Search

Purpose Radixact Synchrony corrects for target motion during treatment by adjusting the jaw and MLC positions in real time. As the jaws move off axis, Synchrony attempts to adjust for a loss in output due to the un‐flattened 6 MV beam by increasing the jaw aperture width. The purpose of this work was to assess the impact of the variable‐width aperture on delivered dose using measurements and simulations. Methods Longitudinal beam profile measurements were acquired using an Edge diode with static gantry. Jaw‐offset peak, width, and integral factors were calculated for profiles with the jaws in the extreme positions using both variable‐width (Synchrony) and fixed‐width apertures. Treatment plans with target motion and compensation were compared to planned doses to study the impact of the variable aperture on volumetric dose. Results The jaw offset peak factor (JOPF) for the Synchrony jaw settings were 0.964 and 0.983 for the 1.0‐ and 2.5‐cm jaw settings, respectively. These values decreased to 0.925 and 0.982 for the fixed‐width settings, indicating that the peak value of the profile would decrease by 7.5% compared to centered if the aperture width was held constant. The IMRT dose distributions reveal similar results, where gamma pass rates are above tolerance for the Synchrony jaw settings but fall significantly for the fixed‐width 1‐cm jaws. Conclusions The variable‐width behavior of Synchrony jaws provides a larger output correction for the 1‐cm jaw setting. Without the variable‐aperture correction, plans with the 1‐cm jaw setting would underdose the target if the jaws spend a significant amount of time in the extreme positions. This work investigated the change in delivered dose with jaws in the extreme positions, therefore overall changes in dose due to offset jaws are expected to be less for composite treatment deliveries.

Purpose To validate an MR‐compatible version of the ScandiDos Delta4 Phantom+ on a 0.35T MR guided linear accelerator (MR‐Linac) system and to determine the effect of plan complexity on the measurement results. Methods/Materials 36 clinical treatment plans originally delivered on a 0.35T MR linac system were re‐planned on the Delta4 Phantom+ MR geometry following our clinical quality assurance (QA) protocol. The QA plans were then measured using the Delta4 Phantom+ MR and the global gamma pass rates were compared to previous results measured using a Sun Nuclear ArcCHECK‐MR. Both 3%/3mm and 2%/2mm global gamma pass rates with a 20% dose threshold were recorded and compared. Plan complexity was quantified for each clinical plan investigated using 24 different plan metrics and each metric’s correlation with the overall 2%/2mm global gamma pass rate was investigated using Pearson correlation coefficients. Results Both systems demonstrated comparable levels of gamma pass rates at both the 3%/3mm and 2%/2mm level for all plan complexity metrics. Nine plan metrics including area, number of active MLCs, perimeter, edge metric, leaf segment variability, complete irradiation area outline, irregularity, leaf travel index, and unique opening index were moderately (|r| > 0.5) correlated with the Delta4 2%/2mm global gamma pass rates whereas those same metrics had weak correlation with the ArcCHECK‐MR pass rates. Only the perimeter to area ratio and small aperture score (20 mm) metrics showed moderate correlation with the ArcCHECK‐MR gamma pass rates. Conclusions The MR‐compatible version of the ScandiDos Delta4 Phantom+ MR has been validated for clinical use on a 0.35T MR‐Linac with results being comparable to an ArcCHECK‐MR system in use clinically for almost five years. Most plan complexity metrics did not correlate with lower 2%/2mm gamma pass rates using the ArcCHECK‐MR but several metrics were found to be moderately correlated with lower 2%/2mm global gamma pass rates for the Delta4 Phantom+ MR.

