B Palma

Comparison of film measurements and Monte Carlo simulations of dose delivered with very high-energy electron beams in a polystyrene phantom.

PURPOSE To measure radiation dose in a water-equivalent medium from very high-energy electron (VHEE) beams and make comparisons to Monte Carlo (MC) simulation results. METHODS Dose in a polystyrene phantom delivered by an experimental VHEE beam line was measured with Gafchromic films for three 50 MeV and two 70 MeV Gaussian beams of 4.0-6.9 mm FWHM and compared to corresponding MC-simulated dose distributions. MC dose in the polystyrene phantom was calculated with the EGSnrc/BEAMnrc and DOSXYZnrc codes based on the experimental setup. Additionally, the effect of 2% beam energy measurement uncertainty and possible non-zero beam angular spread on MC dose distributions was evaluated. RESULTS MC simulated percentage depth dose (PDD) curves agreed with measurements within 4% for all beam sizes at both 50 and 70 MeV VHEE beams. Central axis PDD at 8 cm depth ranged from 14% to 19% for the 5.4-6.9 mm 50 MeV beams and it ranged from 14% to 18% for the 4.0-4.5 mm 70 MeV beams. MC simulated relative beam profiles of regularly shaped Gaussian beams evaluated at depths of 0.64 to 7.46 cm agreed with measurements to within 5%. A 2% beam energy uncertainty and 0.286° beam angular spread corresponded to a maximum 3.0% and 3.8% difference in depth dose curves of the 50 and 70 MeV electron beams, respectively. Absolute dose differences between MC simulations and film measurements of regularly shaped Gaussian beams were between 10% and 42%. CONCLUSIONS The authors demonstrate that relative dose distributions for VHEE beams of 50-70 MeV can be measured with Gafchromic films and modeled with Monte Carlo simulations to an accuracy of 5%. The reported absolute dose differences likely caused by imperfect beam steering and subsequent charge loss revealed the importance of accurate VHEE beam control and diagnostics.

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.

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.

Sci-Thur PM: Planning & Delivery - 02: Treatment planning workflow for very high-energy electron beam radiotherapy

Purpose: To develop treatment planning workflow for rapid radiotherapy delivered with very-high energy electron (VHEE) scanning beam. Methods: VHEE radiotherapy treatment planning was performed by linking Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculations with inverse optimization in a research version of RayStation. In order to study a number of treatment parameters, a Matlab graphical user interface (GUI) for calculation of VHEE beamlet dose was developed. Through the GUI, EGSnrc MC simulations were run for a number of beam energies, number of beams, beamlet spot and grid sizes, and machine bore sizes. VHEE plans for a pediatric patient with a 4.3 cm3 brain target optimized with spot-scanning algorithm in RayStation were compared to the clinically delivered 6 MV VMAT plan. Results and Discussion: VHEE beam energy had the largest effect on the quality of dose distributions. For the same target dose, the mean doses to critical organs decreased by 10–15% when planned with 100 MeV compared to 60 MeV. VHEE plans calculated with 36 beams outperformed plans calculated with 13 and 17 beams. While beamlet spacing and bore size had a small effect on VHEE dose distributions, 0.1-3mm beamlet sizes resulted in identical dose distributions. Critical organ doses were by up to 70% lower in the best VHEE plan compared to the clinical 6 MV VMAT plan. Conclusions: We have developed a GUI for MC beamlet generation for treatment planning of VHEE radiotherapy. We have demonstrated that pediatric VHEE plans resulted in significant critical organ dose sparing compared to the clinical VMAT plan.

SU-C-BRE-06: Radiobiological Advantage of Very Rapid Irradiation

PURPOSE To characterize the effect of very rapid dose delivery as compared to conventional therapeutic irradiation times on clonogenic cell survival. METHODS We used a Varian Trilogy linear accelerator to deliver doses up to 10 Gy using a 6 MV SRS photon beam. We irradiated four cancer cell lines in times ranging from 30 sec to 30 min. We also used a Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator to deliver 9 MeV electrons at 10 Gy in 10 s to 30 min to determine the effect of irradiation time on cell survival. We then evaluated the effect of using 60 and 120 MeV electrons on cell survival using the Next Linear Collider Test Accelerator (NLCTA) beam line at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory. During irradiation, adherent cells were maintained at 37oC with 20%O2/5%CO2. Clonogenic assays were completed following irradiation to determine changes in cell survival due to dose delivery time and beam quality, and the survival data were fitted with the linear-quadratic model. RESULTS Cell lines varied in radiosensitivity, ranging from two to four logs of cell kill at 10 Gy for both conventional and very rapid irradiation. Delivering radiation in shorter times decreased survival in all cell lines. Log differences in cell kill ranged from 0.2 to 0.7 at 10 Gy for the short compared to the long irradiation time. Cell kill differences between short and long irradiations were more pronounced as doses increased for all cell lines. CONCLUSION Our findings suggest that shortening delivery of therapeutic radiation doses to less than 1 minute may improve tumor cell kill. This study demonstrates the potential advantage of technologies under development to deliver stereotactic ablative radiation doses very rapidly. Bill Loo and Peter Maxim have received Honoraria from Varian and Research Support from Varian and RaySearch.

