A multinational audit of small field output factors calculated by treatment planning systems used in radiotherapy

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.

Evaluation of output factors of different radiotherapy planning systems using Exradin W2 plastic scintillator detector

This study aims to evaluate the output factors (OPF) of different radiation therapy planning systems (TPSs) using a plastic scintillator detector (PSD). The validation results for determining a practical field size for clinical use were verified. The implemented validation system was an Exradin W2 PSD. The focus was to validate the OPFs of the small irradiation fields of two modeled radiation TPSs using RayStation version 10.0.1 and Monaco version 5.51.10. The linear accelerator used for irradiation was a TrueBeam with three energies: 4, 6, and 10 MV. RayStation calculations showed that when the irradiation field size was reduced from 10 × 10 to 0.5 × 0.5 cm2, the results were within 2.0% of the measured values for all energies. Similarly, the values calculated using Monaco were within approximately 2.0% of the measured values for irradiation field sizes between 10 × 10 and 1.5 × 1.5 cm2 for all beam energies of interest. Thus, PSDs are effective validation tools for OPF calculations in TPS. A TPS modeled with the same source data has different minimum irradiation field sizes that can be calculated. These findings could aid in verification of equipment accuracy for treatment planning requiring highly accurate dose calculations and for third-party evaluation of OPF calculations for TPS.

The IAEA remote audit of small field dosimetry for testing the implementation of the TRS-483 code of practice

BACKGROUND

The TRS‑483, an IAEA/AAPM International Code of Practice on dosimetry of small static photon fields, underwent testing via an IAEA coordinated research project (CRP). Alongside small field output factors (OFs) measurements using active dosimeters by CRP participants, the IAEA Dosimetry Laboratory received a mandate to formulate a remote small field dosimetry audit method using its passive dosimetry systems.

PURPOSE

This work aimed to develop a small field dosimetry audit methodology employing radiophotoluminescent dosimeters (RPLDs) and radiochromic films. The methodology was subsequently evaluated through a multicenter pilot study with CRP participants.

METHODS

The developments included designing and manufacturing a dosimeter holder set and the characterization of an RPLD system for measurements in small photon fields using the new holder. The audit included verification of small field OFs and lateral beam profiles for small fields. At first, treatment planning system (TPS) calculated OFs were checked against a reference data set that was available for conventional linacs. Second, calculated OFs were verified through the RPLD measurement of point doses in a machine-specific reference field, 4 cm × 4 cm, 2 cm × 2 cm, and 1 cm × 1 cm, corresponding size circular fields or nearest achievable field sizes. Lastly, profile checks in in-plane and cross-plane directions were done for the two smallest fields by comparing film measurements with TPS calculations at 20%, 50%, and 80% isodose levels.

RESULTS

RPLD correction factors for small field measurements were approximately unity. However, they influenced the dose determination's overall uncertainty in small fields, estimated at 2.30% (k = 1 level). Considering the previous experience in auditing reference beam output following the TRS-398 Code of Practice, the acceptance limit of 5% for the ratio of the dose determined by RPLD to the dose calculated by TPS, DRPLD/DTPS, was considered adequate. The multicenter pilot study included 15 participants from 14 countries (39 beams). Consistent with the previous findings, the results of the OF check against the reference data confirmed that TPSs tend to overestimate OFs for the smallest fields included in this exercise. All except three RPLD measurement results were within the acceptance limit, and the spread of results increased for smaller field sizes. The differences between the film measured and TPS calculated dose profiles were within 3 mm for most of the beams checked; deviated results revealed problems with TPS commissioning and calibration of the treatment unit collimation systems.

CONCLUSION

The newly developed small field dosimetry audit methodology proved effective and successfully complemented the CRP OF measurements by participants with RPLD audit results.

A multi-detector comparison to determine convergence of measured relative output factors for small field dosimetry

