Search

This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of independent calculation‐based verification of volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT)–stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for patients with lung cancer using a secondary treatment planning system (sTPS). In all, 50 patients with lung cancer who underwent VMAT‐SBRT between April 2018 and May 2019 were included in this study. VMAT‐SBRT plans were devised using the Collapsed‐Cone Convolution in RayStation (primary TPS: pTPS). DICOM files were transferred to Eclipse software (sTPS), which utilized the Eclipse software, and the dose distribution was then recalculated using Acuros XB. For the verification of dose distribution in homogeneous phantoms, the differences among pTPS, sTPS, and measurements were evaluated using passing rates of a dose difference of 5% (DD5%) and gamma index of 3%/2 mm (γ3%/2 mm). The ArcCHECK cylindrical diode array was used for measurements. For independent verification of dose‐volume parameters per the patient’s geometry, dose‐volume indices for the planning target volume (PTV) including D95% and the isocenter dose were evaluated. The mean differences (± standard deviations) between the pTPS and sTPS were then calculated. The gamma passing rates of DD5% and γ3%/2 mm criteria were 99.2 ± 2.4% and 98.6 ± 3.2% for pTPS vs. sTPS, 92.9 ± 4.0% and 94.1 ± 3.3% for pTPS vs. measurement, and 93.0 ± 4.4% and 94.3 ± 4.1% for sTPS vs. measurement, respectively. The differences between pTPS and sTPS for the PTVs of D95% and the isocenter dose were −3.1 ± 2.0% and −2.3 ± 1.8%, respectively. Our investigation of VMAT‐SBRT plans for lung cancer revealed that independent calculation‐based verification is a time‐efficient method for patient‐specific quality assurance.

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of fractional dose and the number of arcs on interplay effects when volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is used to treat lung tumors with large respiratory motions. A three (fractional dose of 4, 7.5 or 12.5 Gy) by two (number of arcs, one or two) VMAT plan was created for 10 lung cancer cases. The median 3D tumor motion was 17.9 mm (range: 8.2–27.2 mm). Ten phase-specific subplans were generated by calculating the dose on each respiratory phase computed tomography (CT) scan using temporally assigned VMAT arcs. We performed temporal assignment of VMAT arcs using respiratory information obtained from infrared markers placed on the abdomens of the patients during CT simulations. Each phase-specific dose distribution was deformed onto exhale phase CT scans using contour-based deformable image registration, and a 4D plan was created by dose accumulation. The gross tumor volume dose of each 4D plan (4D GTV dose) was compared with the internal target volume dose of the original plan (3D ITV dose). The near-minimum 4D GTV dose (D99%) was higher than the near-minimum 3D internal target volume (ITV) dose, whereas the near-maximum 4D GTV dose (D1%) was lower than the near-maximum 3D ITV dose. However, the difference was negligible, and thus the 4D GTV dose corresponded well with the 3D ITV dose, regardless of the fractional dose and number of arcs. Therefore, interplay effects were negligible in VMAT-based stereotactic body radiation therapy for lung tumors with large respiratory motions.

To evaluate the reproducibility of dose-based radiomic (dosiomic) features between dose-calculation algorithms for lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). We analyzed 105 patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer who underwent lung SBRT between March 2011 and December 2017. Radiation doses of 48, 60, and 70 Gy were prescribed to the isocenter in 4-8 fractions. Dose calculations were performed using X-ray voxel Monte Carlo (XVMC) on the iPlan radiation treatment planning system (RTPS). Thereafter, the radiation doses were recalculated using the Acuros XB (AXB) and analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) on the Eclipse RTPS while maintaining the XVMC-calculated monitor units and beam arrangements. A total of 6808 dosiomic features were extracted without preprocessing (112 shape, 144 first-order, and 600 texture features) or with wavelet filters to eight decompositions (1152 first-order and 4800 texture features). Features with absolute pairwise concordance correlation coefficients-|CC

A new irradiation technique, volumetric-modulated Dynamic WaveArc therapy (VMDWAT), based on sequential non-coplanar trajectories, can be performed using the Vero4DRT. This planning study compared the dose distribution and treatment time between single-isocenter volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with multiple straight non-coplanar arcs and single-isocenter VMDWAT in patients with two brain metastases. Twenty patients with two planning target volumes exceeding 2.0 cm3 were included. Both VMAT and VMDWAT plans were created with single isocenter and a prescribed dose of 28 Gy delivered in five fractions. Target conformity was evaluated using indices modified from the RTOG-CI (mRTOG-CI) and IP-CI (mIP-CI). VMDWAT significantly improved both mRTOG-CI and mIP-CI and reduced the volume of normal brain tissue receiving 25 and 28 Gy compared to VMAT. The two modalities did not significantly differ in terms of the volume of normal brain tissue receiving 5, 10, 12, 15, and 20 Gy. The mean treatment time was significantly shorter in the VMDWAT group. VMDWAT significantly improved dose distribution in a shorter treatment time compared to VMAT in patients treated for two brain metastases. Single-isocenter VMDWAT may thus be a promising treatment for two brain metastases.

