Results for “PLANNING” — Page 16

DOE OSTI2014

Forward treatment planning for modulated electron radiotherapy (MERT) employing Monte Carlo methods

Purpose: This paper describes the development of a forward planning process for modulated electron radiotherapy (MERT). The approach is based on a previously developed electron beam model used to calculate dose distributions of electron beams shaped by a photon multi leaf collimator (pMLC). Methods: As the electron beam model has already been implemented into the Swiss Monte Carlo Plan environment, the Eclipse treatment planning system (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) can be included in the planning process for MERT. In a first step, CT data are imported into Eclipse and a pMLC shaped electron beam is set up. This initial electron beam is then divided into segments, with the electron energy in each segment chosen according to the distal depth of the planning target volume (PTV) in beam direction. In order to improve the homogeneity of the dose distribution in the PTV, a feathering process (Gaussian edge feathering) is launched, which results in a number of feathered segments. For each of these segments a dose calculation is performed employing the in-house developed electron beam model along with the macro Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm. Finally, an automated weight optimization of all segments is carried out and the total dose distribution is read back into Eclipse for display and evaluation. One academic and two clinical situations are investigated for possible benefits of MERT treatment compared to standard treatments performed in our clinics and treatment with a bolus electron conformal (BolusECT) method. Results: The MERT treatment plan of the academic case was superior to the standard single segment electron treatment plan in terms of organs at risk (OAR) sparing. Further, a comparison between an unfeathered and a feathered MERT plan showed better PTV coverage and homogeneity for the feathered plan, with V{sub 95%} increased from 90% to 96% and V{sub 107%} decreased from 8% to nearly 0%. For a clinical breast boost irradiation, the MERT plan led to a similar homogeneity in the PTV compared to the standard treatment plan while the mean body dose was lower for the MERT plan. Regarding the second clinical case, a whole breast treatment, MERT resulted in a reduction of the lung volume receiving more than 45% of the prescribed dose when compared to the standard plan. On the other hand, the MERT plan leads to a larger low-dose lung volume and a degraded dose homogeneity in the PTV. For the clinical cases evaluated in this work, treatment plans using the BolusECT technique resulted in a more homogenous PTV and CTV coverage but higher doses to the OARs than the MERT plans. Conclusions: MERT treatments were successfully planned for phantom and clinical cases, applying a newly developed intuitive and efficient forward planning strategy that employs a MC based electron beam model for pMLC shaped electron beams. It is shown that MERT can lead to a dose reduction in OARs compared to other methods. The process of feathering MERT segments results in an improvement of the dose homogeneity in the PTV.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗

DOE OSTI2014

MO-H-19A-01: FEATURED PRESENTATION - Treatment Planning Tool for Radiotherapy with Very High-Energy Electron Beams

Purpose: To develop a tool for treatment planning optimization for fast radiotherapy delivered with very high-energy electron beams (VHEE) and to compare VHEE plans to state-of-the-art plans for challenging pelvis and H'N cases. Methods: Treatment planning for radiotherapy delivered with VHEE scanning pencil beams was performed by integrating EGSnrc Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculations with spot scanning optimization run in a research version of RayStation. A Matlab GUI for MC beamlet generation was developed, in which treatment parameters such as the pencil beam size and spacing, energy and number of beams can be selected. Treatment planning study for H'N and pelvis cases was performed and the effect of treatment parameters on the delivered dose distributions was evaluated and compared to the clinical treatment plans. The pelvis case with a 691cm3 PTV was treated with 2-arc 15MV VMAT and the H'N case with four PTVs with total volume of 531cm3 was treated with 4-arc 6MV VMAT. Results: Most studied VHEE plans outperformed VMAT plans. The best pelvis 80MeV VHEE plan with 25 beams resulted in 12% body dose sparing and 8% sparing to the bowel and right femur compared to the VMAT plan. The 100MeV plan was superior to the 150MeV plan. Mixing 100 and 150MeV improved dose sparing to the bladder by 7% compared to either plan. Plans with 16 and 36 beams did not significantly affect the dose distributions compared to 25 beam plans. The best H'N 100MeV VHEE plan decreased mean doses to the brainstem, chiasm, and both globes by 10-42% compared to the VMAT plan. Conclusion: The pelvis and H'N cases suggested that sixteen 100MeV beams might be sufficient specifications of a novel VHEE treatment machine. However, optimum machine parameters will be determined with the presented VHEE treatment-planning tool for a large number of clinical cases. BW Loo and P Maxim received research support from RaySearch Laboratories. E Hynning and B Hardemark are employees of RaySearch Laboratories.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

SU-E-T-477: IMPT Vs. VMAT: A Treatment Planning Study for High-Risk Prostate Cancer

