M. Saiful Huq

Update of AAPM Task Group No. 43 Report: A revised AAPM protocol for brachytherapy dose calculations

Since publication of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group No. 43 Report in 1995 (TG-43), both the utilization of permanent source implantation and the number of low-energy interstitial brachytherapy source models commercially available have dramatically increased. In addition, the National Institute of Standards and Technology has introduced a new primary standard of air-kerma strength, and the brachytherapy dosimetry literature has grown substantially, documenting both improved dosimetry methodologies and dosimetric characterization of particular source models. In response to these advances, the AAPM Low-energy Interstitial Brachytherapy Dosimetry subcommittee (LIBD) herein presents an update of the TG-43 protocol for calculation of dose-rate distributions around photon-emitting brachytherapy sources. The updated protocol (TG-43U1) includes (a) a revised definition of air-kerma strength; (b) elimination of apparent activity for specification of source strength; (c) elimination of the anisotropy constant in favor of the distance-dependent one-dimensional anisotropy function; (d) guidance on extrapolating tabulated TG-43 parameters to longer and shorter distances; and (e) correction for minor inconsistencies and omissions in the original protocol and its implementation. Among the corrections are consistent guidelines for use of point- and line-source geometry functions. In addition, this report recommends a unified approach to comparing reference dose distributions derived from different investigators to develop a single critically evaluated consensus dataset as well as guidelines for performing and describing future theoretical and experimental single-source dosimetry studies. Finally, the report includes consensus datasets, in the form of dose-rate constants, radial dose functions, and one-dimensional (1D) and two-dimensional (2D) anisotropy functions, for all low-energy brachytherapy source models that met the AAPM dosimetric prerequisites [Med. Phys. 25, 2269 (1998)] as of July 15, 2001. These include the following 125 I sources: Amersham Health models 6702 and 6711, Best Medical model 2301, North American Scientific Inc. (NASI) model MED3631-A/M, Bebig/Theragenics model I25.S06, and the Imagyn Medical Technologies Inc. isostar model IS-12501. The 103 Pd sources included are the Theragenics Corporation model 200 and NASI model MED3633. The AAPM recommends that the revised dose-calculation protocol and revised source-specific dose-rate distributions be adopted by all end users for clinical treatment planning of low energy brachytherapy interstitial sources. Depending upon the dose-calculation protocol and parameters currently used by individual physicists, adoption of this protocol may result in changes to patient dose calculations. These changes should be carefully evaluated and reviewed with the radiation oncologist preceding implementation of the current protocol.

AAPM's TG-51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of high-energy photon and electron beams

A protocol is prescribed for clinical reference dosimetry of external beam radiation therapy using photon beams with nominal energies between 60Co and 50 MV and electron beams with nominal energies between 4 and 50 MeV. The protocol was written by Task Group 51 (TG-51) of the Radiation Therapy Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) and has been formally approved by the AAPM for clinical use. The protocol uses ion chambers with absorbed-dose-to-water calibration factors, N(60Co)D,w which are traceable to national primary standards, and the equation D(Q)w = MkQN(60Co)D,w where Q is the beam quality of the clinical beam, D(Q)w is the absorbed dose to water at the point of measurement of the ion chamber placed under reference conditions, M is the fully corrected ion chamber reading, and kQ is the quality conversion factor which converts the calibration factor for a 60Co beam to that for a beam of quality Q. Values of kQ are presented as a function of Q for many ion chambers. The value of M is given by M = PionP(TP)PelecPpolMraw, where Mraw is the raw, uncorrected ion chamber reading and Pion corrects for ion recombination, P(TP) for temperature and pressure variations, Pelec for inaccuracy of the electrometer if calibrated separately, and Ppol for chamber polarity effects. Beam quality, Q, is specified (i) for photon beams, by %dd(10)x, the photon component of the percentage depth dose at 10 cm depth for a field size of 10x10 cm2 on the surface of a phantom at an SSD of 100 cm and (ii) for electron beams, by R50, the depth at which the absorbed-dose falls to 50% of the maximum dose in a beam with field size > or =10x10 cm2 on the surface of the phantom (> or =20x20 cm2 for R50>8.5 cm) at an SSD of 100 cm. R50 is determined directly from the measured value of I50, the depth at which the ionization falls to 50% of its maximum value. All clinical reference dosimetry is performed in a water phantom. The reference depth for calibration purposes is 10 cm for photon beams and 0.6R50-0.1 cm for electron beams. For photon beams clinical reference dosimetry is performed in either an SSD or SAD setup with a 10x10 cm2 field size defined on the phantom surface for an SSD setup or at the depth of the detector for an SAD setup. For electron beams clinical reference dosimetry is performed with a field size of > or =10x10 cm2 (> or =20x20 cm2 for R50>8.5 cm) at an SSD between 90 and 110 cm. This protocol represents a major simplification compared to the AAPMs TG-21 protocol in the sense that large tables of stopping-power ratios and mass-energy absorption coefficients are not needed and the user does not need to calculate any theoretical dosimetry factors. Worksheets for various situations are presented along with a list of equipment required.