Deformable image registration (DIR) has recently become commercially available in the field of radiotherapy. However, there was no detailed information regarding the use of DIR software at each medical institution. Thus, in this study, we surveyed the status of the clinical use of DIR software for radiotherapy in Japan. The Japan Society of Medical Physics and the Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology mailing lists were used to announce this survey. The questionnaire was created by investigators working under the research grant of the Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology (2017–2018) and intended for the collection of information regarding the use of DIR in radiotherapy. The survey was completed by 161 institutions in Japan. The survey results showed that dose accumulation was the most frequent purpose for which DIR was used in clinical practice (73%). Various commissioning methods were performed, although they were not standardized. Qualitative evaluation with actual patient images was the most commonly used method (28%), although 30% of the total number of responses (42% of institutions) reported that they do not perform commissioning. We surveyed the current status of clinical use of DIR software for radiotherapy in Japan for the first time. Our results indicated that a certain number of institutions used DIR software for clinical practice, and various commissioning methods were performed, although they were not standardized. Taken together, these findings highlight the need for a technically unified approach for commissioning and quality assurance for the use of DIR software in Japan.

Purpose The aim was to examine the feasibility of a dynamic tumor-tracking volumetric modulated arc therapy (DTT-VMAT) technique using a gimbal-mounted linac and assess its positional, mechanical and dosimetric accuracy. Materials and methods DTT-VMAT was performed using a surrogated signal-based technique. The positional tracking accuracy was evaluated as the difference between the predicted and detected target positions for various wave patterns. Mechanical accuracy measurements included gantry, multileaf collimator (MLC) and gimbal positions. The differences between the command and the measured positions were evaluated for various wave patterns. Dosimetric verification was performed using Gafchromic EBT3 films in the benchmark phantom and two clinical cases. Results The root mean square error (RMSE) of the positional accuracy was within 0.31 mm. The RMSE of mechanical accuracy was within 0.14° for the gantry, 0.11 ± 0.02 mm for the MLC and 0.13 mm for the gimbal positions. The passing rate of the 3%/3 mm gamma index was greater than 83.3% and 91.2% for the benchmark phantom and two clinical cases, respectively. Conclusions The positional, mechanical and dosimetric accuracy of DTT-VMAT were evaluated. DTT-VMAT with a gimbal-mounted linac had sufficient accuracy and presents a new strategy for treatment of several tumors with respiratory motion.

The aim of this study was to assess the clinical outcomes of acoustic neuromas (ANs) treated with hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (hypo-FSRT) prescribed at a uniform dose. Forty-seven patients with a unilateral AN were treated consecutively with hypo-FSRT between February 2007 and March 2012. Nineteen patients maintained a serviceable hearing status at the beginning of hypo-FSRT. The prescribed dose was 25 Gy delivered in five fractions per week to the isocenter, and the planning target volume was covered by the 80% isodose line. The median follow-up and audiometric follow-up periods were 61 and 52 months, respectively. The estimated tumor control rate at 5 years was 90% (95% CI 76–96). The existence of the cystic component before hypo-FSRT had a significantly worse impact on tumor control (p = 0.02). The estimated hearing preservation rates at 1, 3 and 5 years were 68% (95% CI 42–84), 41% (95% CI 20–62) and 36% (95% CI 15–57), respectively. A borderline significant difference was identified in the mean biological effective dose with an α/β value of 3 Gy (BED3) to the ipsilateral cochlea between the preserved hearing and hearing loss groups (19 Gy vs. 28 Gy) (p = 0.08). Hypo-FSRT delivered in five fractions for unilateral ANs may achieve excellent tumor control with no severe facial or trigeminal complications. The mean BED3 in the cochlea may impact the hearing preservation rate. Therefore, the cochlear dose should be as low as possible.

PURPOSE Our aim was to develop a portable quality control (QC) application using a thermometer, a barometer, an angle gauge, and a range finder implemented in a tablet-type consumer electronic device (CED) and to assess the accuracies of the measurements made. METHODS The QC application was programmed using Java and OpenCV libraries. First, temperature and atmospheric pressure were measured over 30 days using the temperature and pressure sensors of the CED and compared with those measured by a double-tube thermometer and a digital barometer. Second, the angle gauge was developed using the accelerometer of the CED. The roll and pitch angles of the CED were measured from 0 to 90° at intervals of 10° in the clockwise (CW) and counterclockwise (CCW) directions. The values were compared with those measured by a digital angle gauge. Third, a range finder was developed using the tablet's built-in camera and image-processing capacities. Surrogate markers were detected by the camera and their positions converted to actual positions using a homographic transformation method. Fiducial markers were placed on a treatment couch and moved 100 mm in 10-mm steps in both the lateral and longitudinal directions. The values were compared with those measured by the digital output of the treatment couch. The differences between CED values and those of other devices were compared by calculating means ± standard deviations (SDs). RESULTS The means ± SDs of differences in temperature and atmospheric pressure were -0.07 ± 0.25°C and 0.05 ± 0.10 hPa, respectively. The means ± SDs of the difference in angle was -0.17 ± 0.87° (0.15 ± 0.23° degrees excluding the 90° angle). The means ± SDs of distances were 0.01 ± 0.07 mm in both the lateral and longitudinal directions. CONCLUSIONS Our portable QC application was accurate and may be used instead of standard measuring devices. Our portable CED is efficient and simple when used in the field of medical physics.

Fiducial marker detection algorithms in kilovoltage x-ray images using physical characteristics of transmission x-ray have been proposed. It, however, has been suggested recently that factors besides transmission x-ray affect x-ray images. The purpose of this study was to develop a new fiducial detection algorithm using fiducial intensity estimation based on physical characteristics of x-ray images with gold fiducials. First, x-ray images of a fiducial on a water-equivalent phantom were acquired. It was observed that the ratio of background to fiducial intensity in the images decreased as phantom thickness increased. Based on the negative correlation, we identified a function for estimating fiducial intensity that consists of background intensity and the amount of scattered radiation by the other x-ray source of an orthogonal imaging system and a treatment beam. Then, we developed an algorithm that extracts fiducial candidates using the estimation function. Its performance was measured using x-ray images which had 3824 fiducials altogether. The average number of false-positive detection of the proposed algorithm in single image was one-tenth of an algorithm considering only transmission x-ray. The proposed algorithm detected 99.5% of all fiducials under an error of 1.0 mm, while the other algorithm detected 94.7% or less (Clinical trial number: UMIN000005324).

