Christopher J Boylan

The use of a realistic VMAT delivery emulator to optimize dynamic machine parameters for improved treatment efficiency

The delivery of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) requires the simultaneous movement of the linear accelerator gantry, multi-leaf collimators and jaws while the dose rate is varied. In this study, a VMAT delivery emulator was developed to accurately predict the characteristics of a given treatment plan, incorporating realistic parameters for gantry inertia and the variation in leaf speed with respect to gravity. The emulator was used to assess the impact of dynamic machine parameters on the delivery efficiency, using a set of prostate and head and neck VMAT plans. Initially, assuming a VMAT system with fixed dose rate bins, the allowable leaf and jaw speeds were increased and a significant improvement in treatment time and average dose rate was observed. The software was then adapted to simulate a VMAT system with continuously varying dose rate, and the increase in delivery efficiency was quantified, along with the impact of an increased leaf and jaw speed. Finally, a set of optimal dynamic machine parameters was derived assuming an idealized scenario in which the treatment is delivered in a single arc at constant maximum gantry speed.

Simulation of realistic linac motion improves the accuracy of a Monte Carlo based VMAT plan QA system

PURPOSE To investigate the use of a software-based pre-treatment QA system for VMAT, which incorporates realistic linac motion during delivery. METHODS A beam model was produced using the GATE platform for GEANT4 Monte Carlo dose calculations. Initially validated against static measurements, the model was then integrated with a VMAT delivery emulator, which reads plan files and generates a set of dynamic delivery instructions analogous to the linac control system. Monte Carlo simulations were compared to measurements on dosimetric phantoms for prostate and head and neck VMAT plans. Comparisons were made between calculations using fixed control points, and simulations of continuous motion utilising the emulator. For routine use, the model was incorporated into an automated pre-treatment QA system. RESULTS The model showed better agreement with measurements when incorporating linac motion: mean gamma pass (Γ<1) over 5 prostate plans was 100.0% at 3%/3mm and 97.4% at 2%/2mm when compared to measurement. For the head and neck plans, delivered to the anatomical phantom, gamma passes were 99.4% at 4%/4mm and 94.94% at 3%/3mm. For example simulations within patient CT data, gamma passes were observed which are within our centres tolerance for pre-treatment QA. CONCLUSIONS Through comparison to phantom measurements, it was found that the incorporation of a realistic linac motion improves the accuracy of the model compared to the simulation of fixed control points. The ability to accurately calculate dose as a second check of the planning system, and determine realistic delivery characteristics, may allow for the reduction of machine-based pre-treatment plan QA for VMAT.

AutoLock: a semiautomated system for radiotherapy treatment plan quality control

A semiautomated system for radiotherapy treatment plan quality control (QC), named AutoLock, is presented. AutoLock is designed to augment treatment plan QC by automatically checking aspects of treatment plans that are well suited to computational evaluation, whilst summarizing more subjective aspects in the form of a checklist. The treatment plan must pass all automated checks and all checklist items must be acknowledged by the planner as correct before the plan is finalized. Thus AutoLock uniquely integrates automated treatment plan QC, an electronic checklist, and plan finalization. In addition to reducing the potential for the propagation of errors, the integration of AutoLock into the plan finalization workflow has improved efficiency at our center. Detailed audit data are presented, demonstrating that the treatment plan QC rejection rate fell by around a third following the clinical introduction of AutoLock. PACS number: 87.55.Qr

A bias‐free, automated planning tool for technique comparison in radiotherapy ‐ application to nasopharyngeal carcinoma treatments

In this study a novel, user‐independent automated planning technique was developed to objectively compare volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma planning, and to determine which technique offers a greater benefit for parotid‐sparing and dose escalation strategies. Ten patients were investigated, with a standard prescription of three dose levels to the target volumes (70, 63, and 56 Gy), using a simultaneous integrated boost in 33 fractions. The automated tool was used to investigate three planning strategies with both IMRT and VMAT: clinically acceptable plan creation, parotid dose sparing, and dose escalation. Clinically acceptable plans were achieved for all patients using both techniques. For parotid‐sparing, automated planning reduced the mean dose to a greater extent using VMAT rather than IMRT (17.0 Gy and 19.6 Gy, respectively, p<0.01). For dose escalation to the mean of the main clinical target volume, neither VMAT nor IMRT offered a significant benefit over the other. The OAR‐limiting prescriptions for VMAT ranged from 84‐98 Gy, compared to 76‐110 Gy for IMRT. Employing a user‐independent planning technique, it was possible to objectively compare VMAT and IMRT for nasopharyngeal carcinoma treatment strategies. VMAT offers a parotid‐sparing improvement, but no significant benefit was observed for dose escalation to the primary target. PACS numbers: 87.55.D‐, 87.55.kd

A megavoltage scatter correction technique for cone-beam CT images acquired during VMAT delivery.

