Journal of Radiation Protection and Research

The Korean Association for Radiation Protection (대한방사선방어학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Quantifications of Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy Plan Complexities in Magnetic Resonance Image Guided Radiotherapy Systems

  • Chun, Minsoo (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Kwon, Ohyun (Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin) ;
  • Park, Jong Min (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Jung-in (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital)
  • Received : 2020.12.21
  • Accepted : 2021.02.16
  • Published : 2021.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: In this study, the complexities of step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans in magnetic resonance-guided radiation therapy systems were evaluated. Materials and Methods: Overall, 194 verification plans from the abdomen, prostate, and breast sites were collected using a 60Co-based ViewRay radiotherapy system (ViewRay Inc., Cleveland, OH, USA). Various plan complexity metrics (PCMs) were calculated for each verification plan, including the modulation complexity score (MCS), plan-averaged beam area (PA), plan-averaged beam irregularity, plan-averaged edge (PE), plan-averaged beam modulation, number of segments, average area among all segments (AA/Seg), and total beam-on time (TBT). The plan deliverability was quantified in terms of gamma passing rates (GPRs) with a 1 mm/2% criterion, and the Pearson correlation coefficients between GPRs and various PCMs were analyzed. Results and Discussion: For the abdomen, prostate, and breast groups, the average GPRs with the 1 mm/2% criterion were 77.8 ± 6.0%, 79.8 ± 4.9%, and 84.7 ± 7.3%; PCMs were 0.263, 0.271, and 0.386; PAs were 15.001, 18.779, and 35.683; PEs were 1.575, 1.444, and 1.028; AA/Segs were 15.37, 19.89, and 36.64; and TBTs were 18.86, 19.33, and 5.91 minutes, respectively. The various PCMs, i.e., MCS, PA, PE, AA/Seg, and TBT, showed statistically significant Pearson correlation coefficients of 0.416, 0.627, -0.541, 0.635, and -0.397, respectively, with GPRs. Conclusion: The area-related metrics exhibited strong correlations with GPRs. Moreover, the AA/Seg metric can be used to estimate the IMRT plan accuracy without beam delivery in the 60Co-based ViewRay radiotherapy system.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (No. NRF-2019R1F1A1041944).

References

  1. Kim YS, Lee J, Park JI, Sung W, Lee SM, Kim GE. Volumetric modulated arc therapy for carotid sparing in the management of early glottic cancer. Radiat Oncol J. 2016;34:18-25. https://doi.org/10.3857/roj.2016.34.1.18
  2. Sung W, Park JM, Choi CH, Ha SW, Ye SJ. The effect of photon energy on intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans for prostate cancer. Radiat Oncol J. 2012;30:27-35. https://doi.org/10.3857/roj.2012.30.1.27
  3. Kim SJ, Youn SM, Kim SK. A dosimetric comparision of IMRT and VMAT in synchronous bilateral breast cancer. Prog Med Phys. 2013;24:284-289. https://doi.org/10.14316/pmp.2013.24.4.284
  4. McNiven AL, Sharpe MB, Purdie TG. A new metric for assessing IMRT modulation complexity and plan deliverability. Med Phys. 2010;37:505-515. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3276775
  5. Park SY, Kim JI, Chun M, Ahn H, Park JM. Assessment of the modulation degrees of intensity-modulated radiation therapy plans. Radiat Oncol. 2018;13:244. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-018-1193-9
  6. Chun M, An HJ, Kwon O, Oh DH, Park JM, Kim JI. Impact of plan parameters and modulation indices on patient-specific QA results for standard and stereotactic VMAT. Phys Med. 2019;62:83-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2019.05.005
  7. Park SY, Kim IH, Ye SJ, Carlson J, Park JM. Texture analysis on the fluence map to evaluate the degree of modulation for volumetric modulated arc therapy. Med Phys. 2014;41:111718. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4897388
  8. Cilla S, Meluccio D, Fidanzio A, Azario L, Ianiro A, Macchia G, et al. Initial clinical experience with Epid-based in-vivo dosimetry for VMAT treatments of head-and-neck tumors. Phys Med. 2016; 32:52-58.
