Search

Purpose Diffusion-weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging (DWI) has been shown to be a powerful tool for cancer detection with high tumor-to-tissue contrast. This study aims to investigate the feasibility of developing a four-dimensional DWI technique (4D-DWI) for imaging respiratory motion for radiation therapy applications. Materials/methods Image acquisition was performed by repeatedly imaging a volume of interest (VOI) using an interleaved multislice single-shot echo-planar imaging (EPI) 2D-DWI sequence in the axial plane. Each 2D-DWI image was acquired with an intermediately low b-value (b = 500 s/mm2 ) and with diffusion-encoding gradients in x, y, and z diffusion directions. Respiratory motion was simultaneously recorded using a respiratory bellow, and the synchronized respiratory signal was used to retrospectively sort the 2D images to generate 4D-DWI. Cine MRI using steady-state free precession was also acquired as a motion reference. As a preliminary feasibility study, this technique was implemented on a 4D digital human phantom (XCAT) with a simulated pancreas tumor. The respiratory motion of the phantom was controlled by regular sinusoidal motion profile. 4D-DWI tumor motion trajectories were extracted and compared with the input breathing curve. The mean absolute amplitude differences (D) were calculated in superior-inferior (SI) direction and anterior-posterior (AP) direction. The technique was then evaluated on two healthy volunteers. Finally, the effects of 4D-DWI on apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements were investigated for hypothetical heterogeneous tumors via simulations. Results Tumor trajectories extracted from XCAT 4D-DWI were consistent with the input signal: the average D value was 1.9 mm (SI) and 0.4 mm (AP). The average D value was 2.6 mm (SI) and 1.7 mm (AP) for the two healthy volunteers. Conclusion A 4D-DWI technique has been developed and evaluated on digital phantom and human subjects. 4D-DWI can lead to more accurate respiratory motion measurement. This has a great potential to improve the visualization and delineation of cancer tumors for radiotherapy.

The increasing complexity of modern radiation therapy planning and delivery challenges traditional prescriptive quality management (QM) methods, such as many of those included in guidelines published by organizations such as the AAPM, ASTRO, ACR, ESTRO, and IAEA. These prescriptive guidelines have traditionally focused on monitoring all aspects of the functional performance of radiotherapy (RT) equipment by comparing parameters against tolerances set at strict but achievable values. Many errors that occur in radiation oncology are not due to failures in devices and software; rather they are failures in workflow and process. A systematic understanding of the likelihood and clinical impact of possible failures throughout a course of radiotherapy is needed to direct limit QM resources efficiently to produce maximum safety and quality of patient care. Task Group 100 of the AAPM has taken a broad view of these issues and has developed a framework for designing QM activities, based on estimates of the probability of identified failures and their clinical outcome through the RT planning and delivery process. The Task Group has chosen a specific radiotherapy process required for “intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)” as a case study. The goal of this work is to apply modern risk-based analysis techniques to this complex RT process in order to demonstrate to the RT community that such techniques may help identify more effective and efficient ways to enhance the safety and quality of our treatment processes. The task group generated by consensus an example quality management program strategy for the IMRT process performed at the institution of one of the authors. This report describes the methodology and nomenclature developed, presents the process maps, FMEAs, fault trees, and QM programs developed, and makes suggestions on how this information could be used in the clinic. The development and implementation of risk-assessment techniques will make radiation therapy safer and more efficient.

The increasing complexity of modern radiation therapy planning and delivery challenges traditional prescriptive quality management (QM) methods, such as many of those included in guidelines published by organizations such as the AAPM, ASTRO, ACR, ESTRO, and IAEA. These prescriptive guidelines have traditionally focused on monitoring all aspects of the functional performance of radiotherapy (RT) equipment by comparing parameters against tolerances set at strict but achievable values. Many errors that occur in radiation oncology are not due to failures in devices and software; rather they are failures in workflow and process. A systematic understanding of the likelihood and clinical impact of possible failures throughout a course of radiotherapy is needed to direct limit QM resources efficiently to produce maximum safety and quality of patient care. Task Group 100 of the AAPM has taken a broad view of these issues and has developed a framework for designing QM activities, based on estimates of the probability of identified failures and their clinical outcome through the RT planning and delivery process. The Task Group has chosen a specific radiotherapy process required for “intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)” as a case study. The goal of this work is to apply modern risk-based analysis techniques to this complex RT process in order to demonstrate to the RT community that such techniques may help identify more effective and efficient ways to enhance the safety and quality of our treatment processes. The task group generated by consensus an example quality management program strategy for the IMRT process performed at the institution of one of the authors. This report describes the methodology and nomenclature developed, presents the process maps, FMEAs, fault trees, and QM programs developed, and makes suggestions on how this information could be used in the clinic. The development and implementation of risk-assessment techniques will make radiation therapy safer and more efficient.

