National dosimetric audit network finds discrepancies in AAA lung inhomogeneity corrections

Quantitative beam optimization for radiotherapy of peripheral lung lesions: A pilot study in stereotactic body radiotherapy

BACKGROUND

To quantify beam optimization for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) of peripheral lung lesions.

METHOD

The new beam optimization approach was based on maximizing the therapeutic gain (TG) of the beam set by minimizing the average physical depth of the lesion with respect to the beam's eye view (BEV). The new approach was evaluated by replanning the 25 SBRT lesions retrospectively to assess if a better plan is achievable in all aspects. Difference in 25 Gy isodose line volume (IDLV25 Gy), IDLV20 Gy, IDLV15 Gy, IDLV10 Gy, and IDLV5 Gy between the two plan cohorts were calculated as a measure of plan size and fitted in a linear regression model against the changes in the lesion depth with respect to the BEV to assess the relationship between the changes in the treatment depth and that of the plan size.

RESULTS

Beam optimization achieved a better plan in all cases by lowering the depth of treatment with an average of % 20.03 ± 12.30 (3.66%-45.78%). As the depth of treatment decreases, the size of the plan also decreases. We observed a reduction of % 4.64 ± 4.55 (0.02%-21.58%, p < 3.8 × 10-5), %5.16 ± 5.54 (0.03%-24.68%, p < 0.005), %6.46 ± 6.95 (-1.35%-29.05%, p < 0.009), %12.83 ± 9.06 (0.89%-37.65%, p < 0.0001), and %14.01 ± 9.87 (1.43%-41.84%, p < 4.5 × 10-6) in IDLV25 Gy, IDLV20 Gy, IDLV15 Gy, IDLV10 Gy, and IDLV5 Gy, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Physical depth of the lesion with respect to the BEV is inversely proportional to the TG of a beam-set and can be used as a robust and standard metric to select an appropriate beam-set for SBRT of the peripheral lung lesions. Further evaluation warrants the utility of such concept in routine clinical use.

Commissioning small fields in lung using Monte Carlo corrected film measurements

PURPOSE

Current commissioning of radiotherapy treatment planning systems with heterogeneous phantoms generally measures the dose delivered in solid water downstream of the lung material. The dose delivered directly in lung material is important to characterise the uncertainty of lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) treatments, but film measurements require a correction to accurately measure dose to lung.

METHODS

Monte Carlo (MC) modelled corrections were applied to film measurements used for commissioning of lung SBRT. Medium dependent correction factors, kmed, were established using 6 and 10 MV simulations to account for film being calibrated in water but measuring in regions of lung material. The correction factors are dependent on energy, field size, and position. To avoid the onerous requirement of modelling each individual beam to correctly match penumbra an alternative approach is presented where the correction is applied as a function of isodose level for a nominal field size.

RESULTS

Improvement in central axis dose agreements was seen for all field sizes, with the largest improvement of 7 % observed for 6MV 1 × 1 cm2 field. Application of position dependent corrections improved the percentage of points passing a 5 %/1 mm or 3 %/1 mm gamma assessment in all cases, whilst a uniform central axis correction did not improve the passing rate in most cases.

CONCLUSIONS

MC simulations provide a method for correcting dose measured in lung materials allowing more accurate comparison with treatment planning system doses. In this work a generic approach to correct small field film lung measurements as a function of isodose levels is presented.

Which failures do patient-specific quality assurance systems need to catch?

BACKGROUND

The Joint AAPM-ESTRO TG-360 is developing a quantitative framework to evaluate treatment verification systems used for patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA). A subgroup was commissioned to determine which potential failure modes had the greatest risk to treatment quality and safety, and therefore should be evaluated as part of the PSQA verification.

PURPOSE

To create an extensive database of potential radiotherapy failure modes that should be detected by PSQA and to determine their relative importance for maximizing treatment quality.

METHODS

The subgroup consisted of eight physicists from seven countries, including representatives from three international quality assurance groups. We collected error reports from RO-ILS, SAFRON, AAPM TG publications, and other literature, including international audits. We focused on the subset of failure modes that impact whether the planned dose matches the dose received by the patient. We performed a failure-mode-and-effects analysis (FMEA), estimating the severity (S), occurrence (O), and detectability (D) of each failure mode. Detectability was scored assuming that PSQA was not done but other routine clinical QA was performed, which allowed us to see the importance of PSQA for detecting each specific failure mode. We analyzed the risk priority number (RPN = O*S*D), O*S, and severity rankings to determine the priority of each failure mode.

RESULTS

We collected 394 error reports, which we categorized into 33 failure modes that underwent FMEA. Five failure modes were in the top ranks for both RPN and O*S analysis: four involving treatment planning system (TPS) commissioning and one regarding patient model errors. The highest-ranking RPN failure modes were: TPS algorithm limitations, TPS commissioning errors [multileaf collimator (MLC) modeling, output factor, percent-depth-dose/tissue-maximum-ratio (PDD/TMR), off-axis factor], and patient weight variation. The highest O*S failure modes were similar, with the addition of external patient position variation and incorrect linear accelerator isocenter and cGy/monitor units calibration. RPN and O*S analyses prioritized failure modes that impacted multiple patients with high occurrence and detectability scores, while severity analysis gave higher priority to single-patient modes with high severity scores. The highest-ranking severity modes were MLC sequence deletion, collision, and TPS isocenter incorrect.

CONCLUSION

We have developed a list of failure modes critical to be detected during PSQA and ranked them in order of importance. The top failure modes emphasize the importance of utilizing a variety of treatment verification systems for PSQA, from secondary dose calculation through in-vivo dosimetry, in order to detect all possible errors. For failure modes in the top quartile, PSQA is critical. Without adequate PSQA, these errors may go undetected unless caught by an external audit. This analysis can be useful for optimizing PSQA workflows and for designing evaluations of treatment verification systems, and will be used by the Joint AAPM-ESTRO TG-360 to determine an appropriate validation strategy.