  9. Arumugam S, Xing A, Young T, Holloway L. Sensitivity of a helical diode array dosimeter to volumetric modulated arc therapy delivery errors. Phys Med. 2015;31:1043-1054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.08.011
  10. Ezzell GA, Burmeister JW, Dogan N, LoSasso TJ, Mechalakos JG, Mihailidis D, et al. IMRT commissioning: multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119. Med Phys. 2009;36:5359-5373. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3238104
  11. Miften M, Olch A, Mihailidis D, Moran J, Pawlicki T, Molineu A, et al. Tolerance limits and methodologies for IMRT measurement-based verification QA: recommendations of AAPM Task Group No. 218. Med Phys. 2018;45:e53-e83. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.12810
  12. Stasi M, Bresciani S, Miranti A, Maggio A, Sapino V, Gabriele P. Pretreatment patient-specific IMRT quality assurance: a correlation study between gamma index and patient clinical dose volume histogram. Med Phys. 2012;39:7626-7634. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4767763
  13. Nelms BE, Zhen H, Tome WA. Per-beam, planar IMRT QA passing rates do not predict clinically relevant patient dose errors. Med Phys. 2011;38:1037-1044. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3544657
  14. Palaniswaamy G, Scott Brame R, Yaddanapudi S, Rangaraj D, Mutic S. A statistical approach to IMRT patient-specific QA. Med Phys. 2012;39:7560-7570. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4768161
  15. Du W, Cho SH, Zhang X, Hoffman KE, Kudchadker RJ. Quantification of beam complexity in intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment plans. Med Phys. 2014;41:021716. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4861821
  16. Park JM, Kim JI, Park SY. Modulation indices and plan delivery accuracy of volumetric modulated arc therapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2019;20:12-22. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12589
  17. Park JM, Kim JI, Park SY, Oh DH, Kim ST. Reliability of the gamma index analysis as a verification method of volumetric modulated arc therapy plans. Radiat Oncol. 2018;13:175. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-018-1123-x
  18. De La Fuente Herman T, Schnell E, Young J, Hildebrand K, Algan O, Syzek E, et al. Dosimetric comparison between IMRT delivery modes: step-and-shoot, sliding window, and volumetric modulated arc therapy: for whole pelvis radiation therapy of intermediate-to-high risk prostate adenocarcinoma. J Med Phys. 2013;38:165-172. https://doi.org/10.4103/0971-6203.121193
  19. Elith C, Dempsey SE, Findlay N, Warren-Forward HM. An Introduction to the intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) techniques, tomotherapy, and VMAT. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci. 2011;42:37-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmir.2010.11.005
  20. Gotstedt J, Karlsson Hauer A, Back A. Development and evaluation of aperture-based complexity metrics using film and EPID measurements of static MLC openings. Med Phys. 2015;42:3911-3921. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4921733
  21. Mittauer K, Paliwal B, Hill P, Bayouth JE, Geurts MW, Baschnagel AM, et al. A new era of image guidance with magnetic resonance-guided radiation therapy for abdominal and thoracic malignancies. Cureus. 2018;10:e2422.
  22. Mutic S, Dempsey JF. The ViewRay system: magnetic resonance-guided and controlled radiotherapy. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2014; 24:196-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semradonc.2014.02.008
  23. Wooten HO, Rodriguez V, Green O, Kashani R, Santanam L, Tanderup K, et al. Benchmark IMRT evaluation of a Co-60 MRI-guided radiation therapy system. Radiother Oncol. 2015;114:402-405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2015.01.015
  24. Pollard JM, Wen Z, Sadagopan R, Wang J, Ibbott GS. The future of image-guided radiotherapy will be MR guided. Br J Radiol. 2017;90:20160667. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20160667
  25. Wooten HO, Green O, Yang M, DeWees T, Kashani R, Olsen J, et al. Quality of intensity modulated radiation therapy treatment plans using a 60Co magnetic resonance image guidance radiation therapy system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015;92:771-778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.02.057
  26. Liu S, Wu Y, Wooten HO, Green O, Archer B, Li H, et al. Methods to model and predict the ViewRay treatment deliveries to aid patient scheduling and treatment planning. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016;17:50-62. https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i2.5907
  27. Bohoudi O, Bruynzeel AM, Senan S, Cuijpers JP, Slotman BJ, Lagerwaard FJ, et al. Fast and robust online adaptive planning in stereotactic MR-guided adaptive radiation therapy (SMART) for pancreatic cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2017;125:439-444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2017.07.028
  28. Hunt A, Hansen VN, Oelfke U, Nill S, Hafeez S. Adaptive radiotherapy enabled by MRI guidance. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2018;30:711-719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2018.08.001
  29. Acharya S, Fischer-Valuck BW, Kashani R, Parikh P, Yang D, Zhao T, et al. Online magnetic resonance image guided adaptive radiation therapy: first clinical applications. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016;94:394-403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.10.015