Purpose To conduct patient-specific geometric and dosimetric quality assurance (QA) for the Dynamic WaveArc (DWA) using logfiles and ArcCHECK (Sun Nuclear Inc., Melbourne, FL, USA). Methods Twenty DWA plans, 10 for pituitary adenoma and 10 for prostate cancer, were created using RayStation version 4.7 (RaySearch Laboratories, Stockholm, Sweden). Root mean square errors (RMSEs) between the actual and planned values in the logfiles were evaluated. Next, the dose distributions were reconstructed based on the logfiles. The differences between dose-volumetric parameters in the reconstructed plans and those in the original plans were calculated. Finally, dose distributions were assessed using ArcCHECK. In addition, the reconstructed dose distributions were compared with planned ones. Results The means of RMSEs for the gantry, O-ring, MLC position, and MU for all plans were 0.2°, 0.1°, 0.1 mm, and 0.4 MU, respectively. Absolute means of the change in PTV D99% were 0.4 ± 0.4% and 0.1 ± 0.1% points between the original and reconstructed plans for pituitary adenoma and prostate cancer, respectively. The mean of the gamma passing rate (3%/3 mm) between the measured and planned dose distributions was 97.7%. In addition, that between the reconstructed and planned dose distributions was 99.6%. Conclusions We have demonstrated that the geometric accuracy and gamma passing rates were within AAPM 119 and 142 criteria during DWA. Dose differences in the dose-volumetric parameters using the logfile-based dose reconstruction method were also clinically acceptable in DWA.

To develop a four-dimensional (4D) dose calculation system for real-time tumor tracking (RTTT) irradiation by the Vero4DRT.First, a 6-MV photon beam delivered by the Vero4DRT was simulated using EGSnrc. A moving phantom position was directly measured by a laser displacement gauge. The pan and tilt angles, monitor units, and the indexing time indicating the phantom position were also extracted from a log file. Next, phase space data at any angle were created from both the log file and particle data under the dynamic multileaf collimator. Irradiation both with and without RTTT, with the phantom moving, were simulated using several treatment field sizes. Each was compared with the corresponding measurement using films. Finally, dose calculation for each computed tomography dataset of 10 respiratory phases with the X-ray head rotated was performed to simulate the RTTT irradiation (4D plan) for lung, liver, and pancreatic cancer patients. Dose-volume histograms of the 4D plan were compared with those calculated on the single reference respiratory phase without the gimbal rotation [three-dimensional (3D) plan].Differences between the simulated and measured doses were less than 3% for RTTT irradiation in most areas, except the high-dose gradient. For clinical cases, the target coverage in 4D plans was almost identical to that of the 3D plans. However, the doses to organs at risk in the 4D plans varied at intermediate- and low-dose levels.Our proposed system has acceptable accuracy for RTTT irradiation in the Vero4DRT and is capable of simulating clinical RTTT plans.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to predict and classify the gamma passing rate (GPR) value by using new features (3D dosiomics features and combined with plan and dosiomics features) together with a machine learning technique for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment plans. Methods and materials A total of 888 patients who underwent VMAT were enrolled comprising 1255 treatment plans. Further, 24 plan complexity features and 851 dosiomics features were extracted from the treatment plans. The dataset was randomly split into a training/validation (80%) and test (20%) dataset. The three models for prediction and classification using XGBoost were as follows: (i) plan complexity features-based prediction method (plan model); (ii) 3D dosiomics feature-based prediction model (dosiomics model); (iii) a combination of both the previous models (hybrid model). The prediction performance was evaluated by calculating the mean absolute error (MAE) and the correlation coefficient (CC) between the predicted and measured GPRs. The classification performance was evaluated by calculating the area under curve (AUC) and sensitivity. Results MAE and CC at γ2%/2 mm in the test dataset were 4.6% and 0.58, 4.3% and 0.61, and 4.2% and 0.63 for the plan model, dosiomics model, and hybrid model, respectively. AUC and sensitivity at γ2%/2 mm in test dataset were 0.73 and 0.70, 0.81 and 0.90, and 0.83 and 0.90 for the plan model, dosiomics model, and hybrid model, respectively. Conclusions A combination of both plan and dosiomics features with machine learning technique can improve the prediction and classification performance for GPR.

Objective: To quantify and correct megavoltage (MV) scattered X-rays (MV-scatter) on an image acquired using a linac-mounted kilovoltage (kV) imaging subsystem. Methods and materials: A linac-mounted flat-panel detector (FPD) was used to acquire an image containing MV-scatter by activating the FPD only during MV beam irradiation. 6-, 10-, and 15 MV with a flattening-filter (FF; 6X-FF, 10X-FF, 15X-FF), and 6- and 10 MV without an FF (6X-FFF, 10X-FFF) were used. The maps were acquired by changing one of the irradiation parameters while the others remained fixed. The mean pixel values of the MV-scatter were normalized to the 6X-FF reference condition (MV-scatter value). An MV-scatter database was constructed using these values. An MV-scatter correction experiment with one full arc image acquisition and two square field sizes (FSs) was conducted. Measurement- and estimation-based corrections were performed using the database. The image contrast was calculated at each angle. Results: The MV-scatter increased with a larger FS and dose rate. The MV-scatter value factor varied substantially depending on the FPD position or collimator rotation. The median relative error ranges of the contrast for the image without, and with the measurement- and estimation-based correction were −10.9 to −2.9, and −1.5 to 4.8 and −7.4 to 2.6, respectively, for an FS of 10.0 × 10.0 cm2. Conclusions: The MV-scatter was strongly dependent on the FS, dose rate, and FPD position. The MV-scatter correction improved the image contrast. Advances in knowledge: The MV-scatters on the TrueBeam linac kV imaging subsystem were quantified with various MV beam parameters, and strongly depended on the fieldsize, dose rate, and flat panel detector position. The MV-scatter correction using the constructed database improved the image quality.

