J Gibbons

Accelerator beam data commissioning equipment and procedures: Report of the TG-106 of the Therapy Physics Committee of the AAPM

For commissioning a linear accelerator for clinical use, medical physicists are faced with many challenges including the need for precision, a variety of testing methods, data validation, the lack of standards, and time constraints. Since commissioning beam data are treated as a reference and ultimately used by treatment planning systems, it is vitally important that the collected data are of the highest quality to avoid dosimetric and patient treatment errors that may subsequently lead to a poor radiation outcome. Beam data commissioning should be performed with appropriate knowledge and proper tools and should be independent of the person collecting the data. To achieve this goal, Task Group 106 (TG-106) of the Therapy Physics Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine was formed to review the practical aspects as well as the physics of linear accelerator commissioning. The report provides guidelines and recommendations on the proper selection of phantoms and detectors, setting up of a phantom for data acquisition (both scanning and no-scanning data), procedures for acquiring specific photon and electron beam parameters and methods to reduce measurement errors (<1%), beam data processing and detector size convolution for accurate profiles. The TG-106 also provides a brief discussion on the emerging trend in Monte Carlo simulation techniques in photon and electron beam commissioning. The procedures described in this report should assist a qualified medical physicist in either measuring a complete set of beam data, or in verifying a subset of data before initial use or for periodic quality assurance measurements. By combining practical experience with theoretical discussion, this document sets a new standard for beam data commissioning.

A Method for Evaluating Quality Assurance Needs in Radiation Therapy

The increasing complexity of modern radiation therapy planning and delivery techniques challenges traditional prescriptive quality control and quality assurance programs that ensure safety and reliability of treatment planning and delivery systems under all clinical scenarios. Until now quality management (QM) guidelines published by concerned organizations (e.g., American Association of Physicists in Medicine [AAPM], European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology [ESTRO], International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA]) have focused on monitoring functional performance of radiotherapy equipment by measurable parameters, with tolerances set at strict but achievable values. In the modern environment, however, the number and sophistication of possible tests and measurements have increased dramatically. There is a need to prioritize QM activities in a way that will strike a balance between being reasonably achievable and optimally beneficial to patients. A systematic understanding of possible errors over the course of a radiation therapy treatment and the potential clinical impact of each is needed to direct limited resources in such a way to produce maximal benefit to the quality of patient care. Task Group 100 of the AAPM has taken a broad view of these issues and is developing a framework for designing QM activities, and hence allocating resources, based on estimates of clinical outcome, risk assessment, and failure modes. The report will provide guidelines on risk assessment approaches with emphasis on failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) and an achievable QM program based on risk analysis. Examples of FMEA to intensity-modulated radiation therapy and high-dose-rate brachytherapy are presented. Recommendations on how to apply this new approach to individual clinics and further research and development will also be discussed.

FEASIBILITY OF POSTMASTECTOMY TREATMENT WITH HELICAL TOMOTHERAPY

PURPOSE To investigate the potential of helical tomotherapy for postmastectomy radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS By use of the TomoTherapy Hi-Art II treatment-planning system (TomoTherapy Inc., Madison, WI), helical tomotherapy dose plans were developed for 5 patients and compared with the mixed-beam (electron-photon) plans with which they had been treated. The TomoTherapy plans were evaluated by use of dose-volume quantities, tumor control probability, normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), and secondary cancer complication probability (SCCP). RESULTS The TomoTherapy plans showed better dose homogeneity in the planning treatment volume containing the chest wall and internal mammary nodes (p = 0.001) and eliminated the need for abutting fields. For the normal tissues, the TomoTherapy plans showed a smaller fractional volume receiving 20 Gy or greater for the ipsilateral lung (p = 0.05), no change in NTCP for postradiation pneumonitis, increased SCCP for each lung and both lungs together (p < 0.02), no change in the volume of the heart receiving more than 15 Gy, no change in NTCP for excess cardiac mortality, and a larger mean dose and SCCP in the contralateral breast (p < 0.001). For nonspecific tissues, the volume receiving between 5 Gy and 25 Gy and SCCP were both larger for the TomoTherapy plans (p < 0.01). Total SCCP was larger for the TomoTherapy plans (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Overall, the TomoTherapy plans had comparable tumor control probability and NTCP to the mixed-beam plans and increased SCCP. The TomoTherapy plans showed significantly greater dose homogeneity in the chest wall, which offers the potential for improved cosmesis after treatment. These factors have resulted in TomoTherapy often being the treatment of choice for postmastectomy radiation therapy in our clinic.

