Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “GUIDANCE”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 685 records · Page 38

Measuring interfraction and intrafraction lung function changes during radiation therapy using four-dimensional cone beam CT ventilation imaging

Purpose: Adaptive ventilation guided radiation therapy could minimize the irradiation of healthy lung based on repeat lung ventilation imaging (VI) during treatment. However the efficacy of adaptive ventilation guidance requires that interfraction (e.g., week-to-week), ventilation changes are not washed out by intrafraction (e.g., pre- and postfraction) changes, for example, due to patient breathing variability. The authors hypothesize that patients undergoing lung cancer radiation therapy exhibit larger interfraction ventilation changes compared to intrafraction function changes. To test this, the authors perform the first comparison of interfraction and intrafraction lung VI pairs using four-dimensional cone beam CT ventilation imaging (4D-CBCT VI), a novel technique for functional lung imaging. Methods: The authors analyzed a total of 215 4D-CBCT scans acquired for 19 locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) patients over 4–6 weeks of radiation therapy. This set of 215 scans was sorted into 56 interfraction pairs (including first day scans and each of treatment weeks 2, 4, and 6) and 78 intrafraction pairs (including pre/postfraction scans on the same-day), with some scans appearing in both sets. VIs were obtained from the Jacobian determinant of the transform between the 4D-CBCT end-exhale and end-inhale images after deformable image registration. All VIs were deformably registered to their corresponding planning CT and normalized to account for differences in breathing effort, thus facilitating image comparison in terms of (i) voxelwise Spearman correlations, (ii) mean image differences, and (iii) gamma pass rates for all interfraction and intrafraction VI pairs. For the side of the lung ipsilateral to the tumor, we applied two-sided t-tests to determine whether interfraction VI pairs were more different than intrafraction VI pairs. Results: The (mean ± standard deviation) Spearman correlation for interfraction VI pairs was r{sup -}{sub Inter}=0.52±0.25, which was significantly lower than for intrafraction pairs (r{sup -}{sub Intra}=0.67±0.20, p = 0.0002). Conversely, mean absolute ventilation differences were larger for interfraction pairs than for intrafraction pairs, with |ΔV{sup -}{sub Inter}|=0.42±0.65 and |ΔV{sup -}{sub Intra}|=0.32±0.53, respectively (p < 10{sup −15}). Applying a gamma analysis with ventilation/distance tolerance of 25%/10 mm, we observed mean pass rate of (69% ± 20%) for interfraction VIs, which was significantly lower compared to intrafraction pairs (80% ± 15%, with p ∼ 0.0003). Compared to the first day scans, all patients experienced at least one subsequent change in median ipsilateral ventilation ≥10%. Patients experienced both positive and negative ventilation changes throughout treatment, with the maximum change occurring at different weeks for different patients. Conclusions: The authors’ data support the hypothesis that interfraction ventilation changes are larger than intrafraction ventilation changes for LA-NSCLC patients over a course of conventional lung cancer radiation therapy. Longitudinal ventilation changes are observed to be highly patient-dependent, supporting a possible role for adaptive ventilation guidance based on repeat 4D-CBCT VIs. We anticipate that future improvement of 4D-CBCT image reconstruction algorithms will improve the capability of 4D-CBCT VI to resolve interfraction ventilation changes.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

SU-E-J-226: Efficient Use of Computed Tomography (CT) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) for Cervical-Cancer Brachytherapy

