Search

Historically, total body irradiation (TBI) has been delivered using static, parallel opposed photon beams (2D-TBI). Recently, centers have increasingly used intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) techniques for TBI. Relative to 2D-TBI, IMRT can reduce doses to critical organs (i.e., lungs and kidneys) while delivering myeloablative doses to the rest of the body, so it may decrease the risk of toxicity while maintaining oncologic outcomes. Despite these potential benefits, delivering TBI using IMRT introduces new challenges in treatment planning and delivery. We describe the extensive experience with IMRT-based TBI at Stanford University and City of Hope Cancer Center. These groups, and others, have reported favorable clinical outcomes and have developed methods to optimize treatment planning and delivery. A critical next step is to evaluate the broader adoption of this approach. Therefore, IMRT-based TBI will be incorporated into a prospective, multi-institutional Children's Oncology Group study with careful procedures and safeguards in place., (© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: The Joint AAPM-ESTRO TG-360 is developing a quantitative framework to evaluate treatment verification systems used for patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA). A subgroup was commissioned to determine which potential failure modes had the greatest risk to treatment quality and safety, and therefore should be evaluated as part of the PSQA verification., Purpose: To create an extensive database of potential radiotherapy failure modes that should be detected by PSQA and to determine their relative importance for maximizing treatment quality., Methods: The subgroup consisted of eight physicists from seven countries, including representatives from three international quality assurance groups. We collected error reports from RO-ILS, SAFRON, AAPM TG publications, and other literature, including international audits. We focused on the subset of failure modes that impact whether the planned dose matches the dose received by the patient. We performed a failure-mode-and-effects analysis (FMEA), estimating the severity (S), occurrence (O), and detectability (D) of each failure mode. Detectability was scored assuming that PSQA was not done but other routine clinical QA was performed, which allowed us to see the importance of PSQA for detecting each specific failure mode. We analyzed the risk priority number (RPN = O*S*D), O*S, and severity rankings to determine the priority of each failure mode., Results: We collected 394 error reports, which we categorized into 33 failure modes that underwent FMEA. Five failure modes were in the top ranks for both RPN and O*S analysis: four involving treatment planning system (TPS) commissioning and one regarding patient model errors. The highest-ranking RPN failure modes were: TPS algorithm limitations, TPS commissioning errors [multileaf collimator (MLC) modeling, output factor, percent-depth-dose/tissue-maximum-ratio (PDD/TMR), off-axis factor], and patient weight variation. The highest O*S failure modes were similar, with the addition of external patient position variation and incorrect linear accelerator isocenter and cGy/monitor units calibration. RPN and O*S analyses prioritized failure modes that impacted multiple patients with high occurrence and detectability scores, while severity analysis gave higher priority to single-patient modes with high severity scores. The highest-ranking severity modes were MLC sequence deletion, collision, and TPS isocenter incorrect., Conclusion: We have developed a list of failure modes critical to be detected during PSQA and ranked them in order of importance. The top failure modes emphasize the importance of utilizing a variety of treatment verification systems for PSQA, from secondary dose calculation through in-vivo dosimetry, in order to detect all possible errors. For failure modes in the top quartile, PSQA is critical. Without adequate PSQA, these errors may go undetected unless caught by an external audit. This analysis can be useful for optimizing PSQA workflows and for designing evaluations of treatment verification systems, and will be used by the Joint AAPM-ESTRO TG-360 to determine an appropriate validation strategy., (© 2024 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.)

Background: Clinical intensity modulated radiation therapy plans have been described using various complexity metrics to help identify problematic radiotherapy plans. Most previous studies related to the quantification of plan complexity and their utility have relied on institution-specific plans which can be highly variable depending on the machines, planning techniques, delivery modalities, and measurement devices used. In this work, 1723 plans treating one of only four standardized geometries were simultaneously analyzed to investigate how radiation plan complexity metrics vary across four different sets of common objectives., Purpose: To assess the treatment plan complexity characteristics of plans developed for Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) phantoms. Specifically, to understand the variability in plan complexity between institutions for a common plan objective, and to evaluate how various complexity metrics differentiate relevant groups of plans., Methods: 1723 plans treating one of four standardized IROC phantom geometries representing four different anatomical sites of treatment were analyzed. For each plan, 22 MLC-descriptive plan complexity metrics were calculated, and principal component analysis (PCA) was applied to the 22 metrics in order to evaluate differences in plan complexity between groups. Across all metrics, pairwise comparisons of the IROC phantom data were made for the following classifications of the data: anatomical phantom treated, treatment planning system (TPS), and the combination of MLC model and treatment planning system. An objective k-means clustering algorithm was also applied to the data to determine if any meaningful distinctions could be made between different subgroups. The IROC phantom database was also compared to a clinical database from the University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW) which included plans treating the same four anatomical sites as the IROC phantoms using a TrueBeam™ STx and Pinnacle 3 TPS., Results: The IROC head and neck and spine plans were distinct from the prostate and lung plans based on comparison of the 22 metrics. All IROC phantom plan group complexity metric distributions were highly variable despite all plans being designed for identical geometries and plan objectives. The clusters determined by the k-means algorithm further supported that the IROC head and neck and spine plans involved similar amounts of complexity and were largely distinct from the prostate and lung plans, but no further distinctions could be made. Plan complexity in the head and neck and spine IROC phantom plans were similar to the complexity encountered in the UW clinical plans., Conclusions: There is substantial variability in plan complexity between institutions when planning for the same objective. For each IROC anatomical phantom treated, the magnitude of variability in plan complexity between institutions is similar to the variability in plan complexity encountered within a single institution database containing several hundred unique clinical plans treating corresponding anatomies in actual patients., (© 2024 The Authors. Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.)

Clinical trials have been the center of progress in modern medicine. In oncology, we are fortunate to have a structure in place through the National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN). The NCTN provides the infrastructure and a forum for scientific discussion to develop clinical concepts for trial design. The NCTN also provides a network group structure to administer trials for successful trial management and outcome analyses. There are many important aspects to trial design and conduct. Modern trials need to ensure appropriate trial conduct and secure data management processes. Of equal importance is the quality assurance of a clinical trial. If progress is to be made in oncology clinical medicine, investigators and patient care providers of service need to feel secure that trial data is complete, accurate, and well-controlled in order to be confident in trial analysis and move trial outcome results into daily practice. As our technology has matured, so has our need to apply technology in a uniform manner for appropriate interpretation of trial outcomes. In this article, we review the importance of quality assurance in clinical trials involving radiation therapy. We will include important aspects of institution and investigator credentialing for participation as well as ongoing processes to ensure that each trial is being managed in a compliant manner. We will provide examples of the importance of complete datasets to ensure study interpretation. We will describe how successful strategies for quality assurance in the past will support new initiatives moving forward., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: To analyze trends in institutional performance and failure modes for the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core's (IROC's) proton liver phantom., Materials and Methods: Results of 66 phantom irradiations from 28 institutions between 2015 and 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Univariate analysis and random forest models were used to associate irradiation conditions with phantom results. Phantom results included pass/fail classification, average thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) ratio of both targets, and percentage of pixels passing gamma of both targets. The following categories were evaluated in terms of how they predicted these outcomes: irradiation year, treatment planning system (TPS), TPS algorithm, treatment machine, number of irradiations, treatment technique, motion management technique, number of isocenters, and superior-inferior extent (in cm) of the 90% TPS isodose line for primary target 1 (PTV1) and primary target 2 (PTV2). In addition, failures were categorized by failure mode., Results: Average pass rate was approximately 52% and average TLD ratio for both targets had slightly improved. As the treatment field increased to cover the target, the pass rate statistically significantly fell. Lower pass rates were observed for Mevion machines, scattered irradiation techniques, and gating and internal target volume (ITV) motion management techniques. Overall, the accuracy of the random forest modeling of the phantom results was approximately 73% ± 14%. The most important predictor was the superior-inferior extent for both targets and irradiation year. Three failure modes dominated the failures of the phantom: (1) systematic underdosing, (2) poor localization in the superior-inferior direction, and (3) range error. Only 44% of failures have similar failure modes between the 2 targets., Conclusion: Improvement of the proton liver phantom has been observed; however, the pass rate remains the lowest among all IROC phantoms. Through various analysis techniques, range uncertainty, motion management, and underdosing are the main culprits of failures of the proton liver phantom. Clinically, careful consideration of the influences of liver proton therapy is needed to improve phantom performance and patient outcome., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose., (©Copyright 2023 The Author(s).)