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the dosimetric results between intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for a high-risk prostate cancer. Methods: Six high-risk prostate cancer cases were included in this retrospective study. For each case, IMPT plans were generated using multiple field optimization (MFO) technique (2 fields) with XiO treatment planning system (TPS), whereas VMAT plans were generated using RapidArc technique (2 full arcs) with Eclipse TPS. IMPT and VMAT plans were optimized for a total prescription dose of 79.2 Gy[RBE] and 79.2 Gy, respectively. IMPT and VMAT plans were compared using physical dose-volume parameters. The absolute differences in a dosimetric parameter between IMPT and VMAT plans were calculated. The results were averaged over six cases. Results: For the planning target volume (PTV), the mean dose was comparable between IMPT (80.65 Gy[RBE]) and VMAT (80.33 Gy) plans, whereas the PTV coverage was slightly better in IMPT (97.41%) than in VMAT (95.00%) plans. The mean dose to the rectum and bladder were lower in IMPT (17.68 Gy[RBE] and 15.70 Gy[RBE], respectively) when compared to VMAT (42.17 Gy and 30.29 Gy, respectively) plans. The rectal V{sub 70}, V{sub 50}, and V{sub 30} were lower in IMPT plans than in VMAT plans by 4.91%, 28.34%, and 46.74%, respectively. For bladder, V{sub 70} was comparable (8.92 Gy(RBE) vs. 9.03 Gy), whereas V{sub 50} and V{sub 30} were lower in IMPT plans by 6.25% and 25.92%, respectively, when compared to VMAT plans. The mean doses to the left and right femoral heads were lower in VMAT plans (18.08 Gy and 21.91 Gy, respectively) than in VMAT plans (31.35 Gy[RBE] and 29.52 Gy[RBE], respectively) Conclusion: Both IMPT and VMAT plans provided excellent target coverage and acceptable femoral head dose. IMPT provided better tissue sparing for the rectum and bladder compared to VMAT.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2017

Dosimetric benefits of automation in the treatment of lower thoracic esophageal cancer: Is manual planning still an alternative option?

This study aimed to design automated volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans in Pinnacle auto-planning and compare it with manual plans for patients with lower thoracic esophageal cancer (EC). Thirty patients with lower thoracic EC were randomly selected for replanning VMAT plans using auto-planning in Pinnacle treatment planning system (TPS) version 9.10. Historical plans of these patients were then compared. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) statistics, dose uniformity, and dose homogeneity were analyzed to evaluate treatment plans. Auto-planning was superior in terms of conformity index (CI) and homogeneity index (HI) for planning target volume (PTV), significantly improving 8.2% (p = 0.013) and 25% (p = 0.007) compared with manual planning, respectively, and decreasing dose of heart and liver irradiated by 20 to 40 Gy and 5 to 30 Gy, respectively (p max ) of spinal cord by 6.9 Gy compared with manual planning (p = 0.000). Additionally, manual planning showed the significantly lower low-dose volume (V{sub 5}) for the lung (p = 0.005). For auto-planning, the V{sub 5} of the lung was significantly associated with the relative volume index (the volume ratio of PTV to the lung), and the correlation coefficient (R) and p-value were 0.994 and 0.000. Pinnacle auto-planning achieved superior target conformity and homogeneity and similar target coverage compared with historical manual planning. Most of organs at risk (OARs) sparing was significantly improved by auto-planning except for the V{sub 5} of the lung, and the low dose distribution was highly associated with PTV volume and lung volume in auto-planning.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2012

Generalizable Class Solutions for Treatment Planning of Spinal Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy

Purpose: Spinal stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) continues to emerge as an effective therapeutic approach to spinal metastases; however, treatment planning and delivery remain resource intensive at many centers, which may hamper efficient implementation in clinical practice. We sought to develop a generalizable class solution approach for spinal SBRT treatment planning that would allow confidence that a given plan provides optimal target coverage, reduce integral dose, and maximize planning efficiency. Methods and Materials: We examined 91 patients treated with spinal SBRT at our institution. Treatment plans were categorized by lesion location, clinical target volume (CTV) configuration, and dose fractionation scheme, and then analyzed to determine the technically achievable dose gradient. A radial cord expansion was subtracted from the CTV to yield a planning CTV (pCTV) construct for plan evaluation. We reviewed the treatment plans with respect to target coverage, dose gradient, integral dose, conformality, and maximum cord dose to select the best plans and develop a set of class solutions. Results: The class solution technique generated plans that maintained target coverage and improved conformality (1.2-fold increase in the 95% van't Riet Conformation Number describing the conformality of a reference dose to the target) while reducing normal tissue integral dose (1.3-fold decrease in the volume receiving 4 Gy (V{sub 4Gy}) and machine output (19% monitor unit (MU) reduction). In trials of planning efficiency, the class solution technique reduced treatment planning time by 30% to 60% and MUs required by {approx}20%: an effect independent of prior planning experience. Conclusions: We have developed a set of class solutions for spinal SBRT that incorporate a pCTV metric for plan evaluation while yielding dosimetrically superior treatment plans with increased planning efficiency. Our technique thus allows for efficient, reproducible, and high-quality spinal SBRT treatment planning.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗

DOE OSTI2016

Pancreatic cancer planning: Complex conformal vs modulated therapies

To compare the roles of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric- modulated arc therapy (VMAT) therapy as compared to simple and complex 3-dimensional chemoradiotherpy (3DCRT) planning for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. In all, 12 patients who received postoperative radiotherapy (8) or neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (4) were evaluated retrospectively. Radiotherapy planning was performed for 4 treatment techniques: simple 4-field box, complex 5-field 3DCRT, 5 to 6-field IMRT, and single-arc VMAT. All volumes were approved by a single observer in accordance with Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) Pancreas Contouring Atlas. Plans included tumor/tumor bed and regional lymph nodes to 45 Gy; with tumor/tumor bed boosted to 50.4 Gy, at least 95% of planning target volume (PTV) received the prescription dose. Dose-volume histograms (DVH) for multiple end points, treatment planning, and delivery time were assessed. Complex 3DCRT, IMRT, and VMAT plans significantly (p < 0.05) decreased mean kidney dose, mean liver dose, liver (V{sub 30}, V{sub 35}), stomach (D{sub 10}%), stomach (V{sub 45}), mean right kidney dose, and right kidney (V{sub 15}) as compared with the simple 4-field plans that are most commonly reported in the literature. IMRT plans resulted in decreased mean liver dose, liver (V{sub 35}), and left kidney (V{sub 15}, V{sub 18}, V{sub 20}). VMAT plans decreased small bowel (D{sub 10}%, D{sub 15}%), small bowel (V{sub 35}, V{sub 45}), stomach (D{sub 10}%, D{sub 15}%), stomach (V{sub 35}, V{sub 45}), mean liver dose, liver (V{sub 35}), left kidney (V{sub 15}, V{sub 18}, V{sub 20}), and right kidney (V{sub 18}, V{sub 20}). VMAT plans significantly decreased small bowel (D{sub 10}%, D{sub 15}%), left kidney (V{sub 20}), and stomach (V{sub 45}) as compared with IMRT plans. Treatment planning and delivery times were most efficient for simple 4-field box and VMAT. Excluding patient setup and imaging, average treatment delivery was within 10 minutes for simple and complex 3DCRT, IMRT, and VMAT treatments. This article shows significant improvements in 3D plan performance with complex planning over the more frequently compared 3- or 4-field simple 3D planning techniques. VMAT plans continue to demonstrate potential for the most organ sparing. However, further studies are required to identify if dosimetric benefits associated with inverse optimized planning can be translated into clinical benefits and if these treatment techniques are value-added therapies for this group of patients with cancer.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2018

A feasibility study of using advanced external beam techniques to create a vaginal cuff brachytherapy-like endometrial boost plan

The purpose of this study was to explore the feasibility of using advanced external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) planning techniques for creating plans that could be used as a possible alternative for high-dose rate (HDR) vaginal cuff brachytherapy (VCBT) boost in treating endometrial cancer. The computed tomography (CT) images of a total of 4 female patients who had endometrial cancer treated with HDR-VCBT were selected for this study. A typical HDR-VCBT target volume, 0.5-cm-thick shell volume around the cylinder applicator in the prescribed treatment length was contoured and used as the planning target volume (PTV) in both the HDR VCBT and the EBRT VCBT-like plans. HDR-VCBT plans were made based on the clinical protocol, 6 Gy given at the cylinder surface. The EBRT plans were generated using either a 7-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or a 2-arc volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques for different cylinder sizes and treatment lengths, with the prescription dose of 5 Gy. Organs at risk (OARs) such as bladder, femoral heads, rectum, and sigmoid were also contoured and used in dosimetric evaluations. Dose-to-target metrics included mean dose, the dose covering 90% of target volume (D90) and the percentage of target volume covered by 90% of prescription dose (V90 or V13.5 Gy). Dose to OAR metrics included the maximum dose received by 0.1 cc (D0.1cc), 1.0 cc (D1.0cc), and 2.0 cc (D2.0cc) of OARs. These metrics were calculated and compared between all techniques. After the EBRT plans were normalized to achieve a comparable mean dose to target as HDR-VCBT, the EBRT plans were found to have superior target coverage and increased dose homogeneity compared with HDR-VCBT. V90s of EBRT plans were 95%, compared with 50% to 58% of the HDR plans. However, D0.1cc, D1.0cc, and D2.0cc of OARs were 2% to 38% lower in HDR-VCBT than in EBRT. Although HDR-VCBT plans demonstrated superior normal tissue sparing, both EBRT and HDR-VCBT plans produce plans that met clinical dose constraints on normal tissues. Advanced EBRT techniques such as IMRT and VMAT are capable of making plans, which closely resemble HDR-VCBT. Although the doses of OARs are greater in EBRT than in HDR-VCBT, the prescription dose coverage and dose homogeneity of the EBRT plans are greater than that of HDR-VCBT plans at the similar mean dose, and the OAR dose is still acceptable with EBRT plans. The detailed dosimetric approaches are provided in the study.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗

DOE OSTI2015

SU-E-J-78: Adaptive Planning Workflow in a Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy Center

Purpose: The susceptibility of proton therapy to changes in patient setup and anatomy necessitates an adaptive planning process. With the right planning tools and clinical workflow, an adaptive plan can be created in a timely manner without adding significant workload to the treatment planning staff. Methods: In our center, a weekly QA CT is performed on most patients to assess setup, anatomy change, and tumor response. The QA CT is fused to the treatment planning CT, the contours are transferred via deformable registration, and the plan dose is recalculated on the QA CT. A physicist assesses the dose distribution, and an adaptive plan is requested based on tumor coverage or OAR dose changes. After the physician confirms or alters the deformed contours, a dosimetrist develops an adaptive plan using our TPS adaptation module. The plan is assessed for robustness and is then reviewed by the physician. Patient QA is performed within three days following the first adapted treatment. Results: Of the patients who received QA CTs, 19% required at least one adaptive plan (18.5% H&N, 18.5% brain, 11.1% breast, 14.8% chestwall, 14.8% lung, 18.5% pelvis and 3.8% abdomen). Of these patients, 14% went on a break, while the remainder was treated with the previous plan during the re-planning process. Adaptive plans were performed based on tumor shrinkage, anatomy change or positioning uncertainties for 37.9%, 44.8%, and 17.3% of the patients, respectively. On average, 3 full days are required between the QA CT and the first adapted plan treatment. Conclusion: Adaptive planning is a crucial component of proton therapy and should be applied to any site when the QA CT shows significant deviation from the plan. With an efficient workflow, an adaptive plan can be applied without delaying patient treatment or burdening the dosimetry and medical physics team.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

SU-E-T-451: Hybrid-VMAT: A Novel Technique Combining VMAT and 3D in Planning Whole Breast Radiotherapy with a Simultaneously-Integrated Boost (WBRT+SIB)

Purpose: The RTOG 1005 trial offered a hypofractionated arm in delivering WBRT+SIB. Traditionally, treatments were planned at our institution using field-in-field (FiF) tangents with a concurrent 3D conformal boost. With the availability of VMAT, it is possible that a hybrid VMAT-3D planning technique could provide another avenue in treating WBRT+SIB. Methods: A retrospective study of nine patients previously treated using RTOG 1005 guidelines was performed to compare FiF+3D plans with the hybrid technique. A combination of static tangents and partial VMAT arcs were used in base-dose optimization. The hybrid plans were optimized to deliver 4005cGy to the breast PTVeval and 4800cGy to the lumpectomy PTVeval over 15 fractions. Plans were optimized to meet the planning goals dictated by RTOG 1005. Results: Hybrid plans yielded similar coverage of breast and lumpectomy PTVs (average D95 of 4013cGy compared to 3990cGy for conventional), while reducing the volume of high dose within the breast; the average D30 and D50 for the hybrid technique were 4517cGy and 4288cGy, compared to 4704cGy and 4377cGy for conventional planning. Hybrid plans increased conformity as well, yielding CI95% values of 1.22 and 1.54 for breast and lumpectomy PTVeval volumes; in contrast, conventional plans averaged 1.49 and 2.27, respectively. The nearby organs at risk (OARs) received more low dose with the hybrid plans due to low dose spray from the partial arcs, but all hybrid plans did meet the acceptable constraints, at a minimum, from the protocol. Treatment planning time was also reduced, as plans were inversely optimized (VMAT) rather than forward optimized. Conclusion: Hybrid-VMAT could be a solution in delivering WB+SIB, as plans yield very conformal treatment plans and maintain clinical standards in OAR sparing. For treating breast cancer patients with a simultaneously-integrated boost, Hybrid-VMAT offers superiority in dosimetric conformity and planning time as compared to FIF techniques.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