Purpose: To investigate image modality selection in an environment with limited access to interventional MRI for image-guided high-dose-rate cervical-cancer brachytherapy. Methods: Records of all cervical-cancer patients treated with brachytherapy between 1/2013 and 8/2014 were analyzed. Insertions were performed under CT guidance (CT group) or with >1 fraction under 3T MR guidance (MRI group; subMRI includes only patients who also had a CT-guided insertion). Differences between groups in clinical target volume (CTV), disease stage (I/II or III/IV), number of patients with or without interstitial needles, and CTV D90 were investigated. Statistical significance was evaluated with the Student T test and Fisher test (p <0.05). Results: 46 cervical-cancer patients were included (16 MRI [3 subMRI], 30 CT). CTV: overall, 55±53 cm3; MRI, 81±61 cm3; CT, 42±44 cm3 (p = 0.017). Stage: overall, 24 I/II and 22 III/IV; MRI, 3 I/II and 13 III/IV; CT, 21 I/II and 9 III/IV (p = 0.002). Use of needles: overall, 26 without and 20 with; MRI, 5 without and 11 with; CT, 21 without and 9 with (p = 0.015). CTV D90: overall, 82±5 Gy; MRI, 81±6 Gy; CT, 82±5 Gy (p = 0.78). SubMRI: CTV and D90 (as % of nominal fraction dose) were 23±6 cm3 and 124±3% for MRI-guided insertions and 21±5 cm3 (p = 0.83) and 106±12% (p = 0.15) for CT-guided insertions. Conclusion: Statistically significant differences in patient population indicate preferential use of MRI for patients with high-stage disease and large residual CTVs requiring the use of interstitial needles. CTV D90 was similar between groups, despite the difference in patient selection. For patients who underwent both CT and MRI insertions, a larger MR CTV D90 and similar CTVs between insertions were observed. While MRI is generally preferable to CT, MRI selection can be optimized in environments without a dedicated MRI brachytherapy suite. This work was partially funded by the NIH R21 CA167800 (PI: Viswanathan; aviswanathan@partners.org)

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

SU-E-T-496: Influence of the Intrafraction Patient Repositioning On Spot Scanning Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer

Purpose To verify the effect of intrafraction patient repositioning based on real time image guidance on the proton dose distribution for prostate cancer. Methods Dose distributions were simulated using CT images of prostate cancer patients. Treatment plans were prepared using proton beam from left side of the patient with 3 and 6 mm lateral margins. During the beam delivery, prostate position was assumed to be shifted by 5 mm in anterior, posterior, superior and inferior directions. The dose distributions were calculated for two scenarios; (i) the patient position was readjusted by 5 mm just after the prostate shift occurs (ii) the patient position was not adjusted. Such a real time readjustment can be realized with real time image guidance. The differences of the values D{sub 5} and D{sub 95} in CTV (D{sub 5–95}) were compared between different sizes of the lateral margins and different scenarios. Results D{sub 5–95} values in the case of scenario (i) are smaller than scenario (ii). The differences between scenario (i) and (ii) were not depend on the directions of the prostate shift. In the case of scenario (ii), margin expansion makes D{sub 5–95} values small. In the case of scenario (i), margin size is uncorrelated to D{sub 5–95} values. Conclusion These results indicate that the intrafraction patient repositioning is effective to minimize dose deterioration when the prostate moves during the irradiation. In the case without intrafraction patient repositioning, margin expansion is effective to reduce dose deterioration. In the case with intrafraction patient repositioning, 3 mm margin is enough to minimize dose deterioration.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

SU-E-T-653: Quantifying Inter-Fraction Range Uncertainty for Input Into Robust Proton Planning

Purpose: To provide a method for quantifying centre- and tumour site-specific population range uncertainty due to inter-fraction motion for use within robust proton planning and plan analysis. PTV-based and probabilistic/robust plans depend upon accurate knowledge of geometric and range uncertainties. If the uncertainty model is inaccurate, both types of plan, PTV or probabilistic, could produce under-dosing of the target and/or overdosing of OAR. Methods: Daily mega-voltage volumetric imaging data from previously treated radiotherapy patients has been used to investigate inter-fraction changes to water equivalent path-length (WEPL). Daily image-guidance scans were carried out for each patient and corrected for changes in CTV position (using rigid transformations). An effective depth algorithm was used to determine residual range changes, after corrections were applied, by comparing WEPL within the CTV at each fraction for several beam angles. This method has been demonstrated for nine prostate and seven head and neck. Results: Inter-fraction range changes for the head and neck patient sample were Σ=3.39mm, σ=4.72mm and overall mean =−1.82mm; for prostate Σ=5.64mm, σ=5.91mm and overall mean =0.98 mm. The choice of beam angle for head and neck did not affect the inter-fraction range error significantly; however this was not the same for prostate. Greater range changes were seen using a lateral beam compared to an anterior beam for prostate due to relative motion of the prostate and femoral heads. Conclusion: A method has been developed to quantify population range changes due to inter-fraction motion. The results show a non-zero mean for these samples, as well as significant Σ and σ, highlighting the importance of quantifying uncertainties and use of image guidance. Such information can be used in robust optimisation algorithms and for analysing treatment plan robustness. It may also help in establishing beam start conditions at planning and for establishing adaptive planning protocols.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗

