Vasiliki Peppa

A retrospective dosimetric comparison of TG43 and a commercially available MBDCA for an APBI brachytherapy patient cohort.

PURPOSE To compare dosimetry using a contemporary model based dose calculation algorithm (MBDCA) following TG186 recommendations, and the conventional TG43 method in an (192)Ir high dose rate (HDR) accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) patient cohort. METHODS Data of 38 APBI patients were studied. Dosimetry for the treatment plans was performed using both the TG43 and TG186 dose calculation methods of the Oncentra Brachy v4.4 treatment planning system (TPS). Analysis included indices of clinical interest for the planning target volume (PTV coverage, dose homogeneity, conformity) as well as dose volume histograms (DVH) for the breast, lung, heart, rib and skin. Significance testing of observed differences between TG43 and TG186 results was carried out and the effect of target location to these differences was studied. RESULTS Statistically significant differences were observed in the values of clinically relevant DVH parameters for the PTV and the organs at risk (OAR), except for the heart. Differences for the PTV are relatively small (<1% for coverage, on the order of 2% for homogeneity and conformity) with a slight TG43 overestimation except for the dose homogeneity. Percentage differences are larger for the rib and lung (on the order of 4% for Dmax and 5% for V10Gy, respectively) and maximum for the skin (on the order of 6% for D10cc), with a correlation of the observed differences with target location. CONCLUSION While the MBDCA option of the TPS appears to improve dosimetric accuracy, differences from TG43 do not appear to warrant dose prescription changes or treatment protocol amendment..

A user-oriented procedure for the commissioning and quality assurance testing of treatment planning system dosimetry in high-dose-rate brachytherapy

PURPOSE To develop a user-oriented procedure for testing treatment planning system (TPS) dosimetry in high-dose-rate brachytherapy, with particular focus to TPSs using model-based dose calculation algorithms (MBDCAs). METHODS AND MATERIALS Identical plans were prepared for three computational models using two commercially available systems and the same (192)Ir source. Reference dose distributions were obtained for each plan using the MCNP v.6.1 Monte Carlo (MC) simulation code with input files prepared via automatic parsing of plan information using a custom software tool. The same tool was used for the comparison of reference dose distributions with corresponding MBDCA exports. RESULTS The single source test case yielded differences due to the MBDCA spatial discretization settings. These affect points at relatively increased distance from the source, and they are abated in test cases with multiple source dwells. Differences beyond MC Type A uncertainty were also observed very close to the source(s), close to the test geometry boundaries, and within heterogeneities. Both MBDCAs studied were found equivalent to MC within 5 cm from the target volume for a clinical breast brachytherapy test case. These are in agreement with previous findings of MBDCA benchmarking in the literature. CONCLUSIONS The data and the tools presented in this work, that are freely available via the web, can serve as a benchmark for advanced clinical users developing their own tests, a complete commissioning procedure for new adopters of currently available TPSs using MBDCAs, a quality assurance testing tool for future updates of already installed TPSs, or as an admission prerequisite in multicentric clinical trials.

On the impact of improved dosimetric accuracy on head and neck high dose rate brachytherapy

PURPOSE To study the effect of finite patient dimensions and tissue heterogeneities in head and neck high dose rate brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS The current practice of TG-43 dosimetry was compared to patient specific dosimetry obtained using Monte Carlo simulation for a sample of 22 patient plans. The dose distributions were compared in terms of percentage dose differences as well as differences in dose volume histogram and radiobiological indices for the target and organs at risk (mandible, parotids, skin, and spinal cord). RESULTS Noticeable percentage differences exist between TG-43 and patient specific dosimetry, mainly at low dose points. Expressed as fractions of the planning aim dose, percentage differences are within 2% with a general TG-43 overestimation except for the spine. These differences are consistent resulting in statistically significant differences of dose volume histogram and radiobiology indices. Absolute differences of these indices are however small to warrant clinical importance in terms of tumor control or complication probabilities. CONCLUSIONS The introduction of dosimetry methods characterized by improved accuracy is a valuable advancement. It does not appear however to influence dose prescription or call for amendment of clinical recommendations for the mobile tongue, base of tongue, and floor of mouth patient cohort of this study.

