T Giaddui

Characteristics of Gafchromic XRQA2 films for kV image dose measurement

PURPOSE In this study, the relevant characteristics of the new Gafchromic XRQA2 film for its application in measuring kV cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) image doses were thoroughly investigated. METHODS The film was calibrated free in air to air kerma levels between 0 and 9 cGy using 120 kVp photon beams produced by the x-ray volume imager. Films were scanned using transmission and reflection scanning modes with the Epson Expression 10000 XL flat-bed document scanner. The impact of film size, region of interest for the analysis, scan uniformity, scan resolution, scan orientation and alternate scanning sides on the analysis process were investigated. Energy dependence, postirradiation growth of reflectance with time and irradiation angular dependence of the film were tested at different air kerma levels. RESULTS The net reflectance changed by ∼3% when the size of the film piece changed from 1 cm × 2 cm to 10 cm × 11 cm and changed by ∼1% when ROI changed from 0. 7 cm × 0. 7 cm to 8 cm × 8 cm, suggesting a good uniformity of the film. The film was successfully analyzed using the transmission scanning mode, calibration curves from both transmission and reflection scanning modes showed similar behavior. The calibration uncertainty was somewhat lower when the film was scanned using reflection mode (6% and 8% for reflection and transmission modes, respectively.) Higher scanning resolution came with increasing calibration uncertainty. The calibration uncertainty for reflection and transmission modes increased from ∼3.5% to 7% and from ∼3.5% to 9%, respectively when scanning resolution was changed from 50 to 400 dpi. Scanning the film on alternate sides using transmission mode led to variation of 16%-19% in the net optical density at doses commonly used for CBCT procedures. The film response changed by almost 10% when it was exposed to beams of two different energies (100 and 120 kVp.) Other features of the film such as film orientation, postexposure growth, and irradiation angular dependence were also investigated. CONCLUSIONS The size of film piece and analysis ROI used for calibration slightly affected the film response. Both transmission and reflection scanning modes can be used to analyze the Gafchromic XRQA2, with the reflection mode having a somewhat lower calibration uncertainty. Scanning films on alternate sides using transmission mode significantly affects the optical density. The film response was shown to be energy dependent. The films reached stability in about 6 h after exposure. The film response was proven to be independent of irradiation angle except when the beam is parallel to the film surface.

Comparative dose evaluations between XVI and OBI cone beam CT systems using Gafchromic XRQA2 film and nanoDot optical stimulated luminescence dosimeters

