Search

This study aimed to highlight the value and key findings of on-site proton audits.The authors performed 38 on-site measurement-based peer reviews of proton centers participating in National Cancer Institute-funded clinical trials. The reviews covered beam calibration, lateral and depth measurements, mechanical checks, treatment planning and clinical practice, and quality assurance (QA) practices. Program deficiencies were noted, and recommendations were made about ways institutions could improve their practices.Institutions received an average of 3 (range, 1-8) recommendations for practice improvements. The number of deficiencies did not decrease over time, highlighting the continued need for this type of peer review. The most common deficiencies were for Task Group-recommended QA compliance (97% of centers), computed tomography number (CTN) to relative linear stopping power conversion (59%), and QA procedures (53%). In addition, 32% of institutions assessed failed at least 1 lateral beam profile measurement (90% of pixels passing 3% [global]/3 mm; 10% threshold), despite passing internal QA measurements. These failures occurred for several different plan configurations (large, small, shallow, and deep targets) and at different depths in the beam path (proximal to target, central, and distal). CTN to relative linear stopping power conversion curves showed deviations at low, mid, and high CTNs and highlighted areas of inconsistency between proton centers, with many centers falling outside of 2 sigma of the mean curve of their peers. All deficiencies from the peer review were discussed with the institutions, and many implemented dosimetric treatment planning and practice changes to improve the accuracy of their system and consistency with other institutions.This peer review program has been integral in confirming and promoting consistency and best practice across proton centers for clinical trials, minimizing deviations for outcomes data.

Purpose Quality assurance (QA) practices improve the quality level of oncology trials by ensuring that the protocol is followed and the results are valid and reproducible. This study investigated the utilization of QA among randomized controlled trials that involve radiotherapy (RT). Methods and Materials We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in February 2020 for all phase III oncology randomized clinical trials (RCTs). These trials were screened for RT-specific RCTs that had published primary trial results. Information regarding QA in each trial was collected from the study publications and trial protocol if available. Two individuals independently performed trial screening and data collection. Pearson’s Chi-square tests analyses were used to assess factors that were associated with QA inclusion in RT trials. Results Forty-two RCTs with RT as the primary intervention or as a mandatory component of the protocol were analyzed; the earliest was started in 1994 and one trial was still active though not recruiting. Twenty-nine (69%) trials mandated RT quality assurance (RTQA) practices as part of the trial protocol, with 19 (45%) trials requiring institutional credentialing. Twenty-one (50%) trials published protocol deviation outcomes. Clinical trials involving advanced radiation techniques (IMRT, VMAT, SRS, SBRT) did not include more RTQA than trials without these advanced techniques (73% vs. 65%, p=0.55). Trials that reported protocol deviation outcomes were associated with mandating RTQA in their protocols as compared to trials that did not report these outcomes (100% vs. 38%, p Conclusions There is a lack of RTQA utilization and transparency in RT clinical trials. It is imperative for RT trials to include increased QA for safe, consistent, and high-quality RT planning and delivery.