The Radixact® linear accelerator contains the motion Synchrony system, which tracks and compensates for intrafraction patient motion. For respiratory motion, the system models the motion of the target and synchronizes the delivery of radiation with this motion using the jaws and multi‐leaf collimators (MLCs). It was the purpose of this work to determine the ability of the Synchrony system to track and compensate for different phantom motions using a delivery quality assurance (DQA) workflow. Thirteen helical plans were created on static datasets from liver, lung, and pancreas subjects. Dose distributions were measured using a Delta4® Phantom+ mounted on a Hexamotion® stage for the following three case scenarios for each plan: (a) no phantom motion and no Synchrony (M0S0), (b) phantom motion and no Synchrony (M1S0), and (c) phantom motion with Synchrony (M1S1). The LEDs were placed on the Phantom+ for the 13 patient cases and were placed on a separate one‐dimensional surrogate stage for additional studies to investigate the effect of separate target and surrogate motion. The root‐mean‐square (RMS) error between the Synchrony‐modeled positions and the programmed phantom positions was 90%. Only two of the M1S0 measured doses had gamma pass rates > 90%. Motion Synchrony offers a potential alternative to the current, ITV‐based motion management strategy for helical tomotherapy deliveries.

The dosimetric stability of six TomoTherapy units was analyzed to investigate changes in performance over time and with system upgrades. Energy and output were tracked using monitor chamber signal, onboard megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) detector profile, and external ion chamber measurements. The systems (and monitoring periods) include three Hi‐Art (67, 61, and 65 mos.), two TomoHDA (31 and 26 mos.), and one Radixact unit (11 mos.), representing approximately 10 years of clinical use. The four newest systems use the Dose Control Stability (DCS) system and Fixed Target Linear Accelerator (linac) (FTL). The output stability is reported as deviation from reference monitor chamber signal for all systems and/or from an external chamber signal. The energy stability was monitored using relative (center versus off‐axis) MVCT detector signal (beam profile) and/or the ratio of chamber measurements at 2 depths. The clinical TomoHDA data were used to benchmark the Radixact stability, which has the same FTL but runs at a higher dose rate. The output based on monitor chamber data of all systems is very stable. The standard deviation of daily output on the non‐DCS systems was 0.94–1.52%. As expected, the DCS systems had improved standard deviation: 0.004–0.06%. The beam energy was also very stable for all units. The standard deviation in profile flatness was 0.23–0.62% for rotating target systems and 0.04–0.09% for FTL. Ion chamber output and PDD ratios supported these results. The output stability on the Radixact system during extended treatment delivery (20, 30, and 40 min) was comparable to a clinical TomoHDA system. For each system, results are consistent between different measurement tools and techniques, proving not only the dosimetric stability, but also these quality parameters can be confirmed with various metrics. The replacement history over extended time periods of the major dosimetric components of the different delivery systems (target, linac, and magnetron) is also reported.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate dose prescription and recording compliance to international standard (International Commission on Radiation Units & Measurements [ICRU]-83) in patients treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) among academic institutions. Methods and materials Ten institutions participated in this study to collect IMRT data to evaluate compliance to ICRU-83. Under institutional review board clearance, data from 5094 patients—including treatment site, technique, planner, physician, prescribed dose, target volume, monitor units, planning system, and dose calculation algorithm—were collected anonymously. The dose-volume histogram of each patient, as well as dose points, doses delivered to 100% (D100), 98% (D98), 95% (D95), 50% (D50), and 2% (D2), of sites was collected and sent to a central location for analysis. Homogeneity index (HI) as a measure of the steepness of target and is a measure of the shape of the dose-volume histogram was calculated for every patient and analyzed. Results In general, ICRU recommendations for naming the target, reporting dose prescription, and achieving desired levels of dose to target were relatively poor. The nomenclature for the target in the dose prescription had large variations, having every permutation of name and number contrary to ICRU recommendations. There was statistically significant variability in D95, D50, and HI among institutions, tumor site, and technique with P values Conclusions Nearly 95% of patient treatments deviated from the ICRU-83 recommended D50 prescription dose delivery. This variability is significant (P

