Logan filter was applied, then an inverse Fourier transformation was performed. As the dose irradiation cannot assume a negative value, the filtered projections were shifted using the minimum value inside of the PTV. All values outside of the PTV were set to zero. The corrected filtered projections were then multiplied by the tissue-maximum ratio according to each voxel depth from the surface of the body to simulate X-ray attenuation. Finally, the distributions of multiple rotational angles were convolved to simulate the dose distribution of the VMAT. RESULTS: Ideal dose distributions were generated with sufficient uniformity inside of the PTV. Dose spreading except for the PTV due to external irradiation was reproduced in the case of a brain tumor. A reference dose distribution including OAR sparing was produced. The efficacy of this process as a target for optimum planning was confirmed. CONCLUSION: Using applied filtered back-projection, the ideal dose distribution, which excluded some device-oriented restrictions, was generated. This application will provide support for the determination of VMAT planning quality by providing reference dose distributions.

Interfractional diaphragm changes during breath-holding in stereotactic body radiotherapy for liver cancer.

AIM AND BACKGROUND: IGRT based on bone matching may produce a large target positioning error in terms of the reproducibility of expiration breath-holding on SBRT for liver cancer. We evaluated the intrafractional and interfractional errors using the diaphragm position at the end of expiration by utilising Abches and analysed the factor of the interfractional error. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Intrafractional and interfractional errors were measured using a couple of frontal kV images, planning computed tomography (pCT) and daily cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Moreover, max-min diaphragm position within daily CBCT image sets with respect to pCT and the maximum value of diaphragm position difference between CBCT and pCT were calculated. RESULTS: The mean ± SD (standard deviation) of the intra-fraction diaphragm position variation in the frontal kV images was 1.0 ± 0.7 mm in the C-C direction. The inter-fractional diaphragm changes were 0.4 ± 4.6 mm in the C-C direction, 1.4 ± 2.2 mm in the A-P direction, and -0.6 ± 1.8 mm in the L-R direction. There were no significant differences between the maximum value of the max-min diaphragm position within daily CBCT image sets with respect to pCT and the maximum value of diaphragm position difference between CBCT and pCT. CONCLUSIONS: Residual intrafractional variability of diaphragm position is minimal, but large interfractional diaphragm changes were observed. There was a small effect in the patient condition difference between pCT and CBCT. The impact of the difference in daily breath-holds on the interfractional diaphragm position was large or the difference in daily breath-holding heavily influenced the interfractional diaphragm change.

Energy spectrum and dose enhancement due to the depth of the Lipiodol position using flattened and unflattened beams.

AIM: Lipiodol was used for stereotactic body radiotherapy combining trans arterial chemoembolization. Lipiodol used for tumour seeking in trans arterial chemoembolization remains in stereotactic body radiation therapy. In our previous study, we reported the dose enhancement effect in Lipiodol with 10× flattening-filter-free (FFF). The objective of our study was to evaluate the dose enhancement and energy spectrum of photons and electrons due to the Lipiodol depth with flattened (FF) and FFF beams. METHODS: FF and FFF for 6 MV beams from TrueBeam were used in this study. The Lipiodol (3 × 3 × 3 cm3) was located at depths of 1, 3, 5, 10, 20, and 30 cm in water. The dose enhancement factor (DEF) and the energy fluence were obtained by Monte Carlo calculations of the particle and heavy ion transport code system (PHITS). RESULTS: The DEFs at the centre of Lipiodol with the FF beam were 6.8, 7.3, 7.6, 7.2, 6.1, and 5.7% and those with the FFF beam were 20.6, 22.0, 21.9, 20.0, 12.3, and 12.1% at depths of 1, 3, 5, 10, 20, and 30 cm, respectively, where Lipiodol was located in water. Moreover, spectrum results showed that more low-energy photons and electrons were present at shallow depth where Lipiodol was located in water. The variation in the low-energy spectrum due to the depth of the Lipiodol position was more explicit with the FFF beam than that with the FF beam. CONCLUSIONS: The current study revealed variations in the DEF and energy spectrum due to the depth of the Lipiodol position with the FF and FFF beams. Although the FF beam could reduce the effect of energy dependence due to the depth of the Lipiodol position, the dose enhancement was overall small. To cause a large dose enhancement, the FFF beam with the distance of the patient surface to Lipiodol within 10 cm should be used.

