Blake R Smith1, Nicholas P Nelson2, Theodore J Geoghegan1, Kaustubh A Patwardhan1, Patrick M Hill3, Jen Yu4, Alonso N Gutiérrez4, Bryan G Allen1, Daniel E Hyer1. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA. 2. Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, 53705, USA. 3. Department of Human Oncology, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, 53792, USA. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, Florida, 33176, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The radiobiological benefits afforded by spatially fractionated (GRID) radiation therapy pairs well with the dosimetric advantages of proton therapy. Inspired by the emergence of energy-layer specific collimators in pencil beam scanning (PBS), this work investigates how the spot spacing and collimation can be optimized to maximize the therapeutic gains of a GRID treatment while demonstrating the integration of a dynamic collimation system (DCS) within a commercial beamline to deliver GRID treatments and experimentally benchmark Monte Carlo calculation methods. METHODS: GRID profiles were experimentally benchmarked using a clinical DCS prototype that was mounted to the nozzle of the IBA-dedicated nozzle system. Integral depth dose (IDD) curves and lateral profiles were measured for uncollimated and GRID-collimated beamlets. A library of collimated GRID dose distributions were simulated by placing beamlets within a specified uniform grid and weighting the beamlets to achieve a volume-averaged tumor cell survival equivalent to an open field delivery. The healthy tissue sparing afforded by the GRID distribution was then estimated across a range of spot spacings and collimation widths, which were later optimized based on the radiosensitivity of the tumor cell line and the nominal spot size of the PBS system. This was accomplished by using validated models of the IBA universal and dedicated nozzles. RESULTS: Excellent agreement was observed between the measured and simulated profiles. The IDDs matched above 98.7% when analyzed using a 1%/1-mm gamma criterion with some minor deviation observed near the Bragg peak for higher beamlet energies. Lateral profile distributions predicted using Monte Carlo methods agreed well with the measured profiles; a gamma passing rate of 95% or higher was observed for all in-depth profiles examined using a 3%/2-mm criteria. Additional collimation was shown to improve PBS GRID treatments by sharpening the lateral penumbra of the beamlets but creates a trade-off between enhancing the valley-to-peak ratio of the GRID delivery and the dose-volume effect. The optimal collimation width and spot spacing changed as a function of the tumor cell radiosensitivity, dose, and spot size. In general, a spot spacing below 2.0 cm with a collimation less than 1.0 cm provided a superior dose distribution among the specific cases studied. CONCLUSIONS: The ability to customize a GRID dose distribution using different collimation sizes and spot spacings is a useful advantage, especially to maximize the overall therapeutic benefit. In this regard, the capabilities of the DCS, and perhaps alternative dynamic collimators, can be used to enhance GRID treatments. Physical dose models calculated using Monte Carlo methods were experimentally benchmarked in water and were found to accurately predict the respective dose distributions of uncollimated and DCS-collimated GRID profiles.