SU-E-T-766: Treatment Planning Comparison Study On Two Different Multileaf Collimators Delivered with Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy

Purpose: To compare and evaluate the performance of two different multileaf collimators(MLCi2 and Agility) delivery with volumetric modulated arc therapy techniques. Methods: Treatment plans were graded four (Low, Moderate, Moderate-High and High complexity) accorrding to the complexity. This includes 1 Low complexity(brain metastasis), 2 Moderate complexity(Lung and Liver), 1 Moderate-High complexity(prostate) and 1 High complexity ( head and neck) cases. Total dose of 60 Gy was given for all the plans. All cases were desigined two VMAT plans, one with MLCi2(group A) and the other with Agility(group B). All plans were done on Elekta VMAT with Monaco treatment planning system. All plans were generated with 6 MV X-rays for both Plan A and Plan B. Plans were evaluated based on the ability to meet the dose volume histogram, radiation conformity index, estimated radiation delivery time, dose homogeneity index(HI) and monitor units(MU) needed to deliver the prescribed dose. Results: Plans of group B achieved the best HI (HI = 1.05 Vs. 1.06) at the Low complexity cases while plans of group A were slightly better at the high complexity cases (HI = 1.12 Vs. 1.14). Faster VMAT plan delivery with Agility than with MLCi2 as plan complexity increased (Low complexity:52s Vs.52s, Moderate complexity:58s Vs. 55s, Moderate-High complexity: 171s Vs.152s, High complexity : 326s Vs. 202s ), especially for the most complex paradigms delivered time can be decresed 38%. No Significant changes were observed between the group B and group A plans in terms of the healthy tissue mean dose and MU. Both plans respected the planning objective for all organs at risk. Conclusion: The study concludes that VMAT plans with the novel Agility MLC can significant decrease the delivering time at the high complexity cases, while a slight compromise in the dose homogeneity index should be noted. This work was supported by The Medical Science Foundation of The health department of Hebei Province (No. 20130253)

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

TU-AB-BRB-01: Coverage Evaluation and Probabilistic Treatment Planning as a Margin Alternative

The accepted clinical method to accommodate targeting uncertainties inherent in fractionated external beam radiation therapy is to utilize GTV-to-CTV and CTV-to-PTV margins during the planning process to design a PTV-conformal static dose distribution on the planning image set. Ideally, margins are selected to ensure a high (e.g. >95%) target coverage probability (CP) in spite of inherent inter- and intra-fractional positional variations, tissue motions, and initial contouring uncertainties. Robust optimization techniques, also known as probabilistic treatment planning techniques, explicitly incorporate the dosimetric consequences of targeting uncertainties by including CP evaluation into the planning optimization process along with coverage-based planning objectives. The treatment planner no longer needs to use PTV and/or PRV margins; instead robust optimization utilizes probability distributions of the underlying uncertainties in conjunction with CP-evaluation for the underlying CTVs and OARs to design an optimal treated volume. This symposium will describe CP-evaluation methods as well as various robust planning techniques including use of probability-weighted dose distributions, probability-weighted objective functions, and coverage optimized planning. Methods to compute and display the effect of uncertainties on dose distributions will be presented. The use of robust planning to accommodate inter-fractional setup uncertainties, organ deformation, and contouring uncertainties will be examined as will its use to accommodate intra-fractional organ motion. Clinical examples will be used to inter-compare robust and margin-based planning, highlighting advantages of robust-plans in terms of target and normal tissue coverage. Robust-planning limitations as uncertainties approach zero and as the number of treatment fractions becomes small will be presented, as well as the factors limiting clinical implementation of robust planning. Learning Objectives: To understand robust-planning as a clinical alternative to using margin-based planning. To understand conceptual differences between uncertainty and predictable motion. To understand fundamental limitations of the PTV concept that probabilistic planning can overcome. To understand the major contributing factors to target and normal tissue coverage probability. To understand the similarities and differences of various robust planning techniques To understand the benefits and limitations of robust planning techniques.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

TU-AB-BRB-02: Stochastic Programming Methods for Handling Uncertainty and Motion in IMRT Planning