Dosimetric impact of Lipiodol in stereotactic body radiation therapy on liver after trans-arterial chemoembolization.

PURPOSE: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) combining trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE) with Lipiodol is expected to improve local control. This study is aimed to estimate the dose enhancement in Lipiodol's proximity and to evaluate the dose calculation accuracy of the Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm and anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) in the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) (ver. 11, Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, USA), compared with that of the Monte Carlo (MC) calculation (using BEAMnrc/DOSXYZnrc code) for a virtual phantom and a treatment plan for liver SBRT after TACE. METHODS: The MC calculation accuracy was validated by comparing its results with the percent depth dose (PDD) and the off-axis ratio (OAR) measured using a water-equivalent phantom containing Lipiodol. The dose difference in Lipiodol's proximity and the inhomogeneity correction accuracies of the AAA, AXB algorithm, and MC calculation were evaluated by calculating the PDDs and OARs for the virtual phantom with Lipiodol and the lateral profile for the clinical plan data. RESULTS: The measured data and the MC results agreed within 3%. The average dose in the Lipiodol uptake region was higher by 8.1% for the virtual phantom and 6.0% for the clinical case compared to that in regions without Lipiodol uptake. For the virtual phantom, compared with the MC calculation, the AAA and the AXB algorithm underestimated the doses immediately upstream of the Lipiodol region by 5.0% and 4.2%, in the Lipiodol region by 7.4% and 9.8%, and downstream of the Lipiodol region by 5.5% and 3.9% respectively. These discrepancy between the AXB and MC calculations were due to the incorrect assignment of Lipiodol material properties. Namely, the bone material was assigned automatically by the AXB algorithm as the materials for the AXB algorithm do not contain iodine, which is the main constituent of Lipiodol. CONCLUSIONS: The MC calculation indicated a larger and more accurate dose increase in Lipiodol compared with the TPS algorithms. The observed dose enhancement in the tumor area could be clinically significant.

[Evaluation of 3D Dose Distribution and Clinical Applications Using Polymer Gel Dosimeter].

Evaluation of dosimetric impact of the interplay effect between multi-leaf collimator (MLC) movement and tumor respiratory motion during volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivery using polymer gel dosimeter was taken as an example in this article. An excellent gas barrier PAN (polyacrylonitrile) bottle filled with polyacrylamide-based gel dosimeter contained magnesium chloride as a sensitizer (iPAGAT dosimeter) was set to the QUASAR™ respiratory motion phantom (Modus), and was moved with motion amplitudes (peak-to-peak amplitude) of 1 and 2 cm with a 4 second period during VMAT delivery by the Novalis Tx linear accelerator (Varian/BrainLAB). Two spherical GTVs with 2 cm diameter and two PTVs were defined considering the respiratory motion and setup uncertainties. Three-dimensional (3D) dose distribution in iPAGAT dosimeter was read out by the 3T MRI system, and was evaluated by the dose profiles, gamma analysis and the dose-volume histogram (DVH) using in-house developed software. As a result, interplay effect was negligible since dose coverage of GTV was sufficient during VMAT delivery with simulated respiratory motion.

Accuracy of dose calculation algorithms for virtual heterogeneous phantoms and intensity-modulated radiation therapy in the head and neck.