PURPOSE: The radiobiological benefits afforded by spatially fractionated (GRID) radiation therapy pairs well with the dosimetric advantages of proton therapy. Inspired by the emergence of energy-layer specific collimators in pencil beam scanning (PBS), this work investigates how the spot spacing and collimation can be optimized to maximize the therapeutic gains of a GRID treatment while demonstrating the integration of a dynamic collimation system (DCS) within a commercial beamline to deliver GRID treatments and experimentally benchmark Monte Carlo calculation methods. METHODS: GRID profiles were experimentally benchmarked using a clinical DCS prototype that was mounted to the nozzle of the IBA-dedicated nozzle system. Integral depth dose (IDD) curves and lateral profiles were measured for uncollimated and GRID-collimated beamlets. A library of collimated GRID dose distributions were simulated by placing beamlets within a specified uniform grid and weighting the beamlets to achieve a volume-averaged tumor cell survival equivalent to an open field delivery. The healthy tissue sparing afforded by the GRID distribution was then estimated across a range of spot spacings and collimation widths, which were later optimized based on the radiosensitivity of the tumor cell line and the nominal spot size of the PBS system. This was accomplished by using validated models of the IBA universal and dedicated nozzles. RESULTS: Excellent agreement was observed between the measured and simulated profiles. The IDDs matched above 98.7% when analyzed using a 1%/1-mm gamma criterion with some minor deviation observed near the Bragg peak for higher beamlet energies. Lateral profile distributions predicted using Monte Carlo methods agreed well with the measured profiles; a gamma passing rate of 95% or higher was observed for all in-depth profiles examined using a 3%/2-mm criteria. Additional collimation was shown to improve PBS GRID treatments by sharpening the lateral penumbra of the beamlets but creates a trade-off between enhancing the valley-to-peak ratio of the GRID delivery and the dose-volume effect. The optimal collimation width and spot spacing changed as a function of the tumor cell radiosensitivity, dose, and spot size. In general, a spot spacing below 2.0 cm with a collimation less than 1.0 cm provided a superior dose distribution among the specific cases studied. CONCLUSIONS: The ability to customize a GRID dose distribution using different collimation sizes and spot spacings is a useful advantage, especially to maximize the overall therapeutic benefit. In this regard, the capabilities of the DCS, and perhaps alternative dynamic collimators, can be used to enhance GRID treatments. Physical dose models calculated using Monte Carlo methods were experimentally benchmarked in water and were found to accurately predict the respective dose distributions of uncollimated and DCS-collimated GRID profiles.
Authors: Rajalakshmi S Asur; Sunil Sharma; Ching-Wei Chang; Jose Penagaricano; Indira M Kommuru; Eduardo G Moros; Peter M Corry; Robert J Griffin Journal: Radiat Res Date: 2012-05-04 Impact factor: 2.841
Authors: Dongxu Wang; Blake Dirksen; Daniel E Hyer; John M Buatti; Arshin Sheybani; Eric Dinges; Nicole Felderman; Mindi TenNapel; John E Bayouth; Ryan T Flynn Journal: Med Phys Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Mahmoud Ghandi; Franklin W Huang; Judit Jané-Valbuena; Gregory V Kryukov; Christopher C Lo; E Robert McDonald; Jordi Barretina; Ellen T Gelfand; Craig M Bielski; Haoxin Li; Kevin Hu; Alexander Y Andreev-Drakhlin; Jaegil Kim; Julian M Hess; Brian J Haas; François Aguet; Barbara A Weir; Michael V Rothberg; Brenton R Paolella; Michael S Lawrence; Rehan Akbani; Yiling Lu; Hong L Tiv; Prafulla C Gokhale; Antoine de Weck; Ali Amin Mansour; Coyin Oh; Juliann Shih; Kevin Hadi; Yanay Rosen; Jonathan Bistline; Kavitha Venkatesan; Anupama Reddy; Dmitriy Sonkin; Manway Liu; Joseph Lehar; Joshua M Korn; Dale A Porter; Michael D Jones; Javad Golji; Giordano Caponigro; Jordan E Taylor; Caitlin M Dunning; Amanda L Creech; Allison C Warren; James M McFarland; Mahdi Zamanighomi; Audrey Kauffmann; Nicolas Stransky; Marcin Imielinski; Yosef E Maruvka; Andrew D Cherniack; Aviad Tsherniak; Francisca Vazquez; Jacob D Jaffe; Andrew A Lane; David M Weinstock; Cory M Johannessen; Michael P Morrissey; Frank Stegmeier; Robert Schlegel; William C Hahn; Gad Getz; Gordon B Mills; Jesse S Boehm; Todd R Golub; Levi A Garraway; William R Sellers Journal: Nature Date: 2019-05-08 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Alexandra Moignier; Edgar Gelover; Dongxu Wang; Blake Smith; Ryan Flynn; Maura Kirk; Liyong Lin; Timothy Solberg; Alexander Lin; Daniel Hyer Journal: Int J Part Ther Date: 2016-03-24