X-ray Voxel Monte Carlo Algorithm Research Articles

Effect of auto flash margin on superficial dose in breast conserving radiotherapy for breast cancer.

PurposeTo investigate the dose‐effect of Auto Flash Margin (AFM) on breast cancer's superficial tissues based on the Treatment Planning System (TPS) in the breast‐conserving radiotherapy plan.MethodsA total of 16 breast‐conserving patients with early stage breast cancer were selected, using the X‐ray Voxel Monte Carlo (XVMC) algorithm. Then, every included case plan was designed using a 2 cm‐AFM (the value of AFM is 2 cm) and N‐AFM (without AFM). Under the condition of ensuring the same configuration of #MU and collimator, the absorbed dose after a simulated inspiratory motion was calculated again using the new plan center, which moved backward to the linac source. The dose difference between the measurement points between AFM and N‐AFM groups was compared.ResultsIn the dose results, PTVV50Gy of the AFM group was superior to that of the N‐AFM group, PTVD2%, PTVDmean, Lung_IpsiV20Gy, Lung_IpsiDmean, and BodyDmax. Also, the dose results of the N‐AFM group were significantly higher than those of the AFM group. However, there was no significant difference between Lung_ContraV5Gy, HeartDmean, and Breast_ContraV10Gy in the two groups. In the collimator alignments at the same angle between groups, the AFM group formed an apparent air region outside the collimator compared with the N‐AFM group. In the XVMC algorithm feature parameter, the AFM group had less #MU, higher QE, and slightly longer optimization time. The #segments of both groups were close to the 240 control points preset by the plan. The validation results of EBT3 film in both groups were more significant than 95%, meeting the clinical plan's application requirements. The difference in film results between groups was mainly reflected in the dose distribution at the near‐source. 4DCT was used to summarize the maximum and minimum inspiratory motion distances of 7.31 ± 0.45 and 3.42 ± 0.91 mm respectively.ConclusionsThese results suggest that the AFM function application could significantly reduce the possibility of insufficient tumor target caused by inspiratory motion and ensure sufficient tumor target exposure.

Feasibility of using a single transmission factor for the Integral Quality Monitor ® on dynamic 15 MV photon beams

PurposeTo investigate the feasibility of using a single transmission factor (TF) to account for the attenuation of the iRT Systems Integral Quality Monitor (IQM) on dynamic 15 MV photon beams supported by Gafchromic EBT3 film measurements in a realistic pelvic prosthesis phantom. Materials and methodsIQM TFs for 2 × 2 to 20 × 20 cm2 15 MV photon beams produced by an Elekta Synergy linac were measured with a 0.6 cm3 cylindrical chamber inside RW3 phantom slabs. A Monaco treatment planning system (v. 5.00.00) that uses the X-ray voxel Monte Carlo algorithm was used to generate intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans in a computed tomography scanned-based model of the pelvic phantom. The phantom was irradiated according to the plans with and without the IQM mounted on the linac. In each case, the absorbed dose in the phantom was measured with EBT3 Gafchromic film. In a second step each plan was re-scaled to new monitor units (MUs) taking into account the IQM TF. The phantom was irradiated according to the plans that now have the re-scaled MUs. Again, film dosimetry was performed with the IQM mounted to the linac. Monaco dose values were compared with film measurements using percentage differences and gamma index criteria of 3%/3 mm. ResultsThe measured IQM TFs varied within 0.1% over the range of fields evaluated. For the treatment plans, inside the target area, dose differences ≥4% were found between Monaco and EBT3 film for plans with unscaled MUs with the IQM mounted. Plans delivered with unscaled MUs without the IQM as well as plans delivered with scaled MUs with the IQM showed dose differences within 2% between Monaco and film. In these cases, the corresponding gamma pass rate between Monaco and film data was ≥90%. ConclusionA single TF is sufficient to scale MUs of IMRT/VMAT plans so that the attenuation in IQM is taken into account for dynamic 15 MV photon beams. Dose differences between corrected plans and film measurements are then within 2%, as opposed to ≥4% when not taken into account.

Is Monte Carlo-Based Dose Calculation Algorithm Required for All Lung Tumors Treated with Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy?