A dosimetric comparison of various multileaf collimators

The dosimetric characteristics of three multileaf collimator (MLC) systems (Elekta, Siemens and Varian) having 10 mm leaf width are compared. A 6 MV photon beam was used from each unit for measurements. Film dosimetry was performed for the measurements and the analysis techniques were exactly duplicated in each system. Two of the collimators have rounded leaf ends (Elekta and Varian) and the third (Siemens) has a flat end that follows beam divergence. A scanning densitometer (Wellhöfer with 0.45 mm spot and 0.5 mm step size) was used for film analysis. The dosimetric characteristics studied include: penumbra width (80-20%) as a function of position of the leaf end in the field, inter- and intra-leaf radiation leakage, dose distribution of the tongue and groove, and isodose curves for stepped leaves forming 45 degrees angle beam edge. Results show that MLC designs with divergent and non-divergent leaves produce penumbra (80-20%) widths that are within 2.0 mm of each other. However, the distance of the collimator from the x-ray target plays an important role, and the smallest penumbra width was noted for the Varian MLC despite its rounded leaf-end design. Compared to the other systems, this collimator is positioned about 15 cm closer to the patient which affects the skin dose. The MLC with flat leaf end, although closer to the target, showed slightly poorer penumbra width. Inter-leaf leakage through the leaves is 1.3% for two of the collimators (Elekta and Varian) with the backup jaws and is nearly 1% for the third system (Siemens). The Siemens MLC produces reduced tongue-and-groove effect compared to the other two collimators (Elekta and Varian). The isodose undulation for a stepped edge is found to be significant for the collimator closest to the patient (Varian) and does not depend on the leaf-end shape. There is no perfect MLC system that can be recommended, rather each one has unique advantages and disadvantages that should be weighed with comfort, ease and cost effectiveness for clinical use.

Dosimetric characteristics of a commercial multileaf collimator

The dosimetric characteristics of a multileaf collimator (MLC) retrofitted to a SL25 linear accelerator have been investigated. Central-axis depth dose, surface dose, penumbra, beam flatness and symmetry, field size factors, beam transmission through leaves and/or diaphragms, and leakage between the leaves were measured. Quantitative measurements of all beam parameters show good agreement with the design specifications of the manufacturer. No changes were observed in flatness, symmetry, penumbra, and penetration for both 6- and 25-MV photon beams when compared to the values for the standard collimator. No significant differences were observed in the penumbra as a function of leaf position. Transmission measurements in areas shielded by either X diaphragms or leaves plus diaphragms are less than 1% of dose within open field. The average leakage between leaves is about 2.5% for 6-MV and 3.5% for 25-MV photon beams. The peak value of the leakage at any point between leaves is less than 5%. The dosimetric features of shaped fields using the MLC are comparable to those of alloy shaped fields with the standard SL25 collimator.

The use of mixed-integer programming for inverse treatment planning with pre-defined field segments

Complex intensity patterns generated by traditional beamlet-based inverse treatment plans are often very difficult to deliver. In the approach presented in this work the intensity maps are controlled by pre-defining field segments to be used for dose optimization. A set of simple rules was used to define a pool of allowable delivery segments and the mixed-integer programming (MIP) method was used to optimize segment weights. The optimization problem was formulated by combining real variables describing segment weights with a set of binary variables, used to enumerate voxels in targets and critical structures. The MIP method was compared to the previously used Cimmino projection algorithm. The field segmentation approach was compared to an inverse planning system with a traditional beamlet-based beam intensity optimization. In four complex cases of oropharyngeal cancer the segmental inverse planning produced treatment plans, which competed with traditional beamlet-based IMRT plans. The mixed-integer programming provided mechanism for imposition of dose–volume constraints and allowed for identification of the optimal solution for feasible problems. Additional advantages of the segmental technique presented here are: simplified dosimetry, quality assurance and treatment delivery.