Purpose: The aim of this study is to evaluate the dosimetric performance of a newly developed proton-sensitive polymergel formulation for proton therapydosimetry. Methods: Using passive scattered modulated and nonmodulated proton beams, the dose response of the gel was assessed. A next-generation optical CT scanner is used as the readout mechanism of the radiation-induced absorbance in the gel medium. Comparison of relative dose profiles in the gel to ion chamber profiles in water is performed. A simple and easily reproducible calibration protocol is established for routine gel batch calibrations. Relative stopping power ratio measurement of the gel medium was performed to ensure accurate water-equivalent depth dose scaling. Measured dose distributions in the gel were compared to treatment planning system for benchmark irradiations and quality of agreement is assessed using clinically relevant gamma index criteria. Results: The dosimetric response of the gel was mapped up to 600 cGy using an electron-based calibration technique. Excellent dosimetric agreement is observed between ion chamber data and gel. The most notable result of this work is the fact that this gel has no observed dose quenching in the Bragg peak region. Quantitative dose distribution comparisons to treatment planning system calculations show that most ( > 97 % ) of the geldose maps pass the 3%/3 mm gamma criterion. Conclusions: This study shows that the new proton-sensitive geldosimeter is capable of reproducing ion chamberdose data for modulated and nonmodulated Bragg peak beams with different clinical beam energies. The findings suggest that the geldosimeter can be used as QA tool for millimeter range verification of proton beam deliveries in the dosimeter medium.

Purpose: Accurate modeling of beam profiles is important for precise treatment planning dosimetry. Calculated beam profiles need to precisely replicate profiles measured during machine commissioning. Finite detector size introduces perturbations into the measured profiles, which, in turn, impact the resulting modeled profiles. The authors investigate a method for extracting the unperturbed beam profiles from those measured during linear accelerator commissioning. Methods: In-plane and cross-plane data were collected for an Elekta Synergy linac at 6 MV using ionization chambers of volume 0.01, 0.04, 0.13, and 0.65 cm{sup 3} and a diode of surface area 0.64 mm{sup 2}. The detectors were orientated with the stem perpendicular to the beam and pointing away from the gantry. Profiles were measured for a 10x10 cm{sup 2} field at depths ranging from 0.8 to 25.0 cm and SSDs from 90 to 110 cm. Shaping parameters of a Gaussian response function were obtained relative to the Edge detector. The Gaussian function was deconvolved from the measured ionization chamber data. The Edge detector profile was taken as an approximation to the true profile, to which deconvolved data were compared. Data were also collected with CC13 and Edge detectors for additional fields and energies on an Elekta Synergy, Varianmore » Trilogy, and Siemens Oncor linear accelerator and response functions obtained. Response functions were compared as a function of depth, SSD, and detector scan direction. Variations in the shaping parameter were introduced and the effect on the resulting deconvolution profiles assessed. Results: Up to 10% setup dependence in the Gaussian shaping parameter occurred, for each detector for a particular plane. This translated to less than a {+-}0.7 mm variation in the 80%-20% penumbral width. For large volume ionization chambers such as the FC65 Farmer type, where the cavity length to diameter ratio is far from 1, the scan direction produced up to a 40% difference in the shaping parameter between in-plane and cross-plane measurements. This is primarily due to the directional difference in penumbral width measured by the FC65 chamber, which can more than double in profiles obtained with the detector stem parallel compared to perpendicular to the scan direction. For the more symmetric CC13 chamber the variation was only 3% between in-plane and cross-plane measurements. Conclusions: The authors have shown that the detector response varies with detector type, depth, SSD, and detector scan direction. In-plane vs cross-plane scanning can require calculation of a direction dependent response function. The effect of a 10% overall variation in the response function, for an ionization chamber, translates to a small deviation in the penumbra from that of the Edge detector measured profile when deconvolved. Due to the uncertainties introduced by deconvolution the Edge detector would be preferable in obtaining an approximation of the true profile, particularly for field sizes where the energy dependence of the diode can be neglected. However, an averaged response function could be utilized to provide a good approximation of the true profile for large ionization chambers and for larger fields for which diode detectors are not recommended.« less

AAPM Task Group 119 has produced quantitative confidence limits as baseline expectation values for IMRT commissioning. A set of test cases was developed to assess the overall accuracy of planning and delivery of IMRT treatments. Each test uses contours of targets and avoidance structures drawn within rectangular phantoms. These tests were planned, delivered, measured, and analyzed by nine facilities using a variety of IMRT planning and delivery systems. Each facility had passed the Radiological Physics Center credentialing tests for IMRT. The agreement between the planned and measured doses was determined using ion chamber dosimetry in high and low dose regions, film dosimetry on coronal planes in the phantom with all fields delivered, and planar dosimetry for each field measured perpendicular to the central axis. The planar dose distributions were assessed using gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm. The mean values and standard deviations were used to develop confidence limits for the test results using the concept confidence limit = /mean/ + 1.96sigma. Other facilities can use the test protocol and results as a basis for comparison to this group. Locally derived confidence limits that substantially exceed these baseline values may indicate the need for improved IMRT commissioning.

