Yudai Kai

Validation of fluence-based 3D IMRT dose reconstruction on a heterogeneous anthropomorphic phantom using Monte Carlo simulation

In this study, we evaluated the performance of a three‐dimensional (3D) dose verification system, COMPASS version 3, which has a dedicated beam models and dose calculation engine. It was possible to reconstruct the 3D dose distributions in patient anatomy based on the measured fluence using the MatriXX 2D array. The COMPASS system was compared with Monte Carlo simulation (MC), glass rod dosimeter (GRD), and 3DVH, using an anthropomorphic phantom for intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) dose verification in clinical neck cases. The GRD measurements agreed with the MC within 5% at most measurement points. In addition, most points for COMPASS and 3DVH also agreed with the MC within 5%. The COMPASS system showed better results than 3DVH for dose profiles due to individual adjustments, such as beam modeling for each linac. Regarding the dose‐volume histograms, there were no large differences between MC, analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) in Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS), 3DVH, and the COMPASS system. However, AAA underestimated the dose to the clinical target volume and Rt‐Parotid slightly. This is because AAA has some problems with dose calculation accuracy. Our results indicated that the COMPASS system offers highly accurate 3D dose calculation for clinical IMRT quality assurance. Also, the COMPASS system will be useful as a commissioning tool in routine clinical practice for TPS. PACS number: 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc, 87.61.Bj

Evaluation of a single-scan protocol for radiochromic film dosimetry

The purpose of this study was to evaluate a single‐scan protocol using Gafchromic EBT3 film (EBT3) by comparing it with the commonly used 24‐hr measurement protocol for radiochromic film dosimetry. Radiochromic film is generally scanned 24 hr after film exposure (24‐hr protocol). The single‐scan protocol enables measurement results within a short time using only the verification film, one calibration film, and unirradiated film. The single‐scan protocol was scanned 30 min after film irradiation. The EBT3 calibration curves were obtained with the multichannel film dosimetry method. The dose verifications for each protocol were performed with the step pattern, pyramid pattern, and clinical treatment plans for intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). The absolute dose distributions for each protocol were compared with those calculated by the treatment planning system (TPS) using gamma evaluation at 3% and 3 mm. The dose distribution for the single‐scan protocol was within 2% of the 24‐hr protocol dose distribution. For the step pattern, the absolute dose discrepancies between the TPS for the single‐scan and 24‐hr protocols were 2.0±1.8 cGy and 1.4±1.2 cGy at the dose plateau, respectively. The pass rates were 96.0% for the single‐scan protocol and 95.9% for the 24‐hr protocol. Similarly, the dose discrepancies for the pyramid pattern were 3.6±3.5 cGy and 2.9±3.3 cGy, respectively, while the pass rates for the pyramid pattern were 95.3% and 96.4%, respectively. The average pass rates for the four IMRT plans were 96.7%±1.8% for the single‐scan protocol and 97.3%±1.4% for the 24‐hr protocol. Thus, the single‐scan protocol measurement is useful for dose verification of IMRT, based on its accuracy and efficiency. PACS number: 87.55.Qr

Validation of a method for in vivo 3D dose reconstruction in SBRT using a new transmission detector

Abstract Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) involves the delivery of substantially larger doses over fewer fractions than conventional therapy. Therefore, SBRT treatments will strongly benefit patients using vivo patient dose verification, because the impact of the fraction is large. For in vivo measurements, a commercially available quality assurance (QA) system is the COMPASS system (IBA Dosimetry, Germany). For measurements, the system uses a new transmission detector (Dolphin, IBA Dosimetry). In this study, we evaluated the method for in vivo 3D dose reconstruction for SBRT using this new transmission detector. We confirmed the accuracy of COMPASS with Dolphin for SBRT using multi leaf collimator (MLC) test patterns and clinical SBRT cases. We compared the results between the COMPASS, the treatment planning system, the Kodak EDR2 film, and the Monte Carlo (MC) calculations. MLC test patterns were set up to investigate various aspects of dose reconstruction for SBRT: (a) simple open fields (2 × 2–10 × 10 cm2), (b) a square wave chart pattern, and (c) the MLC position detectability test in which the MLCs were changed slightly. In clinical cases, we carried out 6 and 8 static IMRT beams for SBRT in the lung and liver. For MLC test patterns, the differences between COMPASS and MC were around 3%. The COMPASS with the dolphin system showed sufficient resolution in SBRT. For clinical cases, COMPASS can detect small changes for the dose profile and dose–volume histogram. COMPASS also showed good agreement with MC. We can confirm the feasibility of SBRT QA using the COMPASS system with Dolphin. This method was successfully operated using the new transmission detector and verified by measurements and MC.

