Russell L. Gerber

Quantitative dosimetric verification of an IMRT planning and delivery system

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The accuracy of dose calculation and delivery of a commercial serial tomotherapy treatment planning and delivery system (Peacock. NOMOS Corporation) was experimentally determined. MATERIALS AND METHODS External beam fluence distributions were optimized and delivered to test treatment plan target volumes, including three with cylindrical targets with diameters ranging from 2.0 to 6.2 cm and lengths of 0.9 through 4.8 cm, one using three cylindrical targets and two using C-shaped targets surrounding a critical structure, each with different dose distribution optimization criteria. Computer overlays of film-measured and calculated planar dose distributions were used to assess the dose calculation and delivery spatial accuracy. A 0.125 cm3 ionization chamber was used to conduct absolute point dosimetry verification. Thermoluminescent dosimetry chips, a small-volume ionization chamber and radiochromic film were used as independent checks of the ion chamber measurements. RESULTS Spatial localization accuracy was found to be better than +/-2.0 mm in the transverse axes (with one exception of 3.0 mm) and +/-1.5 mm in the longitudinal axis. Dosimetric verification using single slice delivery versions of the plans showed that the relative dose distribution was accurate to +/-2% within and outside the target volumes (in high dose and low dose gradient regions) with a mean and standard deviation for all points of -0.05% and 1.1%, respectively. The absolute dose per monitor unit was found to vary by +/-3.5% of the mean value due to the lack of consideration for leakage radiation and the limited scattered radiation integration in the dose calculation algorithm. To deliver the prescribed dose, adjustment of the monitor units by the measured ratio would be required. CONCLUSIONS The treatment planning and delivery system offered suitably accurate spatial registration and dose delivery of serial tomotherapy generated dose distributions. The quantitative dose comparisons were made as far as possible from abutment regions and examination of the dosimetry of these regions will also be important. Because of the variability in the dose per monitor unit and the complex nature of the calculation and delivery of serial tomotherapy, patient-specific quality assurance procedures will include a measurement of the delivered target dose.

Verification data for electron beam dose algorithms

The Collaborative Working Group (CWG) of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) electron beam treatment planning contract has performed a set of 14 experiments that measured dose distributions for 28 unique beam-phantom configurations that simulated various patient anatomic structures and beam geometries. Multiple dose distributions were measured with film or diode detectors for each configuration, resulting in 78, 2-D planar dose distributions and one, 1-D depth-dose distribution. Measurements were made for 9- and 20-MeV electron beams, using primarily 6 x 6- and 15 x 15-cm applicators at several SSDs. Dose distributions were measured for shaped fields, irregular surfaces, and inhomogeneities (1-D, 2-D, and 3-D), which were designed to simulate many clinical electron treatments. The data were corrected for asymmetries, and normalized in an absolute manner. This set of measured data can be used for verification of electron beam dose algorithms and is available to others for that purpose.

QUALITY ASSURANCE OF SERIAL TOMOTHERAPY FOR HEAD AND NECK PATIENT TREATMENTS

PURPOSE A commercial serial tomotherapy intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment planning (Peacock, NOMOS Corp., Sewickley, PA) and delivery system is in clinical use. The dose distributions are highly conformal, with large dose gradients often surrounding critical structures, and require accurate localization and dose delivery. Accelerator and patient-specific quality assurance (QA) procedures have been developed that address the localization, normalization, and delivery of the IMRT dose distributions. METHODS AND MATERIALS The dose distribution delivered by serial tomotherapy is highly sensitive to the accuracy of the longitudinal couch motion. There is also an unknown sensitivity of the dose distribution on the dynamic mutlileaf collimator alignment. QA procedures were implemented that assess these geometric parameters. Evaluations of patient positioning accuracy and stability were conducted by exposing portal films before (single exposure) and after (single or double exposure) treatments. The films were acquired with sequential exposures using the largest available fixed multileaf portal (3.36 x 20 cm2). Comparison was made against digitally reconstructed radiographs generated using independent software and appropriate beam geometries. The delivered dose was verified using homogeneous cubic phantoms. Radiographic film was used to determine the localization accuracy of the delivered isodose distributions, and ionization chambers and thermoluminescent dosimetry (TLD) chips were used to verify absolute dose at selected points. Ionization chamber measurements were confined to the target dose regions and TLD measurements were obtained throughout the irradiated volumes. Because many more TLD measurements were made, a statistical evaluation of the measured-to-calculated dose ratio was possible. RESULTS The accelerator QA techniques provided adequate monitoring of the geometric patient movement and dynamic multileaf collimator alignment and positional stability. The absolute delivered dose as measured with the ionization chamber varied from 0.94 to 0.98. Based on these measurements, the delivered monitor units for both subsequent QA measurements and patient treatments were adjusted by the ratio of measured to calculated dose. TLD measurements showed agreement, on average, with the ionization chamber measurements. The distribution of TLD measurements in the high-dose regions indicated that measured doses agreed within 4.2% standard deviation of the calculated doses. In the low-dose regions, the measured doses were on average 5% greater than the calculated doses, due to a lack of leakage dose in the dose calculation algorithm. CONCLUSIONS The QA system provided adequate determination of the geometric and dosimetric quantities involved in the use of IMRT for the head and neck. Ionization chamber and TLD measurements provided accurate determination of the absolute delivered dose throughout target volumes and critical structures, and radiographic film yielded precise dose distribution localization verification. Portal film acquisition and subsequent portal film analysis using 3.36 x 20 cm2 portals proved useful in the evaluation of patient immobilization quality. Adequate bony landmarks were imaged when carefully selected portals were used.