TU-A-304-00: Imaging, Treatment Planning, and QA for Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT)

Increased use of SBRT and hypo fractionation in radiation oncology practice has posted a number of challenges to medical physicist, ranging from planning, image-guided patient setup and on-treatment monitoring, to quality assurance (QA) and dose delivery. This symposium is designed to provide updated knowledge necessary for the safe and efficient implementation of SBRT in various linac platforms, including the emerging digital linacs equipped with high dose rate FFF beams. Issues related to 4D CT, PET and MRI simulations, 3D/4D CBCT guided patient setup, real-time image guidance during SBRT dose delivery using gated/un-gated VMAT or IMRT, and technical advancements in QA of SBRT (in particular, strategies dealing with high dose rate FFF beams) will be addressed. The symposium will help the attendees to gain a comprehensive understanding of the SBRT workflow and facilitate their clinical implementation of the state-of-art imaging and planning techniques. Learning Objectives: Present background knowledge of SBRT, describe essential requirements for safe implementation of SBRT, and discuss issues specific to SBRT treatment planning and QA. Update on the use of multi-dimensional (3D and 4D) and multi-modality (CT, beam-level X-ray imaging, pre- and on-treatment 3D/4D MRI, PET, robotic ultrasound, etc.) for reliable guidance of SBRT. Provide a comprehensive overview of emerging digital linacs and summarize the key geometric and dosimetric features of the new generation of linacs for substantially improved SBRT. Discuss treatment planning and quality assurance issues specific to SBRT. Research grant from Varian Medical Systems.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

TU-A-304-01: Introduction and Workflow of Image-Guided SBRT

Increased use of SBRT and hypo fractionation in radiation oncology practice has posted a number of challenges to medical physicist, ranging from planning, image-guided patient setup and on-treatment monitoring, to quality assurance (QA) and dose delivery. This symposium is designed to provide updated knowledge necessary for the safe and efficient implementation of SBRT in various linac platforms, including the emerging digital linacs equipped with high dose rate FFF beams. Issues related to 4D CT, PET and MRI simulations, 3D/4D CBCT guided patient setup, real-time image guidance during SBRT dose delivery using gated/un-gated VMAT or IMRT, and technical advancements in QA of SBRT (in particular, strategies dealing with high dose rate FFF beams) will be addressed. The symposium will help the attendees to gain a comprehensive understanding of the SBRT workflow and facilitate their clinical implementation of the state-of-art imaging and planning techniques. Learning Objectives: Present background knowledge of SBRT, describe essential requirements for safe implementation of SBRT, and discuss issues specific to SBRT treatment planning and QA. Update on the use of multi-dimensional (3D and 4D) and multi-modality (CT, beam-level X-ray imaging, pre- and on-treatment 3D/4D MRI, PET, robotic ultrasound, etc.) for reliable guidance of SBRT. Provide a comprehensive overview of emerging digital linacs and summarize the key geometric and dosimetric features of the new generation of linacs for substantially improved SBRT. Discuss treatment planning and quality assurance issues specific to SBRT. Research grant from Varian Medical Systems.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

