Search

Purpose: To investigate (i) the dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) and the effect of the "trailing distance" between leaves from different multileaf collimator (MLC) layers in Halcyon systems and (ii) the ability of the currently available treatment planning systems (TPSs) to approximate this effect., Methods: DICOM plans with transmission beams and sweeping gap tests were created in Python for measuring the DLG for each MLC layer independently and for both layers combined. In clinical Halcyon plans both MLC layers are interchangeably used and leaves from different layers are offset, thus forming a trailing pattern. To characterize the impact of such configuration, new tests called "trailing sweeping gaps" were designed and created where the leaves from one layer follow the leaves from the other layer at a fixed "trailing distance" t between the tips. Measurements were carried out on five Halcyons SX2 from different institutions and calculations from both the Eclipse and RayStation TPSs were compared with measurements., Results: The dose accumulated during a sweeping gap delivery progressively increased with the trailing distance t . We call this "the trailing effect." It is most pronounced for t between 0 and 5 mm, although some changes were obtained up to 20 mm. The dose variation was independent of the gap size. The measured DLG values also increased with t up to 20 mm, again with the steepest variation between 0 and 5 mm. Measured DLG values were negative at t  = 0 (the leaves from both layers at the same position) but changed sign for t  ≥ 1 mm, in line with the positive DLG sign usually observed with single-layer rounded-end MLCs. The Eclipse TPS does not explicitly model the leaf tip and, as a consequence, could not predict the dose reduction due to the trailing effect. This resulted in dose discrepancies up to +10% and -8% for the 5 mm sweeping gap and up to ±5% for the 10 mm one depending on the distance t . RayStation implements a simple model of the leaf tip that was able to approximate the trailing effect and improved the agreement with measured doses. In particular, with a prototype version of RayStation that assigned a higher transmission at the leaf tip the agreement with measured doses was within ±3% even for the 5 mm gap. The five Halcyon systems behaved very similarly but differences in the DLG around 0.2 mm were found across different treatment units and between MLC layers from the same system. The DLG for the proximal layer was consistently higher than for the distal layer, with differences ranging between 0.10 mm and 0.24 mm., Conclusions: The trailing distance between the leaves from different layers substantially affected the doses delivered by sweeping gaps and the measured DLG values. Stacked MLCs introduce a new level of complexity in TPSs, which ideally need to implement an explicit model of the leaf tip in order to reproduce the trailing effect. Dynamic tests called "trailing sweeping gaps" were designed that are useful for characterizing and commissioning dual-layer MLC systems., (© 2021 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.)

Linac calibration is done in water, but patients are comprised primarily of soft tissue. Conceptually, and specified in NRG/RTOG trials, dose should be reported as dose-to-muscle to describe the dose to the patient. Historically, the dose-to-water of the linac calibration was often converted to dose-to-muscle for patient calculations through manual application of a 0.99 dose-to-water to dose-to-muscle correction factor, applied during the linac clinical reference calibration. However, many current treatment planning system (TPS) dose calculation algorithms approximately provide dose-to-muscle (tissue), making application of a manual scaling unnecessary. There is little guidance on when application of a scaling factor is appropriate, resulting in highly inconsistent application of this scaling by the community. In this report we provide guidance on the steps necessary to go from the linac absorbed dose-to-water calibration to dose-to-muscle in patient, for various commercial TPS algorithms. If the TPS does not account for the difference between dose-to-water and dose-to-muscle, then TPS reference dose scaling is warranted. We have tabulated the major vendors' TPS in terms of whether they approximate dose-to-muscle or calculate dose-to-water and recommend the correction factor required to report dose-to-muscle directly from the TPS algorithm. Physicists should use this report to determine the applicable correction required for specifying the reference dose in their TPS to achieve this goal and should remain attentive to possible changes to their dose calculation algorithm in the future., (© 2019 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.)

