Compensating for the impact of non-stationary spherical air cavities on IMRT dose delivery in transverse magnetic fields. (5th January 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Bol, G H; Lagendijk, J J W; Raaymakers, B W
• Is Part Of: Physics in medicine & biology. Volume 60:Number 2(2015:Jan.)
• Page Start: 755
• Page End: 768
• Publication Date: 2015-01-05
• Subjects: IMRT -- magnetic field -- MRI -- electron return effect; Biophysics -- Periodicals; Medical physics -- Periodicals; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/60/2/755
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0031-9155

Abstract

Abstract: With the development of the 1.5 T MRI linear accelerator and the clinical introduction of the 0.35 T ViewRay™ system, delivering intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in a transverse magnetic field becomes increasingly important. When delivering dose in the presence of a transverse magnetic field, one of the most prominent phenomena occurs around air cavities: the electron return effect (ERE). For stationary, spherical air cavities which are centrally located in the phantom, the ERE can be compensated by using opposing beams configurations in combination with IMRT. In this paper we investigate the effects of non-stationary spherical air cavities, centrally located within the target in a phantom containing no organs at risk, on IMRT dose delivery in 0.35 T and 1.5 T transverse magnetic fields by using Monte Carlo simulations. We show that IMRT can be used for compensating ERE around those air cavities, except for intrafraction appearing or disappearing air cavities. For these cases, gating or plan re-optimization should be used. We also analyzed the option of using IMRT plans optimized at 0 T to be delivered in the presence of 0.35 T and 1.5 T magnetic field. When delivering dose at 0.35 T, IMRT plans optimized at 0 T and 0.35 T perform equally well regarding ERE compensation. Within a 1.5 T environment, the 1.5 T optimized plans perform slightly better for the static and random intra- and interfraction air cavity movement cases than the 0 T optimized plans. For non-stationary spherical air cavities with a baseline shift (intra- and interfraction) the 0 T optimized plans perform better. These observations show the intrinsic ERE compensation by equidistant and opposing beam configurations for spherical air cavities within the target area. IMRT gives some additional compensation, but only in case of correct positioning of the air cavity according to the IMRT compensation. For intrafraction appearing or disappearing air cavities this correct positioning is absent and gating or plan re-optimization should be used.