TU-A-304-02: Treatment Simulation, Planning and Delivery for SBRT

Increased use of SBRT and hypo fractionation in radiation oncology practice has posted a number of challenges to medical physicist, ranging from planning, image-guided patient setup and on-treatment monitoring, to quality assurance (QA) and dose delivery. This symposium is designed to provide updated knowledge necessary for the safe and efficient implementation of SBRT in various linac platforms, including the emerging digital linacs equipped with high dose rate FFF beams. Issues related to 4D CT, PET and MRI simulations, 3D/4D CBCT guided patient setup, real-time image guidance during SBRT dose delivery using gated/un-gated VMAT or IMRT, and technical advancements in QA of SBRT (in particular, strategies dealing with high dose rate FFF beams) will be addressed. The symposium will help the attendees to gain a comprehensive understanding of the SBRT workflow and facilitate their clinical implementation of the state-of-art imaging and planning techniques. Learning Objectives: Present background knowledge of SBRT, describe essential requirements for safe implementation of SBRT, and discuss issues specific to SBRT treatment planning and QA. Update on the use of multi-dimensional (3D and 4D) and multi-modality (CT, beam-level X-ray imaging, pre- and on-treatment 3D/4D MRI, PET, robotic ultrasound, etc.) for reliable guidance of SBRT. Provide a comprehensive overview of emerging digital linacs and summarize the key geometric and dosimetric features of the new generation of linacs for substantially improved SBRT. Discuss treatment planning and quality assurance issues specific to SBRT. Research grant from Varian Medical Systems.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

TU-A-304-03: Quality Assurance, Safety, and Other Practical Aspects of SBRT

Increased use of SBRT and hypo fractionation in radiation oncology practice has posted a number of challenges to medical physicist, ranging from planning, image-guided patient setup and on-treatment monitoring, to quality assurance (QA) and dose delivery. This symposium is designed to provide updated knowledge necessary for the safe and efficient implementation of SBRT in various linac platforms, including the emerging digital linacs equipped with high dose rate FFF beams. Issues related to 4D CT, PET and MRI simulations, 3D/4D CBCT guided patient setup, real-time image guidance during SBRT dose delivery using gated/un-gated VMAT or IMRT, and technical advancements in QA of SBRT (in particular, strategies dealing with high dose rate FFF beams) will be addressed. The symposium will help the attendees to gain a comprehensive understanding of the SBRT workflow and facilitate their clinical implementation of the state-of-art imaging and planning techniques. Learning Objectives: Present background knowledge of SBRT, describe essential requirements for safe implementation of SBRT, and discuss issues specific to SBRT treatment planning and QA. Update on the use of multi-dimensional (3D and 4D) and multi-modality (CT, beam-level X-ray imaging, pre- and on-treatment 3D/4D MRI, PET, robotic ultrasound, etc.) for reliable guidance of SBRT. Provide a comprehensive overview of emerging digital linacs and summarize the key geometric and dosimetric features of the new generation of linacs for substantially improved SBRT. Discuss treatment planning and quality assurance issues specific to SBRT. Research grant from Varian Medical Systems.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

TU-AB-303-05: Clinical Guidelines for Determining When An Adaptive Replan May Be Warranted for Head and Neck Patients

Purpose: Tools are now available to perform daily dose assessment in radiotherapy, however, guidance is lacking as to when to replan to limit increase in normal tissue dose. This work performs statistical analysis to provide guidance for when adaptive replanning may be necessary for head/neck (HN) patients. Methods: Planning CT and daily kVCBCT images for 50 HN patients treated with VMAT were retrospectively evaluated. Twelve of 50 patients were replanned due to anatomical changes noted over their RT course. Daily dose assessment was performed to calculate the variation between the planned and delivered dose for the 38 patients not replanned and the patients replanned using their delivered plan. In addition, for the replanned patients, the dose that would have been delivered if the plan was not modified was also quantified. Deviations in dose were analyzed before and after replanning, the daily variations in patients who were not replanned assessed, and the predictive power of the deviation after 1, 5, and 15 fractions determined. Results: Dose deviations were significantly reduced following replanning, compared to if the original plan would have been delivered for the entire course. Early deviations were significantly correlated with total deviations (p<0.01). Using the criteria that a 10% increase in the final delivered dose indicates a replan may be needed earlier in the treatment course, the following guidelines can be made with a 90% specificity after the first 5 fractions: deviations of 7% in the mean dose to the inferior constrictors and 5% in the mean dose to the parotid glands and submandibular glands. No significant dose deviations were observed in any patients for the CTV -70Gy (max deviation 4%). Conclusions: A 5–7% increase in mean dose to normal tissues within the first 5 fractions strongly correlate to an overall deviatios in the delivered dose for HN patients. This work is funded in part by NIH 2P01CA059827-16.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