Purpose: The Medical Physics Working Group of the Radiation Therapy Study Group at the Japan Clinical Oncology Group is currently developing a virtual audit system for intensity-modulated radiation therapy dosimetry credentialing. The target dosimeters include films and array detectors, such as ArcCHECK (Sun Nuclear Corporation, Melbourne, Florida, USA) and Delta4 (ScandiDos, Uppsala, Sweden). This pilot study investigated the feasibility of our virtual audit system using previously acquired data., Methods: We analyzed 46 films (32 and 14 in the axial and coronal planes, respectively) from 29 institutions. Global gamma analysis between measured and planned dose distributions used the following settings: 3%/3 mm criteria (the dose denominator was 2 Gy), 30% threshold dose, no scaling of the datasets, and 90% tolerance level. In addition, 21 datasets from nine institutions were obtained for array evaluation. Five institutions used ArcCHECK, while the others used Delta4. Global gamma analysis was performed with 3%/2 mm criteria (the dose denominator was the maximum calculated dose), 10% threshold dose, and 95% tolerance level. The film calibration and gamma analysis were conducted with in-house software developed using Python (version 3.9.2)., Results: The means ± standard deviations of the gamma passing rates were 99.4 ± 1.5% (range, 92.8%-100%) and 99.2 ± 1.0% (range, 97.0%-100%) in the film and array evaluations, respectively., Conclusion: This pilot study demonstrated the feasibility of virtual audits. The proposed virtual audit system will contribute to more efficient, cheaper, and more rapid trial credentialing than on-site and postal audits; however, the limitations should be considered when operating our virtual audit system., (© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of The American Association of Physicists in Medicine.)

Clinical trials have become the primary mechanism to validate process improvements in oncology clinical practice. Over the past two decades there have been considerable process improvements in the practice of radiation oncology within the structure of a modern department using advanced technology for patient care. Treatment planning is accomplished with volume definition including fusion of multiple series of diagnostic images into volumetric planning studies to optimize the definition of tumor and define the relationship of tumor to normal tissue. Daily treatment is validated by multiple tools of image guidance. Computer planning has been optimized and supported by the increasing use of artificial intelligence in treatment planning. Informatics technology has improved, and departments have become geographically transparent integrated through informatics bridges creating an economy of scale for the planning and execution of advanced technology radiation therapy. This serves to provide consistency in department habits and improve quality of patient care. Improvements in normal tissue sparing have further improved tolerance of treatment and allowed radiation oncologists to increase both daily and total dose to target. Radiation oncologists need to define a priori dose volume constraints to normal tissue as well as define how image guidance will be applied to each radiation treatment. These process improvements have enhanced the utility of radiation therapy in patient care and have made radiation therapy an attractive option for care in multiple primary disease settings. In this chapter we review how these changes have been applied to clinical practice and incorporated into clinical trials. We will discuss how the changes in clinical practice have improved the quality of clinical trials in radiation therapy. We will also identify what gaps remain and need to be addressed to offer further improvements in radiation oncology clinical trials and patient care., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Smith, Ulin, Knopp, Kry, Xiao, Rosen, Michalski, Iandoli, Laurie, Quigley, Reifler, Santiago, Briggs, Kirby, Schmitter, Prior, Saltz, Sharma, Bishop-Jodoin, Moni, Cicchetti and FitzGerald.)

Background: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is a common treatment for intracranial lesions. This work explores the state of SRS treatment delivery to characterize current treatment accuracy based on treatment parameters., Methods: NCI clinical trials involving SRS rely on an end-to-end treatment delivery on a patient surrogate (credentialing phantom) from the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) to test their treatment accuracy. The results of 1072 SRS phantom irradiations between 2012 and 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Univariate analysis and random forest models were used to associate irradiation conditions with phantom performance. The following categories were evaluated in terms of how they predicted outcomes: year of irradiation, TPS algorithm, machine model, energy, and delivered field size., Results: Overall, only 84.6% of irradiations have met the IROC/NCI acceptability criteria. Pass rate has remained constant over time, while dose calculation accuracy has slightly improved. Dose calculation algorithm ( P < .001), collimator ( P = .024), and field size ( P < .001) were statistically significant predictors of pass/fail. Specifically, pencil beam algorithms and cone collimators were more likely to be associated with failing phantom results. Random forest modeling identified the size of the field as the most important factor for passing or failing followed by algorithm., Conclusion: Constant throughout this retrospective study, approximately 15% of institutions fail to meet IROC/NCI standards for SRS treatment. In current clinical practice, this is particularly associated with smaller fields that yielded less accurate results. There is ongoing need to improve small field dosimetry, beam modeling, and QA to ensure high treatment quality, patient safety, and optimal clinical trials., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press, the Society for Neuro-Oncology and the European Association of Neuro-Oncology.)