PURPOSE To investigate the effect of energy (kVp) and filters (no filter, half Bowtie, and full Bowtie) on the dose response curves of the Gafchromic XRQA2 film and nanoDot optical stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLDs) in CBCT dose fields. To measure surface and internal doses received during x-ray volume imager (XVI) (Version R4.5) and on board imager (OBI) (Version 1.5) CBCT imaging protocols using these two types of dosimeters. METHODS Gafchromic XRQA2 film and nanoDot OSLD dose response curves were generated at different kV imaging settings used by XVI (software version R4.5) and OBI (software version 1.5) CBCT systems. The settings for the XVI system were: 100 kVp/F0 (no filter), 120 kVp/F0, and 120 kVp/F1 (Bowtie filter), and for the OBI system were: 100 kVp/full fan, 125 kVp/full fan, and 125 kVp/half fan. XRQA2 film was calibrated in air to air kerma levels between 0 and 11 cGy and scanned using reflection scanning mode with the Epson Expression 10000 XL flat-bed document scanner. NanoDot OSLDs were calibrated on phantom to surface dose levels between 0 and 14 cGy and read using the inLightTM MicroStar reader. Both dosimeters were used to measure in field surface and internal doses in a male Alderson Rando Phantom. RESULTS Dose response curves of XRQA2 film and nanoDot OSLDs at different XVI and OBI CBCT settings were reported. For XVI system, the surface dose ranged between 0.02 cGy in head region during fast head and neck scan and 4.99 cGy in the chest region during symmetry scan. On the other hand, the internal dose ranged between 0.02 cGy in the head region during fast head and neck scan and 3.17 cGy in the chest region during chest M20 scan. The average (internal and external) dose ranged between 0.05 cGy in the head region during fast head and neck scan and 2.41 cGy in the chest region during chest M20 scan. For OBI system, the surface dose ranged between 0.19 cGy in head region during head scan and 4.55 cGy in the pelvis region during spot light scan. However, the internal dose ranged between 0.47 cGy in the head region during head scan and 5.55 cGy in the pelvis region during spot light scan. The average (internal and external) dose ranged between 0.45 cGy in the head region during head scan and 3.59 cGy in the pelvis region during spot light scan. Both Gafchromic XRQA2 film and nanoDot OSLDs gave close estimation of dose (within uncertainties) in many cases. Though, discrepancies of up to 20%-30% were observed in some cases. CONCLUSIONS Dose response curves of Gafchromic XRQA2 film and nanoDot OSLDs indicated that the dose responses of these two dosimeters were different even at the same photon energy when different filters were used. Uncertainty levels of both dosimetry systems were below 6% at doses above 1 cGy. Both dosimetry systems gave almost similar estimation of doses (within uncertainties) in many cases, with exceptions of some cases when the discrepancy was around 20%-30%. New versions of the CBCT systems (investigated in this study) resulted in lower imaging doses compared with doses reported on earlier versions in previous studies.PURPOSE To investigate the effect of energy (kVp) and filters (no filter, half Bowtie, and full Bowtie) on the dose response curves of the Gafchromic XRQA2 film and nanoDot optical stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLDs) in CBCT dose fields. To measure surface and internal doses received during x-ray volume imager (XVI) (Version R4.5) and on board imager (OBI) (Version 1.5) CBCT imaging protocols using these two types of dosimeters. METHODS Gafchromic XRQA2 film and nanoDot OSLD dose response curves were generated at different kV imaging settings used by XVI (software version R4.5) and OBI (software version 1.5) CBCT systems. The settings for the XVI system were: 100 kVp∕F0 (no filter), 120 kVp∕F0, and 120 kVp∕F1 (Bowtie filter), and for the OBI system were: 100 kVp∕full fan, 125 kVp∕full fan, and 125 kVp∕half fan. XRQA2 film was calibrated in air to air kerma levels between 0 and 11 cGy and scanned using reflection scanning mode with the Epson Expression 10000 XL flat-bed document scanner. NanoDot OSLDs were calibrated on phantom to surface dose levels between 0 and 14 cGy and read using the inLight(TM) MicroStar reader. Both dosimeters were used to measure in field surface and internal doses in a male Alderson Rando Phantom. RESULTS Dose response curves of XRQA2 film and nanoDot OSLDs at different XVI and OBI CBCT settings were reported. For XVI system, the surface dose ranged between 0.02 cGy in head region during fast head and neck scan and 4.99 cGy in the chest region during symmetry scan. On the other hand, the internal dose ranged between 0.02 cGy in the head region during fast head and neck scan and 3.17 cGy in the chest region during chest M20 scan. The average (internal and external) dose ranged between 0.05 cGy in the head region during fast head and neck scan and 2.41 cGy in the chest region during chest M20 scan. For OBI system, the surface dose ranged between 0.19 cGy in head region during head scan and 4.55 cGy in the pelvis region during spot light scan. However, the internal dose ranged between 0.47 cGy in the head region during head scan and 5.55 cGy in the pelvis region during spot light scan. The average (internal and external) dose ranged between 0.45 cGy in the head region during head scan and 3.59 cGy in the pelvis region during spot light scan. Both Gafchromic XRQA2 film and nanoDot OSLDs gave close estimation of dose (within uncertainties) in many cases. Though, discrepancies of up to 20%-30% were observed in some cases. CONCLUSIONS Dose response curves of Gafchromic XRQA2 film and nanoDot OSLDs indicated that the dose responses of these two dosimeters were different even at the same photon energy when different filters were used. Uncertainty levels of both dosimetry systems were below 6% at doses above 1 cGy. Both dosimetry systems gave almost similar estimation of doses (within uncertainties) in many cases, with exceptions of some cases when the discrepancy was around 20%-30%. New versions of the CBCT systems (investigated in this study) resulted in lower imaging doses compared with doses reported on earlier versions in previous studies.