  30. Boldrini L, Cusumano D, Cellini F, Azario L, Mattiucci GC, Valentini V. Online adaptive magnetic resonance guided radiotherapy for pancreatic cancer: state of the art, pearls and pitfalls. Radiat Oncol. 2019;14:71. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-019-1275-3
  31. Tetar SU, Bruynzeel AM, Lagerwaard FJ, Slotman BJ, Bohoudi O, Palacios MA. Clinical implementation of magnetic resonance imaging guided adaptive radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2019;9:69-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phro.2019.02.002
  32. Li HH, Rodriguez VL, Green OL, Hu Y, Kashani R, Wooten HO, et al. Patient-specific quality assurance for the delivery of 60Co intensity modulated radiation therapy subject to a 0.35-T lateral magnetic field. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015;91:65-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.09.008
  33. Hanna GG, Murray L, Patel R, Jain S, Aitken KL, Franks KN, et al. UK Consensus on normal tissue dose constraints for stereotactic radiotherapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2018;30:5-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2017.09.007
  34. Benedict SH, Yenice KM, Followill D, Galvin JM, Hinson W, Kavanagh B, et al. Stereotactic body radiation therapy: the report of AAPM Task Group 101. Med Phys. 2010;37:4078-4101. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3438081
  35. Marks LB, Yorke ED, Jackson A, Ten Haken RK, Constine LS, Eisbruch A, et al. Use of normal tissue complication probability models in the clinic. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76(3 Suppl): S10-S19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.07.1754
  36. Younge KC, Matuszak MM, Moran JM, McShan DL, Fraass BA, Roberts DA. Penalization of aperture complexity in inversely planned volumetric modulated arc therapy. Med Phys. 2012;39: 7160-7170. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4762566
  37. Shen L, Chen S, Zhu X, Han C, Zheng X, Deng Z, et al. Multidimensional correlation among plan complexity, quality and deliverability parameters for volumetric-modulated arc therapy using canonical correlation analysis. J Radiat Res. 2018;59:207-215. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrr/rrx100
  38. Hussein M, Clark CH, Nisbet A. Challenges in calculation of the gamma index in radiotherapy: towards good practice. Phys Med. 2017;36:1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.03.001
  39. Han T, Mikell JK, Salehpour M, Mourtada F. Dosimetric comparison of Acuros XB deterministic radiation transport method with Monte Carlo and model-based convolution methods in heterogeneous media. Med Phys. 2011;38:2651-2664. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3582690
  40. Sanchez-Doblado F, Hartmann GH, Pena J, Rosello JV, Russiello G, Gonzalez-Castano DM. A new method for output factor determination in MLC shaped narrow beams. Phys Med. 2007;23: 58-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2007.03.002
  41. Sendani NG, Karimian A, Mahdavi SR, Jabbari I, Alaei P. Effect of beam configuration with inaccurate or incomplete small field output factors on the accuracy of treatment planning dose calculation. Med Phys. 2019;46:5273-5283. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.13796
  42. Cervantes Y, Billas I, Shipley D, Duane S, Bouchard H. Small-cavity chamber dose response in megavoltage photon beams coupled to magnetic fields. Phys Med Biol. 2020;65:245008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/aba6d6
  43. Lehmann J, Beveridge T, Oliver C, Bailey TE, Lye JE, Livingstone J, et al. Impact of magnetic fields on dose measurement with small ion chambers illustrated in high-resolution response maps. Med Phys. 2019;46:3298-3305. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.13591
  44. O'Brien DJ, Roberts DA, Ibbott GS, Sawakuchi GO. Reference dosimetry in magnetic fields: formalism and ionization chamber correction factors. Med Phys. 2016;43:4915-4927. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4959785
  45. Spindeldreier CK, Schrenk O, Bakenecker A, Kawrakow I, Burigo L, Karger CP, et al. Radiation dosimetry in magnetic fields with Farmer-type ionization chambers: determination of magnetic field correction factors for different magnetic field strengths and field orientations. Phys Med Biol. 2017;62:6708-6728. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/aa7ae4
  46. Cusumano D, Placidi L, D'Agostino E, Boldrini L, Menna S, Valentini V, et al. Characterization of an inorganic scintillator for small-field dosimetry in MR-guided radiotherapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2020;21:244-251. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13012
  47. Nelms BE, Chan MF, Jarry G, Lemire M, Lowden J, Hampton C, et al. Evaluating IMRT and VMAT dose accuracy: practical examples of failure to detect systematic errors when applying a commonly used metric and action levels. Med Phys. 2013;40:111722. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4826166
  48. Sun B, Rangaraj D, Boddu S, Goddu M, Yang D, Palaniswaamy G, et al. Evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of independent dose calculation followed by machine log file analysis against conventional measurement based IMRT QA. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2012;13:140-154. https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v13i5.3837
  49. Lamb J, Cao M, Kishan A, Agazaryan N, Thomas DH, Shaverdian N, et al. Online adaptive radiation therapy: implementation of a new process of care. Cureus. 2017;9:e1618.
  50. Simon A, Nassef M, Rigaud B, Cazoulat G, Castelli J, Lafond C, et al. Roles of deformable image registration in adaptive RT: from contour propagation to dose monitoring. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2015;2015:5215-5218.