Introduction: To investigate the impact of partial lateral scatter (LS), backscatter (BS) and presence of air gaps on optically stimulated luminescence dosimeter (OSLD) measurements in an acrylic miniphantom used for dosimetry audit on the 1.5 T magnetic resonance-linear accelerator (MR-linac) system., Methods: The following irradiation geometries were investigated using OSLDs, A26 MR/A12 MR ion chamber (IC), and Monaco Monte Carlo system: (a) IC/OSLD in an acrylic miniphantom (partial LS, partial BS), (b) IC/OSLD in a miniphantom placed on a solid water (SW) stack at a depth of 1.5 cm (partial LS, full BS), (c) IC/OSLD placed at a depth of 1.5 cm inside a 3 cm slab of SW/buildup (full LS, partial BS), and (d) IC/OSLD centered inside a 3 cm slab of SW/buildup at a depth of 1.5 cm placed on top of a SW stack (full LS, full BS). Average of two irradiated OSLDs with and without water was used at each setup. An air gap of 1 and 2 mm, mimicking presence of potential air gap around the OSLDs in the miniphantom geometry was also simulated. The calibration condition of the machine was 1 cGy/MU at SAD = 143.5 cm, d = 5 cm, G90, and 10 × 10 cm 2 ., Results: The Monaco calculation (0.5% uncertainty and 1.0 mm voxel size) for the four setups at the measurement point were 108.2, 108.1, 109.4, and 110.0 cGy. The corresponding IC measurements were 109.0 ± 0.03, 109.5 ± 0.06, 110.2 ± 0.02, and 109.8 ± 0.03 cGy. Without water, OSLDs measurements were ∼10% higher than the expected. With added water to minimize air gaps, the measurements were significantly improved to within 2.2%. The dosimetric impacts of 1 and 2 mm air gaps were also verified with Monaco to be 13.3% and 27.9% higher, respectively, due to the electron return effect., Conclusions: A minimal amount of air around or within the OSLDs can cause measurement discrepancies of 10% or higher when placed in a high b-field MR-linac system. Care must be taken to eliminate the air from within and around the OSLD., (© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of The American Association of Physicists in Medicine.)

Purpose: Quality assurance (QA) practices improve the quality level of oncology trials by ensuring that the protocol is followed and the results are valid and reproducible. This study investigated the utilization of QA among randomized controlled trials that involve radiotherapy (RT)., Methods and Materials: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in February 2020 for all phase III oncology randomized clinical trials (RCTs). These trials were screened for RT-specific RCTs that had published primary trial results. Information regarding QA in each trial was collected from the study publications and trial protocol if available. Two individuals independently performed trial screening and data collection. Pearson's Chi-square tests analyses were used to assess factors that were associated with QA inclusion in RT trials., Results: Forty-two RCTs with RT as the primary intervention or as a mandatory component of the protocol were analyzed; the earliest was started in 1994 and one trial was still active though not recruiting. Twenty-nine (69%) trials mandated RT quality assurance (RTQA) practices as part of the trial protocol, with 19 (45%) trials requiring institutional credentialing. Twenty-one (50%) trials published protocol deviation outcomes. Clinical trials involving advanced radiation techniques (IMRT, VMAT, SRS, SBRT) did not include more RTQA than trials without these advanced techniques (73% vs. 65%, p = 0.55). Trials that reported protocol deviation outcomes were associated with mandating RTQA in their protocols as compared to trials that did not report these outcomes (100% vs. 38%, p < 0.001)., Conclusions: There is a lack of RTQA utilization and transparency in RT clinical trials. It is imperative for RT trials to include increased QA for safe, consistent, and high-quality RT planning and delivery., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Dr. Prajnan Das: Honorarium: ASCO, ASTRO, NCI/Leidos, Physicians Education Resource, Conveners (all unrelated to this manuscript’s content). No other authors report any conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Microdosimetry is an important tool for assessing energy deposition distributions from ionizing radiation at cellular and cellular nucleus scales. It has served as an input parameter for multiple common mathematical models, including evaluation of relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of carbon ion therapy. The most common detector used for microdosimetry is the tissue-equivalent proportional counter (TEPC). Although it is widely applied, TEPC has various inherent uncertainties. Therefore, this work quantified the magnitude of TEPC measurement uncertainties and their impact on RBE estimates for therapeutic carbon beams. Microdosimetric spectra and frequency-, dose-, and saturation-corrected dose-mean lineal energy (****) were calculated using the Monte Carlo toolkit Geant4 for five monoenergetic and three spread-out Bragg peak carbon beams in water at every millimeter along the central beam axis. We simulated the following influences on these spectra from eight sources of uncertainty: wall effects, pulse pile-up, electronics, gas pressure, W-value, gain instability, low energy cut-off, and counting statistics. Statistic uncertainty was quantified as the standard deviation of perturbed values for each source. Bias was quantified as the difference between default lineal energy values and the mean of perturbed values for each systematic source. Uncertainties were propagated to RBE using the modified microdosimetric kinetic model (MKM). Variance introduced by statistic sources iny¯Fandy¯Daveraged 3.8% and 3.4%, respectively, and 1.5% iny*across beam depths and energies. Bias averaged 6.2% and 7.3% iny¯Fandy¯D,and 4.8% iny*.These uncertainties corresponded to 1.2 ± 0.9% on average in RBE MKM . The largest contributors to variance and bias were pulse pile-up and wall effects. This study established an error budget for microdosimetric carbon measurements by quantifying uncertainty inherent to TEPC measurements. It is necessary to understand how robust the measurement of RBE model input parameters are against this uncertainty in order to verify clinical model implementation., (© 2021 Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine.)

Purpose: To provide a series of suggestions for other Medical Physics practices to follow in order to provide effective radiation therapy treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods and Materials: We reviewed our entire Radiation Oncology infrastructure to identify a series of workflows and policy changes that we implemented during the pandemic that yielded more effective practices during this time., Results: We identified a structured list of several suggestions that can help other Medical Physics practices overcome the challenges involved in delivering high quality radiotherapy services during this pandemic., Conclusions: Our facility encompasses 4 smaller Houston Area Locations (HALs), a main campus with 8 distinct services based on treatment site (ie. Thoracic, Head and Neck, Breast, Gastrointestinal, Gynecology, Genitourinary, Hematologic Malignancies, Melanoma and Sarcoma and Central Nervous System/Pediatrics), a Proton Center facility, an MR-Linac, a Gamma Knife clinic and an array of brachytherapy services. Due to the scope of our services, we have gained experience in dealing with the rapidly changing pandemic effects on our clinical practice. Our paper provides a resource to other Medical Physics practices in search of workflows that have been resilient during these challenging times., (© 2021 The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.)

The Children's Oncology Group (COG) has a strong quality assurance (QA) program managed by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC). This program consists of credentialing centers and providing real-time management of each case for protocol compliant target definition and radiation delivery. In the International Society of Pediatric Oncology (SIOP), the lack of an available, reliable online data platform has been a challenge and the European Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOPE) quality and excellence in radiotherapy and imaging for children and adolescents with cancer across Europe in clinical trials (QUARTET) program currently provides QA review for prospective clinical trials. The COG and SIOP are fully committed to a QA program that ensures uniform execution of protocol treatments and provides validity of the clinical data used for analysis., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background and Purpose: Artefacts caused by dental amalgam implants present a common challenge in computed tomography (CT) and therefore treatment planning dose calculations. The goal was to perform a quantitative image quality analysis of our Artifact Management for Proton Planning (AMPP) algorithm which used gantry tilts for managing metal artefacts on Head and Neck (HN) CT scans and major vendors' commercial approaches., Materials and Methods: Metal artefact reduction (MAR) algorithms were evaluated using an anthropomorphic phantom with a removable jaw for the acquisition of images with and without (baseline) metal artifacts. AMPP made use of two angled CT scans to generate one artifact-reduced image set. The MAR algorithms from four vendors were applied to the images with artefacts and the analysis was performed with respective baselines. Planar HU difference maps and volumetric HU differences were analyzed., Results: AMPP algorithm outperformed all vendors' commercial approaches in the elimination of artefacts in the oropharyngeal region, showing the lowest percent of pixels outside +- 20 HU criteria, 4%; whereas those in the MAR-corrected images ranged from 26% to 67%. In the region of interest within the affected slices, the commercial MAR algorithms showed inconsistent performance, whereas the AMPP algorithm performed consistently well throughout the phantom's posterior region., Conclusions: A novel MAR algorithm was evaluated and compared to four commercial algorithms using an anthropomorphic phantom. Unanimously, the analysis showed the AMPP algorithm outperformed vendors' commercial approaches, showing the potential to be broadly implemented, improve visualizations in patient anatomy and provide accurate HU information., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2021 The Authors.)

