PurposeTo validate, in the context of adaptive radiotherapy, three commercial software solutions for atlas-based segmentation.Methods and materialsFifteen patients, five for each group, with cancer of the Head&Neck, pleura, and prostate were enrolled in the study. In addition to the treatment planning CT (pCT) images, one replanning CT (rCT) image set was acquired for each patient during the RT course. Three experienced physicians outlined on the pCT and rCT all the volumes of interest (VOIs). We used three software solutions (VelocityAI 2.6.2 (V), MIM 5.1.1 (M) by MIMVista and ABAS 2.0 (A) by CMS-Elekta) to generate the automatic contouring on the repeated CT. All the VOIs obtained with automatic contouring (AC) were successively corrected manually. We recorded the time needed for: 1) ex novo ROIs definition on rCT; 2) generation of AC by the three software solutions; 3) manual correction of AC.To compare the quality of the volumes obtained automatically by the software and manually corrected with those drawn from scratch on rCT, we used the following indexes: overlap coefficient (DICE), sensitivity, inclusiveness index, difference in volume, and displacement differences on three axes (x, y, z) from the isocenter.ResultsThe time saved by the three software solutions for all the sites, compared to the manual contouring from scratch, is statistically significant and similar for all the three software solutions. The time saved for each site are as follows: about an hour for Head&Neck, about 40 minutes for prostate, and about 20 minutes for mesothelioma. The best DICE similarity coefficient index was obtained with the manual correction for: A (contours for prostate), A and M (contours for H&N), and M (contours for mesothelioma).ConclusionsFrom a clinical point of view, the automated contouring workflow was shown to be significantly shorter than the manual contouring process, even though manual correction of the VOIs is always needed.

Plan evaluation is a key step in the radiotherapy treatment workflow. Central to this step is the assessment of treatment plan quality. Hence, it is important to agree on what we mean by plan quality and to be fully aware of which parameters it depends on. We understand plan quality in radiotherapy as the clinical suitability of the delivered dose distribution that can be realistically expected from a treatment plan. Plan quality is commonly assessed by evaluating the dose distribution calculated by the treatment planning system (TPS). Evaluating the 3D dose distribution is not easy, however; it is hard to fully evaluate its spatial characteristics and we still lack the knowledge for personalising the prediction of the clinical outcome based on individual patient characteristics. This advocates for standardisation and systematic collection of clinical data and outcomes after radiotherapy. Additionally, the calculated dose distribution is not exactly the dose delivered to the patient due to uncertainties in the dose calculation and the treatment delivery, including variations in the patient set-up and anatomy. Consequently, plan quality also depends on the robustness and complexity of the treatment plan. We believe that future work and consensus on the best metrics for quality indices are required. Better tools are needed in TPSs for the evaluation of dose distributions, for the robust evaluation and optimisation of treatment plans, and for controlling and reporting plan complexity. Implementation of such tools and a better understanding of these concepts will facilitate the handling of these characteristics in clinical practice and be helpful to increase the overall quality of treatment plans in radiotherapy.

No abstract

We propose a method of creating and validating a Monte Carlo (MC) model of a proton Pencil Beam Scanning (PBS) machine using only commissioning measurements and avoiding the nozzle modeling. Measurements with a scintillating screen coupled with a CCD camera, ionization chamber and a Faraday Cup were used to model the beam in TOPAS without using any machine parameter information but the virtual source distance from the isocenter. Then the model was validated on simple Spread Out Bragg Peaks (SOBP) delivered in water phantom and with six realistic clinical plans (many involving 3 or more fields) on an anthropomorphic phantom. In particular the behavior of the moveable Range Shifter (RS) feature was investigated and its modeling has been proposed. The gamma analysis (3%,3 mm) was used to compare MC, TPS (XiO-ELEKTA) and measured 2D dose distributions (using radiochromic film). The MC modeling proposed here shows good results in the validation phase, both for simple irradiation geometry (SOBP in water) and for modulated treatment fields (on anthropomorphic phantoms). In particular head lesions were investigated and both MC and TPS data were compared with measurements. Treatment plans with no RS always showed a very good agreement with both of them (γ-Passing Rate (PR) > 95%). Treatment plans in which the RS was needed were also tested and validated. For these treatment plans MC results showed better agreement with measurements (γ-PR > 93%) than the one coming from TPS (γ-PR < 88%). This work shows how to simplify the MC modeling of a PBS machine for proton therapy treatments without accounting for any hardware components and proposes a more reliable RS modeling than the one implemented in our TPS. The validation process has shown how this code is a valid candidate for a completely independent treatment plan dose calculation algorithm. This makes the code an important future tool for the patient specific QA verification process.

A commercial Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm (RayStation version 6.0.024) for the treatment of brain tumors with pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy is validated and compared via measurements and analytical calculations in clinically realistic scenarios. For the measurements a 2D ion chamber array detector (MatriXX PT) was placed underneath the following targets: (1) an anthropomorphic head phantom (with two different thicknesses) and (2) a biological sample (i.e. half a lamb's head). In addition, we compared the MC dose engine versus the RayStation pencil beam (PB) algorithm clinically implemented so far, in critical conditions such as superficial targets (i.e. in need of a range shifter (RS)), different air gaps, and gantry angles to simulate both orthogonal and tangential beam arrangements. For every plan the PB and MC dose calculations were compared to measurements using a gamma analysis metrics (3%, 3 mm). For the head phantom the gamma passing rate (GPR) was always >96% and on average >99% for the MC algorithm; the PB algorithm had a GPR of  ⩽90% for all the delivery configurations with a single slab (apart 95% GPR from the gantry of 0° and small air gap) and in the case of two slabs of the head phantom the GPR was >95% only in the case of small air gaps for all three (0°, 45°, and 70°) simulated beam gantry angles. Overall the PB algorithm tends to overestimate the dose to the target (up to 25%) and underestimate the dose to the organ at risk (up to 30%). We found similar results (but a bit worse for the PB algorithm) for the two targets of the lamb's head where only two beam gantry angles were simulated. Our results suggest that in PBS proton therapy a range shifter (RS) needs to be used with caution when planning a treatment with an analytical algorithm due to potentially great discrepancies between the planned dose and the dose delivered to the patient, including in the case of brain tumors where this issue could be underestimated. Our results also suggest that a MC evaluation of the dose has to be performed every time the RS is used and, mostly, when it is used with large air gaps and beam directions tangential to the patient surface.