Deformable image registration (DIR) can be used for accurate dose mapping between multiple radiotherapy image set. Dose accumulation based on DIR is playing an important role in advanced radiation therapy, such as 4 dimensional radiation therapy and adaptive Radiotherapy. The accuracy of dose mapping depends on the accuracy of the deformation vector fields arising from DIR and on the local dose gradient in the irradiated geometry. Therefore, in clinical use, patient-specific verification should be performed. In this article, challenges and points to notice on DIR based dose accumulation are overviewed and discussed briefly.

Purpose To perform quality assurance of non-coplanar, volumetric-modulated arc therapy featuring continuous couch rotation (CCR-VMAT) using a C-arm linear accelerator. Methods We planned and delivered CCR-VMAT using the TrueBeam Developer Mode. Treatment plans were created for both a C-shaped phantom and five prostate cancer patients using seven CCR trajectories that lacked collisions; we used RayStation software (ver. 4.7) to this end. Subsequently, verification plans were generated. The mean absolute error (MAE) between the center of an MV-imaged steel ball and the radiation field was calculated using the Winston–Lutz test. The MAEs between planned and actual irradiation values were also calculated from trajectory logs. In addition, correlation coefficients (r values) among the MAEs of gantry angle, couch angle, and multi-leaf collimator (MLC) position, and mechanical parameters including gantry speed, couch speed, MLC speed, and beam output, were estimated. The dosimetric accuracies of planned and measured values were also assessed using ArcCHECK. Results The MAEs ±2 standard deviations as revealed by the Winston–Lutz test for all trajectories were 0.3 ± 0.3 mm in two dimensions. The MAEs of the gantry, couch, and MLC positions calculated from all trajectory logs were within 0.04°, 0.08°, and 0.02 mm, respectively. Deviations in the couch angle (r = 0.98, p

Purpose: The purposes of this study were two-fold: first, to develop a four-axis moving phantom for patient-specific quality assurance (QA) in surrogate signal-based dynamic tumor-tracking intensity-modulated radiotherapy (DTT-IMRT), and second, to evaluate the accuracy of the moving phantom and perform patient-specific dosimetric QA of the surrogate signal-based DTT-IMRT. Methods: The four-axis moving phantom comprised three orthogonal linear actuators for target motion and a fourth one for surrogate motion. The positional accuracy was verified using four laser displacement gauges under static conditions (±40 mm displacements along each axis) and moving conditions [eight regular sinusoidal and fourth-power-of-sinusoidal patterns with peak-to-peak motion ranges (H) of 10–80 mm and a breathing period (T) of 4 s, and three irregular respiratory patterns with H of 1.4–2.5 mm in the left–right, 7.7–11.6 mm in the superior-inferior, and 3.1–4.2 mm in the anterior–posterior directions for the target motion, and 4.8–14.5 mm in the anterior–posterior direction for the surrogate motion, and T of 3.9–4.9 s]. Furthermore, perpendicularity, defined as the vector angle between any two axes, was measured using an optical measurement system. The reproducibility of the uncertainties in DTT-IMRT was then evaluated. Respiratory motions from 20 patients acquired in advance were reproduced and compared three-dimensionally with the originals. Furthermore, patient-specific dosimetric QAs of DTT-IMRT were performed for ten pancreatic cancer patients. The doses delivered to Gafchromic films under tracking and moving conditions were compared with those delivered under static conditions without dose normalization. Results: Positional errors of the moving phantom under static and moving conditions were within 0.05 mm. The perpendicularity of the moving phantom was within 0.2° of 90°. The differences in prediction errors between the original and reproduced respiratory motions were −0.1 ± 0.1 mm for the lateral direction, −0.1 ± 0.2 mm for the superior-inferior direction, and −0.1 ± 0.1 mm for the anterior–posterior direction. The dosimetric accuracy showed significant improvements, of 92.9% ± 4.0% with tracking versus 69.8% ± 7.4% without tracking, in the passing rates of γ with the criterion of 3%/1 mm (p < 0.001). Although the dosimetric accuracy of IMRT without tracking showed a significant negative correlation with the 3D motion range of the target (r = − 0.59, p < 0.05), there was no significant correlation for DTT-IMRT (r = 0.03, p = 0.464). Conclusions: The developed four-axis moving phantom had sufficient accuracy to reproduce patient respiratory motions, allowing patient-specific QA of the surrogate signal-based DTT-IMRT under realistic conditions. Although IMRT without tracking decreased the dosimetric accuracy as the target motion increased, the DTT-IMRT achieved high dosimetric accuracy.