Intraoperative electron beam radiation therapy: technique, dosimetry, and dose specification: report of task force 48 of the Radiation Therapy Committee, American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) is a treatment modality whereby a large single dose of radiation is delivered to a surgically open, exposed cancer site. Typically, a beam of megavoltage electrons is directed at an exposed tumor or tumor bed through a specially designed applicator system. In the last few years, IORT facilities have proliferated around the world. The IORT technique and the applicator systems used at these facilities vary greatly in sophistication and design philosophy. The IORT beam characteristics vary for different designs of applicator systems. It is necessary to document the existing techniques of IORT, to detail the dosimetry data required for accurate delivery of the prescribed dose, and to have a uniform method of dose specification for cooperative clinical trials. The specific charge to the task group includes the following: (a) identify the multidisciplinary IORT team, (b) outline special considerations that must be addressed by an IORT program, (c) review currently available IORT techniques, (d) describe dosimetric measurements necessary for accurate delivery of prescribed dose, (e) describe dosimetric measurements necessary in documenting doses to the surrounding normal tissues, (f) recommend quality assurance procedures for IORT, (g) review methods of treatment documentation and verification, and (h) recommend methods of dose specification and recording for cooperative clinical trials.

Comparison of the IAEA TRS-398 and AAPM TG-51 absorbed dose to water protocols in the dosimetry of high-energy photon and electron beams

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA TRS-398) and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM TG-51) have published new protocols for the calibration of radiotherapy beams. These protocols are based on the use of an ionization chamber calibrated in terms of absorbed dose to water in a standards laboratorys reference quality beam. This paper compares the recommendations of the two protocols in two ways: (i) by analysing in detail the differences in the basic data included in the two protocols for photon and electron beam dosimetry and (ii) by performing measurements in clinical photon and electron beams and determining the absorbed dose to water following the recommendations of the two protocols. Measurements were made with two Farmer-type ionization chambers and three plane-parallel ionization chamber types in 6, 18 and 25 MV photon beams and 6, 8, 10, 12, 15 and 18 MeV electron beams. The Farmer-type chambers used were NE 2571 and PTW 30001, and the plane-parallel chambers were a Scanditronix-Wellhöfer NACP and Roos, and a PTW Markus chamber. For photon beams, the measured ratios TG-51/TRS-398 of absorbed dose to water Dw ranged between 0.997 and 1.001, with a mean value of 0.999. The ratios for the beam quality correction factors kQ were found to agree to within about +/-0.2% despite significant differences in the method of beam quality specification for photon beams and in the basic data entering into kQ. For electron beams, dose measurements were made using direct N(D,w) calibrations of cylindrical and plane-parallel chambers in a 60Co gamma-ray beam, as well as cross-calibrations of plane-parallel chambers in a high-energy electron beam. For the direct N(D,w) calibrations the ratios TG-51/TRS-398 of absorbed dose to water Dw were found to lie between 0.994 and 1.018 depending upon the chamber and electron beam energy used, with mean values of 0.996, 1.006, and 1.017, respectively, for the cylindrical, well-guarded and not well-guarded plane-parallel chambers. The Dw ratios measured for the cross-calibration procedures varied between 0.993 and 0.997. The largest discrepancies for electron beams between the two protocols arise from the use of different data for the perturbation correction factors p(wall) and p(dis) of cylindrical and plane-parallel chambers, all in 60Co. A detailed analysis of the reasons for the discrepancies is made which includes comparing the formalisms, correction factors and the quantities in the two protocols.

