Yuji Nakaguchi

3D evaluation of 3DVH program using BANG3 polymer gel dosimeter

PURPOSE With the recent introduction of intensity modulated arc therapy techniques, there is an increasing need for validation of treatment delivery in three-dimensional (3D) space. A commercial dosimetry device ArcCHECK™ (Sun Nuclear Corporation, Melbourne, FL, USA) can be used in conjunction with 3DVH program. With this system, one can reconstruct the 3D dose distribution produced in the actual patient. In this work the authors evaluate the relative accuracy of the ArcCHECK™-3DVH system using BANG3 (MGS Research, Guilford, CT, USA) polymer gel dosimeter. METHODS About 15-cm diameter and 20-cm long cylindrical phantoms filled with BANG3 was used to simulate a patient, to which a volumetrically modulated arc therapy plan was created with Pinnacle3 treatment planning software (Philips Healthcare, Andover, MA, USA). The plan (76 Gy total in 38 fractions) was designed for prostate radiotherapy using a 6 MV photon beam from an Elekta Synergy linear accelerator (Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden). The treatment was delivered to the simulated patient. The same plan was used to irradiate an ArcCHECK™ device with an insert plug. The point dose at the isocenter was measured using a Farmer-type ionization chamber. The measured dose data were imported into the 3DVH program, which generated the 3D dose distributions projected onto the simulated patient. The dose data recorded in the polymer gel were read out using a MRI scanner and the 3D dose distribution delivered to the simulated patient was analyzed and compared with those from the 3DVH program and the Pinnacle3 software. The comparison was accomplished by using the gamma index, overlaying the isodose lines for a set of data on selected planes, and computing dose-volume histogram of structures. RESULTS The dose at the center of the ArcCHECK™ device measured with an ionization chamber was 1.82% lower than the dose predicted by Pinnacle3. The 3D dose distribution generated by Pinnacle3 was compared with those obtained by the ArcCHECK™-3DVH system and BANG3. The gamma passing rates for criteria of 3% dose difference, 3 mm distance-to-agreement, and 25% lower dose threshold were 99.1% for the former and 95.7% for the latter. The mean and maximum PTV doses estimated by the 3DVH were 74.0 and 79.3 Gy in comparison to 74.4 and 76.5 Gy with Pinnacle3. Those values for BANG3 measurements were 74.7 and 79.5 Gy. The mean doses to rectum were 40.2, 39.8, and 38.8 Gy for Pinnacle3, 3DVH, and BANG3, whereas the mean doses to the bladder were 26.7, 25.7, and 21.7 Gy, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The ArcCHECK™-3DVH system provides an accurate estimation of 3D dose distribution in an actual patient within a clinically meaningful tolerance level. However, both 3DVH and BANG3 showed two noticeable differences from Pinnacle3. First, the measured dose throughout the PTV region was less uniform than Pinnacle3. Second, the dose gradient at the interface between PTV and rectum was steeper than Pinnacle3 prediction. Further investigation may be able to identify the cause for these findings.

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

Longitudinal Changes over 2 Years in Parotid Glands of Patients Treated with Preoperative 30-Gy Irradiation for Oral Cancer

OBJECTIVE To evaluate longitudinal changes in parotid volumes and saliva production over 2 years after 30 Gy irradiation. METHODS We retrospectively evaluated 15 assessable patients treated for advanced oral cancer. Eligibility criteria were a pathologic diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma, preoperative radiation therapy with a total dose of 30 Gy delivered in 15 fractions, and the availability of longitudinal data of morphological assessments by computed tomography and functional assessments with the Saxon test spanning 2 years after radiation therapy. In the Saxon test, saliva production was measured by weighing a folded sterile gauze pad before and after chewing; the low-normal value is 2 g/2 min. Repeated-measures analysis of variance with Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons was used to determine the longitudinal changes. RESULTS The normalized ipsilateral parotid volumes 2 weeks and 6-, 12- and 24 months after radiation therapy were found to be 72.5, 63.7, 66.9 and 78.1%, respectively; the normalized contralateral volumes were 69.8, 64.6, 72.2 and 82.0%, respectively. The bilateral parotid volumes were significantly decreased after radiation therapy (P < 0.01). The nadir appeared at 6 months post-radiation therapy and the volumes substantially recuperated 24 months after radiation therapy (P < 0.01). Mean saliva production before radiation therapy was 3.7 g; the longitudinal changes after radiation therapy were 31.3, 38.0, 43.3 and 69.6%, respectively. Substantial recuperation of saliva production was observed 24 months after radiation therapy (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS Although parotid volumes and saliva production were decreased after 30 Gy irradiation, we observed the recuperation of morphological and functional changes in the parotid glands 2 years after radiation therapy.

Absorbed dose measurements for kV-cone beam computed tomography in image-guided radiation therapy.

