A. Mans

Catching errors with in vivo EPID dosimetry

The potential for detrimental incidents and the ever increasing complexity of patient treatments emphasize the need for accurate dosimetric verification in radiotherapy. For this reason, all curative treatments are verified, either pretreatment or in vivo, by electronic portal imaging device (EPID) dosimetry in the Radiation Oncology Department of the Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Since the clinical introduction of the method in January 2005 until August 2009, treatment plans of 4337 patients have been verified. Among these plans, 17 serious errors were detected that led to intervention. Due to their origin, nine of these errors would not have been detected with pretreatment verification. The method is illustrated in detail by the case of a plan transfer error detected in a 5×5Gy intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) rectum treatment. The EPID reconstructed dose at the isocenter was 6.3% below the planned value. Investigation of the plan transfer chain revealed that due to a network transfer error, the plan was corrupted. 3D analysis of the acquired EPID data revealed serious underdosage of the planning target volume: On average 11.6%, locally up to 20%. This report shows the importance of in vivo (EPID) dosimetry for all treatment plans as well as the ability of the method to assess the dosimetric impact of deviations found.

Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy for Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy of Lung Tumors: A Comparison With Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Techniques

PURPOSE To demonstrate the potential of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) compared with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) techniques with a limited number of segments for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for early-stage lung cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS For a random selection of 27 patients eligible for SBRT, coplanar and noncoplanar IMRT and coplanar VMAT (using SmartArc) treatment plans were generated in Pinnacle(3) and compared. In addition, film measurements were performed using an anthropomorphic phantom to evaluate the skin dose for the different treatment techniques. RESULTS Using VMAT, the delivery times could be reduced to an average of 6.6 min compared with 23.7 min with noncoplanar IMRT. The mean dose to the healthy lung was 4.1 Gy for VMAT and noncoplanar IMRT and 4.2 Gy for coplanar IMRT. The volume of healthy lung receiving>5 Gy and >20 Gy was 18.0% and 5.4% for VMAT, 18.5% and 5.0% for noncoplanar IMRT, and 19.4% and 5.7% for coplanar IMRT, respectively. The dose conformity at 100% and 50% of the prescribed dose of 54 Gy was 1.13 and 5.17 for VMAT, 1.11 and 4.80 for noncoplanar IMRT and 1.12 and 5.31 for coplanar IMRT, respectively. The measured skin doses were comparable for VMAT and noncoplanar IMRT and slightly greater for coplanar IMRT. CONCLUSIONS Coplanar VMAT for SBRT for early-stage lung cancer achieved plan quality and skin dose levels comparable to those using noncoplanar IMRT and slightly better than those with coplanar IMRT. In addition, the delivery time could be reduced by ≤70% with VMAT.

A simple backprojection algorithm for 3D in vivo EPID dosimetry of IMRT treatments

Treatment plans are usually designed, optimized, and evaluated based on the total 3D dose distribution, motivating a total 3D dose verification. The purpose of this study was to develop a 2D transmission-dosimetry method using an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) into a simple 3D method that provides 3D dose information. In the new method, the dose is reconstructed within the patient volume in multiple planes parallel to the EPID for each gantry angle. By summing the 3D dose grids of all beams, the 3D dose distribution for the total treatment fraction is obtained. The algorithm uses patient contours from the planning CT scan but does not include tissue inhomogeneity corrections. The 3D EPID dosimetry method was tested for IMRT fractions of a prostate, a rectum, and a head-and-neck cancer patient. Planned and in vivo-measured dose distributions were within 2% at the dose prescription point. Within the 50% isodose surface of the prescribed dose, at least 97% of points were in agreement, evaluated with a 3D gamma method with criteria of 3% of the prescribed dose and 0.3 cm. Full 3D dose reconstruction on a 0.1 x 0.1 x 0.1 cm3 grid and 3D gamma evaluation took less than 15 min for one fraction on a standard PC. The method allows in vivo determination of 3D dose-volume parameters that are common in clinical practice. The authors conclude that their EPID dosimetry method is an accurate and fast tool for in vivo dose verification of IMRT plans in 3D. Their approach is independent of the treatment planning system and provides a practical safety net for radiotherapy.

Automatic in vivo portal dosimetry of all treatments.

At our institution EPID (electronic portal imaging device) dosimetry is routinely applied to perform in vivo dose verification of all patient treatments with curative intent since January 2008. The major impediment of the method has been the amount of work required to produce and inspect the in vivo dosimetry reports (a time-consuming and labor-intensive process). In this paper we present an overview of the actions performed to implement an automated in vivo dosimetry solution clinically. We reimplemented the EPID dosimetry software and modified the acquisition software. Furthermore, we introduced new tools to periodically inspect the record-and-verify database and automatically run the EPID dosimetry software when needed. In 2012, 95% of our 3839 treatments scheduled for in vivo dosimetry were analyzed automatically (27,633 portal images of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) fields, 5551 portal image data of VMAT arcs, and 2003 portal images of non-IMRT fields). The in vivo dosimetry verification results are available a few minutes after delivery and alerts are immediately raised when deviations outside tolerance levels are detected. After the clinical introduction of this automated solution, inspection of the detected deviations is the only remaining work. These newly developed tools are a major step forward towards full integration of in vivo EPID dosimetry in radiation oncology practice.

