Gary A. Ezzell

Guidance document on delivery, treatment planning, and clinical implementation of IMRT : Report of the IMRT subcommittee of the AAPM radiation therapy committee

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) represents one of the most significant technical advances in radiation therapy since the advent of the medical linear accelerator. It allows the clinical implementation of highly conformal nonconvex dose distributions. This complex but promising treatment modality is rapidly proliferating in both academic and community practice settings. However, these advances do not come without a risk. IMRT is not just an add-on to the current radiation therapy process; it represents a new paradigm that requires the knowledge of multimodality imaging, setup uncertainties and internal organ motion, tumor control probabilities, normal tissue complication probabilities, three-dimensional (3-D) dose calculation and optimization, and dynamic beam delivery of nonuniform beam intensities. Therefore, the purpose of this report is to guide and assist the clinical medical physicist in developing and implementing a viable and safe IMRT program. The scope of the IMRT program is quite broad, encompassing multileaf-collimator-based IMRT delivery systems, goal-based inverse treatment planning, and clinical implementation of IMRT with patient-specific quality assurance. This report, while not prescribing specific procedures, provides the framework and guidance to allow clinical radiation oncology physicists to make judicious decisions in implementing a safe and efficient IMRT program in their clinics.

IMRT commissioning: Multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons,a report from AAPM Task Group 119

AAPM Task Group 119 has produced quantitative confidence limits as baseline expectation values for IMRT commissioning. A set of test cases was developed to assess the overall accuracy of planning and delivery of IMRT treatments. Each test uses contours of targets and avoidance structures drawn within rectangular phantoms. These tests were planned, delivered, measured, and analyzed by nine facilities using a variety of IMRT planning and delivery systems. Each facility had passed the Radiological Physics Center credentialing tests for IMRT. The agreement between the planned and measured doses was determined using ion chamber dosimetry in high and low dose regions, film dosimetry on coronal planes in the phantom with all fields delivered, and planar dosimetry for each field measured perpendicular to the central axis. The planar dose distributions were assessed using gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm. The mean values and standard deviations were used to develop confidence limits for the test results using the concept confidence limit = /mean/ + 1.96sigma. Other facilities can use the test protocol and results as a basis for comparison to this group. Locally derived confidence limits that substantially exceed these baseline values may indicate the need for improved IMRT commissioning.

Report of the AAPM Task Group No. 105: Issues associated with clinical implementation of Monte Carlo‐based photon and electron external beam treatment planning

The Monte Carlo (MC) method has been shown through many research studies to calculate accurate dose distributions for clinical radiotherapy, particularly in heterogeneous patient tissues where the effects of electron transport cannot be accurately handled with conventional, deterministic dose algorithms. Despite its proven accuracy and the potential for improved dose distributions to influence treatment outcomes, the long calculation times previously associated with MC simulation rendered this method impractical for routine clinical treatment planning. However, the development of faster codes optimized for radiotherapy calculations and improvements in computer processor technology have substantially reduced calculation times to, in some instances, within minutes on a single processor. These advances have motivated several major treatment planning system vendors to embark upon the path of MC techniques. Several commercial vendors have already released or are currently in the process of releasing MC algorithms for photon and/or electron beam treatment planning. Consequently, the accessibility and use of MC treatment planning algorithms may well become widespread in the radiotherapy community. With MC simulation, dose is computed stochastically using first principles; this method is therefore quite different from conventional dose algorithms. Issues such as statistical uncertainties, the use of variance reduction techniques, theability to account for geometric details in the accelerator treatment head simulation, and other features, are all unique components of a MC treatment planning algorithm. Successful implementation by the clinical physicist of such a system will require an understanding of the basic principles of MC techniques. The purpose of this report, while providing education and review on the use of MC simulation in radiotherapy planning, is to set out, for both users and developers, the salient issues associated with clinical implementation and experimental verification of MC dose algorithms. As the MC method is an emerging technology, this report is not meant to be prescriptive. Rather, it is intended as a preliminary report to review the tenets of the MC method and to provide the framework upon which to build a comprehensive program for commissioning and routine quality assurance of MC-based treatment planning systems.

