A Molineu

IMRT commissioning: Multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons,a report from AAPM Task Group 119

AAPM Task Group 119 has produced quantitative confidence limits as baseline expectation values for IMRT commissioning. A set of test cases was developed to assess the overall accuracy of planning and delivery of IMRT treatments. Each test uses contours of targets and avoidance structures drawn within rectangular phantoms. These tests were planned, delivered, measured, and analyzed by nine facilities using a variety of IMRT planning and delivery systems. Each facility had passed the Radiological Physics Center credentialing tests for IMRT. The agreement between the planned and measured doses was determined using ion chamber dosimetry in high and low dose regions, film dosimetry on coronal planes in the phantom with all fields delivered, and planar dosimetry for each field measured perpendicular to the central axis. The planar dose distributions were assessed using gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm. The mean values and standard deviations were used to develop confidence limits for the test results using the concept confidence limit = /mean/ + 1.96sigma. Other facilities can use the test protocol and results as a basis for comparison to this group. Locally derived confidence limits that substantially exceed these baseline values may indicate the need for improved IMRT commissioning.

Design, development, and implementation of the Radiological Physics Center’s pelvis and thorax anthropomorphic quality assurance phantoms

The Radiological Physics Center (RPC) developed two heterogeneous anthropomorphic quality assurance phantoms for use in verifying the accuracy of radiation delivery: one for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to the pelvis and the other for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) to the thorax. The purpose of this study was to describe the design and development of these two phantoms and to demonstrate the reproducibility of measurements generated with them. The phantoms were built to simulate actual patient anatomy. They are lightweight and water-fillable, and they contain imageable targets and organs at risk of radiation exposure that are of similar densities to their human counterparts. Dosimetry inserts accommodate radiochromic film for relative dosimetry and thermoluminesent dosimetry capsules for absolute dosimetry. As a part of the commissioning process, each phantom was imaged, treatment plans were developed, and radiation was delivered at least three times. Under these controlled irradiation conditions, the reproducibility of dose delivery to the target TLD in the pelvis and thorax phantoms was 3% and 0.5%, respectively. The reproducibility of radiation-field localization was less than 2.5 mm for both phantoms. Using these anthropomorphic phantoms, pelvic IMRT and thoracic SBRT radiation treatments can be verified with a high level of precision. These phantoms can be used to effectively credential institutions for participation in specific NCI-sponsored clinical trials.

Credentialing results from IMRT irradiations of an anthropomorphic head and neck phantom

PURPOSE This study was performed to report and analyze the results of the Radiological Physics Centers head and neck intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) phantom irradiations done by institutions seeking to be credentialed for participation in clinical trials using intensity modulated radiation therapy. METHODS The Radiological Physics Centers anthropomorphic head and neck phantom was sent to institutions seeking to participate in multi-institutional clinical trials. The phantom contained two planning target volume (PTV) structures and an organ at risk (OAR). Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) and film dosimeters were imbedded in the PTV. Institutions were asked to image, plan, and treat the phantom as they would treat a patient. The treatment plan should cover at least 95% of the primary PTV with 6.6 Gy and at least 95% of the secondary PTV with 5.4 Gy. The plan should limit the dose to the OAR to less than 4.5 Gy. The passing criteria were ±7% for the TLD in the PTVs and a distance to agreement of 4 mm in the high dose gradient area between the PTV and the OAR. Pass rates for different delivery types, treatment planning systems (TPS), linear accelerators, and linear accelerator-planning system combinations were compared. RESULTS The phantom was irradiated 1139 times by 763 institutions from 2001 through 2011. 929 (81.6%) of the irradiations passed the criteria. 156 (13.7%) irradiations failed only the TLD criteria, 21 (1.8%) failed only the film criteria, and 33 (2.9%) failed both sets of criteria. Only 69% of the irradiations passed a narrowed TLD criterion of ±5%. Varian-Elipse and TomoTherapy-HiArt combinations had the highest pass rates, ranging from 90% to 93%. Varian-Pinnacle(3), Varian-XiO, Siemens-Pinnacle(3), and Elekta-Pinnacle(3) combinations had pass rates that ranged from 66% to 81%. CONCLUSIONS The head and neck phantom is a useful credentialing tool for multi-institutional IMRT clinical trials. The most commonly represented linear accelerator-planning system combinations can all pass the phantom, though some combinations had higher passing percentages than others. Tightening the criteria would significantly reduce the number of institutions passing the credentialing criteria. Causes for failures include incorrect data entered into the TPS, inexact beam modeling, and software and hardware failures.

