Engineering topics

Sterpin, E.

Publications and source records attributed to Sterpin, E..

5 records

DOE OSTI2015

Feasibility and robustness of dose painting by numbers in proton therapy with contour-driven plan optimization

Purpose: To prove the ability of protons to reproduce a dose gradient that matches a dose painting by numbers (DPBN) prescription in the presence of setup and range errors, by using contours and structure-based optimization in a commercial treatment planning system. Methods: For two patients with head and neck cancer, voxel-by-voxel prescription to the target volume (GTV{sub PET}) was calculated from {sup 18}FDG-PET images and approximated with several discrete prescription subcontours. Treatments were planned with proton pencil beam scanning. In order to determine the optimal plan parameters to approach the DPBN prescription, the effects of the scanning pattern, number of fields, number of subcontours, and use of range shifter were separately tested on each patient. Different constant scanning grids (i.e., spot spacing = Δx = Δy = 3.5, 4, and 5 mm) and uniform energy layer separation [4 and 5 mm WED (water equivalent distance)] were analyzed versus a dynamic and automatic selection of the spots grid. The number of subcontours was increased from 3 to 11 while the number of beams was set to 3, 5, or 7. Conventional PTV-based and robust clinical target volumes (CTV)-based optimization strategies were considered and their robustness against range and setup errors assessed. Because of the nonuniform prescription, ensuring robustness for coverage of GTV{sub PET} inevitably leads to overdosing, which was compared for both optimization schemes. Results: The optimal number of subcontours ranged from 5 to 7 for both patients. All considered scanning grids achieved accurate dose painting (1% average difference between the prescribed and planned doses). PTV-based plans led to nonrobust target coverage while robust-optimized plans improved it considerably (differences between worst-case CTV dose and the clinical constraint was up to 3 Gy for PTV-based plans and did not exceed 1 Gy for robust CTV-based plans). Also, only 15% of the points in the GTV{sub PET} (worst case) were above 5% of DPBN prescription for robust-optimized plans, while they were more than 50% for PTV plans. Low dose to organs at risk (OARs) could be achieved for both PTV and robust-optimized plans. Conclusions: DPBN in proton therapy is feasible with the use of a sufficient number subcontours, automatically generated scanning patterns, and no more than three beams are needed. Robust optimization ensured the required target coverage and minimal overdosing, while PTV-approach led to nonrobust plans with excessive overdose. Low dose to OARs can be achieved even in the presence of a high-dose escalation as in DPBN.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

Monte Carlo simulations of patient dose perturbations in rotational-type radiotherapy due to a transverse magnetic field: A tomotherapy investigation

Purpose: Several groups are exploring the integration of magnetic resonance (MR) image guidance with radiotherapy to reduce tumor position uncertainty during photon radiotherapy. The therapeutic gain from reducing tumor position uncertainty using intrafraction MR imaging during radiotherapy could be partially offset if the negative effects of magnetic field-induced dose perturbations are not appreciated or accounted for. The authors hypothesize that a more rotationally symmetric modality such as helical tomotherapy will permit a systematic mediation of these dose perturbations. This investigation offers a unique look at the dose perturbations due to homogeneous transverse magnetic field during the delivery of Tomotherapy{sup ®} Treatment System plans under varying degrees of rotational beamlet symmetry. Methods: The authors accurately reproduced treatment plan beamlet and patient configurations using the Monte Carlo code GEANT4. This code has a thoroughly benchmarked electromagnetic particle transport physics package well-suited for the radiotherapy energy regime. The three approved clinical treatment plans for this study were for a prostate, head and neck, and lung treatment. The dose heterogeneity index metric was used to quantify the effect of the dose perturbations to the target volumes. Results: The authors demonstrate the ability to reproduce the clinical dose–volume histograms (DVH) to within 4% dose agreement at each DVH point for the target volumes and most planning structures, and therefore, are able to confidently examine the effects of transverse magnetic fields on the plans. The authors investigated field strengths of 0.35, 0.7, 1, 1.5, and 3 T. Changes to the dose heterogeneity index of 0.1% were seen in the prostate and head and neck case, reflecting negligible dose perturbations to the target volumes, a change from 5.5% to 20.1% was observed with the lung case. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that the effect of external magnetic fields can be mitigated by exploiting a more rotationally symmetric treatment modality.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2013