IS WEEKLY PORT FILMING ADEQUATE FOR VERIFYING PATIENT POSITION IN MODERN RADIATION THERAPY

PURPOSE The objective of this study is to use daily electronic portal imaging to evaluate weekly port filming in detecting patient set-up position. METHODS AND MATERIALS A computer-based portal alignment method was used to quantify the field displacements on 191 digitized weekly port films and 848 daily electronic portal images in 21 radiation therapy patients. An electronic portal image data set as a control for actual daily treatment position was used to evaluate weekly port films with respect to same-day field displacement, rate of field placement error detection, and prediction of subsequent daily field displacements. RESULTS The field displacements measured on a port film frequently deviated from the corresponding field displacements on the electronic portal image obtained in the same treatment set-up. A linear regression analysis showed that the curves fitted to the same-day field displacements had slopes that differed significantly from unity (p < 0.001). Overall, the respective frequencies of field placement error, beyond clinical tolerance limits of 5, 7, and 10 mm (corresponding to head and neck, thoracic, and pelvic sites) for port filming and electronic portal imaging were 11% and 14% (p = 0.4) in the X-direction (lateral or anteroposterior) and 24% and 13% (p = .0001) in the Y-direction (caphalad-caudad). When the data were broken down by anatomical region, this discrepancy was found to be mainly due to the differences in the thorax, and head and neck image data sets. For thoracic fields, error in Y-shifts was 28% by port filming, but only 9% by portal imaging (p = 0.01). In the head and neck region, 18% of the port films exceeded tolerance, whereas only 6% of the electronic portal images did (p = 0.0001). Field displacements on the treatment set-ups between the acquisition of port films were not predicted by those films. CONCLUSION There are discrepancies between the field displacements and field placement errors detected by weekly port films and daily electronic portal images. This study suggests that improved methods of treatment verification may be necessary in modern radiation therapy.

Systematic verification of a three-dimensional electron beam dose calculation algorithm.

A three-dimensional electron beam dose calculation algorithm implemented on a commercial radiotherapy treatment planning system is described. The calculation is based on the M. D. Anderson Hospital (M.D.A.H.) pencil beam model, which uses the Fermi-Eyges theory of thick-target multiple Coulomb scattering. To establish the calculation algorithms accuracy as well as its limitations, it was systematically and extensively tested and evaluated against a set of benchmark measurements. Various levels of dose and spatial tolerances were used to validate the calculation quantitatively. Results are presented in terms of the percentage of data points meeting a specific tolerance level. The algorithms ability to accurately simulate commonly used clinical setup geometries, including standard or extended SSDs, blocked fields, irregular surfaces, and heterogeneities, is demonstrated. Regions of disagreement between calculations and measurements are also shown. The clinical implication of such disagreements is addressed, and the algorithmic assumptions involved are discussed.

Three-dimensional treatment planning and conformal radiation therapy: preliminary evaluation *

Preliminary clinical results are presented for 209 patients with cancer who had treatment planned on our three-dimensional radiation treatment planning (3-D RTP) system and were treated with external beam conformal radiation therapy. Average times (min) for CT volumetric simulation were: 74 without or 84 with contrast material; 36 for contouring of tumor/target volume and 44 for normal anatomy; 78 for treatment planning; 53 for plan evaluation/optimization; and 58 for verification simulation. Average time of daily treatment sessions with 3-D conformal therapy or standard techniques was comparable for brain, head and neck, thoracic, and hepatobiliary tumors (11.8-14 min and 11.5-12.1, respectively). For prostate cancer patients treated with 3-D conformal technique and Cerrobend blocks, mean treatment time was 19 min; with multileaf collimation it was 14 min and with bilateral arc rotation, 9.8 min. Acute toxicity was comparable to or lower than with standard techniques. Sophisticated 3-D RTP and conformal irradiation can be performed in a significant number of patients at a reasonable cost. Further efforts, including dose-escalation studies, are necessary to develop more versatile and efficient 3-D RTP systems and to enhance the cost benefit of this technology in treatment of patients with cancer.