Dose prescription for stereotactic body radiotherapy: general and organ-specific consensus statement from the DEGRO/DGMP Working Group Stereotactic Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE

To develop expert consensus statements on multiparametric dose prescriptions for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) aligning with ICRU report 91. These statements serve as a foundational step towards harmonizing current SBRT practices and refining dose prescription and documentation requirements for clinical trial designs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Based on the results of a literature review by the working group, a two-tier Delphi consensus process was conducted among 24 physicians and physics experts from three European countries. The degree of consensus was predefined for overarching (OA) and organ-specific (OS) statements (≥ 80%, 60-79%, < 60% for high, intermediate, and poor consensus, respectively). Post-first round statements were refined in a live discussion for the second round of the Delphi process.

RESULTS

Experts consented on a total of 14 OA and 17 OS statements regarding SBRT of primary and secondary lung, liver, pancreatic, adrenal, and kidney tumors regarding dose prescription, target coverage, and organ at risk dose limitations. Degree of consent was ≥ 80% in 79% and 41% of OA and OS statements, respectively, with higher consensus for lung compared to the upper abdomen. In round 2, the degree of consent was ≥ 80 to 100% for OA and 88% in OS statements. No consensus was reached for dose escalation to liver metastases after chemotherapy (47%) or single-fraction SBRT for kidney primaries (13%). In round 2, no statement had 60-79% consensus.

CONCLUSION

In 29 of 31 statements a high consensus was achieved after a two-tier Delphi process and one statement (kidney) was clearly refused. The Delphi process was able to achieve a high degree of consensus for SBRT dose prescription. In summary, clear recommendations for both OA and OS could be defined. This contributes significantly to harmonization of SBRT practice and facilitates dose prescription and reporting in clinical trials investigating SBRT.

Physics Considerations for Evaluation of Dose for Dose-Response Models of Pediatric Late Effects From Radiation Therapy: A PENTEC Introductory Review

PURPOSE

We describe the methods used to estimate the accuracy of dosimetric data found in literature sources used to construct the Pediatric Normal Tissue Effects in the Clinic (PENTEC) dose-response models, summarize these findings of each organ-specific task force, describe some of the dosimetric challenges and the extent to which these efforts affected the final modeling results, and provide guidance on the interpretation of the dose-response results given the various dosimetric uncertainties.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Each of the PENTEC task force medical physicists reviewed all the journal articles used for dose-response modeling to identify, categorize, and quantify dosimetric uncertainties. These uncertainties fell into 6 broad categories. A uniform nomenclature was developed for describing the "dosimetric quality" of the articles used in the PENTEC reviews. Among the multidisciplinary experts in the PENTEC effort, the medical physicists were charged with the dosimetric evaluation, as they are most expert in this subject.

RESULTS

The percentage dosimetric uncertainty was estimated for each late effect endpoint for all PENTEC organ reports. Twelve specific sources of dose uncertainty were identified related to the 6 broad categories. The most common reason for organ dose uncertainty was that prescribed dose rather than organ dose was reported. Percentage dose uncertainties ranged from 5% to 200%. Systematic uncertainties were used to correct the dose component of the models. Random uncertainties were also described in each report and in some cases used to modify dose axis error bars. In addition, the potential effects of dose binning were described.

CONCLUSIONS

PENTEC reports are designed to provide guidance to radiation oncologists and treatment planners for organ dose constraints. It is critical that these dose constraint recommendations are as accurate as possible, acknowledging the large error bars for many. Achieving this accuracy is important as it enables clinicians to better balance target dose coverage with risk of late effects. Evidence-based dose constraints for pediatric patients have been lacking and, in this regard, PENTEC fills an important unmet need. One must be aware of the limitations of our recommendations, and that for some organ systems, large uncertainties exist in the dose-response model because of clinical endpoint uncertainty, dosimetric uncertainty, or both.

Early results of a remote dosimetry audit program for lung stereotactic body radiation therapy

Background and purpose

A dosimetry audit program based on alanine electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) and radiochromic film dosimetry, may be a valuable tool for monitoring and improving the quality of lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). The aim of this study was to report the initial, independent assessment of the dosimetric accuracy for lung SBRT practice using these dosimeters in combination with a novel phantom design.

Materials and Methods

The audit service was a remote audit program performed on a commercial lung phantom preloaded with film and alanine detectors. An alanine pellet was placed in the centre of the target simulated using silicone in a 3D-printed mould. Large film detectors were placed coronally through the target and the lung/tissue interface and analysed using gamma analysis. The beam output was always checked on the same day with alanine dosimetry in water. We audited 29 plans from 14 centres up to now.

Results

For the alanine results 28/29 plans were within 5 % with 19/29 plans being within 3 %. The passing rates were > 95 % for the film through the target for 27/29 plans and 17/29 plans for the film at the lung/tissue interface. For three plans the passing rate was < 90 % for the film on top of the lungs.

Conclusions

The preliminary results were very satisfactory for both detectors. The high passing rates for the film in the interface region indicate good performance of the treatment planning systems. The phantom design was robust and performed well on several treatment systems.

Measuring dose in lung identifies peripheral tumour dose inaccuracy in SBRT audit

PURPOSE

Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) for lung tumours has become a mainstay of clinical practice worldwide. Measurements in anthropomorphic phantoms enable verification of patient dose in clinically realistic scenarios. Correction factors for reporting dose to the tissue equivalent materials in a lung phantom are presented in the context of a national dosimetry audit for SBRT. Analysis of dosimetry audit results is performed showing inaccuracies of common dose calculation algorithms in soft tissue lung target, inhale lung material and at tissue interfaces.