Protocols for the dosimetry of high-energy photon and electron beams: a comparison of the IAEA TRS-398 and previous international Codes of Practice

A new international Code of Practice for radiotherapy dosimetry co-sponsored by several international organizations has been published by the IAEA, TRS-398. It is based on standards of absorbed dose to water, whereas previous protocols (TRS-381 and TRS-277) were based on air kerma standards. To estimate the changes in beam calibration caused by the introduction of TRS-398, a detailed experimental comparison of the dose determination in reference conditions in high-energy photon and electron beams has been made using the different IAEA protocols. A summary of the formulation and reference conditions in the various Codes of Practice, as well as of their basic data, is presented first. Accurate measurements have been made in 25 photon and electron beams from 10 clinical accelerators using 12 different cylindrical and plane-parallel chambers, and dose ratios under different conditions of TRS-398 to the other protocols determined. A strict step-by-step checklist was followed by the two participating clinical institutions to ascertain that the resulting calculations agreed within tenths of a per cent. The maximum differences found between TRS-398 and the previous Codes of Practice TRS-277 (2nd edn) and TRS-381 are of the order of 1.5-2.0%. TRS-398 yields absorbed doses larger than the previous protocols, around 1.0% for photons (TRS-277) and for electrons (TRS-381 and TRS-277) when plane-parallel chambers are cross-calibrated. For the Markus chamber, results show a very large variation, although a fortuitous cancellation of the old stopping powers with the ND,w/NK ratios makes the overall discrepancy between TRS-398 and TRS-277 in this case smaller than for well-guarded plane-parallel chambers. Chambers of the Roos-type with a 60Co ND,w calibration yield the maximum discrepancy in absorbed dose, which varies between 1.0% and 1.5% for TRS-381 and between 1.5% and 2.0% for TRS-277. Photon beam calibrations using directly measured or calculated TPR20,10 from a percentage dose data at SSD = 100 cm were found to be indistinguishable. Considering that approximately 0.8% of the differences between TRS-398 and the NK-based protocols are caused by the change to the new type of standards, the remaining difference in absolute dose is due either to a close similarity in basic data or to a fortuitous cancellation of the discrepancies in data and type of chamber calibration. It is emphasized that the NK-ND,air and ND,w formalisms have very similar uncertainty when the same criteria are used for both procedures. Arguments are provided in support of the recommendation for a change in reference dosimetry based on standards of absorbed dose to water.

Deconvolution of detector size effect for output factor measurement for narrow Gamma Knife radiosurgery beams.

This paper presents the results of measurements of output factors (OFs) for a model U Gamma Knife collimator, with special emphasis on the accurate determination of the OF for the 4 mm collimator (OF4). In the past, the OF4 was set to 0.800 relative to the 18 mm collimator. Recently, the manufacturer has recommended a new value of 0.870 for OF4. However, most centres still use the old value of the OF4. In the present study, the Gamma Knife OFs were measured using a commercially available miniature diamond detector and a miniature 0.006 cc ion chamber, which was especially designed for the task. The measured OF4 were corrected for spatial averaging effects by measuring dose profiles for the 4 mm collimator with the same detectors and deconvolving their response from the measured profiles. A Gaussian kernel was used to describe the detector response. The relative OFs measured with the diamond detector/ion chamber were 0.986/0.982, 0.953/0.935 and 0.812/0.765 for the 14,8 and 4 mm collimators, respectively, as compared with the manufacturers values of 0.984, 0.956 and 0.87. The corrected OF4 was 0.881 +/- 0.012 for the diamond detector and 0.851 +/- 0.012 for the ion chamber, supporting the manufacturers revised value for this collimator.

Procedures for establishing and maintaining consistent air-kerma strength standards for low-energy, photon-emitting brachytherapy sources: Recommendations of the Calibration Laboratory Accreditation Subcommittee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine

Low dose rate brachytherapy is being used extensively for the treatment of prostate cancer. As of September 2003, there are a total of thirteen 125I and seven 103Pd sources that have calibrations from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Accredited Dosimetry Calibration Laboratories (ADCLs) of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM). The dosimetry standards for these sources are traceable to the NIST wide-angle free-air chamber. Procedures have been developed by the AAPM Calibration Laboratory Accreditation Subcommittee to standardize quality assurance and calibration, and to maintain the dosimetric traceability of these sources to ensure accurate clinical dosimetry. A description of these procedures is provided to the clinical users for traceability purposes as well as to provide guidance to the manufacturers of brachytherapy sources and ADCLs with regard to these procedures.