An evaluation of two methods of anatomical alignment of radiotherapy portal images

PURPOSE Two techniques have been developed at our institution to allow anatomical registration of digitized portal images to a simulation film. Accuracy of the portal image alignment methods is tested and single intrauser and multiple interuser variation is examined using each technique. METHODS AND MATERIALS Method one requires the identification of anatomical fiducial points on a simulation image and its corresponding portal image. The parameters required to align the corresponding points are calculated by a least squares fit algorithm. Method two uses an anatomical template generated from the simulation image and superimposing it upon a portal image. The template is then adjusted by a computer mouse to obtain the best subjective anatomical fit on the portal image. Megavoltage portal images of a skull phantom with various known shifts and eight clinical image files were aligned by each method. Each data set was aligned several times by both a single user and multiple users. RESULTS Alignment of the anatomical phantom portal images demonstrates an accuracy of less than 0.8 +/- 0.9 mm and 0.7 +/- 1.0 degrees with either method. As out of plane rotation increased from 0 to 5 degrees, simulating out of plane malpositioning, alignment orthogonal to the plane of rotation worsened to 1.5 +/- 1.1 mm with the point method and 2.4 +/- 1.6 mm with the template method. Alignment parallel to the axis of the gantry rotation was insensitive to this change and remained constant as did the rotational alignment parameters. For the clinical image files the magnitude of variation for a single user is typically less than +/- 1 mm or +/- 1 degree. The magnitude of variation of alignment increased when multiple users aligned the same image files. The variation was dependent upon anatomical site and to a lesser degree the method of alignment used. The root mean square deviation of translational shifts range from +/- 0.68 mm when using the template method in the pelvis to as high as +/- 2.94 mm with the template method to align abdominal portal images. In the thorax and pelvis translational alignments along the horizontal axis were more precise than along the vertical axis. Multiple user variability was in part due to poor image quality, user experience, non rigidity of the anatomical features, and the difficulty in locating an exact point on a continuous anatomical structure. CONCLUSION In well controlled phantom studies both the fiducial point and template method provide similar and adequate results. The phantom studies show that alignment error and variance increase with distortion in anatomical features secondary to out of plane rotations. In clinical situations intrauser variation is small, however, multiple interuser variation is larger. The magnitude of variation is dependent upon the anatomical site aligned.

Prospective clinical evaluation of an electronic portal imaging device

PURPOSE To determine whether the clinical implementation of an electronic portal imaging device can improve the precision of daily external beam radiotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS In 1991, an electronic portal imaging device was installed on a dual energy linear accelerator in our clinic. After training the radiotherapy technologists in the acquisition and evaluation of portal images, we performed a randomized study to determine whether online observation, interruption, and intervention would result in more precise daily setup. The patients were randomized to one of two groups: those whose treatments were actively monitored by the radiotherapy technologists and those that were imaged but not monitored. The treating technologists were instructed to correct the following treatment errors: (a) field placement error (FPE) > 1 cm; (b) incorrect block; (c) incorrect collimator setting; (d) absent customized block. Time of treatment delivery was recorded by our patient tracking and billing computers and compared to a matched set of patients not participating in the study. After the patients radiation therapy course was completed, an offline analysis of the patient setup error was planned. RESULTS Thirty-two patients were treated to 34 anatomical sites in this study. In 893 treatment sessions, 1,873 fields were treated (1,089 fields monitored and 794 fields unmonitored). Ninety percent of the treated fields had at least one image stored for offline analysis. Eighty-seven percent of these images were analyzed offline. Of the 1,011 fields imaged in the monitored arm, only 14 (1.4%) had an intervention recorded by the technologist. Despite infrequent online intervention, offline analysis demonstrated that the incidence of FPE > 10 mm in the monitored and unmonitored groups was 56 out of 881 (6.1%) and 95 out of 595 (11.2%), respectively; p < 0.01. A significant reduction in the incidence of FPE > 10 mm was confined to the pelvic fields. The time to treat patients in this study was 10.78 min (monitored) and 10.10 min (unmonitored). Features that were identified that prevented the technologists from recognizing more errors online include poor image quality inherent to the portal imaging device used in this study, artifacts on the portal images related to table supports, and small field size lacking sufficient anatomical detail to detect FPEs. Furthermore, tools to objectively evaluate a portal image for the presence of field placement error were lacking. These include magnification factor corrections between the simulation of portal image, online measurement tools, image enhancement tools, and image registration algorithms. CONCLUSION The use of an electronic portal imaging device in our clinic has been implemented without a significant increase in patient treatment time. Online intervention and correction of patient positioning occurred rarely, despite FPEs of > 10 mm being present in more than 10% of the treated fields. A significant reduction in FPEs exceeding 10 mm was made in the group of patients receiving pelvic radiotherapy. It is likely that this improvement was made secondarily to a decrease in systematic error and not because of online interventions. More significant improvements in portal image quality and the availability of online image registration tools are required before substantial improvements can be made in patient positioning with online portal imaging.