METHODS

Monte Carlo based simulation of correction factors for detectors in non-water tissue was performed for the soft tissue lung target and inhale lung materials of a modified CIRS SBRT thorax phantom. The corrections were determined for Gafchromic EBT3 Film and PTW 60019 microDiamond detectors used for measurements of 168 SBRT lung plans in an end-to-end dosimetry audit. Corrections were derived for dose to medium (Dm,m) and dose to water (Dw,w) scenarios.

RESULTS

Correction factors were up to -3.4% and 9.2% for in field and out of field lung respectively. Overall, application of the correction factors improved the measurement-to-plan dose discrepancy. For the soft tissue lung target, agreement between planned and measured dose was within average of 3% for both film and microDiamond measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

The correction factors developed for this work are provided for clinical users to apply to commissioning measurements using a commercially available thorax phantom where inhomogeneity is present. The end-to-end dosimetry audit demonstrates dose calculation algorithms can underestimate dose at lung tumour/lung tissue interfaces by an average of 2-5%.

Remote EPID-based dosimetric auditing using DVH patient dose analysis

Objective.The aim of this work was to develop and validate a method for remote dosimetric auditing that enables dose-volume histogram parameter comparisons of measured and planned dose in the patient CT volume.Approach. The method is derived by adapting and combining a remote electronic portal imaging (EPID) based auditing method (Virtual Epid based Standard Phantom Audit-VESPA) and a method to estimate 3D in-patient dose distributions from planar dosimetric measurements. The method was tested with a series of error-induced plans including monitor unit and multileaf collimator (MLC) positioning errors. A pilot audit study was conducted with eleven radiotherapy centres. IMRT plans from two clinical trials, a post-prostatectomy (RAVES trial) plan and a head and neck (HPV trial) plan were utilized. Clinically relevant DVH parameters for the planned dose and estimated measured dose were compared.Main results. The method was found to reproduce the induced dose errors within 0.5% and was sensitive to MLC positioning errors as small as 0.5 mm. For the RAVES plan audit all DVH results except one were within 3% and for the HPV plan audit all DVH results were within 3% except three with a maximum difference of 3.2%.Significance. The results from the audit method produce clinically meaningful DVH metrics for the audited plan and could enable an improved understanding of a centre's radiotherapy quality.

Determining tolerance levels for quality assurance of 3D printed bolus for modulated arc radiotherapy of the nose

Given the existing literature on the subject, there is obviously a need for specific advice on quality assurance (QA) tolerances for departments using or implementing 3D printed bolus for radiotherapy treatments. With a view to providing initial suggested QA tolerances for 3D printed bolus, this study evaluated the dosimetric effects of changes in bolus geometry and density, for a particularly common and challenging clinical situation: specifically, volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment of the nose. Film-based dose verification measurements demonstrated that both the AAA and the AXB algorithms used by the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, USA) were capable of providing sufficiently accurate dose calculations to allow this planning system to be used to evaluate the effects of bolus errors on dose distributions from VMAT treatments of the nose. Thereafter, the AAA and AXB algorithms were used to calculate the dosimetric effects of applying a range of simulated errors to the design of a virtual bolus, to identify QA tolerances that could be used to avoid clinically significant effects from common printing errors. Results were generally consistent, whether the treatment target was superficial and treated with counter-rotating coplanar arcs or more-penetrating and treated with noncoplanar arcs, and whether the dose was calculated using the AAA algorithm or the AXB algorithm. The results of this study suggest the following QA tolerances are advisable, when 3D printed bolus is fabricated for use in photon VMAT treatments of the nose: bolus relative electron density variation within [Formula: see text] (although an action level at [Formula: see text] may be permissible); bolus thickness variation within [Formula: see text] mm (or 0.5 mm variation on opposite sides); and air gap between bolus and skin [Formula: see text] mm. These tolerances should be investigated for validity with respect to other treatment modalities and anatomical sites. This study provides a set of baselines for future comparisons and a useful method for identifying additional or alternative 3D printed bolus QA tolerances.

Virtual bronchoscopy-guided lung SAbR: dosimetric implications of using AAA versus Acuros XB to calculate dose in airways

In previous works, we showed that incorporating individual airways as organs-at-risk (OARs) in the treatment of lung stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SAbR) patients potentially mitigates post-SAbR radiation injury. However, the performance of common clinical dose calculation algorithms in airways has not been thoroughly studied. Airways are of particular concern because their small size and the density differences they create have the potential to hinder dose calculation accuracy. To address this gap in knowledge, here we investigate dosimetric accuracy in airways of two commonly used dose calculation algorithms, the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and Acuros-XB (AXB), recreating clinical treatment plans on a cohort of four SAbR patients. A virtual bronchoscopy software was used to delineate 856 airways on a high-resolution breath-hold CT (BHCT) image acquired for each patient. The planning target volumes (PTVs) and standard thoracic OARs were contoured on an average CT (AVG) image over the breathing cycle. Conformal and intensity-modulated radiation therapy plans were recreated on the BHCT image and on the AVG image, for a total of four plan types per patient. Dose calculations were performed using AAA and AXB, and the differences in maximum and mean dose in each structure were calculated. The median differences in maximum dose among all airways were ≤0.3Gy in magnitude for all four plan types. With airways grouped by dose-to-structure or diameter, median dose differences were still ≤0.5Gy in magnitude, with no clear dependence on airway size. These results, along with our previous airway radiosensitivity works, suggest that dose differences between AAA and AXB correspond to an airway collapse variation ≤0.7% in magnitude. This variation in airway injury risk can be considered as not clinically relevant, and the use of either AAA or AXB is therefore appropriate when including patient airways as individual OARs so as to reduce risk of radiation-induced lung toxicity.

