Abstract

PurposeThe objectives of the work presented in this paper were to (1) implement a robust‐optimization method for deliverable mixed‐beam radiotherapy (MBRT) plans within a previously developed MBRT planning framework; (2) perform an experimental validation of the delivery of robust‐optimized MBRT plans; and (3) compare PTV‐based and robust‐optimized MBRT plans in terms of target dose robustness and organs at risk (OAR) sparing for clinical head and neck and brain patient cases.MethodsA robust‐optimization method, which accounts for translational setup errors, was implemented within a previously developed treatment planning framework for MBRT. The framework uses a hybrid direct aperture optimization method combining column generation and simulated annealing. A robust plan was developed and then delivered to an anthropomorphic head phantom using the Developer Mode of a TrueBeam linac. Planar dose distributions were measured and compared to the planned dose. Robust‐optimized and PTV‐based plans were developed for three clinical patient cases consisting of two head and neck cases and one brain case. The plans were compared in terms of the robustness to 5 mm shifts of the target volume dose as well as in terms of OAR sparing.ResultsUsing a gamma criterion of 3%/2 mm and a dose threshold of 10%, the agreement between film measurements and dose calculations was better than 97.7% for the total plan and better than 95.5% for the electron component of the plan. For the two head and neck patient cases, the average clinical target volume (CTV) dose homogeneity index (V95%–V107%) over all the considered setup error scenarios was on average 19% lower for the PTV‐based plans and it had a larger standard deviation. The robust‐optimized plans achieved, on average, a 20% reduction in the OAR doses compared to the PTV‐based plans. For the brain patient case, the CTV dose homogeneity index was similar for the two plans, while the OAR doses were 22% lower, on average, for the robust‐optimized plan. No clear trend in terms of electron contributions was found across the three patient cases, although robust‐optimized plans tended toward higher electron beam energies.ConclusionsA framework for robust optimization of deliverable MBRT plans has been developed and validated. PTV‐based MBRT were found to not be robust to setup errors, while the dose delivered by the robust‐optimized plans were clinically acceptable for all considered error scenarios and had better OAR sparing. This study shows that the robust optimization is a promising alternative to conventional PTV margins for MBRT.

Highlights

  • Mixed-beam radiotherapy (MBRT) refers to the combination of intensity-modulated photon beams with intensity- and energy-modulated electron beams

  • This study shows that the robust optimization is a promising alternative to conventional PTV margins for MBRT

  • Compared to the previous experimental validation of the delivery of MBRT plans by Mueller et al.,[6] the agreement between film measurements and dose calculations for our robust plans was slightly lower, at 97.7% for 3%/2 mm criterion, but still acceptable according to the recommendations of AAPM Task Group 218.25 The photon component of the MBRT plans previously validated by Mueller et al consisted of non-coplanar arcs, while in the current study we used a coplanar step-and-shoot delivery for photons and electrons

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Mixed-beam radiotherapy (MBRT) refers to the combination of intensity-modulated photon beams with intensity- and energy-modulated electron beams. One of the challenges to the delivery of MBRT plans is the need to collimate the electron beams close to the patient surface to minimize in-air beam scattering. Many of the earlier MBRT studies relied on a custom electron multi-leaf collimator (MLC),[9,10] more recently the feasibility of using the photon MLC with a shortened source-to-surface distance (SSD) has been shown.[11] The optimization of MBRT plans is challenging due to the increased degrees of freedom resulting from the availability of multiple beam modalities and energies. Earlier MBRT planning approaches reduced these degrees of freedom for the plan optimization by pre-selecting the electron beam energies based on the target depth.[4]

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.