Design of a fully integrated three-dimensional computed tomography simulator and preliminary clinical evaluation

PURPOSE We describe the conceptual structure and process of a fully integrated three-dimensional (3-D) computed tomography (CT) simulator and present a preliminary clinical and financial evaluation of our current system. METHODS AND MATERIALS This is a preliminary report on 117 patients treated with external beam radiation therapy alone on whom a 3-D simulation and treatment plan and delivery were carried out from July 1, 1992, through June 30, 1993. The elements of a fully integrated 3-D CT simulator were identified: (a) volumetric definition of tumor volume and patient anatomy obtained with a CT scanner, (b) virtual simulation for beam setup and digitally reconstructed radiographs, (c) 3-D treatment planning for volumetric dose computation and plan evaluation, (d) patient-marking device to outline portal on patients skin, and (e) verification (physical) simulation to verify portal placement on the patient. Actual time-motion (time and effort) recording was made by each professional involved in the various steps of the 3-D simulation and treatment planning on computer-compatible forms. Data were correlated with the anatomic site of the primary tumor being planned. Cost accounting of revenues and operation of the CT simulator and the 3-D planning was carried out, and projected costs per examination, depending on case load, were generated. RESULTS Average time for CT volumetric simulation was 74 min without or 84 min with contrast material. Average times were 36 min for contouring of tumor/target volume and 44 min for normal anatomy, 78 min for treatment planning, 53 min for plan evaluation/optimization, and 58 min for verification simulation. There were significant variations in time and effort according to the specific anatomic location of the tumor. Portal marking of patient on the CT simulator was not consistently satisfactory, and this procedure was usually carried out on the physical simulator. Based on actual budgetary information, the cost of a volumetric CT simulation (separate from the 3-D treatment planning) showed that 1500 examinations per year (six per day in 250 working days) must be performed to make the operation of the device cost effective. The same financial projections for the entire 3-D planning process and verification yielded five plans per day. Some features were identified that will improve the use of the 3-D simulator, and solutions are offered to incorporate them in existing devices. CONCLUSIONS Commercially available CT simulators lack some elements that we believe are critical in a fully integrated 3-D CT simulator. Sophisticated 3-D simulation and treatment planning can be carried out in a significant number of patients at a reasonable cost. Time and effort and therefore cost vary according to the anatomic site of the tumor being planned and the number of procedures performed. Further efforts are necessary, with collaboration of radiation oncologists, physicists, and manufacturers, to develop more versatile and efficient 3-D CT simulators, and additional clinical experience is required to make this technology cost effective in standard radiation therapy of patients with cancer.

Method to plan, administer, and verify supine craniospinal irradiation

Craniospinal irradiation remains an important technique in the management of malignancies of the central nervous system. It is technically demanding, with potential for treatment field overlap or gaps to yield unacceptable dosimetric heterogeneity. A method to accurately simulate and verify the three‐field junction is described. We use a comfortable supine position to minimize patient movement. The supine position provides airway access by anesthesiology in patients requiring sedation or anesthesia. Virtual simulation is performed with a dedicated computed tomography (CT) simulator. Multiplanar sagittal and coronal CT reconstructions allow visual confirmation of three‐field matching at the cervical region. The placement of isocenters for each field, table position, and collimator angles are determined by calculation of field sizes accommodating for beam divergence. At treatment, exact matching of the three fields is assured using the record and verify confirmation of beam collimator settings and rotation, digital couch readouts, and gantry parameters. Mini‐verification silver halide (Kodak XV) films (6×6cm) are placed behind the patients neck and are exposed by all treatment fields (posterior flash from the lateral cranial fields and entrance from the PA spine field). These films assess field placement accuracy at the junction of these three fields. Finally, placement of radio‐opaque markers at the junction is visualized in each clinical portal radiograph. Patients readily accept the supine position as their treatment setup is eased. Field placement using digital couch settings is efficient and accurate. Daily mini‐verification films are simple, inexpensive, and allow verification of each treatment field matching. Field placement errors of greater than 1 mm can be readily identified and corrected at subsequent treatment sessions. Virtual simulation and direct junction verification with mini‐verification films allow for simple and quantitative evaluation of the junction associated with the three‐field craniospinal irradiation technique. The supine patient position does not present any difficulties in field matching or verification. PACS number(s): 87.53.–j, 87.53.–j