The TRS-483 Code of Practice (CoP) provides generic relative output correction factors, [Formula: see text], for a range of detectors and beam energies as used in small field dosimetry. In this work, the convergence of the relative output factors (ROFs) for 6 MV X-ray beams with and without flattening filters was investigated under different combinations of beam collimation and published detector correction factors. The SFD, PFD and CC04 (IBA) were used to measure ROFs of a TrueBeam STx linear accelerator with small fields collimated by the high-definition MLC, which has 2.5 and 5.0 mm projected leaves. Two configurations were used for the collimators: (1) fixed jaws at 10 × 10 cm2 and (2) with a 2 mm offset from the MLC edge, in line with the recommended geometry from IROC-H as part of their auditing program and published dataset. The [Formula: see text] factors for the three detectors were taken from the TRS483 CoP and other published works. The average differences of ROFs measured by detectors under MLC fields with fixed jaws and with 2 mm jaws offset for the 6 MV-WFF beam are 1.4% and 1.9%, respectively. Similarly, they are 2.3% and 2.4% for the 6MV-FFF beam. The relative differences between the detector-average ROFs and the corresponding IROC-H dataset are 2.0% and 3.1% for the 6 MV-WFF beam, while they are 2.4% and 3.2% for the 6MV-FFF beam at the smallest available field size of 2 × 2 cm2. For smaller field sizes, the average ROFs of the three detectors and corresponding results from Akino and Dufreneix showed the largest difference to be 6.6% and 6.2% under the 6 MV-WFF beam, while they are 3.4% and 3.6% under the 6 MV-WFF beam at the smallest field size of 0.5 × 0.5 cm2. Some well-published specific output correction factors for different small field detector types give better convergence in the calculation of the relative output factor in comparison with the generic data provided by the TRS-483 CoP. Relative output factor measurements should be performed as close as possible to the clinical settings including a combination of collimation systems, beam types and using at least three different types of small field detector for more accurate computation of the treatment planning system. The IROC-H dataset is not available for field size smaller than 2 × 2 cm2 for double checks and so that user should carefully check with other publications with the same setting.

Simulation of consequences of using nonideal detectors during beam data commissioning measurements

BACKGROUND

Beam data commissioning is a core task of radiotherapy physicists. Despite multiple detectors available, a feasible measurement program compromises between detector properties and time constraints. Therefore, it is important to understand how nonideal measurement data propagates into patient dose calculation.

PURPOSE

We simulated the effects of realistic errors, due to beam commissioning with presumably nonoptimal detectors, on the resulting patient dose distributions. Additionally, the detectability of such beam commissioning errors during patient plan quality assurance (QA) was evaluated.

METHODS

A clinically used beam model was re-commissioned introducing changes to depth dose curves, output factors, profiles or combinations of those. Seventeen altered beam models with incremental changes of the modelling parameters were created to analyze dose changes on simplified anatomical phantoms. Additionally, fourteen altered models incorporate changes in the order of signal differences reported for typically used detectors. Eighteen treatment plans of different types were recalculated on patient CT data sets using the altered beam models.

RESULTS

For the majority of clinical plans, dose distributions in the target volume recalculated on the patient computed tomography data were similar between the original and the modified beam models, yielding global 2%/2 mm gamma pass rates above 98.9%. Larger changes were observed for certain combinations of beam modelling errors and anatomical sites, most extreme for output factor changes in a small target volume plan with a pass rate of 80.6%. Modelling an enlarged penumbra as if measured with a 0.125 cm3 ion chamber had the largest effect on the dose distribution (average pass rate of 96.5%, lowest 85.4%). On different QA phantom geometries, dose distributions between calculations with modified and unmodified models typically changed too little to be detected in actual measurements.

CONCLUSION

While the simulated errors during beam modelling had little effect on most plans, in some cases changes were considerable. High-quality penumbra and small field output factor should be a main focus of commissioning measurements. Detecting modelling issues using standard patient QA phantoms is unlikely. Verification of a beam model should be performed especially for plans with high modulation and in different depths or geometries representing the variety of situations expected clinically.

Results of the IAEA supported national end-to-end audit of the IMRT technique in Poland

The dosimetry audit services were established in Poland in 1991, since then new audits have been introduced. The recently developed IAEA audit methodology for IMRT H&N treatments was tested nationally. Anthropomorphic SHANE phantom (CIRS) was used to perform measurements in 8 hospitals which voluntarily participated in the study. Each participant had to complete successfully pre-visit activities to take part in an onsite visit. During the visit, auditors together with the local staff, did a CT scan using local protocol, recalculated the plan and verified all the relevant parameters and performed measurements with an ionization chamber and films in SHANE. The adoption of IAEA methodology to the national circumstances was done with no major issues. Participants plans were verified and the results of ionization chamber were all within the 5 % tolerance limit for PTV (max 4,5%) and 7 % for OAR (max 5,3%). Film global gamma results (3 %, 3 mm, 90 % acceptance limit) were within 91,5-99,7% range. The IAEA established acceptance criteria which were achievable for most tests except for CTtoRED conversion curve. The locally performed study allowed establishing new limits. The audit gave interesting results and showed that the procedure is very thorough and capable to identify issues related with suboptimal treatment preparation and delivery. The new limits for CTtoRED conversion curve were adopted for national study. Such an audit gives an opportunity to verify the quality of locally implemented procedures and should be available for Polish hospitals on a daily basis.

Evaluation of International Atomic Energy Agency Technical Report Series-483 Detector-specific Output Correction Factor for Various Collimator Systems

Aim

In this study, a 6MV flattening filter (FF) and 6MV FF Free (FFF) photon beam small-field output factors (OF) were measured with various collimators using different detectors. The corrected OFs were compared with the treatment planning system (TPS) calculated OFs.