Purpose: Despite improvements in optimization and automation algorithms, the quality of radiation treatment plans still varies dramatically. A tool that allows a priori estimation of the best possible sparing (Feasibility DVH, or FDVH) of an organ at risk (OAR) in high-energy photon planning may help reduce plan quality variability by deriving patient-specific OAR goals prior to optimization. Such a tool may be useful for (a) meaningfully evaluating patient-specific plan quality and (b) supplying best theoretically achievable DVH goals, thus pushing the solution toward automatic Pareto optimality. This work introduces such a tool and validates it for clinical Head and Neck (HN) datasets., Methods: To compute FDVH, first the targets are assigned uniform prescription doses, with no reference to any particular beam arrangement. A benchmark 3D dose built outside the targets is estimated using a series of energy-specific dose spread calculations reflecting observed properties of radiation distribution in media. For the patient, the calculation is performed on the heterogeneous dataset, taking into account the high- (penumbra driven) and low- (PDD and scatter-driven) gradient dose spreading. The former is driven mostly by target dose and surface shape, while the latter adds the dependence on target volume. This benchmark dose is used to produce the "best possible sparing" FDVH for an OAR, and based on it, progressively more easily achievable FDVH curves can be estimated. Validation was performed using test cylindrical geometries as well as 10 clinical HN datasets. For HN, VMAT plans were prepared with objectives of covering the primary and the secondary (bilateral elective neck) PTVs while addressing only one OAR at a time, with the goal of maximum sparing. The OARs were each parotid, the larynx, and the inferior pharyngeal constrictor. The difference in mean OAR doses was computed for the achieved vs. FDVHs, and the shapes of those DVHs were compared by means of the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC)., Results: For all individually optimized HN OARs (N = 38), the average DSC between the planned DVHs and the FDVHs was 0.961 ± 0.018 (95% CI 0.955-0.967), with the corresponding average of mean OAR dose differences of 1.8 ± 5.8% (CI -0.1-3.6%). For realistic plans the achieved DVHs run no lower than the FDVHs, except when target coverage is compromised at the target/OAR interface., Conclusions: For the validation of VMAT plans, the OAR DVHs optimized one-at-a-time were similar in shape to and bound on the low side by the FDVHs, within the confines of planner's ability to precisely cover the target(s) with the prescription dose(s). The method is best suited for the OARs close to the target. This approach is fundamentally different from "knowledge-based planning" because it is (a) independent of the treatment plan and prior experience, and (b) it approximates, from nearly first principles, the lowest possible boundary of the OAR DVH, but not necessarily its actual shape in the presence of competing OAR sparing and target dose homogeneity objectives., (© 2017 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.)

Purpose: Previous studies show that dose to a moving target can be estimated using 4D measurement-guided dose reconstruction based on a process called virtual motion simulation, or VMS. A potential extension of VMS is to estimate dose during dynamic multileaf collimator (MLC)-tracking treatments. The authors introduce a modified VMS method and quantify its performance as proof-of-concept for tracking applications., Methods: Direct measurements with a moving biplanar diode array were used to verify accuracy of the VMS dose estimates. A tracking environment for variably sized circular MLC apertures was simulated by sending preprogrammed control points to the MLC while simultaneously moving the accelerator treatment table. Sensitivity of the method to simulated tracking latency (0-700 ms) was also studied. Potential applicability of VMS to fast changing beam apertures was evaluated by modeling, based on the demonstrated dependence of the cumulative dose on the temporal dose gradient., Results: When physical and virtual latencies were matched, the agreement rates (2% global/2 mm gamma) between the VMS and the biplanar dosimeter were above 96%. When compared to their own reference dose (0 induced latency), the agreement rates for VMS and biplanar array track closely up to 200 ms of induced latency with 10% low-dose cutoff threshold and 300 ms with 50% cutoff. Time-resolved measurements suggest that even in the modulated beams, the error in the cumulative dose introduced by the 200 ms VMS time resolution is not likely to exceed 0.5%., Conclusions: Based on current results and prior benchmarks of VMS accuracy, the authors postulate that this approach should be applicable to any MLC-tracking treatments where leaf speeds do not exceed those of the current Varian accelerators.

