R Takahashi

SU-E-T-48: A Multi-Institutional Study of Independent Dose Verification for Conventional, SRS and SBRT

Purpose: To show the results of a multi-institutional study of the independent dose verification for conventional, Stereotactic radiosurgery and body radiotherapy (SRS and SBRT) plans based on the action level of AAPM TG-114. Methods: This study was performed at 12 institutions in Japan. To eliminate the bias of independent dose verification program (Indp), all of the institutions used the same CT-based independent dose verification software (Simple MU Analysis, Triangle Products, JP) with the Clarkson-based algorithm. Eclipse (AAA, PBC), Pinnacle3 (Adaptive Convolve) and Xio (Superposition) were used as treatment planning system (TPS). The confidence limits (CL, Mean±2SD) for 18 sites (head, breast, lung, pelvis, etc.) were evaluated in comparison in dose between the TPS and the Indp. Results: A retrospective analysis of 6352 treatment fields was conducted. The CLs for conventional, SRS and SBRT were 1.0±3.7 %, 2.0±2.5 % and 6.2±4.4 %, respectively. In conventional plans, most of the sites showed within 5 % of TG-114 action level. However, there were the systematic difference (4.0±4.0 % and 2.5±5.8 % for breast and lung, respectively). In SRS plans, our results showed good agreement compared to the action level. In SBRT plans, the discrepancy between the Indp was variable depending on dose calculation algorithms of TPS. Conclusion: The impact of dose calculation algorithms for the TPS and the Indp affects the action level. It is effective to set the site-specific tolerances, especially for the site where inhomogeneous correction can affect dose distribution strongly.

Variation of the prescription dose using the analytical anisotropic algorithm in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy

PURPOSE The aim of the present investigation was to evaluate the dosimetric variation regarding the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) relative to other algorithms in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). We conducted a multi-institutional study involving six institutions using a secondary check program and compared the AAA to the Acuros XB (AXB) in two institutions. METHODS All lung SBRT plans (128 patients) were generated using the AAA, pencil beam convolution with the Batho (PBC-B) and adaptive convolve (AC). All institutions used the same secondary check program (simple MU analysis [SMU]) implemented by a Clarkson-based dose calculation algorithm. Measurement was performed in a heterogeneous phantom to compare doses using the three different algorithms and the SMU for the measurements. A retrospective analysis was performed to compute the confidence limit (CL; mean±2SD) for the dose deviation between the AAA, PBC, AC and SMU. The variations between the AAA and AXB were evaluated in two institutions, then the CL was acquired. RESULTS In comparing the measurements, the AAA showed the largest systematic dose error (3%). In calculation comparisons, the CLs of the dose deviation were 8.7±9.9% (AAA), 4.2±3.9% (PBC-B) and 5.7±4.9% (AC). The CLs of the dose deviation between the AXB and the AAA were 1.8±1.5% and -0.1±4.4%, respectively, in the two institutions. CONCLUSIONS The CL of the AAA showed much larger variation than the other algorithms. Relative to the AXB, larger systematic and random deviations still appeared. Thus, care should be taken in the use of AAA for lung SBRT.

Multi-institutional comparison of computer-based independent dose calculation for intensity modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy

PURPOSE No multi-institutional studies of computer-based independent dose calculation have addressed the discrepancies among radiotherapy treatment planning systems (TPSs) and the verification programs for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). We conducted a multi-institutional study to investigate whether ±5% is a reasonable action level for independent dose calculation for IMRT/VMAT. METHODS In total, 477 IMRT/VMAT plans for prostate or head and neck (H&N) malignancies were retrospectively analyzed using a modified Clarkson-based commercial verification program. The doses from the TPSs and verification programs were compared using the mean ±1 standard deviation (SD). RESULTS In the TPS-calculated dose comparisons for prostate and H&N malignancies, the sliding window (SW) technique (-2.5 ± 1.8% and -5.3 ± 2.6%) showed greater negative systematic differences than the step-and-shoot (S&S) technique (-0.3 ± 2.2% and -0.8 ± 2.2%). The VMAT dose differences for prostate and H&N malignancies were 0.9 ± 1.8% and 1.1 ± 3.3%, respectively. The SDs were larger for the H&N plans than for the prostate plans in both IMRT and VMAT. Such plans including more out-of-field control points showed greater systematic differences and SDs. CONCLUSIONS This study will help individual institutions to establish an action level for agreement between primary calculations and verification for IMRT/VMAT. A local dose difference of ±5% at a point within the planning target volume (above -350 HU) may be a reasonable action level.