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

Purpose To develop a tool for the automatic contouring of clinical treatment volumes (CTVs) and normal tissues for radiotherapy treatment planning in cervical cancer patients. Methods An auto‐contouring tool based on convolutional neural networks (CNN) was developed to delineate three cervical CTVs and 11 normal structures (seven OARs, four bony structures) in cervical cancer treatment for use with the Radiation Planning Assistant, a web‐based automatic plan generation system. A total of 2254 retrospective clinical computed tomography (CT) scans from a single cancer center and 210 CT scans from a segmentation challenge were used to train and validate the CNN‐based auto‐contouring tool. The accuracy of the tool was evaluated by calculating the Sørensen‐dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and mean surface and Hausdorff distances between the automatically generated contours and physician‐drawn contours on 140 internal CT scans. A radiation oncologist scored the automatically generated contours on 30 external CT scans from three South African hospitals. Results The average DSC, mean surface distance, and Hausdorff distance of our CNN‐based tool were 0.86/0.19 cm/2.02 cm for the primary CTV, 0.81/0.21 cm/2.09 cm for the nodal CTV, 0.76/0.27 cm/2.00 cm for the PAN CTV, 0.89/0.11 cm/1.07 cm for the bladder, 0.81/0.18 cm/1.66 cm for the rectum, 0.90/0.06 cm/0.65 cm for the spinal cord, 0.94/0.06 cm/0.60 cm for the left femur, 0.93/0.07 cm/0.66 cm for the right femur, 0.94/0.08 cm/0.76 cm for the left kidney, 0.95/0.07 cm/0.84 cm for the right kidney, 0.93/0.05 cm/1.06 cm for the pelvic bone, 0.91/0.07 cm/1.25 cm for the sacrum, 0.91/0.07 cm/0.53 cm for the L4 vertebral body, and 0.90/0.08 cm/0.68 cm for the L5 vertebral bodies. On average, 80% of the CTVs, 97% of the organ at risk, and 98% of the bony structure contours in the external test dataset were clinically acceptable based on physician review. Conclusions Our CNN‐based auto‐contouring tool performed well on both internal and external datasets and had a high rate of clinical acceptability.

Background and purpose The Global Quality Assurance of Radiation Therapy Clinical Trials Harmonization Group (GHG) is a collaborative group of Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance (RTQA) Groups harmonizing and improving RTQA for multi-institutional clinical trials. The objective of the GHG OAR Working Group was to unify OAR contouring guidance across RTQA groups by compiling a single reference list of OARs in line with AAPM TG 263 and ASTRO, together with peer-reviewed, anatomically defined contouring guidance for integration into clinical trial protocols independent of the radiation therapy delivery technique. Materials and methods The GHG OAR Working Group comprised of 22 multi-professional members from 6 international RTQA Groups and affiliated organizations conducted the work in 3 stages: (1) Clinical trial documentation review and identification of structures of interest (2) Review of existing contouring guidance and survey of proposed OAR contouring guidance (3) Review of survey feedback with recommendations for contouring guidance with standardized OAR nomenclature. Results 157 clinical trials were examined; 222 OAR structures were identified. Duplicates, non-anatomical, non-specific, structures with more specific alternative nomenclature, and structures identified by one RTQA group were excluded leaving 58 structures of interest. 6 OAR descriptions were accepted with no amendments, 41 required minor amendments, 6 major amendments, 20 developed as a result of feedback, and 5 structures excluded in response to feedback. The final GHG consensus guidance includes 73 OARs with peer-reviewed descriptions (Appendix A). Conclusion We provide OAR descriptions with standardized nomenclature for use in clinical trials. A more uniform dataset supports the delivery of clinically relevant and valid conclusions from clinical trials.

Purpose Treatment planning system (TPS) dose calculations have previously been shown to be sensitive to modeling errors, especially when treating with complex strategies like intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). This work investigates the dosimetric impact of several dosimetric and nondosimetric beam modeling parameters, based on their distribution in the radiotherapy community, in two commercial TPSs in order to understand the realistic potential for dose deviations and their clinical effects. Methods and materials Beam models representing standard 120‐leaf Varian Clinac‐type machines were developed in Eclipse 13.5 (AAA algorithm) and RayStation 9A (v8.99, collapsed‐cone algorithm) based upon median values of dosimetric measurements from Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) Houston site visit data and community beam modeling parameter survey data in order to represent a baseline linear accelerator. Five clinically acceptable treatment plans (three IMRT, two VMAT) were developed for the IROC head and neck phantom. Dose distributions for each plan were recalculated after individually modifying parameters of interest (e.g., MLC transmission, percent depth doses [PDDs], and output factors) according to the 2.5th to 97.5th percentiles of community survey and machine performance data to encompass the realistic extent of variance in the radiotherapy community. The resultant dose distributions were evaluated by examining relative changes in average dose for thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) locations across the two target volumes and organ at risk (OAR). Interplay was also examined for parameters generating changes in target dose greater than 1%. Results For Eclipse, dose calculations were sensitive to changes in the dosimetric leaf gap (DLG), which resulted in differences from −5% to +3% to the targets relative to the baseline beam model. Modifying the MLC transmission factor introduced differences up to ± 1%. For RayStation, parameters determining MLC behaviors likewise contributed substantially; the MLC offset introduced changes in dose from −4% to +7%, and the MLC transmission caused changes of −4% to +2%. Among the dosimetric qualities examined, changes in PDD implementation resulted in the most substantial changes, but these were only up to ±1%. Other dosimetric factors had

