Search

This study reports clinical experience and feasibility of using a 2-dimensional (2D)-kV image system with online intervention in the ultrafractionated stereotactic body radiation treatment (UF-SBRT) of prostate cancer.Fifteen patients with prostate cancer who had a low- to intermediate-risk marker implanted received UF-SBRT with online 2D-kV image tracking and a manual beam interruption strategy with a 2-mm motion threshold. A total of 180 kV paired setup images and 1272 intrabeam 2D-kV images were analyzed to evaluate the setup deviation and intratreatment target deviation. Correlation of expected treatment interruptions with a set of parameters (eg, image and treatment time; direction of deviation) was performed (Spearman test). A subset of the data from 22 fractions was re-evaluated to check the differences in analysis results between using the planning position and using the pretreatment setup position as a reference. Margins based on the derived system and random errors were calculated to evaluate the feasibility of the workflow in ensuring prostate coverage during treatment.Mean target motion in 3D propagated from 1.0 mm (setup at 0 minutes) to 2.0 mm (beam on at 7 minutes) to 2.4 mm (end at 13.5 minutes). Out of 75 fractions, 50 were found to require beam interruption. Interruption had a strong correlation with prostate motion along the longitudinal direction and had moderate correlation with prostate motion along the vertical direction and the prostate's treatment starting position along vertical and longitudinal directions. Using the pretreatment position as a reference for intrabeam monitoring, the magnitude of motion deviation from the reference position was reduced by 0.3 mm at a vertical direction and 0.4 mm at lateral and longitudinal directions. The calculated 3D margin to ensure target coverage was 3.7 mm, 4.6 mm, and 5.0 mm in lateral, vertical, and longitudinal directions, respectively.Prostate motion propagated over time. It is feasible to use a 2D-kV online intrabeam monitoring system with a proper intervention scheme to perform UF-SBRT for prostate cancer.

Purpose To describe and report longitudinal quality assurance (QA) measurements for the mechanical and dosimetric performance of an Elekta Unity MR‐linac during the first year of clinical use in our institution. Materials and methods The mechanical and dosimetric performance of the MR‐linac was evaluated with daily, weekly, monthly, and annual QA testing. The measurements monitor the size of the radiation isocenter, the MR‐to‐MV isocenter concordance, MLC and jaw position, the accuracy and reproducibility of step‐and‐shoot delivery, radiation output and beam profile constancy, and patient‐specific QA for the first 50 treatments in our institution. Results from end‐to‐end QA using anthropomorphic phantoms are also included as a reference for baseline comparisons. Measurements were performed in water or water‐equivalent plastic using ion chambers of various sizes, an ion chamber array, MR‐compatible 2D/3D diode array, portal imager, MRI, and radiochromic film. Results The diameter of the radiation isocenter and the distance between the MR/MV isocenters was (μ ± σ) 0.39 ± 0.01 mm and 0.89 ± 0.05 mm, respectively. Trend analysis shows both measurements to be well within the tolerance of 1.0 mm. MLC and jaw positional accuracy was within 1.0 mm while the dosimetric performance of step‐and‐shoot delivery was within 2.0%, irrespective of gantry angle. Radiation output and beam profile constancy were within 2.0% and 1.0%, respectively. End‐to‐end testing performed with ion‐chamber and radiochromic film showed excellent agreement with treatment plan. Patient‐specific QA using a 3D diode array identified gantry angles with low‐pass rates allowing for improvements in plan quality after necessary adjustments. Conclusion The MR‐linac operates within the guidelines of current recommendations for linear accelerator performance, stability, and safety. The analysis of the data supports the recently published guidance in establishing clinically acceptable tolerance levels for relative and absolute measurements.

