Search

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE We previously evaluated late cardiac disease in long-term survivors in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS) based on heart radiation therapy (RT) doses estimated from an age-scaled phantom with a simple atlas-based heart model (HAtlas). We enhanced our phantom with a high-resolution CT-based anatomically realistic and validated age-scalable cardiac model (HHybrid). We aimed to evaluate how this update would impact our prior estimates of RT-related late cardiac disease risk in the CCSS cohort. METHODS We evaluated 24,214 survivors from the CCSS diagnosed from 1970 to 1999. RT fields were reconstructed on an age-scaled phantom with HHybrid and mean heart dose (Dm), percent volume receiving ≥ 20 Gy (V20) and ≥ 5 Gy with V20 = 0 ( [Formula: see text] ) were calculated. We reevaluated cumulative incidences and adjusted relative rates of grade 3-5 Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events outcomes for any cardiac disease, coronary artery disease (CAD), and heart failure (HF) in association with Dm, V20, and [Formula: see text] (as categorical variables). Dose-response relationships were evaluated using piecewise-exponential models, adjusting for attained age, sex, cancer diagnosis age, race/ethnicity, time-dependent smoking history, diagnosis year, and chemotherapy exposure and doses. For relative rates, Dm was also considered as a continuous variable. RESULTS Consistent with previous findings with HAtlas, reevaluation using HHybrid dosimetry found that, Dm ≥ 10 Gy, V20 ≥ 0.1%, and [Formula: see text] ≥ 50% were all associated with increased cumulative incidences and relative rates for any cardiac disease, CAD, and HF. While updated risk estimates were consistent with previous estimates overall without statistically significant changes, there were some important and significant (P

BACKGROUND & PURPOSE To evaluate treatment planning system (TPS) beam modeling parameters as contributing factors to IMRT audit performance. MATERIALS & METHODS We retrospectively analyzed IROC Houston phantom audit performance and concurrent beam modeling survey responses from 337 irradiations performed between August 2017 and November 2019. Irradiation results were grouped based on the reporting of typical or atypical beam modeling parameter survey responses ( 90th percentile values), and compared for passing versus failing (>7% error) or "poor" (>5% error) irradiation status. Additionally, we assessed the impact on the planned dose distribution from variations in modeling parameter value. Finally, we estimated the overall impact of beam modeling parameter variance on dose calculations, based on reported community variations. RESULTS Use of atypical modeling parameters were more frequently seen with failing phantom audit results (p = 0.01). Most pronounced was for Eclipse AAA users, where phantom irradiations with atypical values of dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) showed a greater incidence of both poor-performing (p = 0.048) and failing phantom audits (p = 0.014); and in general, DLG value was correlated with dose calculation accuracy (r = 0.397, p

Purpose The goal of total scalp irradiation (TSI) is to deliver a uniform dose to the scalp, which requires the use of a bolus cap. Most current methods for fabricating bolus caps are laborious, yet still result in nonconformity and low reproducibility, which can lead to nonuniform irradiation of the scalp. We developed and validated patient‐specific bolus caps for TSI using three‐dimensional (3D) printing. Methods and materials 3D‐printing materials were radiologically analyzed to identify a material with properties suitable for use as a bolus cap. A Python script was developed within a commercial treatment planning system to automate the creation of a ready‐to‐print, patient‐specific 3D bolus cap model. A bolus cap was printed for an anthropomorphic head phantom using a commercial vendor and a computed tomography simulation of the anthropomorphic head phantom and bolus cap was used to create a volumetric‐modulated arc therapy TSI treatment plan. The planned treatment was delivered to the head phantom and dosimetric validation was performed using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD). The developed procedure was used to create a bolus cap for a clinical TSI patient, and in vivo TLD measurements were acquired for several fractions. Results Agilus‐60 was validated as a new 3D‐printing material suitable for use as bolus. A 3D‐printed Agilus‐60 bolus cap had excellent conformality to the phantom scalp, with a maximum air gap of 4 mm. TLD measurements showed that the bolus cap generated a uniform dose to the scalp within a 2.7% standard deviation, and the delivered doses agreed with calculated doses to within 2.4% on average. The patient bolus was conformal and the average difference between TLD measured and planned doses was 5.3%. Conclusions We have developed a workflow to 3D‐print highly conformal bolus caps for TSI and demonstrated these caps can reproducibly generate a uniform dose to the scalp.

Background and Purpose Radiation therapy is a risk factor for late cardiac disease in childhood cancer survivors. Several pediatric cohort studies have established whole heart dose and dose–volume response models. Emerging data suggest that dose to cardiac substructures may be more predictive than whole heart metrics. In order to develop substructure dose-response models, the heart model previously used for pediatric cohort dosimetry needed enhancement and substructure delineation. Methods To enhance our heart model, we combined the age-scalable capability of our computational phantom with the anatomically-delineated (with substructures) heart models from an international humanoid phantom series. We examined cardiac volume similarity/overlap between registered age-scaled phantoms (1, 5, 10, and 15 years) with the enhanced heart model and the reference phantoms of the same age; dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and overlap coefficient (OC) were calculated for each matched pair. To assess the accuracy of our enhanced heart model, we compared doses from computed tomography-based planning (ground truth) with reconstructed heart doses. We also compared doses calculated with the prior and enhanced heart models for a cohort of nearly 5000 childhood cancer survivors. Results We developed a realistic cardiac model with 14-substructures, scalable across a broad age range (1–15 years); average DSC and OC were 0.84 ± 0.05 and 0.90 ± 0.05, respectively. The average percent difference between reconstructed and ground truth mean heart doses was 4.2%. In the cohort dosimetry analysis, dose and dose-volume metrics were approximately 10% lower on average when the enhanced heart model was used for dose reconstructions. Conclusion We successfully developed and validated an anatomically realistic age-scalable cardiac model that can be used to establish substructure dose-response models for late cardiac disease in childhood cancer survivor cohorts.

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

Quality assurance (QA) for clinical trials is important. Lack of compliance can affect trial outcome. Clinical trial QA groups have different methods of dose distribution verification and analysis, all with the ultimate aim of ensuring trial compliance. The aim of this study was to gain a better understanding of different processes to inform future dosimetry audit reciprocity.Six clinical trial QA groups participated. Intensity modulated treatment plans were generated for three different cases. A range of 17 virtual 'measurements' were generated by introducing a variety of simulated perturbations (such as MLC position deviations, dose differences, gantry rotation errors, Gaussian noise) to three different treatment plan cases. Participants were blinded to the 'measured' data details. Each group analysed the datasets using their own gamma index (γ) technique and using standardised parameters for passing criteria, lower dose threshold, γ normalisation and global γ.For the same virtual 'measured' datasets, different results were observed using local techniques. For the standardised γ, differences in the percentage of points passing with γ 1 were also found, however these differences were less pronounced than for each clinical trial QA group's analysis. These variations may be due to different software implementations of γ.This virtual dosimetry audit has been an informative step in understanding differences in the verification of measured dose distributions between different clinical trial QA groups. This work lays the foundations for audit reciprocity between groups, particularly with more clinical trials being open to international recruitment.

Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) and optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters (OSLD) are practical, accurate, and precise tools for point dosimetry in medical physics applications. The charges of Task Group 191 were to detail the methodologies for practical and optimal luminescence dosimetry in a clinical setting. This includes: (a) to review the variety of TLD/OSLD materials available, including features and limitations of each; (b) to outline the optimal steps to achieve accurate and precise dosimetry with luminescent detectors and to evaluate the uncertainty induced when less rigorous procedures are used; (c) to develop consensus guidelines on the optimal use of luminescent dosimeters for clinical practice; and (d) to develop guidelines for special medically relevant uses of TLDs/OSLDs such as mixed photon/neutron field dosimetry, particle beam dosimetry, and skin dosimetry. While this report provides general guidelines for TLD and OSLD processes, the report provides specific details for TLD-100 and nanoDotTM dosimeters because of their prevalence in clinical practice.

Purpose Our purpose was to investigate and classify the reasons why institutions fail the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) spine and moving lung phantoms, which are used to credential institutions for clinical trial participation. Methods and Materials All IROC moving lung and SBRT spine phantom irradiation failures recorded from January 2012 to December 2018 were evaluated in this study. A failure was a case where the institution did not meet the established IROC criteria for agreement between planned and delivered dose. We analyzed the reports for all failing irradiations, including point dose disagreement, dose profiles, and gamma analyses. Classes of failure patterns were created and used to categorize each instance. Results There were 158 failing cases analyzed: 116 of 1052 total lung irradiations and 42 of 263 total spine irradiations. Seven categories were required to describe the lung phantom failures, whereas 4 were required for the spine. Types of errors present in both phantom groups included systematic dose and localization errors. Fifty percent of lung failures were due to a superior-inferior localization error, that is, error in the direction of major motion. Systematic dose errors, however, contributed to only 22% of lung failures. In contrast, the majority (60%) of spine phantom failures were due to systematic dose errors, with localization errors (in any direction) accounting for only 14% of failures. Conclusions There were 2 distinct patterns of failure between the IROC moving lung and SBRT spine phantoms. The majority of the lung phantom failures were due to localization errors, whereas the spine phantom failures were largely attributed to systematic dose errors. Both of these errors are clinically relevant and could manifest as errors in patient cases. These findings highlight the value of independent end-to-end dosimetry audits and can help guide the community in improving the quality of radiation therapy by focusing attention on where errors manifest in the community.

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

Purpose: To analyze the most recent results of the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Houston Quality Assurance Center's (IROC-H) anthropomorphic head and neck (H&N) phantom to determine the nature of failing irradiations and the feasibility of altering credentialing criteria. Methods: IROC-H's HN it also requires that ≥85% of pixels pass ±4 mm distance to agreement (7%/4 mm gamma analysis for film). The authors re-evaluated 156 phantom irradiations (November 1, 2014–October 31, 2015) according to the following tighter criteria: (1) 5% TLD and 5%/4 mm, (2) 5% TLD and 5%/3 mm, (3) 4% TLD and 4%/4 mm, and (4) 3% TLD and 3%/3 mm. Failure rates were evaluated with respect to individual film and TLD performance by location in the phantom. Overall poor phantom results were characterized qualitatively as systematic errors (correct shape and position but wrong magnitude of dose), setup errors/positional shifts, global but nonsystematic errors, and errors affecting only a local region. Results: The pass rate for these phantoms using current criteria was 90%. Substituting criteria 1–4 reduced the overall pass rate to 77%, 70%, 63%, and 37%, respectively. Statistical analyses indicated that the probability of noise-induced TLD failure, even at the 5% criterion, was 58% of the time (11/16 and 21/36 cases, respectively), with a greater extent due to underdosing. Setup/positioning errors were seen in 11%–13% of all failing cases (2/16 and 4/36 cases, respectively). Local errors (8/36 cases) could only be demonstrated at criteria 1. Only three cases of global errors were identified in these analyses. For current criteria and criteria 1, irradiations that failed from film only were overwhelmingly associated with phantom shifts/setup errors (≥80% of cases). Conclusions: This study highlighted that the majority of phantom failures are the result of systematic dosimetric discrepancies between the treatment planning system and the delivered dose. Further work is necessary to diagnose and resolve such dosimetric inaccuracy. In addition, the authors found that 5% TLD and 5%/4 mm gamma criteria may be both practically and theoretically achievable as an alternative to current criteria.

Purpose: Dose calculation errors near metal implants are caused by limitations of the dose calculation algorithm in modeling tissue/metal interface effects as well as density assignment errors caused by imaging artifacts. The purpose of this study was to investigate two strategies for reducing dose calculation errors near metal implants: implementation of metal-based energy deposition kernels in the convolution/superposition (C/S) dose calculation method and use of metal artifact reduction methods for computed tomography (CT) imaging. Methods: Both error reduction strategies were investigated using a simple geometric slab phantom with a rectangular metal insert (composed of titanium or Cerrobend), as well as two anthropomorphic phantoms (one with spinal hardware and one with dental fillings), designed to mimic relevant clinical scenarios. To assess the dosimetric impact of metal kernels, the authors implemented titanium and silver kernels in a commercial collapsed cone C/S algorithm. To assess the impact of CT metal artifact reduction methods, the authors performed dose calculations using baseline imaging techniques (uncorrected 120 kVp imaging) and three commercial metal artifact reduction methods: Philips Healthcare’s o-mar, GE Healthcare’s monochromatic gemstone spectral imaging (gsi) using dual-energy CT, and gsi with metal artifact reduction software (mars) applied. For the simple geometric phantom, radiochromic film was used to measure dose upstream and downstream of metal inserts. For the anthropomorphic phantoms, ion chambers and radiochromic film were used to quantify the benefit of the error reduction strategies. Results: Metal kernels did not universally improve accuracy but rather resulted in better accuracy upstream of metal implants and decreased accuracy directly downstream. For the clinical cases (spinal hardware and dental fillings), metal kernels had very little impact on the dose calculation accuracy (

