In recent years, the sophistication and complexity of clinical treatment planning and treatment planning systems has increased significantly, particularly including three-dimensional (3D) treatment planning systems, and the use of conformal treatment planning and delivery techniques. This has led to the need for a comprehensive set of quality assurance (QA) guidelines that can be applied to clinical treatment planning. This document is the report of Task Group 53 of the Radiation Therapy Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine. The purpose of this report is to guide and assist the clinical medical physicist in developing and implementing a comprehensive but viable program of quality assurance for modern radiotherapy treatment planning. The scope of the QA needs for treatment planning is quite broad, encompassing image-based definition of patient anatomy, 3D beam descriptions for complex beams including multileaf collimator apertures, 3D dose calculation algorithms, and complex plan evaluation tools including dose volume histograms. The Task Group recommends an organizational framework for the task of creating a QA program which is individualized to the needs of each institution and addresses the issues of acceptance testing, commissioning the planning system and planning process, routine quality assurance, and ongoing QA of the planning process. This report, while not prescribing specific QA tests, provides the framework and guidance to allow radiation oncology physicists to design comprehensive and practical treatment planning QA programs for their clinics.

No abstract

No abstract

Sophisticated conformal radiotherapy techniques with high dose 3-D conformal and intensity modulated radiation therapy improve the biochemical outcome in patients with favorable, intermediate and unfavorable risk prostate cancer. Intensity modulated radiation therapy is associated with minimal rectal and bladder toxicity, and, hence, represents the treatment delivery approach with the most favorable risk-to-benefit ratio.

Sophisticated conformal radiotherapy techniques with high dose 3-D conformal and intensity modulated radiation therapy improve the biochemical outcome in patients with favorable, intermediate and unfavorable risk prostate cancer. Intensity modulated radiation therapy is associated with minimal rectal and bladder toxicity, and, hence, represents the treatment delivery approach with the most favorable risk-to-benefit ratio.

To evaluate a commercial synthetic CT (syn-CT) software for use in prostate radiotherapy. Twenty-five prostate patients underwent CT and MR simulation scans in treatment position on a 3T MR scanner. A commercially available MR protocol was used that included a T2w turbo spin-echo sequence for soft-tissue contrast and a dual echo 3D mDIXON fast field echo (FFE) sequence for generating syn-CT. A dual-echo 3D FFE B0 map was used for patient-induced susceptibility distortion analysis and a new 3D balanced-FFE sequence was evaluated for identification of implanted gold fiducial markers and subsequent image-guidance during radiotherapy delivery. Tissues were classified as air, adipose, water, trabecular/spongy bone and compact/cortical bone and assigned bulk HU values. The accuracy of syn-CT for treatment planning was analyzed by transferring the structures and plan from planning CT to syn-CT and recalculating the dose. Accuracy of localization at the treatment machine was evaluated by comparing registration of kV radiographs to either digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) generated from syn-CT or traditional DRRs generated from the planning CT. Similarly, accuracy of setup using CBCT and syn-CT was compared to that using the planning CT. Finally, a MR-only simulation workflow was established and end-to-end testing was completed on five patients undergoing MR-only simulation. Dosimetric comparison between the original CT and syn-CT plans was within 0.5% on average for all structures. The de-novo optimized plans on the syn-CT met institutional clinical objectives for target and normal structures. Patient-induced susceptibility distortion based on B0 maps was within 1 mm and 0.5 mm in the body and prostate respectively. DRR and CBCT localization based on MR-localized fiducials showed a standard deviation of <1 mm. End-to-end testing and MR simulation workflow was successfully validated. MRI derived synthetic CT can be successfully used for a MR-only planning and treatment for prostate radiotherapy.

No abstract

Purpose To evaluate pix2pix and CycleGAN and to assess the effects of multiple combination strategies on accuracy for patch‐based synthetic computed tomography (sCT) generation for magnetic resonance (MR)‐only treatment planning in head and neck (HN) cancer patients. Materials and methods Twenty‐three deformably registered pairs of CT and mDixon FFE MR datasets from HN cancer patients treated at our institution were retrospectively analyzed to evaluate patch‐based sCT accuracy via the pix2pix and CycleGAN models. To test effects of overlapping sCT patches on estimations, we (a) trained the models for three orthogonal views to observe the effects of spatial context, (b) we increased effective set size by using per‐epoch data augmentation, and (c) we evaluated the performance of three different approaches for combining overlapping Hounsfield unit (HU) estimations for varied patch overlap parameters. Twelve of twenty‐three cases corresponded to a curated dataset previously used for atlas‐based sCT generation and were used for training with leave‐two‐out cross‐validation. Eight cases were used for independent testing and included previously unseen image features such as fused vertebrae, a small protruding bone, and tumors large enough to deform normal body contours. We analyzed the impact of MR image preprocessing including histogram standardization and intensity clipping on sCT generation accuracy. Effects of mDixon contrast (in‐phase vs water) differences were tested with three additional cases. The sCT generation accuracy was evaluated using mean absolute error (MAE) and mean error (ME) in HU between the plan CT and sCT images. Dosimetric accuracy was evaluated for all clinically relevant structures in the independent testing set and digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) were evaluated with respect to the plan CT images. Results The cross‐validated MAEs for the whole‐HN region using pix2pix and CycleGAN were 66.9 ± 7.3 vs 82.3 ± 6.4 HU, respectively. On the independent testing set with additional artifacts and previously unseen image features, whole‐HN region MAEs were 94.0 ± 10.6 and 102.9 ± 14.7 HU for pix2pix and CycleGAN, respectively. For patients with different tissue contrast (water mDixon MR images), the MAEs increased to 122.1 ± 6.3 and 132.8 ± 5.5 HU for pix2pix and CycleGAN, respectively. Our results suggest that combining overlapping sCT estimations at each voxel reduced both MAE and ME compared to single‐view non‐overlapping patch results. Absolute percent mean/max dose errors were 2% or less for the PTV and all clinically relevant structures in our independent testing set, including structures with image artifacts. Quantitative DRR comparison between planning CTs and sCTs showed agreement of bony region positions to <1 mm. Conclusions The dosimetric and MAE based accuracy, along with the similarity between DRRs from sCTs, indicate that pix2pix and CycleGAN are promising methods for MR‐only treatment planning for HN cancer. Our methods investigated for overlapping patch‐based HU estimations also ...