Search

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.

Purpose: We previously developed an age-scalable 3D computational phantom that has been widely used for retrospective whole-body dose reconstructions of conventional two-dimensional historic radiation therapy (RT) treatments in late effects studies of childhood cancer survivors. This phantom is modeled in the FORTRAN programming language and is not readily applicable for dose reconstructions for survivors treated with contemporary RT whose treatment plans were designed using computed tomography images and complex treatment fields. The goal of this work was to adapt the current FORTRAN model of our age-scalable computational phantom into Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) standard so that it can be used with any treatment planning system (TPS) to reconstruct contemporary RT. Additionally, we report a detailed description of the phantom’s age-based scaling functions, information that was not previously published. Method: We developed a Python script that adapts our phantom model from FORTRAN to DICOM. To validate the conversion, we compared geometric parameters for the phantom modeled in FORTRAN and DICOM scaled to ages 1 month, 6 months, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 10, 15, and 18 years. Specifically, we calculated the percent differences between the corner points and volume of each body region and the normalized mean square distance (NMSD) between each of the organs. In addition, we also calculated the percent difference between the heights of our DICOM age-scaled phantom and the heights (50th percentile) reported by the World Health Organization (WHO) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for male and female children of the same ages. Additionally, we calculated the difference between the organ masses for our DICOM phantom and the organ masses for two reference phantoms (from International Comission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) 89 and the University of Florida/National Cancer Institute reference hybrid voxel phantoms) for ages newborn, 1, 5, 10, 15 and adult. Lastly, we conducted a feasibility study using our DICOM phantom for organ dose calculations in a commercial TPS. Specifically, we simulated a 6 MV photon right-sided flank field RT plan for our DICOM phantom scaled to age 3.9 years; treatment field parameters and age were typical of a Wilms tumor RT treatment in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. For comparison, the same treatment was simulated using our in-house dose calculation system with our FORTRAN phantom. The percent differences (between FORTRAN and DICOM) in mean dose and percent of volume receiving dose ≥5 Gy were calculated for two organs at risk, liver and pancreas. Results: The percent differences in corner points and the volumes of head, neck, and trunk body regions between our phantom modeled in FORTRAN and DICOM agreed within 3%. For all of the ages, the NMSDs were negliglible with a maximum NMSD of 7.80 × 10 − 2 mm for occiptital lobe of 1 month. The heights of our age-scaled phantom agreed with WHO/CDC data within 7% from infant to adult, and within 2% agreement for ages 5 years and older. We observed that organ masses in our phantom are less than the organ masses for other reference phantoms. Dose calculations done with our in-house calculation system (with FORTRAN phantom) and commercial TPS (with DICOM phantom) agreed within 7%. Conclusion: We successfully adapted our phantom model from the FORTRAN language to DICOM standard and validated its geometric consistency. We also demonstrated that our phantom model is representative of population height data for infant to adult, but that the organ masses are smaller than in other reference phantoms and need further refinement. Our age-scalable computational phantom modeled in DICOM standard can be scaled to any age at RT and used within a commercial TPS to retrospectively reconstruct doses from contemporary RT in childhood cancer survivors.

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

This study concerns calculation of the average electronic stopping power for photon and electron sources. It addresses two problems that have not yet been fully resolved. The first is defining the electron spectrum used for averaging in a way that is most suitable for radiobiological modeling. We define it as the spectrum of electrons entering the sensitive to radiation volume (SV) within the cell nucleus, at the moment they enter the SV. For this spectrum we derive a formula that combines linearly the fluence spectrum and the source spectrum. The latter is the distribution of initial energies of electrons produced by a source. Previous studies used either the fluence or source spectra, but not both, thereby neglecting a part of the complete spectrum. Our derived formula reduces to these two prior methods in the case of high and low energy sources, respectively. The second problem is extending electron spectra to low energies. Previous studies used an energy cut-off on the order of 1 keV. However, as we show, even for high energy sources, such as (60)Co, electrons with energies below 1 keV contribute about 30% to the dose. In this study all the spectra were calculated with Geant4-DNA code and a cut-off energy of only 11 eV. We present formulas for calculating frequency- and dose-average stopping powers, numerical results for several important electron and photon sources, and tables with all the data needed to use our formulas for arbitrary electron and photon sources producing electrons with initial energies up to ∼1 MeV.

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 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 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: To calculate photonenergy deposition kernels (EDKs) used for convolution/superposition dose calculation at a higher resolution than the original Mackie et al. 1988 kernels and to calculate material‐specific kernels that describe how energy is transported and deposited by secondary particles when the incident photoninteracts in a material other than water.Methods: The high resolution EDKs for various incident photonenergies were generated using the EGSnrc user‐code EDKnrc, which forces incident photons to interact at the center of a 60 cm radius sphere of water. The simulation geometry is essentially the same as the original Mackie calculation but with a greater number of scoring voxels (48 radial, 144 angular bins). For the material‐specific EDKs, incident photons were forced to interact at the center of a 1 mm radius sphere of material (lung, cortical bone, silver, or titanium) surrounded by a 60 cm radius water sphere, using the original scoring voxel geometry implemented by Mackie et al. 1988 (24 radial, 48 angular bins). Results: Our Monte Carlo‐calculated high resolution EDKs showed excellent agreement with the Mackie kernels, with our kernels providing more information about energy deposition close to the interaction site. Furthermore, our EDKs resulted in smoother dose deposition functions due to the finer resolution and greater number of simulation histories. The material‐specific EDK results show that the angular distribution of energy deposition is different for incident photonsinteracting in different materials. Calculated from the angular dose distribution for 300 keV incident photons, the expected polar angle for dose deposition ( ) is 28.6° for water, 33.3° for lung, 36.0° for cortical bone, 44.6° for titanium, and 58.1° for silver, showing a dependence on the material in which the primary photoninteracts.Conclusions: These high resolution and material‐specific EDKs have implications for convolution/superposition dose calculations in heterogeneous patient geometries, especially at material interfaces.