Purpose: To compare the dosimetric impact of all major commercial vendors' metal artifact reduction (MAR) algorithms to one another, as well as to a novel in-house technique (AMPP) using an anthropomorphic head phantom., Materials and Methods: The phantom was an Alderson phantom, modified to allow for artifact-filled and baseline (no artifacts) computed tomography (CT) scans using teeth capsules made with metal amalgams or bone-equivalent materials. It also included a cylindrical insert that was accessible from the bottom of the neck and designed to introduce soft tissue features into the phantom that were used in the analysis. The phantom was scanned with the metal teeth in place using each respective vendor's MAR algorithm: OMAR (Philips), iMAR (Siemens), SEMAR (Canon), and SmartMAR (GE); the AMPP algorithm was designed in-house. Uncorrected and baseline (bone-equivalent teeth) image sets were also acquired using a Siemens scanner. Proton spot scanning treatment plans were designed on the baseline image set for five targets in the phantom. Once optimized, the proton beams were copied onto the different artifact-corrected image sets, with no reoptimization of the beams' parameters, to evaluate dose distribution differences in the different MAR-corrected and -uncorrected image sets. Dose distribution differences were evaluated by comparing dose-volume histogram (DVH) metrics, including planning target volume D95 and clinical target volume D99 coverages, V100, D0.03cc, and heterogeneity indexes, along with a qualitative and water equivalent thickness (WET) analysis., Results: Uncorrected CT metal artifacts and commercial MAR algorithms negatively impacted the proton dose distributions of all five target shapes and locations in an inconsistent manner, sometimes overdosing by as much as 11.1% (D0.03) or underdosing by as much as 11.7% (V100) the planning target volumes. The AMPP-corrected images, however, provided dose distributions that consistently agreed with the baseline dose distribution. The dosimetry results also suggest that the commercial MAR algorithms' performances varied more with target location and less with target shape. Once relocated further from the metal, the target showed dose distributions that agreed more with the baseline for all commercial solutions, improving the overdosing by as much as 6%, implying inadequate HU correction from commercial MAR algorithms. In comparison to the baseline, HU profile shapes were considerably altered by commercial algorithms and reference values showed differences that represent stopping power percentage differences of 2.7-10%. The AMPP algorithm plans showed the smallest WET differences with the baseline (0.06 cm on average), while the commercial image sets created differences that ranged from 0.11 to 0.54 cm., Conclusions: Computed tomography metal artifacts negatively impacted proton dose distributions on all five targets analyzed. The commercial MAR solutions performed inconsistently throughout all targets compared to the metal-free baseline. A lack of CTV coverage and an increased number of hotspots were observed throughout all commercial solutions. Dose distribution errors were related to the proximity to the artifacts, demonstrating the inability of commercial techniques to adequately correct severe artifacts. In contrast, AMPP consistently showed dose distributions that best matched the baseline, likely because it makes use of accurate HU information, as opposed to interpolated data like commercial algorithms., (© 2020 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.)

Purpose: To develop a tool for the automatic contouring of clinical treatment volumes (CTVs) and normal tissues for radiotherapy treatment planning in cervical cancer patients., Methods: An auto-contouring tool based on convolutional neural networks (CNN) was developed to delineate three cervical CTVs and 11 normal structures (seven OARs, four bony structures) in cervical cancer treatment for use with the Radiation Planning Assistant, a web-based automatic plan generation system. A total of 2254 retrospective clinical computed tomography (CT) scans from a single cancer center and 210 CT scans from a segmentation challenge were used to train and validate the CNN-based auto-contouring tool. The accuracy of the tool was evaluated by calculating the Sørensen-dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and mean surface and Hausdorff distances between the automatically generated contours and physician-drawn contours on 140 internal CT scans. A radiation oncologist scored the automatically generated contours on 30 external CT scans from three South African hospitals., Results: The average DSC, mean surface distance, and Hausdorff distance of our CNN-based tool were 0.86/0.19 cm/2.02 cm for the primary CTV, 0.81/0.21 cm/2.09 cm for the nodal CTV, 0.76/0.27 cm/2.00 cm for the PAN CTV, 0.89/0.11 cm/1.07 cm for the bladder, 0.81/0.18 cm/1.66 cm for the rectum, 0.90/0.06 cm/0.65 cm for the spinal cord, 0.94/0.06 cm/0.60 cm for the left femur, 0.93/0.07 cm/0.66 cm for the right femur, 0.94/0.08 cm/0.76 cm for the left kidney, 0.95/0.07 cm/0.84 cm for the right kidney, 0.93/0.05 cm/1.06 cm for the pelvic bone, 0.91/0.07 cm/1.25 cm for the sacrum, 0.91/0.07 cm/0.53 cm for the L4 vertebral body, and 0.90/0.08 cm/0.68 cm for the L5 vertebral bodies. On average, 80% of the CTVs, 97% of the organ at risk, and 98% of the bony structure contours in the external test dataset were clinically acceptable based on physician review., Conclusions: Our CNN-based auto-contouring tool performed well on both internal and external datasets and had a high rate of clinical acceptability., (© 2020 The Authors. Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.)

Dental amalgams are a common source of artifacts in head and neck (HN) images. Commercial artifact reduction techniques have been offered, but are substantially ineffectual at reducing artifacts from dental amalgams, can produce additional artifacts, provide inaccurate HU information, or require extensive computation time, and thus offer limited clinically utility. The goal of this work was to define and validate a novel algorithm and provide a phantom-based testing as proof of principle. An initial clinical comparison to a vendor's current solution was also performed. The algorithm uses two-angled CT scans in order to generate a single image set with minimal artifacts posterior to the metal implants. The algorithm was evaluated using a phantom simulating a HN patient with dental fillings. Baseline (no artifacts) geometrical measurements of the phantom were taken in the anterior-posterior, left-right, and superior-inferior directions and compared to the metal-corrected images using our algorithm to evaluate possible distortion from application of the algorithm. Mean HU numbers were also compared between the baseline scan and corrected image sets. A similar analysis was performed on the vendor's algorithm for comparison. The algorithm developed in this work successfully preserved the image geometry and HU and corrected the CT metal artifacts in the region posterior to the metal. The average total distortion for all gantry angles in the AP, LR, and SI directions was 0.17, 0.12, and 0.14 mm, respectively. The HU measurements showed significant consistency throughout the different reconstructed images when compared to the baseline image sets. The vendor's algorithm also showed no geometrical distortion but performed inferiorly in the HU number analysis compared to our technique. Our novel metal artifact management algorithm, using CT gantry angle tilts, provides a promising technique for clinical management of metal artifacts from dental amalgam., (© 2020 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.)

