Transit Dosimetry of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy Treatments with Electronic Portal Dosimetry Device in Patient with Spinal Implant

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1498536/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Transit Dosimetry of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy Treatments with Electronic Portal Dosimetry Device in Patient with Spinal Implant

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1498536/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Aim

In recent years, the use of the Electronic Portal Imaging Device (EPID) as an in vivo dosimeter has become widespread. However, reports of EPID for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) applications is scarce. There is no data on this topic especially when there are high-density materials in the radiation field. In this study, we aimed to investigate the dose distributions of SBRT treatment plans in patients with spinal implants by in vivo EPID dosimetry.

Material Methods:

Implants were inserted in phantoms that mimic the vertebrae, and VMAT plans were created on the phantoms to deliver 16 Gy radiation doses to the target in 1 fraction. In vivo EPID measurements were performed for each irradiation. The results were compared with the treatment planning system using the gamma analysis method.

Results

According to the gamma analysis results, while the non-implant model met the acceptance criteria with a rate of 95.4%, the implanted models did not pass the test with results between the rates of 70–73%. In addition, while the dose difference in the isocenter was 1.3% for the non-implanted model, this difference was observed to be between 7% and 8% in the implanted models.

Conclusion

Our study revealed that EPID can be used as in vivo dosimetry for the VMAT-SBRT applications. However, unacceptable dose differences were obtained by in vivo EPID dosimetry in the VMAT-SBRT applications of patients with an implant. In the treatment of such patients, alternative treatment methods should be preferred in which the interaction of the implants with radiation can be prevented.

Spinal Implants

in vivo EPID dosimetry

SBRT

VMAT

Bones are one of the most frequent distant metastatic site in patients with solid cancers(1). Bone metastasis can cause pain, pathological fractures, hypercalcemia, mechanical instability, and spinal cord compression(2). Treatment goals in patients with bone metastases include achieving pain or symptom control, preserving and restoring function, increasing local tumor control, and stabilization if necessary. Therapeutic options to achieve these goals include analgesics, bone modifying agents such as osteoclast inhibitors, systemic anti-cancer treatments, radiotherapy (RT), and surgery(3). More than one option is often used for optimum results. The combination of surgery and radiotherapy is frequently applied in patients with symptomatic vertebral metastasis. This treatment approach includes stabilization of the vertebral column and decompression of neurological structures via surgery. Post-operative radiotherapy aims to relieve pain, increase re-mineralization, and local tumor control. It has been suggested that radiotherapy after decompressive surgery has better symptom control, improved functional status, and quality of life compared to radiotherapy alone(4, 5).

While post-operative conventional external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) is commonly used for adjuvant radiotherapy, there are several concerns regarding its practice in treating patients with vertebral metastases. Due to the limitation of precise targeting with conventional EBRT and the tolerance dose of the spinal cord, it is challenging to deliver sufficient dose to the vertebra. This issue is the leading cause of inadequate pain palliation and local tumor control(6). On the other hand, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) allows ablative doses while limiting the dose received by the spinal cord and other organs at risk. However, some technical difficulties arise in postoperative SBRT applications in the presence of surgical implants. Spinal implants are materials with high density and atomic number, therefore they create dosimetric uncertainties in addition to the small field dosimetry problems in SBRT applications. Several researchers have addressed the problem of spinal implants on dose distribution(7, 8). However, experiments on measuring the effects of implants were conducted with thermoluminescent (TLD), optically stimulated luminescent (OSL), or film dosimetry. These dosimetric systems are capable to measure point doses, or 2D dose distributions. The advantages and disadvantages of these equipments have been studied widely (9–13).

Recent developments in electronic portal imaging device (EPID) have led to 3D in vivo dose measurements (14–16). However, there has been little discussion on in vivo dose verification of SBRT plans with EPID. McCowan et al. demonstrated the suitability of in vivo EPID dosimetry for lung and vertebrae SBRT applications(17). Yedekçi et al. reported the feasibility of EPID in vivo dose verification for prostate SBRT. A recent review of the literature on this topic has highlighted that in vivo EPID dosimetry is a powerful tool for identifying errors that may have been overlooked in other common quality control systems (18–21). However, there is no data about in vivo EPID dose verification for spinal SBRT application in the presence of an implant. The aim of our research was to examine the in vivo EPID dosimetry performance in volumetric arc therapy (VMAT)-SBRT plans in the presence of spinal implants.