Independent Evaluations of IMRT through the Use of an Anthropomorphic Phantom

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has gained rapid and wide-spread acceptance in the radiation oncology community for its ability to create dose distributions that conform to the convoluted shapes of many tumors. It is a complicated treatment technique, for which quality assurance procedures are correspondingly complicated and labor intensive. Several of the cooperative cancer study groups that conduct clinical trials under the auspices of the National Cancer Institute have required participating institutions to seek credentialing before enrolling patients in trials involving IMRT. The Radiological Physics Center has conducted such credentialing programs through the use of anthropomorphic phantoms that evaluate the planning and delivery of IMRT. The experience obtained through the irradiation of the phantoms by a number of institutions demonstrates that institutions vary significantly in their ability to deliver doses and dose distributions that agree with their own treatment plans.

Algorithms used in heterogeneous dose calculations show systematic differences as measured with the radiological physics center's anthropomorphic thorax phantom used for RTOG credentialing

PURPOSE To determine the impact of treatment planning algorithm on the accuracy of heterogeneous dose calculations in the Radiological Physics Center (RPC) thorax phantom. METHODS AND MATERIALS We retrospectively analyzed the results of 304 irradiations of the RPC thorax phantom at 221 different institutions as part of credentialing for Radiation Therapy Oncology Group clinical trials; the irradiations were all done using 6-MV beams. Treatment plans included those for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) as well as 3-dimensional conformal therapy (3D-CRT). Heterogeneous plans were developed using Monte Carlo (MC), convolution/superposition (CS), and the anisotropic analytic algorithm (AAA), as well as pencil beam (PB) algorithms. For each plan and delivery, the absolute dose measured in the center of a lung target was compared to the calculated dose, as was the planar dose in 3 orthogonal planes. The difference between measured and calculated dose was examined as a function of planning algorithm as well as use of IMRT. RESULTS PB algorithms overestimated the dose delivered to the center of the target by 4.9% on average. Surprisingly, CS algorithms and AAA also showed a systematic overestimation of the dose to the center of the target, by 3.7% on average. In contrast, the MC algorithm dose calculations agreed with measurement within 0.6% on average. There was no difference observed between IMRT and 3D CRT calculation accuracy. CONCLUSION Unexpectedly, advanced treatment planning systems (those using CS and AAA algorithms) overestimated the dose that was delivered to the lung target. This issue requires attention in terms of heterogeneity calculations and potentially in terms of clinical practice.

Dosimetric impact of Acuros XB deterministic radiation transport algorithm for heterogeneous dose calculation in lung cancer

PURPOSE The novel deterministic radiation transport algorithm, Acuros XB (AXB), has shown great potential for accurate heterogeneous dose calculation. However, the clinical impact between AXB and other currently used algorithms still needs to be elucidated for translation between these algorithms. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of AXB for heterogeneous dose calculation in lung cancer for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). METHODS The thorax phantom from the Radiological Physics Center (RPC) was used for this study. IMRT and VMAT plans were created for the phantom in the Eclipse 11.0 treatment planning system. Each plan was delivered to the phantom three times using a Varian Clinac iX linear accelerator to ensure reproducibility. Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and Gafchromic EBT2 film were placed inside the phantom to measure delivered doses. The measurements were compared with dose calculations from AXB 11.0.21 and the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) 11.0.21. Two dose reporting modes of AXB, dose-to-medium in medium (Dm,m) and dose-to-water in medium (Dw,m), were studied. Point doses, dose profiles, and gamma analysis were used to quantify the agreement between measurements and calculations from both AXB and AAA. The computation times for AAA and AXB were also evaluated. RESULTS For the RPC lung phantom, AAA and AXB dose predictions were found in good agreement to TLD and film measurements for both IMRT and VMAT plans. TLD dose predictions were within 0.4%-4.4% to AXB doses (both Dm,m and Dw,m); and within 2.5%-6.4% to AAA doses, respectively. For the film comparisons, the gamma indexes (± 3%∕3 mm criteria) were 94%, 97%, and 98% for AAA, AXB_Dm,m, and AXB_Dw,m, respectively. The differences between AXB and AAA in dose-volume histogram mean doses were within 2% in the planning target volume, lung, heart, and within 5% in the spinal cord. However, differences up to 8% between AXB and AAA were found at lung∕soft tissue interface regions for individual IMRT fields. AAA was found to be 5-6 times faster than AXB for IMRT, while AXB was 4-5 times faster than AAA for VMAT plan. CONCLUSIONS AXB is satisfactorily accurate for the dose calculation in lung cancer for both IMRT and VMAT plans. The differences between AXB and AAA are generally small except in heterogeneous interface regions. AXB Dw,m and Dm,m calculations are similar inside the soft tissue and lung regions. AXB can benefit lung VMAT plans by both improving accuracy and reducing computation time.