Calculation algorithms and penumbra: Underestimation of dose in organs at risk in dosimetry audits

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to investigate overdose to organs at risk (OARs) observed in dosimetry audits in Monte Carlo (MC) algorithms and Linear Boltzmann Transport Equation (LBTE) algorithms. The impact of penumbra modeling on OAR dose was assessed with the adjustment of MC modeling parameters and the clinical relevance of the audit cases was explored with a planning study of spine and head and neck (H&N) patient cases.

METHODS

Dosimetric audits performed by the Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service (ACDS) of 43 anthropomorphic spine plans and 1318 C-shaped target plans compared the planned dose to doses measured with ion chamber, microdiamond, film, and ion chamber array. An MC EGSnrc model was created to simulate the C-shape target case. The electron cut-off energy E_cut(kinetic) was set at 500, 200, and 10 keV, and differences between 1 and 3 mm voxel were calculated. A planning study with 10 patient stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) spine plans and 10 patient H&N plans was calculated in both Acuros XB (AXB) v15.6.06 and Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) v15.6.06. The patient contour was overridden to water as only the penumbral differences between the two different algorithms were under investigation.

RESULTS

The dosimetry audit results show that for the SBRT spine case, plans calculated in AXB are colder than what is measured in the spinal cord by 5%-10%. This was also observed for other audit cases where a C-shape target is wrapped around an OAR where the plans were colder by 3%-10%. Plans calculated with Monaco MC were colder than measurements by approximately 7% with the OAR surround by a C-shape target, but these differences were not noted in the SBRT spine case. Results from the clinical patient plans showed that the AXB was on average 7.4% colder than AAA when comparing the minimum dose in the spinal cord OAR. This average difference between AXB and AAA reduced to 4.5% when using the more clinically relevant metric of maximum dose in the spinal cord. For the H&N plans, AXB was cooler on average than AAA in the spinal cord OAR (1.1%), left parotid (1.7%), and right parotid (2.3%). The EGSnrc investigation also noted similar, but smaller differences. The beam penumbra modeled by E_cut(kinetic)  = 500 keV was steeper than the beam penumbra modeled by E_cut(kinetic)  = 10 keV as the full scatter is not accounted for, which resulted in less dose being calculated in a central OAR region where the penumbra contributes much of the dose. The dose difference when using 2.5 mm voxels of the center of the OAR between 500 and 10 keV was 3%, reducing to 1% between 200 and 10 keV.

CONCLUSIONS

Lack of full penumbral modeling due to approximations in the algorithms in MC based or LBTE algorithms are a contributing factor as to why these algorithms under-predict the dose to OAR when the treatment volume is wrapped around the OAR. The penumbra modeling approximations also contribute to AXB plans predicting colder doses than AAA in areas that are in the vicinity of beam penumbra. This effect is magnified in regions where there are many beam penumbras, for example in the spinal cord for spine SBRT cases.

Report dose-to-medium in clinical trials where available; a consensus from the Global Harmonisation Group to maximize consistency

PURPOSE

To promote consistency in clinical trials by recommending a uniform framework as it relates to radiation transport and dose calculation in water versus in medium.

METHODS

The Global Quality Assurance of Radiation Therapy Clinical Trials Harmonisation Group (GHG; www.rtqaharmonization.org) compared the differences between dose to water in water (D_w,w), dose to water in medium (D_w,m), and dose to medium in medium (D_m,m). This was done based on a review of historical frameworks, existing literature and standards, clinical issues in the context of clinical trials, and the trajectory of radiation dose calculations. Based on these factors, recommendations were developed.

RESULTS

No framework was found to be ideal or perfect given the history, complexity, and current status of radiation therapy. Nevertheless, based on the evidence available, the GHG established a recommendation preferring dose to medium in medium (D_m,m).

CONCLUSIONS

Dose to medium in medium (D_m,m) is the preferred dose calculation and reporting framework. If an institution's planning system can only calculate dose to water in water (D_w,w), this is acceptable.

Monte Carlo calculations of radiotherapy dose in "homogeneous" anatomy

Given the substantial literature on the use of Monte Carlo (MC) simulations to verify treatment planning system (TPS) calculations of radiotherapy dose in heterogeneous regions, such as head and neck and lung, this study investigated the potential value of running MC simulations of radiotherapy treatments of nominally homogeneous pelvic anatomy. A pre-existing in-house MC job submission and analysis system, built around BEAMnrc and DOSXYZnrc, was used to evaluate the dosimetric accuracy of a sample of 12 pelvic volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) treatments, planned using the Varian Eclipse TPS, where dose was calculated with both the Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA) and the Acuros (AXB) algorithm. In-house TADA (Treatment And Dose Assessor) software was used to evaluate treatment plan complexity, in terms of the small aperture score (SAS), modulation index (MI) and a novel exposed leaf score (ELS/ELA). Results showed that the TPS generally achieved closer agreement with the MC dose distribution when treatments were planned for smaller (single-organ) targets rather than larger targets that included nodes or metastases. Analysis of these MC results with reference to the complexity metrics indicated that while AXB was useful for reducing dosimetric uncertainties associated with density heterogeneity, the residual TPS dose calculation uncertainties resulted from treatment plan complexity and TPS model simplicity. The results of this study demonstrate the value of using MC methods to recalculate and check the dose calculations provided by commercial radiotherapy TPSs, even when the treated anatomy is assumed to be comparatively homogeneous, such as in the pelvic region.