The accepted clinical method to accommodate targeting uncertainties inherent in fractionated external beam radiation therapy is to utilize GTV-to-CTV and CTV-to-PTV margins during the planning process to design a PTV-conformal static dose distribution on the planning image set. Ideally, margins are selected to ensure a high (e.g. >95%) target coverage probability (CP) in spite of inherent inter- and intra-fractional positional variations, tissue motions, and initial contouring uncertainties. Robust optimization techniques, also known as probabilistic treatment planning techniques, explicitly incorporate the dosimetric consequences of targeting uncertainties by including CP evaluation into the planning optimization process along with coverage-based planning objectives. The treatment planner no longer needs to use PTV and/or PRV margins; instead robust optimization utilizes probability distributions of the underlying uncertainties in conjunction with CP-evaluation for the underlying CTVs and OARs to design an optimal treated volume. This symposium will describe CP-evaluation methods as well as various robust planning techniques including use of probability-weighted dose distributions, probability-weighted objective functions, and coverage optimized planning. Methods to compute and display the effect of uncertainties on dose distributions will be presented. The use of robust planning to accommodate inter-fractional setup uncertainties, organ deformation, and contouring uncertainties will be examined as will its use to accommodate intra-fractional organ motion. Clinical examples will be used to inter-compare robust and margin-based planning, highlighting advantages of robust-plans in terms of target and normal tissue coverage. Robust-planning limitations as uncertainties approach zero and as the number of treatment fractions becomes small will be presented, as well as the factors limiting clinical implementation of robust planning. Learning Objectives: To understand robust-planning as a clinical alternative to using margin-based planning. To understand conceptual differences between uncertainty and predictable motion. To understand fundamental limitations of the PTV concept that probabilistic planning can overcome. To understand the major contributing factors to target and normal tissue coverage probability. To understand the similarities and differences of various robust planning techniques To understand the benefits and limitations of robust planning techniques.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

TU-AB-BRB-03: Coverage-Based Treatment Planning to Accommodate Organ Deformable Motions and Contouring Uncertainties for Prostate Treatment

The accepted clinical method to accommodate targeting uncertainties inherent in fractionated external beam radiation therapy is to utilize GTV-to-CTV and CTV-to-PTV margins during the planning process to design a PTV-conformal static dose distribution on the planning image set. Ideally, margins are selected to ensure a high (e.g. >95%) target coverage probability (CP) in spite of inherent inter- and intra-fractional positional variations, tissue motions, and initial contouring uncertainties. Robust optimization techniques, also known as probabilistic treatment planning techniques, explicitly incorporate the dosimetric consequences of targeting uncertainties by including CP evaluation into the planning optimization process along with coverage-based planning objectives. The treatment planner no longer needs to use PTV and/or PRV margins; instead robust optimization utilizes probability distributions of the underlying uncertainties in conjunction with CP-evaluation for the underlying CTVs and OARs to design an optimal treated volume. This symposium will describe CP-evaluation methods as well as various robust planning techniques including use of probability-weighted dose distributions, probability-weighted objective functions, and coverage optimized planning. Methods to compute and display the effect of uncertainties on dose distributions will be presented. The use of robust planning to accommodate inter-fractional setup uncertainties, organ deformation, and contouring uncertainties will be examined as will its use to accommodate intra-fractional organ motion. Clinical examples will be used to inter-compare robust and margin-based planning, highlighting advantages of robust-plans in terms of target and normal tissue coverage. Robust-planning limitations as uncertainties approach zero and as the number of treatment fractions becomes small will be presented, as well as the factors limiting clinical implementation of robust planning. Learning Objectives: To understand robust-planning as a clinical alternative to using margin-based planning. To understand conceptual differences between uncertainty and predictable motion. To understand fundamental limitations of the PTV concept that probabilistic planning can overcome. To understand the major contributing factors to target and normal tissue coverage probability. To understand the similarities and differences of various robust planning techniques To understand the benefits and limitations of robust planning techniques.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

TU-F-CAMPUS-J-01: A Formulation of 4D Treatment Planning for Tumour Tracking Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Lung Cancer

Purpose: To develop a formulation for 4D treatment planning for a tumour tracking volumetric modulated arc therapy treatment (VMAT) plan for lung cancer. Methods: A VMAT plan was optimized based on a reference phase of the 4DCT of a lung cancer patient. The PTV was generated from the GTV of the reference phase. The collimator angle was set to 90 degrees such that the MLC travels along superior-inferior direction which is the main component of movement of a lung tumour. Then, each control point of the VMAT plan was assigned to a particular phase of the 4DCT in chronological order. The MLC positions of each control point were shifted according to the position of the tumour centroid of its assigned phase to form a tumour tracking VMAT plan. The control points of the same phase were grouped to form a pseudo VMAT plan for that particular phase. Dose calculation was performed for each pseudo VMAT plan on the corresponding phase of the 4DCT. The CTs of all phases were registered to the reference phase CT according to the displacement of the tumour centroid. The individual dose distributions of the pseudo VMAT plans were summed up and displayed on the reference phase of the 4DCT. A control VMAT plan was optimized based on a PTV generated from the ITV of all phases and compared with the tumour tracking VMAT plan. Results: Both plans achieved >95% volume coverage at the prescription dose level (96% for the tumour tracking plan and 97% for the control plan). But the normal lung volume irradiated at the prescription dose level was 39% less for the tumour tracking plan than the control plan. Conclusion: A formulation of 4D treatment planning for tumour tracking VMAT plans for lung cancer was developed.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

