Spatio-temporal ultrasound beam modulation to sequentially achieve multiple foci with a single planar monofocal lens

Ultrasound focusing is a hot topic due to its multiple applications in many fields, including biomedical imaging, thermal ablation of cancerous tissues, and non destructive testing in industrial environments. In such applications, the ability to control the focal distance of the ultrasound device in real-time is a key advantage over conventional devices with fixed focal parameters. Here, we present a method to achieve multiple time-modulated ultrasound foci using a single planar monofocal Fresnel Zone Plate. The method takes advantage of the focal distance linear dependence on the operating frequency of this kind of lenses to design a sequence of contiguous modulated rectangular pulses that achieve different focal distances and intensities as a function of time. Both numerical simulations and experimental results are presented, demonstrating the feasibility and potential of this technique.

Effect of treatment planning system parameters on beam modulation complexity for treatment plans with single-layer multi-leaf collimator and dual-layer stacked multi-leaf collimator

Objective: High levels of beam modulation complexity (MC) and monitor units (μ) can compromise the plan deliverability of intensity-modulated radiotherapy treatments. Our study evaluates the effect of three treatment planning system (TPS) parameters on MC and μ using different multi leaf collimator (MLC) architectures. Methods: 192 volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans were calculated using one virtual prostate phantom considering three main settings: (1) three TPS-parameters (Convergence; Aperture Shape Controller, ASC; and Dose Calculation Resolution, DCR) selected from Eclipse v15.6, (2) four levels of dose-sparing priority for organs at risk (OAR), and (3) two treatment units with same nominal conformity resolution and different MLC architectures (Halcyon-v2 dual-layer MLC, DL-MLC & TrueBeam single-layer MLC, SL-MLC). We use seven complexity metrics to evaluate the MC, including two new metrics for DL-MLC, assessed by their correlation with γ passing rate (GPR) analysis. Results: DL-MLC plans demonstrated lower dose-sparing values than SL-MLC plans (p < 0.05). TPS-parameters didn’t change significantly the complexity metrics for either MLC architectures. However, for SL-MLC, significant variations of μ, target volume dose-homogeneity, and dose-spillage were associated with ASC and DCR (p < 0.05). μ were found to be correlated (highly or moderately) with all complexity metrics (p < 0.05) for both MLC plans. Additionally, our new complexity metrics presented a moderate correlation with GPR (r < 0.65). An important correlation was demonstrated between MC (plan deliverability) and dose-sparing priority level for DL-MLC. Conclusions: TPS-parameters selected do not change MC for DL-MLC architecture, but they might have a potential use to control the μ, PTV homogeneity or dose spillage for SL-MLC. Our new DL-MLC complexity metrics presented important information to be considered in future pre-treatment quality assurance programs. Finally, the prominent dependence between plan deliverability and priority applied to OAR dose sparing for DL-MLC needs to be analysed and considered as an additional predictor of GPRs in further studies. Advances in knowledge: Dose-sparing priority might influence in modulation complexity of DL-MLC.