A new film dosimetry system consists of the new OrthoChromic™ OC-1 film, and a novel calibration procedure was evaluated. Two films, C1 and C2, were exposed simultaneously using the 6FFF beam with a step-wedge pattern of five steps ranging from 590 to 3000 cGy. C1 was used for calibration, and C2 was used for calibration curve validation. The second scan of C2 was done by rotating the film by 90-deg. To evaluate the effectiveness of the non-uniform scanner response correction with the new system, a film was exposed to a 20 × 20 cm2 field. The beam profile measured with the film was compared to the IBA cc04 measurements in water. Films were irradiated to characterize the energy response, dynamic range and temporal growth effect. Open (MLC-defined) and clinical fields were radiated to evaluate the overall performance of the new system. The new calibration procedure was validated with an average dose difference of 1.6% and a gamma (2%,2 mm) passing rate of 100%. With C2 scanned 90-deg rotated, the average dose difference was 1.3%. The average difference between cc04 and film was 0.4%. The St between films and diode/cc04 were within −0.3% difference for 1 × 1 to 14 × 14 cm2 and −2.8% for 0.5 × 0.5 cm2. For clinical fields, the average gamma (3%,2 mm) was 98.8%. These results were consistent with EBT3 film and MapCheck measurements with a dose > 400 cGy. The results have shown that the OC-1 film system can achieve accurate results for QA measurements, but more considerable uncertainty was observed within the low dose range.

End-to-end testing (E2E) is a necessary process for assessing the readiness of the stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) program and annual QA of an SRS system according to the AAPM MPPG 9a. This study investigates the differences between using a new SRS MapCHECK (SRSMC) system and an anthropomorphic phantom film-based system in a large network with different SRS delivery techniques.Three SRS capable Linacs (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) at three different regional sites were chosen to represent a hospital network, a Trilogy with an M120 multi-leaf collimator (MLC), a TrueBeam with an M120 MLC, and a TrueBeam Stx with an HD120 MLC. An anthropomorphic STEEV phantom (CIRS, Norfolk, VA) and a phantom/diode array: StereoPHAN/SRSMC (Sun Nuclear, Melbourne, FL) were CT scanned at each site. The new STV-PHANTOM EBT-XD films (Ashland, Bridgewater, NJ) were used. Six plans with various complexities were measured with both films and SRSMC in the StereoPHAN to establish their dosimetric correlations. Three SRS cranial plans with a total of sixteen fields using dynamic conformal arc and volumetric-modulated arc therapy, with 1-4 targets, were planned with Eclipse v15.5 treatment planning system (TPS) using a custom SRS beam model for each machine. The dosimetric and localization accuracy were compared. The time of analysis for the two systems by three teams of physicists was also compared to assess the throughput efficiency.The correlations between films and SRSMC were found to be 0.84 (p = 0.03) and 0.16 (p = 0.76) for γ (3%, 1 mm) and γ (3%, 2 mm), respectively. With film, the local dose differences (ΔD) relative to the average dose within the 50% isodose line from the three sites were found to be -3.2%-3.7%. The maximum localization errors (EThe SRS MapCHECK agrees dosimetrically with the films within measurement uncertainties. However, film dosimetry shows superior sub-millimeter localization resolving power for the MPPG 9a implementation.

The goal of this study was to evaluate the use of EBT-XD film for SRS/SBRT commissioning in a 1.5T hybrid MR-Linac (MRL).The output factors (SThe film SFilms can provide accurate dosimetric results under ERE and are valuable for commissioning MRL. Using the One-scan-dosimetry protocol with EBT-XD film for MRL increases accuracy and efficiency in commissioning and QA of SRS/SBRT.