WE-AB-209-05: Development of an Ultra-Fast High Quality Whole Breast Radiotherapy Treatment Planning System

Purpose: To enable near-real-time (<20sec) and interactive planning without compromising quality for whole breast RT treatment planning using tangential fields. Methods: Whole breast RT plans from 20 patients treated with single energy (SE, 6MV, 10 patients) or mixed energy (ME, 6/15MV, 10 patients) were randomly selected for model training. Additional 20 cases were used as validation cohort. The planning process for a new case consists of three fully automated steps:1. Energy Selection. A classification model automatically selects energy level. To build the energy selection model, principle component analysis (PCA) was applied to the digital reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) of training cases to extract anatomy-energy relationship.2. Fluence Estimation. Once energy is selected, a random forest (RF) model generates the initial fluence. This model summarizes the relationship between patient anatomy’s shape based features and the output fluence. 3. Fluence Fine-tuning. This step balances the overall dose contribution throughout the whole breast tissue by automatically selecting reference points and applying centrality correction. Fine-tuning works at beamlet-level until the dose distribution meets clinical objectives. Prior to finalization, physicians can also make patient-specific trade-offs between target coverage and high-dose volumes.The proposed method was validated by comparing auto-plans with manually generated clinical-plans using Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test. Results: In 19/20 cases the model suggested the same energy combination as clinical-plans. The target volume coverage V100% was 78.1±4.7% for auto-plans, and 79.3±4.8% for clinical-plans (p=0.12). Volumes receiving 105% Rx were 69.2±78.0cc for auto-plans compared to 83.9±87.2cc for clinical-plans (p=0.13). The mean V10Gy, V20Gy of the ipsilateral lung was 24.4±6.7%, 18.6±6.0% for auto plans and 24.6±6.7%, 18.9±6.1% for clinical-plans (p=0.04, <0.001). Total computational time for auto-plans was < 20s. Conclusion: We developed an automated method that generates breast radiotherapy plans with accurate energy selection, similar target volume coverage, reduced hotspot volumes, and significant reduction in planning time, allowing for near-real-time planning.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

The effectiveness of pretreatment physics plan review for detecting errors in radiation therapy

Purpose: The pretreatment physics plan review is a standard tool for ensuring treatment quality. Studies have shown that the majority of errors in radiation oncology originate in treatment planning, which underscores the importance of the pretreatment physics plan review. This quality assurance measure is fundamentally important and central to the safety of patients and the quality of care that they receive. However, little is known about its effectiveness. The purpose of this study was to analyze reported incidents to quantify the effectiveness of the pretreatment physics plan review with the goal of improving it. Methods: This study analyzed 522 potentially severe or critical near-miss events within an institutional incident learning system collected over a three-year period. Of these 522 events, 356 originated at a workflow point that was prior to the pretreatment physics plan review. The remaining 166 events originated after the pretreatment physics plan review and were not considered in the study. The applicable 356 events were classified into one of the three categories: (1) events detected by the pretreatment physics plan review, (2) events not detected but “potentially detectable” by the physics review, and (3) events “not detectable” by the physics review. Potentially detectable events were further classified by which specific checks performed during the pretreatment physics plan review detected or could have detected the event. For these events, the associated specific check was also evaluated as to the possibility of automating that check given current data structures. For comparison, a similar analysis was carried out on 81 events from the international SAFRON radiation oncology incident learning system. Results: Of the 356 applicable events from the institutional database, 180/356 (51%) were detected or could have been detected by the pretreatment physics plan review. Of these events, 125 actually passed through the physics review; however, only 38% (47/125) were actually detected at the review. Of the 81 events from the SAFRON database, 66/81 (81%) were potentially detectable by the pretreatment physics plan review. From the institutional database, three specific physics checks were particularly effective at detecting events (combined effectiveness of 38%): verifying the isocenter (39/180), verifying DRRs (17/180), and verifying that the plan matched the prescription (12/180). The most effective checks from the SAFRON database were verifying that the plan matched the prescription (13/66) and verifying the field parameters in the record and verify system against those in the plan (23/66). Software-based plan checking systems, if available, would have potential effectiveness of 29% and 64% at detecting events from the institutional and SAFRON databases, respectively. Conclusions: Pretreatment physics plan review is a key safety measure and can detect a high percentage of errors. However, the majority of errors that potentially could have been detected were not detected in this study, indicating the need to improve the pretreatment physics plan review performance. Suggestions for improvement include the automation of specific physics checks performed during the pretreatment physics plan review and the standardization of the review process.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