Independent verification of the dose per monitor unit (MU) to deliver the prescribed dose to a patient has been a mainstay of radiation oncology quality assurance. We discuss the role of secondary dose/MU calculation programs as part of a comprehensive Quality Assurance (QA) program. This report provides guidelines on calculation-based dose/MU verification for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) provided by various modalities. We provide a review of various algorithms for "independent/second check" of monitor unit calculations for IMRT/VMAT. The report makes recommendations on the clinical implementation of secondary dose/MU calculation programs; on commissioning and acceptance of various commercially available secondary dose/MU calculation programs; on benchmark QA and periodic quality assurance; and on clinically reasonable action levels for agreement of secondary dose/MU calculation programs.

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

The Children's Oncology Group (COG) has a strong quality assurance (QA) program managed by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC). This program consists of credentialing centers and providing real-time management of each case for protocol compliant target definition and radiation delivery. In the International Society of Pediatric Oncology (SIOP), the lack of an available, reliable online data platform has been a challenge and the European Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOPE) quality and excellence in radiotherapy and imaging for children and adolescents with cancer across Europe in clinical trials (QUARTET) program currently provides QA review for prospective clinical trials. The COG and SIOP are fully committed to a QA program that ensures uniform execution of protocol treatments and provides validity of the clinical data used for analysis.

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.

Imaging is essential in successfully executing radiation therapy (RT) in oncology clinical trials. As technically sophisticated diagnostic imaging and RT were incorporated into trials, quality assurance in the National Clinical Trials Network groups entered a new era promoting image acquisition and review. Most trials involving RT require pre- and post-therapy imaging for target validation and outcome assessment. The increasing real-time (before and during therapy) imaging and RT object reviews are to ensure compliance with trial objectives. Objects easily transmit digitally for review from anywhere in the world. Physician interpretation of imaging and image application to RT treatment plans is essential for optimal trial execution. Imaging and RT data sets are used to credential RT sites to confirm investigator and institutional ability to meet trial target volume delineation and delivery requirements. Real-time imaging and RT object reviews can be performed multiple times during a trial to assess response to therapy and application of RT objects. This process has matured into an effective data management mechanism. When necessary, site and study investigators review objects together through web media technologies to ensure the patient is enrolled on the appropriate trial and the intended RT is planned and executed in a trial-compliant manner. Real-time imaging review makes sure: (1) the patient is entered and eligible for the trial, (2) the patient meets trial-specific adaptive therapy requirements, if applicable, and (3) the intended RT is according to trial guidelines. This review ensures the study population is uniform and the results are believable and can be applied to clinical practice.

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

Purpose: To design and evaluate an anthropomorphic spine phantom for use in credentialing proton therapy facilities for clinical trial participation by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Houston QA Center. Materials and Methods: A phantom was designed to perform an end-to-end audit of the proton spine treatment process, including simulation, dose calculation, and proton treatment delivery. Because plastics that simulate bone in proton beams are unknown, 11 potential materials were tested to identify suitable phantom materials. Once built, preliminary testing using passive scattering and spot scanning treatment plans (including a field junction) were created in-house and delivered 3 times to test reproducibility. The following measured attributes were compared with the calculated values: absolute dose agreement using thermoluminescent dosimeters, planar gamma agreement, distal range, junction match, and right and left profile alignment using radiochromic film. Finally, credentialing results from 10 institutions were also assessed. Results: A suitable bone substitute was identified (Techtron HPV Bearing Grade), which had a measured relative stopping power that agreed within 1.1% of its value calculated by Eclipse. In-house passive scatter testing of the phantom demonstrated that the phantom was suitable for assessing craniospinal irradiation dose delivery. However, the in-house scanning beam results were more mixed, highlighting challenges in treatment delivery. Seven of ten institutions passed the proposed criteria for this phantom, a pass rate consistent with other Imaging and Radiation Oncology phantoms. Conclusions: An anthropomorphic proton spine phantom was developed to evaluate proton therapy delivery. This phantom provides a realistic challenge for centers wishing to participate in proton clinical trials and highlights the need for caution in applying advanced treatments.