Extension of PENELOPE to protons: Simulation of nuclear reactions and benchmark with Geant4

Purpose: Describing the implementation of nuclear reactions in the extension of the Monte Carlo code (MC) PENELOPE to protons (PENH) and benchmarking with Geant4.Methods: PENH is based on mixed-simulation mechanics for both elastic and inelastic electromagnetic collisions (EM). The adopted differential cross sections for EM elastic collisions are calculated using the eikonal approximation with the Dirac–Hartree–Fock–Slater atomic potential. Cross sections for EM inelastic collisions are computed within the relativistic Born approximation, using the Sternheimer–Liljequist model of the generalized oscillator strength. Nuclear elastic and inelastic collisions were simulated using explicitly the scattering analysis interactive dialin database for {sup 1}H and ICRU 63 data for {sup 12}C, {sup 14}N, {sup 16}O, {sup 31}P, and {sup 40}Ca. Secondary protons, alphas, and deuterons were all simulated as protons, with the energy adapted to ensure consistent range. Prompt gamma emission can also be simulated upon user request. Simulations were performed in a water phantom with nuclear interactions switched off or on and integral depth–dose distributions were compared. Binary-cascade and precompound models were used for Geant4. Initial energies of 100 and 250 MeV were considered. For cases with no nuclear interactions simulated, additional simulations in a water phantom with tight resolution (1 mm in all directions) were performed with FLUKA. Finally, integral depth–dose distributions for a 250 MeV energy were computed with Geant4 and PENH in a homogeneous phantom with, first, ICRU striated muscle and, second, ICRU compact bone.Results: For simulations with EM collisions only, integral depth–dose distributions were within 1%/1 mm for doses higher than 10% of the Bragg-peak dose. For central-axis depth–dose and lateral profiles in a phantom with tight resolution, there are significant deviations between Geant4 and PENH (up to 60%/1 cm for depth–dose distributions). The agreement is much better with FLUKA, with deviations within 3%/3 mm. When nuclear interactions were turned on, agreement (within 6% before the Bragg-peak) between PENH and Geant4 was consistent with uncertainties on nuclear models and cross sections, whatever the material simulated (water, muscle, or bone).Conclusions: A detailed and flexible description of nuclear reactions has been implemented in the PENH extension of PENELOPE to protons, which utilizes a mixed-simulation scheme for both elastic and inelastic EM collisions, analogous to the well-established algorithm for electrons/positrons. PENH is compatible with all current main programs that use PENELOPE as the MC engine. The nuclear model of PENH is realistic enough to give dose distributions in fair agreement with those computed by Geant4.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2012

Monte Carlo computed machine-specific correction factors for reference dosimetry of TomoTherapy static beam for several ion chambers