Purpose The dosimetric accuracies of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were predicted using plan complexity parameters via machine learning. Methods The dataset consisted of 600 cases of clinical VMAT plans from a single institution. The predictor variables (n = 28) for each plan included complexity parameters, machine type, and photon beam energy. Dosimetric measurements were performed using a helical diode array (ArcCHECK), and the dosimetric accuracy of the passing rates for a 5% dose difference (DD5%) and gamma index of 3%/3 mm (γ3%/3 mm) were predicted using three machine learning models: regression tree analysis (RTA), multiple regression analysis (MRA), and neural networks (NNs). First, the prediction models were applied to 500 cases of the VMAT plans. Then, the dosimetric accuracy was predicted using each model for the remaining 100 cases (evaluation dataset). The error between the predicted and measured passing rates was evaluated. Results For the 600 cases, the mean ± standard deviation of the measured passing rates was 92.3% ± 9.1% and 96.8% ± 3.1% for DD5% and γ3%/3 mm, respectively. For the evaluation dataset, the mean ± standard deviation of the prediction errors for DD5% and γ3%/3 mm was 0.5% ± 3.0% and 0.6% ± 2.4% for RTA, 0.0% ± 2.9% and 0.5% ± 2.4% for MRA, and -0.2% ± 2.7% and -0.2% ± 2.1% for NN, respectively. Conclusions NNs performed slightly better than RTA and MRA in terms of prediction error. These findings may contribute to increasing the efficiency of patient-specific quality-assurance procedures.

Background: In recent years, laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) has increasingly been used in total hysterectomy for uterine fibroids. In our department, approximately 95% of total hysterectomies for benign uterine disease are performed by LH; however, in the 5% patients for whom LH is contraindicated, how to provide minimally invasive surgery was a challenge. Methods: To avoid open surgery with a large vertical midline incision, we introduced a hand-assisted LH (HALH), whereby a lower abdominal transverse incision of 8 cm was made above the pubic symphysis apart from an incision needed for the operating port for laparoscopy. Results: The procedure was performed on five patients between January 2015 and February 2016. The mean weight of the resected uteri was 1382 g, and the mean estimated blood loss was 541 ml. No patients required allogeneic blood transfusion, and there were no complications. Recovery was rapid and postoperative progress was good. Conclusion: HALH is a procedure that avoids traditional open surgery using a large vertical midline incision in patients for whom LH is contraindicated and for those with large uterine fibroids.

The purpose of this study was to develop a simple verification method for the routine quality assurance (QA) of Dynamic WaveArc (DWA) irradiation using electronic portal imaging device (EPID) images and log data analysis. First, an automatic calibration method utilizing the outermost multileaf collimator (MLC) slits was developed to correct the misalignment between the center of the EPID and the beam axis. Moreover, to verify the detection accuracy of the MLC position according to the EPID images, various positions of the MLC with intentional errors in the range 0.1–1 mm were assessed. Second, to validate the geometric accuracy during DWA irradiation, tests were designed in consideration of three indices. Test 1 evaluated the accuracy of the MLC position. Test 2 assessed dose output consistency with variable dose rate (160–400 MU/min), gantry speed (2.2–6°/s), and ring speed (0.5–2.7°/s). Test 3 validated dose output consistency with variable values of the above parameters plus MLC speed (1.6–4.2 cm/s). All tests were delivered to the EPID and compared with those obtained using a stationary radiation beam with a 0° gantry angle. Irradiation log data were recorded simultaneously. The 0.1‐mm intentional error on the MLC position could be detected by the EPID, which is smaller than the EPID pixel size. In Test 1, the MLC slit widths agreed within 0.20 mm of their exposed values. The averaged root‐mean‐square error (RMSE) of the dose outputs was less than 0.8% in Test 2 and Test 3. Using log data analysis in Test 3, the RMSE between the planned and recorded data was 0.1 mm, 0.12°, and 0.07° for the MLC position, gantry angle, and ring angle, respectively. The proposed method is useful for routine QA of the accuracy of DWA.

Purpose: To evaluate a dosimetric accuracy of AcurosXB dose calculation algorithm for 4 MV photon beam. Methods: Four MV beam (Clinac‐6EX) and AAA and AcurosXB algorithms (pre‐release version 11.0.03.) were used in this study. The differences of the calculation with AAA (EAAA) and AcurosXB (EAXB) to the measurement were evaluated in the depth doses to 25 cm depth and dose profiles within the water and slab phantoms (water, lung and bone equivalent). In addition, the clinical cases, including three whole breast plans and three head and neck IMRT plans, were evaluated. First the AAA plans were calculated, then AcurosXB plans were recalculated with dose‐to‐medium with identical beam setup and monitor units as in the AAA plan. Results: In the water phantom study, the EAAA and EAXB were up to 2.2% and 1.5% in the depth doses for the open field (field size = 4 − 40cm square), respectively. Under the heterogeneity conditions, the EAAA and EAXB were less than 4.4% and 2.2% in lung region, and less than 12.5% and 6.3% in bone region, respectively. In the re‐buildup region after passing through the lung phantom, the AAA overestimated the doses about 10%; however AcurosXB had good agreement with measurement within 3%. Dose profiles with AcurosXB were better agreement with measurement than AAA. In the clinical cases, the dose of the skin surface region with AcurosXB were higher than AAA by at least 10%, and the dose differences over 5% appeared in heterogeneous region. However, DVH shapes of each organ were similar between AAA and AcurosXB within 2%. Conclusions: In phantom study, AcurosXB had better agreement to measurement than AAA, especially in heterogeneous region and re‐buildup region. In the clinical cases, there were large differences between AcurosXB and AAA in the surface region. Evaluation Agreement of non‐clinical versions of Acuros XB witha€€Varian Medical Systems.