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.

Purpose The Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core – Houston (IROC-H) Quality Assurance Center (formerly the Radiological Physics Center) has reported varying levels of compliance from their anthropomorphic phantom auditing program. IROC-H studies have suggested that one source of disagreement between institution submitted calculated doses and measurement is the accuracy of the institution's treatment planning system dose calculations and heterogeneity corrections used. In order to audit this step of the radiation therapy treatment process, an independent dose calculation tool is needed. Methods Monte Carlo multiple source models for Varian Flattening Filter Free (FFF) 6MV and FFF 10MV therapeutic x-ray beams were commissioned based on central axis depth dose data from a 10 x 10 cm2 field size and dose profiles for a 40 x 40 cm2 field size. The models were validated against open field measurements in a water tank for field sizes ranging from 3 x 3 cm2 to 40 x 40 cm2. The models were then benchmarked against IROC-H's anthropomorphic head and neck phantom and lung phantom measurements. Results Validation results, assessed with a ±2%/2mm gamma criterion, showed average agreement of 99.9% and 99.0% for central axis depth dose data for FFF 6MV and FFF 10MV models, respectively. Dose profile agreement using the same evaluation technique averaged 97.8% and 97.9% for the respective models. Phantom benchmarking comparisons were evaluated with a ±3%/2mm gamma criterion, and agreement averaged 90.1% and 90.8% for the respective models. Conclusions Multiple source models for Varian FFF 6MV and FFF 10MV beams have been developed, validated, and benchmarked for inclusion in an independent dose calculation quality assurance tool for use in clinical trial audits. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

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

PURPOSE: Between July 2013 and August 2019, 22% of the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) spine, and 15% of the moving lung phantom irradiations have failed to meet established acceptability criteria. The spine phantom simulates a highly modulated stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) case, whereas the lung phantom represents a low-to-none modulation moving target case. In this study, we assessed the contribution of dose calculation errors to these phantom results and evaluated their effects on failure rates. METHODS: We evaluated dose calculation errors by comparing the calculation accuracy of various institutions’ treatment planning systems (TPSs) versus IROC-Houston’s previously established independent dose recalculation system (DRS). Each calculation was compared with the measured dose actually delivered to the phantom; cases in which the recalculation was more accurate were interpreted as a deficiency in the institution’s TPS. A total of 258 phantom irradiation plans (172 lung and 86 spine) were recomputed. RESULTS: Overall, the DRS performed better than the TPSs in 47% of the spine phantom cases. However, the DRS was more accurate in 93% of failing spine phantom cases (with an average improvement of 2.35%), indicating a deficiency in the institution’s treatment planning system. Deficiencies in dose calculation accounted for 60% of the overall discrepancy between measured and planned doses among spine phantoms. In contrast, lung phantom DRS calculations were more accurate in only 35% and 42% of all and failing lung phantom cases respectively, indicating that dose calculation errors were not substantially present. These errors accounted for only 30% of the overall discrepancy between measured and planned doses. CONCLUSIONS: Dose calculation errors are common and substantial in IROC spine phantom irradiations, highlighting a major failure mode in this phantom and in clinical treatment management of these cases. In contrast, dose calculation accuracy had only a minimal contribution to failing lung phantom results, indicating that other failure modes drive problems with this phantom and similar clinical treatments.