SU-F-T-288: Impact of Trajectory Log Files for Clarkson-Based Independent Dose Verification of IMRT and VMAT

PURPOSE To investigate the effect of the trajectory files from linear accelerator for Clarkson-based independent dose verification in IMRT and VMAT plans. METHODS A CT-based independent dose verification software (Simple MU Analysis: SMU, Triangle Products, Japan) with a Clarksonbased algorithm was modified to calculate dose using the trajectory log files. Eclipse with the three techniques of step and shoot (SS), sliding window (SW) and Rapid Arc (RA) was used as treatment planning system (TPS). In this study, clinically approved IMRT and VMAT plans for prostate and head and neck (HN) at two institutions were retrospectively analyzed to assess the dose deviation between DICOM-RT plan (PL) and trajectory log file (TJ). An additional analysis was performed to evaluate MLC error detection capability of SMU when the trajectory log files was modified by adding systematic errors (0.2, 0.5, 1.0 mm) and random errors (5, 10, 30 mm) to actual MLC position. RESULTS The dose deviations for prostate and HN in the two sites were 0.0% and 0.0% in SS, 0.1±0.0%, 0.1±0.1% in SW and 0.6±0.5%, 0.7±0.9% in RA, respectively. The MLC error detection capability shows the plans for HN IMRT were the most sensitive and 0.2 mm of systematic error affected 0.7% dose deviation on average. Effect of the MLC random error did not affect dose error. CONCLUSION The use of trajectory log files including actual information of MLC location, gantry angle, etc should be more effective for an independent verification. The tolerance level for the secondary check using the trajectory file may be similar to that of the verification using DICOM-RT plan file. From the view of the resolution of MLC positional error detection, the secondary check could detect the MLC position error corresponding to the treatment sites and techniques. This research is partially supported by Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED).

SU‐E‐T‐32: A Feasibility Study of Independent Dose Verification for IMAT

Purpose: To assess the feasibility of the independent dose verification (Indp) for intensity modulated arc therapy (IMAT). Methods: An independent dose calculation software program (Simple MU Analysis, Triangle Products, JP) was used in this study, which can compute the radiological path length from the surface to the reference point for each control point using patient’s CT image dataset and the MLC aperture shape was simultaneously modeled in reference to the information of MLC from DICOM-RT plan. Dose calculation was performed using a modified Clarkson method considering MLC transmission and dosimetric leaf gap. In this study, a retrospective analysis was conducted in which IMAT plans from 120 patients of the two sites (prostate / head and neck) from four institutes were retrospectively analyzed to compare the Indp to the TPS using patient CT images. In addition, an ion-chamber measurement was performed to verify the accuracy of the TPS and the Indp in water-equivalent phantom. Results: The agreements between the Indp and the TPS (mean±1SD) were −0.8±2.4% and −1.3±3.8% for the regions of prostate and head and neck, respectively. The measurement comparison showed similar results (−0.8±1.6% and 0.1±4.6% for prostate and head and neck). The variation was larger in the head and neck because the number of the segments was increased that the reference point was under the MLC and the modified Clarkson method cannot consider the smooth falloff of the leaf penumbra. Conclusion: The independent verification program would be practical and effective for secondary check for IMAT with the sufficient accuracy in the measurement and CT-based calculation. The accuracy would be improved if considering the falloff of the leaf penumbra.

SU‐E‐T‐49: A Multi‐Institutional Study of Independent Dose Verification for IMRT

Purpose: AAPM TG114 does not cover the independent verification for IMRT. We conducted a study of independent dose verification for IMRT in seven institutes to show the feasibility. Methods: 384 IMRT plans in the sites of prostate and head and neck (HN) were collected from the institutes, where the planning was performed using Eclipse and Pinnacle3 with the two techniques of step and shoot (S&S) and sliding window (SW). All of the institutes used a same independent dose verification software program (Simple MU Analysis: SMU, Triangle Product, Ishikawa, JP), which is Clarkson-based and CT images were used to compute radiological path length. An ion-chamber measurement in a water-equivalent slab phantom was performed to compare the doses computed using the TPS and an independent dose verification program. Additionally, the agreement in dose computed in patient CT images between using the TPS and using the SMU was assessed. The dose of the composite beams in the plan was evaluated. Results: The agreement between the measurement and the SMU were −2.3±1.9 % and −5.6±3.6 % for prostate and HN sites, respectively. The agreement between the TPSs and the SMU were −2.1±1.9 % and −3.0±3.7 for prostate and HN sites, respectively. There was a negative systematic difference with similar standard deviation and the difference was larger in the HN site. The S&S technique showed a statistically significant difference between the SW. Because the Clarkson-based method in the independent program underestimated (cannot consider) the dose under the MLC. Conclusion: The accuracy would be improved when the Clarkson-based algorithm should be modified for IMRT and the tolerance level would be within 5%.

