LAUSR

Abstract Background Hypofractionation in prostate radiotherapy is of increasing interest. Steep dose gradients and a large weight on each individual fraction emphasize the need for motion management. Real‐time motion management techniques such as multileaf collimator (MLC) tracking or couch tracking typically adjust for translational motion while rotations remain uncompensated with unknown dosimetric impact. Purpose The purpose of this study is to demonstrate and validate dynamic real‐time rotation‐including dose reconstruction during radiotherapy experiments with and without MLC and couch tracking. Methods Real‐time dose reconstruction was performed using the in‐house developed software DoseTracker. DoseTracker receives streamed target positions and accelerator parameters during treatment delivery and uses a pencil beam algorithm with water density assumption to reconstruct the dose in a moving target. DoseTracker's ability to reconstruct motion‐induced dose errors in a dynamically rotating and translating target was investigated during three different scenarios: (1) no motion compensation and translational motion correction with (2) MLC tracking and (3) couch tracking. In each scenario, dose reconstruction was performed online and in real time during delivery of two dual‐arc volumetric‐modulated arc therapy prostate plans with a prescribed fraction dose of 7 Gy to the prostate and simultaneous intraprostatic lesion boosts with doses of at least 8 Gy, but up to 10 Gy as long as the organs at risk dose constraints were fulfilled. The plans were delivered to a pelvis phantom that replicated three patient‐measured motion traces using a rotational insert with 21 layers of EBT3 film spaced 2.5 mm apart. DoseTracker repeatedly calculated the actual motion‐including dose increment and the planned static dose increment since the last calculation in 84 500 points in the film stack. The experiments were performed with a TrueBeam accelerator with MLC and couch tracking based on electromagnetic transponders embedded in the film stack. The motion‐induced dose error was quantified as the difference between the final cumulative dose with motion and without motion using the 2D 2%/2 mm γ‐failure rate and the difference in dose to 95% of the clinical target volume (CTV ΔD 95%) and the gross target volume (GTV ΔD 95%) as well as the difference in dose to 0.1 cm3 of the urethra, bladder, and rectum (ΔD 0.1CC). The motion‐induced errors were compared between dose reconstructions and film measurements. Results The dose was reconstructed in all calculation points at a mean frequency of 4.7 Hz. The root‐mean‐square difference between real‐time reconstructed and film‐measured motion‐induced errors was 3.1%‐points (γ‐failure rate), 0.13 Gy (CTV ΔD 95%), 0.23 Gy (GTV ΔD 95%), 0.19 Gy (urethra ΔD 0.1CC), 0.09 Gy (bladder ΔD 0.1CC), and 0.07 Gy (rectum ΔD 0.1CC). Conclusions In a series of phantom experiments, online real‐time rotation‐including dose reconstruction was performed for the first time. The calculated motion‐induced errors agreed well with film measurements. The dose reconstruction provides a valuable tool for monitoring dose delivery and investigating the efficacy of advanced motion‐compensation techniques in the presence of translational and rotational motion.