The RayStation treatment planning system implements a Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm for electron dose calculations. For a TrueBeam accelerator, beam modeling was performed for four electron energies (6, 9, 12, and 15 MeV), and the dose calculation accuracy was tested for a range of geometries. The suite of validation tests included those tests recommended by AAPM's Medical Physics Practice Guideline 5.a, but extended beyond these tests in order to validate the MC algorithm in more challenging geometries. For MPPG 5.a testing, calculation accuracy was evaluated for square cutouts of various sizes, two custom cutout shapes, oblique incidence, and heterogenous media (cork). In general, agreement between ion chamber measurements and RayStation dose calculations was excellent and well within suggested tolerance limits. However, this testing did reveal calculation errors for the output of small cutouts. Of the 312 output factors evaluated for square cutouts, 20 (6.4%) were outside of 3% and 5 (1.6%) were outside of 5%, with these larger errors generally being for the smallest cutout sizes within a given applicator. Adjustment of beam modeling parameters did not fix these calculation errors, nor does the planning software allow the user to input correction factors as a function of field size. Additional validation tests included several complex phantom geometries (triangular nose phantom, lung phantom, curved breast phantom, and cortical bone phantom), designed to test the ability of the algorithm to handle high density heterogeneities and irregular surface contours. In comparison to measurements with radiochromic film, RayStation showed good agreement, with an average of 89.3% pixels passing for gamma analysis (3%/3mm) across four phantom geometries. The MC algorithm was able to accurately handle the presence of irregular surface contours (curved cylindrical phantom and a triangular nose phantom), as well as heterogeneities (cork and cortical bone).

The multi-leaf collimator (MLC) assembly present on TomoTherapy (Accuray, Madison WI) radiation therapy (RT) and mega voltage CT machines is well suited to perform fluence field modulated CT (FFMCT). In addition, there is a demand in the RT environment for FFMCT imaging techniques, specifically volume of interest (VOI) imaging. A clinical TomoTherapy machine was programmed to perform VOI. Four different size ROIs were placed at varying distances from isocenter. Projections intersecting the VOI received 'full dose' while those not intersecting the VOI received 30% of the dose (i.e. the incident fluence for non VOI projections was 30% of the incident fluence for projections intersecting the VOI). Additional scans without fluence field modulation were acquired at 'full' and 30% dose. The noise (pixel standard deviation) and mean CT number were measured inside the VOI region and compared between the three scans. Dose maps were generated using a dedicated TomoTherapy treatment planning dose calculator. The VOI-FFMCT technique produced an image noise 1.05, 1.00, 1.03, and 1.05 times higher than the 'full dose' scan for ROI sizes of 10 cm, 13 cm, 10 cm, and 6 cm respectively within the VOI region. The VOI-FFMCT technique required a total imaging dose equal to 0.61, 0.69, 0.60, and 0.50 times the 'full dose' acquisition dose for ROI sizes of 10 cm, 13 cm, 10 cm, and 6 cm respectively within the VOI region. Noise levels can be almost unchanged within clinically relevant VOIs sizes for RT applications while the integral imaging dose to the patient can be decreased, and/or the image quality in RT can be dramatically increased with no change in dose relative to non-FFMCT RT imaging. The ability to shift dose away from regions unimportant for clinical evaluation in order to improve image quality or reduce imaging dose has been demonstrated. This paper demonstrates that FFMCT can be performed using the MLC on a clinical TomoTherapy machine for the first time.

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.

Purpose: Several groups are exploring the integration of magnetic resonance (MR) image guidance with radiotherapy to reduce tumor position uncertainty during photon radiotherapy. The therapeutic gain from reducing tumor position uncertainty using intrafraction MR imaging during radiotherapy could be partially offset if the negative effects of magnetic field-induced dose perturbations are not appreciated or accounted for. The authors hypothesize that a more rotationally symmetric modality such as helical tomotherapy will permit a systematic mediation of these dose perturbations. This investigation offers a unique look at the dose perturbations due to homogeneous transverse magnetic field during the delivery of Tomotherapy® Treatment System plans under varying degrees of rota- tional beamlet symmetry. Methods: The authors accurately reproduced treatment plan beamlet and patient configurations using the Monte Carlo code geant4. This code has a thoroughly benchmarked electromagnetic particle transport physics package well-suited for the radiotherapy energy regime. The three approved clinical treatment plans for this study were for a prostate, head and neck, and lung treatment. The dose heterogeneity index metric was used to quantify the e↵ect of the dose perturbations to the target volumes. Results: The authors demonstrate the ability to reproduce the clinical dose–volume histograms (DVH) to within 4% dose agreement at each DVH point for the target volumes and most planning structures, and therefore, are able to confidently examine the effects of transverse magnetic fields on the plans. The authors investigated field strengths of 0.35, 0.7, 1, 1.5, and 3 T. Changes to the dose heterogeneity index of 0.1% were seen in the prostate and head and neck case, reflecting negligible dose perturbations to the target volumes, a change from 5.5% to 20.1% was observed with the lung case. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that the effect of external magnetic fields can be mitigated by exploiting a more rotationally symmetric treatment modality.