TU-A-210-00: HIFU Therapies - A Primer

High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) has developed rapidly in recent years and is used frequently for clinical treatments in Asia and Europe with increasing clinical use and clinical trial activity in the US, making it an important medical technology with which the medical physics community must become familiar. Akin to medical devices that deliver treatments using ionizing radiation, HIFU relies on emitter geometry to non-invasively form a tight focus that can be used to affect diseased tissue while leaving healthy tissue intact. HIFU is unique in that it does not involve the use of ionizing radiation, it causes thermal necrosis in 100% of the treated tissue volume, and it has an immediate treatment effect. However, because it is an application of ultrasound energy, HIFU interacts strongly with tissue interfaces, which makes treatment planning challenging. In order to appreciate the advantages and disadvantages of HIFU as a thermal therapy, it is important to understand the underlying physics of ultrasound tissue interactions. The first lecture in the session will provide an overview of the physics of ultrasound wave propagation; the mechanism for the accumulation of heat in soft-tissue; image-guidance modalities including temperature monitoring; current clinical applications and commercial devices; active clinical trials; alternate mechanisms of action (future of FUS). The second part of the session will compare HIFU to existing ionization radiation techniques. The difficulties in defining a clear concept of absorbed dose for HIFU will be discussed. Some of the technical challenges that HIFU faces will be described, with an emphasis on how the experience of radiation oncology physicists could benefit the field. Learning Objectives: Describe the basic physics and biology of HIFU, including treatment delivery and image guidance techniques. Summarize existing and emerging clinical applications and manufacturers for HIFU. Understand that thermal ablation with HIFU is likely the first of several applications of the technology Learn about some similarities and differences between HIFU and ionizing radiation in terms of physics and biological effects. Learn about some of the technical challenges HIFU faces that might benefit from the experience of radiation oncology physicists including treatment planning improvements, quality assurance procedures, and treatment risk analysis. David Schlesinger receives research support from Elekta Instruments, AB. Matt Eames is an employee of the Focused Ultrasound Foundation which supports research and clinical trials. Dr. Eames conducts research which is supported by the Focused Ultrasound Foundation.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

TU-A-210-01: HIFU Physics and Delivery

High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) has developed rapidly in recent years and is used frequently for clinical treatments in Asia and Europe with increasing clinical use and clinical trial activity in the US, making it an important medical technology with which the medical physics community must become familiar. Akin to medical devices that deliver treatments using ionizing radiation, HIFU relies on emitter geometry to non-invasively form a tight focus that can be used to affect diseased tissue while leaving healthy tissue intact. HIFU is unique in that it does not involve the use of ionizing radiation, it causes thermal necrosis in 100% of the treated tissue volume, and it has an immediate treatment effect. However, because it is an application of ultrasound energy, HIFU interacts strongly with tissue interfaces, which makes treatment planning challenging. In order to appreciate the advantages and disadvantages of HIFU as a thermal therapy, it is important to understand the underlying physics of ultrasound tissue interactions. The first lecture in the session will provide an overview of the physics of ultrasound wave propagation; the mechanism for the accumulation of heat in soft-tissue; image-guidance modalities including temperature monitoring; current clinical applications and commercial devices; active clinical trials; alternate mechanisms of action (future of FUS). The second part of the session will compare HIFU to existing ionization radiation techniques. The difficulties in defining a clear concept of absorbed dose for HIFU will be discussed. Some of the technical challenges that HIFU faces will be described, with an emphasis on how the experience of radiation oncology physicists could benefit the field. Learning Objectives: Describe the basic physics and biology of HIFU, including treatment delivery and image guidance techniques. Summarize existing and emerging clinical applications and manufacturers for HIFU. Understand that thermal ablation with HIFU is likely the first of several applications of the technology Learn about some similarities and differences between HIFU and ionizing radiation in terms of physics and biological effects. Learn about some of the technical challenges HIFU faces that might benefit from the experience of radiation oncology physicists including treatment planning improvements, quality assurance procedures, and treatment risk analysis. David Schlesinger receives research support from Elekta Instruments, AB. Matt Eames is an employee of the Focused Ultrasound Foundation which supports research and clinical trials. Dr. Eames conducts research which is supported by the Focused Ultrasound Foundation.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

TU-A-210-02: HIFU: Why Should a Radiation Oncology Physicist Pay Attention?