Ion recombination correction factors (Pion) for Varian TrueBeam high-dose-rate therapy beams

Ion recombination is approximately corrected for in the Task Group 51 protocol by Pion, which is calculated by a two‐voltage measurement. This measurement approach may be a poor estimate of the true recombination, particularly if Pion is large (greater than 1.05). Concern exists that Pion in high‐dose‐per‐pulse beams, such as flattening filter free (FFF) beams, may be unacceptably high, rendering the two‐voltage measurement technique inappropriate. Therefore, Pion was measured for flattened beams of 6, 10, 15, and 18 MV and for FFF beams of 6 and 10 MV. The values for the FFF beams were verified with 1/V versus 1/Q curves (Jaffé plots). Pion was also measured for electron beams of 6, 12, 16, 18, and 20 MeV on a traditional accelerator, as well as on the high‐dose‐rate Varian TrueBeam accelerator. The measurements were made at a range of depths and with PTW, NEL, and Exradin Farmer‐type chambers. Consistent with the increased dose per pulse, Pion was higher for FFF beams than for flattening filter beams. However, for all beams, measurement locations, and chambers examined, Pion never exceeded 1.018. Additionally, Pion was always within 0.3% of the recombination calculated from the Jaffé plots. We conclude that ion recombination can be adequately accounted for in high‐dose‐rate FFF beams using Pion determined with the standard two‐voltage technique. PACS numbers: 87.56.‐v, 87.56.Da

Patient-specific QA for IMRT should be performed using software rather than hardware methods

Suggestions for topics suitable for these Point/Counterpoint debates should be addressed to Colin G. Orton, Professor Emeritus, Wayne State University, Detroit: ortonc@comcast.net. Persons participating in Point/Counterpoint discussions are selected for their knowledge and communicative skill. Their positions for or against a proposition may or may not reflect their personal opinions or the positions of their employers.

Technical Report: Reference photon dosimetry data for Varian accelerators based on IROC‐Houston site visit data

PURPOSE Accurate data regarding linear accelerator (Linac) radiation characteristics are important for treatment planning system modeling as well as regular quality assurance of the machine. The Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Houston (IROC-H) has measured the dosimetric characteristics of numerous machines through their on-site dosimetry review protocols. Photon data are presented and can be used as a secondary check of acquired values, as a means to verify commissioning a new machine, or in preparation for an IROC-H site visit. METHODS Photon data from IROC-H on-site reviews from 2000 to 2014 were compiled and analyzed. Specifically, data from approximately 500 Varian machines were analyzed. Each dataset consisted of point measurements of several dosimetric parameters at various locations in a water phantom to assess the percentage depth dose, jaw output factors, multileaf collimator small field output factors, off-axis factors, and wedge factors. The data were analyzed by energy and parameter, with similarly performing machine models being assimilated into classes. Common statistical metrics are presented for each machine class. Measurement data were compared against other reference data where applicable. RESULTS Distributions of the parameter data were shown to be robust and derive from a students t distribution. Based on statistical and clinical criteria, all machine models were able to be classified into two or three classes for each energy, except for 6 MV for which there were eight classes. Quantitative analysis of the measurements for 6, 10, 15, and 18 MV photon beams is presented for each parameter; supplementary material has also been made available which contains further statistical information. CONCLUSIONS IROC-H has collected numerous data on Varian Linacs and the results of photon measurements from the past 15 years are presented. The data can be used as a comparison check of a physicists acquired values. Acquired values that are well outside the expected distribution should be verified by the physicist to identify whether the measurements are valid. Comparison of values to this reference data provides a redundant check to help prevent gross dosimetric treatment errors.

Tolerance limits and methodologies for IMRT measurement‐based verification QA: Recommendations of AAPM Task Group No. 218

PURPOSE Patient-specific IMRT QA measurements are important components of processes designed to identify discrepancies between calculated and delivered radiation doses. Discrepancy tolerance limits are neither well defined nor consistently applied across centers. The AAPM TG-218 report provides a comprehensive review aimed at improving the understanding and consistency of these processes as well as recommendations for methodologies and tolerance limits in patient-specific IMRT QA. METHODS The performance of the dose difference/distance-to-agreement (DTA) and γ dose distribution comparison metrics are investigated. Measurement methods are reviewed and followed by a discussion of the pros and cons of each. Methodologies for absolute dose verification are discussed and new IMRT QA verification tools are presented. Literature on the expected or achievable agreement between measurements and calculations for different types of planning and delivery systems are reviewed and analyzed. Tests of vendor implementations of the γ verification algorithm employing benchmark cases are presented. RESULTS Operational shortcomings that can reduce the γ tool accuracy and subsequent effectiveness for IMRT QA are described. Practical considerations including spatial resolution, normalization, dose threshold, and data interpretation are discussed. Published data on IMRT QA and the clinical experience of the group members are used to develop guidelines and recommendations on tolerance and action limits for IMRT QA. Steps to check failed IMRT QA plans are outlined. CONCLUSION Recommendations on delivery methods, data interpretation, dose normalization, the use of γ analysis routines and choice of tolerance limits for IMRT QA are made with focus on detecting differences between calculated and measured doses via the use of robust analysis methods and an in-depth understanding of IMRT verification metrics. The recommendations are intended to improve the IMRT QA process and establish consistent, and comparable IMRT QA criteria among institutions.