The concept of in-air output ratio (Sc) was introduced to characterize how the incident photon fluence per monitor unit (or unit time for a Co-60 unit) varies with collimator settings. However, there has been much confusion regarding the measurement technique to be used that has prevented the accurate and consistent determination of Sc. The main thrust of the report is to devise a theoretical and measurement formalism that ensures interinstitutional consistency of Sc. The in-air output ratio, Sc, is defined as the ratio of primary collision water kerma in free-space, Kp, per monitor unit between an arbitrary collimator setting and the reference collimator setting at the same location. Miniphantoms with sufficient lateral and longitudinal thicknesses to eliminate electron contamination and maintain transient electron equilibrium are recommended for the measurement of Sc. The authors present a correction formalism to extrapolate the correct Sc from the measured values using high-Z miniphantom. Miniphantoms made of high-Z material are used to measure Sc for small fields (e.g., IMRT or stereotactic radiosurgery). This report presents a review of the components of Sc, including headscatter, source-obscuring, and monitor-backscattering effects. A review of calculation methods (Monte Carlo and empirical) used to calculate Sc for arbitrary shaped fields is presented. The authors discussed the use of Sc in photon dose calculation algorithms, in particular, monitor unit calculation. Finally, a summary of Sc data (from RPC and other institutions) is included for QA purposes.

Purpose: The authors have developed a quantitative calibration method for a multileaf collimator (MLC) which measures individual leaf positions relative to the MLC backup jaw on an Elekta Synergy linear accelerator. Methods: The method utilizes a commercially available two-axis detector array (Profiler 2; Sun Nuclear Corporation, Melbourne, FL). To calibrate the MLC bank, its backup jaw is positioned at the central axis and the opposing jaw is retracted to create a half-beam configuration. The position of the backup jaws field edge is then measured with the array to obtain what is termed the radiation defined reference line. The positions of the individual leaf ends relative to this reference line are then inferred by the detector response in the leaf end penumbra. Iteratively adjusting and remeasuring the leaf end positions to within specifications completes the calibration. Using the backup jaw as a reference for the leaf end positions is based on three assumptions: (1) The leading edge of an MLC leaf bank is parallel to its backup jaw's leading edge, (2) the backup jaw position is reproducible, and (3) the measured radiation field edge created by each leaf end is representative of that leaf's position. Data from an electronic portal imagingmore » device (EPID) were used in a similar analysis to check the results obtained with the array. Results: The relative leaf end positions measured with the array differed from those measured with the EPID by an average of 0.11 {+-}0.09 mm per leaf. The maximum leaf positional change measured with the Profiler 2 over a 3 month period was 0.51 mm. A leaf positional accuracy of {+-}0.4 mm is easily attainable through the iterative calibration process. The method requires an average of 40 min to measure both leaf banks. Conclusions: This work demonstrates that the Profiler 2 is an effective tool for efficient and quantitative MLC quality assurance and calibration.« less