Purpose: The authors designed data, methods, and metrics that can serve as a standard, independent of any software package, to evaluate dose-volume histogram (DVH) calculation accuracy and detect limitations. The authors use simple geometrical objects at different orientations combined with dose grids of varying spatial resolution with linear 1D dose gradients; when combined, ground truth DVH curves can be calculated analytically in closed form to serve as the absolute standards., Methods: dicom RT structure sets containing a small sphere, cylinder, and cone were created programmatically with axial plane spacing varying from 0.2 to 3 mm. Cylinders and cones were modeled in two different orientations with respect to the IEC 1217 Y axis. The contours were designed to stringently but methodically test voxelation methods required for DVH. Synthetic RT dose files were generated with 1D linear dose gradient and with grid resolution varying from 0.4 to 3 mm. Two commercial DVH algorithms-pinnacle (Philips Radiation Oncology Systems) and PlanIQ (Sun Nuclear Corp.)-were tested against analytical values using custom, noncommercial analysis software. In Test 1, axial contour spacing was constant at 0.2 mm while dose grid resolution varied. In Tests 2 and 3, the dose grid resolution was matched to varying subsampled axial contours with spacing of 1, 2, and 3 mm, and difference analysis and metrics were employed: (1) histograms of the accuracy of various DVH parameters (total volume, Dmax, Dmin, and doses to % volume: D99, D95, D5, D1, D0.03 cm(3)) and (2) volume errors extracted along the DVH curves were generated and summarized in tabular and graphical forms., Results: In Test 1, pinnacle produced 52 deviations (15%) while PlanIQ produced 5 (1.5%). In Test 2, pinnacle and PlanIQ differed from analytical by >3% in 93 (36%) and 18 (7%) times, respectively. Excluding Dmin and Dmax as least clinically relevant would result in 32 (15%) vs 5 (2%) scored deviations for pinnacle vs PlanIQ in Test 1, while Test 2 would yield 53 (25%) vs 17 (8%). In Test 3, statistical analyses of volume errors extracted continuously along the curves show pinnacle to have more errors and higher variability (relative to PlanIQ), primarily due to pinnacle's lack of sufficient 3D grid supersampling. Another major driver for pinnacle errors is an inconsistency in implementation of the "end-capping"; the additional volume resulting from expanding superior and inferior contours halfway to the next slice is included in the total volume calculation, but dose voxels in this expanded volume are excluded from the DVH. PlanIQ had fewer deviations, and most were associated with a rotated cylinder modeled by rectangular axial contours; for coarser axial spacing, the limited number of cross-sectional rectangles hinders the ability to render the true structure volume., Conclusions: The method is applicable to any DVH-calculating software capable of importing dicom RT structure set and dose objects (the authors' examples are available for download). It includes a collection of tests that probe the design of the DVH algorithm, measure its accuracy, and identify failure modes. Merits and applicability of each test are discussed.

Purpose: In this work, the feasibility of implementing a motion-perturbation approach to accurately estimate volumetric dose in the presence of organ motion--previously demonstrated for VMAT--is studied for static gantry IMRT. The method's accuracy is improved for the voxels that have very low planned dose but acquire appreciable dose due to motion. The study describes the modified algorithm and its experimental validation and provides an example of a clinical application., Methods: A contoured region-of-interest is propagated according to the predefined motion kernel throughout time-resolved 4D phantom dose grids. This timed series of 3D dose grids is produced by the measurement-guided dose reconstruction algorithm, based on an irradiation of a static ARCCHECK (AC) helical dosimeter array (Sun Nuclear Corp., Melbourne, FL). Each moving voxel collects dose over the dynamic simulation. The difference in dose-to-moving voxel vs dose-to-static voxel in-phantom forms the basis of a motion perturbation correction that is applied to the corresponding voxel in the patient dataset. A new method to synchronize the accelerator and dosimeter clocks, applicable to fixed-gantry IMRT, was developed. Refinements to the algorithm account for the excursion of low dose voxels into high dose regions, causing appreciable dose increase due to motion (LDVE correction). For experimental validation, four plans using TG-119 structure sets and objectives were produced using segmented IMRT direct machine parameters optimization in Pinnacle treatment planning system (v. 9.6, Philips Radiation Oncology Systems, Fitchburg, WI). All beams were delivered with the gantry angle of 0°. Each beam was delivered three times: (1) to the static AC centered on the room lasers; (2) to a static phantom containing a MAPCHECK2 (MC2) planar diode array dosimeter (Sun Nuclear); and (3) to the moving MC2 phantom. The motion trajectory was an ellipse in the IEC XY plane, with 3 and 1.5 cm axes. The period was 5 s, with the resulting average motion speed of 1.45 cm/s. The motion-perturbed high resolution (2 mm voxel) volumetric dose grids on the MC2 phantom were generated for each beam. From each grid, a coronal dose plane at the detector level was extracted and compared to the corresponding moving MC2 measurement, using gamma analysis with both global (G) and local (L) dose-error normalization., Results: Using the TG-119 criteria of (3%G/3 mm), per beam average gamma analysis passing rates exceeded 95% in all cases. No individual beam had a passing rate below 91%. LDVE correction eliminated systematic disagreement patterns at the beams' aperture edges. In a representative example, application of LDVE correction improved (2%L/2 mm) gamma analysis passing rate for an IMRT beam from 74% to 98%., Conclusions: The effect of motion on the moving region-of-interest IMRT dose can be estimated with a standard, static phantom QA measurement, provided the motion characteristics are independently known from 4D CT or otherwise. The motion-perturbed absolute dose estimates were validated by the direct planar diode array measurements, and were found to reliably agree with them in a homogeneous phantom.