Purpose: Consistency between different international quality assurance groups is important in the progress toward similar standards and expectations in radiotherapy dosimetry around the world, and in the context of consistent clinical trial data from international trial participants. This study compares the dosimetry audit methodology and results of two international quality assurance groups performing a side-by-side comparison at the same radiotherapy department, and interrogates the ability of the audits to detect deliberately introduced errors., Methods: A comparison of the core dosimetry components of reference and non-reference audits was conducted by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC, Houston, USA) and the Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service (ACDS, Melbourne, Australia). A set of measurements were conducted over 2 days at an Australian radiation therapy facility in Melbourne. Each group evaluated the reference dosimetry, output factors, small field output factors, percentage depth dose (PDD), wedge, and off-axis factors according to their standard protocols. IROC additionally investigated the Electron PDD and the ACDS investigated the effect of heterogeneities. In order to evaluate and compare the performance of these audits under suboptimal conditions, artificial errors in percentage depth dose (PDD), EDW, and small field output factors were introduced into the 6 MV beam model to simulate potential commissioning/modeling errors and both audits were tested for their sensitivity in detecting these errors., Results: With the plans from the clinical beam model, almost all results were within tolerance and at an optimal pass level. Good consistency was found between the two audits as almost all findings were consistent between them. Only two results were different between the results of IROC and the ACDS. The measurements of reference FFF photons showed a discrepancy of 0.7% between ACDS and IROC due to the inclusion of a 0.5% nonuniformity correction by the ACDS. The second difference between IROC and the ACDS was seen with the lung phantom. The asymmetric field behind lung measured by the ACDS was slightly (0.3%) above the ACDS's pass (optimal) level of 3.3%. IROC did not detect this issue because their measurements were all assessed in a homogeneous phantom. When errors were deliberately introduced neither audit was sensitive enough to pick up a 2% change to the small field output factors. The introduced PDD change was flagged by both audits. Similarly, the introduced error of using 25° wedge instead of 30° wedge was detectible in both audits as out of tolerance., Conclusions: Despite different equipment, approach, and scope of measurements in on-site audits, there were clear similarities between the results from the two groups. This finding is encouraging in the context of a global harmonized approach to radiotherapy quality assurance and dosimetry audit., (© 2019 The Authors. Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.)

Imaging is essential in successfully executing radiation therapy (RT) in oncology clinical trials. As technically sophisticated diagnostic imaging and RT were incorporated into trials, quality assurance in the National Clinical Trials Network groups entered a new era promoting image acquisition and review. Most trials involving RT require pre- and post-therapy imaging for target validation and outcome assessment. The increasing real-time (before and during therapy) imaging and RT object reviews are to ensure compliance with trial objectives. Objects easily transmit digitally for review from anywhere in the world. Physician interpretation of imaging and image application to RT treatment plans is essential for optimal trial execution. Imaging and RT data sets are used to credential RT sites to confirm investigator and institutional ability to meet trial target volume delineation and delivery requirements. Real-time imaging and RT object reviews can be performed multiple times during a trial to assess response to therapy and application of RT objects. This process has matured into an effective data management mechanism. When necessary, site and study investigators review objects together through web media technologies to ensure the patient is enrolled on the appropriate trial and the intended RT is planned and executed in a trial-compliant manner. Real-time imaging review makes sure: (1) the patient is entered and eligible for the trial, (2) the patient meets trial-specific adaptive therapy requirements, if applicable, and (3) the intended RT is according to trial guidelines. This review ensures the study population is uniform and the results are believable and can be applied to clinical practice., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core QA Center in Houston (IROC-H) performs remote dosimetry audits of more than 20,000 megavoltage photon and electron beams each year. Both a thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD-100) and optically stimulated luminescent dosimeter (OSLD; nanoDot) system are commissioned for this task, with the OSLD system being predominant due to the more time-efficient read-out process. The measurement apparatus includes 3 TLD or 2 OSLD in an acrylic mini-phantom, which are irradiated by the institution under reference geometry. Dosimetry systems are calibrated based on the signal-to-dose conversion established with reference dosimeters irradiated in a Co-60 beam, using a reference dose of 300 cGy for TLD and 100 cGy for OSLD. The uncertainty in the dose determination is 1.3% for TLD and 1.6% for OSLD at the one sigma level. This accuracy allows for a tolerance of ±5% to be used.

Purpose: To test the hypothesis that intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) reduces acute hematologic and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity for patients with locoregionally advanced cervical cancer., Methods and Materials: We enrolled patients with stage IB-IVA cervical carcinoma in a single-arm phase II trial involving 8 centers internationally. All patients received weekly cisplatin concurrently with once-daily IMRT, followed by intracavitary brachytherapy, as indicated. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of either acute grade ≥3 neutropenia or clinically significant GI toxicity within 30 days of completing chemoradiation therapy. A preplanned subgroup analysis tested the hypothesis that positron emission tomography-based image-guided IMRT (IG-IMRT) would lower the risk of acute neutropenia. We also longitudinally assessed patients' changes in quality of life., Results: From October 2011 to April 2015, 83 patients met the eligibility criteria and initiated protocol therapy. The median follow-up was 26.0 months. The incidence of any primary event was 26.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 18.2%-36.9%), significantly lower than the 40% incidence hypothesized a priori from historical data (P=.012). The incidence of grade ≥3 neutropenia and clinically significant GI toxicity was 19.3% (95% CI 12.2%-29.0%) and 12.0% (95% CI 6.7%-20.8%), respectively. Compared with patients treated without IG-IMRT (n=48), those treated with IG-IMRT (n=35) had a significantly lower incidence of grade ≥3 neutropenia (8.6% vs 27.1%; 2-sided χ 2 P=.035) and nonsignificantly lower incidence of grade ≥3 leukopenia (25.7% vs 41.7%; P=.13) and any grade ≥3 hematologic toxicity (31.4% vs 43.8%; P=.25)., Conclusions: IMRT reduces acute hematologic and GI toxicity compared with standard treatment, with promising therapeutic outcomes. Positron emission tomography IG-IMRT reduces the incidence of acute neutropenia., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: A dose calculation tool, which combines the accuracy of the dose planning method (DPM) Monte Carlo code and the versatility of a practical analytical multisource model, which was previously reported has been improved and validated for the Varian 6 and 10 MV linear accelerators (linacs). The calculation tool can be used to calculate doses in advanced clinical application studies. One shortcoming of current clinical trials that report dose from patient plans is the lack of a standardized dose calculation methodology. Because commercial treatment planning systems (TPSs) have their own dose calculation algorithms and the clinical trial participant who uses these systems is responsible for commissioning the beam model, variation exists in the reported calculated dose distributions. Today's modern linac is manufactured to tight specifications so that variability within a linac model is quite low. The expectation is that a single dose calculation tool for a specific linac model can be used to accurately recalculate dose from patient plans that have been submitted to the clinical trial community from any institution. The calculation tool would provide for a more meaningful outcome analysis., Methods: The analytical source model was described by a primary point source, a secondary extra-focal source, and a contaminant electron source. Off-axis energy softening and fluence effects were also included. The additions of hyperbolic functions have been incorporated into the model to correct for the changes in output and in electron contamination with field size. A multileaf collimator (MLC) model is included to facilitate phantom and patient dose calculations. An offset to the MLC leaf positions was used to correct for the rudimentary assumed primary point source., Results: Dose calculations of the depth dose and profiles for field sizes 4 × 4 to 40 × 40 cm agree with measurement within 2% of the maximum dose or 2 mm distance to agreement (DTA) for 95% of the data points tested. The model was capable of predicting the depth of the maximum dose within 1 mm. Anthropomorphic phantom benchmark testing of modulated and patterned MLCs treatment plans showed agreement to measurement within 3% in target regions using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD). Using radiochromic film normalized to TLD, a gamma criteria of 3% of maximum dose and 2 mm DTA was applied with a pass rate of least 85% in the high dose, high gradient, and low dose regions. Finally, recalculations of patient plans using DPM showed good agreement relative to a commercial TPS when comparing dose volume histograms and 2D dose distributions., Conclusions: A unique analytical source model coupled to the dose planning method Monte Carlo dose calculation code has been modified and validated using basic beam data and anthropomorphic phantom measurement. While this tool can be applied in general use for a particular linac model, specifically it was developed to provide a singular methodology to independently assess treatment plan dose distributions from those clinical institutions participating in National Cancer Institute trials.

