Very high-energy electron (VHEE) beams in radiation therapy; Treatment plan comparison between VHEE, VMAT, and PPBS.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of very high-energy electron beams (VHEE) in comparison to clinically derived treatment plans generated with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and proton pencil beam scanning (PPBS) technology. We developed a custom optimization script that could be applied automatically across modalities to eliminate operator bias during IMRT optimization. METHODS: Four clinical cases were selected (prostate cancer, lung cancer, pediatric brain tumor, and head and neck cancer (HNC)). The VHEE beams were calculated in the EGSnrc/DOSXYZnrc Monte Carlo code for 100 and 200 MeV beams. Treatment plans with VHEE, VMAT, and PPBS were optimized in a research version of RayStation using an in-house developed script to minimize operator bias between the different techniques. RESULTS: The in-house developed script generated similar or superior plans to the clinically used plans. In the comparisons between the modalities, the integral dose was lowest for the PPBS-generated plans in all cases. For the prostate case, the 200 MeV VHEE plan showed reduced integral dose and reduced organ at risk (OAR) dose compared to the VMAT plan. For all other cases, both the 100 and the 200 MeV VHEE plans were superior to the VMAT plans, and the VHEE plans showed better conformity and lower spinal cord dose in the pediatric brain case and lower brain stem dose in the HNC case when compared to the PPBS plan. CONCLUSIONS: The automated optimization developed in this study generated similar or superior plans as compared to the clinically used plan and represents an unbiased approach to compare treatment plans generated for different modalities. In the present study, we also show that VHEE plans are similar or superior to VMAT plans with reduced mean OAR dose and increased target conformity for a variety of clinical cases, and VHEE plans can even achieve reductions in OAR doses compared to PPBS plans for shallow targets. With increased VHEE energy, better conformity and even higher reductions in mean OAR doses are achieved. On the whole, VHEE was intermediate between photon VMAT and PPBS for OAR sparing.

Assessment of the quality of very high-energy electron radiotherapy planning.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To assess the quality of very-high energy electron (VHEE) scanning pencil beam radiation therapy in relation to state-of-the-art volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and to determine the extent of its application. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We planned five clinical cases with VHEE scanning pencil beams of 100 and 120MeV, equally distributed in a coplanar arrangement around the patient. The clinical cases included acoustic neuroma, and liver, lung, esophagus, and anal cancer cases. We performed Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculations and we optimized the dose in a research version of RayStation. VHEE plan performance was compared against clinically delivered VMAT. RESULTS: With equal target coverage, mean doses to organs at risk (OARs) were on average 22% lower for the VHEE plans compared to the VMAT plans. Dose conformity was equal or superior compared to the VMAT plans and integral dose to the body was in average 14% (9-22%) lower for the VHEE plans. CONCLUSIONS: The dosimetric advantages of VHEE as demonstrated for a variety of clinical cases, combined with the theoretical ultra fast treatment delivery, afford VHEE scanning pencil beam radiotherapy a suitable and potentially superior alternative for cancer radiotherapy.

Treatment planning for radiotherapy with very high-energy electron beams and comparison of VHEE and VMAT plans.

PURPOSE: The aim of this work was to develop a treatment planning workflow for rapid radiotherapy delivered with very high-energy electron (VHEE) scanning pencil beams of 60-120 MeV and to study VHEE plans as a function of VHEE treatment parameters. Additionally, VHEE plans were compared to clinical state-of-the-art volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) photon plans for three cases. METHODS: VHEE radiotherapy treatment planning was performed by linking EGSnrc Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculations with inverse treatment planning in a research version of RayStation. In order to study the effect of VHEE treatment parameters on VHEE dose distributions, a matlab graphical user interface (GUI) for calculation of VHEE MC pencil beam doses was developed. Through the GUI, pediatric case MC simulations were run for a number of beam energies (60, 80, 100, and 120 MeV), number of beams (13, 17, and 36), pencil beam spot (0.1, 1.0, and 3.0 mm) and grid (2.0, 2.5, and 3.5 mm) sizes, and source-to-axis distance, SAD (40 and 50 cm). VHEE plans for the pediatric case calculated with the different treatment parameters were optimized and compared. Furthermore, 100 MeV VHEE plans for the pediatric case, a lung, and a prostate case were calculated and compared to the clinically delivered VMAT plans. All plans were normalized such that the 100% isodose line covered 95% of the target volume. RESULTS: VHEE beam energy had the largest effect on the quality of dose distributions of the pediatric case. For the same target dose, the mean doses to organs at risk (OARs) decreased by 5%-16% when planned with 100 MeV compared to 60 MeV, but there was no further improvement in the 120 MeV plan. VHEE plans calculated with 36 beams outperformed plans calculated with 13 and 17 beams, but to a more modest degree (<8%). While pencil beam spacing and SAD had a small effect on VHEE dose distributions, 0.1-3 mm pencil beam sizes resulted in identical dose distributions. For the 100 MeV VHEE pediatric plan, OAR doses were up to 70% lower and the integral dose was 33% lower for VHEE compared to 6 MV VMAT. Additionally, VHEE conformity indices (CI100 = 1.09 and CI50 = 4.07) were better than VMAT conformity indices (CI100 = 1.30 and CI50 = 6.81). The 100 MeV VHEE lung plan resulted in mean dose decrease to all OARs by up to 27% for the same target coverage compared to the clinical 6 MV flattening filter-free (FFF) VMAT plan. The 100 MeV prostate plan resulted in 3% mean dose increase to the penile bulb and the urethra, but all other OAR mean doses were lower compared to the 15 MV VMAT plan. The lung case CI100 and CI50 conformity indices were 3% and 8% lower, respectively, in the VHEE plan compared to the VMAT plan. The prostate case CI100 and CI50 conformity indices were 1% higher and 8% lower, respectively, in the VHEE plan compared to the VMAT plan. CONCLUSIONS: The authors have developed a treatment planning workflow for MC dose calculation of pencil beams and optimization for treatment planning of VHEE radiotherapy. The authors have demonstrated that VHEE plans resulted in similar or superior dose distributions for pediatric, lung, and prostate cases compared to clinical VMAT plans.