SU‐E‐T‐505: CT‐Based Independent Dose Verification for RapidArc Plan as a Secondary Check

PURPOSE To design and develop a CT-based independent dose verification for the RapidArc plan and also to show the effectiveness of inhomogeneous correction in the secondary check for the plan. METHODS To compute the radiological path from the body surface to the reference point and equivalent field sizes from the multiple MLC aperture shapes in the RapidArc MLC sequences independently, DICOM files of CT image, structure and RapidArc plan were imported to our in-house software. The radiological path was computed using a three-dimensional CT arrays for each segment. The multiple MLC aperture shapes were used to compute tissue maximum ratio and phantom scatter factor using the Clarkson-method. In this study, two RapidArc plans for oropharynx cancer were used to compare the doses in CT-based calculation and water-equivalent phantom calculation using the contoured body structure to the dose in a treatment planning system (TPS). RESULTS The comparison in the one plan shows good agreement in both of the calculation (within 1%). However, in the other case, the CT-based calculation shows better agreement compared to the water-equivalent phantom calculation (CT-based: -2.8% vs. Water-based: -3.8%). Because there were multiple structures along the multiple beam paths and the radiological path length in the CT-based calculation and the path in the water-homogenous phantom calculation were comparatively different. CONCLUSION RapidArc treatments are performed in any sites (from head, chest, abdomen to pelvis), which includes inhomogeneous media. Therefore, a more reliable CT-based calculation may be used as a secondary check for the independent verification.

Quantitative analysis of geometric information from an end-to-end examination of IMRT and VMAT using the optimal selection method

PURPOSE Gamma index, distance-to-agreement, and dose difference (DD) are commonly used to evaluate planar dose distributions. In this evaluation, the agreement between calculated and measured dose distributions can be susceptible to steep dose gradients along another axis perpendicular to the evaluation plane. Visual registration of the measured dose distribution may be performed to achieve better agreement, although doing so might lose geometric information related to beam targeting in an end-to-end test of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). The optimal selection (OS) method was developed to take into consideration a dose distribution in three-dimensions, and also to quantitatively analyze geometric information along with better agreement. METHODS The OS method was composed of two steps. These steps were based on two algorithms, the gamma index and DD, to (1) find the best-matched plane, which is parallel to the planar measured dose distribution and is reconstructed by a volumetric dose distribution calculated by a treatment planning system; and (2) to get shifts and rotation along with better agreement between the calculated and measured dose distribution, compared with the planar dose distribution from the test. The OS method computes shifts and rotation against a user-defined coregistered location for the measured dose distribution. Thirteen prostate IMRT plans (two planes per plan for a total of 26 planes) were analyzed retrospectively to compare the pass ratios of DD and gamma index evaluations with and without the OS method. The computed shifts and rotations were evaluated. RESULTS Compared with the method without OS, the average pass ratios of DD and gamma index with the OS method increased by 8.2% and 5.7%, respectively, in the dose region from 30% to 100%. A particular result from one of the planes showed an increase of 43.5% and 32.5% in the pass ratios of DD and gamma, respectively, with the OS method in the same dose region. The shifts in the x-, y-, z-axes and rotation, which were computed using the OS method, were 0.5 ± 0.6, 0.3 ± 0.5, 1.0 ± 1.1 mm, and 0.3 ± 0.3°, respectively. In terms of the comparatively large difference between the z-shift and the x- and y-shifts, an additional geometric test was performed. A systematic error of 0.7 mm in the z-axis was found at the location of the film placed in the phantom that we used. CONCLUSIONS The OS method improved the quality of the end-to-end test of IMRT and VMAT plans by providing additional information regarding shifts and rotation, which were calculated and found to be in better agreement.PURPOSE Gamma index, distance-to-agreement, and dose difference (DD) are commonly used to evaluate planar dose distributions. In this evaluation, the agreement between calculated and measured dose distributions can be susceptible to steep dose gradients along another axis perpendicular to the evaluation plane. Visual registration of the measured dose distribution may be performed to achieve better agreement, although doing so might lose geometric information related to beam targeting in an end-to-end test of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). The optimal selection (OS) method was developed to take into consideration a dose distribution in three-dimensions, and also to quantitatively analyze geometric information along with better agreement. METHODS The OS method was composed of two steps. These steps were based on two algorithms, the gamma index and DD, to (1) find the best-matched plane, which is parallel to the planar measured dose distribution and is reconstructed by a volumetric dose distribution calculated by a treatment planning system; and (2) to get shifts and rotation along with better agreement between the calculated and measured dose distribution, compared with the planar dose distribution from the test. The OS method computes shifts and rotation against a user-defined coregistered location for the measured dose distribution. Thirteen prostate IMRT plans (two planes per plan for a total of 26 planes) were analyzed retrospectively to compare the pass ratios of DD and gamma index evaluations with and without the OS method. The computed shifts and rotations were evaluated. RESULTS Compared with the method without OS, the average pass ratios of DD and gamma index with the OS method increased by 8.2% and 5.7%, respectively, in the dose region from 30% to 100%. A particular result from one of the planes showed an increase of 43.5% and 32.5% in the pass ratios of DD and gamma, respectively, with the OS method in the same dose region. The shifts in the x-, y-, z-axes and rotation, which were computed using the OS method, were 0.5 ± 0.6, 0.3 ± 0.5, 1.0 ± 1.1 mm, and 0.3 ± 0.3°, respectively. In terms of the comparatively large difference between the z-shift and the x- and y-shifts, an additional geometric test was performed. A systematic error of 0.7 mm in the z-axis was found at the location of the film placed in the phantom that we used. CONCLUSIONS The OS method improved the quality of the end-to-end test of IMRT and VMAT plans by providing additional information regarding shifts and rotation, which were calculated and found to be in better agreement.