Purpose: This study (1) examines a variety of real-world cases where systematic errors were not detected by widely accepted methods for IMRT/VMAT dosimetric accuracy evaluation, and (2) drills-down to identify failure modes and their corresponding means for detection, diagnosis, and mitigation. The primary goal of detailing these case studies is to explore different, more sensitive methods and metrics that could be used more effectively for evaluating accuracy of dose algorithms, delivery systems, and QA devices., Methods: The authors present seven real-world case studies representing a variety of combinations of the treatment planning system (TPS), linac, delivery modality, and systematic error type. These case studies are typical to what might be used as part of an IMRT or VMAT commissioning test suite, varying in complexity. Each case study is analyzed according to TG-119 instructions for gamma passing rates and action levels for per-beam and/or composite plan dosimetric QA. Then, each case study is analyzed in-depth with advanced diagnostic methods (dose profile examination, EPID-based measurements, dose difference pattern analysis, 3D measurement-guided dose reconstruction, and dose grid inspection) and more sensitive metrics (2% local normalization/2 mm DTA and estimated DVH comparisons)., Results: For these case studies, the conventional 3%/3 mm gamma passing rates exceeded 99% for IMRT per-beam analyses and ranged from 93.9% to 100% for composite plan dose analysis, well above the TG-119 action levels of 90% and 88%, respectively. However, all cases had systematic errors that were detected only by using advanced diagnostic techniques and more sensitive metrics. The systematic errors caused variable but noteworthy impact, including estimated target dose coverage loss of up to 5.5% and local dose deviations up to 31.5%. Types of errors included TPS model settings, algorithm limitations, and modeling and alignment of QA phantoms in the TPS. Most of the errors were correctable after detection and diagnosis, and the uncorrectable errors provided useful information about system limitations, which is another key element of system commissioning., Conclusions: Many forms of relevant systematic errors can go undetected when the currently prevalent metrics for IMRT∕VMAT commissioning are used. If alternative methods and metrics are used instead of (or in addition to) the conventional metrics, these errors are more likely to be detected, and only once they are detected can they be properly diagnosed and rooted out of the system. Removing systematic errors should be a goal not only of commissioning by the end users but also product validation by the manufacturers. For any systematic errors that cannot be removed, detecting and quantifying them is important as it will help the physicist understand the limits of the system and work with the manufacturer on improvements. In summary, IMRT and VMAT commissioning, along with product validation, would benefit from the retirement of the 3%/3 mm passing rates as a primary metric of performance, and the adoption instead of tighter tolerances, more diligent diagnostics, and more thorough analysis.

Purpose: The effects of respiratory motion on the tumor dose can be divided into the gradient and interplay effects. While the interplay effect is likely to average out over a large number of fractions, it may play a role in hypofractionated [stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT)] treatments. This subject has been extensively studied for intensity modulated radiation therapy but less so for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), particularly in application to hypofractionated regimens. Also, no experimental study has provided full four-dimensional (4D) dose reconstruction in this scenario. The authors demonstrate how a recently described motion perturbation method, with full 4D dose reconstruction, is applied to describe the gradient and interplay effects during VMAT lung SBRT treatments., Methods: VMAT dose delivered to a moving target in a patient can be reconstructed by applying perturbations to the treatment planning system-calculated static 3D dose. Ten SBRT patients treated with 6 MV VMAT beams in five fractions were selected. The target motion (motion kernel) was approximated by 3D rigid body translation, with the tumor centroids defined on the ten phases of the 4DCT. The motion was assumed to be periodic, with the period T being an average from the empirical 4DCT respiratory trace. The real observed tumor motion (total displacement ≤ 8 mm) was evaluated first. Then, the motion range was artificially increased to 2 or 3 cm. Finally, T was increased to 60 s. While not realistic, making T comparable to the delivery time elucidates if the interplay effect can be observed. For a single fraction, the authors quantified the interplay effect as the maximum difference in the target dosimetric indices, most importantly the near-minimum dose (D99%), between all possible starting phases. For the three- and five-fractions, statistical simulations were performed when substantial interplay was found., Results: For the motion amplitudes and periods obtained from the 4DCT, the interplay effect is negligible (<0.2%). It is also small (0.9% average, 2.2% maximum) when the target excursion increased to 2-3 cm. Only with large motion and increased period (60 s) was a significant interplay effect observed, with D99% ranging from 16% low to 17% high. The interplay effect was statistically significantly lower for the three- and five-fraction statistical simulations. Overall, the gradient effect dominates the clinical situation., Conclusions: A novel method was used to reconstruct the volumetric dose to a moving tumor during lung SBRT VMAT deliveries. With the studied planning and treatment technique for realistic motion periods, regardless of the amplitude, the interplay has nearly no impact on the near-minimum dose. The interplay effect was observed, for study purposes only, with the period comparable to the VMAT delivery time.

