This document is the report of a task group of the AAPM and has been prepared primarily to advise medical physicists involved in the external-beam radiation therapy of patients with thoracic, abdominal, and pelvic tumors affected by respiratory motion. This report describes the magnitude of respiratory motion, discusses radiotherapy specific problems caused by respiratory motion, explains techniques that explicitly manage respiratory motion during radiotherapy and gives recommendations in the application of these techniques for patient care, including quality assurance (QA) guidelines for these devices and their use with conformal and intensity modulated radiotherapy. The technologies covered by this report are motion-encompassing methods, respiratory gated techniques, breath-hold techniques, forced shallow-breathing methods, and respiration-synchronized techniques. The main outcome of this report is a clinical process guide for managing respiratory motion. Included in this guide is the recommendation that tumor motion should be measured (when possible) for each patient for whom respiratory motion is a concern. If target motion is greater than 5 mm, a method of respiratory motion management is available, and if the patient can tolerate the procedure, respiratory motion management technology is appropriate. Respiratory motion management is also appropriate when the procedure will increase normal tissue sparing. Respiratory motion management involves further resources, education and the development of and adherence to QA procedures.

The Monte Carlo (MC) method has been shown through many research studies to calculate accurate dose distributions for clinical radiotherapy, particularly in heterogeneous patient tissues where the effects of electron transport cannot be accurately handled with conventional, deterministic dose algorithms. Despite its proven accuracy and the potential for improved dose distributions to influence treatment outcomes, the long calculation times previously associated with MC simulation rendered this method impractical for routine clinical treatment planning. However, the development of faster codes optimized for radiotherapy calculations and improvements in computer processor technology have substantially reduced calculation times to, in some instances, within minutes on a single processor. These advances have motivated several major treatment planning system vendors to embark upon the path of MC techniques. Several commercial vendors have already released or are currently in the process of releasing MC algorithms for photon and/or electron beam treatment planning. Consequently, the accessibility and use of MC treatment planning algorithms may well become widespread in the radiotherapy community. With MC simulation, dose is computed stochastically using first principles; this method is therefore quite different from conventional dose algorithms. Issues such as statistical uncertainties, the use of variance reduction techniques, the ability to account for geometric details in the accelerator treatment head simulation, and other features, are all unique components of a MC treatment planning algorithm. Successful implementation by the clinical physicist of such a system will require an understanding of the basic principles of MC techniques. The purpose of this report, while providing education and review on the use of MC simulation in radiotherapy planning, is to set out, for both users and developers, the salient issues associated with clinical implementation and experimental verification of MC dose algorithms. As the MC method is an emerging technology, this report is not meant to be prescriptive. Rather, it is intended as a preliminary report to review the tenets of the MC method and to provide the framework upon which to build a comprehensive program for commissioning and routine quality assurance of MC-based treatment planning systems.

Four-dimensional (4D) methods strive to achieve highly conformal radiotherapy, particularly for lung and breast tumours, in the presence of respiratory-induced motion of tumours and normal tissues. Four-dimensional radiotherapy accounts for respiratory motion during imaging, planning and radiation delivery, and requires a 4D CT image in which the internal anatomy motion as a function of the respiratory cycle can be quantified. The aims of our research were (a) to develop a method to acquire 4D CT images from a spiral CT scan using an external respiratory signal and (b) to examine the potential utility of 4D CT imaging. A commercially available respiratory motion monitoring system provided an 'external' tracking signal of the patient's breathing. Simultaneous recording of a TTL 'X-Ray ON' signal from the CT scanner indicated the start time of CT image acquisition, thus facilitating time stamping of all subsequent images. An over-sampled spiral CT scan was acquired using a pitch of 0.5 and scanner rotation time of 1.5 s. Each image from such a scan was sorted into an image bin that corresponded with the phase of the respiratory cycle in which the image was acquired. The complete set of such image bins accumulated over a respiratory cycle constitutes a 4D CT dataset. Four-dimensional CT datasets of a mechanical oscillator phantom and a patient undergoing lung radiotherapy were acquired. Motion artefacts were significantly reduced in the images in the 4D CT dataset compared to the three-dimensional (3D) images, for which respiratory motion was not accounted. Accounting for respiratory motion using 4D CT imaging is feasible and yields images with less distortion than 3D images. 4D images also contain respiratory motion information not available in a 3D CT image.

Intrafraction motion caused by breathing requires increased treatment margins for chest and abdominal radiotherapy and may lead to 'motion artefacts' in dose distributions during intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Technologies such as gated radiotherapy may significantly increase the treatment time, while breath-hold techniques may be poorly tolerated by pulmonarily compromised patients. A solution that allows reduced margins and dose distribution artefacts, without compromising delivery time, is to synchronously follow the target motion by adapting the x-ray beam using a dynamic multileaf collimator (MLC), i.e. motion adaptive x-ray therapy, or MAX-T for short. Though the target is moving with time, in the MAX-T beam view the target is static. The MAX-T method superimposes the target motion due to respiration onto the beam originally planned for delivery. Thus during beam delivery the beam is dynamically changing position with respect to the isocentre using a dynamic MLC, the leaf positions of which are dependent upon the target position. Synchronization of the MLC motion and target motion occurs using respiration gated radiotherapy equipment. The concept and feasibility of MAX-T and the capability of the treatment machine to deliver such a treatment were investigated by performing measurements for uniform and IMRT fields using a mechanical sinusoidal oscillator to simulate target motion. Target dose measurements obtained using MAX-T for a moving target were found to be equivalent to those delivered to a static target by a static beam.

Current clinical experience in radiation therapy is based upon dose computations that report the absorbed dose to water, even though the patient is not made of water but of many different types of tissue. While Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithms have the potential for higher dose accuracy, they usually transport particles in and compute the absorbed dose to the patient media such as soft tissue, lung or bone. Therefore, for dose calculation algorithm comparisons, or to report dose to water or tissue contained within a bone matrix for example, a method to convert dose to the medium to dose to water is required. This conversion has been developed here by applying Bragg-Gray cavity theory. The dose ratio for 6 and 18 MV photon beams was determined by computing the average stopping power ratio for the primary electron spectrum in the transport media. For soft tissue, the difference between dose to medium and dose to water is approximately 1.0%, while for cortical bone the dose difference exceeds 10%. The variation in the dose ratio as a function of depth and position in the field indicates that for photon beams a single correction factor can be used for each particular material throughout the field for a given photon beam energy. The only exception to this would be for the clinically non-relevant dose to air. Pre-computed energy spectra for 60Co to 24 MV are used to compute the dose ratios for these photon beams and to determine an effective energy for evaluation of the dose ratio.