Dose deviations induced by respiratory motion for radiotherapy of lung tumors: Impact of CT reconstruction, plan complexity, and fraction size

A thorax phantom was used to assess radiotherapy dose deviations induced by respiratory motion of the target volume. Both intensity modulated and static, non‐modulated treatment plans were planned on CT scans of the phantom. The plans were optimized using various CT reconstructions, to investigate whether they had an impact on robustness to target motion during delivery. During irradiation, the target was programmed to simulate respiration‐induced motion of a lung tumor, using both patient‐specific and sinusoidal motion patterns in three dimensions. Dose was measured in the center of the target using an ion chamber. Differences between reference measurements with a stationary target and dynamic measurements were assessed. Possible correlations between plan complexity metrics and measured dose deviations were investigated. The maximum observed motion‐induced dose differences were 7.8% and 4.5% for single 2 Gy and 15 Gy fractions, respectively. The measurements performed with the largest target motion amplitude in the superior–inferior direction yielded the largest dosimetric deviations. For 2 Gy fractionation schemes, the summed dose deviation after 33 fractions is likely to be less than 2%. Measured motion‐induced dose deviations were significantly larger for one CT reconstruction compared to all the others. Static, non‐modulated plans showed superior robustness to target motion during delivery. Moderate correlations between the modulation complexity score applied to VMAT (MCSv) and measured dose deviations were found for 15 Gy SBRT treatment plans. Correlations between other plan complexity metrics and measured dose deviations were not found.

A comparison of IROC and ACDS on-site audits of reference and non-reference dosimetry

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.

Results of a multicentre dosimetry audit using a respiratory phantom within the EORTC LungTech trial

INTRODUCTION

The EORTC 22113-08113 LungTech trial assesses the safety and efficacy of SBRT for centrally located NSCLC. To insure protocol compliance an extensive RTQA procedure was implemented.

METHODS

Twelve centres were audited using a CIRS008A phantom. The phantom was scanned using target inserts of 7.5 mm and 12.5 mm radius in static condition. For the 7.5 mm insert a 4DCT was acquired while moving according to a cos⁶ function. Treatment plans were measured using film and an ionization chamber. Wilcoxon's signed-rank tests were performed to compare the three plans across institutions. A Spearman correlation was calculated to evaluate the influence of factors such as PTV, slice thickness and total number of monitor units on the dosimetric results.

RESULTS

The reference output dose median [min, max] variation was 0.5% [-1.1, +1.5]. The median deviations between chamber doses and point-planned doses were 1.8% [-0.1; 6.7] for the 7.5 mm and 1.1% [-2.8; 5.0] for the 12.5 mm sphere in static situation and 3.2% [-3.2; 15.7] for the dynamic situation. Film gamma median pass rates were 92.0% [68.0, 99.0] for 7.5 mm static, 96.2% [73.0, 99.0] for 12.5 mm static and 71.0% [40.0, 99.0] for 7.5 mm dynamic. Wilcoxon's signed-rank tests showed that the dynamic irradiations resulted in significantly lower gamma pass rates compared to the 12.5 mm static plan (p = 0.001). The total number of MUs per plan was correlated to both film and IC results.

CONCLUSION

An end-to-end audit was successfully performed, revealing important variations between institutions especially in dynamic irradiations. This shows the importance of dosimetry audits and the potentials for further technique and methodology improvements.

Comparison of five dose calculation algorithms in a heterogeneous media using design of experiment

PURPOSE

Design of experiments (DoE) provides a methodology to reveal the influence of input values on the measured output with a limited number of trials. The purpose of this study was to describe how DoE can be used to evaluate the performances of several dose calculation systems in heterogeneous media, including algorithms like Pencil Beam (PB), Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA), Acuros XB (AXB), Monte Carlo (MC) and Collapsed Cone Volume (CCV).

METHOD

This study was carried out using a CIRS Model 002LFC IMRT Thorax Phantom customized with a water-equivalent heterogeneity inside the lung. The calculated dose distributions were compared to Gafchromic® EBT3 film measurements. The beam configurations were selected using DoE to study the influence of five parameters simultaneously (energy, collimator angulation, gantry angulation, X and Y jaws) and to optimize the number of experiments. An analysis of variance was performed over the entire irradiation field and over various regions of interest (tumour, shadow of tumour and lungs).

RESULTS

DoE enabled to quantify and determine the statistically significant factors, leading to an evaluation of the dose calculation systems in the lung case. The resulting scoring could be as follow (from best to worst): AXB_D_m, CCV, AXB_D_w, XVMC_D_m, XVMC_D_w, AAA and last PB. Differences between the algorithms were specially observed in the tumour and the shadow regions.

CONCLUSION

DoE is a robust statistical method to compare several dose calculation systems. The various analyses lead to the conclusion that AXB handled more accurately most of the situations investigated in heterogeneous media.