Purpose: To present a framework for measurement-guided VMAT dose reconstruction to moving patient voxels from a known motion kernel and the static phantom data, and to validate this perturbation-based approach with the proof-of-principle experiments., Methods: As described previously, the VMAT 3D dose to a static patient can be estimated by applying a phantom measurement-guided perturbation to the treatment planning system (TPS)-calculated dose grid. The fraction dose to any voxel in the presence of motion, assuming the motion kernel is known, can be derived in a similar fashion by applying a measurement-guided motion perturbation. The dose to the diodes in a helical phantom is recorded at 50 ms intervals and is transformed into a series of time-resolved high-density volumetric dose grids. A moving voxel is propagated through this 4D dose space and the fraction dose to that voxel in the phantom is accumulated. The ratio of this motion-perturbed, reconstructed dose to the TPS dose in the phantom serves as a perturbation factor, applied to the TPS fraction dose to the similarly situated voxel in the patient. This approach was validated by the ion chamber and film measurements on four phantoms of different shape and structure: homogeneous and inhomogeneous cylinders, a homogeneous cube, and an anthropomorphic thoracic phantom. A 2D motion stage was used to simulate the motion. The stage position was synchronized with the beam start time with the respiratory gating simulator. The motion patterns were designed such that the motion speed was in the upper range of the expected tumor motion (1-1.4 cm∕s) and the range exceeded the normally observed limits (up to 5.7 cm). The conformal arc plans for X or Y motion (in the IEC 61217 coordinate system) consisted of manually created narrow (3 cm) rectangular strips moving in-phase (tracking) or phase-shifted by 90° (crossing) with respect to the phantom motion. The XY motion was tested with the computer-derived VMAT MLC sequences. For all phantoms and plans, time-resolved (10 Hz) ion chamber dose was collected. In addition, coronal (XY) films were exposed in the cube phantom to a VMAT beam with two different starting phases, and compared to the reconstructed motion-perturbed dose planes., Results: For the X or Y motions with the moving strip and geometrical phantoms, the maximum difference between perturbation-reconstructed and ion chamber doses did not exceed 1.9%, and the average for any motion pattern∕starting phase did not exceed 1.3%. For the VMAT plans on the cubic and thoracic phantoms, one point exhibited a 3.5% error, while the remaining five were all within 1.1%. Across all the measurements (N = 22), the average disagreement was 0.5 ± 1.3% (1 SD). The films exhibited γ(3%∕3 mm) passing rates ≥90%., Conclusions: The dose to an arbitrary moving voxel in a patient can be estimated with acceptable accuracy for a VMAT delivery, by performing a single QA measurement with a cylindrical phantom and applying two consecutive perturbations to the TPS-calculated patient dose. The first one accounts for the differences between the planned and delivered static doses, while the second one corrects for the motion.