The purpose of the study was to examine whether CT imaging can be used to quantify radiation-induced injury to the esophagus. Weekly CT images for 14 patients receiving proton therapy for thoracic tumors were retrospectively reviewed. The images were registered with the original treatment planning CT image using deformable registration techniques, and the esophageal contours from the treatment plan were automatically mapped to the weekly images. The relative change in the size of the esophagus was calculated for each CT slice as the ratio of the cross-sectional area of the esophagus (minus air) in the weekly CT image to the same area in the planning CT image. The maximum relative change in cross sectional area for each CT image was calculated and examined for correlation with the clinical toxicity score for all the patients. The average maximum relative expansion of the esophagus at the end of treatment was 1.41 ± 0.26, 1.68 ± 0.36, and 2.10 ± 0.18 for patients with grade 0, 2, and 3 esophagitis, respectively. An unpaired t-test, with the level of significance corrected with a Bonferroni correction, showed that the difference between grade 3 and 0 was significant, but the differences between grade 0 and 2, and 2 and 3 were not. The timing of changes in esophageal expansion closely matched that of clinically noted changes in patient symptoms. Expansion of the esophagus on CT images has potential as an objective measure of toxicity. The ability to quantify objectively the spatial distribution of radiation-induced injury will be a useful tool in understanding the impact of partial esophageal sparing on the probability of esophagitis.

Aluminium oxide (Al(2)O(3):C) is a common material used in optically stimulated luminescent dosemeters (OSLDs). OSLDs have a known energy dependence, which can impact on the accuracy of dose measurements, especially for lower photon energies, where the dosemeter can overrespond by a factor of 3-4. The purpose of this work was to characterise the response of Al(2)O(3):C using cavity theory and to evaluate the applicability of this approach for polyenergetic photon beams. The cavity theory energy response showed good agreement (within 2 %) with the corresponding measured values. A comparison with measured values reported in the literature for low-energy polyenergetic spectra showed more varied agreement (within 6 % on average). The discrepancy between these results is attributed to differences in the raw photon energy spectra used to calculate the energy response. Analysis of the impact of the photon energy spectra versus the mean photon energy showed improved accuracy if the energy response was determined using the entire photon spectrum rather than the mean photon energy. If not accounted for, the overresponse due to photon energy could introduce substantial inaccuracy in dose measurement using OSLDs, and the results of this study indicate that cavity theory may be used to determine the response with reasonable accuracy.

Purpose: Describe the Radiological Physics Center's (RPC) extensive standard dosimetry data set determined from on-site audits measurements., Method and Materials: Measurements were made during on-site audits to institutions participating in NCI funded cooperative clinical trials for 44 years using a 0.6cc cylindrical ionization chamber placed within the RPC's water tank. Measurements were made on Varian, Siemens, and Elekta/Philips accelerators for 11 different energies from 68 models of accelerators. We have measured percent depth dose, output factors, and off-axis factors for 123 different accelerator model/energy combinations for which we have 5 or more sets of measurements. The RPC analyzed these data and determined the 'standard data' for each model/energy combination. The RPC defines 'standard data' as the mean value of 5 or more sets of dosimetry data or agreement with published depth dose data (within 2%)., Results: The analysis of these standard data indicates that for modern accelerator models, the dosimetry data for a particular model/energy are within ï,±2%. The RPC has always found accelerators of the same make/model/energy combination have the same dosimetric properties in terms of depth dose, field size dependence and off-axis factors. Because of this consistency, the RPC can assign standard data for percent depth dose, average output factors and off-axis factors for a given combination of energy and accelerator make and model., Conclusions: The RPC standard data can be used as a redundant quality assurance tool to assist Medical Physicists to have confidence in their clinical data to within 2%. The next step is for the RPC to provide a way for institutions to submit data to the RPC to determine if their data agrees with the standard data as a redundant check. This work was supported by PHS grants CA10953 awarded by NCI, DHHS., (© 2012 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.)

Purpose: To study the angular dependence of optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLD) in the Radiological Physics Center anthropomorphic quality assurance pelvic phantom to provide accurate dosimetric measurements as a replacement for TLD., Methods: A spherical phantom was constructed to investigate the angular response of the OSLD as oriented in the RPC pelvic phantom. Three OSLD per irradiation angle, placed at the center of the spherical phantom, were irradiated with 100 cGy from six different angles. The angular response at each angle was determined relative to the OSLD response when the beam was incident normally on the OSLD surface. A pelvic phantom dosimetry insert was modified to include both TLD and OSLD. Three treatment plans were developed in Pinnacle v9.0 and one in Accuray's Multiplan, each with increasing angular beam delivery (4 field, IMRT, SmartArc, CyberKnife) for the pelvic phantom using a common dose prescription and constraints. Each plan was delivered to the phantom three times, containing two TLD and two OSLD, oriented in the transverse plane, at the center of the PTV. The dose delivered to the TLD and OSLD was calculated for each treatment and then compared., Results: The angular dependence correction factor for the spherical phantom was found to be uniformly 1.041 ± 0.003 from single beam edge-on irradiations. The angular dependence correction in the pelvic phantom from multiple beam orientation irradiations was 1.024 ± 0.002, such that the OSLD dose agreed with the TLD dose. Applying the OSLD pelvic phantom correction factor, the RPC measured dose to planning system calculated dose ratio was 0.995 ± 0.009. The established RPC phantom TLD dose to calculated dose ratio was 0.995 ± 0.010., Conclusions: An anthropomorphic phantom OSLD angular dependence correction factor was established such that the final OSLD dose measurements agreed with RPC's TLD dose measurements to within 1%. Work supported by grant CA 10953, awarded by NCI, DHHS., (© 2012 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.)