This study verified the dose calculation accuracy of the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA), Acuros XB version 10 (AXB10), and version 11 (AXB11) installed in an Eclipse treatment planning system, by comparing with Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. First, the algorithms were compared in terms of dose distributions using four types of virtual heterogeneous multi-layer phantom for 6 and 15 MV photons. Next, the clinical head and neck intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) dose distributions for 6 MV photons were evaluated using dose volume histograms (DVHs) and three-dimensional gamma analysis. In percentage depth doses (PDDs) for virtual heterogeneous phantoms, AAA overestimated absorbed doses in the air cavity, bone, and aluminum in comparison with MC, AXB10, and AXB11. The PDDs of AXB10 almost agreed with those of MC and AXB11, except for the air cavity. The dose in the air cavity was higher for AXB10 than for AXB11, because their electron cutoff energies are set at 500 and 200 keV, respectively. For head and neck IMRT dose distributions, the D95 in the clinical target volume (CTV) for AAA was almost the same as that for AXB10 and was approximately 7 % larger than that for MC. Comparing each approach with MC using a criterion of 3 %/3 mm, the pass rates for AXB10, AXB11, and AAA were 92.4, 94.7, and 90.4 % in the CTV, respectively. In conclusion, AAA produces dose errors in heterogeneous regions, while AXB11 provides calculation accuracy comparable to MC. AXB10 overestimates the dose in regions that include an air cavity.

New absorbed dose measurement with cylindrical water phantoms for multidetector CT.

The aim of this study was to develop new dosimetry with cylindrical water phantoms for multidetector computed tomography (MDCT). The ionization measurement was performed with a Farmer ionization chamber at the center and four peripheral points in the body-type and head-type cylindrical water phantoms. The ionization was converted to the absorbed dose using a (60)Co absorbed-dose-to-water calibration factor and Monte Carlo (MC) -calculated correction factors. The correction factors were calculated from MDCT (Brilliance iCT, 64-slice, Philips Electronics) modeled with GMctdospp (IMPS, Germany) software based on the EGSnrc MC code. The spectrum of incident x-ray beams and the configuration of a bowtie filter for MDCT were determined so that calculated photon intensity attenuation curves for aluminum (Al) and calculated off-center ratio (OCR) profiles in air coincided with those measured. The MC-calculated doses were calibrated by the absorbed dose measured at the center in both cylindrical water phantoms. Calculated doses were compared with measured doses at four peripheral points and the center in the phantom for various beam pitches and beam collimations. The calibration factors and the uncertainty of the absorbed dose determined using this method were also compared with those obtained by CTDIair (CT dose index in air). Calculated Al half-value layers and OCRs in air were within 0.3% and 3% agreement with the measured values, respectively. Calculated doses at four peripheral points and the centers for various beam pitches and beam collimations were within 5% and 2% agreement with measured values, respectively. The MC-calibration factors by our method were 44-50% lower than values by CTDIair due to the overbeaming effect. However, the calibration factors for CTDIair agreed within 5% with those of our method after correction for the overbeaming effect. Our method makes it possible to directly measure the absorbed dose for MDCT and is more robust and accurate than the CTDIair measurement.

Absorbed dose measurements for kV-cone beam computed tomography in image-guided radiation therapy.

In this study, we develope a novel method to directly evaluate an absorbed dose-to-water for kilovoltage-cone beam computed tomography (kV-CBCT) in image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT). Absorbed doses for the kV-CBCT systems of the Varian On-Board Imager (OBI) and the Elekta X-ray Volumetric Imager (XVI) were measured by a Farmer ionization chamber with a (60)Co calibration factor. The chamber measurements were performed at the center and four peripheral points in body-type (30 cm diameter and 51 cm length) and head-type (16 cm diameter and 33 cm length) cylindrical water phantoms. The measured ionization was converted to the absorbed dose-to-water by using a (60)Co calibration factor and a Monte Carlo (MC)-calculated beam quality conversion factor, kQ, for (60)Co to kV-CBCT. The irradiation for OBI and XVI was performed with pelvis and head modes for the body- and the head-type phantoms, respectively. In addition, the dose distributions in the phantom for both kV-CBCT systems were calculated with MC method and were compared with measured values. The MC-calculated doses were calibrated at the center in the water phantom and compared with measured doses at four peripheral points. The measured absorbed doses at the center in the body-type phantom were 1.96 cGy for OBI and 0.83 cGy for XVI. The peripheral doses were 2.36-2.90 cGy for OBI and 0.83-1.06 cGy for XVI. The doses for XVI were lower up to approximately one-third of those for OBI. Similarly, the measured doses at the center in the head-type phantom were 0.48 cGy for OBI and 0.21 cGy for XVI. The peripheral doses were 0.26-0.66 cGy for OBI and 0.16-0.30 cGy for XVI. The calculated peripheral doses agreed within 3% in the pelvis mode and within 4% in the head mode with measured doses for both kV-CBCT systems. In addition, the absorbed dose determined in this study was approximately 4% lower than that in TG-61 but the absorbed dose by both methods was in agreement within their combined uncertainty. This method is more robust and accurate compared to the dosimetry based on a conventional air-kerma calibration factor. Therefore, it is possible to be used as a standard dosimetry protocol for kV-CBCT in IGRT.