On the experimental validation of model-based dose calculation algorithms for 192Ir HDR brachytherapy treatment planning

There is an acknowledged need for the design and implementation of physical phantoms appropriate for the experimental validation of model-based dose calculation algorithms (MBDCA) introduced recently in 192Ir brachytherapy treatment planning systems (TPS), and this work investigates whether it can be met. A PMMA phantom was prepared to accommodate material inhomogeneities (air and Teflon), four plastic brachytherapy catheters, as well as 84 LiF TLD dosimeters (MTS-100M 1  ×  1  ×  1 mm3 microcubes), two radiochromic films (Gafchromic EBT3) and a plastic 3D dosimeter (PRESAGE). An irradiation plan consisting of 53 source dwell positions was prepared on phantom CT images using a commercially available TPS and taking into account the calibration dose range of each detector. Irradiation was performed using an 192Ir high dose rate (HDR) source. Dose to medium in medium, [Formula: see text], was calculated using the MBDCA option of the same TPS as well as Monte Carlo (MC) simulation with the MCNP code and a benchmarked methodology. Measured and calculated dose distributions were spatially registered and compared. The total standard (k  =  1) spatial uncertainties for TLD, film and PRESAGE were: 0.71, 1.58 and 2.55 mm. Corresponding percentage total dosimetric uncertainties were: 5.4-6.4, 2.5-6.4 and 4.85, owing mainly to the absorbed dose sensitivity correction and the relative energy dependence correction (position dependent) for TLD, the film sensitivity calibration (dose dependent) and the dependencies of PRESAGE sensitivity. Results imply a LiF over-response due to a relative intrinsic energy dependence between 192Ir and megavoltage calibration energies, and a dose rate dependence of PRESAGE sensitivity at low dose rates (<1 Gy min-1). Calculations were experimentally validated within uncertainties except for MBDCA results for points in the phantom periphery and dose levels  <20%. Experimental MBDCA validation is laborious, yet feasible. Further work is required for the full characterization of dosimeter response for 192Ir and the reduction of experimental uncertainties.

Time resolved dose rate distributions in brachytherapy

PURPOSE To investigate the biological significance of introducing time-resolved dose rate distributions (TR-DRD) in brachytherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS The treatment plan of a head and neck patient treated with pulsed-dose-rate (PDR) brachytherapy was considered. The TR-DRD was calculated on the basis of a Monte Carlo generated single source dose rate matrix taking into account the dose rate per source dwell position. Biologically Effective Dose (BED) was obtained considering either the mean dose rate per pulse (analytical method) or the TR-DRD (numerical method). Corresponding Tumor Control Probabilities (TCP) were calculated and compared for various PDR schemes and repair half-times from the literature. The dose of the biologically equivalent high-dose-rate (HDR) treatment schedule was also evaluated. RESULTS The analytical method presents an overall BED underestimation (up to 2%) relative to TR-DRD results. This is associated with an analytical-based TCP underestimation which increases with dose/pulse, pulse duration and period time and decreases with total dose. The half-time of repair seems to have the largest impact on the TCP calculations, with significant differences (up to 39.1%) corresponding to the shorter repair half-times. Regarding the equivalent HDR treatment schedule, the analytical method resulted to a HDR isoeffective dose underestimation lower than 2.2% and thus does not warrant any change in the derivation of the equivalent HDR scheme. CONCLUSION TR-DRD data should be taken into account for PDR biological effectiveness estimations, especially for short tissue repair half-times. This does not appear however to influence dose prescription of the equivalent HDR treatment schedule for mobile tongue carcinoma.

On the use of a novel Ferrous Xylenol-orange gelatin dosimeter for HDR brachytherapy commissioning and quality assurance testing

PURPOSE To evaluate a commercially available Ferrous-Xylenol Orange-Gel (FXG) dosimeter (TrueView™) coupled with Optical-Computed Tomography (OCT) read out, for 3D dose verification in an Ir-192 superficial brachytherapy application. METHODS Two identical polyethylene containers filled with gel from the same batch were used. One was irradiated with an 18 MeV electron field to examine the dose-response linearity and obtain a calibration curve. A flap surface applicator was attached to the other to simulate treatment of a skin lesion. The dose distribution in the experimental set up was calculated with the TG-43 and the model based dose calculation (MBCA) algorithms of a commercial treatment planning system (TPS), as well as Monte Carlo (MC) simulation using the MCNP code. Measured and calculated dose distributions were spatially registered and compared. RESULTS Apart from a region close to the containers neck, where gel measurements exhibited an over-response relative to MC calculations (probably due to stray light perturbation), an excellent agreement was observed between measurements and simulations. More than 97% of points within the 10% isodose line (80 cGy) met the gamma index criteria established from uncertainty analysis (5%/2 mm). The corresponding passing rates for the comparison of experiment to calculations using the TG-43 and MBDCA options of the TPS were 57% and 92%, respectively. CONCLUSION TrueView™ is suitable for the quality assurance of demanding radiotherapy applications. Experimental results of this work confirm the advantage of the studied MBDCA over TG-43, expected from the improved account of scatter radiation in the treatment geometry.