In aqua vivo EPID dosimetry

PURPOSE At the Netherlands Cancer Institute--Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital in vivo dosimetry using an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) has been implemented for almost all high-energy photon treatments of cancer with curative intent. Lung cancer treatments were initially excluded, because the original back-projection dose-reconstruction algorithm uses water-based scatter-correction kernels and therefore does not account for tissue inhomogeneities accurately. The aim of this study was to test a new method, in aqua vivo EPID dosimetry, for fast dose verification of lung cancer irradiations during actual patient treatment. METHODS The key feature of our method is the dose reconstruction in the patient from EPID images, obtained during the actual treatment, whereby the images have been converted to a situation as if the patient consisted entirely of water; hence, the method is termed in aqua vivo. This is done by multiplying the measured in vivo EPID image with the ratio of two digitally reconstructed transmission images for the unit-density and inhomogeneous tissue situation. For dose verification, a comparison is made with the calculated dose distribution with the inhomogeneity correction switched off. IMRT treatment verification is performed for each beam in 2D using a 2D γ evaluation, while for the verification of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatments in 3D a 3D γ evaluation is applied using the same parameters (3%, 3 mm). The method was tested using two inhomogeneous phantoms simulating a tumor in lung and measuring its sensitivity for patient positioning errors. Subsequently five IMRT and five VMAT clinical lung cancer treatments were investigated, using both the conventional back-projection algorithm and the in aqua vivo method. The verification results of the in aqua vivo method were statistically analyzed for 751 lung cancer patients treated with IMRT and 50 lung cancer patients treated with VMAT. RESULTS The improvements by applying the in aqua vivo approach are considerable. The percentage of γ values ≤1 increased on average from 66.2% to 93.1% and from 43.6% to 97.5% for the IMRT and VMAT cases, respectively. The corresponding mean γ value decreased from 0.99 to 0.43 for the IMRT cases and from 1.71 to 0.40 for the VMAT cases, which is similar to the accepted clinical values for the verification of IMRT treatments of prostate, rectum, and head-and-neck cancers. The deviation between the reconstructed and planned dose at the isocenter diminished on average from 5.3% to 0.5% for the VMAT patients and was almost the same, within 1%, for the IMRT cases. The in aqua vivo verification results for IMRT and VMAT treatments of a large group of patients had a mean γ of approximately 0.5, a percentage of γ values ≤1 larger than 89%, and a difference of the isocenter dose value less than 1%. CONCLUSIONS With the in aqua vivo approach for the verification of lung cancer treatments (IMRT and VMAT), we can achieve results with the same accuracy as obtained during in vivo EPID dosimetry of sites without large inhomogeneities.

Overview of 3-year experience with large-scale electronic portal imaging device-based 3-dimensional transit dosimetry.

PURPOSE To assess the usefulness of electronic portal imaging device (EPID)-based 3-dimensional (3D) transit dosimetry in a radiation therapy department by analyzing a large set of dose verification results. METHODS AND MATERIALS In our institution, routine in vivo dose verification of all treatments is performed by means of 3D transit dosimetry using amorphous silicon EPIDs. The total 3D dose distribution is reconstructed using a back-projection algorithm and compared with the planned dose distribution using 3D gamma evaluation. Dose reconstruction and gamma evaluation software runs automatically in our clinic, and analysis results are (almost) immediately available. If a deviation exceeds our alert criteria, manual inspection is required. If necessary, additional phantom measurements are performed to separate patient-related errors from planning or delivery errors. Three-dimensional transit dosimetry results were analyzed per treatment site between 2012 and 2014 and the origin of the deviations was assessed. RESULTS In total, 4689 of 15,076 plans (31%) exceeded the alert criteria between 2012 and 2014. These alerts were patient-related and attributable to limitations of our back-projection and dose calculation algorithm or to external sources. Clinically relevant deviations were detected for approximately 1 of 430 patient treatments. Most of these errors were because of anatomical changes or deviations from the routine clinical procedure and would not have been detected by pretreatment verification. Although cone beam computed tomography scans yielded information about anatomical changes, their effect on the dose delivery was assessed quantitatively by means of 3D in vivo dosimetry. CONCLUSIONS EPID-based transit dosimetry is a fast and efficient dose verification technique. It provides more useful information and is less time-consuming than pretreatment verification measurements of intensity modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy. Large-scale implementation of 3D transit dosimetry is therefore a powerful method to guarantee safe dose delivery during radiation therapy.