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to establish the in vivo verification of proton beam path by using proton-activated positron emission distributions. Methods: A total of 50 PET/CT imaging studies were performed on ten prostate cancer patients immediately after daily proton therapy treatment through a single lateral portal. The PET/CT and planning CT were registered by matching the pelvic bones, and the beam path of delivered protons was defined in vivo by the positron emission distribution seen only within the pelvic bones, referred to as the PET-defined beam path. Because of the patient position correction at each fraction, the marker-defined beam path, determined by the centroid of implanted markers seen in the post-treatment (post-Tx) CT, is used for the planned beam path. The angular variation and discordance between the PET- and marker-defined paths were derived to investigate the intrafraction prostate motion. For studies with large discordance, the relative location between the centroid and pelvic bones seen in the post-Tx CT was examined. The PET/CT studies are categorized for distinguishing the prostate motion that occurred before or after beam delivery. The post-PET CT was acquired after PET imaging to investigate prostate motion due to physiological changes during the extended PETmore » acquisition. Results: The less than 2 deg. of angular variation indicates that the patient roll was minimal within the immobilization device. Thirty of the 50 studies with small discordance, referred as good cases, show a consistent alignment between the field edges and the positron emission distributions from the entrance to the distal edge. For those good cases, average displacements are 0.6 and 1.3 mm along the anterior-posterior (D{sub AP}) and superior-inferior (D{sub SI}) directions, respectively, with 1.6 mm standard deviations in both directions. For the remaining 20 studies demonstrating a large discordance (more than 6 mm in either D{sub AP} or D{sub SI}), 13 studies, referred as motion-after-Tx cases, also show large misalignment between the field edge and the positron emission distribution in lipomatous tissues around the prostate. These motion-after-Tx cases correspond to patients with large changes in volume of rectal gas between the post-Tx and the post-PET CTs. The standard deviations for D{sub AP} and D{sub SI} are 5.0 and 3.0 mm, respectively, for these motion-after-Tx cases. The final seven studies, referred to as position-error cases, which had a large discordance but no misalignment, were found to have deviations of 4.6 and 3.6 mm in D{sub AP} and D{sub SI}, respectively. The position-error cases correspond to a large discrepancy on the relative location between the centroid and pelvic bones seen in post-Tx CT and recorded x-ray radiographs. Conclusions: Systematic analyses of proton-activated positron emission distributions provide patient-specific information on prostate motion ({sigma}{sub M}) and patient position variability ({Sigma}{sub p}) during daily proton beam delivery. The less than 2 mm of displacement variations in the good cases indicates that population-based values of {Sigma}{sub p} and {sigma}{sub M} used in margin algorithms for treatment planning at the authors' institution are valid for the majority of cases. However, a small fraction of PET/CT studies (approximately 14%) with {approx}4 mm displacement variations may require different margins. Such data are useful in establishing patient-specific planning target volume margins.« less

Purpose: The authors we evaluate the uncertainty in proton therapy dose distribution for prostate cancer due to organ displacement, varying penumbra width of proton beams, and the amount of rectal gas inside the rectum. Methods and Materials: Proton beam treatment plans were generated for ten prostate patients with a minimum dose of 74.1 cobalt gray equivalent (CGE) to the planning target volume (PTV) while 95% of the PTV received 78 CGE. Two lateral or lateral oblique proton beams were used for each plan. The authors we investigated the uncertainty in dose to the rectal wall (RW) and the bladder wall (BW) due to organ displacement by comparing the dose-volume histograms (DVH) calculated with the original or shifted contours. The variation between DVHs was also evaluated for patients with and without rectal gas in the rectum for five patients who had 16 to 47 cc of visible rectal gas in their planning computed tomography (CT) imaging set. The uncertainty due to the varying penumbra width of the delivered protons for different beam setting options on the proton delivery system was also evaluated. Results: For a 5 mm anterior shift, the relative change in the RW volume receiving 70 CGE dose (V{submore » 70}) was 37.9% (5.0% absolute change in 13.2% of a mean V{sub 70}). The relative change in the BW volume receiving 70 CGE dose (V{sub 70}) was 20.9% (4.3% absolute change in 20.6% of a mean V{sub 70}) with a 5 mm inferior shift. A 2 mm penumbra difference in beam setting options on the proton delivery system resulted in the relative variations of 6.1% (0.8% absolute change) and 4.4% (0.9% absolute change) in V{sub 70} of RW and BW, respectively. The data show that the organ displacements produce absolute DVH changes that generally shift the entire isodose line while maintaining the same shape. The overall shape of the DVH curve for each organ is determined by the penumbra and the distance of the target in beam's eye view (BEV) from the block edge. The beam setting option producing a 2 mm sharper penumbra at the isocenter can reduce the magnitude of maximal doses to the RW by 2% compared to the alternate option utilizing the same block margin of 7 mm. The dose to 0.1 cc of the femoral head on the distal side of the lateral-posterior oblique beam is increased by 25 CGE for a patient with 25 cc of rectal gas. Conclusion: Variation in the rectal and bladder wall DVHs due to uncertainty in the position of the organs relative to the location of sharp dose falloff gradients should be accounted for when evaluating treatment plans. The proton beam delivery option producing a sharper penumbra reduces maximal doses to the rectal wall. Lateral-posterior oblique beams should be avoided in patients prone to develop a large amount of rectal gas.« less

The AAPM Low Energy Brachytherapy Source Calibration Working Group was formed to investigate and recommend quality control and quality assurance procedures for brachytherapy sources prior to clinical use. Compiling and clarifying recommendations established by previous AAPM Task Groups 40, 56, and 64 were among the working group's charges, which also included the role of third-party handlers to perform loading and assay of sources. This document presents the findings of the working group on the responsibilities of the institutional medical physicist and a clarification of the existing AAPM recommendations in the assay of brachytherapy sources. Responsibility for the performance and attestation of source assays rests with the institutional medical physicist, who must use calibration equipment appropriate for each source type used at the institution. Such equipment and calibration procedures shall ensure secondary traceability to a national standard. For each multi-source implant, 10% of the sources or ten sources, whichever is greater, are to be assayed. Procedures for presterilized source packaging are outlined. The mean source strength of the assayed sources must agree with the manufacturer's stated strength to within 3%, or action must be taken to resolve the difference. Third party assays do not absolve the institutional physicist from the responsibility to perform the institutional measurement and attest to the strength of the implanted sources. The AAPM leaves it to the discretion of the institutional medical physicist whether the manufacturer's or institutional physicist's measured value should be used in performing dosimetry calculations.