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 The purpose of the study was to establish a quantitative method for implant quality evaluation in permanent seed implant brachytherapy for credentialing. Delivery-based credentialing will promote consistency in brachytherapy seed delivery and improve patient outcomes. Methods A workflow for delivery-based credentialing was outlined and applied to permanent breast seed implant brachytherapy. Delivery simulations were performed on implantable anthropomorphic breast phantoms. Two institutions experienced in permanent seed implant brachytherapy demonstrated the peer credentialing process. Each delivery was evaluated for seed placement accuracy as the measure of implant quality, both for implant accuracy and across five simulations to assess implant variation. Initial credentialing criteria are set based on two factors; the mean seed placement accuracy (implant accuracy) and the mean standard deviation (seed variation) with the threshold for each set with the addition of two standard deviations. Results Across two institutions, seed placement accuracy (±standard deviation) was calculated for all five delivery simulations to yield 6.1 (±2.6) mm. To set credentialing criteria, the implant accuracy (6.1 mm) plus two standard deviations (2.0 mm) and the seed variation (2.6 mm) plus two standard deviations (0.8) mm yield a threshold of 8.1 ± 3.4 mm. It is expected that 95% of experienced institutions would perform the phantom simulation within this threshold. Conclusion Brachytherapy programs should validate delivery accuracy by formal credentialing, which is standard in external beam programs. This quantitative implant evaluation should be combined with current credentialing standards for permanent seed brachytherapy to form a comprehensive validation of institutional brachytherapy program quality.

Introduction: Within an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) co-ordinated research project (CRP), a remote end-to-end dosimetric quality audit for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)/ volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) was developed to verify the radiotherapy chain including imaging, treatment planning and dose delivery. The methodology as well as the results obtained in a multicentre pilot study and national trial runs conducted in close cooperation with dosimetry audit networks (DANs) of IAEA Member States are presented. Material and methods: A solid polystyrene phantom containing a dosimetry insert with an irregular solid water planning target volume (PTV) and organ at risk (OAR) was designed for this audit. The insert can be preloaded with radiochromic film and four thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). For the audit, radiotherapy centres were asked to scan the phantom, contour the structures, create an IMRT/VMAT treatment plan and irradiate the phantom. The dose prescription was to deliver 4 Gy to the PTV in two fractions and to limit the OAR dose to a maximum of 2.8 Gy. The TLD measured doses and film measured dose distributions were compared with the TPS calculations. Results: Sixteen hospitals from 13 countries and 64 hospitals from 6 countries participated in the multicenter pilot study and in the national runs, respectively. The TLD results for the PTV were all within +/- 5% acceptance limit for the multicentre pilot study, whereas for national runs, 17 participants failed to meet this criterion. All measured doses in the OAR were below the treatment planning constraint. The film analysis identified seven plans in national runs below the 90% passing rate gamma criteria. Conclusion: The results proved that the methodology of the IMRT/VMAT dosimetric end-to-end audit was feasible for its intended purpose, i.e., the phantom design and materials were suitable; the phantom was easy to use and it was robust enough for shipment. Most importantly the audit methodology was capable of identifying suboptimal IMRT/VMAT delivery.

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 The aim of this work was to provide a novel description of how the radiotherapy community configures treatment planning system (TPS) radiation beam models for clinically used treatment machines. Here we describe the results of a survey of self-reported TPS beam modeling parameter values across different C-arm linear accelerators, beam energies, and multileaf collimator (MLC) configurations. Acquisition and validation methods Beam modeling data were acquired via electronic survey implemented through the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) Houston Quality Assurance Center's online facility questionnaire. The survey was open to participation from January 2018 through January 2019 for all institutions monitored by IROC. After quality control, 2818 beam models were collected from 642 institutions. This survey, designed for Eclipse, Pinnacle, and RayStation, instructed physicists to report parameter values used to model the radiation source and MLC for each treatment machine and beam energy used clinically for intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Parameters collected included the effective source/spot size, MLC transmission, dosimetric leaf gap, tongue and groove effect, and other nondosimetric parameters specific to each TPS. To facilitate survey participation, instructions were provided on how to identify requested beam modeling parameters within each TPS environment. Data format and usage notes Numeric values of the beam modeling parameters are compiled and tabulated according to TPS and calculation algorithm, linear accelerator model class, beam energy, and MLC configuration. Values are also presented as distributions, ranging from the 2.5th to the 97.5th percentile. Potential applications These data provide an independent guide describing how the radiotherapy community mathematically represents its clinical radiation beams. These distributions may be used by the community for comparison during the commissioning or verification of their TPS beam models. Ultimately, we hope that the current work will allow institutions to spot potentially suspicious parameter values and help ensure more accurate radiotherapy delivery.