Comparison of action levels for patient‐specific quality assurance of intensity modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy treatments

PURPOSE To perform a comprehensive and systematic comparison of fixed-beam IMRT and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) patient-specific QA measurements for a common set of geometries using typical measurement methods. METHODS Fixed-beam IMRT and VMAT plans were constructed for structure set geometries provided by AAPM Task Group 119. The plans were repeatedly delivered across multiple measurement sessions, and the resulting dose distributions were measured with (1) radiochromic film and ionization chamber and (2) a commercial two-dimensional diode array. The resulting QA measurements from each delivery technique were then analyzed, compared, and tested for statistically significant differences. RESULTS Although differences were noted between QA results for some plans, neither modality showed consistently better agreement of measured and planned doses: of the 22 comparisons, IMRT showed better QA results in 11 cases, and VMAT showed better QA results in 11 cases. No statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between IMRT and VMAT QA results were found for point doses measured with an ionization chamber, planar doses measured with radiochromic film, or planar doses measured with a two-dimensional diode array. CONCLUSIONS These results suggest that it is appropriate to apply patient-specific QA action levels derived from fixed-beam IMRT to VMAT.PURPOSE To perform a comprehensive and systematic comparison of fixed-beam IMRT and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) patient-specific QA measurements for a common set of geometries using typical measurement methods. METHODS Fixed-beam IMRT and VMAT plans were constructed for structure set geometries provided by AAPM Task Group 119. The plans were repeatedly delivered across multiple measurement sessions, and the resulting dose distributions were measured with (1) radiochromic film and ionization chamber and (2) a commercial two-dimensional diode array. The resulting QA measurements from each delivery technique were then analyzed, compared, and tested for statistically significant differences. RESULTS Although differences were noted between QA results for some plans, neither modality showed consistently better agreement of measured and planned doses: of the 22 comparisons, IMRT showed better QA results in 11 cases, and VMAT showed better QA results in 11 cases. No statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between IMRT and VMAT QA results were found for point doses measured with an ionization chamber, planar doses measured with radiochromic film, or planar doses measured with a two-dimensional diode array. CONCLUSIONS These results suggest that it is appropriate to apply patient-specific QA action levels derived from fixed-beam IMRT to VMAT.

Accuracy of TomoTherapy treatments for superficial target volumes

Helical tomotherapy is a technique for delivering intensity modulated radiation therapy treatments using a continuously rotating linac. In this approach, fan beams exiting the linac are dynamically modulated in synchrony with the motion of the gantry and couch. Helical IMRT deliveries have been applied to treating surface lesions, and the purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of dose calculated by the TomoTherapy HiArt treatment planning system for superficial planning target volumes (PTVs). TomoTherapy treatment plans were developed for three superficial PTVs (2-, 4-, and 6-cm deep radially by 90 degrees azimuthally by 4-cm longitudinally) contoured on a 27-cm diameter cylindrical white opaque, high-impact polystyrene phantom. The phantom included removable transverse and sagittal film cassettes that contained bare Kodak EDR2 films cut such that their edges matched the phantom surface (+/-0.05 cm). The phantom was aligned to the machines isocenter (+/-0.05 cm) and was irradiated according to the treatment plans. Films were scanned with a Vidar film digitizer, and optical densities were converted to dose using a calibration determined from a 6 MV perpendicular film exposure. This perpendicular calibration required that axial film doses (parallel irradiation) be scaled by 1.02 so that mid-arc depth doses matched those measured in the sagittal plane (perpendicular irradiation). All film readings were scaled by 0.935 to correct for over-response due to phantom Cerenkov light. Measured dose distributions were registered to calculated ones and compared. Calculated doses overpredicted measured doses by as much as 9.5% of the prescribed dose at depths less than 1 cm. At depths greater than 1 cm, calculated dose distributions showed agreement to measurement within 5% in the high-dose region and within 0.2 cm distance-to-agreement in the dose falloff regions. In the low-dose region posterior to the PTVs (<10% of the prescribed dose), the dose algorithm underpredicted the dose by 1%-2% of the prescribed dose. Clinically, it is recommended that 1 cm of bolus be used on the surface to ensure that cancerous tissues less than 1 cm depth are not underdosed.

