Roger A. Hälg

Systematic measurements of whole-body dose distributions for various treatment machines and delivery techniques in radiation therapy

PURPOSE Contemporary radiotherapy treatment techniques, such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy, could increase the radiation-induced malignancies because of the increased beam-on time, i.e., number of monitor units needed to deliver the same dose to the target and the larger volume irradiated with low doses. In this study, whole-body dose distributions from typical radiotherapy patient plans using different treatment techniques and therapy machines were measured using the same measurement setup and irradiation intention. METHODS Individually calibrated thermoluminescent dosimeters were used to measure absorbed dose in an anthropomorphic phantom at 184 locations. The dose distributions from 6 MV beams were compared in terms of treatment technique (3D-conformal, intensity-modulated radiation therapy, volumetric modulated arc therapy, helical TomoTherapy, stereotactic radiotherapy, hard wedges, and flattening filter-free radiotherapy) and therapy machine (Elekta, Siemens and Varian linear accelerators, Accuray CyberKnife and TomoTherapy). RESULTS Close to the target, the doses from intensity-modulated treatments (including flattening filter-free) were below the dose from a static treatment plan, whereas the CyberKnife showed a larger dose by a factor of two. Far away from the treatment field, the dose from intensity-modulated treatments showed an increase in dose from stray radiation of about 50% compared to the 3D-conformal treatment. For the flattening filter-free photon beams, the dose from stray radiation far away from the target was slightly lower than the dose from a static treatment. The CyberKnife irradiation and the treatment using hard wedges increased the dose from stray radiation by nearly a factor of three compared to the 3D-conformal treatment. CONCLUSIONS This study showed that the dose outside of the treated volume is influenced by several sources. Therefore, when comparing different treatment techniques, the dose ratios vary with distance to the isocenter. The effective dose outside the treated volume of intensity-modulated treatments with or without flattening filter was 10%-30% larger when compared to 3D-conformal radiotherapy. This dose increase is much lower than the monitor unit scaled effective dose from a static treatment.

Systematic measurements of whole-body imaging dose distributions in image-guided radiation therapy

PURPOSE The full benefit of the increased precision of contemporary treatment techniques can only be exploited if the accuracy of the patient positioning is guaranteed. Therefore, more and more imaging modalities are used in the process of the patient setup in clinical routine of radiation therapy. The improved accuracy in patient positioning, however, results in additional dose contributions to the integral patient dose. To quantify this, absorbed dose measurements from typical imaging procedures involved in an image-guided radiation therapy treatment were measured in an anthropomorphic phantom for a complete course of treatment. The experimental setup, including the measurement positions in the phantom, was exactly the same as in a preceding study of radiotherapy stray dose measurements. This allows a direct combination of imaging dose distributions with the therapy dose distribution. METHODS Individually calibrated thermoluminescent dosimeters were used to measure absorbed dose in an anthropomorphic phantom at 184 locations. The dose distributions from imaging devices used with treatment machines from the manufacturers Accuray, Elekta, Siemens, and Varian and from computed tomography scanners from GE Healthcare were determined and the resulting effective dose was calculated. The list of investigated imaging techniques consisted of cone beam computed tomography (kilo- and megavoltage), megavoltage fan beam computed tomography, kilo- and megavoltage planar imaging, planning computed tomography with and without gating methods and planar scout views. RESULTS A conventional 3D planning CT resulted in an effective dose additional to the treatment stray dose of less than 1 mSv outside of the treated volume, whereas a 4D planning CT resulted in a 10 times larger dose. For a daily setup of the patient with two planar kilovoltage images or with a fan beam CT at the TomoTherapy unit, an additional effective dose outside of the treated volume of less than 0.4 mSv and 1.4 mSv was measured, respectively. Using kilovoltage or megavoltage radiation to obtain cone beam computed tomography scans led to an additional dose of 8-46 mSv. For treatment verification images performed once per week using double exposure technique, an additional effective dose of up to 18 mSv was measured. CONCLUSIONS Daily setup imaging using kilovoltage planar images or TomoTherapy megavoltage fan beam CT imaging can be used as a standard procedure in clinical routine. Daily kilovoltage and megavoltage cone beam computed tomography setup imaging should be applied on an individual or indication based protocol. Depending on the imaging scheme applied, image-guided radiation therapy can be administered without increasing the dose outside of the treated volume compared to therapies without image guidance.