Purpose: To develop and validate a volume-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) quality assurance (QA) tool that takes as input a time-resolved, low-density (∼10 mm) cylindrical surface dose map from a commercial helical diode array, and outputs a high density, volumetric, time-resolved dose matrix on an arbitrary patient dataset. This first validation study is limited to a homogeneous "patient.", Methods: A VMAT treatment is delivered to a diode array phantom (ARCCHECK, Sun Nuclear Corp., Melbourne, FL). 3DVH software (Sun Nuclear) derives the high-density volumetric dose using measurement-guided dose reconstruction (MGDR). MGDR cylindrical phantom results are then used to perturb the three-dimensional (3D) treatment planning dose on the patient dataset, producing a semiempirical volumetric dose grid. Four-dimensional (4D) dose reconstruction on the patient is also possible by morphing individual sub-beam doses instead of the composite. For conventional (3D) dose comparison two methods were developed, using the four plans (Multi-Target, C-shape, Mock Prostate, and Head and Neck), including their structures and objectives, from the AAPM TG-119 report. First, 3DVH and treatment planning system (TPS) cumulative point doses were compared to ion chamber in a cube water-equivalent phantom ("patient"). The shape of the phantom is different from the ARCCHECK and furthermore the targets were placed asymmetrically. Second, coronal and sagittal absolute film dose distributions in the cube were compared with 3DVH and TPS. For time-resolved (4D) comparisons, three tests were performed. First, volumetric dose differences were calculated between the 3D MGDR and cumulative time-resolved patient (4D MGDR) dose at the end of delivery, where they ideally should be identical. Second, time-resolved (10 Hz sampling rate) ion chamber doses were compared to cumulative point dose vs time curves from 4D MGDR. Finally, accelerator output was varied to assess the linearity of the 4D MGDR with global fluence change., Results: Across four TG-119 plans, the average PTV point dose difference in the cube between 3DVH and ion chamber is 0.1 ± 1.0%. Average film vs TPS γ-analysis passing rates are 83.0%, 91.1%, and 98.4% for 1%∕2 mm, 2%∕2 mm, and 3%∕3 mm threshold combinations, respectively, while average film vs 3DVH γ-analysis passing rates are 88.6%, 96.1%, and 99.5% for the same respective criteria. 4D MGDR was also sufficiently accurate. First, for 99.5% voxels in each case, the doses from 3D and 4D MGDR at the end of delivery agree within 0.5% local dose-error∕1 mm distance. Moreover, all failing voxels are confined to the edge of the cylindrical reconstruction volume. Second, dose vs time curves track between the ion chamber and 4D MGDR within 1%. Finally, 4D MGDR dose changes linearly with the accelerator output: the difference between cumulative ion chamber and MGDR dose changed by no more than 1% (randomly) with the output variation range of 10%., Conclusions: Even for a well-commissioned TPS, comparison metrics show better agreement on average to MGDR than to TPS on the arbitrary-shaped measurable "patient." The method requires no more accelerator time than standard QA, while producing more clinically relevant information. Validation in a heterogeneous thoracic phantom is under way, as is the ultimate application of 4D MGDR to virtual motion studies.

Purpose: Compensator-based IMRT coupled with the high dose rate flattening filter free (FFF) beams offers an intriguing possibility of delivering an intensity modulated radiation field in just a few seconds. As a first step, the authors evaluate the dosimetric accuracy of the treatment planning system (TPS) FFF beam model with compensators., Methods: A 6 MV FFF beam from a TrueBeam accelerator (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto CA) was modeled in PINNACLE TPS (v. 9.0, Philips Radiation Oncology, Fitchburg WI). Flat brass slabs from 0.3 to 7 cm thick and an 18° brass wedge were used to adjust the beam model. A 2D (MAPCHECK) and 3D (ARCCHECK) diode arrays (Sun Nuclear Corp, Melbourne FL), were investigated for use with the compensator FFF beams. Corrections for diode sensitivity caused by the spectral changes in the beam were introduced. Four compensator plans based on the AAPM TG-119 report were developed. A composite ion chamber measurement, beam by beam MAPCHECK measurements, and a composite ARCCHECK measurement were performed. The array results were analyzed with the same thresholds as in TG-119 report-3%/3 mm with global dose normalization-as well as with the more stringent combinations of the gamma analysis criteria., Results: The FFF beam shows a greater variation of the effective attenuation coefficient with brass thickness due to the prevalence of the low energy photons compared to the conventional 6X beam. As a result, a compromise had to be made while trying to achieve dose agreement for a combination of field sizes, brass thicknesses, and measurement depths (≥5 cm in water). An agreement of measured and calculated dose to within 1% was observed for brass thicknesses up to 2 cm. For the 3 cm slab, an error of up to 2.8% was noted for the field sizes above 10 × 10 cm(2), and up to 3.8% for the 5 × 5 cm(2) field. Both diode arrays exhibit a substantial sensitivity drop as the compensator thickness increases, reaching 10% for a 7 cm brass slab. A simple correction based on the brass thickness along the ray was introduced to counteract this effect. Pooled for five profiles, the average ratio of uncorrected and corrected MAPCHECK to ion chamber readings are 0.966 and 1.008, respectively. With the proper correction, all MAPCHECK measurement to calculation comparisons exhibit 100% γ(3%/3 mm) passing rates with global dose-error normalization. For the TG-119-type plans, the average γ(2%/2 mm) passing rate with local normalization is 94% (range 87.8%-98.3%). The lower ARCCHECK γ-analysis passing rates (corrected for diode sensitivity) are predictable based on the observed PDD discrepancies. However, with the 3%/3 mm thresholds and global normalization, the average γ-analysis passing rate is 96.4% (range 89.9%-100%)., Conclusions: MAPCHECK analysis demonstrates high passing rates with the stringent γ(2%/2 mm) and local normalization criteria combination. The geometry of the ARCCHECK array creates a stress test for the FFF TPS model because of the shallow depth of the entrance diodes and large air cavity. Hence, the ARCCHECK γ-analysis passing rates are lower than with the MAPCHECK, while still on par with TG-119.