INITIAL EXPERIENCE WITH ULTRASOUND LOCALIZATION FOR POSITIONING PROSTATE CANCER PATIENTS FOR EXTERNAL BEAM RADIOTHERAPY

PURPOSE Transabdominal ultrasound localization of the prostate gland and its immediate surrounding anatomy has been used to guide the positioning of patients for the treatment of prostate cancer. This process was evaluated in terms of (1) the reproducibility of the ultrasound measurement; (2) a comparison of patient position between ultrasound localization and skin marks determined from a CT treatment planning scan; (3) the predictive indicators of patient anatomy not well suited for ultrasound localization; (4) the measurement of prostate organ displacement resulting from ultrasound probe pressure; and (5) quality assurance measures. METHODS AND MATERIALS The reproducibility of the ultrasound positioning process was evaluated for same-day repeat positioning by the same ultrasound operator (22 patients) and for measurements made by 2 different operators (38 patients). Differences between conventional patient positioning (CT localization with skin markings) and ultrasound-based positioning were determined for 38 patients. The pelvic anatomy was evaluated for 34 patients with pretreatment CT scans to identify predictors of poor ultrasound image quality. The displacement of the prostate resulting from pressure of the ultrasound probe was measured for 16 patients with duplicate CT scans with and without a simulated probe. Finally, daily, monthly, and semiannual quality assurance tests were evaluated. RESULTS Self-verification tests of ultrasound positioning indicated a shift of <3 mm in approximately 95% of cases. Interoperator tests indicated shifts of <3 mm in approximately 80-90% of cases. The mean difference in patient positioning between conventional and ultrasound localization for lateral shifts was 0.3 mm (SD 2.5): vertical, 1.3 mm (SD 4.7 mm) and longitudinal, 1.0 mm (SD 5.1). However, on a single day, the differences were >10 mm in 1.5% of lateral shifts, 7% of longitudinal shifts, and 7% of vertical shifts. The depth to the isocenter, thickness of tissue overlying the bladder, and position of the prostate relative to the pubic symphysis, but not the bladder volume, were significant predictive indicators of poor ultrasound imaging. The pressure of the ultrasound probe displaced the prostate in 7 of the 16 patients by an average distance of 3.1 mm; 9 patients (56%) showed no displacement. Finally, the quality assurance tests detected ultrasound equipment defects. CONCLUSION The ultrasound positioning system is reproducible and may indicate the need for significant positioning moves. Factors that predict poor image quality are the depth to the isocenter, thickness of tissue overlying the bladder, and position of the prostate relative to the pubic symphysis. The prostate gland may be displaced a small amount by the pressure of the ultrasound probe. A quality assurance program is necessary to detect ultrasound equipment defects that could result in patient alignment errors.

Intraoperative radiation therapy using mobile electron linear accelerators: Report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 72

Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) has been customarily performed either in a shielded operating suite located in the operating room (OR) or in a shielded treatment room located within the Department of Radiation Oncology. In both cases, this cancer treatment modality uses stationary linear accelerators. With the development of new technology, mobile linear accelerators have recently become available for IORT. Mobility offers flexibility in treatment location and is leading to a renewed interest in IORT. These mobile accelerator units, which can be transported any day of use to almost any location within a hospital setting, are assembled in a nondedicated environment and used to deliver IORT. Numerous aspects of the design of these new units differ from that of conventional linear accelerators. The scope of this Task Group (TG-72) will focus on items that particularly apply to mobile IORT electron systems. More specifically, the charges to this Task Group are to (i) identify the key differences between stationary and mobile electron linear accelerators used for IORT, (ii) describe and recommend the implementation of an IORT program within the OR environment, (iii) present and discuss radiation protection issues and consequences of working within a nondedicated radiotherapy environment, (iv) describe and recommend the acceptance and machine commissioning of items that are specific to mobile electron linear accelerators, and (v) design and recommend an efficient quality assurance program for mobile systems.

The overshoot phenomenon in step-and-shoot IMRT delivery.