MO-FG-303-06: Evaluation of the Performance of Very High-Energy Electron (VHEE) Beams in Radiotherapy: Five Clinical Cases

Purpose: To evaluate the performance of 100–120 MeV very-high energy electron (VHEE) scanning pencil beams to radiotherapy by means of Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. Methods: We selected five clinical cases with target sizes of 1.2 cm3 to 990.4 cm3. We calculated VHEE treatment plans using the MC EGSnrc code implemented in a MATLAB-based graphical user interface developed by our group. We generated phase space data for beam energies: 100 and 120 MeV and pencil beam spot sizes of 1, 3, and 5 mm at FWHM. The number of equidistant beams considered in this work was 16 or 32. Dose was calculated and then imported into a research version of RayStation where treatment plan optimization was performed. We compared the VHEE plans with the clinically delivered volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan to evaluate VHEE plans performance. Results: VHEE plans provided the same PTV coverage and dose homogeneity than VMAT plans for all the cases. In average, the mean dose to organs at risk (OARs) was 24% lower for the VHEE plans. The structures that benefited the most from using VHEE were: large bowel for the esophagus case, chest wall for the liver case, brainstem for the acoustic case, carina for the lung case, and genitalia for the anal case, with 23.7–34.6% lower dose. VHEE dose distributions were more conformal than VMAT solution as confirmed by conformity indices CI100 and CI50. Integral dose to the body was in average 19.6% (9.2%–36.5%) lower for the VHEE plans. Conclusion: We have shown that VHEE plans resulted in similar or superior dose distributions compared to clinical VMAT plans for five different cases and a wide range of target volumes, including a case with a small target (1.2 cm3), which represents a challenge for VMAT planning and might require the use of more complex non-coplanar VMAT plans. B Palma: None. M Bazalova: None. B Hardemark: Employee, RaySearch Laboratories AB. E Hynning: Employee, RaySearch Laboratories AB. B Qu: None. B Loo Jr.: Research support, RaySearch, Varian. P Maxim: Research support, RaySearch, Varian

SU-D-19A-06: The Effect of Beam Parameters On Very High-Energy Electron Radiotherapy: A Planning Study

PURPOSE We evaluated the effect of very high-energy electron (VHEE) beam parameters on the planning of a lung cancer case by means of Monte Carlo simulations. METHODS We simulated VHEE radiotherapy plans using the EGSnrc/BEAMnrc-DOSXYZnrc code. We selected a lung cancer case that was treated with 6MV photon VMAT to be planned with VHEE. We studied the effect of beam energy (80 MeV, 100 MeV, and 120 MeV), number of equidistant beams (16 or 32), and beamlets sizes (3 mm, 5 mm or 7 mm) on PTV coverage, sparing of organs at risk (OARs) and dose conformity. Inverse-planning optimization was performed in a research version of RayStation (RaySearch Laboratories AB) using identical objective functions and constraints for all VHEE plans. RESULTS Similar PTV coverage and dose conformity was achieved by all the VHEE plans. The 100 MeV and 120 MeV VHEE plans were equivalent amongst them and were superior to the 80 MeV plan in terms of OARs sparing. The effect of using 16 or 32 equidistant beams was a mean difference in average dose of 2.4% (0%-7.7%) between the two plans. The use of 3 mm beamlet size systematically reduced the dose to all the OARs. Based on these results we selected the 100MeV-16beams-3mm-beamlet-size plan to compare it against VMAT. The selected VHEE plan was more conformal than VMAT and improved OAR sparing (heart and trachea received 125% and 177% lower dose, respectively) especially in the low-dose region. CONCLUSION We determined the VHEE beam parameters that maximized the OAR dose sparing and dose conformity of the actually delivered VMAT plan of a lung cancer case. The selected parameters could be used for the planning of other treatment sites with similar size, shape, and location. For larger targets, a larger beamlet size might be used without significantly increasing the dose. B Palma: None. M Bazalova: None. B Hardemark: Employee, RaySearch Americas. E Hynning: Employee, RaySearch Americas. B Qu: None. B Loo Jr.: Research support, RaySearch, Varian. P Maxim: Research support, RaySearch, Varian.