Secondary monitor unit calculations for VMAT using parallelized Monte Carlo simulations

We have developed a fast and accurate in‐house Monte Carlo (MC) secondary monitor unit (MU) check method, based on the EGSnrc system, for independent verification of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment planning system dose calculations, in accordance with TG‐114 recommendations. For a VMAT treatment plan created for a Varian Trilogy linac, DICOM information was exported from Eclipse. An open‐source platform was used to generate input files for dose calculations using the EGSnrc framework. The full VMAT plan simulation employed 10⁷ histories, and was parallelized to run on a computer cluster. The resulting 3ddose matrices were converted to the DICOM format using CERR and imported into Eclipse. The method was evaluated using 35 clinical VMAT plans of various treatment sites. For each plan, the doses calculated with the MC approach at four three‐dimensional reference points were compared to the corresponding Eclipse calculations, as well as calculations performed using the clinical software package, MUCheck. Each MC arc simulation of 10⁷ particles required 13–25 min of total time, including processing and calculation. The average discrepancies in calculated dose values between the MC method and Eclipse were 2.03% (compared to 3.43% for MUCheck) for prostate cases, 2.45% (3.22% for MUCheck) for head and neck cases, 1.7% (5.51% for MUCheck) for brain cases, and 2.84% (5.64% for MUCheck) for miscellaneous cases. Of 276 comparisons, 201 showed greater agreement between the treatment planning system and MC vs MUCheck. The largest discrepancies between MC and MUCheck were found in regions of high dose gradients and heterogeneous densities. By parallelizing the calculations, point‐dose accuracies of 2‐7%, sufficient for clinical secondary checks, can be achieved in a reasonable amount of time. As computer clusters and/or cloud computing become more widespread, this method will be useful in most clinical setups.

On the use of AAA and AcurosXB algorithms for three different stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) techniques: Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT)

Aim

The purpose of this study was to investigate the dosimetric characteristics of three stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) techniques using the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB algorithm. The SABR techniques include coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (C-VMAT), non-coplanar intensity modulated radiation therapy (NC-IMRT) and non-coplanar three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (NC-3D CRT).

Background

SABR is a special type of radiotherapy where a high dose of radiation is delivered over a short time. The treatment outcome and accuracy of the dose delivered to cancer patients highly depend on the dose calculation algorithm and treatment technique.

Materials and methods

Twelve lung cancer patients underwent 4D CT scanning, and three different treatment plans were generated: C-VMAT, NC-IMRT, NC-3D CRT. Dose calculation was performed using the AAA and Acuros XB algorithm. The dosimetric indices, such as conformity index (CI), homogeneity index, dose fall-off index, doses received by organs at risk and planning target volume, were used to compare the plans. The accuracy of AAA and Acuros XB (AXB) algorithms for the lung was validated against measured dose on a CIRS thorax phantom.

Results

The CIs for C-VMAT, NC-IMRT and NC-3D CRT were 1.21, 1.28 and 1.38 for the AAA, respectively, and 1.17, 1.26 and 1.36 for the Acuros XB algorithm, respectively. The overall dose computed by AcurosXB algorithm was close to the measured dose when compared to the AAA algorithm. The overall dose computed by the AcurosXB algorithm was close to the measured dose when compared to the AAA algorithm.

Conclusion

This study showed that the treatment planning results obtained using the Acuros XB algorithm was better than those using the AAA algorithm in SABR lung radiotherapy.

Radiotherapy of lung cancers: FFF beams improve dose coverage at tumor periphery compromised by electronic disequilibrium

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.

A depth dose study between AAA and AXB algorithm against Monte Carlo simulation using AIP CT of a 4D dataset from a moving phantom

Aim

To identifying depth dose differences between the two versions of the algorithms using AIP CT of a 4D dataset.

Background

Motion due to respiration may challenge dose prediction of dose calculation algorithms during treatment planning.

Materials and methods

The two versions of depth dose calculation algorithms, namely, Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) version 10.0 (AAAv10.0), AAA version 13.6 (AAAv13.6) and Acuros XB dose calculation (AXB) algorithm version 10.0 (AXBv10.0), AXB version 13.6 (AXBv13.6), were compared against a full MC simulated 6X photon beam using QUASAR respiratory motion phantom with a moving chest wall. To simulate the moving chest wall, a 4 cm thick wax mould was attached to the lung insert of the phantom. Depth doses along the central axis were compared in the anterior and lateral beam direction for field sizes 2 × 2 cm², 4 × 4 cm² and 10 × 10 cm².

Results

For the lateral beam direction, the moving chest wall highlighted differences of up to 105% for AAAv10.0 and 40% for AXBv10.0 from MC calculations in the surface and buildup doses. AAAv13.6 and AXBv13.6 agrees with MC predictions to within 10% at similar depth. For anterior beam doses, dose differences predicted for both versions of AAA and AXB algorithm were within 7% and results were consistent with static heterogeneous studies.

Conclusions

The presence of the moving chest wall was capable of identifying depth dose differences between the two versions of the algorithms. These differences could not be identified in the static chest wall as shown in the anterior beam depth dose calculations.

A comparison of Monte Carlo, anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB algorithms in assessing dosimetric perturbations during enhanced dynamic wedged radiotherapy deliveries in heterogeneous media

Background

A comparison of anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB (AXB) dose calculation algorithms with Electron Gamma Shower (EGSnrc) Monte Carlo (MC) for modelling lung and bone heterogeneities encountered during enhanced dynamic wedged (EDWs) radiotherapy dose deliveries was carried out.

Materials and methods

In three heterogenous slab phantoms: water–bone, lung–bone and bone–lung, wedged percentage depth doses with EGSnrc, AAA and AXB algorithms for 6 MV photons for various field sizes (5×5, 10×10 and 20×20 cm2) and EDW angles (15°, 30°, 45° and 60°) have been scored.

Results

For all the scenarios, AAA and AXB results were within ±1% of the MC in the pre-inhomogeneity region. For water–bone AAA and AXB deviated by 6 and 1%, respectively. For lung–bone an underestimation in lung (AAA: 5%, AXB: 2%) and overestimation in bone was observed (AAA: 13%, AXB: 4%). For bone–lung phantom overestimation in bone (AAA: 7%, AXB: 1%), a lung underdosage (AAA: 8%, AXB: 5%) was found. Post bone up to 12% difference in the AAA and MC results was observed as opposed to 6% in case of AXB.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated the limitation of the AAA (in certain scenarios) and accuracy of AXB for dose estimation inside and around lung and bone inhomogeneities. The dose perturbation effects were found to be slightly dependent on the field size with no obvious EDW dependence.