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

Purpose: Accurate data regarding linear accelerator(Linac) radiation characteristics are important for treatment planning system modeling as well as regular quality assurance of the machine. The Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Houston (IROC-H) has measured the dosimetric characteristics of numerous machines through their on-site dosimetry review protocols. Photon data are presented and can be used as a secondary check of acquired values, as a means to verify commissioning a new machine, or in preparation for an IROC-H site visit. Methods: Photon data from IROC-H on-site reviews from 2000 to 2014 were compiled and analyzed. Specifically, data from approximately 500 Varian machines were analyzed. Each dataset consisted of point measurements of several dosimetric parameters at various locations in a water phantom to assess the percentage depth dose, jaw output factors, multileaf collimator small field output factors, off-axis factors, and wedge factors. The data were analyzed by energy and parameter, with similarly performing machine models being assimilated into classes. Common statistical metrics are presented for each machine class. Measurement data were compared against other reference data where applicable. Results: Distributions of the parameter data were shown to be robust and derive from a student’s t distribution. Based on statistical and clinical criteria, all machine models were able to be classified into two or three classes for each energy, except for 6 MV for which there were eight classes. Quantitative analysis of the measurements for 6, 10, 15, and 18 MV photon beams is presented for each parameter; supplementary material has also been made available which contains further statistical information. Conclusions: IROC-H has collected numerous data on Varian Linacs and the results of photon measurements from the past 15 years are presented. The data can be used as a comparison check of a physicist’s acquired values. Acquired values that are well outside the expected distribution should be verified by the physicist to identify whether the measurements are valid. Comparison of values to this reference data provides a redundant check to help prevent gross dosimetric treatment errors.

Aluminum oxide based optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters (OSLD) have been recognized as a useful dosimeter for measuring CT dose, particularly for patient dose measurements. Despite the increasing use of this dosimeter, appropriate dosimeter calibration techniques have not been established in the literature; while the manufacturer offers a calibration procedure, it is known to have relatively large uncertainties. The purpose of this work was to evaluate two clinical approaches for calibrating these dosimeters for CT applications, and to determine the uncertainty associated with measurements using these techniques. Three unique calibration procedures were used to calculate dose for a range of CT conditions using a commercially available OSLD and reader. The three calibration procedures included calibration (a) using the vendor‐provided method, (b) relative to a 120 kVp CT spectrum in air, and (c) relative to a megavoltage beam (implemented with 60Co). The dose measured using each of these approaches was compared to dose measured using a calibrated farmer‐type ion chamber. Finally, the uncertainty in the dose measured using each approach was determined. For the CT and megavoltage calibration methods, the dose measured using the OSLD nanoDot was within 5% of the dose measured using an ion chamber for a wide range of different CT scan parameters (80–140 kVp, and with measurements at a range of positions). When calibrated using the vendor‐recommended protocol, the OSLD measured doses were on average 15.5% lower than ion chamber doses. Two clinical calibration techniques have been evaluated and are presented in this work as alternatives to the vendor‐provided calibration approach. These techniques provide high precision for OSLD‐based measurements in a CT environment.

Purpose Reference dosimetry data can provide an independent second check of acquired values when commissioning or validating a treatment planning system (TPS). The Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core at Houston (IROC-Houston) has measured numerous linear accelerators throughout its existence. The results of those measurements are given here, comparing accelerators and the agreement of measurement versus institutional TPS calculations. Methods Data from IROC-Houston on-site reviews from 2000 through 2014 were analyzed for all Elekta accelerators, approximately 50. For each, consistent point dose measurements were conducted for several basic parameters in a water phantom, including percentage depth dose, output factors, small-field output factors, off-axis factors, and wedge factors. The results were compared by accelerator type independently for 6, 10, 15, and 18 MV. Distributions of the measurements for each parameter are given, providing the mean and standard deviation. Each accelerator's measurements were also compared to its corresponding TPS calculation from the institution to determine the level of agreement, as well as determining which dosimetric parameters were most often in error. Results Accelerators were grouped by head type and reference dosimetric values were compiled. No class of linac had better overall agreement with its TPS, but percentage depth dose and output factors commonly agreed well, while small-field output factors, off-axis factors, and wedge factors often disagreed substantially from their TPS calculations. Conclusion Reference data has been collected and analyzed for numerous Elekta linacs, which provide an independent way for a physicist to double-check their own measurements to prevent gross treatment errors. In addition, treatment planning parameters more often in error have been highlighted, providing practical caution for physicists commissioning treatment planning systems for Elekta linacs.

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

Purpose: The extensive use of computed tomography (CT) in diagnostic procedures is accompanied by a growing need for more accurate and patient-specific dosimetry techniques. Optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters (OSLDs) offer a potential solution for patient-specific CT point-based surface dosimetry by measuring air kerma. The purpose of this work was to characterize the OSLD nanoDot for CT dosimetry, quantifying necessary correction factors, and evaluating the uncertainty of these factors. Methods: A characterization of the Landauer OSL nanoDot (Landauer, Inc., Greenwood, IL) was conducted using both measurements and theoretical approaches in a CT environment. The effects of signal depletion, signal fading, dose linearity, and angular dependence were characterized through direct measurement for CT energies (80–140 kV) and delivered doses ranging from ∼5 to >1000 mGy. Energy dependence as a function of scan parameters was evaluated using two independent approaches: direct measurement and a theoretical approach based on Burlin cavity theory and Monte Carlo simulated spectra. This beam-quality dependence was evaluated for a range of CT scanning parameters. Results: Correction factors for the dosimeter response in terms of signal fading, dose linearity, and angular dependence were found to be small for most measurement conditions (

The algorithms in commercial treatment planning systems accurately calculate the high dose regions and areas within the primary beam path. "Out-of-field nontarget dose" is not only outside of the planning target volume but also outside of any primary field edge; dose deposited by leakage, scatter, or secondary radiation, that is, stray radiation. Knowing the dose outside the treatment volume can be important for several reasons. High linear energy transfer (LET) particles have been shown to be particularly damaging to these implantable devices, although relatively high cumulative doses from leakage and scatter can also induce malfunctions, and noise or oversensing events can be induced by specific dose rates. Proton or carbon ion beam therapies also produce secondary radiation outside of the treatment field. Diodes can be suitable for out-of-field dosimetry, but some caution is warranted. Ion chambers have been used to measure out-of-field doses, and have advantages in terms of having relatively little energy dependence.

Purpose Using 3D printing to fabricate patient-specific devices such as tissue compensators, boluses, and phantoms is inexpensive and relatively simple. However, most 3D printing materials have not been well characterized, including their radiologic tissue equivalence. The purposes of this study were to (a) determine the variance in Hounsfield Units (HU) for printed objects, (b) determine if HU varies over time, and (c) calculate the clinical dose uncertainty caused by these material variations. Methods For a sample of 10 printed blocks each of PLA, NinjaFlex, ABS, and Cheetah, the average HU and physical density were tracked at initial printing and over the course of 5 weeks, a typical timeframe for a standard course of radiotherapy. After initial printing, half the blocks were stored in open boxes, the other half in sealed bags with desiccant. Variances in HU and density over time were evaluated for the four materials. Various clinical photon and electron beams were used to evaluate potential errors in clinical depth dose as a function of assumptions made during treatment planning. The clinical depth error was defined as the distance between the correctly calculated 90% isodose line and the 90% isodose line calculated using clinically reasonable, but simplified, assumptions. Results The average HU measurements of individual blocks of PLA, ABS, NinjaFlex, and Cheetah varied by as much as 121, 30, 178, and 30 HU, respectively. The HU variation over 5 weeks was much smaller for all materials. The magnitude of clinical depth errors depended strongly on the material, energy, and assumptions, but some were as large as 9.0 mm. Conclusions If proper quality assurance steps are taken, 3D printed objects can be used accurately and effectively in radiation therapy. It is critically important, however, that the properties of any material being used in patient care be well understood and accounted for.