In this study, we develope a novel method to directly evaluate an absorbed dose-to-water for kilovoltage-cone beam computed tomography (kV-CBCT) in image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT). Absorbed doses for the kV-CBCT systems of the Varian On-Board Imager (OBI) and the Elekta X-ray Volumetric Imager (XVI) were measured by a Farmer ionization chamber with a (60)Co calibration factor. The chamber measurements were performed at the center and four peripheral points in body-type (30 cm diameter and 51 cm length) and head-type (16 cm diameter and 33 cm length) cylindrical water phantoms. The measured ionization was converted to the absorbed dose-to-water by using a (60)Co calibration factor and a Monte Carlo (MC)-calculated beam quality conversion factor, kQ, for (60)Co to kV-CBCT. The irradiation for OBI and XVI was performed with pelvis and head modes for the body- and the head-type phantoms, respectively. In addition, the dose distributions in the phantom for both kV-CBCT systems were calculated with MC method and were compared with measured values. The MC-calculated doses were calibrated at the center in the water phantom and compared with measured doses at four peripheral points. The measured absorbed doses at the center in the body-type phantom were 1.96 cGy for OBI and 0.83 cGy for XVI. The peripheral doses were 2.36-2.90 cGy for OBI and 0.83-1.06 cGy for XVI. The doses for XVI were lower up to approximately one-third of those for OBI. Similarly, the measured doses at the center in the head-type phantom were 0.48 cGy for OBI and 0.21 cGy for XVI. The peripheral doses were 0.26-0.66 cGy for OBI and 0.16-0.30 cGy for XVI. The calculated peripheral doses agreed within 3% in the pelvis mode and within 4% in the head mode with measured doses for both kV-CBCT systems. In addition, the absorbed dose determined in this study was approximately 4% lower than that in TG-61 but the absorbed dose by both methods was in agreement within their combined uncertainty. This method is more robust and accurate compared to the dosimetry based on a conventional air-kerma calibration factor. Therefore, it is possible to be used as a standard dosimetry protocol for kV-CBCT in IGRT.

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

Development of multi-planar dose verification by use of a flat panel EPID for intensity-modulated radiation therapy

Our purpose in this study was to evaluate the accuracy of a new multi-planar dose measurement method. The multi-planar dose distributions were reconstructed at each depth by convolution of EPID fluence and dose kernels with the use of EPIDose software (SunNuclear). The EPIDose was compared with EPID, MapCHECK (SunNuclear), EDR2 (Kodak), and Monte Carlo-calculated dose profiles. The EPIDose profiles were almost in agreement with Monte Carlo-calculated dose profiles and MapCHECK for test plans. The dose profiles were in good agreement with EDR2 at the penumbra region. For dose distributions, EPIDose, EDR2, and MapCHECK agreed with that of the treatment-planning system at each depth in the gamma analysis. In comparisons of clinical IMRT plans, EPIDose had almost the same accuracy as MapCHECK and EDR2. Because EPIDose has a wide dynamic range and high resolution, it is a useful tool for the complicated IMRT verification. Furthermore, EPIDose can also evaluate the absolute dose.

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.

SU-F-T-364: Monte Carlo-Dose Verification of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Plans Using AAPM TG-119 Test Patterns

PURPOSE To investigate the Monte Carlo (MC)-based dose verification for VMAT plans by a treatment planning system (TPS). METHODS The AAPM TG-119 test structure set was used for VMAT plans by the Pinnacle3 (convolution/superposition), using a Synergy radiation head of a 6 MV beam with the Agility MLC. The Synergy was simulated with the EGSnrc/BEAMnrc code, and VMAT dose distributions were calculated with the EGSnrc/DOSXYZnrc code by the same irradiation conditions as TPS. VMAT dose distributions of TPS and MC were compared with those of EBT3 film, by 2-D gamma analysis of ±3%/3 mm criteria with a threshold of 30% of prescribed doses. VMAT dose distributions between TPS and MC were also compared by DVHs and 3-D gamma analysis of ±3%/3 mm criteria with a threshold of 10%, and 3-D passing rates for PTVs and OARs were analyzed. RESULTS TPS dose distributions differed from those of film, especially for Head & neck. The dose difference between TPS and film results from calculation accuracy for complex motion of MLCs like tongue and groove effect. In contrast, MC dose distributions were in good agreement with those of film. This is because MC can model fully the MLC configuration and accurately reproduce the MLC motion between control points in VMAT plans. D95 of PTV for Prostate, Head & neck, C-shaped, and Multi Target was 97.2%, 98.1%, 101.6%, and 99.7% for TPS and 95.7%, 96.0%, 100.6%, and 99.1% for MC, respectively. Similarly, 3-D gamma passing rates of each PTV for TPS vs. MC were 100%, 89.5%, 99.7%, and 100%, respectively. 3-D passing rates of TPS reduced for complex VMAT fields like Head & neck because MLCs are not modeled completely for TPS. CONCLUSION MC-calculated VMAT dose distributions is useful for the 3-D dose verification of VMAT plans by TPS.