Independent calculation of dose from a helical TomoTherapy unit

A new calculation algorithm has been developed for independently verifying doses calculated by the TomoTherapy® Hi·Art® treatment planning system (TPS). The algorithm is designed to confi rm the dose to a point in a high dose, low dose‐gradient region. Patient data used by the algorithm include the radiological depth to the point for each projection angle and the treatment sinogram file controlling the leaf opening time for each projection. The algorithm uses common dosimetric functions [tissue phantom ratio (TPR) and output factor (Scp)] for the central axis combined with lateral and longitudinal beam profile data to quantify the off‐axis dose dependence. Machine data for the dosimetric functions were measured on the Hi·Art machine and simulated using the TPS. Point dose calculations were made for several test phantoms and for 97 patient treatment plans using the simulated machine data. Comparisons with TPS‐predicted point doses for the phantom treatment plans demonstrated agreement within 2% for both on‐axis and off‐axis planning target volumes (PTVs). Comparisons with TPS‐predicted point doses for the patient treatment plans also showed good agreement. For calculations at sites other than lung and superficial PTVs, agreement between the calculations was within 2% for 94% of the patient calculations (64 of 68). Calculations within lung and superficial PTVs overestimated the dose by an average of 3.1% (σ=2.4%) and 3.2% (σ=2.2%), respectively. Systematic errors within lung are probably due to the weakness of the algorithm in correcting for missing tissue and/or tissue density heterogeneities. Errors encountered within superficial PTVs probably result from the algorithm overestimating the scatter dose within the patient. Our results demonstrate that for the majority of cases, the algorithm could be used without further refinement to independently verify patient treatment plans. PACS number(s): 87.53.Bn, 87.53.Dq, 87.53.Xd

Monitor Unit Calculations for External Photon and Electron Beams

Based on clinical dose-response data, the ICRU states that dosimetry systems must be capable of delivering dose to an accuracy of 5%. Many factors contribute to both random and systematic deviations in dose delivery, including daily patient setup, target delineation, and dose calculation. The accurate determination of dose per monitor unit (MU) at a single calculation point is an essential part of this process. There are many methods used to determine linear accelerator MUs in the United States. In 1997, the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ESTRO) published the IAEA’s recommendations for photon beam calculations. Although highly detailed, this document is limited to photon calculations on the central axis, and does not cover asymmetric fields, dynamic wedges or multileaf collimators. Furthermore, the ESTRO methodology is scarcely utilized within this country, due to its extensive use of new nomenclature and lack of formal AAPM endorsement. In the spring of 1999, the Southeast Chapter of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine sponsored a symposium entitled “Monitor Unit Calculations for External Photon and Electron Beams.” Rather than recommending a standard formalism, speakers in the two-day symposium were asked to describe the calculation method they use in a specific clinical situation. The proceedings of this symposium became the framework for the book Monitor Unit Calculations for External Photon & Electron Beams, published last year. This presentation will discuss the major findings of this work.