Plan quality and delivery time comparisons between volumetric modulated arc therapy and intensity modulated radiation therapy for scalp angiosarcoma: A planning study

Due to its spherical surface, scalp angiosarcoma requires careful consideration for radiation therapy planning and dose delivery. Herein, we investigated whether volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is superior to intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in terms of the plan quality and delivery time.

Image quality of four-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography obtained at various gantry rotation speeds for liver stereotactic body radiation therapy with fiducial markers

In this study, qualities of 4D cone-beam CT (CBCT) images obtained using various gantry rotation speeds (GRSs) for liver stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) with fiducial markers were quantitatively evaluated. Abdominal phantom containing a fiducial marker was moved along a sinusoidal waveform, and 4D-CBCT images were acquired with GRSs of 50-200° min-1. We obtained the 4D-CBCT projection data from six patients who underwent liver SBRT and generated 4D-CBCT images at GRSs of 67-200° min-1, by varying the number of projection data points. The image quality was evaluated based on the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and structural similarity index (SSIM). The fiducial marker positions with different GRSs were compared with the setup values and a reference position in the phantom and clinical studies, respectively. The root mean square errors (RMSEs) were calculated relative to the reference positions. In the phantom study, the mean SNR, CNR, and SSIM decreased from 37.6 to 10.1, from 39.8 to 10.1, and from 0.9 to 0.7, respectively, as the GRS increased from 50 to 200° min-1. The fiducial marker positions were within 2.0 mm at all GRSs. Similarly, in the clinical study, the mean SNR, CNR, and SSIM decreased from 50.4 to 13.7, from 24.2 to 6.0, and from 0.92 to 0.73, respectively. The mean RMSEs were 2.0, 2.1, and 3.6 mm for the GRSs of 67, 100, and 200° min-1, respectively. We conclude that GRSs of 67 and 85° min-1 yield images of acceptable quality for 4D-CBCT in liver SBRT with fiducial markers.

Effect of metal-containing topical agents on surface doses received during external irradiation

Abstract The ability of topical metal-containing agents (MCAs) to enhance radiation dermatitis remains controversial. In the present study, we evaluated increases in surface doses associated with topical agents at different application thicknesses and with MCAs versus non-metal containing agents (NMCAs). We assessed two clinically available MCAs, zinc oxide ointment (ZOO) and silver sulfadiazine cream (SSDC), and eight NMCAs. Surface doses were measured using a Markus chamber placed on a polystyrene phantom. To evaluate the role of application thickness, each agent was applied to the chamber in oil-slick (<0.1-mm), 1-mm and 5-mm layers prior to irradiation of a 10 × 10 cm field with 4-, 6- and 10-MV X-ray beams. The surface dose enhancement ratio (SDER) was calculated as the ratio of the surface dose with an agent to the dose without an agent. The SDER values for the eight NMCAs, ZOO and SSDC at an oil-slick thickness were 101.6–104.6% (mean: 103.3%), 104.5% and 105.0%, respectively, using a 6-MV X-ray beam. The corresponding values at a 1-mm thickness were 196.8–237.8% (mean: 215.7%), 229.3% and 201.4%, respectively, and those at a 5-mm thickness were 342.2–382.4% (mean: 357.9%), 357.1% and 352.6%, respectively. A similar tendency was found using 4- and 10-MV X-ray beams. The lack of a significant difference in surface dose enhancement between MCAs and NMCAs, particularly when applied in oil-slick layers, suggests that MCAs do not need to be avoided or applied in a restricted manner during radiotherapy for dosimetric reasons.