Purpose: Compare the accuracy of AAA heterogeneity corrected dose calculation algorithm for high energy x-ray beams (>10 MV) for flattened and FFF beams using RPC anthropomorphic thorax phantom., Methods: Six static beam SBRT treatment plans were created using the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) AAA v.8.9.08 heterogeneity correction algorithm. Two flattened beam plans (6 MV and 18 MV) and four other plans (6 MV, 6 MV FFF, 10 MV FFF and 15 MV) were delivered using a Clinac 21EX and TrueBeam STx, respectively. Prescription dose/coverage, 6 Gy to 95% PTV, and constraints were the same for all plans. The phantom contained radiochromic films in the 3 major planes and TLDs in the heart, spine, and tumor. Point doses and 2D dose distributions were exported from the Eclipse TPS and compared with the measured doses. The gamma index analysis evaluation criteria of ±5% dose to agreement and 3 mm distance to agreement was used., Results: TLD to TPS tumor point dose ratios were 0.971±0.006(6MV) and 0.957±0.002(6MV), 0.995±0.005(15MV), 1.114±0.006(18MV), and 0.957±0.003(6MV FFF), 0.974±0.011(10MV FFF) for the six plans. Using ±5%/3mm gamma analysis criteria, the average passing rates for all three films were 96.3% and 95.5%, 97.4%, 66.1%, 93.7%, and 96.3% for the 6 MV, 6 MV, 15 MV, 18 MV, 6 MV FFF, and 10 MV FFF plans, respectively. Dose profiles were also evaluated., Conclusions: The current RPC credentialing criteria are: RPC/Inst. tumor dose ratio of 0.97±0.05 and 85% of the pixels in each film plane must pass a ±5%/5mm gamma index analysis. These data demonstrate that the AAA heterogeneity correction dose calculation algorithm is accurate for photon energies in 6-15 MV range for flattened and FFF beams. Heterogeneity corrected dose calculations for photon energies >15 MV were not accurate. Work supported by grants CA10953 and CA81647 (NCI, DHHS)., (© 2012 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.)

Purpose: To obtain and assess the accuracy of 3D dose distributions and LET maps from a passively-scattered proton beam through the use of LET-dependent and LET-independent polymer gel formulations., Methods: Dose measurements were performed with BANG3-Pro2 (MGS Research, Inc, Madison, CT) polymer gel dosimeters. The dosimeters were mixed from kits and were poured into 14.5 cm high by 15 cm diameter acrylic cylinders. For LET measurements, a new BANG3-Pro variant intended for use as an 'LET- meter' was employed. Initial irradiations were performed using a 200 MeV passively scattered proton beam with a 4 cm spread out Bragg peak (SOBP), delivering a physical dose of 3 Gy to the center of the SOBP. Dosimeters were read out using the OCTOPUS-IQ (MGS Research, Inc, Madison, CT) optical CT scanner. The optical densities measured in the gel were compared against ion chamber data to assess the accuracy of the dosimeter., Results: Initial analysis indicates 80% of points measured along the central axis agreed with ion chamber data at the ±5%/±3mm level in the sensitive region of the gel. An artifact in the reconstructed image produced inaccurate readings beyond the depth of 50% dose on the distal edge of the SOBP, resulting in the majority of the agreement failures., Conclusions: BANG3-Pro2 polymer gel dosimeters demonstrate promise as a 3D dosimeter for use in proton therapy. The dosimetric data obtained to date will be used as the baseline measurement against which the LET-sensitive BANG3-Pro formulation will be compared for the measurement of proton LET., (© 2012 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.)

Purpose: To analyze the findings of the Radiological Physics Center's (RPC) QA audits of institutions participating in NCI sponsored clinical trials., Methods: The RPC has developed an extensive Quality Assurance (QA) program over the past 44 years. This program includes on-site dosimetry reviews where measurements on therapy machines are made, records are reviewed and personnel are interviewed. The program's remote audit tools include mailed dosimeters (OSLD/TLD) to verify output calibration, comparison of dosimetry data with RPC 'standard' data, evaluation of benchmark and patient calculations to verify the treatment planning algorithms, review of institution's QA procedures and records, and use of anthropomorphic phantoms to verify tumor dose delivery. The RPC endeavors to assist institutions in finding the origins of any detected discrepancies, and to resolve them., Results: Ninety percent of institutions receiving dosimetry recommendations has remained level for the past 5 years. The most frequent recommendations were for not performing TG-40 QA tests, wedge factors, small field size output factors and off-axis factors. Since TG-51 was published, the number of beam calibrations audited during visits with ion chambers, that met the RPC's ±3% criterion, decreased initially but has risen to pre-TG-51 levels. The OSLD/TLD program shows that only ∼3% of the beams are outside our ±5% criteria, but these discrepancies are distributed over 12-20% of the institutions. The percent of institutions with ï, 3 l beam outside the RPC's criteria is approximately the same whether OSLD/TLD or ion chambers were used. The first time passing rate for the anthropomorphic phantoms is increasing with time. The prostate phantom has the highest pass rate while the spine phantom has the lowest., Conclusions: Numerous dosimetry errors continue to be discovered by the RPC's QA program and the RPC continues to play an important role in helping institutions resolve these errors. This work was supported by PHS grants CA10953 and CA081647 awarded by NCI., (© 2012 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.)

Purpose: To calculate photon energy deposition kernels (EDKs) used for convolution/superposition dose calculation at a higher resolution than the original Mackie et al. 1988 kernels and to calculate material-specific kernels that describe how energy is transported and deposited by secondary particles when the incident photon interacts in a material other than water., Methods: The high resolution EDKs for various incident photon energies were generated using the EGSnrc user-code EDKnrc, which forces incident photons to interact at the center of a 60 cm radius sphere of water. The simulation geometry is essentially the same as the original Mackie calculation but with a greater number of scoring voxels (48 radial, 144 angular bins). For the material-specific EDKs, incident photons were forced to interact at the center of a 1 mm radius sphere of material (lung, cortical bone, silver, or titanium) surrounded by a 60 cm radius water sphere, using the original scoring voxel geometry implemented by Mackie et al. 1988 (24 radial, 48 angular bins)., Results: Our Monte Carlo-calculated high resolution EDKs showed excellent agreement with the Mackie kernels, with our kernels providing more information about energy deposition close to the interaction site. Furthermore, our EDKs resulted in smoother dose deposition functions due to the finer resolution and greater number of simulation histories. The material-specific EDK results show that the angular distribution of energy deposition is different for incident photons interacting in different materials. Calculated from the angular dose distribution for 300 keV incident photons, the expected polar angle for dose deposition () is 28.6° for water, 33.3° for lung, 36.0° for cortical bone, 44.6° for titanium, and 58.1° for silver, showing a dependence on the material in which the primary photon interacts., Conclusions: These high resolution and material-specific EDKs have implications for convolution/superposition dose calculations in heterogeneous patient geometries, especially at material interfaces., (© 2012 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.)