High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) has developed rapidly in recent years and is used frequently for clinical treatments in Asia and Europe with increasing clinical use and clinical trial activity in the US, making it an important medical technology with which the medical physics community must become familiar. Akin to medical devices that deliver treatments using ionizing radiation, HIFU relies on emitter geometry to non-invasively form a tight focus that can be used to affect diseased tissue while leaving healthy tissue intact. HIFU is unique in that it does not involve the use of ionizing radiation, it causes thermal necrosis in 100% of the treated tissue volume, and it has an immediate treatment effect. However, because it is an application of ultrasound energy, HIFU interacts strongly with tissue interfaces, which makes treatment planning challenging. In order to appreciate the advantages and disadvantages of HIFU as a thermal therapy, it is important to understand the underlying physics of ultrasound tissue interactions. The first lecture in the session will provide an overview of the physics of ultrasound wave propagation; the mechanism for the accumulation of heat in soft-tissue; image-guidance modalities including temperature monitoring; current clinical applications and commercial devices; active clinical trials; alternate mechanisms of action (future of FUS). The second part of the session will compare HIFU to existing ionization radiation techniques. The difficulties in defining a clear concept of absorbed dose for HIFU will be discussed. Some of the technical challenges that HIFU faces will be described, with an emphasis on how the experience of radiation oncology physicists could benefit the field. Learning Objectives: Describe the basic physics and biology of HIFU, including treatment delivery and image guidance techniques. Summarize existing and emerging clinical applications and manufacturers for HIFU. Understand that thermal ablation with HIFU is likely the first of several applications of the technology Learn about some similarities and differences between HIFU and ionizing radiation in terms of physics and biological effects. Learn about some of the technical challenges HIFU faces that might benefit from the experience of radiation oncology physicists including treatment planning improvements, quality assurance procedures, and treatment risk analysis. David Schlesinger receives research support from Elekta Instruments, AB. Matt Eames is an employee of the Focused Ultrasound Foundation which supports research and clinical trials. Dr. Eames conducts research which is supported by the Focused Ultrasound Foundation.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

TU-CD-BRA-04: Evaluation of An Atlas-Based Segmentation Method for Prostate and Peripheral Zone Regions On MRI

Purpose: Prostate MRI plays an important role in diagnosis, biopsy guidance, and therapy planning for prostate cancer. Prostate MRI contours can be used to aid in image fusion for ultrasound biopsy guidance and delivery of radiation. Our goal in this study is to evaluate an automatic atlas-based segmentation method for generating prostate and peripheral zone (PZ) contours on MRI. Methods: T2-weighted MRIs were acquired on 3T-Discovery MR750 System (GE, Milwaukee). The Volumes of Interest (VOIs): prostate and PZ were outlined by an expert radiation oncologist and used to create an atlas library for atlas-based segmentation. The atlas-segmentation accuracy was evaluated using a leave-one-out analysis. The method involved automatically finding the atlas subject that best matched the test subject followed by a normalized intensity-based free-form deformable registration of the atlas subject to the test subject. The prostate and PZ contours were transformed to the test subject using the same deformation. For each test subject the three best matches were used and the final contour was combined using Majority Vote. The atlas-segmentation process was fully automatic. Dice similarity coefficients (DSC) and mean Hausdorff values were used for comparison. Results: VOIs contours were available for 28 subjects. For the prostate, the atlas-based segmentation method resulted in an average DSC of 0.88+/−0.08 and a mean Hausdorff distance of 1.1+/−0.9mm. The number of patients (#) in DSC ranges are as follows: 0.60–0.69(1), 0.70–0.79(2), 0.80–0.89(13), >0.89(11). For the PZ, the average DSC was 0.72+/−0.17 and average Hausdorff of 0.9+/−0.9mm. The number of patients (#) in DSC ranges are as follows: <0.60(4), 0.60–0.69(6), 0.70–0.79(7), 0.80–0.89(9), >0.89(1). Conclusion: The MRI atlas-based segmentation method achieved good results for both the whole prostate and PZ compared to expert defined VOIs. The technique is fast, fully automatic, and has the potential to provide significant time savings for prostate VOI definition. AS Nelson and J Piper are partial owners of MIM Software, Inc. AS Nelson, J Piper, K Curry, and A Swallen are current employees at MIM Software, Inc.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