Verification of Calculated Skin Doses in Postmastectomy Helical Tomotherapy

PURPOSE To verify the accuracy of calculated skin doses in helical tomotherapy for postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS In vivo thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) were used to measure the skin dose at multiple points in each of 14 patients throughout the course of treatment on a TomoTherapy Hi·Art II system, for a total of 420 TLD measurements. Five patients were evaluated near the location of the mastectomy scar, whereas 9 patients were evaluated throughout the treatment volume. The measured dose at each location was compared with calculations from the treatment planning system. RESULTS The mean difference and standard error of the mean difference between measurement and calculation for the scar measurements was -1.8% ± 0.2% (standard deviation [SD], 4.3%; range, -11.1% to 10.6%). The mean difference and standard error of the mean difference between measurement and calculation for measurements throughout the treatment volume was -3.0% ± 0.4% (SD, 4.7%; range, -18.4% to 12.6%). The mean difference and standard error of the mean difference between measurement and calculation for all measurements was -2.1% ± 0.2% (standard deviation, 4.5%: range, -18.4% to 12.6%). The mean difference between measured and calculated TLD doses was statistically significant at two standard deviations of the mean, but was not clinically significant (i.e., was <5%). However, 23% of the measured TLD doses differed from the calculated TLD doses by more than 5%. CONCLUSIONS The mean of the measured TLD doses agreed with TomoTherapy calculated TLD doses within our clinical criterion of 5%.

HELICAL TOMOTHERAPY FOR PAROTID GLAND TUMORS

PURPOSE To investigate helical tomotherapy (HT) intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) as a postoperative treatment for parotid gland tumors. METHODS AND MATERIALS Helical tomotherapy plans were developed for 4 patients previously treated with segmental multileaf collimator (SMLC) IMRT. A primary planning target volume (PTV64) and two secondary PTVs (PTV60, PTV54) were defined. The clinical goals from the SMLC plans were applied as closely as possible to the HT planning. The SMLC plans included bolus, whereas HT plans did not. RESULTS In general, the HT plans showed better target coverage and target dose homogeneity. The minimum doses to the desired coverage volume were greater, on average, in the HT plans for all the targets. Minimum PTV doses were larger, on average, in the HT plans by 4.6 Gy (p = 0.03), 4.8 Gy (p = 0.06), and 4.9 Gy (p = 0.06) for PTV64, PTV60, and PTV54, respectively. Maximum PTV doses were smaller, on average, by 2.9 Gy (p = 0.23), 3.2 Gy (p = 0.02), and 3.6 Gy (p = 0.03) for PTV64, PTV60, and PTV54, respectively. Average dose homogeneity index was statistically smaller in the HT plans, and conformity index was larger for PTV64 in 3 patients. Tumor control probabilities were higher for 3 of the 4 patients. Sparing of normal structures was comparable for the two techniques. There were no significant differences between the normal tissue complication probabilities for the HT and SMLC plans. CONCLUSIONS Helical tomotherapy treatment plans were comparable to or slightly better than SMLC plans. Helical tomotherapy is an effective alternative to SMLC IMRT for treatment of parotid tumors.

Evaluation of volumetric modulated arc therapy for postmastectomy treatment

PurposeTo examine the feasibility of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for post mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT).Methods and materialsFifteen PMRT patients previously treated at our clinic with helical tomotherapy (HT) were identified for the study. Planning target volumes (PTV) included the chest wall and regional lymph nodes. A systematic approach to constructing VMAT that met the clinical goals was devised. VMAT plans were then constructed for each patient and compared with HT plans with which they had been treated. The resulting plans were compared on the basis of PTV coverage; dose homogeneity index (DHI) and conformity index (CI); dose to organs at risk (OAR); tumor control probability (TCP), normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) and secondary cancer complication probability (SCCP); and treatment delivery time. Differences were tested for significance using the paired Student’s t-test.ResultsBoth modalities produced clinically acceptable PMRT plans. VMAT plans showed better CI (p < 0.01) and better OAR sparing at low doses than HT plans, particularly at doses less than 5 Gy. On the other hand, HT plans showed better DHI (p < 0.01) and showed better OAR sparing at higher doses. Both modalities achieved nearly 100% tumor control probability and approximately 1% NTCP in the lungs and heart. VMAT showed lower SCCP than HT (p < 0.01), though both plans showed higher SCCP values than conventional mixed beam (electron-photon) plans reported by our group previously. VMAT plans required 66.2% less time to deliver than HT.ConclusionsBoth VMAT and HT provide acceptable treatment plans for PMRT. Both techniques are currently utilized at our institution.