Three-dimensional gamma analysis of dose distributions in individual structures for IMRT dose verification.

Our purpose in this study was to implement three-dimensional (3D) gamma analysis for structures of interest such as the planning target volume (PTV) or clinical target volume (CTV), and organs at risk (OARs) for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) dose verification. IMRT dose distributions for prostate and head and neck (HN) cancer patients were calculated with an analytical anisotropic algorithm in an Eclipse (Varian Medical Systems) treatment planning system (TPS) and by Monte Carlo (MC) simulation. The MC dose distributions were calculated with EGSnrc/BEAMnrc and DOSXYZnrc user codes under conditions identical to those for the TPS. The prescribed doses were 76 Gy/38 fractions with five-field IMRT for the prostate and 33 Gy/17 fractions with seven-field IMRT for the HN. TPS dose distributions were verified by the gamma passing rates for the whole calculated volume, PTV or CTV, and OARs by use of 3D gamma analysis with reference to MC dose distributions. The acceptance criteria for the 3D gamma analysis were 3/3 and 2 %/2 mm for a dose difference and a distance to agreement. The gamma passing rates in PTV and OARs for the prostate IMRT plan were close to 100 %. For the HN IMRT plan, the passing rates of 2 %/2 mm in CTV and OARs were substantially lower because inhomogeneous tissues such as bone and air in the HN are included in the calculation area. 3D gamma analysis for individual structures is useful for IMRT dose verification.

[Comparison of dose calculation algorithms in stereotactic radiation therapy in lung].

Dose calculation algorithms in radiation treatment planning systems (RTPSs) play a crucial role in stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in the lung with heterogeneous media. This study investigated the performance and accuracy of dose calculation for three algorithms: analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA), pencil beam convolution (PBC) and Acuros XB (AXB) in Eclipse (Varian Medical Systems), by comparison against the Voxel Monte Carlo algorithm (VMC) in iPlan (BrainLab). The dose calculations were performed with clinical lung treatments under identical planning conditions, and the dose distributions and the dose volume histogram (DVH) were compared among algorithms. AAA underestimated the dose in the planning target volume (PTV) compared to VMC and AXB in most clinical plans. In contrast, PBC overestimated the PTV dose. AXB tended to slightly overestimate the PTV dose compared to VMC but the discrepancy was within 3%. The discrepancy in the PTV dose between VMC and AXB appears to be due to differences in physical material assignments, material voxelization methods, and an energy cut-off for electron interactions. The dose distributions in lung treatments varied significantly according to the calculation accuracy of the algorithms. VMC and AXB are better algorithms than AAA for SBRT.

Development of multi-planar dose verification by use of a flat panel EPID for intensity-modulated radiation therapy.

Our purpose in this study was to evaluate the accuracy of a new multi-planar dose measurement method. The multi-planar dose distributions were reconstructed at each depth by convolution of EPID fluence and dose kernels with the use of EPIDose software (SunNuclear). The EPIDose was compared with EPID, MapCHECK (SunNuclear), EDR2 (Kodak), and Monte Carlo-calculated dose profiles. The EPIDose profiles were almost in agreement with Monte Carlo-calculated dose profiles and MapCHECK for test plans. The dose profiles were in good agreement with EDR2 at the penumbra region. For dose distributions, EPIDose, EDR2, and MapCHECK agreed with that of the treatment-planning system at each depth in the gamma analysis. In comparisons of clinical IMRT plans, EPIDose had almost the same accuracy as MapCHECK and EDR2. Because EPIDose has a wide dynamic range and high resolution, it is a useful tool for the complicated IMRT verification. Furthermore, EPIDose can also evaluate the absolute dose.