To investigate the impact of partial lateral scatter (LS), backscatter (BS) and presence of air gaps on optically stimulated luminescence dosimeter (OSLD) measurements in an acrylic miniphantom used for dosimetry audit on the 1.5 T magnetic resonance-linear accelerator (MR-linac) system.The following irradiation geometries were investigated using OSLDs, A26 MR/A12 MR ion chamber (IC), and Monaco Monte Carlo system: (a) IC/OSLD in an acrylic miniphantom (partial LS, partial BS), (b) IC/OSLD in a miniphantom placed on a solid water (SW) stack at a depth of 1.5 cm (partial LS, full BS), (c) IC/OSLD placed at a depth of 1.5 cm inside a 3 cm slab of SW/buildup (full LS, partial BS), and (d) IC/OSLD centered inside a 3 cm slab of SW/buildup at a depth of 1.5 cm placed on top of a SW stack (full LS, full BS). Average of two irradiated OSLDs with and without water was used at each setup. An air gap of 1 and 2 mm, mimicking presence of potential air gap around the OSLDs in the miniphantom geometry was also simulated. The calibration condition of the machine was 1 cGy/MU at SAD = 143.5 cm, d = 5 cm, G90, and 10 × 10 cmThe Monaco calculation (0.5% uncertainty and 1.0 mm voxel size) for the four setups at the measurement point were 108.2, 108.1, 109.4, and 110.0 cGy. The corresponding IC measurements were 109.0 ± 0.03, 109.5 ± 0.06, 110.2 ± 0.02, and 109.8 ± 0.03 cGy. Without water, OSLDs measurements were ∼10% higher than the expected. With added water to minimize air gaps, the measurements were significantly improved to within 2.2%. The dosimetric impacts of 1 and 2 mm air gaps were also verified with Monaco to be 13.3% and 27.9% higher, respectively, due to the electron return effect.A minimal amount of air around or within the OSLDs can cause measurement discrepancies of 10% or higher when placed in a high b-field MR-linac system. Care must be taken to eliminate the air from within and around the OSLD.

Purpose/Objective(s): The additional personnel and imaging procedures required for Adaptive Radiation Therapy (ART) pose a challenge for a broad implementation. We hypothesize that a change in transit fluence during the treatment course is correlated with the change of quality of life and thus can be used as a replanning trigger. Materials/Methods: Twenty-one head and neck cancer (HNC) patients filled out an MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI) questionnaire, before-and-after the radiotherapy treatment course. The transit fluence was measured by the Watchdog (WD) in-vivo portal dosimetry system. The patients were monitored with daily WD and weekly CBCTs. The region of interest (ROI) of each patient was defined as the outer contour of the patient between approximate spine levels C1 to C4, essentially the neck and mandible inside the beam’s eye view. The nth day integrated transit fluence change, Δϕn, and the volume change, ΔVROI, of the ROI of each patient was calculated from the corresponding WD and CBCT measurements. The correlation between MDADI scores and age, gender, planning mean dose to salivary glands sg>, weight change ΔW, ΔVROI, and Δϕn, were analyzed using the ranked-Pearson correlation. Results: No statistically significant correlation was found for age, gender and ΔW. sg> was found to have clinically important correlation with functional MDADI (ρ = −0.39, P = 0.081). ΔVROI was found to have statistically significant correlation of 0.44, 0.47 and 0.44 with global, physical and functional MDADI ( P-value < 0.05). Δϕn was found to have statistically significant ranked-correlation (−0.46, −0.46 and −0.45) with physical, functional and total MDADI ( P-value < 0.05). Conclusion: A transit fluence based decision support metric (DSM) is statistically correlated with the dysphagia risk. It can not only be used as an early signal in assisting clinicians in the ART patient selection for replanning, but also lowers the resource barrier of ART implementation.