Multileaf collimator-based intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is complex because each intensity modulated field consists of hundreds of subfields, each of which is associated with an intricate interplay of uncertainties. In this study, the authors have revised the previously introduced uncertainty model to provide an a priori accurate prediction of dose uncertainty during treatment planning in IMRT. In the previous model, the dose uncertainties were categorized into space-oriented dose uncertainty (SOU) and nonspace-oriented dose uncertainty (NOU). The revised model further divided the uncertainty sources into planning and delivery. SOU and NOU associated with a planning system were defined as inherent dose uncertainty. A convolution method with seven degrees of freedom was also newly applied to generalize the model for practical clinical cases. The model parameters were quantified through a set of measurements, accumulated routine quality assurance (QA) data, and peer-reviewed publications. The predicted uncertainty maps were compared with dose difference distributions between computations and 108 simple open-field measurements using a two-dimensional diode array detector to verify the validity of the model parameters and robustness of the generalized model. To examine the applicability of the model to overall dose uncertainty prediction in IMRT, a retrospective analysis of QA measurements using themore » diode array detector for 32 clinical IM fields was also performed. A scatter diagram and a correlation coefficient were employed to investigate a correlation of the predicted dose uncertainty distribution with the dose discrepancy distribution between calculation and delivery. In addition, a {gamma} test was performed to correlate failed regions in dose verification with the dose uncertainty map. The quantified model parameters well correlated the predicted dose uncertainty with the probable dose difference between calculations and measurements. It was visually validated with the scatter diagrams. The average correlation coefficient between uncertainty and dose difference of 108 verification measurements was 0.80{+-}0.04, indicating a strong linear correlation. In the clinical IM field studies, the dose uncertainty map mimicked the probable dose difference distribution. The average correlation coefficient between the overall dose uncertainty and the dose difference of 32 QA measurements (total 13 184 comparison points) was 0.75{+-}0.07, which also indicated a strong linear correlation between them. The failed regions of the {gamma} test remarkably corresponded to relatively high dose uncertainty. In conclusion, the dose uncertainty map was able to highlight high dose uncertainty regions, where more care should be taken during the treatment plan. The a priori accurate prediction of dose uncertainty in IMRT will significantly improve the treatment plan evaluation process, thus improving the quality of radiation treatments.« less

The purpose of this study is to establish a comprehensive set of dose measurements data obtained from the X-ray Volumetric Imager (XVI, Elekta Oncology Systems) and the On-Board Imager (OBI, Varian Medical Systems) cone-beam CT (CBCT) systems. To this end, two uniform-density cylindrical acrylic phantoms with diameters of 18 cm (head phantom) and 30 cm (body phantom) were used for all measurements. Both phantoms included ion chamber placement holes in the center and at periphery (2 cm below surface). For the XVI unit, the four standard manufacturer-supplied protocols were measured. For the OBI unit, the full bow tie and half bow tie (and no bow tie) filters were used in combination with the two scanning modes; namely, full-fan and half-fan. The total milliampere x seconds (mA s) setting was also varied for each protocol to establish the linear relationship between the dose deposited and the mA s used (with all other factors being held constant). Half-value layers in aluminum (Al) were also measured for beam characteristic determination. For the XVI unit, the average dose ranged from 0.1 to 3.5 cGy with the highest dose measured using the "prostate" protocol with the body phantom. For the OBI unit, the average dose ranged from 1.1 to 8.3 cGy with the highest dose measured using the full-fan protocol with the head phantom. The measured doses were highly linear as a function of mA s, for both units, where the measurement points followed a linear relationship very closely with R2 > 0.99 for all cases. Half-value layers were between 4.6- and 7.0-mm-Al for the two CBCT units where XVI generally had more penetrating beams at the similar kVp settings. In conclusion, a comprehensive series of dose measurements were performed on the XVI and the OBI CBCT units. In the process, many of the important similarities and differences between the two systems were observed and summarized in this work.