Radiation Therapy Digital Data Submission Process for National Clinical Trials Network

As part of the consolidation of the cooperative group clinical trial program of the National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), an Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core services organization (IROC) has been formed from current leading quality assurance (QA) centers to provide QA, along with clinical and scientific expertise, for the entire NCTN (1). An integrated information technology (IT) infrastructure, the IROC cloud, has been implemented to foster collaborative and effective interactions among participating institutions, QA centers, NCTN cooperative groups and statistics data management centers, and the IT infrastructure of the NCI (Fig. 1). An integral component of the IROC cloud is the Transfer of Images and Data (TRIAD) system designed for imaging and radiation therapy digital data transmission. The TRIAD system is now being used for digital radiation therapy and imaging data transmission for NCTN (and other) clinical trials. Fig. 1 IROC cloud: An IROC Information Technology (IT) infrastructure vision. Consistency of submitted data contributes to better consistency in the treatment and review of trial data, and it facilitates scientific collaborations and also promotes safe clinical practice. The details of this data submission process are presented here.

Motion management strategies and technical issues associated with stereotactic body radiotherapy of thoracic and upper abdominal tumors: A review from NRG oncology

&NA; The efficacy of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) has been well demonstrated. However, it presents unique challenges for accurate planning and delivery especially in the lungs and upper abdomen where respiratory motion can be significantly confounding accurate targeting and avoidance of normal tissues. In this paper, we review the current literature on SBRT for lung and upper abdominal tumors with particular emphasis on addressing respiratory motion and its affects. We provide recommendations on strategies to manage motion for different, patient‐specific situations. Some of the recommendations will potentially be adopted to guide clinical trial protocols.

SU‐F‐T‐351: Establishing a Workflow for IMRT Pre‐Treatment Reviews for NRG‐GY006 Clinical Trial

PURPOSE To establish a workflow for NRG-GY006 IMRT pre-treatment reviews, incorporating advanced radiotherapy technologies being evaluated as part of the clinical trial. METHODS Pre-Treatment reviews are required for every IMRT case as part of NRG-GY006 (a randomized phase II trial of radiation therapy and cisplatin alone or in combination with intravenous triapine in women with newly diagnosed bulky stage I B2, stage II, IIIB, or IVA cancer of the uterine cervix or stage II-IVA vaginal cancer. The pretreatment review process includes structures review and generating an active bone marrow(ABM)- to be used as an avoidance structure during IMRT optimization- and evaluating initial IMRT plan quality using knowledgeengineering based planning (KBP). Institutions will initially submit their simulation CT scan, structures file and PET/CT to IROC QA center for generating ABM. The ABM will be returned to the institution for use in planning. Institutions will then submit an initial IMRT plan for review and will receive information back following implementation of a KBP algorithm, for use in re-optimization, before submitting the final IMRT used for treatment. RESULTS ABM structure is generated using MIM vista software (Version 6.5, MIM corporation, Inc.). Here, the planning CT and the diagnostic PET/CT are fused and a sub threshold structure is auto segmented above the mean value of the SUV of the bone marrow. The generated ABM were compared with those generated with other software system (e.g. Velocity, Varian) and Dice coefficient (reflects the overlap of structures) ranged between 80 - 90% was achieved. A KBP model was built in Varian Eclipse TPS using the RapidPlan KBP software to perform plan quality assurance. CONCLUSION The workflow for IMRT pretreatment reviews has been established. It represents a major improvement of NRG Oncology clinical trial quality assurance and incorporates the latest radiotherapy technologies as part of NCI clinical trials. This project was supported by grants U24CA180803 (IROC), UG1CA189867 (NCORP), U10CA180868 (NRG Oncology Operations), U10CA180822 (NRG Oncology SDMC) from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and PA CURE grant.

Surface Dose Measurements of kV XVI Cone-Beam CT System Using NanoDot Optical Stimulated Luminescence Dosimeters

Surface doses received during seven different imaging protocols (using the kV XVI imager) were measured on a Rando phantom surface using nanoDot optical stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLD) for three different body regions (head and neck, chest and pelvis). For each protocol, the surface dose was measured at four different locations on the surface of the phantom (ANT., POST., LLAT. and RLAT.). The surface dose at any location in the irradiated area can range between 0.008 cGy (fast head and neck protocol) and 4.38 cGy (symmetry 4D). The average surface dose in the irradiated area ranged between 0.038 cGy and 2.34 cGy. The measured doses were compared with nominal scan dose, provided by the vendor and calculated doses.