Purpose: To develop and evaluate a modified anthropomorphic head phantom for evaluation of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) dose planning and delivery., Methods: A phantom was constructed from a water equivalent, plastic, head-shaped shell. The original phantom design, with only a spherical target, was modified to include a nonspherical target (pituitary) and an adjacent organ at risk (OAR) (optic chiasm), within 2 mm, simulating the anatomy encountered when treating acromegaly. The target and OAR spatial proximity provided a more realistic treatment planning and dose delivery exercise. A separate dosimetry insert contained two TLD for absolute dosimetry and radiochromic film, in the sagittal and coronal planes, for relative dosimetry. The prescription was 25Gy to 90% of the GTV with >= 10% of the OAR volume receiving >= 8Gy. The modified phantom was used to test the rigor of the treatment planning process, dosimeter reproducibility, and measured dose delivery agreement with calculated doses using a Gamma Knife, CyberKnife, and linear accelerator based radiosurgery systems., Results: TLD results from multiple irradiations using either a CyberKnife or Gamma Knife agreed with the calculated target dose to within 4.7% with a maximum coefficient of variation of+/-2.0%. Gamma analysis in the coronal and sagittal film planes showed an average passing rate of 99.3% and 99.5% using +/-5%/3mm criteria, respectively. A treatment plan for linac delivery was developed meeting the prescription guidelines. Dosimeter reproducibility and dose delivery agreement for the linac is expected to have results similar to the results observed with the CyberKnife and Gamma Knife., Conclusions: A modified anatomically realistic SRS phantom was developed that provided a realistic clinical planning and delivery challenge that can be used to credential institutions wanting to participate in NCI funded clinical trials. Work supported by PHS CA010953, CA081647, CA21661 awarded by NCI. DHHS., (© 2012 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.)

Purpose: To review an institution's patient-specific IMRT quality assurance (QA) results, including absolute dose and gamma analysis measurements., Methods: Patient-specific IMRT QA records were reviewed to obtain information on absolute dose difference (ion chamber measurement; ±3% agreement criteria) and percentage of pixels passing gamma (film measurement; 5%/3 mm agreement criteria) from 2005 to 2011. The 13,002 plans reviewed, were classified by treatment service: breast (n=67), central nervous system (n =1383), gastrointestinal (n=803), genitourinary (n=1831), gynecology (n=935), hematology (n=380), head and neck (n=3697), intensity-modulated stereotactic spine radiation therapy (n=341), melanoma (n=54), mesothelioma (n=52), pediatric (n=307), sarcoma (n=201), and thoracic (n=2951). All records were analyzed for trends according to measurement date and treatment service. Plans failing to meet QA criteria were further evaluated for subsequent measured data., Results: Mean difference (± one standard deviation) between the measured and calculated doses was -0.29% ± 1.64% (with the calculated values being slightly higher). The mean percentage of pixels passing gamma was 97.7% (lower 95th percentile, 92.2%). The plan pass rates were 97.7% and 99.3% for absolute dose and gamma, respectively. We observed statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) in both absolute dose and gamma measurements as a function of treatment service (particularly for stereotactic spine and mesothelioma services) and measurement date (average agreement improved with time). However, despite improved agreement between measured and calculated doses, the percentage of treatment plans failing to meet the passing criteria has remained largely constant at ∼2.3%., Conclusions: Our retrospective review of 13,002 patient-specific IMRT QA plans demonstrated that plans continue to fail IMRT QA criteria at a consistent rate. This rate serves as a clinical reference for expected rates of QA plan pass and failure for a variety of treatment services., (© 2012 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.)

The purpose of this work was to determine the dosimetric benefit to normal tissues by tracking the multi-leaf collimator (MLC) apertures with the photon jaws in step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) on the Varian 2100 platform. Radiation treatment plans for ten thoracic, three pediatric, and three head and neck cancer patients were converted to plans with the jaws tracking each segment's MLC apertures, and compared to the original plans in a commercial radiation treatment planning system (TPS). The change in normal tissue dose was evaluated in the new plan by using the parameters V5, V10, and V20 (volumes receiving 5, 10 and 20 Gy, respectively) in the cumulative dose-volume histogram for the following structures: total lung minus gross target volume, heart, esophagus, spinal cord, liver, parotids, and brainstem. To validate the accuracy of our beam model, MLC transmission was measured and compared to that predicted by the TPS. The greatest changes between the original and new plans occurred at lower dose levels. In all patients, the reduction in V20 was never more than 6.3% and was typically less than 1%; the maximum reduction in V5 was 16.7% and was typically less than 3%. The variation in normal tissue dose reduction was not predictable, and we found no clear parameters that indicated which patients would benefit most from jaw tracking. Our TPS model of MLC transmission agreed with measurements with absolute transmission differences of less than 0.1% and, thus, uncertainties in the model did not contribute significantly to the uncertainty in the dose determination. We conclude that the amount of dose reduction achieved by collimating the jaws around each MLC aperture in step-and-shoot IMRT is probably not clinically significant.

The dosimetric accuracy of treatment planning systems (TPSs) decreases for locations outside the treatment field borders. However, the true accuracy of specific TPSs for locations beyond the treatment field borders is not well documented. Our objective was to quantify the accuracy of out-of-field dose predicted by the commercially available Eclipse version 8.6 TPS (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) for a clinical treatment delivered on a Varian Clinac 2100. We calculated (in the TPS) and determined (with thermoluminescent dosimeters) doses at a total of 238 points of measurement (with distance from the field edge ranging from 3.75 to 11.25 cm). Our comparisons determined that the Eclipse TPS underestimated out-of-field doses by an average of 40% over the range of distances examined. As the distance from the treatment field increased, the TPS underestimated the dose with increasing magnitude--up to 55% at 11.25 cm from the treatment field border. These data confirm that accuracy beyond the treatment border is inadequate, and out-of-field data from TPSs should be used only with a clear understanding of this limitation. Studies that require accurate out-of-field dose should use other dose reconstruction methods, such as direct measurements or Monte Carlo calculations.

Dose rates at several locations outside a treatment room were measured for 6 and 18 MV photon beams from a Varian Clinac 21EX accelerator operated with and without a flattening filter. Also, dose rates in the treatment room due to activation were measured at 18 MV. An analysis of the measured data is presented. The results suggest that substantial reduction in doses outside the treatment room and lower activation can be achieved with a flattening-filter free accelerator.

In conventional linear accelerators, the flattening filter provides a uniform lateral dose profile. In intensity modulated radiation therapy applications, however, the flatness of the photon field and hence the presence of a flattening filter, is not necessary. Removing the filter may provide some advantages, such as faster treatments and smaller out-of-field doses to the patients. In clinical accelerators the backscattered radiation dose from the collimators must be taken into account when the dose to the target volume in the patient is being determined. In the case of a conventional machine, this backscatter is known to great precision. In a flattening filter free accelerator, however, the amount of backscatter may be different. In this study we determined the backscatter contribution to the monitor chamber signal in a flattening filter free clinical accelerator (Varian Clinac 21EX) with Monte Carlo simulations. We found that with the exception of very small fields in the 18-MV photon mode, the contribution of backscattered radiation to the monitor signal did not differ from that of conventional machines with a flattening filter. Hence, a flattening filter free clinical accelerator would not necessitate a different backscatter correction.