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

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

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

Dedicated precision orthovoltage small animal irradiators have become widely available in the past decade and are commonly used for radiation biology research. However, there is a lack of dosimetric standardization among these irradiators, which affects the reproducibility of radiation-based animal studies. The purpose of this study was to develop a mail-based, independent peer review system to verify dose delivery among institutions using X-RAD 225Cx irradiators (Precision X-Ray, North Branford, CT). A robust, user-friendly mouse phantom was constructed from high-impact polystyrene and designed with dimensions similar to those of a typical laboratory mouse. The phantom accommodates three thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) to measure dose. The mouse peer review system was commissioned in a small animal irradiator using anterior-posterior and posterior-anterior beams of 225 kVp and then mailed to three institutions to test the feasibility of the audit service. The energy correction factor for TLDs in the mouse phantom was derived to validate the delivered dose using this particular animal irradiation system. This feasibility study indicated that three institutions were able to deliver a radiation dose to the mouse phantom within ±10% of the target dose. The developed mail audit independent peer review system for the verification of mouse dosimetry can be expanded to characterize other commercially available orthovoltage irradiators, thereby enhancing the reproducibility of studies employing these irradiators.

An anthropomorphic head phantom, constructed from a water‐equivalent plastic shell with only a spherical target, was modified to include a nonspherical target (pituitary) and an adjacent organ at risk (OAR) (optic chiasm), within 2 mm, simulating the anatomy encountered when treating acromegaly. The target and OAR spatial proximity provided a more realistic treatment planning and dose delivery exercise. A separate dosimetry insert contained two TLD for absolute dosimetry and radiochromic film, in the sagittal and coronal planes, for relative dosimetry. The prescription was 25 Gy to 90% of the GTV, with ≤10% of the OAR volume receiving ≥8Gy for the phantom trial. The modified phantom was used to test the rigor of the treatment planning process and phantom reproducibility using a Gamma Knife, CyberKnife, and linear accelerator (linac)‐based radiosurgery system. Delivery reproducibility was tested by repeating each irradiation three times. TLD results from three irradiations on a CyberKnife and Gamma Knife agreed with the calculated target dose to within ± 4% with a maximum coefficient of variation of ±2.1%. Gamma analysis in the coronal and sagittal film planes showed an average passing rate of 99.4% and 99.5% using ±5%/3mm criteria, respectively. Results from the linac irradiation were within ±6.2% for TLD with a coefficient of variation of ±0.1%. Distance to agreement was calculated to be 1.2 mm and 1.3 mm along the inferior and superior edges of the target in the sagittal film plane, and 1.2 mm for both superior and inferior edges in the coronal film plane. A modified, anatomically realistic SRS phantom was developed that provided a realistic clinical planning and delivery challenge that can be used to credential institutions wanting to participate in NCI‐funded clinical trials. PACS number: 87.55 ‐v

Purpose To review the dosimetric, mechanical, and programmatic deficiencies most frequently observed during on-site visits of radiation therapy facilities by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Quality Assurance Center in Houston (IROC Houston). Methods and Materials The findings of IROC Houston between 2000 and 2014, including 409 institutions and 1020 linear accelerators (linacs), were compiled. On-site evaluations by IROC Houston include verification of absolute calibration (tolerance of ±3%), relative dosimetric review (tolerances of ±2% between treatment planning system [TPS] calculation and measurement), mechanical evaluation (including multileaf collimator and kilovoltage-megavoltage isocenter evaluation against Task Group [TG]-142 tolerances), and general programmatic review (including institutional quality assurance program vs TG-40 and TG-142). Results An average of 3.1 deficiencies was identified at each institution visited, a number that has decreased slightly with time. The most common errors are tabulated and include TG-40/TG-142 compliance (82% of institutions were deficient), small field size output factors (59% of institutions had errors ≥3%), and wedge factors (33% of institutions had errors ≥3%). Dosimetric errors of ≥10%, including in beam calibration, were seen at many institutions. Conclusions There is substantial room for improvement of both dosimetric and programmatic issues in radiation therapy, which should be a high priority for the medical physics community. Particularly relevant was suboptimal beam modeling in the TPS and a corresponding failure to detect these errors by not including TPS data in the linac quality assurance process.

Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) in the lung is a challenging technique which requires high quality clinical trials to answer the un-resolved clinical questions. Quality assurance of these clinical trials not only ensures the safety of the treatment of the participating patients but also minimises the variation in treatment, thus allowing the lowest number of patient treatments to answer the trial question. This review addresses the role of dosimetry audits in the quality assurance process and considers what can be done to ensure the highest accuracy of dose calculation and delivery and it’s assessment in multi-centre trials.

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

Purpose The anthropomorphic phantom program at the Houston branch of the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC-Houston) is an end-to-end test that can be used to determine whether an institution can accurately model, calculate, and deliver an intensity modulated radiation therapy dose distribution. Currently, institutions that do not meet IROC-Houston's criteria have no specific information with which to identify and correct problems. In the present study, an independent recalculation system was developed to identify treatment planning system (TPS) calculation errors. Methods and Materials A recalculation system was commissioned and customized using IROC-Houston measurement reference dosimetry data for common linear accelerator classes. Using this system, 259 head and neck phantom irradiations were recalculated. Both the recalculation and the institution's TPS calculation were compared with the delivered dose that was measured. In cases in which the recalculation was statistically more accurate by 2% on average or 3% at a single measurement location than was the institution's TPS, the irradiation was flagged as having a “considerable” institutional calculation error. The error rates were also examined according to the linear accelerator vendor and delivery technique. Results Surprisingly, on average, the reference recalculation system had better accuracy than the institution's TPS. Considerable TPS errors were found in 17% (n=45) of the head and neck irradiations. Also, 68% (n=13) of the irradiations that failed to meet the IROC-Houston criteria were found to have calculation errors. Conclusions Nearly 1 in 5 institutions were found to have TPS errors in their intensity modulated radiation therapy calculations, highlighting the need for careful beam modeling and calculation in the TPS. An independent recalculation system can help identify the presence of TPS errors and pass on the knowledge to the institution.