Purpose To create a snapshot of common practices for 3D‐CRT and intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) QA through a large‐scale survey and compare to TG‐218 recommendations. Methods A survey of 3D‐CRT and IMRT QA was constructed at and distributed by the IROC‐Houston QA center to all institutions monitored by IROC (n = 2,861). The first part of the survey asked about methods to check dose delivery for 3D‐CRT. The bulk of the survey focused on IMRT QA, inquiring about treatment modalities, standard tools used to verify planned dose, how assessment of agreement is calculated and the comparison criteria used, and the strategies taken if QA fails. Results The most common tools for dose verification were a 2D diode array (52.8%), point(s) measurement (39.0%), EPID (27.4%), and 2D ion chamber array (23.9%). When IMRT QA failed, the highest average rank strategy utilized was to remeasure with the same setup, which had an average position ranking of 1.1 with 90.4% of facilities employing this strategy. The second highest average ranked strategy was to move to a new calculation point and remeasure (54.9%); this had an average ranking of 2.1. Conclusion The survey provided a snapshot of the current state of dose verification for IMRT radiotherapy. The results showed variability in approaches and that work is still needed to unify and tighten criteria in the medical physics community, especially in reference to TG‐218's recommendations.

PURPOSE To evaluate the performance of an independent recalculation and compare it against current measurement-based patient specific intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA) in predicting unacceptable phantom results as measured by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC). METHODS When institutions irradiate the IROC head and neck IMRT phantom, they are also asked to submit their internal IMRT QA results. Separately from this, IROC has previously created reference beam models on the Mobius3D platform to independently recalculate phantom results based on the institution's DICOM plan data. The ability of the institutions' IMRT QA to predict the IROC phantom result was compared against the independent recalculation for 339 phantom results collected since 2012. This was done to determine the ability of these systems to detect failing phantom results (i.e., large errors) as well as poor phantom results (i.e., modest errors). Sensitivity and specificity were evaluated using common clinical thresholds, and receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were used to compare across different thresholds. RESULTS Overall, based on common clinical criteria, the independent recalculation was 12 times more sensitive at detecting unacceptable (failing) IROC phantom results than clinical measurement-based IMRT QA. The recalculation was superior, in head-to-head comparison, to the EPID, ArcCheck, and MapCheck devices. The superiority of the recalculation vs these array-based measurements persisted under ROC analysis as the recalculation curve had a greater area under it and was always above that for these measurement devices. For detecting modest errors (poor phantom results rather than failing phantom results), neither the recalculation nor measurement-based IMRT QA performed well. CONCLUSIONS A simple recalculation outperformed current measurement-based IMRT QA methods at detecting unacceptable plans. These findings highlight the value of an independent recalculation, and raise further questions about the current standard of measurement-based IMRT QA.

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.

Managing radiotherapy patients with implanted cardiac devices (implantable cardiac pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators) has been a great practical and procedural challenge in radiation oncology practice. Since the publication of the AAPM TG-34 in 1994, large bodies of literature and case reports have been published about different kinds of radiation effects on modern technology implantable cardiac devices and patient management before, during, and after radiotherapy. This task group report provides the framework that analyzes the potential failure modes of these devices and lays out the methodology for patient management in a comprehensive and concise way, in every step of the entire radiotherapy process.