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) sponsors two summer undergraduate research programs to attract top performing undergraduate students into graduate studies in medical physics: the Summer Undergraduate Fellowship Program (SUFP) and the Minority Undergraduate Summer Experience (MUSE). Undergraduate research experience (URE) is an effective tool to encourage students to pursue graduate degrees. The SUFP and MUSE are the only medical physics URE programs. From 2001 to 2012, 148 fellowships have been awarded and a total of $608,000 has been dispersed to fellows. This paper reports on the history, participation, and status of the programs. A review of surveys of past fellows is presented. Overall, the fellows and mentors are very satisfied with the program. The efficacy of the programs is assessed by four metrics: entry into a medical physics graduate program, board certification, publications, and AAPM involvement. Sixty‐five percent of past fellow respondents decided to pursue a graduate degree in medical physics as a result of their participation in the program. Seventy percent of respondents are currently involved in some educational or professional aspect of medical physics. Suggestions for future enhancements to better track and maintain contact with past fellows, expand funding sources, and potentially combine the programs are presented. PACS number: 01.10.Hx

Precise calibration of Hounsfield units (HU) to electron density (HU-density) is essential to dose calculation. On-board kV cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging is used predominantly for patients' positioning, but will potentially be used for dose calculation. The impacts of varying 3 imaging parameters (mAs, source-imager distance [SID], and cone angle) and phantom size on the HU number accuracy and HU-density calibrations for CBCT imaging were studied. We proposed a site-specific calibration method to achieve higher accuracy in CBCT image-based dose calculation. Three configurations of the Computerized Imaging Reference Systems (CIRS) water equivalent electron density phantom were used to simulate sites including head, lungs, and lower body (abdomen/pelvis). The planning computed tomography (CT) scan was used as the baseline for comparisons. CBCT scans of these phantom configurations were performed using Varian Trilogy system in a precalibrated mode with fixed tube voltage (125 kVp), but varied mAs, SID, and cone angle. An HU-density curve was generated and evaluated for each set of scan parameters. Three HU-density tables generated using different phantom configurations with the same imaging parameter settings were selected for dose calculation on CBCT images for an accuracy comparison. Changing mAs or SID had small impact on HU numbers. For adipose tissue, the HU discrepancy from the baseline was 20 HU in a small phantom, but 5 times lager in a large phantom. Yet, reducing the cone angle significantly decreases the HU discrepancy. The HU-density table was also affected accordingly. By performing dose comparison between CT and CBCT image-based plans, results showed that using the site-specific HU-density tables to calibrate CBCT images of different sites improves the dose accuracy to approximately 2%. Our phantom study showed that CBCT imaging can be a feasible option for dose computation in adaptive radiotherapy approach if the site-specific calibration is applied.

Delivery verification is the process in which the energy fluence delivered during a treatment is verified. This verified energy fluence can be used in conjunction with an image in the treatment position to reconstruct the full three-dimensional dose deposited. A method for delivery verification that utilizes a measured database of detector signal is described in this work. This database is a function of two parameters, radiological path-length and detector-to-phantom distance, both of which are computed from a CT image taken at the time of delivery. Such a database was generated and used to perform delivery verification and dose reconstruction. Two experiments were conducted: a simulated prostate delivery on an inhomogeneous abdominal phantom, and a nasopharyngeal delivery on a dog cadaver. For both cases, it was found that the verified fluence and dose results using the database approach agreed very well with those using previously developed and proven techniques. Delivery verification with a measured database and CT image at the time of treatment is an accurate procedure for tomotherapy. The database eliminates the need for any patient-specific, pre- or post-treatment measurements. Moreover, such an approach creates an opportunity for accurate, real-time delivery verification and dose reconstruction given fast image reconstruction and dose computation tools.