Purpose To compare radiation machine measurement data collected by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core at Houston (IROC-H) with institutional treatment planning system (TPS) values, to identify parameters with large differences in agreement; the findings will help institutions focus their efforts to improve the accuracy of their TPS models. Methods and Materials Between 2000 and 2014, IROC-H visited more than 250 institutions and conducted independent measurements of machine dosimetric data points, including percentage depth dose, output factors, off-axis factors, multileaf collimator small fields, and wedge data. We compared these data with the institutional TPS values for the same points by energy, class, and parameter to identify differences and similarities using criteria involving both the medians and standard deviations for Varian linear accelerators. Distributions of differences between machine measurements and institutional TPS values were generated for basic dosimetric parameters. Results On average, intensity modulated radiation therapy–style and stereotactic body radiation therapy–style output factors and upper physical wedge output factors were the most problematic. Percentage depth dose, jaw output factors, and enhanced dynamic wedge output factors agreed best between the IROC-H measurements and the TPS values. Although small differences were shown between 2 common TPS systems, neither was superior to the other. Parameter agreement was constant over time from 2000 to 2014. Conclusions Differences in basic dosimetric parameters between machine measurements and TPS values vary widely depending on the parameter, although agreement does not seem to vary by TPS and has not changed over time. Intensity modulated radiation therapy–style output factors, stereotactic body radiation therapy–style output factors, and upper physical wedge output factors had the largest disagreement and should be carefully modeled to ensure accuracy.

In order to quantify the dose from neutrons to a patient for contemporary radiation treatment techniques, measurements inside phantoms, representing the patient, are necessary. Published reports on neutron dose measurements cover measurements performed free in air or on the surface of phantoms and the doses are expressed in terms of personal dose equivalent or ambient dose equivalent. This study focuses on measurements of local neutron doses inside a radiotherapy phantom and presents a field calibration procedure for PADC track etch detectors. An initial absolute calibration factor in terms of H p ( 10 ) for personal dosimetry is converted into neutron dose equivalent and additional calibration factors are derived to account for the spectral changes in the neutron fluence for different radiation therapy beam qualities and depths in the phantom. The neutron spectra used for the calculation of the calibration factors are determined in different depths by Monte Carlo simulations for the investigated radiation qualities. These spectra are used together with the energy dependent response function of the PADC detectors to account for the spectral changes in the neutron fluence. The resulting total calibration factors are 0.76 for a photon beam (in- and out-of-field), 1.00 (in-field) and 0.84 (out-of-field) for an active proton beam and 1.05 (in-field) and 0.91 (out-of-field) for a passive proton beam, respectively. The uncertainty for neutron dose measurements using this field calibration method is less than 40%. The extended calibration procedure presented in this work showed that it is possible to use PADC track etch detectors for measurements of local neutron dose equivalent inside anthropomorphic phantoms by accounting for spectral changes in the neutron fluence.

Delivery of accurate intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or stereotactic radiotherapy depends on a multitude of steps in the treatment delivery process. These steps range from imaging of the patient to dose calculation to machine delivery of the treatment plan. Within the treatment planning system's (TPS) dose calculation algorithm, various unique small field dosimetry parameters are essential, such as multileaf collimator modeling and field size dependence of the output. One of the largest challenges in this process is determining accurate small field size output factors. The Radiological Physics Center (RPC), as part of its mission to ensure that institutions deliver comparable and consistent radiation doses to their patients, conducts on-site dosimetry review visits to institutions. As a part of the on-site audit, the RPC measures the small field size output factors as might be used in IMRT treatments, and compares the resulting field size dependent output factors to values calculated by the institution's treatment planning system (TPS). The RPC has gathered multiple small field size output factor datasets for X-ray energies ranging from 6 to 18 MV from Varian, Siemens and Elekta linear accelerators. These datasets were measured at 10 cm depth and ranged from 10 × 10 cm(2) to 2 × 2 cm(2). The field sizes were defined by the MLC and for the Varian machines the secondary jaws were maintained at a 10 × 10 cm(2). The RPC measurements were made with a micro-ion chamber whose volume was small enough to gather a full ionization reading even for the 2 × 2 cm(2) field size. The RPC-measured output factors are tabulated and are reproducible with standard deviations (SD) ranging from 0.1% to 1.5%, while the institutions' calculated values had a much larger SD range, ranging up to 7.9% [corrected].The absolute average percent differences were greater for the 2 × 2 cm(2) than for the other field sizes. The RPC's measured small field output factors provide institutions with a standard dataset against which to compare their TPS calculated values. Any discrepancies noted between the standard dataset and calculated values should be investigated with careful measurements and with attention to the specific beam model.

The skin dose associated with radiotherapy may be of interest for clinical evaluation or investigating the risk of late effects. However, skin dose is not intuitive and is difficult to measure. Our objectives were to develop and evaluate a general estimation technique for skin dose based on treatment parameters. The literature on skin dose was supplemented with measurements and Monte Carlo simulations. Using all available data, a general dosimetry system was developed (in the form of a series of equations) to estimate skin dose based on treatment parameters including field size, the presence of a block tray, and obliquity of the treatment field. For out‐of‐field locations, the distance from the field edge was also considered. This dosimetry system was then compared to TLD measurements made on the surface of a phantom. As compared to measurements, the general dosimetry system was able to predict skin dose within, on average, 21% of the local dose (4% of the Dmax dose). Skin dose for patients receiving radiotherapy can be estimated with reasonable accuracy using a set of general rules and equations. PACS numbers: 87.53.‐j, 87.53.Bn, 87.55.ne

Purpose: Optically stimulated luminescent detectors (OSLDs) have a number of advantages in radiationdosimetry making them excellent dosimeters for quality assurance and patient dose verification. Although the dosimeters have been investigated in several modalities, relatively little work has been done in examining the dosimeters for use in clinical proton beams. This study examined a number of characteristics of the response of the dosimeters in the spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP) region of clinical proton beams. Methods: Optically stimulated luminescence(OSL)dosimeters from Landauer, Inc., specifically the nanoDotdosimeter, were investigated. These dosimeters were placed in a special phantom with a recess to fit the dosimeters without an air gap. Beams with nominal energies of 160, 200, and 250 MeV were used in the passively-scattered proton beam at the MD Anderson Cancer Center Proton Therapy Center. Dosimetric properties including linearity, field size dependence, energy dependence, residual signal as a function of cumulative dose, and postirradiation fading were investigated by taking measurements at the center of SOBPs. Results: The dosimeters showed 1% supralinearity at 200 cGy and 5% supralinearity at 1000 cGy. No noticeable field size dependence of the detector was found for field sizes from 2 × 2 cm2 to 18 × 18 cm2. Residual signal as a function of cumulative dose showed a small increase for measurements up to 1000 cGy. Readout signal depletion of the dosimeters after consecutive readings showed a slightly larger depletion in protons for doses up to 500 cGy but not by a clinically significant amount. Within the center of various SOBP widths and proton energies the variation in response was less than 2%. An average beam quality factor of 1.089 with experimental standard deviation of 0.007 was determined and applied to the data such that the results were within 1.2% of ion chamber data. Conclusions: The nanoDotOSLdosimeter characteristics were studied in the SOBP region of clinical proton beams. To achieve accurate dosimetric readings, corrections to the dosimeter response were applied. Corrections tended to be minimal or broadly consistent. The nanoDot OSLD was found to be an acceptable dosimeter for measurement in the SOBP region for a range of clinical proton beams.