Implantation of spinal implants

Implantation of spinal implants was performed on lumbar vertebrae models. A posterior pedicle screw(PS) fixation, a posterior pedicle fixation and anterior column reconstruction with titanium cage(PSC), and a lateral pedicle screw fixation and anterior column reconstruction(LSC) models were employed on 3 different vertebrae models (Fig. 1). A lumbar vertebra(LV) model was also used in the experiments to compare the effect of metal implants. The implants were made of TI6AL4V titanium alloy.

Acquisition of planning images

A Toshiba® Acqulion LB (Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation, Otawara, Japan) scanner was used to acquire all CT images of the lumbar vertebrae models. The CT acquisition parameters were adjusted for the metal artifact reduction (MAR) protocol. All the models were placed in a water-filled phantom for imaging. A plastic slab and plastic rods were used to center the vertebrae model in the phantom. Rods were also placed adjacent to the models as a guide for placing the models in the same position for every CT scan.

Determination of Target and Critical Volumes, and Creation of Treatment Plans

The images obtained from the CT device were transferred to the Raystation Treatment Planning System (TPS; RaySearch Laboratories AB, Stockholm, Sweden). The target was defined at the L3 vertebra level, where the metal implants remained within the radiation field. The spinal cord was delineated as a critical structure. Then, VMAT plans were created. The treatment plans were generated using Raystation TPS software. Raystation uses collapsed cone(CC) algorithm for the clinical dose calculation. CT number (HU) to electron density (ED) calibration curve configured in TPS using CTP604 module of Catphan® phantom (insert: Air, Water, Acrylic, Bone20%, PMP, LDPE, Bone50% Derlin, Teflon, and Polystyrene). Scanning parameters used on the calibration CT were 120 kV, 220 mA, and slice thickness of 2.5 mm.

VMAT plans with 2 full arcs (2*360⁰) were created using 6 MV flattening filter-free (FFF) photon beams, and the dose prescription was set to 16 Gy in 1 fraction. The spinal cord dose was limited to 12 Gy. In addition, an extra treatment plan was produced for the PS model by preventing beam entry from the implants (PS_blocked). We used 2 half arcs from 90⁰ to 270⁰ in counterclockwise and clockwise directions for this plan.

Irradiation, Dose Measurement, and Analysis

All irradiations were performed with Elekta Versa HD™ (Elekta, Stockholm, Sweden) treatment machine. The treatment machine was calibrated to obtain 1 cGy dose at 1.5 cm depth in water equivalent solid phantoms with 1 MU before each irradiation. Setup verification was maintained for each model with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images. After the position of the phantom was verified, SBRT was started and transit radiation dose information was simultaneously collected by iViewGt (Elekta, Stockholm, Sweden). The collected data was automatically exported to the iViewDose software. iViewDose compares the EPID-reconstructed doses with the TPS doses. 3D gamma evaluation with 3% global dose difference/3mm distance to the agreement and threshold:50% was performed for analysis. The passing rate criteria were described as 90%. Also, the isocenter doses were evaluated and compared for each model. The acceptance criterion was set to 3% for the dose differences.

The gamma analysis and point dose measurements were given in Table 1.

Table 1

The results of gamma analysis between the EPID and TPS dose distributions, and the isocenter doses for TPS and EPID for each model.
	Gamma Results (%)	Isocenter Doses(cGy)
		EPID	TPS	Difference(%)
LV	95.42	1646	1624	1.3
PS	73.15	1761	1636	7.5
PS_blocked	93.11	1676	1631	2.8
PSC	73.01	1748	1633	7.1
LSC	70.65	1756	1628	7.9

According to the results, LV and PS blocked models passed the gamma analysis. The measured doses at the isocenter were higher than the TPS doses for all models. However, they were acceptable for the LV and PS blocked models.