Objective Adaptive radiation therapy (ART) is an integral part of MR-guided RT (MRgRT), requiring a new RT plan for each treatment fraction and resulting in a significant increase in patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA). This study investigates the possibility of using treatment log-file for automated PSQA. Method All treatment plans were delivered in 1.5T Unity MR-Linac (Elekta). A Unity compatible version of LinacView (Standard Imaging) was commissioned to automatically monitor and analyze the log-files. A total of 220 fields were delivered and measured by ArcCheck® -MR (Sun Nuclear) and LinacView. Thirty incorrectly matched fields were also delivered to check for error detection sensitivity. The gamma analysis, γ, with 3%, 3 mm criteria was used in both ArcCheck® -MR and LinacView. Additionally, the gantry angle, jaws, and multileaf collimators (MLC) positions reported in the log-file were compared with plan positions using TG-142 criteria. Result The γ (3%, 3 mm) for the 190 plans were found to be between the range of 72.5%-100.0% and 95.4%-100.0% for ArcCheck® -MR and LinacVeiw, respectively. All the delivered gantry angle and jaws were found to be within 0.2° and 2 mm. MLCs that were outside the guard leaves or under the diaphragms were found to have more than 1.0 mm discrepancy. This was attributed to the linac internal override for these MLCs and had no dosimetric impact. Excluding these discrepancies, all MLC positions were found to be within 1.0 mm. The γ (3%, 3 mm) for the 30 incorrectly matched fields were found to be 3.9%-84.8% and 0.1%-64.4% for ArcCheck® -MR and LinacVeiw, respectively. Conclusion Significant ranked correlation demonstrates the automated log-file analysis can be used for PSQA and expedite the ART workflow. Ongoing PSQA will be compared with log-file analysis to investigate the longer term reproducibility and correlation.

Over the last few years, magnetic resonance image-guided radiotherapy systems have been introduced into the clinic, allowing for daily online plan adaption. While quality assurance (QA) is similar to conventional radiotherapy systems, there is a need to introduce or modify measurement techniques. As yet, there is no consensus guidance on the QA equipment and test requirements for such systems. Therefore, this report provides an overview of QA equipment and techniques for mechanical, dosimetric, and imaging performance of such systems and recommendation of the QA procedures, particularly for a 1.5T MR-linac device. An overview of the system design and considerations for QA measurements, particularly the effect of the machine geometry and magnetic field on the radiation beam measurements is given. The effect of the magnetic field on measurement equipment and methods is reviewed to provide a foundation for interpreting measurement results and devising appropriate methods. And lastly, a consensus overview of recommended QA, appropriate methods, and tolerances is provided based on conventional QA protocols. The aim of this consensus work was to provide a foundation for QA protocols, comparative studies of system performance, and for future development of QA protocols and measurement methods.

The use of trajectory log files for routine patient quality assurance is gaining acceptance. Such use requires the validation of the trajectory log itself. However, the accurate localization of a multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf while it is in motion remains a challenging task. We propose an efficient phantom‐less technique using the EPID to verify the dynamic MLC positions with high accuracy. Measurements were made on four Varian TrueBeams equipped with M120 MLCs. Two machines were equipped with the S1000 EPID; two were equipped with the S1200 EPID. All EPIDs were geometrically corrected prior to measurements. Dosimetry mode EPID measurements were captured by a frame grabber card directly linked to the linac. All leaf position measurements were corrected both temporally and geometrically. The readout latency of each panel, as a function of pixel row, was determined using a 40 × 1.0 cm2 sliding window (SW) field moving at 2.5 cm/s orthogonal to the row readout direction. The latency of each panel type was determined by averaging the results of two panels of the same type. Geometric correction was achieved by computing leaf positions with respect to the projected isocenter position as a function of gantry angle. This was determined by averaging the central axis position of fields at two collimator positions of 90° and 270°. The radiological to physical leaf end position was determined by comparison of the measured gap with that determined using a feeler gauge. The radiological to physical leaf position difference was found to be 0.1 mm. With geometric and latency correction, the proposed method was found to be improve the ability to detect dynamic MLC positions from 1.0 to 0.2 mm for all leaves. Latency and panel residual geometric error correction improve EPID‐based MLC position measurement. These improvements provide for the first time a trajectory log QA procedure.