TG-69 is a task group report of the AAPM on the use of radiographic film for dosimetry. Radiographic films have been used for radiation dosimetry since the discovery of x-rays and have become an integral part of dose verification for both routine quality assurance and for complex treatments such as soft wedges (dynamic and virtual), intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), image guided radiation therapy (IGRT), and small field dosimetry like stereotactic radiosurgery. Film is convenient to use, spatially accurate, and provides a permanent record of the integrated two dimensional dose distributions. However, there are several challenges to obtaining high quality dosimetric results with film, namely, the dependence of optical density on photon energy, field size, depth, film batch sensitivity differences, film orientation, processing conditions, and scanner performance. Prior to the clinical implementation of a film dosimetry program, the film, processor, and scanner need to be tested to characterize them with respect to these variables. Also, the physicist must understand the basic characteristics of all components of film dosimetry systems. The primary mission of this task group report is to provide guidelines for film selection, irradiation, processing, scanning, and interpretation to allow the physicist to accurately and precisely measure dose with film. Additionally, we present the basic principles and characteristics of film, processors, and scanners. Procedural recommendations are made for each of the steps required for film dosimetry and guidance is given regarding expected levels of accuracy. Finally, some clinical applications of film dosimetry are discussed.

Despite much development, there remains dosimetric uncertainty in the surface and build-up regions in intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment plans for head and neck cancers. Experiments were performed to determine the dosimetric discrepancies in the surface and build-up region between the treatment planning system (TPS) prediction and experimental measurement using radiochromic film. A head and neck compression film phantom was constructed from two semicylindrical solid water slabs. Treatment plans were generated using two commercial TPSs (PINNACLE3 and CORVUS) for two cases, one with a shallow (approximately 0.5 cm depth) target and another with a deep (approximately 6 cm depth) target. The plans were evaluated for a 54 Gy prescribed dose. For each case, two pieces of radiochromic film were used for dose measurement. A small piece of film strip was placed on the surface and another was inserted within the phantom. Overall, both TPSs showed good agreement with the measurement. For the shallow target case, the dose differences were within +/- 300 cGy (5.6% with respect to the prescribed dose) for PINNACLE3 and +/- 240 cGy (4.4%) for CORVUS in 90% of the region of interest. For the deep target case, the dose differences were +/- 350 (6.5%) for PINNACLE3 and +/- 260 cGy (4.8%) for CORVUS in 90% of the region of interest. However, it was found that there were significant discrepancies from the surface to about 0.2 cm in depth for both the shallow and deep target cases. It was concluded that both TPSs overestimated the surface dose for both shallow and deep target cases. The amount of overestimation ranges from 400 to 1000 cGy (approximately 7.4% to 18.5% with respect to the prescribed dose, 5400 cGy).

Based on statistical approach, a novel dose uncertainty model was introduced considering both nonspatial and spatial dose deviations. Non-space-oriented uncertainty is mainly caused by dosimetric uncertainties, and space-oriented dose uncertainty is the uncertainty caused by all spatial displacements. Assuming these two parts are independent, dose difference between measurement and calculation is a linear combination of nonspatial and spatial dose uncertainties. Two assumptions were made: (1) the relative standard deviation of nonspatial dose uncertainty is inversely proportional to the dose standard deviation {sigma}, and (2) the spatial dose uncertainty is proportional to the gradient of dose. The total dose uncertainty is a quadratic sum of the nonspatial and spatial uncertainties. The uncertainty model provides the tolerance dose bound for comparison between calculation and measurement. In the statistical uncertainty model based on a Gaussian distribution, a confidence level of 3{sigma} theoretically confines 99.74% of measurements within the bound. By setting the confidence limit, the tolerance bound for dose comparison can be made analogous to that of existing dose comparison methods (e.g., a composite distribution analysis, a {gamma} test, a {chi} evaluation, and a normalized agreement test method). However, the model considers the inherent dose uncertainty characteristics of the test points by takingmore » into account the space-specific history of dose accumulation, while the previous methods apply a single tolerance criterion to the points, although dose uncertainty at each point is significantly different from others. Three types of one-dimensional test dose distributions (a single large field, a composite flat field made by two identical beams, and three-beam intensity-modulated fields) were made to verify the robustness of the model. For each test distribution, the dose bound predicted by the uncertainty model was compared with simulated measurements. The simulated measurements were within the tolerance bound as expected by a statistical prediction of the model. Using the dose uncertainty distributions, an uncertainty length (uncertainty area and uncertainty volume for two-dimensional and three-dimensional, respectively) histogram (a plot of the dose uncertainty of 1{sigma} received by a length of field) was made. The histogram provides additional information on superiority of a treatment plan in terms of uncertainty. In summary, the uncertainty model provides the dose comparison tool as well as the evaluation tool of a treatment planning system.« less