Figure 2 shows TPS doses, EPID doses, the failed points for the gamma analysis, and the 2D dose profile for the implant axis in the left and right directions. The triangular point defines the dose reference point (DRP), which is the isocenter of the beams. Two dose peaks were observed for the implant region in the 2D dose profile.

Figure 3. The dose distribution calculated from TPS, the dose distribution reconstructed from EPID measurement, and the comparison of 2D dose distribution in the region of implants between TPS and EPID for the PSC model.

Our 2D dose profile analysis for the PSC model showed that there were dose peaks in the region of implants as we observed for the PS model. The same results were also obtained for the LCS models.

We limited the arc angles for the PS blocked model to prevent beam ingress from implants directly. The result of the gamma analysis showed that the gamma passing rate for this model increased from 73–93% with this method (Fig. 4).

In this paper, we have examined the effect of metal implants on dose distribution for the VMAT-SBRT applications with in vivo EPID dosimetry. The performance of in vivo EPID dosimetry for SBRT irradiations has been previously studied(17, 22–24). It has been suggested that EPID can be used for the prostate, lung, and spine VMAT-SBRT applications and seems to be an innovative approach for in vivo dosimetry(17). According to the phantom results of McCowen et al., when gamma analysis was performed between EPID and TPS with 3%/3mm analysis parameter, the passing rate for the spine was found to be 93%(17). Despite the fact that there were TPS and reconstruction algorithm differences with McCowen’s study, our findings appear to be well substantiated by him. The gamma results were about 95% for the LV model. The AAPM TG-119 determined the lower limit of the passing rate for IMRT as 88%, our results support that EPID can be used as an in vivo dosimetry in VMAT-SBRT spine irradiations.

Our main motivation in this study was to examine the effect of metal implants on in vivo EPID results. Gamma analysis passing rates for spine models with metal implants decreased to the order of 70%. This dose mismatch between TPS and the measured dose is outside the acceptance criteria. There is a considerable amount of literature on the mismatch of TPS and measured dose in the presence of metals in the radiation field. The difference is mainly based on two reasons. The first is the imaging artifacts created by metal implants. The second is the inadequate modeling of radiation transport in or near high-effective atomic number materials by commercially used dose calculation algorithms. In this study, the single energy metal artifact reduction (SEMAR) technique was used during imaging to reduce artifacts caused by metal implants. Murazaki et al. affirm that gamma passing rates were improved by 6% using SEMAR for the images including metal implants (25). The algorithm utilized was collapsed cone (CC) to generate the treatment plans. They demonstrated that the CC algorithm could be used for dose calculation in cases where metal implants were present in radiation fields (26, 27). However, the difference between the measured dose and the planned dose for the CC algorithm can differ up to 25%. The difference may vary according to the effective atomic number of the material used. In vivo EPID measurements revealed that there was a major dose difference between calculated and measured dose for implanted models. We showed that for the PS model, the failed points in the gamma analysis cuold be reduced by blocking the beam entry from the implants. For other models, it was impossible to block the metal for VMAT irradiation.

The dose distribution around the high effective atomic number materials has been studied in various studies. Monte Carlo studies have shown that there is a sudden dose jump around the high effective atomic number material. These dose peaks are due to the backscattered radiation. It is known that the magnitude of the backscatter radiation depends on the type of radiation beam, the thickness, and the density of the material. Our results are in concordance with the literature. We observed sudden dose jumps near the metal implants by in vivo EPID measurements. The effect of backscattered radiation from metal implants on the signal picked up by EPID may have caused the detection of dose variation in this region.

The dose difference of more than 7% observed in point dose measurements can have dangerous consequences for the spinal cord in SBRT applications. The measured doses were higher than the TPS dose. These results suggest that even if spinal cord doses are within tolerance according to the TPS, the spinal cord may actually be exposed to a dose above the tolerance limits due to the dose uncertainty caused by the metal implants. This effect should be considered in patients with spinal implants.