Purpose This study aimed to evaluate and compare different system calibration methods from a large cohort of systems to establish a commissioning procedure for surface‐guided frameless cranial stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) with intrafractional motion monitoring and gating. Using optical surface imaging (OSI) to guide non‐coplanar SRS treatments, the determination of OSI couch‐angle dependency, baseline drift, and gated‐delivered‐dose equivalency are essential. Methods Eleven trained physicists evaluated 17 OSI systems at nine clinical centers within our institution. Three calibration methods were examined, including 1‐level (2D), 2‐level plate (3D) calibration for both surface image reconstruction and isocenter determination, and cube phantom calibration to assess OSI‐megavoltage (MV) isocenter concordance. After each calibration, a couch‐angle dependency error was measured as the maximum registration error within the couch rotation range. A head phantom was immobilized on the treatment couch and the isocenter was set in the middle of the brain, marked with the room lasers. An on‐site reference image was acquired at couch zero, the facial region of interest (ROI) was defined, and static verification images were captured every 10° for 0°–90° and 360°–270°. The baseline drift was assessed with real‐time monitoring of the motionless phantom over 20 min. The gated‐delivered‐dose equivalency was assessed using the electron portal imaging device and gamma test (1%/1mm) in reference to non‐gated delivery. Results The maximum couch‐angle dependency error occurs in longitudinal and lateral directions and is reduced significantly (P 98% gamma‐test passing rate. Conclusion A commissioning method is recommended using the 3D plate calibration, which is verified by radiation isocenter and validated with couch‐angle dependency, baseline drift, and gated‐delivered‐dose equivalency tests. This method characterizes OSI uncertainties, ensuring motion‐monitoring accuracy for SRS treatments.

Purpose To evaluate the dosimetric effects of the AeroFormTM (AirXanpders®, Palo Alto, CA) tissue expander in‐situ for breast cancer patients receiving post‐mastectomy radiation therapy. Methods and Materials A film phantom (P1) was constructed by placing the metallic canister of the AeroForm on a solid water phantom with EBT3 films at five depths ranging from 2.6 mm to 66.2 mm. A breast phantom (P2), a three‐dimensional printed tissue‐equivalent breast with fully expanded AeroForm in‐situ, was placed on a thorax phantom. A total of 21 optical luminescent dosimeters (OLSDs) were placed on the anterior skin–gas interface and the posterior chest wall–metal interface of the AeroForm. Both phantoms were imaged with a 16‐bit computed tomography scanner with orthopedic metal artifact reduction. P1 was irradiated with an open field utilizing 6 MV and 15 MV photon beams at 0°, 90°, and 270°. P2 was irradiated using a volumetric modulated arc therapy plan with a 6 MV photon beam and a tangential plan with a 15 MV photon beam. All doses were calculated using Eclipse (Varian, Palo Alto, CA) with AAA and AcurosXB (AXB) algorithms. Results The average dose differences between film measurements and AXB in the region adjacent to the canister in P1 were within 3.1% for 15 MV and 0.9% for 6 MV. Local dose differences over 10% were also observed. In the chest wall region of P2, the median dose of OLSDs in percentage of prescription dose were 108.4% (range 95.4%–113.0%) for the 15MV tangential plan and 110.4% (range 99.1%–113.8%) for the 6MV volumetric modulated arc therapy plan. In the skin–gas interface, the median dose of the OLSDs were 102.3% (range 92.7%–107.7%) for the 15 MV plan and 108.2% (range 97.8–113.5%) for the 6 MV plan. Measured doses were, in general, higher than calculated doses with AXB calculations. The AAA dose algorithms produced results with slightly larger discrepancies between measurements compared with AXB. Conclusions The AeroForm creates significant dose uncertainties in the chest wall–metal interface. The AcurosXB dose calculation algorithm is recommended for more accurate calculations. If possible, post‐mastectomy radiation therapy should be delivered after the permanent implant is in place.