A multi-institutional study of secondary check of treatment planning using Clarkson-based dose calculation for three-dimensional radiotherapy

PURPOSE As there have been few reports on quantitative analysis of inter-institutional results for independent monitor unit (MU) verification, we performed a multi-institutional study of verification to show the feasibility of applying the 3-5% action levels used in the U.S. and Europe, and also to show the results of inter-institutional comparisons. METHODS A total of 5936 fields were collected from 12 institutions. We used commercial software employing the Clarkson algorithm for verification after a validation study of measurement and software comparisons was performed. The doses generated by the treatment planning systems (TPSs) were retrospectively analyzed using the verification software. RESULTS Mean ± two standard deviations of all locations were 1.0 ± 3.6%. There were larger differences for breast (4.0 ± 4.0%) and for lung (2.5 ± 5.8%). A total of 80% of the fields with differences over 5% of the action level involved breast and lung targets, with 7.2 ± 5.4%. Inter-institutional comparisons showed various systematic differences for field shape for breast and differences in the fields were attributable to differences in reference point placement for lung. The large differences for breast and lung are partially attributable to differences in the methods used to correct for heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS The 5% action level may be feasible for verification; however, an understanding of larger differences in breast and lung plans is important in clinical practice. Based on the inter-institutional comparisons, care must be taken when determining an institution-specific action level from plans with different field shape settings and incorrectly placed reference points.

A multi-institutional study of independent calculation verification in inhomogeneous media using a simple and effective method of heterogeneity correction integrated with the Clarkson method

Abstract In inhomogeneous media, there is often a large systematic difference in the dose between the conventional Clarkson algorithm (C-Clarkson) for independent calculation verification and the superposition-based algorithms of treatment planning systems (TPSs). These treatment site–dependent differences increase the complexity of the radiotherapy planning secondary check. We developed a simple and effective method of heterogeneity correction integrated with the Clarkson algorithm (L-Clarkson) to account for the effects of heterogeneity in the lateral dimension, and performed a multi-institutional study to evaluate the effectiveness of the method. In the method, a 2D image reconstructed from computed tomography (CT) images is divided according to lines extending from the reference point to the edge of the multileaf collimator (MLC) or jaw collimator for each pie sector, and the radiological path length (RPL) of each line is calculated on the 2D image to obtain a tissue maximum ratio and phantom scatter factor, allowing the dose to be calculated. A total of 261 plans (1237 beams) for conventional breast and lung treatments and lung stereotactic body radiotherapy were collected from four institutions. Disagreements in dose between the on-site TPSs and a verification program using the C-Clarkson and L-Clarkson algorithms were compared. Systematic differences with the L-Clarkson method were within 1% for all sites, while the C-Clarkson method resulted in systematic differences of 1–5%. The L-Clarkson method showed smaller variations. This heterogeneity correction integrated with the Clarkson algorithm would provide a simple evaluation within the range of −5% to +5% for a radiotherapy plan secondary check.