The primary objective of this study is to compare the accuracy of a Boltzmann equation solvers algorithm against a Monte Carlo based dose calculation algorithm for island and peripheral lung tumors treated with Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT). Ten lung SBRT patients considered for this retrospective study, five patients with an island lung tumor and five patients with a chest wall or lateral tumor . For each patient, a simulation CT scan and a 10-phase 4DCT scans were acquired. The initial delivered plans were planned with dynamic conformal arc technique using a planning system that utilizes the x-ray voxel Monte Carlo (XVMC) algorithm. The patients’ treatment plans were transferred to a treatment planning system utilizes the Acuros AXB algorithm. These plans were retrospectively re-calculated keeping the initial arc angles and multi leaf collimator (MLC) segments. Validation plans were generated by projecting the plans into a 4D detector/cylindrical diode detector array quality assurance (QA) phantom. Quality assurance plans were delivered using a 6X SRS beam. Measured dose distributions were compared with calculated dose distributions using 3% 3mm gamma analysis. Dose-volumetric data including the maximum dose, minimum dose, D95% for internal tumor volume (ITV) and planning tumor volume (PTV) were compared for the two algorithms using the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test. All analyses were performed using data and decision management software with two-tailed p-values reported and a p-value of <0.05 considered significant. The table below summarizes the results for dose-volumetric data for all 10 patients. For the island tumors the ITV minimum dose and the PTV minimum dose showed a trend for a difference between the AXB and XVMC algorithms (p=0.06, p=0.06, respectively). There was no difference observed between the ITV max, or PTV max . For the peripheral tumors there was no difference observed for any of the dose volumetric data. Passing rate for both algorithms is above 90% with (3mm, 3%) gamma analysis. The XVMC requires 16% more monitor unit than the AXB algorithm. The dosimetric performance of the AXB is comparable to the XVMC algorithm. This indicates that a Monte Carlo based dose calculation algorithm is not the only algorithm that can be used for lung tumors treated with SBRT. The AXB algorithm can be used clinically even for island type lung tumor where high heterogeneity is present. Slight differences in minimum doses were noted for island tumors; however, these differences are usually clinically acceptable.Abstract 3828; Table 1CriteriaXVMCAXBITV Max dose (%)131.2±5.6130.5±7.1ITV Min dose (%)106.7 ±6.2108.2 ±9.9PTV Max dose (%)131.2 ±6.2130.6 ±6.7PTV Min dose (%)83.1±5.386.0±3.9D95%101.4±1.9100.6±1.7Gamma (3%, 3mm)95.0 ± 3.093.7 ± 2.0 Open table in a new tab

Plan Quality and Delivery Time Comparisons Between Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy and Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Scalp Angiosarcoma: A Planning Study Using X-ray Voxel Monte Carlo Algorithm

Plan Quality and Delivery Time Comparisons Between Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy and Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Scalp Angiosarcoma: A Planning Study Using X-ray Voxel Monte Carlo Algorithm

SU-F-T-606: Monte Carlo Evaluation of Tissue Inhomogeneity Corrections in the Treatment of Liver Cancer Patients Using Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy

Purpose: To evaluate the dosimetric performance of X-ray Voxel Monte Carlo(XVMC) algorithm in effort to clinically validate Monte Carlo-approach in heterogeneous liver phantom and liver SBRT plans. Methods: An anthropomorphic RPC liver phantom incorporating a liver structure with two cylindrical targets and organs-at-risk (OARs) was used in phantom validation. Subsequently, five patients with metastatic liver cancer were treated using heterogeneity-corrected pencil-beam(PB-hete)algorithm were analyzed following RTOG-1112 criteria .ITV was delineated on MinIP and OARs were contoured on MeanIP images of 4D-CT. PTV was generated from ITV with 5-10mm uniform margin. Mean PTV was 81.3±46.4cc. Prescription was 30–45Gy in 5 fractions, with at least PTV(D95%)=100%. Hybrid SBRT plans were generated with noncoplanar/3D-conformal arcs plus static-beams at Novalis-TX consisting of HD-MLC and 6MV-SRS. SBRT plans were re-computed using XVMC algorithm utilizing identical beam-geometry, MLC-positions, and monitor units and subsequently compared to clinical PB-hete plans. Results: Our results using RPC liver motion phantom validation were all compliance with MD Anderson standards. However, compared to PB-hete, average target volume encompassed by the prescribed percent isodose (Vp) was 9.1% and 8.5% less for PTV1 and PTV2 with XVMC. For the clinical liver SBRT plans, PB-hete systematically overestimated PTV dose (D95, Dmean and D10) within ±2.0% (p<0.05) compared to XVMC. Mean value of Vp was about 3.8% less with XVMC compared to PB-hete (ranged 2.9–5.7% (p<0.003)). However, mean liver dose (MLD) was 3.2% higher (p<0.003), on average, with XVMC compared to clinical PB-hete (ranged −1.0to−3.9%). OARs doses were statistically insignificant. Conclusion: Results from our XVMC dose calculations and validation study for liver SBRT indicate small-to-moderate under-dosing of the tumor volume when compared to PB-hete. Results were consistent with phantom validation and patients plans. However, Vp was less by up to 5.7% for some liver SBRT patients with XVMC–suggesting under-dosing of the target volume and overdosing of MLD by up to 3.9% occurred with PB-hete plan. These differences between PB-hete and XVMC dose calculations may be of clinical interest.