Background and Purpose This study summarizes the cranial stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) procedure at our institution. Materials and Methods Volumetric modulated arc therapy plans were generated for 40 patients with 188 lesions (range 2–8, median 5) in Eclipse and treated on a TrueBeam STx. Limitations of the custom beam model outside the central 2.5 mm leaves necessitated more than one isocenter pending the spatial distribution of lesions. Two to nine arcs were used per isocenter. Conformity index (CI), gradient index (GI) and target dose heterogeneity index (HI) were determined for each lesion. Dose to critical structures and treatment times are reported. Results Lesion size ranged 0.05–17.74 cm3 (median 0.77 cm3), and total tumor volume per case ranged 1.09–26.95 cm3 (median 7.11 cm3). For each lesion, HI ranged 1.2–1.5 (median 1.3), CI ranged 1.0–2.9 (median 1.2), and GI ranged 2.5–8.4 (median 4.4). By correlating GI to PTV volume a predicted GI = 4/PTV0.2 was determined and implemented in a script in Eclipse and used for plan evaluation. Brain volume receiving 7 Gy (V 7 Gy) ranged 10–136 cm3 (median 42 cm3). Total treatment time ranged 24–138 min (median 61 min). Conclusions Volumetric modulated arc therapy provide plans with steep dose gradients around the targets and low dose to critical structures, and VMAT treatment is delivered in a shorter time than conventional methods using one isocenter per lesion. To further improve VMAT planning for multiple cranial metastases, better tools to shorten planning time are needed. The most significant improvement would come from better dose modeling in Eclipse, possibly by allowing for customizing the dynamic leaf gap (DLG) for a special SRS model and not limit to one DLG per energy per treatment machine and thereby remove the limitation on the Y‐jaw and allow planning with a single isocenter.

Purposes: The newly released Protura 6 degrees-of-freedom couch (CIVCO) has limited quality assurance protocols and pertinent publications. Herein, we report our experiences of the Protura system acceptance, commissioning, and quality assurance. Methods: The Protura system integration was tested with peripheral equipment on the following items: couch movement range limit, 6 degrees-of-freedom movement accuracy, weight test and couch sagging, system connection with Linac, isocentricity of couch and rotation alignment, kV and cone-beam computed tomography imaging of HexaCHECK with MIMI phantom (Standard Imaging), and an in-house custom 6 degrees-of-freedom quality assurance phantom. A couch transmission measurement was also performed. Results: The vertical, longitudinal, and lateral ranges of the 6 degrees-of-freedom couch pedestal are 43.9 to 0.0 cm, 24.6 to 149.5 cm, −20.6 to 20.7 cm, respectively. The couch movement accuracy was within 1 mm in all directions. The couch sagging with a 200 lbs (∼91 kg) evenly distributed object is 1.0 cm and 0.4° pitch in the distal end of the couch. The isocentricity of the couch was about 0.5 mm in diameter of all crosshair projections on the couch isocenter level, and the largest couch rotation alignment observed was (0.3°) at the couch angle of 90°. The deviation from the reference position (zero position) of the HexaCHECK phantom, measured by matching the cone-beam computed tomography with the reference planning computed tomography, was found to be below 0.2 mm in the anterior–posterior and right–left dimensions, 0.4 mm in superior–inferior dimension, and 0.1° in roll, pitch, and yaw directions. Conclusions: A 6 degrees-of-freedom quality assurance phantom is helpful for the commissioning and routine quality assurance tests. Due to the third-party integration with Linac, the system is prone to “double-correction” errors. A rigorous quality assurance program is the key to a successful clinical implementation of the Protura system.