Purpose: To determine k{sub Q{sub m{sub s{sub r,Q{sub o}{sup f{sub m}{sub s}{sub r},f{sub o}}}}}} correction factors for machine-specific reference (msr) conditions by Monte Carlo (MC) simulations for reference dosimetry of TomoTherapy static beams for ion chambers Exradin A1SL, A12; PTW 30006, 31010 Semiflex, 31014 PinPoint, 31018 microLion; NE 2571. Methods: For the calibration of TomoTherapy units, reference conditions specified in current codes of practice like IAEA/TRS-398 and AAPM/TG-51 cannot be realized. To cope with this issue, Alfonso et al. [Med. Phys. 35, 5179-5186 (2008)] described a new formalism introducing msr factors k{sub Q{sub m{sub s{sub r,Q{sub o}{sup f{sub m}{sub s}{sub r},f{sub o}}}}}} for reference dosimetry, applicable to static TomoTherapy beams. In this study, those factors were computed directly using MC simulations for Q{sub 0} corresponding to a simplified {sup 60}Co beam in TRS-398 reference conditions (at 10 cm depth). The msr conditions were a 10 Multiplication-Sign 5 cm{sup 2} TomoTherapy beam, source-surface distance of 85 cm and 10 cm depth. The chambers were modeled according to technical drawings using the egs++ package and the MC simulations were run with the egs{sub c}hamber user code. Phase-space files used as the source input were produced using PENELOPE after simulation of a simplified {sup 60}Co beam and the TomoTherapy treatment head modeled according to technical drawings. Correlated sampling, intermediate phase-space storage, and photon cross-section enhancement variance reduction techniques were used. The simulations were stopped when the combined standard uncertainty was below 0.2%. Results: Computed k{sub Q{sub m{sub s{sub r,Q{sub o}{sup f{sub m}{sub s}{sub r},f{sub o}}}}}} values were all close to one, in a range from 0.991 for the PinPoint chamber to 1.000 for the Exradin A12 with a statistical uncertainty below 0.2%. Considering a beam quality Q defined as the TPR{sub 20,10} for a 6 MV Elekta photon beam (0.661), the additional correction k{sub Q{sub m{sub s{sub r{sub ,Q}{sup f{sub m}{sub s}{sub r}{sub ,}f{sub r}{sub e}{sub f}}}}}} to k{sub Q,Q{sub o}} defined in Alfonso et al. [Med. Phys. 35, 5179-5186 (2008)] formalism was in a range from 0.997 to 1.004.Conclusion: The MC computed factors in this study are in agreement with measured factors for chamber types already studied in literature. This work provides msr correction factors for additional chambers used in reference dosimetry. All of them were close to one (within 1%).

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2011

Reference dosimetry for helical tomotherapy: Practical implementation and a multicenter validation

Purpose: The aim of this study was to implement a protocol for reference dosimetry in tomotherapy and to validate the beam output measurements with an independent dosimetry system. Methods: Beam output was measured at the reference depth of 10 cm in water for the following three cases: (1) a 5 x 10 cm{sup 2} static machine specific reference field (MSR), (2) a rotational 5 x 10 cm{sup 2} field without modulation and no tabletop in the beam, (3) a plan class specific reference (PCSR) field defined as a rotational homogeneous dose delivery to a cylindrical shaped target volume: plan with modulation and table-top movement. The formalism for reference dosimetry of small and nonstandard fields [Med.Phys.35: 5179-5186, 2008] and QA recommendations [Med.Phys.37: 4817-4853, 2010] were adopted in the dose measurement protocol. All ionization chamber measurements were verified independently using alanine/EPR dosimetry. As a pilot study, the beam output was measured on tomotherapy Hi-art systems at three other centers and directly compared to the centers specifications and to alanine dosimetry. Results: For the four centers, the mean static output at a depth of 10 cm in water and SAD = 85 cm, measured with an A1SL chamber following the TG-148 report was 6.238 Gy/min {+-} 0.058 (1 SD); the rotational output was 6.255 Gy/min {+-} 0.069 (1 SD). The dose stated by the center was found in good agreement with the measurements of the visiting team: D{sub center}/D{sub visit} = 1.000 {+-} 0.003 (1 SD). The A1SL chamber measurements were all in good agreement with Alanine/EPR dosimetry. Going from the static reference field to the rotational/non modulated field the dose rate remains constant within 0.2% except for one center where a deviation of 1.3% was detected. Conclusions: Following the TG-148 report, beam output measurements in water at the reference depth using a local protocol, as developed at different centers, was verified. The measurements were found in good agreement with alanine/EPR dosimetry. The presented methodology may provide a good concept for reference dosimetry.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