Purpose: An implantable metal-oxide semiconductor field effect transistors-based dosimeter has recently been developed for the in vivo monitoring of hypofractionated radiotherapy. This DVS-HFT dosimeter is designed for fraction sizes of 340-950 cGy and can also be used for bis in die fraction monitoring. The current work reports on the testing and evaluation of this dosimeter, including both its basic characteristics as well as its performance during simulated clinical treatment plans. Methods: The authors tested the dose rate dependence of this dosimeter (300 MU/min versus 600 MU/min), the treatment time dependence (4 min per treatment versus up to 60 min per treatment), and the dose and energy dependence (6 and 18 MV irradiations of 700-900 cGy per fraction). Additionally, they irradiated the detectors in-phantom with breast and prostate hypofractionated treatments. Results: The detectors showed no significant dose rate, treatment time, energy, or dose dependence. Furthermore, the detectors were found to perform within manufacturer tolerances for all hypofractionated treatments examined, accurately reporting the measured dose (average disagreement of - 0.65%). Conclusions: These dosimeters appear well suited for in vivo monitoring of hypofractionated radiotherapy doses, and thereby, have the potential to improve patient care.

Purpose: Optically stimulated luminescent detectors (OSLDs) are quickly gaining popularity as passive dosimeters, with applications in medicine for linac output calibration verification, brachytherapy source verification, treatment plan quality assurance, and clinical dose measurements. With such wide applications, these dosimeters must be characterized for numerous factors affecting their response. The most abundant commercial OSLD is the InLight/OSL system from Landauer, Inc. The purpose of this study was to examine the angular dependence of the nanoDot dosimeter, which is part of the InLight system.Methods: Relative dosimeter response data were taken at several angles in 6 and 18 MV photon beams, as well as a clinical proton beam. These measurements were done within a phantom at a depth beyond the build-up region. To verify the observed angular dependence, additional measurements were conducted as well as Monte Carlo simulations in MCNPX.Results: When irradiated with the incident photon beams parallel to the plane of the dosimeter, the nanoDot response was 4% lower at 6 MV and 3% lower at 18 MV than the response when irradiated with the incident beam normal to the plane of the dosimeter. Monte Carlo simulations at 6 MV showed similar results to the experimental values. Examination of the results in Monte Carlo suggests the cause as partial volume irradiation. In a clinical proton beam, no angular dependence was found.Conclusions: A nontrivial angular response of this OSLD was observed in photon beams. This factor may need to be accounted for when evaluating doses from photon beams incident from a variety of directions.

Purpose: Measurement of the absorbed dose from radiotherapy beams is an essential component of providing safe and reproducible treatment. For an energy-dependent dosimeter such as thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs), it is generally assumed that the energy spectrum is constant throughout the treatment field and is unperturbed by field size, depth, field modulation, or heterogeneities. However, this does not reflect reality and introduces error into clinical dose measurements. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the variability in the energy spectrum of a Varian 6 MV beam and to evaluate the impact of these variations in photon energy spectra on the response of a common energy-dependent dosimeter,TLD. Methods: Using Monte Carlo methods, we calculated variations in the photon energy spectra of a 6 MV beam as a result of variations of treatment parameters, including field size, measurement location, the presence of heterogeneities, and field modulation. The impact of these spectral variations on the response of the TLD is largely based on increased photoelectric effect in the dosimeter, and this impact was calculated using Burlin cavity theory. Measurements of the energy response were also made to determine the additional energy response due to all intrinsic and secondary effects. Results: For most in-field measurements, regardless of treatment parameter, the dosimeter response was not significantly affected by the spectral variations (

Mantle field irradiation has historically been the standard radiation treatment for Hodgkin lymphoma. It involves treating large regions of the chest and neck with high doses of radiation (up to 30 Gy). Previous epidemiological studies on the incidence of second malignancies following radiation therapy for Hodgkin lymphoma have revealed an increased incidence of second tumors in various organs, including lung, breast, thyroid and digestive tract. Multiple other studies, including the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results, indicated an increased incidence in digestive tract including stomach cancers following mantle field radiotherapy. Assessment of stomach dose is challenging because the stomach is outside the treatment field but very near the treatment border where there are steep dose gradients. In addition, the stomach can vary greatly in size and position. We sought to evaluate the dosimetric impact of the size and variable position of the stomach relative to the field border for a typical Hodgkin lymphoma mantle field irradiation. The mean stomach dose was measured using thermoluminescent dosimetry for nine variations in stomach size and position. The mean doses to the nine stomach variations ranged from 0.43 to 0.83 Gy when 30 Gy was delivered to the treatment isocenter. Statistical analyses indicated that there were no significant differences in the mean stomach dose when the stomach was symmetrically expanded up to 3 cm or shifted laterally (medial, anterior or posterior shifts) by up to 3 cm. There was, however, a significant (P > 0.01) difference in the mean dose when the stomach was shifted superiorly or inferiorly by ≥ 2.5 cm.

An important but little examined aspect of radiation dosimetry studies involving organs outside the treatment field is how to assess dose to organs that are partially within a treatment field; this question is particularly important for studies intended to measure total absorbed dose in order to predict the risk of radiogenic late effects, such as second cancers. The purpose of this investigation was therefore to establish a method to categorize organs as in-field, out-of-field or partially in-field that would be applicable to both conventional and modern radiotherapy techniques. In this study, we defined guidelines to categorize the organs based on isodose inclusion criteria, developed methods to assess doses to partially in-field organs, and then tested the methods by applying them to a case of intensity-modulated radiotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma based on actual patient data. For partially in-field organs, we recommend performing a sensitivity test to determine whether potential inaccuracies in low-dose regions of the DVH (from the treatment planning system) have a substantial effect on the mean organ dose, i.e. >5%. In such cases, we suggest supplementing calculated DVH data with measured dosimetric data using a volume-weighting technique to determine the mean dose.