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: 1. Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA 2. Understand strategies for testing TPS software 3. Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria 4. Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS 5. Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA 6. Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process 7. Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking 8. Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication 9. Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA 10. Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations

Purpose: This work presents a new approach that uses the multi leaf collimator present on TomoTherapy devices to modulate the imaging beam. This allows for targeted imaging in which only regions of clinical importance for IGRT (patient positioning confirmation) receive a high level of image quality. This allows the total imaging dose to decrease, especially for healthy tissue. Methods: A clinical TomoTherapy machine was programmed to deliver imaging dose such that small pre-defined volumes of interest (VOI) received relatively higher levels of image quality with respect to surrounding regions. Four different size ROIs were placed at varying distances from isocenter. The noise and mean CT number were compared between VOI and un-modulated scans. Dose distributions were generated using a treatment planning dose calculator. A clinically feasible workflow was developed to implement this technique that used treatment planning contours to define VOI positions. Results: The VOI-FFMCT technique produced an image noise within 5% of an unmodulated scan for all size VOIs. The VOI technique required a total imaging dose of 0.61, 0.69, 0.60, and 0.50 times the “full dose” acquisition dose for VOI sizes/locations of 10/13/10/6 cm in diameter and located 0/2/5/6 cm from isocenter respectively. Mean CT numbers for the VOI scans were within 1% of the unmodulated case. Conclusion: This approach, which combines state-of-the-art radiation therapy fluence control with a novel imaging approach has been implemented on a clinical system with no hardware or software changes. A clinically feasible method for implementing this technique was developed which requires no additional user input relative to the current procedures in our clinic. The method allows physicians to choose between: (1) better image quality at no dose penalty or (2) equal image quality while reducing dose levels relative to today’s standard of care. Research grants from GE HealthCare and TomoTherapy.

Purpose: The dosimetric stability of six TomoTherapy units was analyzed to investigate changes in performance over time and with system upgrades. Methods: Energy and output were tracked using monitor chamber signal, onboard MVCT detector signal and external ion chamber measurements. The systems (and monitoring periods) include 3 Hi-Art (67, 61 and 65 mos.), 2 HDA (29 and 25 mos.) and one research unit (7 mo.). Dose Control Stability system (DCS) was installed on 4 systems. Output stability is reported as deviation from reference monitor chamber signal for all systems, and from an external chamber for 4 systems. Energy stability was monitored using the relative (center versus off-axis) MVCT detector signal and/or the ratio of chamber measurements at 2 depths. The results from the clinical systems were used to benchmark the stability of the research unit, which has the same linear accelerator but runs at a higher dose rate. Results: The output based on monitor chamber data of all six systems is very stable. Non- DCS had a standard deviation of 1.7% and 1.8%. As expected, DCS systems had improved standard deviation: 0.003–0.05%. The energy was also very stable for all units. The standard deviation in exit detector flatness was 0.02–0.3%. Ion chamber output and 20/10 cm ratios supported these results. The stability for the research system, as monitored with a variety of metrics, is on par with the existing systems. Conclusion: The output and energy of six TomoTherapy units over a total of almost 10 years is quite stable. For each system, the results are consistent between the different measurement tools and techniques, proving not only the dosimetric stability, but that these quality parameters can be confirmed with various metrics. A research unit operating at a higher dose rate performed as well as the clinical treatment units. University of Wisconsin and Accuray Inc. (vendor of TomoTherapy systems) have a research agreement which supplies funds for research to the University. This project was partially supporting with these funds.