We present a theoretical and empirical analysis of the errors associated with the spatial discretization of the dose grid employed in optimized intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment plans. An information theory based Fourier analysis of the accuracy of discrete representations of three-dimensional dose distributions is presented. When applied to beamlet-based IMRT dose distributions, the theory produces analytic integrals that can bound worst case aliasing errors that can occur regardless of the location and orientation of the dose grid. The predictions of this theory are compared to empirical results obtained by solving a linear-programming based fluence-map optimization model to global optimality. A reasonable agreement between worst case estimates and the empirical results is attributed to the fact that the optimization takes advantage of aliasing to produce an optimal plan. We predicted and empirically demonstrated that an isotropic dose grid with

The multileaf travel range limitations on some linear accelerators require the splitting of a large intensity-modulated field into two or more adjacent abutting intensity-modulated subfields. The abutting subfields are then delivered as separate treatment fields. This workaround not only increases the treatment delivery time but it also increases the total monitor units (MU) delivered to the patient for a given prescribed dose. It is imperative that the cumulative intensity map of the subfields is exactly the same as the intensity map of the large field generated by the dose optimization algorithm, while satisfying hardware constraints of the delivery system. In this work, we describe field splitting algorithms that split a large intensity-modulated field into two or more intensity-modulated subfields with and without feathering, with optimal MU efficiency while satisfying the hardware constraints. Compared to a field splitting technique (without feathering) used in a commercial planning system, our field splitting algorithm (without feathering) shows a decrease in total MU of up to 26% on clinical cases and up to 63% on synthetic cases.

Purpose: To enable near-real-time (

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) represents one of the most significant technical advances in radiation therapy since the advent of the medical linear accelerator. It allows the clinical implementation of highly conformal nonconvex dose distributions. This complex but promising treatment modality is rapidly proliferating in both academic and community practice settings. However, these advances do not come without a risk. IMRT is not just an add-on to the current radiation therapy process; it represents a new paradigm that requires the knowledge of multimodality imaging, setup uncertainties and internal organ motion, tumor control probabilities, normal tissue complication probabilities, three-dimensional (3-D) dose calculation and optimization, and dynamic beam delivery of nonuniform beam intensities. Therefore, the purpose of this report is to guide and assist the clinical medical physicist in developing and implementing a viable and safe IMRT program. The scope of the IMRT program is quite broad, encompassing multileaf-collimator-based IMRT delivery systems, goal-based inverse treatment planning, and clinical implementation of IMRT with patient-specific quality assurance. This report, while not prescribing specific procedures, provides the framework and guidance to allow clinical radiation oncology physicists to make judicious decisions in implementing a safe and efficient IMRT program in their clinics.

The generalized monitor unit (MU) calculation equation for the Varian enhanced dynamic wedge (EDW) is derived. The assumption of this MU calculation method is that the wedge factor of the EDW at the center of the field is a function of field size, the position of the center of the field in the wedge direction, and the final position of the moving jaw. The wedge factors at the center of the field in both symmetric and asymmetric fields are examined. The difference between calculated and measured wedge factors is within 1.0%. The method developed here is easy to implement. The only datum required in addition to the standard set of conventional physical wedge implementation data is the off-axis output factor for the open field in the reference condition. The off-center point calculation is also examined. For the off-center point calculation, the dose profile in the wedge direction for the largest EDW field is used to obtain the relative off-center ratio in any smaller wedge field. The accuracy of the off-center point calculation decreases when the point of calculation is too close to the field edge.

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) delivered with multi-leaf collimator (MLC) in the step-and-shoot mode uses multiple static MLC segments to achieve intensity modulation. For typical IMRT treatment plans, significant numbers of segments are delivered with monitor units (MUs) of much less than 10. Verification of the ability of the linear accelerator (linac) to deliver small MU segments accurately is an important step in the IMRT commissioning and quality assurance (QA) process. Recent studies have reported large discrepancies between the intended and delivered segment MUs. These discrepancies could potentially cause large errors in the delivered patient dose. We have undertaken a systematic study to evaluate the accuracy of the dynamic MLC log files, which are created automatically by our commercial MLC workstation after each delivery, in recording the fractional MU delivered in the step-and-shoot mode. Two linac models were evaluated with simple-geometry leaf sequences and delivered with different total MUs and different nominal dose rates. A commercial two-dimensional diode array was used for the measurement. Large discrepancies between the intended and delivered segment MUs were found. The discrepancies were larger for small MU segments at higher dose rate, with some small MU segments completely undelivered. The recorded fractional MUs in the log files were found to agree with what was delivered within the limits of our experimental uncertainty. Our results indicate that it is important to verify the delivery accuracy of small MU segments that could potentially occur in a patient treatment and that the log files are useful in checking the integrity of the linac delivery once validated. Thus validated log files can be used as a QA tool for general IMRT delivery and patient-specific plan verification.