Neutrons are a by-product of high-energy x-ray radiation therapy (threshold for [gamma,n] reactions in high-Z material -7 MeV). Neutron production varies depending on photon beam energy as well as on the manufacturer of the accelerator. Neutron production from modern linear accelerators (linacs) has not been extensively compared, particularly in terms of the differences in the strategies that various manufacturers have used to implement multileaf collimators (MLCs) into their linac designs. However, such information is necessary to determine neutron dose equivalents for different linacs and to calculate vault shielding requirements. The purpose of the current study, therefore, was to measure the neutron spectra from the most up-to-date linacs from three manufacturers: Varian 21EX operating at 15, 18, and 20 MV, Siemens ONCOR operating at 15 and 18 MV, and Elekta Precise operating at 15 and 18 MV. Neutron production was measured by means of gold foil activation in Bonner spheres. Based on the measurements, the authors determined neutron spectra and calculated the average energy, total neutron fluence, ambient dose equivalent, and neutron source strength. The shapes of the neutron spectra did not change significantly between accelerators or even as a function of treatment energy. However, the neutron fluence, and therefore the ambient dose equivalent, did vary, increasing with increasing treatment energy. For a given nominal treatment energy, these values were always highest for the Varian linac. The current study thus offers medical physicists extensive information about the neutron production of MLC-equipped linacs currently in operation and provides them information vital for accurate comparison and prediction of neutron dose equivalents and calculation of vault shielding requirements.

Neutrons are by-products of high-energy radiation therapy and a source of dose to normal tissues. Thus, the presence of neutrons increases a patient's risk of radiation-induced secondary cancer. Although neutrons have been thoroughly studied in air, little research has been focused on neutrons at depths in the patient where radiosensitive structures may exist, resulting in wide variations in neutron dose equivalents between studies. In this study, we characterized properties of neutrons produced during high-energy radiation therapy as a function of their depth in tissue and for different field sizes and different source-to-surface distances (SSD). We used a previously developed Monte Carlo model of an accelerator operated at 18 MV to calculate the neutron fluences, energy spectra, quality factors, and dose equivalents in air and in tissue at depths ranging from 0.1 to 25 cm. In conjunction with the sharply decreasing dose equivalent with increased depth in tissue, the authors found that the neutron energy spectrum changed drastically as a function of depth in tissue. The neutron fluence decreased gradually as the depth increased, while the average neutron energy decreased sharply with increasing depth until a depth of approximately 7.5 cm in tissue, after which it remained nearly constant. There was minimal variation in the quality factor as a function of depth. At a given depth in tissue, the neutron dose equivalent increased slightly with increasing field size and decreasing SSD; however, the percentage depth-dose equivalent curve remained constant outside the primary photon field. Because the neutron dose equivalent, fluence, and energy spectrum changed substantially with depth in tissue, we concluded that when the neutron dose equivalent is being determined at a depth within a patient, the spectrum and quality factor used should be appropriate for depth rather than for in-air conditions. Alternately, an appropriate percent depth-dose equivalent curve should be used to correct the dose equivalent at the patient surface.

It may be possible to use a single device to measure the in vivo dose delivered during radiotherapy, as well as to localize the target volume. This potential, as well as the detectors' ability to relate dosimetry and localization, were evaluated using two implantable MOSFET dosimeters placed inside an acrylic pelvic phantom. A wedged‐field photon plan and an eight‐field prostate treatment plan were developed. For each plan, conditions were simulated so that detectors were in their correct positions or slightly displaced to represent patient setup error and/or organ motion. Doses measured by the two detectors after irradiation were compared to those calculated by the treatment planning software. Additionally, using localization software and kilovoltage images of each setup, the displacement of the detectors from their correct locations was calculated and compared to the induced physical displacement. For all alignments and detector positions, measured and calculated doses showed an average disagreement of 2.7%. The detectors were easily visualized radiographically and the induced detector displacements were typically recognized by the localization software to within 0.1 cm. The implantable detector functioned well as both an internal dosimeter and as an internal fiducial marker, and thus may be useful as a clinical tool to localize the target volume and verify dose delivery in vivo. PACS numbers: 87.53.‐j 87.55.‐x

Neutron production is an unwanted result of high-energy radiation therapy and results in secondary exposure of patients and radiation therapists to radiation. Recent studies have shown that delivering therapy using a standard medical accelerator with the flattening filter removed may reduce neutron fluence by nearly 70% over the course of prostate intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). In the current study, the 197Au Bonner sphere technique was used to compare the neutron spectrum produced when the filter is present and when it is absent. In addition, the following was calculated: (1) the neutron-shielding parameters of source strength and ambient dose equivalent (H0) and (2) using the Monte Carlo technique, the sources of neutron production in the accelerator head. It was found that the neutron spectrum was nearly constant, regardless of the presence of the flattening filter; however, the total fluence and ambient dose equivalent over the course of prostate IMRT were more than 70% lower when the filter was removed. Similarly, shielding parameters were lower when the filter was removed. Finally, the primary collimator and jaws accounted for the majority of neutron production, both with and without the flattening filter; however, with the flattening filter removed, the upper jaw accounted for much more neutron production relative to when the filter was present. Ultimately, removal of the flattening filter may offer several clinical advantages, including a reduction in the dose from neutrons to the patient and to radiation personnel.

As cancer therapy becomes more efficacious and patients survive longer, the potential for late effects increases, including effects induced by radiation dose delivered away from the treatment site. This out-of-field radiation is of particular concern with high-energy radiotherapy, as neutrons are produced in the accelerator head. We recently developed an accurate Monte Carlo model of a Varian 2100 accelerator using MCNPX for calculating the dose away from the treatment field resulting from low-energy therapy. In this study, we expanded and validated our Monte Carlo model for high-energy (18 MV) photon therapy, including both photons and neutrons. Simulated out-of-field photon doses were compared with measurements made with thermoluminescent dosimeters in an acrylic phantom up to 55 cm from the central axis. Simulated neutron fluences and energy spectra were compared with measurements using moderated gold foil activation in moderators and data from the literature. The average local difference between the calculated and measured photon dose was 17%, including doses as low as 0.01% of the central axis dose. The out-of-field photon dose varied substantially with field size and distance from the edge of the field but varied little with depth in the phantom, except at depths shallower than 3 cm, where the dose sharply increased. On average, the difference between the simulated and measured neutron fluences was 19% and good agreement was observed with the neutron spectra. The neutron dose equivalent varied little with field size or distance from the central axis but decreased with depth in the phantom. Neutrons were the dominant component of the out-of-field dose equivalent for shallow depths and large distances from the edge of the treatment field. This Monte Carlo model is useful to both physicists and clinicians when evaluating out-of-field doses and associated potential risks.

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 36 report (TG-36) provides guidelines for managing radiation therapy of pregnant patients. Included in the report are data that can be used to estimate the dose to the fetus. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of these fetal dose estimates as compared to clinically measured values. TG-36 calculations were performed and compared with measurements of the fetal dose made in vivo or in appropriately-designed phantoms. Calculation and measurement data was collected for eight pregnant patients who underwent radiation therapy at the MD Anderson Cancer Center as well as for several fetal dose studies in the literature. The maximum measured unshielded fetal dose was 47 cGy, which was 1.5% of the prescription dose. For all cases, TG-36 calculations and measured fetal doses differed by up to a factor of 3--the ratio of the calculated to measured dose ranged from 0.34 to 2.93. On average, TG-36 calculations underestimated the measured dose by 31%. No significant trends in the relationship between the calculated and measured fetal doses were found based on the distance from, or the size of, the treatment field.