Realistic doses can be obtained by creating treatment plans in which radiation beams do not pass directly through the implants. It was previously reported that blocking the beam entry from the prosthesis improves the quality of dose distribution in patients with HIP prostheses treated with VMAT. However, in patients with spinal implants, materials with high effective atomic numbers can be located adjacent to the target structures. In such cases, it is impossible to leave the implants out of the field for the VMAT technique. In our previous study with the Cyberknife treatment machine, we showed that in the treatment of similar cases, identifying metal implants to TPS and preventing the radiation beams to pass through it significantly reduces dose uncertainties(28). If we evaluate the results of both of our studies together, it can be concluded that it would be more appropriate to treat such cases with Cyberknife.

Our work has led us to conclude that in vivo EPID dosimetry can detect dosimetric uncertainties between TPS and treatment. The gamma analysis results can be improved by preventing beam entry from the implants. However, in many cases, it is impossible to leave the metal implants out of the radiation field for VMAT. For these cases, we suggest alternative treatment techniques.

Funding

This study was supported by Hacettepe University Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit. Project Number: THD-2021-19356.

Ethical approval: This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Mundy GR (1997) Mechanisms of bone metastasis. Cancer: Interdisciplinary International Journal of the American Cancer Society 80(S8):1546–1556
Lutz S, Berk L, Chang E, Chow E, Hahn C, Hoskin P et al (2011) Palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases: an ASTRO evidence-based guideline. Int J Radiation Oncology* Biology* Phys 79(4):965–976
Gouveia AG, Chan DC, Hoskin PJ, Marta GN, Trippa F, Maranzano E et al (2021) Advances in radiotherapy in bone metastases in the context of new target therapies and ablative alternatives: A critical review.Radiotherapy and Oncology.
Patchell RA, Tibbs PA, Regine WF, Payne R, Saris S, Kryscio RJ et al (2005) Direct decompressive surgical resection in the treatment of spinal cord compression caused by metastatic cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet 366(9486):643–648
Falicov A, Fisher CG, Sparkes J, Boyd MC, Wing PC, Dvorak MF (2006) Impact of surgical intervention on quality of life in patients with spinal metastases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31(24):2849–2856
Chow E, Zeng L, Salvo N, Dennis K, Tsao M, Lutz S (2012) Update on the systematic review of palliative radiotherapy trials for bone metastases. Clin Oncol 24(2):112–124
Cheng ZJ, Bromley RM, Oborn B, Carolan M, Booth JT (2016) On the accuracy of dose prediction near metal fixation devices for spine SBRT. J Appl Clin Med Phys 17(3):475–485
Trager M, Landers A, Yu Y, Shi W, Liu H (2020) Evaluation of Elements Spine SRS Plan Quality for SRS and SBRT Treatment of Spine Metastases. Front Oncol 10:346
Lye J, Dunn L, Kenny J, Lehmann J, Kron T, Oliver C et al (2014) Remote auditing of radiotherapy facilities using optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters. Med Phys 41(3):032102
Glennie GD (2003) A comparison of TLD dosimeters: LiF: Mg, Ti and LiF: Mg, Cu, P for measurement of radiation therapy doses. Med Phys 30(12):3262
Devic S, Seuntjens J, Sham E, Podgorsak EB, Schmidtlein CR, Kirov AS et al (2005) Precise radiochromic film dosimetry using a flat-bed document scanner. Med Phys 32(7Part1):2245–2253
Devic S, Tomic N, Aldelaijan S, DeBlois F, Seuntjens J, Chan MF et al (2012) Linearization of dose–response curve of the radiochromic film dosimetry system. Med Phys 39(8):4850–4857