Purpose To verify lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) plans using a secondary treatment planning system (TPS) as an independent method of verification and to define tolerance levels (TLs) in lung SBRT between the primary and secondary TPSs. Methods A total of 147 lung SBRT plans calculated using X-ray voxel Monte Carlo (XVMC) were exported from iPlan to Eclipse in DICOM format. Dose distributions were recalculated using the Acuros XB (AXB) and the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA), while maintaining monitor units (MUs) and the beam arrangement. Dose to isocenter and dose-volumetric parameters, such as D2, D50, D95 and D98, were evaluated for each patient. The TLs of all parameters between XVMC and AXB (TLAXB) and between XVMC and AAA (TLAAA) were calculated as the mean ± 1.96 standard deviations. Results AXB values agreed with XVMC values within 3.5% for all dosimetric parameters in all patients. By contrast, AAA sometimes calculated a 10% higher dose in PTV D95 and D98 than XVMC. The TLAXB and TLAAA of the dose to isocenter were −0.3 ± 1.4% and 0.6 ± 2.9%, respectively. Those of D95 were 1.3 ± 1.8% and 1.7 ± 3.6%, respectively. Conclusions This study quantitatively demonstrated that the dosimetric performance of AXB is almost equal to that of XVMC, compared with that of AAA. Therefore, AXB is a more appropriate algorithm for an independent verification method for XVMC.

Reducing the radiation dose to the hippocampus is important to preserve cognitive function in patients with brain tumors. The Vero4DRT system can realize a new irradiation technique, termed volumetric-modulated Dynamic WaveArc therapy (VMDWAT), which allows the safe use of sequential noncoplanar volumetric-modulated beams without couch rotation. Because VMDWAT appears to reduce the hippocampal dose in patients with pituitary adenomas and craniopharyngiomas, we performed a planning study to compare the dose distribution of volumetric-modulated arc therapy using only a coplanar arc (coVMAT) and VMDWAT.CoVMAT and VMDWAT plans were created for 30 patients with pituitary adenomas and craniopharyngiomas. The prescription dose was 52.2 Gy in 29 fractions, with 99% of each planning target volume covered by 90% of the prescribed dose. Optimization was performed for maximal reduction of the dose to the hippocampus. Treatment time was defined as the beam-on time.The mean equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions to 40% of the volume of the bilateral hippocampus (EQD40%) for coVMAT/VMDWAT were 9.90/5.31 Gy, respectively (P.001). The mean EQD40% in VMDWAT was less than 7.3 Gy, which is the threshold for predicting cognitive impairment. Although the volume of normal brain receiving 5 Gy (V5) was significantly larger in VMDWAT, compared with coVMAT, the normal brain volume receiving 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, and 50 Gy (V10-50) was significantly smaller in VMDWAT. The conformity and homogeneity indices were significantly better in VMDWAT. The mean VMDWAT treatment time was longer compared with coVMAT (70.1 vs 67.1 seconds, respectively).Although VMDWAT increased brain V5 and the treatment time compared with coVMAT, it significantly reduced the dose to the hippocampus and brain V10 to V50 and improved target conformity and homogeneity. VMDWAT could be a promising treatment technique for pituitary adenomas and craniopharyngiomas.

Purpose: The purposes of this study were two-fold: first, to develop a four-axis moving phantom for patient-specific quality assurance (QA) in surrogate signal-based dynamic tumor-tracking intensity-modulated radiotherapy (DTT-IMRT), and second, to evaluate the accuracy of the moving phantom and perform patient-specific dosimetric QA of the surrogate signal-based DTT-IMRT. Methods: The four-axis moving phantom comprised three orthogonal linear actuators for target motion and a fourth one for surrogate motion. The positional accuracy was verified using four laser displacement gauges under static conditions (±40 mm displacements along each axis) and moving conditions [eight regular sinusoidal and fourth-power-of-sinusoidal patterns with peak-to-peak motion ranges (H) of 10–80 mm and a breathing period (T) of 4 s, and three irregular respiratory patterns with H of 1.4–2.5 mm in the left–right, 7.7–11.6 mm in the superior-inferior, and 3.1–4.2 mm in the anterior–posterior directions for the target motion, and 4.8–14.5 mm in the anterior–posterior direction for the surrogate motion, and T of 3.9–4.9 s]. Furthermore, perpendicularity, defined as the vector angle between any two axes, was measured using an optical measurement system. The reproducibility of the uncertainties in DTT-IMRT was then evaluated. Respiratory motions from 20 patients acquired in advance were reproduced and compared three-dimensionally with the originals. Furthermore, patient-specific dosimetric QAs of DTT-IMRT were performed for ten pancreatic cancer patients. The doses delivered to Gafchromic films under tracking and moving conditions were compared with those delivered under static conditions without dose normalization. Results: Positional errors of the moving phantom under static and moving conditions were within 0.05 mm. The perpendicularity of the moving phantom was within 0.2° of 90°. The differences in prediction errors between the original and reproduced respiratory motions were −0.1 ± 0.1 mm for the lateral direction, −0.1 ± 0.2 mm for the superior-inferior direction, and −0.1 ± 0.1 mm for the anterior–posterior direction. The dosimetric accuracy showed significant improvements, of 92.9% ± 4.0% with tracking versus 69.8% ± 7.4% without tracking, in the passing rates of γ with the criterion of 3%/1 mm (p < 0.001). Although the dosimetric accuracy of IMRT without tracking showed a significant negative correlation with the 3D motion range of the target (r = − 0.59, p < 0.05), there was no significant correlation for DTT-IMRT (r = 0.03, p = 0.464). Conclusions: The developed four-axis moving phantom had sufficient accuracy to reproduce patient respiratory motions, allowing patient-specific QA of the surrogate signal-based DTT-IMRT under realistic conditions. Although IMRT without tracking decreased the dosimetric accuracy as the target motion increased, the DTT-IMRT achieved high dosimetric accuracy.