SU-F-T-386: Analysis of Three QA Methods for Predicting Dose Deviation Pass Percentage for Lung SBRT VMAT Plans

PURPOSE To investigate the significance of using pinpoint ionization chambers (IC) and RadCalc (RC) in determining the quality of lung SBRT VMAT plans with low dose deviation pass percentage (DDPP) as reported by ScandiDos Delta4 (D4). To quantify the relationship between DDPP and point dose deviations determined by IC (ICDD), RadCalc (RCDD), and median dose deviation reported by D4 (D4DD). METHODS Point dose deviations and D4 DDPP were compiled for 45 SBRT VMAT plans. Eighteen patients were treated on Varian Truebeam linear accelerators (linacs); the remaining 27 were treated on Elekta Synergy linacs with Agility collimators. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to determine if there were any statistically significant differences between D4DD, ICDD, and RCDD. Tukeys test was used to determine which pair of means was statistically different from each other. Multiple regression analysis was performed to determine if D4DD, ICDD, or RCDD are statistically significant predictors of DDPP. RESULTS Median DDPP, D4DD, ICDD, and RCDD were 80.5% (47.6%-99.2%), -0.3% (-2.0%-1.6%), 0.2% (-7.5%-6.3%), and 2.9% (-4.0%-19.7%), respectively. The ANOVA showed a statistically significant difference between D4DD, ICDD, and RCDD for a 95% confidence interval (p < 0.001). Tukeys test revealed a statistically significant difference between two pairs of groups, RCDD-D4DD and RCDD-ICDD (p < 0.001), but no difference between ICDD-D4DD (p = 0.485). Multiple regression analysis revealed that ICDD (p = 0.04) and D4DD (p = 0.03) are statistically significant predictors of DDPP with an adjusted r2 of 0.115. CONCLUSION This study shows ICDD predicts trends in D4 DDPP; however this trend is highly variable as shown by our low r2 . This work suggests that ICDD can be used as a method to verify DDPP in delivery of lung SBRT VMAT plans. RCDD may not validate low DDPP discovered in D4 QA for small field SBRT treatments.

SU-E-T-116: Analysis of Patient Specific VMAT QA Passing Rates with Delta4 for Matched Machines

Purpose: To test whether unified vendor specified beam conformance for matched machines implies volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy(VMAT) delivery consistency. Methods: Twenty-two identical patient QA plans, eleven 6MV and eleven 15MV, were delivered to the Delta⁴(Scandidos, Uppsala, Sweden) on two Varian TrueBEAM matched machines. Sixteen patient QA plans, nine 6 MV and seven 10 MV, were delivered to Delta⁴ on two Elekta Agility matched machines. The percent dose deviation(%DDev), distance-to-agreement(DTA), and the gamma analysis(γ) were collected for all plans and the differences in measurements were tabulated between matched machines. A paired t-test analysis of the data with an alpha of 0.05 determines statistical significance. Power(P) was calculated to detect a difference of 5%; all data except Elekta %DDev sets were strong with above a 0.85 power. Results: The average differences for Varian machines (%DDev, DTA, and γ) are 6.4%, 1.6% and 2.7% for 6MV, respectively, and 8.0%, 0.6%, and 2.5% for 15MV. The average differences for matched Elekta machines (%DDev, DTA, and γ) are 10.2%, 0.6% and 0.9% for 6 MV, respectively, and 7.0%, 1.9%, and 2.8% for 10MV.A paired t-test shows for Varian the %DDev difference is significant for 6MV and 15MV(p-value6MV=0.019, P6MV=0.96; p-value15MV=0.0003, P15MV=0.86). Differences in DTA are insignificant for both 6MV and 15MV(p-value6MV=0.063, P6MV=1; p-value15MV=0.907, P15MV=1). Varian differences in gamma are significant for both energies(p-value6MV=0.025, P6MV=0.99; p-value15MV=0.013, P15MV=1). A paired t-test shows for Elekta the difference in %DDev is significant for 6MV but not 10MV(p-value6MV=0.00065, P6MV=0.68; p-value10MV=0.262, P10MV=0.39). Differences in DTA are statistically insignificant(p-value6MV=0.803, P6MV = 1; p-value10MV=0.269, P10MV=1). Elekta differences in gamma are significant for 10MV only(p-value6MV=0.094, P6MV=1; p-value10MV=0.011, P10MV=1). Conclusion: These results show vendor specified beam conformance across machines does not ensure equivalent patient specific QA pass rates. Gamma differences are statistically significant in three of the four comparisons for two pairs of vendor matched machines.