Purpose To validate a machine learning approach to Virtual intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA) for accurately predicting gamma passing rates using different measurement approaches at different institutions. Methods A Virtual IMRT QA framework was previously developed using a machine learning algorithm based on 498 IMRT plans, in which QA measurements were performed using diode-array detectors and a 3%local/3 mm with 10% threshold at Institution 1. An independent set of 139 IMRT measurements from a different institution, Institution 2, with QA data based on portal dosimetry using the same gamma index, was used to test the mathematical framework. Only pixels with ≥10% of the maximum calibrated units (CU) or dose were included in the comparison. Plans were characterized by 90 different complexity metrics. A weighted poison regression with Lasso regularization was trained to predict passing rates using the complexity metrics as input. Results The methodology predicted passing rates within 3% accuracy for all composite plans measured using diode-array detectors at Institution 1, and within 3.5% for 120 of 139 plans using portal dosimetry measurements performed on a per-beam basis at Institution 2. The remaining measurements (19) had large areas of low CU, where portal dosimetry has a larger disagreement with the calculated dose and as such, the failure was expected. These beams need further modeling in the treatment planning system to correct the under-response in low-dose regions. Important features selected by Lasso to predict gamma passing rates were as follows: complete irradiated area outline (CIAO), jaw position, fraction of MLC leafs with gaps smaller than 20 or 5 mm, fraction of area receiving less than 50% of the total CU, fraction of the area receiving dose from penumbra, weighted average irregularity factor, and duty cycle. Conclusions We have demonstrated that Virtual IMRT QA can predict passing rates using different measurement techniques and across multiple institutions. Prediction of QA passing rates can have profound implications on the current IMRT process.

Purpose: To evaluate the feasibility of 2.5MV cone‐beam computed tomography (MVCB) for patient setup and verification. Method and Materials: A new linac (Varian Trilogy Mx) produces an unfiltered 2.5MV imaging beam (2xMVCB) in addition to the higher energy treatment beams. In conjunction with a standard electronic portal imaging device(EPID), 2xMVCB scans were acquired of CTcalibration and anthropomorphic phantoms. Approximately 500 projections were collected in each 360‐degree scan using a total of 7.5 – 50 monitor units (MU). Depending on total MU, scanning time was as low as 1.5 minutes. Intrinsic calibration corrections were applied to all raw projections prior to reconstruction. Reconstructed images were further processed to correct for imaging artifacts and compared to kilovoltage cone‐beam (KVCB) and 6MV MVCB scans (6xMVCB). Results: Preliminary results demonstrate that it is possible to obtain 3D images with adequate image quality using relatively low doses (7.5 MU, approximately 4 cGy to isocenter) which are comparable to either a pair of double‐exposed MV portal images or a KVCB. Although image quality is inferior to KVCB, 2xMVCB still permits assessment of bony alignment for patient setup and has better tissuecontrast than 6xMVCB. Soft tissue registration may also be possible for 2xMVCB in the thorax and other anatomical regions. These results provide evidence that 2xMVCB may be an efficient image guidance procedure for clinical routine. Conclusion: MVCB using 2.5MV x‐rays can provide volumetric images with adequate quality for patient setup verification. An improved EPID optimized for 2.5MV beam having ∼14 times higher quantum efficiency than conventional EPIDs is being tested. This will enable even lower imaging doses, and also improve imagecontrast in the abdominal and pelvic regions. Reconstruction algorithms optimized for 2.5MV are also under development. Acknowledgements: Research sponsored by Varian Medical Systems.