Dosimetric and radiobiological comparison of TG-43 and Monte Carlo calculations in 192Ir breast brachytherapy applications

PURPOSE To investigate the clinical significance of introducing model based dose calculation algorithms (MBDCAs) as an alternative to TG-43 in 192Ir interstitial breast brachytherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS A 57 patient cohort was used in a retrospective comparison between TG-43 based dosimetry data exported from a treatment planning system and Monte Carlo (MC) dosimetry performed using MCNP v. 6.1 with plan and anatomy information in DICOM-RT format. Comparison was performed for the target, ipsilateral lung, heart, skin, breast and ribs, using dose distributions, dose-volume histograms (DVH) and plan quality indices clinically used for plan evaluation, as well as radiobiological parameters. RESULTS TG-43 overestimation of target DVH parameters is statistically significant but small (less than 2% for the target coverage indices and 4% for homogeneity indices, on average). Significant dose differences (>5%) were observed close to the skin and at relatively large distances from the implant leading to a TG-43 dose overestimation for the organs at risk. These differences correspond to low dose regions (<50% of the prescribed dose), being less than 2% of the prescribed dose. Detected dosimetric differences did not induce clinically significant differences in calculated tumor control probabilities (mean absolute difference <0.2%) and normal tissue complication probabilities. CONCLUSION While TG-43 shows a statistically significant overestimation of most indices used for plan evaluation, differences are small and therefore not clinically significant. Improved MBDCA dosimetry could be important for re-irradiation, technique inter-comparison and/or the assessment of secondary cancer induction risk, where accurate dosimetry in the whole patient anatomy is of the essence.

SU-F-BRA-11: An Experimental Commissioning Test of Brachytherapy MBDCA Dosimetry, Based On a Commercial Radiochromic Gel/optical CT System

Purpose: To implement a 3D dose verification procedure of Model-Based Dose Calculation Algorithms (MBDCAs) for 1 9 2Ir HDR brachytherapy, based on a novel Ferrous Xylenol-orange gel (FXG) and optical CT read-out. Methods: The TruView gel was employed for absolute dosimetry in conjunction with cone-beam optical CT read-out with the VISTA scanner (both from Modus Medical Inc, London, ON, Canada). A multi-catheter skin flap was attached to a cylindrical PETE jar (d=9.6cm, h=16cm) filled with FXG, which served as both the dosimeter and the water equivalent phantom of bounded dimensions. X- ray CT image series of the jar with flap attached was imported to Oncentra Brachy v.4.5. A treatment plan consisting of 8 catheters and 56 dwell positions was generated, and Oncentra-ACE MBDCA as well as TG43 dose results were exported for further evaluation. The irradiation was carried out with a microSelecton v2 source. The FXG dose-response, measured via an electron irradiation of a second dosimeter from the same batch, was linear (R2>0.999) at least up to 12Gy. A MCNP6 input file was prepared from the DICOM-RT plan data using BrachyGuide to facilitate Monte Carlo (MC) simulation dosimetry in the actual experimental geometry. Agreement between experimental (reference) and calculated dose distributions was evaluated using the 3D gamma index (GI) method with criteria (5%-2mm applied locally) determined from uncertainty analysis. Results: The TG-43 GI failed, as expected, in the majority of voxels away from the flap (pass rate 59% for D>0.8Gy, corresponding to 10% of prescribed dose). ACE performed significantly better (corresponding pass rate 92%). The GI evaluation for the MC data (corresponding pass rate 97%) failed mainly at low dose points of increased uncertainty. Conclusion: FXG gel/optical CT is an efficient method for level-2 commissioning of brachytherapy MBDCAs. Target dosimetry is not affected from uncertainty introduced by TG43 assumptions in 192Ir skin brachytherapy. Research co-financed by the ESF and Greek funds through the Operational Program Education and Lifelong Learning Investing in Knowledge Society of the NSRF. Research Funding Program: Aristeia. Modus Medical Devices Inc. provided a TruView dosimeter batch and Nucletron, and Elekta company, provided access to Oncentra Brachy v4.5, for research purposes.