Dose to the patient outside of the treatment field is important when evaluating the outcome of radiotherapy treatments. However, determining out-of-field doses for any particular treatment plan currently requires either time-consuming measurements or calculated estimations that may be highly uncertain. A Monte Carlo model may allow these doses to be determined quickly, accurately, and with a great degree of flexibility. MCNPX was used to create a Monte Carlo model of a Varian Clinac 2100 accelerator head operated at 6 MV. Simulations of the dose out-of-field were made and measurements were taken with thermoluminescent dosimeters in an acrylic phantom and with an ion chamber in a water tank to validate the Monte Carlo model. Although local differences between the out-of-field doses calculated by the model and those measured did exceed 50% at some points far from the treatment field, the average local difference was only 16%. This included a range of doses as low as 0.01% of the central axis dose, and at distances in excess of 50 cm from the central axis of the treatment field. The out-of-field dose was found to vary with field size and distance from the central axis, but was almost independent of the depth in the phantom except where the dose increased substantially at depths less than dmax. The relationship between dose and kerma was also investigated, and kerma was found to be a good estimate of dose (within 3% on average) except near the surface and in the field penumbra. Our Monte Carlo model was found to well represent typical Varian 2100 accelerators operated at 6 MV.

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

Several studies have shown that removal of the flattening filter from the treatment head of a clinical accelerator increases the dose rate and changes the lateral profile in radiation therapy with photons. However, the multileaf collimator (MLC) used to shape the field was not taken into consideration in these studies. We therefore investigated the effect of the MLC on flattened and unflattened beams. To do this, we performed measurements on a Varian Clinac 21EX and MCNPX Monte Carlo simulations to analyze the physical properties of the photon beam. We compared lateral profiles, depth dose curves, MLC leakages, and total scatter factors for two energies (6 and 18 MV) of MLC-shaped fields and jaw-shaped fields. Our study showed that flattening filter-free beams shaped by a MLC differ from the jaw-shaped beams. Similar differences were also observed for flattened beams. Although both collimating methods produced identical depth dose curves, the penumbra size and the MLC leakage were reduced in the softer, unflattened beam and the total scatter factors showed a smaller field size dependence.

In conventional clinical linear accelerators, the flattening filter scatters and absorbs a large fraction of primary photons. Increasing the beam-on time, which also increases the out-of-field exposure to patients, compensates for the reduction in photon fluence. In recent years, intensity modulated radiation therapy has been introduced, yielding better dose distributions than conventional three-dimensional conformal therapy. The drawback of this method is the further increase in beam-on time. An accelerator with the flattening filter removed, which would increase photon fluence greatly, could deliver considerably higher dose rates. The objective of the present study is to investigate the dosimetric properties of 6 and 18 MV photon beams from an accelerator without a flattening filter. The dosimetric data were generated using the Monte Carlo programs BEAMnrc and DOSXYZnrc. The accelerator model was based on the Varian Clinac 2100 design. We compared depth doses, dose rates, lateral profiles, doses outside collimation, total and collimator scatter factors for an accelerator with and without a flatteneing filter. The study showed that removing the filter increased the dose rate on the central axis by a factor of 2.31 (6 MV) and 5.45 (18 MV) at a given target current. Because the flattening filter is a major sourcemore » of head scatter photons, its removal from the beam line could reduce the out-of-field dose.« less

Introduction and purpose An IAEA co-ordinated research project (CRP) is under implementation that develops methodology for remote dosimetry audits of IMRT techniques to be offered to radiotherapy centres by national audit networks in low and middle income countries. Materials and methods The CRP involves four audit steps: (i) remote verification of TPS calculation of small beam output factors relevant to IMRT (ii) dosimetry audit of MLC positional performance for IMRT using radiochromic film, (iii) film audit of single clinical IMRT field dose delivery and (iv) ‘end-to-end’ dosimetry audit for multiple field IMRT techniques using TLDs and radiochromic films. New procedures, phantoms, instructions and data sheets for audited centres were developed at the IAEA and tested through multinational pilot studies. Research groups from 14 countries participate in the CRP. Results The results of the first CRP step show agreement within 1% of participants’ TPS output factors and the reference data for field sizes ⩾4 × 4 cm2 but dose overestimation by TPSs by 2–3% for field sizes ⩽3 × 3 cm2. The second step confirmed that most audited MLCs perform as expected. The results of the third CRP step show that TPS plans prepared by participants and delivered to films agree well; however, comparison of gamma analysis techniques highlighted differences among centres. The fourth step ‘end-to-end’ IMRT audit is on-going. Conclusion A four step methodology for remote dose audits of IMRT and related beam characteristics has been developed at the IAEA and is being tested before dissemination to national audit networks operating across the world. Disclosure No conflicts of interest.

Purpose: To investigate out-of-field electron doses and neutron production from electron beams from modern Varian and Elekta linear accelerators. Methods: Electron dose measurements were made using 10×10cm2 applicators on two Varian 21iXs, a Varian TrueBeam, and an Elekta Versa HD operating at energies from 6 to 20 MeV. Out-of-field dose profiles and PDD curves were measured in a Wellhofer water phantom using a Farmer chamber. Neutron measurements were made with a combination of moderator buckets and gold activation-foils placed on the treatment couch at various locations in the patient plane on both the 21iX and Versa HD linear accelerators. Results: Electron doses were highest for the highest electron energies. Dose profile curves for the Varian units were found to be lower than those from the Versa HD unit, and were lower than photon beams. Elekta's dose profiles were higher and exhibited a second dose peak around 20–30 cm from central-axis. Electron doses in this region (0.8–1.3% of dmax at central-axis) were close to 5 times (2.5–4.8) greater than doses from photon beams with similar energies. Electron doses decreased sharply with depth before becoming nearly constant; the dose was found to decrease to a depth of approximately E(MeV)/4 in cm. Q-values and neutron dose equivalent increased with energy and were typically higher on central-axis. 18 MV photon beam neutron dose equivalents were greater than any electron beam, being approximately 40 times greater than for the 20 MeV electron beam (21iX). Conclusion: The Versa HD exhibited higher than expected out-of-field electron doses in comparison to typical radiotherapy photon beams. Fortunately, out-of-field electron doses can be substantially reduced by applying a water-equivalent bolus with thickness of E(MeV)/4 in cm. Neutron contamination from clinical electron beams can be considered negligible in relation to photon beams but may need to be considered for special cases. This work was supported by Public Health Service Grant CA180803 awarded by the National Cancer Institute, United States Department of Health and Human Services.