Sci-Fri PM: Radiation Therapy, Planning, Imaging, and Special Techniques - 02: Feasibility of using multileaf collimation for stereotactic radiosurgery of arteriovenous malformation

SRS using linac and cones offers steep dose fall-off but a tradeoff exists between conformality and treatment time, which depends on the number of isocentres. Purpose of this study is to quantify planning metrics between cones- and MLC-based SRS for arteriovenous malformation(AVM). Seven AVM cases treated with cones were re-planned with MLC on Pinnacle treatment planning system. Planning target volume(PTV) was created with 1mm uniform margin to the AVM to account for MLC positional variation. Clinically-planned prescription dose(15–25Gy) was used. Four plans were generated per case:non-coplanar VMAT(ncV), single-arc VMAT(saV), non-coplanar IMRT(ncI), non-coplanar conformal(ncC). Plans were compared for conformity(CI), heterogeneity(HI) and gradient(GI) indices and brain doses. Estimated treatment times and monitor units(MU) were compared. Cone-based plans required 2–6 isocentres. Though CI-RTOG was similar for plans(median=0.98), CI-Paddick was most favourable for ncV(median=0.86) and worst for cones(0.54). HI for MLC plans(median=1.19–1.27) were lower than cone-based plans(1.43). GI was similar for all plans. For 2/7 ncC had brainstem maximum dose>16.7Gy and therefore were clinically unacceptable. Brain V12Gy,V10Gy,V2Gy were lowest in the cones plan. ncV brain V12Gy,V10Gy,V2Gy were lowest of all MLC-based plans studied. Treatment MUs were similar for MLC-based plans and up to 70% lower than clinically delivered plans. ncV showed best conformality in this study. Of the MLC-based plans, ncV also showed lowest normal tissue dose with reasonable treatment time.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2017

Highly Efficient Training, Refinement, and Validation of a Knowledge-based Planning Quality-Control System for Radiation Therapy Clinical Trials

Purpose: To demonstrate an efficient method for training and validation of a knowledge-based planning (KBP) system as a radiation therapy clinical trial plan quality-control system. Methods and Materials: We analyzed 86 patients with stage IB through IVA cervical cancer treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy at 2 institutions according to the standards of the INTERTECC (International Evaluation of Radiotherapy Technology Effectiveness in Cervical Cancer, National Clinical Trials Network identifier: 01554397) protocol. The protocol used a planning target volume and 2 primary organs at risk: pelvic bone marrow (PBM) and bowel. Secondary organs at risk were rectum and bladder. Initial unfiltered dose-volume histogram (DVH) estimation models were trained using all 86 plans. Refined training sets were created by removing sub-optimal plans from the unfiltered sample, and DVH estimation models… and DVH estimation models were constructed by identifying 30 of 86 plans emphasizing PBM sparing (comparing protocol-specified dosimetric cutpoints V{sub 10} (percentage volume of PBM receiving at least 10 Gy dose) and V{sub 20} (percentage volume of PBM receiving at least 20 Gy dose) with unfiltered predictions) and another 30 of 86 plans emphasizing bowel sparing (comparing V{sub 40} (absolute volume of bowel receiving at least 40 Gy dose) and V{sub 45} (absolute volume of bowel receiving at least 45 Gy dose), 9 in common with the PBM set). To obtain deliverable KBP plans, refined models must inform patient-specific optimization objectives and/or priorities (an auto-planning “routine”). Four candidate routines emphasizing different tradeoffs were composed, and a script was developed to automatically re-plan multiple patients with each routine. After selection of the routine that best met protocol objectives in the 51-patient training sample (KBP{sub FINAL}), protocol-specific DVH metrics and normal tissue complication probability were compared for original versus KBP{sub FINAL} plans across the 35-patient validation set. Paired t tests were used to test differences between planning sets. Results: KBP{sub FINAL} plans outperformed manual planning across the validation set in all protocol-specific DVH cutpoints. The mean normal tissue complication probability for gastrointestinal toxicity was lower for KBP{sub FINAL} versus validation-set plans (48.7% vs 53.8%, P<.001). Similarly, the estimated mean white blood cell count nadir was higher (2.77 vs 2.49 k/mL, P<.001) with KBP{sub FINAL} plans, indicating lowered probability of hematologic toxicity. Conclusions: This work demonstrates that a KBP system can be efficiently trained and refined for use in radiation therapy clinical trials with minimal effort. This patient-specific plan quality control resulted in improvements on protocol-specific dosimetric endpoints.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