Measurements of the neutron dose equivalent for various radiation qualities, treatment machines and delivery techniques in radiation therapy

In radiation therapy, high energy photon and proton beams cause the production of secondary neutrons. This leads to an unwanted dose contribution, which can be considerable for tissues outside of the target volume regarding the long term health of cancer patients. Due to the high biological effectiveness of neutrons in regards to cancer induction, small neutron doses can be important. This study quantified the neutron doses for different radiation therapy modalities. Most of the reports in the literature used neutron dose measurements free in air or on the surface of phantoms to estimate the amount of neutron dose to the patient. In this study, dose measurements were performed in terms of neutron dose equivalent inside an anthropomorphic phantom. The neutron dose equivalent was determined using track etch detectors as a function of the distance to the isocenter, as well as for radiation sensitive organs. The dose distributions were compared with respect to treatment techniques (3D-conformal, volumetric modulated arc therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy for photons; spot scanning and passive scattering for protons), therapy machines (Varian, Elekta and Siemens linear accelerators) and radiation quality (photons and protons). The neutron dose equivalent varied between 0.002 and 3 mSv per treatment gray over all measurements. Only small differences were found when comparing treatment techniques, but substantial differences were observed between the linear accelerator models. The neutron dose equivalent for proton therapy was higher than for photons in general and in particular for double-scattered protons. The overall neutron dose equivalent measured in this study was an order of magnitude lower than the stray dose of a treatment using 6 MV photons, suggesting that the contribution of the secondary neutron dose equivalent to the integral dose of a radiotherapy patient is small.

Accuracy of out-of-field dose calculation of tomotherapy and cyberknife treatment planning systems: A dosimetric study

PURPOSE Late toxicities such as second cancer induction become more important as treatment outcome improves. Often the dose distribution calculated with a commercial treatment planning system (TPS) is used to estimate radiation carcinogenesis for the radiotherapy patient. However, for locations beyond the treatment field borders, the accuracy is not well known. The aim of this study was to perform detailed out-of-field-measurements for a typical radiotherapy treatment plan administered with a Cyberknife and a Tomotherapy machine and to compare the measurements to the predictions of the TPS. MATERIALS AND METHODS Individually calibrated thermoluminescent dosimeters were used to measure absorbed dose in an anthropomorphic phantom at 184 locations. The measured dose distributions from 6 MV intensity-modulated treatment beams for CyberKnife and TomoTherapy machines were compared to the dose calculations from the TPS. RESULTS The TPS are underestimating the dose far away from the target volume. Quantitatively the Cyberknife underestimates the dose at 40 cm from the PTV border by a factor of 60, the Tomotherapy TPS by a factor of two. If a 50% dose uncertainty is accepted, the Cyberknife TPS can predict doses down to approximately 10 mGy/treatment Gy, the Tomotherapy-TPS down to 0.75 mGy/treatment Gy. The Cyberknife TPS can then be used up to 10 cm from the PTV border the Tomotherapy up to 35 cm. CONCLUSIONS We determined that the Cyberknife and Tomotherapy TPS underestimate substantially the doses far away from the treated volume. It is recommended not to use out-of-field doses from the Cyberknife TPS for applications like modeling of second cancer induction. The Tomotherapy TPS can be used up to 35 cm from the PTV border (for a 390 cm(3) large PTV).

