Optimization of an on‐board imaging system for extremely rapid radiation therapy

Abstract

Purpose: Next-generation extremely rapid radiation therapy systems could mitigate the need for motion management, improve patient comfort during the treatment, and increase patient throughput for cost effectiveness. Such systems require an on-board imaging system that is competitively priced, fast, and of sufficiently high quality to allow good registration between the image taken on the day of treatment and the image taken the day of treatment planning. In this study, three different detectors for a custom on-board CT system were investigated to select the best design for integration with an extremely rapid radiation therapy system. Methods: Three different CT detectors are proposed: low-resolution (all 4 × 4 mm pixels), mediumresolution (a combination of 4 × 4 mm pixels and 2 × 2 mm pixels), and high-resolution (all 1 × 1 mm pixels). An in-house program was used to generate projection images of a numerical anthropomorphic phantom and to reconstruct the projections into CT datasets, henceforth called "realistic" images. Scatter was calculated using a separate Monte Carlo simulation, and the model included an antiscatter grid and bowtie filter. Diagnostic-quality images of the phantom were generated to represent the patient scan at the time of treatment planning. Commercial deformable registration software was used to register the diagnostic-quality scan to images produced by the various on-board detector configurations. The deformation fields were compared against a "gold standard" deformation field generated by registering initial and deformed images of the numerical phantoms that were used to make the diagnostic and treatment-day images. Registrations of on-board imaging system data were judged by the amount their deformation fields differed from the corresponding gold standard deformation fields-the smaller the difference, the better the system. To evaluate the registrations, the pointwise distance between gold standard and realistic registration deformation fields was computed. Results: By most global metrics (e.g., mean, median, and maximum pointwise distance), the highresolution detector had the best performance but the medium-resolution detector was comparable. For all medium-and high-resolution detector registrations, mean error between the realistic and gold standard deformation fields was less than 4 mm. By pointwise metrics (e.g., tracking a small lesion), the high-and medium-resolution detectors performed similarly. For these detectors, the smallest error between the realistic and gold standard registrations was 0.6 mm and the largest error was 3.6 mm. Conclusions: The medium-resolution CT detector was selected as the best for an extremely rapid radiation therapy system. In essentially all test cases, data from this detector produced a significantly better registration than data from the low-resolution detector and a comparable registration to data from the high-resolution detector. The medium-resolution detector provides an appropriate compromise between registration accuracy and system cost. C 201...

High dose‐per‐pulse electron beam dosimetry — A model to correct for the ion recombination in the Advanced Markus ionization chamber

“…1,2 This possible radiobiological advantage, together with other practical considerations that benefit from rapid treatment delivery, e.g., minimizing intra-fractional motion, increased patient comfort, and improved treatment efficiency, make Flash radiotherapy a promising future treatment modality. 3 However, this technique requires that accurate dosimetry is possible in such intense treatment beams. Dosimetry in high dose rate and high dose-per-pulse (DPP) beams is challenging because current radiotherapy dosimetry protocols are not designed for such conditions and because the detectors available for online measurements (i.e., ionization chambers, diodes, and diamond detectors) start to exhibit (non-negligible) ion recombination when the dose rate and/or the DPP is increased beyond what is used in conventional radiotherapy.…”

Physics and biology of ultrahigh dose-rate (FLASH) radiotherapy: a topical review

“…Fast volumetric imaging could be achieved by integrating a CT scanner, such as suggested by (Cherry Kemmerling et al 2015) or by accommodating an electron-beam CT scanner capable of 10 ms/slice imaging time (Akai 1989). Other online imaging solutions could be considered, such as by integrating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or a positron emission tomography (PET) scanner for photon FLASH machines.…”

FLASH radiotherapy: Newsflash or flash in the pan?

“…The core enabling and technical innovations of PHASER‐based FLASH include: (1) highly compact, economical, and power‐efficient linear accelerator and radiofrequency (RF) power sources based on fundamentally new accelerator science able to produce 100‐fold greater beam output than conventional medical linacs; (2) a rapid RF power‐distribution system that supplies an array of 16 stationary beamlines providing a full complement of noncoplanar (conical geometry) beams for highly conformal radiotherapy without mechanical gantry rotation; (3) rapid electronically scanned highly intensity‐modulated photon beams from scanning an electron beam on a stationary target and collimator array, eliminating the need for mechanical collimator motion; and (4) integration of full ring diagnostic‐quality/speed multidetector CT, sharing a common isocenter with the noncoplanar treatment beamlines . Besides providing position verification immediately before and during rapid treatment delivery, fast diagnostic‐quality CT facilitates an efficient adaptive planning work flow in which a scan at the beginning of a treatment session can be used for plan adaptation, for example, by rapid selection from a set of precalculated plan permutations or fully reoptimizing, depending on time and computational trade‐offs . Such a workflow would allow higher patient throughput and reduces treatment room utilization times.…”