Purpose: The goal of any dosimeter is to be as accurate as possible when measuring absolute dose to compare with calculated dose. This limits the uncertainties associated with the dosimeter itself and allows the task of dose QA to focus on detecting errors in the treatment planning (TPS) and/or delivery systems. This work introduces enhancements to the measurement accuracy of a 3D dosimeter comprised of a helical plane of diodes in a volumetric phantom., Methods: We describe the methods and derivations of new corrections that account for repetition rate dependence, intrinsic relative sensitivity per diode, field size dependence based on the dynamic field size determination, and positional correction. Required and described is an accurate "virtual inclinometer" algorithm. The system allows for calibrating the array directly against an ion chamber signal collected with high angular resolution. These enhancements are quantitatively validated using several strategies including ion chamber measurements taken using a "blank" plastic shell mimicking the actual phantom, and comparison to high resolution dose calculations for a variety of fields: static, simple arcs, and VMAT. A number of sophisticated treatment planning algorithms were benchmarked against ion chamber measurements for their ability to handle a large air cavity in the phantom., Results: Each calibration correction is quantified and presented vs its independent variable(s). The virtual inclinometer is validated by direct comparison to the gantry angle vs time data from machine log files. The effects of the calibration are quantified and improvements are seen in the dose agreement with the ion chamber reference measurements and with the TPS calculations. These improved agreements are a result of removing prior limitations and assumptions in the calibration methodology. Average gamma analysis passing rates for VMAT plans based on the AAPM TG-119 report are 98.4 and 93.3% for the 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm dose-error/distance to agreement threshold criteria, respectively, with the global dose-error normalization. With the local dose-error normalization, the average passing rates are reduced to 94.6 and 85.7% for the 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm criteria, respectively. Some algorithms in the convolution/superposition family are not sufficiently accurate in predicting the exit dose in the presence of a 15 cm diameter air cavity., Conclusions: Introduction of the improved calibration methodology, enabled by a robust virtual inclinometer algorithm, improves the accuracy of the dosimeter's absolute dose measurements. With our treatment planning and delivery chain, gamma analysis passing rates for the VMAT plans based on the AAPM TG-119 report are expected to be above 91% and average at about 95% level for γ(3%/3 mm) with the local dose-error normalization. This stringent comparison methodology is more indicative of the true VMAT system commissioning accuracy compared to the often quoted dose-error normalization to a single high value.

Although conceptually straightforward, dosimetry of permanent 125I seed prostate implants is not necessarily easy to implement in clinical practice, especially for institutions that are unwilling or unable to modify their commercial RTP systems. Spreadsheet techniques that aid in both preimplant treatment planning and post-implant dosimetric evaluation have been developed. The first spreadsheet converts the seed distribution expressed in terms of template grid coordinates to the format suitable for input into the RTP system, and determines the positions and loading patterns of individual needles. The second spreadsheet macroprogram is designed, as a modification of the Roy et al. [Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 26, 163-169 (1993)] technique, to interactively determine physical seed locations from the post-implant CT images. Although less automated than described elsewhere, this approach was found acceptable for clinical practice at our institution.