Purpose: To provide a series of suggestions for other Medical Physics practices to follow in order to provide effective radiation therapy treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods and Materials: We reviewed our entire Radiation Oncology infrastructure to identify a series of workflows and policy changes that we implemented during the pandemic that yielded more effective practices during this time. Results: We identified a structured list of several suggestions that can help other Medical Physics practices overcome the challenges involved in delivering high quality radiotherapy services during this pandemic. Conclusions: Our facility encompasses 4 smaller Houston Area Locations (HALs), a main campus with 8 distinct services based on treatment site (ie. Thoracic, Head and Neck, Breast, Gastrointestinal, Gynecology, Genitourinary, Hematologic Malignancies, Melanoma and Sarcoma and Central Nervous System/Pediatrics), a Proton Center facility, an MR-Linac, a Gamma Knife clinic and an array of brachytherapy services. Due to the scope of our services, we have gained experience in dealing with the rapidly changing pandemic effects on our clinical practice. Our paper provides a resource to other Medical Physics practices in search of workflows that have been resilient during these challenging times.

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 The purpose of this study was to summarize the findings of anthropomorphic proton phantom irradiations analyzed by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Houston QA Center (IROC Houston). Methods and Materials A total of 103 phantoms were irradiated by proton therapy centers participating in clinical trials. The anthropomorphic phantoms simulated heterogeneous anatomy of a head, liver, lung, prostate, and spine. Treatment plans included those for scattered, uniform scanning, and pencil beam scanning beam delivery modalities using 5 different treatment planning systems. For every phantom irradiation, point doses and planar doses were measured using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) and film, respectively. Differences between measured and planned doses were studied as a function of phantom, beam delivery modality, motion, repeat attempt, treatment planning system, and date of irradiation. Results The phantom pass rate (overall, 79%) was high for simple phantoms and lower for phantoms that introduced higher levels of difficulty, such as motion, multiple targets, or increased heterogeneity. All treatment planning systems overestimated dose to the target, compared to TLD measurements. Errors in range calculation resulted in several failed phantoms. There was no correlation between treatment planning system and pass rate. The pass rates for each individual phantom are not improving over time, but when individual institutions received feedback about failed phantom irradiations, pass rates did improve. Conclusions The proton phantom pass rates are not as high as desired and emphasize potential deficiencies in proton therapy planning and/or delivery. There are many areas for improvement with the proton phantom irradiations, such as treatment planning system dose agreement, range calculations, accounting for motion, and irradiation of multiple targets.

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.

The purpose of this work was to investigate radiotherapy underdosing at the periphery of lung tumors, and differences in dose for treatments delivered with flattening filter-free (FFF) beams and with conventional flattened (FF) beams. The true differences between these delivery approaches, as assessed with Monte Carlo simulations, were compared to the apparent differences seen with clinical treatment planning algorithms AAA and Acuros XB. Dose was calculated in a phantom comprised of a chest wall, lung parenchyma, and a spherical tumor (tested diameters: 1, 3, and 5 cm). Three lung densities were considered: 0.26, 0.2, and 0.1 g/cm(3), representing normal lung, lung at full inspiration, and emphysematous lung, respectively. The dose was normalized to 50 Gy to the tumor center and delivered with 7 coplanar, unmodulated 6 MV FFF or FF beams. Monte Carlo calculations used EGSnrc and phase space files for the TrueBeam accelerator provided by Varian Medical Systems. Voxel sizes were 0.5 mm for the 1-cm tumor and 1 mm for the larger tumors. AAA and Acuros XB dose calculations were performed in Eclipse™ with a 2.5-mm dose grid, the resolution normally used clinically. Monte Carlo dose distributions showed that traditional FF beams underdosed the periphery of the tumor by up to ~2 Gy as compared to FFF beams; the latter provided a more uniform dose throughout the tumor. In all cases, the underdosed region was a spherical shell about 5 mm thick around the tumor and extending into the tumor by 2–3 mm. The effect was most pronounced for smaller tumors and lower lung densities. The underdosing observed with conventional FF beams was not captured by the clinical treatment planning systems. We concluded that FFF beams mitigate dose loss at tumor periphery and current clinical practice fails to capture tumor periphery underdosing and possible ways to mitigate it.

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.

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8,000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States. The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for the purpose of revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner. Each medical physics practice guideline represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice guidelines and technical standards by those entities not providing these services is not authorized. The following terms are used in the AAPM practice guidelines:• Must and Must Not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline.• Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances.