Purpose To explore the effect of sampling interval of training data acquisition on the intrafractional prediction error of surrogate signal-based dynamic tumor-tracking using a gimbal-mounted linac. Materials and Methods Twenty pairs of respiratory motions were acquired from 20 patients (ten lung, five liver, and five pancreatic cancer patients) who underwent dynamic tumor-tracking with the Vero4DRT. First, respiratory motions were acquired as training data for an initial construction of the prediction model before the irradiation. Next, additional respiratory motions were acquired for an update of the prediction model due to the change of the respiratory pattern during the irradiation. The time elapsed prior to the second acquisition of the respiratory motion was 12.6 ± 3.1 min. A four-axis moving phantom reproduced patients’ three dimensional (3D) target motions and one dimensional surrogate motions. To predict the future internal target motion from the external surrogate motion, prediction models were constructed by minimizing residual prediction errors for training data acquired at 80 and 320 ms sampling intervals for 20 s, and at 500, 1,000, and 2,000 ms sampling intervals for 60 s using orthogonal kV x-ray imaging systems. The accuracies of prediction models trained with various sampling intervals were estimated based on training data with each sampling interval during the training process. The intrafractional prediction errors for various prediction models were then calculated on intrafractional monitoring images taken for 30 s at the constant sampling interval of a 500 ms fairly to evaluate the prediction accuracy for the same motion pattern. In addition, the first respiratory motion was used for the training and the second respiratory motion was used for the evaluation of the intrafractional prediction errors for the changed respiratory motion to evaluate the robustness of the prediction models. Results The training error of the prediction model was 1.7 ± 0.7 mm in 3D for all sampling intervals. The intrafractional prediction error for the same motion pattern was 1.9 ± 0.7 mm in 3D for an 80 ms sampling interval, which increased larger than 1 mm in 10.0% of prediction models trained at a 2,000 ms sampling interval with a significant difference (p 0.05). The intrafractional prediction error for the changed respiratory motion pattern increased to 5.1 ± 2.4 mm in 3D for an 80 ms sampling interval; however, there was not a significant difference in the robustness of the prediction model between the 80 ms sampling interval and other sampling intervals (p > 0.05). Conclusions Although the training error of the prediction model was consistent for the all sampling intervals, the prediction model using the larger sampling interval of the 2,000 ms increased the intrafractional prediction error for the same motion pattern. The realistic accuracy of the prediction model was difficult to estimate using the larger sampling interval during the training process. It is recommended to construct the prediction model at sampling interval ≤ 1,000 ms and to reconstruct the model during treatment. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Purpose To assess the accuracy of the commercially available deformable image registration (DIR) software for thoracic images at multiple institutions. Methods and Materials Thoracic 4-dimensional (4D) CT images of 10 patients with esophageal or lung cancer were used. Datasets for these patients were provided by DIR-lab (dir-lab.com) and included a coordinate list of anatomic landmarks (300 bronchial bifurcations) that had been manually identified. Deformable image registration was performed between the peak-inhale and -exhale images. Deformable image registration error was determined by calculating the difference at each landmark point between the displacement calculated by DIR software and that calculated by the landmark. Results Eleven institutions participated in this study: 4 used RayStation (RaySearch Laboratories, Stockholm, Sweden), 5 used MIM Software (Cleveland, OH), and 3 used Velocity (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA). The ranges of the average absolute registration errors over all cases were as follows: 0.48 to 1.51 mm (right-left), 0.53 to 2.86 mm (anterior-posterior), 0.85 to 4.46 mm (superior-inferior), and 1.26 to 6.20 mm (3-dimensional). For each DIR software package, the average 3-dimensional registration error (range) was as follows: RayStation, 3.28 mm (1.26-3.91 mm); MIM Software, 3.29 mm (2.17-3.61 mm); and Velocity, 5.01 mm (4.02-6.20 mm). These results demonstrate that there was moderate variation among institutions, although the DIR software was the same. Conclusions We evaluated the commercially available DIR software using thoracic 4D-CT images from multiple centers. Our results demonstrated that DIR accuracy differed among institutions because it was dependent on both the DIR software and procedure. Our results could be helpful for establishing prospective clinical trials and for the widespread use of DIR software. In addition, for clinical care, we should try to find the optimal DIR procedure using thoracic 4D-CT data.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the status of the implementation of quality assurance (QA) for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in Japan using a questionnaire survey.The questionnaire consisted of seven sections: (1) clinical uses of IMRT, (2) treatment planning systems, treatment machines, phantoms for verification and CT scanning, (3) absorbed dose verification, (4) dose distribution verification, (5) fluence map verification, (6) acceptance criteria for each verification, and (7) comments.The questionnaire was completed by 129 institutions (response rate: 76.8%). IMRT was performed for prostate cancer in 125 institutions (96.9%), followed by head and neck cancer in 83 (64.3%), and brain tumors in 69 (53.5%). Although at least three individuals were engaged in IMRT QA in 77.5% of the institutions, the number of full-time persons involved in IMRT QA was one or less in 94 institutions (72.9%). This indicated that most institutions in Japan have a staff shortage. More than 90% of the institutions verified both the absorbed dose and dose distribution. The acceptance criterion for the absorbed dose verification was set to ±3% in at least 80% of the institutions. Gafchromic film was used for the majority of dose distribution verifications. The acceptance criteria for dose distribution verification mainly involved gamma analysis and a comparison of dose profiles; however, the judgment of acceptance did not depend on the results of the gamma analysis.This survey increases our understanding of how institutions currently perform IMRT QA analysis. This understanding will help to move institutions toward more standardization of IMRT QA in Japan.