TU-CD-BRA-05: Atlas Selection for Multi-Atlas-Based Image Segmentation Using Surrogate Modeling

Purpose: The growing size and heterogeneity in training atlas necessitates sophisticated schemes to identify only the most relevant atlases for the specific multi-atlas-based image segmentation problem. This study aims to develop a model to infer the inaccessible oracle geometric relevance metric from surrogate image similarity metrics, and based on such model, provide guidance to atlas selection in multi-atlas-based image segmentation. Methods: We relate the oracle geometric relevance metric in label space to the surrogate metric in image space, by a monotonically non-decreasing function with additive random perturbations. Subsequently, a surrogate’s ability to prognosticate the oracle order for atlas subset selection is quantified probabilistically. Finally, important insights and guidance are provided for the design of fusion set size, balancing the competing demands to include the most relevant atlases and to exclude the most irrelevant ones. A systematic solution is derived based on an optimization framework. Model verification and performance assessment is performed based on clinical prostate MR images. Results: The proposed surrogate model was exemplified by a linear map with normally distributed perturbation, and verified with several commonly-used surrogates, including MSD, NCC and (N)MI. The derived behaviors of different surrogates in atlas selection and their corresponding performance in ultimate label estimate were validated. The performance of NCC and (N)MI was similarly superior to MSD, with a 10% higher atlas selection probability and a segmentation performance increase in DSC by 0.10 with the first and third quartiles of (0.83, 0.89), compared to (0.81, 0.89). The derived optimal fusion set size, valued at 7/8/8/7 for MSD/NCC/MI/NMI, agreed well with the appropriate range [4, 9] from empirical observation. Conclusion: This work has developed an efficacious probabilistic model to characterize the image-based surrogate metric on atlas selection. Analytical insights lead to valid guiding principles on fusion set size design.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

TU-F-CAMPUS-J-04: Setup Uncertainties in the Mediastinum Area for IMRT Treatment of Lymphoma Patients

Purpose: Despite daily image guidance setup uncertainties can be high when treating large areas of the body. The aim of this study was to measure local uncertainties inside the PTV for patients receiving IMRT to the mediastinum region. Methods: Eleven lymphoma patients that received radiotherapy (breath-hold) to the mediastinum were included in this study. The treated region could range all the way from the neck to the diaphragm. Each patient had a CT scan with a CT-on-rails system prior to every treatment. The entire PTV region was matched to the planning CT using automatic rigid registration. The PTV was then split into 5 regions: neck, supraclavicular, superior mediastinum, upper heart, lower heart. Additional auto-registrations for each of the 5 local PTV regions were performed. The residual local setup errors were calculated as the difference between the final global PTV position and the individual final local PTV positions for the AP, SI and RL directions. For each patient 4 CT scans were analyzed (1 per week of treatment). Results: The residual mean group error (M) and standard deviation of the inter-patient (or systematic) error (Σ) were lowest in the RL direction of the superior mediastinum (0.0mm and 0.5mm) and highest in the RL direction of the lower heart (3.5mm and 2.9mm). The standard deviation of the inter-fraction (or random) error (σ) was lowest in the RL direction of the superior mediastinum (0.5mm) and highest in the SI direction of the lower heart (3.9mm) The directionality of local uncertainties is important; a superior residual error in the lower heart for example keeps it in the global PTV. Conclusion: There is a complex relationship between breath-holding and positioning uncertainties that needs further investigation. Residual setup uncertainties can be significant even under daily CT image guidance when treating large regions of the body.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

WE-AB-201-00: Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG # 5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

WE-AB-201-01: Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

WE-AB-201-02: TPS Commissioning and QA: A Process Orientation and Application of Control Charts

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