title: Superficial and peripheral dose in compensator-based FFF beam IMRT.
abstract: Flattening filter-free (FFF) beams produce higher dose rates. Combined with compensator-based intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) techniques, the dose delivery for each beam can be much shorter compared to the flattened beam MLC-based or flattened beam compensator-based IMRT. This 'snap shot' IMRT delivery is beneficial to patients for tumor motion management. Due to softer energy, superficial doses in FFF beam treatment are usually higher than those from flattened beams. Due to no flattening filter, thus less photon scattering, peripheral doses are usually lower in FFF beam treatment. However, in compensator-based IMRT using FFF beams, the compensator is in the beam pathway. Does it introduce beam hardening effects and scattering such that the superficial dose is lower and peripheral dose is higher compared to FFF beam MLC-based IMRT? This study applied Monte Carlo techniques to investigate the superficial and peripheral doses in compensator-based IMRT using FFF beams and compared it to the MLC-based IMRT using FFF beams and flattened beams. Besides varying thicknesses of brass slabs to simulate varying thicknesses of compensators, a simple cone-shaped compensator was simulated to mimic a clinical application. The dose distribution in water phantom by the cone-shaped compensator was then simulated by multiple MLC-defined FFF and flattened beams with varying apertures. After normalization to the maximum dose, Dmax, the superficial and peripheral doses were compared between the FFF beam compensator-based IMRT and FFF/flattened beam MLC-based IMRT. The superficial dose at the central 0.5 mm depth was about 1% (of Dmax) lower in the compensator-based 6 MV FFF (6FFF) IMRT compared to the MLC-based 6FFF IMRT, and about 8% higher than the flattened 6 MV MLC-based IMRT dose. At 8 cm off-axis at depth of central maximum dose, dmax, the peripheral dose between the 6FFF and flattened 6 MV MLC demonstrated similar doses, while the compensator dose was about 1% (of Dmax) higher. Compensators reduce the superficial doses slightly compared to open FFF beams, but increases the peripheral doses due to scatter in the compensator.
authors.affiliation: Department of Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
authors.forename: Daniel G
authors.initials: DG
authors.lastname: Zhang
authors.affiliation: Radiation Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.
authors.forename: Vladimir
authors.initials: V
authors.lastname: Feygelman
authors.affiliation: Radiation Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.
authors.forename: Eduardo G
authors.initials: EG
authors.lastname: Moros
authors.affiliation: Radiation Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.
authors.forename: Kujtim
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Latifi
authors.affiliation: Radiation Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.
authors.forename: Sarah
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Hoffe
authors.affiliation: Radiation Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.
authors.forename: Jessica
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Frakes
authors.affiliation: Radiation Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.
authors.forename: Geoffrey G
authors.initials: GG
authors.lastname: Zhang
mesh_terms: D004867:Equipment Design; D005374:Filtration / Q000295:instrumentation*; D006801:Humans; D009010:Monte Carlo Method; D009369:Neoplasms / Q000532:radiotherapy*; D010315:Particle Accelerators / Q000295:instrumentation*; D019047:Phantoms, Imaging; D011879:Radiotherapy Dosage; D011880:Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods*; D050397:Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated / Q000379:methods*; D012542:Scattering, Radiation
keywords: Monte Carlo; compensator‐based IMRT; flattening filter‐free; superficial dose