Wilcox EE, Daskalov GM (2007) Evaluation of GAFCHROMIC® EBT film for CyberKnife® dosimetry. Med Phys 34(6Part1):1967–1974
Wendling M, McDermott LN, Mans A, Sonke J-J, van Herk M, Mijnheer BJ (2009) A simple backprojection algorithm for 3D in vivo EPID dosimetry of IMRT treatments. Med Phys 36(7):3310–3321
Mans A, Remeijer P, Olaciregui-Ruiz I, Wendling M, Sonke JJ, Mijnheer B et al (2010) 3D Dosimetric verification of volumetric-modulated arc therapy by portal dosimetry. Radiother Oncol 94(2):181–187
Mijnheer B, Olaciregui-Ruiz I, Rozendaal R, Sonke J, Spreeuw H, Tielenburg R et al (eds) (2013) Journal of Physics: Conference Series; : IOP publishing
McCowan P, Van Uytven E, Van Beek T, Asuni G, McCurdy B (2015) An in vivo dose verification method for SBRT–VMAT delivery using the EPID. Med Phys 42(12):6955–6963
Mans A, Wendling M, McDermott L, Sonke JJ, Tielenburg R, Vijlbrief R et al (2010) Catching errors with in vivo EPID dosimetry. Med Phys 37(6Part2):2638–2644
Van Elmpt W, McDermott L, Nijsten S, Wendling M, Lambin P, Mijnheer B (2008) A literature review of electronic portal imaging for radiotherapy dosimetry. Radiother Oncol 88(3):289–309
Olaciregui-Ruiz I, Rozendaal R, Mijnheer B, Mans A (2019) Site-specific alert criteria to detect patient-related errors with 3D EPID transit dosimetry. Med Phys 46(1):45–55
Olaciregui-Ruiz I, Rozendaal R, van Kranen S, Mijnheer B, Mans A (2020) The effect of the choice of patient model on the performance of in vivo 3D EPID dosimetry to detect variations in patient position and anatomy. Med Phys 47(1):171–180
McCurdy BM, McCowan PM (2017) In vivo dosimetry for lung radiotherapy including SBRT. Physica Med 44:123–130
Moustakis C, Tazehmahalleh FE, Elsayad K, Fezeu F, Scobioala S (2020) A novel approach to SBRT patient quality assurance using EPID-based real-time transit dosimetry. Strahlenther Onkol 196(2):182–192
Esposito M, Ghirelli A, Pini S, Alpi P, Barca R, Fondelli S et al (2021) Clinical implementation of 3D in vivo dosimetry for abdominal and pelvic stereotactic treatments. Radiother Oncol 154:14–20
Murazaki H, Fukunaga J, Hirose TA, Funatsu N, Matsumoto R, Hidaka K et al (2019) Dosimetric assessment of a single-energy metal artifact reduction algorithm for computed tomography images in radiation therapy. Radiol Phys Technol 12(3):268–276
Bär E, Schwahofer A, Kuchenbecker S, Häring P (2015) Improving radiotherapy planning in patients with metallic implants using the iterative metal artifact reduction (iMAR) algorithm. Biomedical Phys Eng Express 1(2):025206
Wieslander E, Knöös T (2003) Dose perturbation in the presence of metallic implants: treatment planning system versus Monte Carlo simulations. Phys Med Biol 48(20):3295
Yazici G, Sari SY, Yedekci FY, Yucekul A, Birgi SD, Demirkiran G et al (2016) The dosimetric impact of implants on the spinal cord dose during stereotactic body radiotherapy. Radiat Oncol 11(1):1–9

Download PDF

Reviewers agreed at journal
19 Jun, 2022
Reviews received at journal
07 May, 2022
Reviewers invited by journal
03 May, 2022
Editor invited by journal
30 Mar, 2022
Editor assigned by journal
30 Mar, 2022
First submitted to journal
28 Mar, 2022

You are reading this latest preprint version

Transit Dosimetry of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy Treatments with Electronic Portal Dosimetry Device in Patient with Spinal Implant

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Aim

Material Methods:

Results

Conclusion

Figures

Introduction

Materials And Methods

Implantation of spinal implants

Acquisition of planning images

Determination of Target and Critical Volumes, and Creation of Treatment Plans

Irradiation, Dose Measurement, and Analysis

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Status:

Version 1