Materials and Methods

OF measurements were performed with four different types of collimators: Varian Millennium multi-leaf collimator (MLC), Elekta Agility MLC, Apex micro-MLC (mMLC) and a stereotactic cone. Ten detectors (four ionization chambers and six diodes) were used to perform the OF measurements at a depth of 10 cm with a source-to-surface distance of 90 cm. The corrected OF was calculated from the measurements. The corrected OFs were compared with existing TPS-generated OFs.

Results

The use of detector-specific output correction factor (OCF) in the PTW diode P detector reduced the OF uncertainty by <4.1% for 1 cm × 1 cm Sclin. The corrected OF was compared with TPS calculated OF; the maximum variation with the IBA CC01 chamber was 3.75%, 3.72%, 1.16%, and 0.90% for 5 mm stereotactic cone, 0.49 cm × 0.49 cm Apex mMLC, 1 cm × 1 cm Agility MLC, and 1 cm × 1 cm Millennium MLC, respectively.

Conclusion

The technical report series-483 protocol recommends that detector-specific OCF should be used to calculate the corrected OF from the measured OF. The implementation of OCF in the TPS commissioning will reduce the small-field OF variation by <3% for any type of detector.

Determination of small-field output factors for beam-matched linear accelerators using various detectors and comparison of detector-specific output correction factors using IAEA Technical Report Series 483 protocol

Background

Beam matching is widely used to ensure that linear accelerators used in radiotherapy have equal dosimetry characteristics. Small-field output factors (OF) were measured using different detectors infour beam-matched linear accelerators and the measured OFs were compared with existing treatment planning system (TPS) Monte Carlo algorithm calculated OFs.

Materials and methods

Three Elekta Versa HD^TM and one Elekta Infinity^TMlinear accelerators with photon energies of 6 MV flattening filter (FF), 10 MVFF, 6 MV flattening filter free (FFF) and 10 MVFFF were used in this study. All the Linac'swere beam-matched, Dosimetry beam data were ± 1% compare with Reference Linac. Ten different type of detectors (four ionizationchambers and six diode detectors) were used for small-field OF measurements. The OFs were measured for field sizes of 1 × 1 to 10 × 10 cm², and normalized to 10 × 10 cm² field size. The uncorrected and corrected OFs were calculated from these measurements. The corrected OF was compare with existing treatment planning system (TPS) Monte Carlo algorithm calculated OFs.

Results

The small-field corrected and Uncorrected OF variations among the linear accelerators was within 1% for all energies and detectors. An increase in field size led to a reduction in the difference between OFs among the detectors, which was the case for all energies. The RSD values decreased with increasing field size. The TRS 483 provided Detector-specificoutput-correction factor (OCF) reduced uncertainty in small-field measurements.

Conclusion

It is necessary to implement the OF-correction of small fields in a TPS. Special care must be taken to incorporate the corrected small-field OF in a TPS.

Extending the EclipseTM AcurosXB output factor table for small field radiosurgery

PURPOSE

To investigate the necessity of extending the output factor table (OF Table) of the Varian EclipseTM Treatment Planning System for small field stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and stereotactic body radiosurgery (SBRT) treatments.

METHODS

A new AcurosXB 15.6 beam model was created in the Eclipse Beam Configuration, which is identical to the one that has been used in the clinic with a default 3 × 3 cm to 40 × 40 cm OF Table, except the OF Table in the new model was extended to cover the range from 1 × 1 cm to 40 × 40 cm. 80 small square and rectangular output factors were measured on a Varian TrueBeam utilizing a Standard Imaging Exradin W2-1×1 scintillator detector, inside a PTW BeamScan water tank with 95 cm SSD at 5 cm depth. Cerenkov contamination was corrected using a rectangular field method (2 cm × 15 cm field). Nine Radiosurgery plans with primary jaw setting ranging from 0.7 cm to 2.0 cm were evaluated by both beam models. The monitor unit (MU) differences between the two beam models were calculated for identical 3-dimensional (3D) absolute dose distributions. Output factors, measured versus Eclipse calculated, were compared down to 0.5 × 0.5 cm primary jaw setting.

RESULTS

For the 6FFF beam, the difference between the two beam models was ∼ 6% for 1 × 1 cm jaw settings and 4% at 1.5 × 1.5 cm, with the extended OF Table requiring higher MUs for the same dose prescription and same 3-dimensional isodose distribution. For the 6MV beam, the corresponding difference is ∼7.5% for 1 × 1 cm, 5% for 1.5 × 1.5 cm, and 3% for 2 × 2 cm jaw settings, with the extended OF Table requiring higher MUs. For jaw settings smaller than 1 × 1 cm, measured dose can be considerably smaller than Eclipse predicted dose, even with the OF Table extension. This is reflected by the fact that the output factor for 0.5 × 0.5 cm, calculated via Eclipse external beam, was more than 30% greater than that measured for both 6FFF and 6MV beams.