The impact of neutrons in clinical proton therapy

In proton therapy, high-energy proton beams cause the production of secondary neutrons. This leads to an unwanted dose contribution, which can be considerable for tissues outside of the target volume regarding the long-term health of cancer patients. Due to the high biological effectiveness of neutrons with regard to cancer induction, small neutron doses can be important. Published comparisons of neutron dose measurements and the corresponding estimates of cancer risk between different treatment modalities differ over orders of magnitude. In this report, the controversy about the impact of the neutron dose in proton therapy is critically discussed and viewed in the light of new epidemiological studies. In summary, the impact of neutron dose on cancer risk can be determined correctly only if the dose distributions are carefully measured or computed. It is important to include not only the neutron component into comparisons but also the complete deposition of energy as precisely as possible. Cancer risk comparisons between different radiation qualities, treatment machines, and techniques have to be performed under similar conditions. It seems that in the past, the uncertainty in the models which lead from dose to risk were overestimated when compared with erroneous dose comparisons. Current risk models used with carefully obtained dose distributions predict a second cancer risk reduction for active protons vs. photons and a more or less constant risk of passive protons vs. photons. Those findings are in general agreement with newly obtained epidemiologically results.

Comparative simulations of neutron dose in soft tissue and phantom materials for proton and carbon ion therapy with actively scanned beams

PURPOSE In the clinical environment phantom materials are usually used to simulate the patient for neutron dosimetric measurements. It is not clear that the results of such phantom measurements represent the actual neutron dose in the patient. The aim of this study was to compare the difference in secondary neutron equivalent dose for different phantom materials to that in human tissue, for both proton and carbon ion radiation therapy. METHODS In order to compare the neutron equivalent dose induced by primary particles in different materials, Monte Carlo simulations were performed using the FLUKA Monte Carlo package. The scored dosimetric quantities were absorbed dose and neutron ambient dose equivalent for monoenergetic proton and carbon ion beams of clinically relevant energies. It was shown that neutron equivalent dose, for which no scoring routine exists in the current FLUKA release, can be approximated by neutron ambient dose equivalent within 4% for the investigated energies of proton and carbon ion beams. RESULTS The Monte Carlo simulations performed in this work showed differences in neutron ambient dose equivalent in radiation therapy phantom materials compared to ICRP soft tissue for primary proton and carbon ion beams. For Alderson soft tissue the maximum deviation was 11% for protons and 8% for carbon ions. For water the maximum deviation was 10% for protons and 9% for carbon ions. In the case of RW3 solid water, the maximum deviation compared to ICRP soft tissue was as large as 28% and 21% for protons and carbon ions, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Alderson soft tissue and water are suitable phantom materials for neutron dosimetry for the accuracy which is achievable. When using solid water phantoms, the chemical and therefore nuclear composition of the phantom material has to be accounted for.

A general model for stray dose calculation of static and intensity‐modulated photon radiation

PURPOSE There is an increasing number of cancer survivors who are at risk of developing late effects caused by ionizing radiation such as induction of second tumors. Hence, the determination of out-of-field dose for a particular treatment plan in the patients anatomy is of great importance. The purpose of this study was to analytically model the stray dose according to its three major components. METHODS For patient scatter, a mechanistic model was developed. For collimator scatter and head leakage, an empirical approach was used. The models utilize a nominal beam energy of 6 MeV to describe two linear accelerator types of a single vendor. The parameters of the models were adjusted using ionization chamber measurements registering total absorbed dose in simple geometries. Whole-body dose measurements using thermoluminescent dosimeters in an anthropomorphic phantom for static and intensity-modulated treatment plans were compared to the 3D out-of-field dose distributions calculated by a combined model. RESULTS The absolute mean difference between the whole-body predicted and the measured out-of-field dose of four different plans was 11% with a maximum difference below 44%. Computation time of 36 000 dose points for one field was around 30 s. By combining the model-calculated stray dose with the treatment planning system dose, the whole-body dose distribution can be viewed in the treatment planning system. CONCLUSIONS The results suggest that the model is accurate, fast and can be used for a wide range of treatment modalities to calculate the whole-body dose distribution for clinical analysis. For similar energy spectra, the mechanistic patient scatter model can be used independently of treatment machine or beam orientation.