Automated data mining of a plan-check database and example application

Purpose

The aim of this work was to present the development and example application of an automated data mining software platform that preforms bulk analysis of results and patient data passing through the 3D plan and delivery QA system, Mobius3D.

Methods

Python, matlab, and Java were used to create an interface that reads JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) created for every approved Mobius3D pre‐treatment plan‐check. The aforementioned JSON files contain all the information for every pre‐treatment QA check performed by Mobius3D, including all 3D dose, CT, structure set information, as well as all plan information and patient demographics. Two Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) were created, the first is called Mobius3D‐Database (M3D‐DB) and presents the check results in both filterable tabular and graphical form. These data are presented for all patients and includes mean dose differences, 90% coverage, 3D gamma pass rate percentages, treatment sites, machine, beam energy, Multi‐Leaf Collimator (MLC) mode, treatment planning system (TPS), plan names, approvers, dates and times. Group statistics and statistical process control levels are then calculated based on filter settings. The second GUI, called Mobius3D organ at risk (M3DOAR), analyzes dose‐volume histogram data for all patients and all Organs‐at‐Risk (OAR). The design of the software is such that all treatment parameters and treatment site information are able to be filtered and sorted with the results, plots, and statistics updated.

Results

The M3D‐DB software can summarize and filter large numbers of plan‐checks from Mobius3D. The M3DOAR software is also able to analyze large amounts of dose‐volume data for patient groups which may prove useful in clinical trials, where OAR doses for large numbers of patients can be compared and correlated. Target DVHs can also be analyzed en mass.

Conclusions

This work demonstrates a method to extract the large amount of treatment data for every patient that is stored by Mobius3D but not easily accessible. With scripting, it is possible to mine this data for research and clinical trials as well as patient and TPS QA.

Dosimetric end-to-end tests in a national audit of 3D conformal radiotherapy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Independent dosimetry audits improve quality and safety of radiation therapy. This work reports on design and findings of a comprehensive 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) Level III audit.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The audit was conducted as onsite audit using an anthropomorphic thorax phantom in an end-to-end test by the Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service (ACDS). Absolute dose point measurements were performed with Farmer-type ionization chambers. The audited treatment plans included open and half blocked fields, wedges and lung inhomogeneities. Audit results were determined as Pass Optimal Level (deviations within 3.3%), Pass Action Level (greater than 3.3% but within 5%) and Out of Tolerance (beyond 5%), as well as Reported Not Scored (RNS). The audit has been performed between July 2012 and January 2018 on 94 occasions, covering approximately 90% of all Australian facilities.

RESULTS

The audit pass rate was 87% (53% optimal). Fifty recommendations were given, mainly related to planning system commissioning. Dose overestimation behind low density inhomogeneities by the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) was identified across facilities and found to extend to beam setups which resemble a typical breast cancer treatment beam placement. RNS measurements inside lung showed a variation in the opposite direction: AAA under-dosed a target beyond lung and over-dosed the lung upstream and downstream of the target. Results also highlighted shortcomings of some superposition and convolution algorithms in modelling large angle wedges.

CONCLUSIONS

This audit showed that 3D-CRT dosimetry audits remain relevant and can identify fundamental global and local problems that also affect advanced treatments.

Credentialing of radiotherapy centres in Australasia for TROG 09.02 (Chisel), a Phase III clinical trial on stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy of early stage lung cancer

OBJECTIVE

A randomised clinical trial comparing stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) with conventional radiotherapy for early stage lung cancer has been conducted in Australia and New Zealand under the auspices of the TransTasman Radiation Oncology Group (NCT01014130). We report on the technical credentialing program as prerequisite for centres joining the trial.

METHODS

Participating centres were asked to develop treatment plans for two test cases to assess their ability to create plans according to protocol. Dose delivery in the presence of inhomogeneity and motion was assessed during a site visit using a phantom with moving inserts.

RESULTS

Site visits for the trial were conducted in 16 Australian and 3 New Zealand radiotherapy facilities. The tests with low density inhomogeneities confirmed shortcomings of the AAA algorithm for dose calculation. Dose was assessed for a typical treatment delivery including at least one non-coplanar beam in a stationary and moving phantom. This end-to-end test confirmed that all participating centres were able to deliver stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy with the required accuracy while the planning study demonstrated that they were able to produce acceptable plans for both test cases.

CONCLUSION

The credentialing process documented that participating centres were able to deliver dose as required in the trial protocol. It also gave an opportunity to provide education about the trial and discuss technical issues such as four-dimensional CT, small field dosimetry and patient immobilisation with staff in participating centres. Advances in knowledge: Credentialing is an important quality assurance tool for radiotherapy trials using advanced technology. In addition to confirming technical competence, it provides an opportunity for education and discussion about the trial.

Novel methodologies for dosimetry audits: Adapting to advanced radiotherapy techniques

With new radiotherapy techniques, treatment delivery is becoming more complex and accordingly, these treatment techniques require dosimetry audits to test advanced aspects of the delivery to ensure best practice and safe patient treatment. This review of novel methodologies for dosimetry audits for advanced radiotherapy techniques includes recent developments and future techniques to be applied in dosimetry audits. Phantom-based methods (i.e. phantom-detector combinations) including independent audit equipment and local measurement equipment as well as phantom-less methods (i.e. portal dosimetry, transmission detectors and log files) are presented and discussed. Methodologies for both conventional linear accelerator (linacs) and new types of delivery units, i.e. Tomotherapy, stereotactic devices and MR-linacs, are reviewed. Novel dosimetry audit techniques such as portal dosimetry or log file evaluation have the potential to allow parallel auditing (i.e. performing an audit at multiple institutions at the same time), automation of data analysis and evaluation of multiple steps of the radiotherapy treatment chain. These methods could also significantly reduce the time needed for audit and increase the information gained. However, to maximise the potential, further development and harmonisation of dosimetry audit techniques are required before these novel methodologies can be applied.