The control loop in the Varian DMLC system (V4.8) requires ~65 msec to monitor and halt the irradiation of a segment, causing an “overshoot” effect: the segment ends on a fractional monitor unit larger than that planned. As a result, the actual MU delivered may differ from that planned. In general, for step‐and‐shoot treatments, the first segment receives more, the last receives less, and intermediate segments vary. The overshoot for each segment (ΔMU) is small, approximately 0.6 MU at 600 MU/min Our IMRT planning system (Corvus) produces plans often having more than 20% of the segments with less than 1 MU/segment. Such segments may be skipped if the ΔMU exceeds the segments’ planned MU. Furthermore, QA filming often requires reducing the total MU by a factor of 4–6, increasing the potential for dosimetric error. This study measured ΔMU over a range of MU/min and MU/segment. At >5 MU/segment, the ΔMU was stable, corresponding to a delay of 62 msec. ΔMU became larger and more variable at <1 MU/segment. The behavior was modeled in a computer program that predicted the change in delivered MU/segment and total change in delivered MU to each beamlet. Beams were analyzed for patients receiving 5 field prostate or 9 field head and neck treatments. At 400 MU/min, 28% and 16%, respectively, of the planned segments were skipped. For QA filming, up to 75% of the segments were skipped. The cumulative error averaged <0.1 MU/beamlet, but individual beamlets had errors exceeding 200%. The effect is most significant for low dose regions. Recommendations are given for deciding when to treat or do QA studies with lower MU/min. In general, treatments are not significantly affected, but QA films taken at reduced MU may be improved if irradiated at lowered MU/min. PACS number(s): 87.53.–j, 87.90.+y

Radiation dose escalation for localized prostate cancer: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus permanent transperineal brachytherapy

In the current study, the effects of dose escalation for localized prostate cancer treatment with intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or permanent transperineal brachytherapy (BRT) in comparison with conventional dose 3‐dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D‐CRT) were evaluated.

RO-ILS: Radiation Oncology Incident Learning System: A report from the first year of experience

PURPOSE Incident learning is a critical tool to improve patient safety. The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 established essential legal protections to allow for the collection and analysis of medical incidents nationwide. METHODS AND MATERIALS Working with a federally listed patient safety organization (PSO), the American Society for Radiation Oncology and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine established RO-ILS: Radiation Oncology Incident Learning System (RO-ILS). This paper provides an overview of the RO-ILS background, development, structure, and workflow, as well as examples of preliminary data and lessons learned. RO-ILS is actively collecting, analyzing, and reporting patient safety events. RESULTS As of February 24, 2015, 46 institutions have signed contracts with Clarity PSO, with 33 contracts pending. Of these, 27 sites have entered 739 patient safety events into local database space, with 358 events (48%) pushed to the national database. CONCLUSIONS To establish an optimal safety culture, radiation oncology departments should establish formal systems for incident learning that include participation in a nationwide incident learning program such as RO-ILS.

Outcome and Toxicity for Patients Treated with Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE We evaluate long-term disease control and chronic toxicities observed in patients treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS A total of 302 patients with localized prostate cancer treated with image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy between July 2000 and May 2005 were retrospectively analyzed. Risk groups (low, intermediate and high) were designated based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Biochemical control was based on the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (Phoenix) consensus definition. Chronic toxicity was measured at peak symptoms and at last visit. Toxicity was scored based on Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4. RESULTS The median radiation dose delivered was 75.6 Gy (range 70.2 to 77.4) and 35.4% of patients received androgen deprivation therapy. Patients were followed until death or from 6 to 138 months (median 91) for those alive at last evaluation. Local and distant recurrence rates were 5% and 8.6%, respectively. At 9 years biochemical control rates were 77.4% for low risk, 69.6% for intermediate risk and 53.3% for high risk cases (log rank p = 0.05). On multivariate analysis T stage and prostate specific antigen group were prognostic for biochemical control. At last followup only 0% and 0.7% of patients had persistent grade 3 or greater gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity, respectively. High risk group was associated with higher distant metastasis rate (p = 0.02) and death from prostate cancer (p = 0.0012). CONCLUSIONS This study represents one of the longest experiences with intensity modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer. With a median followup of 91 months, intensity modulated radiation therapy resulted in durable biochemical control rates with low chronic toxicity.

The clinical case for proton beam therapy

AbstractOver the past 20 years, several proton beam treatment programs have been implemented throughout the United States. Increasingly, the number of new programs under development is growing. Proton beam therapy has the potential for improving tumor control and survival through dose escalation. It also has potential for reducing harm to normal organs through dose reduction. However, proton beam therapy is more costly than conventional x-ray therapy. This increased cost may be offset by improved function, improved quality of life, and reduced costs related to treating the late effects of therapy. Clinical research opportunities are abundant to determine which patients will gain the most benefit from proton beam therapy. We review the clinical case for proton beam therapy.Summary sentenceProton beam therapy is a technically advanced and promising form of radiation therapy.