The purpose of this investigation is to determine if a single set of beam data, described by a minimal set of equations and fitting variables, can be used to commission different installations of a proton double-scattering system in a commercial pencil-beam dose calculation algorithm.The beam model parameters required to commission the pencil-beam dose calculation algorithm (virtual and effective SAD, effective source size, and pristine-peak energy spread) are determined for a commercial double-scattering system. These parameters are measured in a first room and parameterized as function of proton energy and nozzle settings by fitting four analytical equations to the measured data. The combination of these equations and fitting values constitutes the golden beam data (GBD). To determine the variation in dose delivery between installations, the same dosimetric properties are measured in two additional rooms at the same facility, as well as in a single room at another facility. The difference between the room-specific measurements and the GBD is evaluated against tolerances that guarantee the 3D dose distribution in each of the rooms matches the GBD-based dose distribution within clinically reasonable limits. The pencil-beam treatment-planning algorithm is commissioned with the GBD. The three-dimensional dose distribution in water is evaluated in the four treatment rooms and compared to the treatment-planning calculated dose distribution.The virtual and effective SAD measurements fall between 226 and 257 cm. The effective source size varies between 2.4 and 6.2 cm for the large-field options, and 1.0 and 2.0 cm for the small-field options. The pristine-peak energy spread decreases from 1.05% at the lowest range to 0.6% at the highest. The virtual SAD as well as the effective source size can be accurately described by a linear relationship as function of the inverse of the residual energy. An additional linear correction term as function of RM-step thickness is required for accurate parameterization of the effective SAD. The GBD energy spread is given by a linear function of the exponential of the beam energy. Except for a few outliers, the measured parameters match the GBD within the specified tolerances in all of the four rooms investigated. For a SOBP field with a range of 15 g/cm2 and an air gap of 25 cm, the maximum difference in the 80%-20% lateral penumbra between the GBD-commissioned treatment-planning system and measurements in any of the four rooms is 0.5 mm.The beam model parameters of the double-scattering system can be parameterized with a limited set of equations and parameters. This GBD closely matches the measured dosimetric properties in four different rooms.

Permanent implant of the prostate using I-125 and Pd-103 seeds is a popular choice of treatment for early-stage prostate cancer in the United States. Evaluation of the quality of the implant is best based on the calculated dose distribution from postimplant computed tomography (CT) images. This task, however, has been time-consuming and inaccurate. We have developed an algorithm for automatic source localization from postimplant CT images. The only requirement of this algorithm is knowledge of the number of seeds present in the prostate, thus minimizing the need for human intervention. The algorithm processes volumetric CT data from the patient, and pixels of higher CT numbers are categorized into classes of definite and potential source pixels. A multithresholding technique is used to further determine the number of seeds and their precise locations in the CT volume data. A graphic user interface was developed to facilitate operator review of and intervention in the calculation and the results of the algorithm. This algorithm was tested on two phantoms containing nonradioactive seeds, one with 20 seeds in discrete locations and another with 100 seeds with small distances between seeds. The tests showed that the algorithm was able to identify the seed locations to within 1 mm of their physical locations for discrete seed locations. It was further able to separate seeds at close proximity to each other while maintaining an average seed localization error of less than 2 mm, with no operator intervention required.

A simple algorithm was developed for calculation of the in-air output at various source-to-detector distances (SDDs) on the central axis for wedged fields. In the algorithm we dealt independently with two effective sources, one for head scatter and the other for wedge scatter. Varian 2100C with 18 and 8 MV photon beams was used to examine this algorithm. The effective source position for head scatter for wedged fields was assumed to be the same as that for open fields, and the effective source position for wedge scatter was assumed to be a certain distance upstream from the physical location of the wedge. The shift of the effective source for wedge scatter, w, was found to be independent of field size. Moreover, we observed no systematic dependency of w on wedge angle or beam energy. One value, w=5.5 cm, provided less than 1% difference in in-air outputs through the whole experimental range, i.e., 6×6 to 20×20 cm 2 field size (15×20 cm 2 for 60° wedge), 15°–60° wedge angle, 80–130 cm SDD, and both 18 and 8 MV photon beams. This algorithm can handle the case in which use of a tertiary collimator with an external wedge makes the field size for the determination of wedge scatter different from that for head scatter. In this case, without the two-effective-source method, the maximum of 4.7% and 2.6% difference can be given by the inverse square method and one-effective-source method in a 45° wedged field with 18 MV. Differences can be larger for thicker wedges. Enhanced dynamic wedge (EDW) fields were also examined. It was found that no second effective source is required for EDW fields.