Search

Background and purpose: Postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) is complex to plan and deliver, but could be improved with 3D-printed, patient-specific electron tissue compensators. The purposes of this study were to develop an algorithm to design patient-specific compensators that achieve clinical goals, to 3D-print the planned compensators, and validate calculated dose distributions with film and thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) measurements in 3D-printed phantoms of PMRT patients. Materials and methods: An iterative algorithm was developed to design compensators corresponding to single-field, single-energy electron plans for PMRT patients. The 3D-printable compensators were designed to fit into the electron aperture, with cerrobend poured around it. For a sample of eight patients, calculated dose distributions for compensator plans were compared with patients’ (multi-field, multi-energy) clinical treatment plans. For all patients, dosimetric parameters were compared including clinical target volume (CTV), lung, and heart metrics. For validation, compensators were fabricated and irradiated for a set of six 3D-printed patient-specific phantoms. Dose distributions in the phantoms were measured with TLD and film. These measurements were compared with the treatment planning system calculated dose distributions. Results: The compensator treatment plans achieved superior CTV coverage (97% vs 89% of the CTV receiving the prescription dose, p 0.35) to the conventional treatment plans. Average differences between calculated and measured TLD values were 2%, and average film profile differences were

Background and purpose: Remote beam output audits, which independently measure an institution’s machine calibration, are a common component of independent radiotherapy peer review. This work reviews the results and trends of these audit results across several organisations and geographical regions. Materials and methods: Beam output audit results from the Australian Clinical Dosimetry Services, International Atomic Energy Agency, Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, and Radiation Dosimetry Services were evaluated from 2010 to the present. The rate of audit results outside a ±5% tolerance was evaluated for photon and electron beams as a function of the year of irradiation and nominal beam energy. Additionally, examples of confirmed calibration errors were examined to provide guidance to clinical physicists and auditing bodies. Results: Of the 210,167 audit results, 1323 (0.63%) were outside of tolerance. There was a clear trend of improved audit performance for more recent dates, and while all photon energies generally showed uniform rates of results out of tolerance, low (6 MeV) and high (≥18 MeV) energy electron beams showed significantly elevated rates. Twenty nine confirmed calibration errors were explored and attributed to a range of issues, such as equipment failures, errors in setup, and errors in performing the clinical reference calibration. Forty-two percent of these confirmed errors were detected during ongoing periodic monitoring, and not at the time of the first audit of the machine. Conclusions: Remote beam output audits have identified, and continue to identify, numerous and often substantial beam calibration errors. Keywords: Global harmonization group, Remote beam output audit, Dosimetry audit, Calibration, QA

Background and purpose: An audit methodology for verifying the implementation of output factors (OFs) of small fields in treatment planning systems (TPSs) used in radiotherapy was developed and tested through a multinational research group and performed on a national level in five different countries. Materials and methods: Centres participating in this study were asked to provide OFs calculated by their TPSs for 10 × 10 cm2, 6 × 6 cm2, 4 × 4 cm2, 3 × 3 cm2 and 2 × 2 cm2 field sizes using an SSD of 100 cm. The ratio of these calculated OFs to reference OFs was analysed. The action limit was ±3% for the 2 × 2 cm2 field and ±2% for all other fields. Results: OFs for more than 200 different beams were collected in total. On average, the OFs for small fields calculated by TPSs were generally larger than measured reference data. These deviations increased with decreasing field size. On a national level, 30% and 31% of the calculated OFs of the 2 × 2 cm2 field exceeded the action limit of 3% for nominal beam energies of 6 MV and for nominal beam energies higher than 6 MV, respectively. Conclusion: Modern TPS beam models generally overestimate the OFs for small fields. The verification of calculated small field OFs is a vital step and should be included when commissioning a TPS. The methodology outlined in this study can be used to identify potential discrepancies in clinical beam models. Keywords: Dosimetry audit, Small field output factors, Treatment planning system