This report describes the current state of flattening filter‐free (FFF) radiotherapy beams implemented on conventional linear accelerators, and is aimed primarily at practicing medical physicists. The Therapy Emerging Technology Assessment Work Group of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) formed a writing group to assess FFF technology. The published literature on FFF technology was reviewed, along with technical specifications provided by vendors. Based on this information, supplemented by the clinical experience of the group members, consensus guidelines and recommendations for implementation of FFF technology were developed. Areas in need of further investigation were identified. Removing the flattening filter increases beam intensity, especially near the central axis. Increased intensity reduces treatment time, especially for high‐dose stereotactic radiotherapy/radiosurgery (SRT/SRS). Furthermore, removing the flattening filter reduces out‐of‐field dose and improves beam modeling accuracy. FFF beams are advantageous for small field (e.g., SRS) treatments and are appropriate for intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). For conventional 3D radiotherapy of large targets, FFF beams may be disadvantageous compared to flattened beams because of the heterogeneity of FFF beam across the target (unless modulation is employed). For any application, the nonflat beam characteristics and substantially higher dose rates require consideration during the commissioning and quality assurance processes relative to flattened beams, and the appropriate clinical use of the technology needs to be identified. Consideration also needs to be given to these unique characteristics when undertaking facility planning. Several areas still warrant further research and development. Recommendations pertinent to FFF technology, including acceptance testing, commissioning, quality assurance, radiation safety, and facility planning, are presented. Examples of clinical applications are provided. Several of the areas in which future research and development are needed are also indicated. PACS number: 87.53.‐j, 87.53.Bn, 87.53.Ly, 87.55.‐x, 87.55.N‐, 87.56.bc

Purpose To define the physical parameters needed to characterize a particle beam in order to allow intercomparison of different experiments performed using different ions at the same facility and using the same ion at different facilities. Methods At the request of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), a special panel was convened to review the current status of the field and to provide suggested metrics for reporting the physical parameters of particle beams to be used for biological research. A set of physical parameters and measurements that should be performed by facilities and understood and reported by researchers supported by NCI to perform pre-clinical radiobiology and medical physics of heavy ions were generated. Results Standard measures such as radiation delivery technique, beam modifiers used, nominal energy, field size, physical dose and dose rate should all be reported. However, more advanced physical measurements, including detailed characterization of beam quality by microdosimetric spectrum and fragmentation spectra, should also be established and reported. Details regarding how such data should be incorporated into Monte Carlo simulations and the proper reporting of simulation details are also discussed. Conclusions In order to allow for a clear relation of physical parameters to biological effects, facilities and researchers should establish and report detailed physical characteristics of the irradiation beams utilized including both standard and advanced measures. Biological researchers are encouraged to actively engage facility staff and physicists in the design and conduct of experiments. Modeling individual experimental setups will allow for the reporting of the uncertainties in the measurement or calculation of physical parameters which should be routinely reported.

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: 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.

Due to a lack of information regarding the current clinical experience of IMRT QA for a large and varied plan population, we reviewed our patient‐specific IMRT quality assurance (QA) results for 13,003 treatment plans from 13 distinct treatment sites from a six‐year period. QA records were reviewed for dose difference (single point with ion chamber measurement; ±3% agreement criteria) and percentage of pixels passing relative dose gamma analysis (film measurement; 90% passing 5%(global)/3 mm agreement criteria) from 2005 through 2011. Plan records were analyzed for trends with measurement date and treatment site. Plans failing to meet QA tolerance criteria were evaluated for follow‐up clinical action (i.e., if repeat measurements were performed). The mean difference (±SD) between ion chamber point measurements and calculated doses was ‐0.29% ±1.64% (calculated values being slightly higher) and, regarding planar dose evaluations, the mean percentage of pixels passing the gamma criteria of 5%(global)/3 mm was 97.7% (lower 95th percentile: 92.2%). 97.7% and 99.3% of plans passed the point dose and planar dose verification, respectively. We observed statistically significant differences (p