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

The purpose of this study was to determine the reproducibility of patient‐specific, intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA) results in a clinical setting. Six clinical patient plans were delivered to a variety of devices and analyses, including 1) radiographic film; 2) ion chamber; 3) 2D diode array delivered and analyzed in three different configurations (AP delivery with field‐by‐field analysis, AP delivery with composite analysis, and planned gantry angle delivery); 4) helical diode array; and 5) in‐house‐designed multiple ion chamber phantom. The six clinical plans were selected from a range of treatment sites and were of various levels of complexity. Of note, three of the plans had failed at least preliminary evaluation with our in‐house IMRT QA; the other three plans had passed QA. These plans were delivered three times sequentially without changing the setup, and then delivered two more times after breaking down and rebuilding the setup between each. This allowed for an investigation of reproducibility (in terms of dose, dose difference or percent of pixels passing gamma) of both the delivery and the physical setup. This study showed that the variability introduced from the setup was generally higher than the variability from redelivering the plan. Radiographic film showed the poorest reproducibility of the dosimeters investigated. In conclusion, the various IMRT QA systems demonstrated varying abilities to reproduce QA results consistently. All dosimetric devices demonstrated a reproducibility (coefficient of variation) of less than 4% in their QA results for all plans, with an average reproducibility of less than 2%. This work provides some quantification for the variability that may be seen for IMRT QA dosimeters. PACS numbers: 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc

Epidemiologic studies that include patients who underwent radiation therapy for the treatment of cancer aim to quantify the relationship between radiotherapy and the risk of subsequent late effects. Because of the long follow-up period required to observe late effects, these studies are conducted retrospectively. The studies routinely include patients treated across numerous institutions using a wide range of technologies and represent treatments over several decades. As a result, determining the dose throughout the patient's body is uniquely challenging. Therefore, estimating doses throughout the patient's body for epidemiologic studies requires special methodologies that are generally applied to a wide range of radiotherapy techniques. Over ten years ago, the MD Anderson Late Effects Group described various dose reconstruction methods for therapeutic and diagnostic radiation exposure for epidemiologic studies. Here we provide an update to the most widely used dose reconstruction methodology for epidemiologic studies, analytical model calculations combined with a 3D age-specific computational phantom. In particular, we describe the various adaptations (and enhancements) of that methodology, as well as how they have been used in radiation epidemiology studies and may be used in future studies.

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: The objective of this work was to assess both the perception of failure modes in Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) when the linac is operated at the edge of tolerances given in AAPM TG-40 (Kutcher et al.) and TG-142 (Klein et al.) as well as the application of FMEA to this specific section of the IMRT process. METHODS: An online survey was distributed to approximately 2000 physicists worldwide that participate in quality services provided by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core -Houston (IROC-H). The survey briefly described eleven different failure modes covered by basic quality assurance in step-and-shoot IMRT at or near TG-40 (Kutcher et al.) and TG-142 (Klein et al.) tolerance criteria levels. Respondents were asked to estimate the worst case scenario percent dose error that could be caused by each of these failure modes in a head and neck patient as well as the FMEA scores: Occurrence, Detectability, and Severity. Risk probability number (RPN) scores were calculated as the product of these scores. Demographic data were also collected. RESULTS: A total of 181 individual and three group responses were submitted. 84% were from North America. Most (76%) individual respondents performed at least 80% clinical work and 92% were nationally certified. Respondent medical physics experience ranged from 2.5 to 45 yr (average 18 yr). A total of 52% of individual respondents were at least somewhat familiar with FMEA, while 17% were not familiar. Several IMRT techniques, treatment planning systems, and linear accelerator manufacturers were represented. All failure modes received widely varying scores ranging from 1 to 10 for occurrence, at least 1–9 for detectability, and at least 1–7 for severity. Ranking failure modes by RPN scores also resulted in large variability, with each failure mode being ranked both most risky (1st) and least risky (11th) by different respondents. On average MLC modeling had the highest RPN scores. Individual estimated percent dose errors and severity scores positively correlated (P < 0.01) for each FM as expected. No universal correlations were found between the demographic information collected and scoring, percent dose errors or ranking. CONCLUSIONS: Failure modes investigated overall were evaluated as low to medium risk, with average RPNs less than 110. The ranking of 11 failure modes was not agreed upon by the community. Large variability in FMEA scoring may be caused by individual interpretation and/or experience, reflecting the subjective nature of the FMEA tool.

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.