The authors have developed a treatment planning workflow for MC dose calculation of pencil beams and optimization for treatment planning of VHEE radiotherapy. The authors have demonstrated that VHEE plans resulted in similar or superior dose distributions for pediatric, lung, and prostate cases compared to clinical VMAT plans.

The dosimetric advantages of VHEE as demonstrated for a variety of clinical cases, combined with the theoretical ultra fast treatment delivery, afford VHEE scanning pencil beam radiotherapy a suitable and potentially superior alternative for cancer radiotherapy.

Purpose: To evaluate the performance of 100–120 MeV very‐high energy electron (VHEE) scanning pencil beams to radiotherapy by means of Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. Methods: We selected five clinical cases with target sizes of 1.2 cm3 to 990.4 cm3. We calculated VHEE treatment plans using the MC EGSnrc code implemented in a MATLAB‐based graphical user interface developed by our group. We generated phase space data for beam energies: 100 and 120 MeV and pencil beam spot sizes of 1, 3, and 5 mm at FWHM. The number of equidistant beams considered in this work was 16 or 32. Dose was calculated and then imported into a research version of RayStation where treatment plan optimization was performed. We compared the VHEE plans with the clinically delivered volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan to evaluate VHEE plans performance. Results: VHEE plans provided the same PTV coverage and dose homogeneity than VMAT plans for all the cases. In average, the mean dose to organs at risk (OARs) was 24% lower for the VHEE plans. The structures that benefited the most from using VHEE were: large bowel for the esophagus case, chest wall for the liver case, brainstem for the acoustic case, carina for the lung case, and genitalia for the anal case, with 23.7–34.6% lower dose. VHEE dose distributions were more conformal than VMAT solution as confirmed by conformity indices CI100 and CI50. Integral dose to the body was in average 19.6% (9.2%–36.5%) lower for the VHEE plans. Conclusion: We have shown that VHEE plans resulted in similar or superior dose distributions compared to clinical VMAT plans for five different cases and a wide range of target volumes, including a case with a small target (1.2 cm3), which represents a challenge for VMAT planning and might require the use of more complex non‐coplanar VMAT plans. B Palma: None. M Bazalova: None. B Hardemark: Employee, RaySearch Laboratories AB. E Hynning: Employee, RaySearch Laboratories AB. B Qu: None. B Loo Jr.: Research support, RaySearch, Varian. P Maxim: Research support, RaySearch, Varian

Purpose: To evaluate the effect of metal implants on treatment plans for radiation therapy with very high‐energy electron (VHEE) beams. Methods: The DOSXYZnrc/BEAMnrc Monte Carlo (MC) codes were used to simulate 50–150MeV VHEE beam dose deposition and its effects on steel and titanium (Ti) heterogeneities in a water phantom. Heterogeneities of thicknesses ranging from 0.5cm to 2cm were placed at 10cm depth. MC was also used to calculate electron and photon spectra generated by the VHEE beams' interaction with metal heterogeneities. The original VMAT patient dose calculation was planned in Eclipse. Patient dose calculations with MC‐generated beamlets were planned using a Matlab GUI and research version of RayStation. VHEE MC treatment planning was performed on water‐only geometry and water with segmented prostheses (steel and Ti) geometries with 100MeV and 150MeV beams. Results: 100MeV PDD 5cm behind steel/Ti heterogeneity was 51% less than in the water‐only phantom. For some cases, dose enhancement lateral to the borders of the phantom increased the dose by up to 22% in steel and 18% in Ti heterogeneities. The dose immediately behind steel heterogeneity decreased by an average of 6%, although for 150MeV, the steel heterogeneity created a 23% increase in dose directly behind it. The average dose immediately behind Ti heterogeneities increased 10%. The prostate VHEE plans resulted in mean dose decrease to the bowel (20%), bladder (7%), and the urethra (5%) compared to the 15MV VMAT plan. The average dose to the body with prosthetic implants was 5% higher than to the body without implants. Conclusion: Based on MC simulations, metallic implants introduce dose perturbations to VHEE beams from lateral scatter and backscatter. However, when performing clinical planning on a prostate case, the use of multiple beams and inverse planning still produces VHEE plans that are dosimetrically superior to photon VMAT plans. BW Loo and P Maxim received research support from RaySearch laboratories; B Hardemark and E Hynning are employees of RaySearch.