Clinical Implications of TiGRT Algorithm for External Audit in Radiation Oncology

Background:

Performing audits play an important role in quality assurance program in radiation oncology. Among different algorithms, TiGRT is one of the common application software for dose calculation. This study aimed to clinical implications of TiGRT algorithm to measure dose and compared to calculated dose delivered to the patients for a variety of cases, with and without the presence of inhomogeneities and beam modifiers.

Materials and Methods:

Nonhomogeneous phantom as quality dose verification phantom, Farmer ionization chambers, and PC-electrometer (Sun Nuclear, USA) as a reference class electrometer was employed throughout the audit in linear accelerators 6 and 18 MV energies (Siemens ONCOR Impression Plus, Germany). Seven test cases were performed using semi CIRS phantom.

Results:

In homogeneous regions and simple plans for both energies, there was a good agreement between measured and treatment planning system calculated dose. Their relative error was found to be between 0.8% and 3% which is acceptable for audit, but in nonhomogeneous organs, such as lung, a few errors were observed. In complex treatment plans, when wedge or shield in the way of energy is used, the error was in the accepted criteria. In complex beam plans, the difference between measured and calculated dose was found to be 2%–3%. All differences were obtained between 0.4% and 1%.

Conclusions:

A good consistency was observed for the same type of energy in the homogeneous and nonhomogeneous phantom for the three-dimensional conformal field with a wedge, shield, asymmetric using the TiGRT treatment planning software in studied center. The results revealed that the national status of TPS calculations and dose delivery for 3D conformal radiotherapy was globally within acceptable standards with no major causes for concern.

European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) recommendations for planning and delivery of high-dose, high precision radiotherapy for lung cancer

PURPOSE

To update literature-based recommendations for techniques used in high-precision thoracic radiotherapy for lung cancer, in both routine practice and clinical trials.

METHODS

A literature search was performed to identify published articles that were considered clinically relevant and practical to use. Recommendations were categorised under the following headings: patient positioning and immobilisation, Tumour and nodal changes, CT and FDG-PET imaging, target volumes definition, radiotherapy treatment planning and treatment delivery. An adapted grading of evidence from the Infectious Disease Society of America, and for models the TRIPOD criteria, were used.

RESULTS

Recommendations were identified for each of the above categories.

CONCLUSION

Recommendations for the clinical implementation of high-precision conformal radiotherapy and stereotactic body radiotherapy for lung tumours were identified from the literature. Techniques that were considered investigational at present are highlighted.

Variation of the prescription dose using the analytical anisotropic algorithm in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy

PURPOSE

The aim of the present investigation was to evaluate the dosimetric variation regarding the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) relative to other algorithms in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). We conducted a multi-institutional study involving six institutions using a secondary check program and compared the AAA to the Acuros XB (AXB) in two institutions.

METHODS

All lung SBRT plans (128 patients) were generated using the AAA, pencil beam convolution with the Batho (PBC-B) and adaptive convolve (AC). All institutions used the same secondary check program (simple MU analysis [SMU]) implemented by a Clarkson-based dose calculation algorithm. Measurement was performed in a heterogeneous phantom to compare doses using the three different algorithms and the SMU for the measurements. A retrospective analysis was performed to compute the confidence limit (CL; mean±2SD) for the dose deviation between the AAA, PBC, AC and SMU. The variations between the AAA and AXB were evaluated in two institutions, then the CL was acquired.

RESULTS

In comparing the measurements, the AAA showed the largest systematic dose error (3%). In calculation comparisons, the CLs of the dose deviation were 8.7±9.9% (AAA), 4.2±3.9% (PBC-B) and 5.7±4.9% (AC). The CLs of the dose deviation between the AXB and the AAA were 1.8±1.5% and -0.1±4.4%, respectively, in the two institutions.

CONCLUSIONS

The CL of the AAA showed much larger variation than the other algorithms. Relative to the AXB, larger systematic and random deviations still appeared. Thus, care should be taken in the use of AAA for lung SBRT.

The role of dosimetry audit in lung SBRT multi-centre clinical trials

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

A clinical database to assess action levels and tolerances for the ongoing use of Mobius3D

In radiation therapy, calculation of dose within the patient contains inherent uncertainties, inaccuracies, limitations, and the potential for random error. Thus, point dose‐independent verification of such calculations is a well‐established process, with published data to support the setting of both action levels and tolerances. Mobius3D takes this process one step further with a full independent calculation of patient dose and comparisons of clinical parameters such as mean target dose and voxel‐by‐voxel gamma analysis. There is currently no published data to directly inform tolerance levels for such parameters, and therefore this work presents a database of 1000 Mobius3D results to fill this gap. The data are tested for normality using a normal probability plot and found to fit this distribution for three sub groups of data; Eclipse,iPlan and the treatment site Lung. The mean (μ) and standard deviation (σ) of these sub groups is used to set action levels and tolerances at μ ± 2σ and μ ± 3σ, respectively. A global (3%, 3 mm) gamma tolerance is set at 88.5%. The mean target dose tolerance for Eclipse data is the narrowest at ± 3%, whilst iPlan and Lung have a range of −5.0 to 2.2% and −1.8 to 5.0%, respectively. With these limits in place, future results failing the action level or tolerance will fall within the worst 5% and 1% of historical results and an informed decision can be made regarding remedial action prior to treatment.