Introduction Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. TPS Commissioning and QA: Planning and Monitoring - (Salomons) This session will review publications and other resources relating to TPS commissioning and QA. A knowledge-based framework for selecting and commissioning a TPS will be presented, focusing on: Plan requirements, Algorithm capabilities, Software design and connectivity, Process integration, and Training. The spatial and dosimetric accuracies demanded of the modern TPS have exceeded the capabilities of our measurement tools. As a result, important information can sometimes be hidden in in the measurement noise. Control charts allow one to distinguish between systematic trends and random noise for commonly repeated measurements such as individual plan measurements for IMRT and VMAT treatments. The application of control charts to such measurements will be presented. Recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies - (Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “doable” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Gamma analysis as a metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results will be discussed. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Learning Objectives: 1.Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA 2.Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS 3.Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA 4.Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA 5.Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations 6.Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking 7.Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Funding Support, Disclosures, and Conflict of Interest: Sasa Mutic: ViewRay Inc.: Grant, Travel Expenses & Honoraria Varian Medical Systems: Grant, Travel Expenses & Honoraria Philips Healthcare: Travel Expenses Siemens: Travel Expenses TreatSafely LLC.: Ownership Radialogica LLC.: Ownership

(1990). Fruits of the soil: Botanical metaphors in Caribbean literature. World Literature Written in English: Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 29-36.

Dose reconstruction (DR) is a radiotherapy process in which the full three-dimensional dose actually delivered to a patient is computed. The calculation is performed on a CT of the patient in the actual treatment position using the actual energy fluence obtained from delivery verification (DV). This provides valuable information regarding the efficacy of a treatment. Specifically, this is the basis for fraction-by-fraction adaptive radiotherapy. However, dose reconstruction is only as accurate as the inputs to the computation, namely the verified fluence and the CT. Studies were conducted regarding the effects of positional errors and internal anatomy changes for a canine nasopharyngeal treatment and a prostate treatment on an abdominal phantom, respectively. It was found that energy fluence errors may or may not be detected in DV. However, even if an error was detected, the authors show that the potential effects on outcome could not possibly be addressed without a CT at the time of delivery.

Purpose: To demonstrate the implementation of the Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) for dose calculation and beam parameters verification of treatment planning systems (TPS). Methods: We implemented the draft TPS MPPG for three linacs: Varian Trilogy, TomoHDA and Elekta Infinity. Static and modulated test plans were created. The static fields are different than used in commissioning. Data was collected using ion chambers and diodes in a scanning water tank, Delta4 phantom and a custom phantom. MatLab and Microsoft Excel were used to create analysis tools to compare reference DICOM dose with scan data. This custom code allowed for the interpolation, registration and gamma analysis of arbitrary dose profiles. It will be provided as open source code. IMRT fields were validated with Delta4 registration and comparison tools. The time for each task was recorded. Results: The tests confirmed the strengths, and revealed some limitations, of our TPS. The agreement between calculated and measured dose was reported for all beams. For static fields, percent depth dose and profiles were analyzed with criteria in the draft MPPG. The results reveal areas of slight mismatch with the model (MLC leaf penumbra, buildup region.) For TomoTherapy, the IMRT plan 2%/2 mm gamma analysis revealed poorest agreement in the low dose regions. For one static test plan for all 10MV Trilogy photon beams, the plan generation, scan queue creation, data collection, data analysis and report took 2 hours, excluding tank setup. Conclusions: We have demonstrated the implementation feasibility of the TPS MPPG. This exercise generated an open source tool for dose comparisons between scan data and DICOM dose data. An easily reproducible and efficient infrastructure with streamlined data collection was created for repeatable robust testing of the TPS. The tests revealed minor discrepancies in our models and areas for improvement that are being investigated.