Comparison of 3-dimensional dose reconstruction system between fluence-based system and dose measurement-guided system.

COMPASS system (IBA Dosimetry, Schwarzenbruck, Germany) and ArcCHECK with 3DVH software (Sun Nuclear Corp., Melbourne, FL) are commercial quasi-3-dimensional (3D) dosimetry arrays. Cross-validation to compare them under the same conditions, such as a treatment plan, allows for clear evaluation of such measurement devices. In this study, we evaluated the accuracy of reconstructed dose distributions from the COMPASS system and ArcCHECK with 3DVH software using Monte Carlo simulation (MC) for multi-leaf collimator (MLC) test patterns and clinical VMAT plans. In a phantom study, ArcCHECK 3DVH showed clear differences from COMPASS, measurement and MC due to the detector resolution and the dose reconstruction method. Especially, ArcCHECK 3DVH showed 7% difference from MC for the heterogeneous phantom. ArcCHECK 3DVH only corrects the 3D dose distribution of treatment planning system (TPS) using ArcCHECK measurement, and therefore the accuracy of ArcCHECK 3DVH depends on TPS. In contrast, COMPASS showed good agreement with MC for all cases. However, the COMPASS system requires many complicated installation procedures such as beam modeling, and appropriate commissioning is needed. In terms of clinical cases, there were no large differences for each QA device. The accuracy of the compass and ArcCHECK 3DVH systems for phantoms and clinical cases was compared. Both systems have advantages and disadvantages for clinical use, and consideration of the operating environment is important. The QA system selection is depending on the purpose and workflow in each hospital.

Evaluation of target localization accuracy for image-guided radiation therapy by 3D and 4D cone-beam CT in the presence of respiratory motion: a phantom study

We evaluate the target definition accuracy of four-dimensional CT (4D-CT) simulation and target localization accuracy of 3D or 4D cone-beam CT (CBCT) in the presence of respiration. The target motion is modelled by a sine curve or a cos6 curve. The target volumes, shapes, and positions obtained from the 4D-CT simulation are compared with the static CT image and theoretical values of the phantom. Reference average intensity projection (AIP) and maximum intensity projection (MIP) images for target localization are generated from the 4D-CT simulation. Localization involves aligning the AIP/MIP to 3D cone-beam CT (3D-CBCT) or 4D cone-beam CT (4D-CBCT), and localization accuracy is evaluated from the difference in target position between the reference AIP/MIP image and 3D-CBCT/4D-CBCT measurements. 4D-CBCT also allows measurement of the target motion standard deviation (SD) and excursion (EX). The SD and EX errors are calculated with respect to the theoretical value of the phantom. The target volume and position accuracies obtained via 4D-CT at each phase are within 3.0% and 2.5 mm, respectively, of the static and theoretical values for the sine and cos6 curves. The target localization errors for 3D-CBCT are within 1.0 mm regardless of the EX variation and reference image for the sine curve, whereas the errors for the cos6 curve increase from 0.1 to 5.1 mm with increasing EX variation. In contrast, the 4D-CBCT localization errors are within 1.0 mm regardless of EX variation, reference image, and motion pattern. In addition, SD and EX errors, respectively, range from −1.3 to 0.1 mm and −2.2 to 0.1 mm (AIP) and from −4.4 to −2.7 mm and −13.5 to −4.2 mm (MIP). 4D-CBCT for AIP is more accurate than that for MIP. Target localization is simple and accurate for 3D-CBCT and 4D-CBCT with the AIP. However, 3D-CBCT is more inaccurate than 4D-CBCT when considering EX variations with the cos6 curve.