Purpose: To assess the dosimetric characteristics of the Landauer Microstar optical stimulated luminescencedosimetry (OSLD) system, the energy, dose rate, and angular dependencies, linearity, temporal and reading fade, and intra‐batch variation were systematically tested. Method and Materials: All detector chips were irradiated a custom‐milled 25×25 cm polystyrene phantom. Calibration of the system was done for 6 MV, 10×10 cm2field size, 100 cm SAD, and dmax. Relative energy response was determined for 6 and 15 MV xrays and 6, 9, 12, 16, and 20 MeV electrons. Groups of multiple chips received up to 20 Gy to assess the linearity and reproducibility of the system. The angular dependency was studied by varying the angle of incidence. Reading fade dependency was quantified by repeatedly reading out an exposed chip over a one hour period. Temporal fade was quantified by readouts up to 14 days post irradiation. Results: OSLD response is linear to within 5% over the dose range 0 to 20 Gy. OSLD response decreased by 5% at 90° incidence. Energy dependence showed the largest variation, 5%, was between 6 MV xrays and 12MeV electrons. Measurement uncertainty is 2.5% (1σ, n=70). Reading fade is found to be 0.1%/rdg. Temporal fade is 5%, 2%, and 1% for 1cGy, 5 cGy, and ⩾50 cGy, respectively, between 15 minutes and 2 hours after irradiation, and 15%, 7%, and 3% at 14 days. Conclusion: OLSD exhibits some nonlinearity, as well as angular, energy, and intra‐batch variation under reference conditions. Refinements in calibration software and tighter quality control by the manufacturer should improve the accuracy and chip to chip variation. Temporal and reading fade are not clinically significant.

Purpose: To develop a Monte Carlo dose calculation engine for electron beams that is feasible for routine clinical treatment planning.Method and Materials: The dose calculation engine consists of a description of the clinical beams and a dose calculation module. A 12‐component multi‐source model was used to characterize the phase‐space of clinical beams. There are 6 components each for electrons and photons, corresponding to the 3 scrapers, x‐jaws, y‐jaws, and the direct component respectively. In addition, we have developed a method to account for the presence of an arbitrary shaped cutout by modifying the last component of the standard beam model. For the dose calculation module, implementation of the Super‐Monte Carlo method accelerates the calculation by using electron and photon tracks pre‐calculated in water to avoid the computationally intensive sampling processes. These tracks are replayed in the patient computermodel as defined by CT. To account for inhomogeneities, the step size and scattering angle were adjusted according to the CT voxel values and material indexes. The dose calculation engine was verified by comparing with film measurements in several different geometries. Results: The results agreed with film measurements to within 2–5% percent both in homogeneous and heterogeneous phantoms. Our method is faster than the analog Monte Carlo calculation by a factor of 6 to 10 and is comparable in performance to a commercial system. The modified beam models for arbitrary cutouts can be derived in a few seconds. The disk storage for pre‐calculated tracks is about 5.5 GB and 125 MB for the standard beam models.Conclusion: The developed Monte Carlo calculation engine is accurate and efficient. The disk space and computational time required are well within clinical acceptability. It is a highly promising dose calculation tool for routine clinical applications. This work supported in part by NCI grant P01‐CA59017.

Purpose: To augment our patient‐specific IMRT QA program by checking the individual and overall reproducibility of the DMLC planning and delivery systems periodically using standardized patient data sets and a commercial diode array. Method and Materials: Clinical fields were chosen from IMRT treatment plans using 6MV and 15MV, respectively. It is our intent to completely re‐plan the same patients, generate leaf sequence files, and use the diode array to measure the absolute dose distributions for at least one different linac/MLC combination each month, thereby performing the evaluation for all MLC‐equipped linacs every six months. The dose distributions are recalculated in a flat homogeneous phantom using the clinical treatment planning system. Data are analyzed using dose‐difference and distance to agreement (DTA) methods. The supplied analysis program also provided a score for each field, which is defined as the percentage of the number of detectors satisfying the user defined dose‐difference and dose threshold constraints and DTA constraint. Results: The scores for the fields used in this study range from 75–100% of an average ∼200 points for each field for the 3% dose, 10% dose threshold, and 3 mm constraints that we specified. The diode array is able to identify the dose discrepancies relative to treatment planning calculations and earlier measurements and provides a quantitative score to grade each comparison, which along with the relative distribution of the failed points will serve as means for comparisons of measurements and/or calculations over time. Conclusion: The protocol that we present here enables us to provide a quick, accurate and reproducible evaluation of the overall DMLC planning and delivery process. With periodical evaluation using the same patients' data sets, we should be able to detect differences in performance among similar MLCs and linacs, and very small variations introduced over time for the same components.