Kilovoltage cone-beam CT (kV CBCT) can be acquired during the delivery of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), in order to obtain an image of the patient during treatment. However, the quality of such CBCTs is degraded by megavoltage (MV) scatter from the treatment beam onto the imaging panel. The objective of this paper is to introduce a novel MV scatter correction method for simultaneous CBCT during VMAT, and to investigate its effectiveness when compared to other techniques. The correction requires the acquisition of a separate set of images taken during VMAT delivery, while the kV beam is off. These images--which contain only the MV scatter contribution on the imaging panel--are then used to correct the corresponding kV/MV projections. To test this method, CBCTs were taken of an image quality phantom during VMAT delivery and measurements of contrast to noise ratio were made. Additionally, the correction was applied to the datasets of three VMAT prostate patients, who also received simultaneous CBCTs. The clinical image quality was assessed using a validated scoring system, comparing standard CBCTs to the uncorrected simultaneous CBCTs and a variety of correction methods. Results show that the correction is able to recover some of the low and high-contrast signal to noise ratio lost due to MV scatter. From the patient study, the corrected CBCT scored significantly higher than the uncorrected images in terms of the ability to identify the boundary between the prostate and surrounding soft tissue. In summary, a simple MV scatter correction method has been developed and, using both phantom and patient data, is shown to improve the image quality of simultaneous CBCTs taken during VMAT delivery.

The impact of continuously-variable dose rate VMAT on beam stability, MLC positioning, and overall plan dosimetry

A recent control system update for Elekta linear accelerators includes the ability to deliver volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with continuously variable dose rate (CVDR), rather than a number of fixed binned dose rates (BDR). The capacity to select from a larger range of dose rates allows the linac to maintain higher gantry speeds, resulting in faster, smoother deliveries. The purpose of this study is to investigate two components of CVDR delivery — the increase in average dose rate and gantry speed, and a determination of their effects on beam stability, MLC positioning, and overall plan dosimetry. Initially, ten VMAT plans (5 prostate, 5 head and neck) were delivered to a Delta4 dosimetric phantom using both the BDR and CVDR systems. The plans were found to be dosimetrically robust using both delivery methods, although CVDR was observed to give higher gamma pass rates at the 2%/2 mm gamma level for prostates (p < 0.01). For the dual arc head‐and‐neck plans, CVDR delivery resulted in improved pass rates at all gamma levels (2%/2 mm to 4%/4 mm) for individual arc verifications (p < 0.01), but gave similar results to BDR when both arcs were combined. To investigate the impact of increased gantry speed on MLC positioning, a dynamic leaf‐tracking tool was developed using the electronic portal imaging device (EPID). Comparing the detected MLC positions to those expected from the plan, CVDR was observed to result in a larger mean error compared to BDR (0.13 cm and 0.06 cm, respectively, p < 0.01). The EPID images were also used to monitor beam stability during delivery. It was found that the CVDR deliveries had a lower standard deviation of the gun‐target (GT) and transverse (AB) profiles (p < 0.01). This study has determined that CVDR may offer a dosimetric advantage for VMAT plans. While the higher gantry speed of CVDR appears to increase deviations in MLC positioning, the relative effect on dosimetry is lower than the positive impact of a flatter and more stable beam profile. PACS numbers: 87.56.bd; 87.55.km; 87.55.Qr

OC-0159: Measurement free QA of complex radiotherapy treatment plans using a fully automated Monte Carlo verification system

Conclusions: 3D γ parameters of the in vivo dose distributions are highly correlated with DVH and EUD parameters. The lack of correlation with the D99 is logical since underdosages are hardly ever observed in the PTV of in vivo dose distributions for H&N VMAT treatments. These results indicate that γ criteria from in vivo dose evaluation that have a clinical relevance in terms of DVH and EUD parameters can readily be obtained. This pilot study paves the way for moving from hard-to-interpret γ-analysis results to the clinically more common and relevant DVH and EUD parameters. This will provide radiation oncologists with more insight in the clinical relevance of observed deviations during in vivo dosimetry.