Neutrons in active proton therapy: Parameterization of dose and dose equivalent

PURPOSE One of the essential elements of an epidemiological study to decide if proton therapy may be associated with increased or decreased subsequent malignancies compared to photon therapy is an ability to estimate all doses to non-target tissues, including neutron dose. This work therefore aims to predict for patients using proton pencil beam scanning the spatially localized neutron doses and dose equivalents. METHODS The proton pencil beam of Gantry 1 at the Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI) was Monte Carlo simulated using GEANT. Based on the simulated neutron dose and neutron spectra an analytical mechanistic dose model was developed. The pencil beam algorithm used for treatment planning at PSI has been extended using the developed model in order to calculate the neutron component of the delivered dose distribution for each treated patient. The neutron dose was estimated for two patient example cases. RESULTS The analytical neutron dose model represents the three-dimensional Monte Carlo simulated dose distribution up to 85cm from the proton pencil beam with a satisfying precision. The root mean square error between Monte Carlo simulation and model is largest for 138MeV protons and is 19% and 20% for dose and dose equivalent, respectively. The model was successfully integrated into the PSI treatment planning system. In average the neutron dose is increased by 10% or 65% when using 160MeV or 177MeV instead of 138MeV. For the neutron dose equivalent the increase is 8% and 57%. CONCLUSIONS The presented neutron dose calculations allow for estimates of dose that can be used in subsequent epidemiological studies or, should the need arise, to estimate the neutron dose at any point where a subsequent secondary tumour may occur. It was found that the neutron dose to the patient is heavily increased with proton energy.

Neutrons in proton pencil beam scanning: parameterization of energy, quality factors and RBE.

The biological effectiveness of neutrons produced during proton therapy in inducing cancer is unknown, but potentially large. In particular, since neutron biological effectiveness is energy dependent, it is necessary to estimate, besides the dose, also the energy spectra, in order to obtain quantities which could be a measure of the biological effectiveness and test current models and new approaches against epidemiological studies on cancer induction after proton therapy. For patients treated with proton pencil beam scanning, this work aims to predict the spatially localized neutron energies, the effective quality factor, the weighting factor according to ICRP, and two RBE values, the first obtained from the saturation corrected dose mean lineal energy and the second from DSB cluster induction. A proton pencil beam was Monte Carlo simulated using GEANT. Based on the simulated neutron spectra for three different proton beam energies a parameterization of energy, quality factors and RBE was calculated. The pencil beam algorithm used for treatment planning at PSI has been extended using the developed parameterizations in order to calculate the spatially localized neutron energy, quality factors and RBE for each treated patient. The parameterization represents the simple quantification of neutron energy in two energy bins and the quality factors and RBE with a satisfying precision up to 85 cm away from the proton pencil beam when compared to the results based on 3D Monte Carlo simulations. The root mean square error of the energy estimate between Monte Carlo simulation based results and the parameterization is 3.9%. For the quality factors and RBE estimates it is smaller than 0.9%. The model was successfully integrated into the PSI treatment planning system. It was found that the parameterizations for neutron energy, quality factors and RBE were independent of proton energy in the investigated energy range of interest for proton therapy. The pencil beam algorithm has been extended using the developed parameterizations in order to calculate the neutron energy, quality factor and RBE.

Monitor units are not predictive of neutron dose for high-energy IMRT.

BackgroundDue to the substantial increase in beam-on time of high energy intensity-modulated radiotherapy (>10 MV) techniques to deliver the same target dose compared to conventional treatment techniques, an increased dose of scatter radiation, including neutrons, is delivered to the patient. As a consequence, an increase in second malignancies may be expected in the future with the application of intensity-modulated radiotherapy. It is commonly assumed that the neutron dose equivalent scales with the number of monitor units.MethodsMeasurements of neutron dose equivalent were performed for an open and an intensity-modulated field at four positions: inside and outside of the treatment field at 0.2 cm and 15 cm depth, respectively.ResultsIt was shown that the neutron dose equivalent, which a patient receives during an intensity-modulated radiotherapy treatment, does not scale with the ratio of applied monitor units relative to an open field irradiation. Outside the treatment volume at larger depth 35% less neutron dose equivalent is delivered than expected.ConclusionsThe predicted increase of second cancer induction rates from intensity-modulated treatment techniques can be overestimated when the neutron dose is simply scaled with monitor units.