Purpose: To develop a high quality 4D cone beam CT (4DCBCT) method that is immune to patient/couch truncations and to investigate its application in adaptive replanning of lung XRT. Methods: In this study, IRB-approved human subject CBCT data was acquired using a Varian on-board imager with 1 minute rotation time. The acquired projection data was retrospectively sorted into 20 respiratory phase bins, from which 4DCBCT images with high SNR and high temporal resolution were generated using Prior Image Constrained Compressed Sensing (PICCS). Couch and patient truncations generate strong data inconsistency in the projection data and artifacts in the 4DCBCT image. They were addressed using an adaptive PICCS method. The artifact-free PICCS-4DCBCT images were used to generate adaptive treatment plans for the same patient at the 10th (day 21) and 30th (day 47) fractions. Dosimetric impacts with and without PICCS- 4DCBCT were evaluated by isodose distributions, DVHs, and other dosimetric factors. Results: The adaptive PICCS-4DCBCT method improves image quality by removing residue truncation artifacts; measured universal image quality increased 37%. The isodose lines and DVHs with PICCS-4DCBCT-based adaptive replanning were significantly more conformal to PTV than without replanning due to changes in patient anatomy caused by progress of the treatment. Themore » mean dose to PTV at the 10th fraction was 63.1Gy with replanning and 64.2Gy without replanning, where the prescribed dose was 60Gy, in 2Gy × 30 fractions. The mean dose to PTV at the 30th fraction was 61.6Gy with replanning and 64.9Gy without replanning. Lung V20 was 37.1%, 41.9% and 43.3% for original plan, 10th fraction plan and 30th fraction plan; with re-planning, Lung V20 was 37.1%, 32%, 27.8%. Conclusion: 4DCBCT imaging using adaptive PICCS is able to generate high quality, artifact-free images that potentially can be used to create replanning for improving radiotherapy of the lung. K Niu, K Li, J Smilowitz: Nothing to Disclose. G Chen: General Electric Company Research funded, Siemens AG Research funded, Varian Medical Systems Research funded, Hologic Research funded.« less

This article reviews Pediatric Radiotherapy Planning and Treatment. by A. J. Olch , Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, 2013. Hardcover 374 pp. Price: $149.95. ISBN: 978-1-4200-8509-9.

Many improvements in conformal radiotherapy have allowed for increased precision in treatment delivery, and the goal of tomotherapy is to carry these improvements further. However, the ability to deliver highly conformal radiation therapy treatments is only useful to the extent that the patient’s position and anatomy are known. Certainly, it is important to set-up the patient correctly, but ideally, one should also verify that a patient’s internal organs are correctly positioned and that they have not changed in size or shape. This verification can be achieved through the integration of tomographic imaging capabilities. Tomotherapy systems will feature such tomographic verification, initally through megavoltage CT (MVCT), and potentially with on-board kilovoltage CT (kVCT) in future implementations. In addition to being important to treatments, tomographic images are also necessary for dose reconstruction to verify the treatment delivery [1,2].

Helical tomotherapy is a radiation therapy technique that utilizes a rotating fan beam of intensity-modulated radiation to deliver dose. The integration of the accelerator, multi-leaf collimator (MLC), and a computed tomography (CT) detector on a single ring gantry allows for dose reconstruction, in which the full 3D dose delivered to the patient is reconstructed1. The incident energy fluence computed using the detected signal2 and a CT image in the treatment position are the inputs for any model-based dose computation algorithm such as convolution/superposition (C/S) or Monte Carlo (MC).

Purpose: There is growing excitement over new treatment modalities that integrate magnetic resonance (MR) image guidance with radiotherapy delivery systems. The therapeutic gain from reducing tumor position uncertainty using intra‐fraction MR imaging during radiotherapy will only be achieved by adequately accounting for impact of the magnetic field on dose distributions during treatment delivery. We propose that integrating MR‐image guidance with a more rotationally symmetric modality such as helical Tomotherapy delivery might reduce or even eliminate dose perturbations due to magnetic fields. The purpose of this study was to investigate the magnetic field effect on clinical Tomotherapy dose distributions in two disparate patient geometries using Monte Carlo methods. Methods: The Monte Carlo code Geant4 was used for all simulations performed in this study. To simulate magnetic resonance imaging guided radiation therapy (MRIgRT), we investigated dose distributions from Tomotherapy patient plans subjected to homogeneous transverse magnetic fields of varying field strengths. For this study, perturbations in the dose distributions from a prostate and lung case are presented. Results: Results show that perturbations in the overall dose profile due the magnetic field can increase the dose heterogeneity to the target volume when a transverse magnetic field was applied to the patient geometry. The perturbations were dependent on the heterogeneity of the patient geometry, symmetry of the primary beam fluence, and magnetic field strength. The heterogeneous lung geometry demonstrated a significant impact to the tumor volume due to the magnetic field, whereas relatively homogeneous prostate geometry showed minimal dose perturbations. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that the effect of external magnetic fields can be mitigated by exploiting a more rotationally symmetric treatment modality.