The purpose of this study was to develop a new irradiation technique for a uniform expanded irradiation field (uniform expanded-field), wedged-beam, and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using the gimbaled x-ray head swing (gimbal-swing) of Vero4DRT. The gimbal has two orthogonal axes which provides tilt and pan movements. The Vero4DRT has a maximum field size of 150 × 150 mm2. By swinging the gimbaled x-ray head ±35 mm at the isocenter level, the field size was expanded from 150 to 220 mm in the tilt motion. In order to obtain a uniform dose distribution, continuous irradiation was delivered through a parallelogram-shaped radiation field by the gimbal-swing. Dosimetric characteristics of the uniform expanded-field were evaluated using irradiated film. In order to obtain a wedge-beam, continuous irradiation was delivered through a triangular-shaped radiation field by the gimbal-swing. Three different wedge angles: 15°, 30°, and 45°, were measured on the irradiated film and compared with the theoretical wedge angles. Additionally, the gimbal-swing irradiation technique was applied to IMRT for three clinical cases. The absolute point dose and relative dose distributions were evaluated. In the uniform field, the field size, penumbra, flatness, and symmetry were 220.1 mm, 6.3–6.4 mm, 3.2%, and −0.4% for the tilt motion. The differences between measured and theoretical wedge angles were within 0.2°. The absolute dose difference of the gimbal-swing IMRT field between the measured dose with an ion chamber and the calculated dose was within 2.3% for three cases. The passing rate of 3%/3 mm gamma analysis was larger than 93.7%. A new technique for gimbal-swing irradiation was developed. To extend the clinical application of the Vero4DRT for targets with a size over 150 × 150 mm2, the uniform expanded-field, wedged-beam, and gimbal-swing IMRT would be effective.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of commercially available deformable image registration (DIR) software for thoracic images on multi-institution. Furthermore, we determined the variation in the DIR accuracy among institutions due to different DIR algorithms and DIR procedures. Methods: Thoracic four-dimensional (4D) CT images of ten patients with esophagus or lung cancer were used. Datasets for these patients were provided by DIR-lab (dir-lab.com) and included a coordinate list of anatomical landmarks (300 bronchial bifurcations) that had been manually identified. DIR was performed between peak-inhale and peak-exhale images. DIR registration error was determined by calculating the difference at each landmark point between displacement calculated by DIR software and that calculated by the landmark. Results: Eleven institutions participated in this study: Four institutions used RayStation (RaySearch Laboratories, Stockholm, Sweden), five institutions used MIM software (MIM Software Inc, Cleveland, OH) and three institutions used Velocity (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA). The range of average absolute registration errors over all cases were 0.48–1.51 mm (right-left), 0.53–2.86 mm (anterior-posterior), 0.85–4.46 mm (superiorinferior) and 1.26–6.20 mm (three-dimensional [3D]). For each DIR software, the average 3D registration error (range) was 3.28mm (1.26–3.91 mm) for RayStation; MIM was 3.29mm (2.17–3.61 mm); Velocity was 5.01mm (4.02–6.20 mm). These results showed that there was moderate variation among institutions, even though the DIR software was same. Conclusion: We evaluated the commercially available DIR software using thoracic 4D CT images on multi-center. Our results demonstrated that DIR accuracy differed among institutions because it was dependent on both DIR software and DIR procedure. Our results could be helpful for establishment of prospective clinical trials and widespread use of DIR software. In addition, in clinical care, we should try to find the optimal DIR procedure, when DIR was performed using thoracic 4D-CT data to calculate the accumulated dose.

Purpose: The Dynamic Wave Arc (DWA) technique, where the multi-leaf collimator (MLC) and gantry/ring move simultaneously in a predefined non-coplanar trajectory, has been developed on the Vero4DRT. The aim of this study is to develop a simple method for quality assurance of DWA delivery using an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) measurements and log files analysis. Methods: The Vero4DRT has an EPID on the beam axis, the resolution of which is 0.18 mm/pixel at the isocenter plane. EPID images were acquired automatically. To verify the detection accuracy of the MLC position by EPID images, the MLC position with intentional errors was assessed. Tests were designed considering three factors: (1) accuracy of the MLC position (2) dose output consistency with variable dose rate (160–400 MU/min), gantry speed (2.4–6°/s), ring speed (0.5–2.5°/s), and (3) MLC speed (1.6–4.2 cm/s). All the patterns were delivered to the EPID and compared with those obtained with a stationary radiation beam with a 0° gantry angle. The irradiation log, including the MLC position and gantry/ring angle, were recorded simultaneously. To perform independent checks of the machine accuracy, the MLC position and gantry/ring angle position were assessed using log files. Results: 0.1 mm intentional error can be detected by the EPID, which is smaller than the EPID pixel size. The dose outputs with different conditions of the dose rate and gantry/ring speed and MLC speed showed good agreement, with a root mean square (RMS) error of 0.76%. The RMS error between the detected and recorded data were 0.1 mm for the MLC position, 0.12° for the gantry angle, and 0.07° for the ring angle. Conclusion: The MLC position and dose outputs in variable conditions during DWA irradiation can be easily detected using EPID measurements and log file analysis. The proposed method is useful for routine verification. This research is (partially) supported by the Practical Research for Innovative Cancer Control (15Ack0106151h0001) from Japan Agency for Medical Research and development, AMED. Authors Takashi Mizowaki and Masahiro Hiraoka have consultancy agreement with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., Japan.