SU-E-T-115: Analysis of Patient Specific QA for VMAT by Disease Site and Planning-Delivery System Using the ScandiDos Delta4 Phantom

Purpose: To evaluate patient specific quality assurance (PSQA) for the delivery of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) by disease site. To compare planning-delivery system (PDS) PSQA pass rates in a dual vendor institution. Methods: PSQA is performed for VMAT plans using a ScandiDos Delta4 phantom. Verification plans are calculated using Varian Eclipse and Elekta Monaco treatment planning systems (TPS) for patients treated using Varian Truebeam and Elekta linear accelerators respectively. Individual arcs are delivered to the Delta4 phantoms and assessed using the gamma index pass criterion(3% Dose Deviation(DD%), 3mm Distance to Agreement(DTA),10% dose threshold and 90% gamma index). Results: A total of 287 VMAT plans and 680 arcs were analyzed. The passing rates for VMAT QA plans were 95% and 98% for head/neck and pelvis/prostate plans respectively, and 100% for chest/abdomen, spine, lung Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) and Stereotactic Radiosurgery(SRS) plans. Average gamma indices were: (99 ± 2) % for pelvis/prostate, chest/abdomen and lung SBRT plans, (97 ± 4) % for head and neck plans and (98 ± 3) % for spine plans. The average DD% and DTA pass rates ranged from 82% to 90% and 98% to 99% respectively for plans in different disease sites. Paired t-test analysis (two tails) indicated no significant differences in the gamma indices between plans delivered using different PDS; the P values were: 0.08, 0.45, and 0.94 for lung SBRT, head/neck and pelvis/prostate plans respectively. The statistical power for comparing PDS in different disease sites with an alpha of 0.05 is 1. Conclusion: The Gamma indices based on 3% DD%, 3 mm DTA and 10% dose threshold for the VMAT QA plans in all disease sites were well above 90%, suggesting the possibility of using a more stringent PSQA criterion. No significant differences were observed in the QA of VMAT plans delivered using different PDS.

SU-E-T-441: Gamma Passing Rates for IMRT QA and VMAT QA.

Purpose: This study compares gamma passing rates for a cohort of similar intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) quality assurance (QA) plans to determine the equivalence of the patient specific QA plan delivery. The passing criterion is 90% gamma index with 3% dose difference (DD), 3mm distance-to-agreement (DTA) and a dose threshold of 10%. Methods: Gamma passing results of previously treated IMRT QA plans, delivered to Sun Nuclear MapCheck phantom, and VMAT QA plans, delivered to ScandiDos Delta4 phantom, are organized by anatomical site and treatment machine. Both Varian and Elekta machines are included. Pairs of IMRT and VMAT plans are matched based on site, machine, and PTV volume to ensure similar plan cohorts. A two-tailed t-test analysis of the data with an alpha of 0.05 determines if there exists a statistically significant difference. Power was calculated to detect a difference of 4%; all data sets were strong with above a 0.8 power. Results: The first data set consisting of 20 matched pairs of prostate plans was statistically insignificant (p-value=0.90, Power=0.99). The 14 matched pairs set of head and neck plans has a statistically significant Result (p-value=0.028, Power=0.88). The head and neck IMRT gamma indexes have a mean of 93.1% and range of 82%-100% while the VMAT gamma indexes have a mean of 96.7% and range of 92%-100%. The two combined data sets of matched plans had a statistically insignificant Result (p-value=0.073, Power=0.99). Conclusion: Overall, IMRT and VMAT have equivalent passing rates when comparing the gamma analysis using a passing criterion of 3% DD and 3mm DTA. When separated by site, prostate IMRT and VMAT plans have equivalent passing rates while head and neck plans have a statistically significant variation of passing rates. The passing rates for the two modalities are independent of delivery machine for matched PTV target volumes.