Part 2: Dynamic mixed beam radiotherapy (DYMBER): Photon dynamic trajectories combined with modulated electron beams. Issue 9 (3rd August 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Mueller, S.; Manser, P.; Volken, W.; Frei, D.; Kueng, R.; Herrmann, E.; Elicin, O.; Aebersold, D. M.; Stampanoni, M. F. M.; Fix, M. K.
• Is Part Of: Medical physics. Volume 45:Issue 9(2018)
• Page Start: 4213
• Page End: 4226
• Publication Date: 2018-08-03
• Subjects: dynamic trajectory -- mixed beam radiotherapy -- Monte Carlo -- treatment planning; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Medical physics; Geneeskunde; Natuurkunde; Toepassingen; Biophysics; Periodicals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/mp.13085
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0094-2405

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: The purpose of this study was to develop a treatment technique for dynamic mixed beam radiotherapy (DYMBER) utilizing increased degrees of freedom (DoF) of a conventional treatment unit including different particle types (photons and electrons), intensity and energy modulation and dynamic gantry, table, and collimator rotations. Methods: A treatment planning process has been developed to create DYMBER plans combining photon dynamic trajectories (DTs) and step and shoot electron apertures collimated with the photon multileaf collimator (pMLC). A gantry‐table path is determined for the photon DTs with minimized overlap of the organs at risk (OARs) with the target. In addition, an associated dynamic collimator rotation is established with minimized area between the pMLC leaves and the target contour. pMLC sequences of photon DTs and electron pMLC apertures are then simultaneously optimized using direct aperture optimization (DAO). Subsequently, the final dose distribution of the electron pMLC apertures is calculated using the Swiss Monte Carlo Plan (SMCP). The pMLC sequences of the photon DTs are then re‐optimized with a finer control point resolution and with the final electron dose distribution taken into account. Afterwards, the final photon dose distribution is calculated also using the SMCP and summed together with the one of the electrons. This process is applied for a brain and two head and neck cases. The resulting DYMBER dose distributions are compared to those of dynamic trajectory radiotherapy (DTRT) plans consisting only of photon DTs and clinically applied VMAT plans. Furthermore, the deliverability of the DYMBER plans is verified in terms of dosimetric accuracy, delivery time and collision avoidance. For this purpose, The DYMBER plans are delivered to Gafchromic EBT3 films placed in an anthropomorphic head phantom on a Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator. Results: For each case, the dose homogeneity in the target is similar or better for DYMBER compared to DTRT and VMAT. Averaged over all three cases, the mean dose to the parallel OARs is 16% and 28% lower, D2% to the serial OARs is 17% and 37% lower and V10% to normal tissue is 12% and 4% lower for the DYMBER plans compared to the DTRT and VMAT plans, respectively. The DYMBER plans are delivered without collision and with a 4–5 min longer delivery time than the VMAT plans. The absolute dose measurements are compared to calculation by gamma analysis using 2% (global)/2 mm criteria with passing rates of at least 99%. Conclusions: A treatment technique for DYMBER has been successfully developed and verified for its deliverability. The dosimetric superiority of DYMBER over DTRT and VMAT indicates utilizing increased DoF to be the key to improve brain and head and neck radiation treatments in future.