Assessment of Monte Carlo algorithm for compliance with RTOG 0915 dosimetric criteria in peripheral lung cancer patients treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy.

Assessment of Monte Carlo algorithm for compliance with RTOG 0915 dosimetric criteria in peripheral lung cancer patients treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy.

Monte Carlo evaluation of tissue heterogeneities corrections in the treatment of head and neck cancer patients using stereotactic radiotherapy.

The purpose of this study was to generate Monte Carlo computed dose distributions with the X‐ray voxel Monte Carlo (XVMC) algorithm in the treatment of head and neck cancer patients using stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) and compare to heterogeneity corrected pencil‐beam (PB‐hete) algorithm. This study includes 10 head and neck cancer patients who underwent SRT re‐irradiation using heterogeneity corrected pencil‐beam (PB‐hete) algorithm for dose calculation. Prescription dose was 24‐40 Gy in 3‐5 fractions (treated 3‐5 fractions per week) with at least 95% of the PTV volume receiving 100% of the prescription dose. A stereotactic head and neck localization box was attached to the base of the thermoplastic mask fixation for target localization. The gross tumor volume (GTV) and organs‐at‐risk (OARs) were contoured on the 3D CT images. The planning target volume (PTV) was generated from the GTV with 0 to 5 mm uniform expansion; PTV ranged from 10.2 to 64.3 cc (average=35.0±17.5 cc). OARs were contoured on the 3D planning CT and consisted of spinal cord, brainstem, optic structures, parotids, and skin. In the BrainLab treatment planning system (TPS), clinically optimal SRT plans were generated using hybrid planning technique (combination of 3D conformal noncoplanar arcs and nonopposing static beams) for the Novalis‐Tx linear accelerator consisting of high‐definition multileaf collimators (HD‐MLCs: 2.5 mm leaf width at isocenter) and 6 MV‐SRS (1000 MU/min) beam. For the purposes of this study, treatment plans were recomputed using XVMC algorithm utilizing identical beam geometry, multileaf positions, and monitor units and compared to the corresponding clinical PB‐hete plans. The Monte Carlo calculated dose distributions show small decreases (<1.5%) in calculated dose for D99,Dmean, and Dmax of the PTV coverage between the two algorithms. However, the average target volume encompassed by the prescribed percent dose (Vp) was about 2.5% less with XVMC vs. PB‐hete and ranged between ‐0.1 and 7.8%. The averages for D100 and D10 of the GTV were lower by about 2% and ranged between ‐0.8 and 3.1%. For the spinal cord, both the maximal dose difference and the dose to 0.35 cc of the structure were higher by an average of 4.2% (ranged 1.2 to −13.6%) and 1.4% (ranged 7.5 to −11.3%), respectively, with XVMC calculation. For the brainstem, the maximal dose differences and the dose to 0.5 cc of the structure were, on average, higher by 2.4% (ranged 6.4 to −8.0%) and 3.6% (ranged 6.4 to −9.0%), respectively. For the parotids, both the mean dose and the dose to 20 cc of parotids were higher by an average of 3% (ranged ‐0.2 to −5.9%) and 4% (ranged ‐0.2 to ‐8%), respectively, with XVMC calculation. For the optic apparatus, results from both algorithms were similar. However, the mean dose to skin was 3% higher (ranged 0 to ‐6%), on average, with XVMC compared to PB‐hete, although the maximum dose to skin was 2% lower (ranged −5% to 15.5%). The results from our XVMC dose calculations for head and neck SRT patients indicate small to moderate underdosing of the tumor volume when compared to PB‐hete calculation. However, Vp was up to 7.8% less for the lower‐neck patient with XVMC. Critical structures, such as spinal cord, brainstem, or parotids, could potentially receive higher doses when using XVMC algorithm. Given the proximity to critical structures and the smaller volumes treated with SRT in the region of the head and neck, the differences between XVMC and PB‐hete calculation methods may be of clinical interest.PACS number(s): 87.55.K‐

Technical Note: Dosimetric evaluation of Monte Carlo algorithm in iPlan for stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) for lung cancer patients using RTOG 0813 parameters.

For stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) in lung cancer patients, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) protocols currently require radiation dose to be calculated using tissue heterogeneity corrections. Dosimetric criteria of RTOG 0813 were established based on the results obtained from non‐Monte Carlo (MC) algorithms, such as superposition/convolutions. Clinically, MC‐based algorithms are now routinely used for lung SABR dose calculations. It is essential to confirm that MC calculations in lung SABR meet RTOG guidelines. This report evaluates iPlan MC plans for SABR in lung cancer patients using dose‐volume histogram normalization per current RTOG 0813 compliance criteria. Eighteen Stage I‐II non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with centrally located tumors, who underwent MC‐based lung SABR with heterogeneity correction using X‐ray Voxel Monte Carlo (XVMC) algorithm (BrainLAB iPlan version 4.1.2), were analyzed. Total dose of 60 Gy in 5 fractions was delivered to planning target volume (PTV) with at least V100%=95%. Internal target volumes (ITVs) were delineated on maximum intensity projection (MIP) images of 4D CT scans. PTV (ITV+5 mm margin) volumes ranged from 10.0 to 99.9 cc (mean=36.8±20.7 cc). Organs at risk (OARs) were delineated on average images of 4D CT scans. Optimal clinical MC SABR plans were generated using a combination of non‐coplanar conformal arcs and beams for the Novalis‐TX consisting of high definition multileaf collimators (MLCs) and 6 MV‐SRS (1000MU/min) mode. All plans were evaluated using the RTOG 0813 high and intermediate dose spillage criteria: conformity index (R100%), ratio of 50% isodose volume to the PTV (R50%), maximum dose 2 cm away from PTV in any direction (D2cm), and percent of normal lung receiving 20 Gy (V20) or more. Other organs‐at‐risk (OARs) doses were tabulated, including the volume of normal lung receiving 5 Gy (V5), maximum cord dose, dose to <15 cc of heart, and dose to <5 cc of esophagus. Only six out of 18 patients met all RTOG 0813 compliance criteria. Eight of 18 patients had minor deviations in R100%, four in R50%, and nine in D2cm. However, only one patient had minor deviation in V20. All other OARs doses, such as maximum cord dose, dose to <15 cc of heart, and dose to <5 cc of esophagus, were satisfactory for RTOG criteria, except for one patient, for whom the dose to <15 cc of heart was higher than RTOG guidelines. The preliminary results for our limited iPlan XVMC dose calculations indicate that the majority (i.e., 2/3) of our patients had minor deviations in the dosimetric guidelines set by RTOG 0813 protocol in one way or another. When using an exclusive highly sophisticated XVMC algorithm, the RTOG 0813 dosimetric compliance criteria such as R100% and D2cm may need to be revisited. Based on our limited number of patient datasets, in general, about 6% for R100% and 9% for D2cm corrections could be applied to pass the RTOG 0813 compliance criteria in most of those patients. More patient plans need to be evaluated to make recommendation for R50%. No adjustment is necessary for OAR dose tolerances, including normal lung V20. In order to establish new MC specific dose parameters, further investigation with a large cohort of patients including central, as well as peripheral lung tumors, is anticipated and strongly recommended.PACS number: 8087

PO-0796: Independent dose calculation with X-ray Voxel Monte Carlo Algorithm in Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy

PO-0796: Independent dose calculation with X-ray Voxel Monte Carlo Algorithm in Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy

Differences in dose-volumetric data between the analytical anisotropic algorithm and the x-ray voxel Monte Carlo algorithm in stereotactic body radiation therapy for lung cancer

The objective of this study was to evaluate the differences in dose-volumetric data obtained using the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) vs the x-ray voxel Monte Carlo (XVMC) algorithm for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for lung cancer. Dose-volumetric data from 20 patients treated with SBRT for solitary lung cancer generated using the iPlan XVMC for the Novalis system consisting of a 6-MV linear accelerator and micro-multileaf collimators were recalculated with the AAA in Eclipse using the same monitor units and identical beam setup. The mean isocenter dose was 100.2% and 98.7% of the prescribed dose according to XVMC and AAA, respectively. Mean values of the maximal dose (Dmax), the minimal dose (Dmin), and dose received by 95% volume (D95) for the planning target volume (PTV) with XVMC were 104.3%, 75.1%, and 86.2%, respectively. When recalculated with the AAA, those values were 100.8%, 77.1%, and 85.4%, respectively. Mean dose parameter values considered for the normal lung, namely the mean lung dose, V5, and V20, were 3.7Gy, 19.4%, and 5.0% for XVMC and 3.6Gy, 18.3%, and 4.7% for the AAA, respectively. All of these dose-volumetric differences between the 2 algorithms were within 5% of the prescribed dose. The effect of PTV size and tumor location, respectively, on the differences in dose parameters for the PTV between the AAA and XVMC was evaluated. A significant effect of the PTV on the difference in D95 between the AAA and XVMC was observed (p = 0.03). Differences in the marginal doses, namely Dmin and D95, were statistically significant between peripherally and centrally located tumors (p = 0.04 and p = 0.02, respectively). Tumor location and volume might have an effect on the differences in dose-volumetric parameters. The differences between AAA and XVMC were considered to be within an acceptable range (<5 percentage points).