Online 3D EPID-based dose verification: Proof of concept

PURPOSE Delivery errors during radiotherapy may lead to medical harm and reduced life expectancy for patients. Such serious incidents can be avoided by performing dose verification online, i.e., while the patient is being irradiated, creating the possibility of halting the linac in case of a large overdosage or underdosage. The offline EPID-based 3D in vivo dosimetry system clinically employed at our institute is in principle suited for online treatment verification, provided the system is able to complete 3D dose reconstruction and verification within 420 ms, the present acquisition time of a single EPID frame. It is the aim of this study to show that our EPID-based dosimetry system can be made fast enough to achieve online 3D in vivo dose verification. METHODS The current dose verification system was sped up in two ways. First, a new software package was developed to perform all computations that are not dependent on portal image acquisition separately, thus removing the need for doing these calculations in real time. Second, the 3D dose reconstruction algorithm was sped up via a new, multithreaded implementation. Dose verification was implemented by comparing planned with reconstructed 3D dose distributions delivered to two regions in a patient: the target volume and the nontarget volume receiving at least 10 cGy. In both volumes, the mean dose is compared, while in the nontarget volume, the near-maximum dose (D2) is compared as well. The real-time dosimetry system was tested by irradiating an anthropomorphic phantom with three VMAT plans: a 6 MV head-and-neck treatment plan, a 10 MV rectum treatment plan, and a 10 MV prostate treatment plan. In all plans, two types of serious delivery errors were introduced. The functionality of automatically halting the linac was also implemented and tested. RESULTS The precomputation time per treatment was ∼180 s/treatment arc, depending on gantry angle resolution. The complete processing of a single portal frame, including dose verification, took 266 ± 11 ms on a dual octocore Intel Xeon E5-2630 CPU running at 2.40 GHz. The introduced delivery errors were detected after 5-10 s irradiation time. CONCLUSIONS A prototype online 3D dose verification tool using portal imaging has been developed and successfully tested for two different kinds of gross delivery errors. Thus, online 3D dose verification has been technologically achieved.

In vivo portal dosimetry for head-and-neck VMAT and lung IMRT: Linking γ-analysis with differences in dose–volume histograms of the PTV

PURPOSE To relate the results of γ-analysis and dose-volume histogram (DVH) analysis of the PTV for detecting dose deviations with in vivo dosimetry for two treatment sites. METHODS AND MATERIALS In vivo 3D dose distributions were reconstructed for 722 fractions of 200 head-and-neck (H&N) VMAT treatments and 183 fractions of 61 lung IMRT plans. The reconstructed and planned dose distributions in the PTV were compared using (a) the γ-distribution and (b) the differences in D2, D50 and D98 between the two dose distributions. Using pre-defined tolerance levels, all fractions were classified as deviating or not deviating by both methods. The mutual agreement, the sensitivity and the specificity of the two methods were compared. RESULTS For lung IMRT, the classification of the fractions was nearly identical for γ- and DVH-analyses of the PTV (94% agreement) and the sensitivity and specificity were comparable for both methods. Less agreement (80%) was found for H&N VMAT, while γ-analysis was both less sensitive and less specific. CONCLUSIONS DVH- and γ-analyses perform nearly equal in finding dose deviations in the PTV for lung IMRT treatments; for H&N VMAT treatments, DVH-analysis is preferable. As a result of this study, a smooth transition to using DVH-analysis clinically for detecting in vivo dose deviations in the PTV is within reach.

Impact of daily anatomical changes on EPID-based in vivo dosimetry of VMAT treatments of head-and-neck cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Target dose verification for VMAT treatments of head-and-neck (H&N) cancer using 3D in vivo EPID dosimetry is expected to be affected by daily anatomical changes. By including these anatomical changes through cone-beam CT (CBCT) information, the magnitude of this effect is investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS For 20 VMAT-treated H&N cancer patients, all plan-CTs (pCTs), 633 CBCTs and 1266 EPID movies were used to compare four dose distributions per fraction: treatment planning system (TPS) calculated dose and EPID reconstructed in vivo dose, both determined using the pCT and using the CBCT. D2, D50 and D98 of the planning target volume (PTV) were determined per dose distribution. RESULTS When including daily anatomical information, D2, D50 and D98 of the PTV change on average by 0.0±0.4% according to TPS calculations; the standard deviation of the difference between EPID and TPS target dose changes from 2.5% (pCT) to 2.1% (CBCT). Small time trends are seen for both TPS and EPID dose distributions when using the pCT, which disappear when including CBCT information. CONCLUSIONS Daily anatomical changes hardly influence the target dose distribution for H&N VMAT treatments according to TPS recalculations. Including CBCT information in EPID dose reconstructions slightly improves the agreement with TPS calculations.

3D EPID-based in vivo dosimetry for IMRT and VMAT

In this paper the various approaches of EPID-based in vivo IMRT and VMAT dose verification, and their clinical implementation, are described. It will be shown that EPID-based in vivo dosimetry plays an important role in the total chain of verification procedures in a radiotherapy department. EPID-based dosimetry, in combination with in-room imaging, is a fast and accurate tool for 3D in vivo verification of VMAT delivery. EPID-based in vivo dosimetry provides clinically more useful information and is less time consuming than patient-specific pre-treatment dose verification. In addition to accurate 3D dose verification, in vivo EPID-based dosimetry will also detect major errors in the dose received by individual patients, and provides a safety net for advanced treatments such as IMRT and VMAT.