SU-F-BRA-12: End-User Oriented Tools and Procedures for Testing Brachytherapy TPSs Employing MBDCAs

Purpose: To develop user-oriented tools for commissioning and dosimetry testing of 192Ir brachytherapy treatment planning systems (TPSs) employing model based dose calculation algorithms (MBDCAs). Methods: A software tool (BrachyGuide) has been developed for the automatic generation of MCNP6 input files from any CT based plan exported in DICOM RT format from Elekta and Varian TPSs. BrachyGuide also facilitates the evaluation of imported Monte Carlo (MC) and TPS dose distributions in terms of % dose differences and gamma index (CT overlaid colormaps or relative frequency plots) as well as DVHs and related indices. For users not equipped to perform MC, a set of computational models was prepared in DICOM format, accompanied by treatment plans and corresponding MCNP6 generated reference data. BrachyGuide can then be used to compare institutional and reference data as per TG186. The model set includes a water sphere with the MBDCA WG 192 Ir source placed centrically and in two eccentric positions, a water sphere with cubic bone and lung inhomogeneities and a five source dwells plan, and a patient equivalent model with an Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation (APBI) plan. Results: The tools developed were used for the dosimetry testing of the Acuros and ACE MBDCAs implemented in BrachyVision v.13 and Oncentra Brachy v.4.5, respectively. Findings were consistent with previous results in the literature. Besides points close to the source dwells, Acuros was found to agree within type A uncertainties with the reference MC results. Differences greater than MC type A uncertainty were observed for ACE at distances >5cm from the source dwells and in bone. Conclusion: The tools developed are efficient for brachytherapy MBDCA planning commissioning and testing. Since they are appropriate for distribution over the web, they will be put at the AAPM WG MBDCA’s disposal. Research co-financed by the ESF and Greek funds. NSRF operational Program: Education and Lifelong Learning Investing in Knowledge Society-Aristeia. Varian Medical Systems and Nucletron, an Elekta company provided access to TPSs for research purposes. Miss Peppa was supported by IKY-fellowships of excellence for postgraduate studies in Greece,Siemens Program.

TH-AB-BRA-04: A Physical Phantom for Experimental Commissioning and Performance Testing of 192Ir MBDCAs

Purpose: To present a phantom-based methodology for the experimental commissioning and performance testing of model-based dose calculation algorithms (MBDCAs), which have been recently introduced in 192Ir HDR brachytherapy treatment planning systems (TPSs). Methods: The phantom was constructed from PMMA slabs properly machined to accommodate material and density inhomogeneity inserts, as well as TLD detectors (TLD-100, 1×1×1 mm3), radiochromic films (Gafchromic EBT-3) and a cylindrical Presage dosimeter (d=6cm, h=8cm). The spatial arrangement of the different dosimeters within the phantom permitted measurements at regions of scatter conditions departing from TG43 assumptions (e.g., at phantom boundary) and/or close to the inhomogeneity inserts. The phantom was CT-imaged and a multiple 192 Ir source position treatment plan was prepared using the Oncentra Brachy v4.5 TPS. Dose calculations of the Oncentra-ACE MBDCA were exported in DICOM-RT for further evaluation. The plan was delivered using a microSelectron v.2 192 Ir source and 4 plastic catheters embedded in PMMA slabs. The treatment plan data were subsequently imported into an in-house developed software tool (BrachyGuide) used to obtain corresponding Monte Carlo (MC) simulation dosimetry results with the MCNP code. Detectors’ measurements were compared to both MBDCA- and MC-calculated results in terms of absolute point dose differences, 2D and 3D relative dose and gamma index distributions. Results: Experimental dosimetry results and MC calculations were found in agreement within uncertainties. The corresponding dosimetry comparison between detector measurements and ACE-calculations showed also a good agreement which deteriorated with increasing distance from the implant due, mainly, to MBDCA assumptions and optimization settings. The latter was highlighted in the comparison of the 3D dose distribution measured by the Presage dosimeter to corresponding ACE calculations. Conclusion: The proposed phantom/methodology can be used for both commissioning and quality assurance of MBDCA-based TPSs, as well as for benchmarking MC-calculated reference dose distributions. Research co-financed by the ESF and Greek funds through the Operational Program Education and Lifelong Learning Investing in Knowledge Society of the NSRF. Research Funding Program: Aristeia. Nucletron, an Elekta company (Veenendaal, The Netherlands) is gratefully acknowledged for providing Oncentra Brachy v4.5 for research purposes.