Purpose: We aim to supplement the didactic education of medical physicsgraduate students with a laboratory course on treatment planning systems (TPS.) TPS are ubiquitous in clinical practice and research. Physicists are responsible for development, commissioning, maintenance and QA of these increasingly complex systems.Oncologists rely on physicist expertise for the safe and efficacious TPS use. Hands‐on training has been limited due in part to access to clinical TPS. Methods: A teaching laboratory was developed to train medical physicsgraduate students with 6 workstations running commercially available TPS. An upper level special topics graduate course was designed around the laboratory. It has a clinical focus and is structured by disease site to reinforce physics topics with practical relevance. Commissioning and dose algorithms are taught after students have system familiarity, enabling less software focus and greater understanding using plans to illustrate the effects of beam model parameters. Results: Based on student evaluations and enrollment, the class is a success. Our initial class had 11 students, and in 4 years it has doubled in size. It has become a popular staple of our graduate curriculum. The average student evaluation score (out of 5) of lecture and lab respectively are 4.74 and 4.52. These are among the highest for our department. Improvements in content and structure have been made each year based on student feedback. Additions included exercises on a third TPS and physician‐taught clinical lectures to complement disease sites. Conclusions: This course will be a regular timetable offering. This innovative approach has been so well received so we are expanding this model to radiation oncology residents. An RSNA Education Grant has been applied for. Just as graduate students have honed their skills using the lab, medical residents will benefit from simulation exercises involving radiotherapy field design, optimization and dose evaluation.

Every medical physicist is a teacher, either formally in the classroom or informally in the clinic. Some physicists skillfully fulfill their educational obligations, while others struggle with their teaching responsibilities. However, everyone can be a good teacher — what are required are determination, dedication and diligence. This objective was the focus of a 3‐day AAPM Educational Summit held immediately after the 2008 AAPM annual meeting in Houston. It will also be the goal of a second Educational Summit scheduled to follow the 2010 annual meeting in Philadelphia. Discussion of the outcomes of the 2008 Educational Summit, and plans for the 2010 Summit, are the topics of this educational session scheduled for the 2009 annual meeting. This session will include solicitation of suggestions from the audience for the 2010 Educational Summit.

We present a new multipurpose phantom for routine dosimetric and image quality assurance (QA) testing of a tomotherapy unit. The phantom is designed for verification of delivered dose from the intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) fan beams used to provide conformal dose distributions. The phantom is used to assess imaging characteristics and verify CT number calibration for the integrated megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) detector mounted on the gantry across from the therapy linac. Functional requirements are outlined for the unique dosimetric and imaging needs of the QA tests of the tomotherapy system. The 36 cm long phantom is constructed mostly of Solid Water/sup TM/ and consists of 6 adjacent discs. The phantom consists of head and torso modules. The phantom is divided into imaging and dosimetric regions. For fan beam IMRT dosimetry, both a standard Farmer-style ionization chamber and a CT pencil chamber are used to measure the dose and dose rate under a variety of delivery conditions and phantom heterogeneities. The feasibility of using an existing kV CT chamber at therapy energies was investigated. The response to irradiation by small individual fields (7.6 mm) along its length is within one standard deviation of the average for the central 80% of its active volume (10 cm). For imaging QA, this phantom contains cavities to accommodate standard inserts to test spatial resolution, low contrast detectability, noise and edge contrast. Addition inserts are required for helical pitch verification and detector centering.