CONCLUSIONS

Eclipse does a satisfactory job for primary jaw sizes down to 2 cm. For jaw settings smaller than 1.5 cm, the OF Table in Eclipse should be extended to improve the dose calculation accuracy.

AAPM MEDICAL PHYSICS PRACTICE GUIDELINE 5.b: Commissioning and QA of treatment planning dose calculations-Megavoltage photon and electron beams

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education, and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States. The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for the purpose of revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner. Each medical physics practice guideline represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice guidelines and technical standards by those entities not providing these services is not authorized. The following terms are used in the AAPM practice guidelines:

Must and Must Not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline. While must is the term to be used in the guidelines, if an entity that adopts the guideline has shall as the preferred term, the AAPM considers that must and shall have the same meaning.

Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances.

Mitigating the uncertainty in small field dosimetry by leveraging machine learning strategies

Small field dosimetry is significantly different from the dosimetry of broad beams due to loss of electron side scatter equilibrium, source occlusion, and effects related to the choice of detector. However, use of small fields is increasing with the increase in indications for intensity-modulated radiation therapy and stereotactic body radiation therapy, and thus the need for accurate dosimetry is ever more important. Here we propose to leverage machine learning (ML) strategies to reduce the uncertainties and increase the accuracy in determining small field output factors (OFs). Linac OFs from a Varian TrueBeam STx were calculated either by the treatment planning system (TPS) or measured with a W1 scintillator detector at various multi-leaf collimator (MLC) positions, jaw positions, and with and without contribution from leaf-end transmission. The fields were defined by the MLCs with the jaws at various positions. Field sizes between 5 and 100 mm were evaluated. Separate ML regression models were generated based on the TPS calculated or the measured datasets. Accurate predictions of small field OFs at different field sizes (FSs) were achieved independent of jaw and MLC position. A mean and maximum % relative error of 0.38 ± 0.39% and 3.62%, respectively, for the best-performing models based on the measured datasets were found. The prediction accuracy was independent of contribution from leaf-end transmission. Several ML models for predicting small field OFs were generated, validated, and tested. Incorporating these models into the dose calculation workflow could greatly increase the accuracy and robustness of dose calculations for any radiotherapy delivery technique that relies heavily on small fields.

A multi-institutional evaluation of small field output factor determination following the recommendations of IAEA/AAPM TRS-483

Purpose

The aim of this work was to test the implementation of small field dosimetry following TRS‐483 and to develop quality assurance procedures for the experimental determination of small field output factors (SFOFs).

Materials and methods

Twelve different centers provided SFOFs determined with various detectors. Various linac models using the beam qualities 6 MV and 10 MV with flattening filter and without flattening filter were utilized to generate square fields down to a nominal field size of 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm. The detectors were positioned at 10 cm depth in water. Depending on the local situation, the source‐to‐surface distance was either set to 90 cm or 100 cm. The SFOFs were normalized to the output of the 10 cm × 10 cm field. The spread of SFOFs measured with different detectors was investigated for each individual linac beam quality and field size. Additionally, linac‐type specific SFOF curves were determined for each beam quality and the SFOFs determined using individual detectors were compared to these curves. Example uncertainty budgets were established for a solid state detector and a micro ionization chamber.

Results

The spread of SFOFs for each linac and field was below 5% for all field sizes. With the exception of one linac‐type, the SFOFs of all investigated detectors agreed within 10% with the respective linac‐type SFOF curve, indicating a potential inter‐detector and inter‐linac variability.

Conclusion

Quality assurance on the SFOF measurements can be done by investigation of the spread of SFOFs measured with multiple detectors and by comparison to linac‐type specific SFOFs. A follow‐up of a measurement session should be conducted if the spread of SFOFs is larger than 5%, 3%, and 2% for field sizes of 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm, 1 cm × 1 cm, and field sizes larger than 2 cm × 2 cm, respectively. Additionally, deviations of measured SFOFs to the linac‐type‐curves of more than 7%, 3%, and 2% for field sizes 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm, 1 cm × 1 cm, and field sizes larger than 1 cm × 1 cm, respectively, should be followed up.

Effect of inaccurate small field output factors on brain SRS plans

External beam radiotherapy often includes the use of field sizes 3 × 3 cm²or less, which can be defined as small fields. Dosimetry is a difficult, yet important part of the radiotherapy process. The dosimetry of small fields has additional challenges, which can lead to treatment inconsistencies if not done properly. Most important is the use of an appropriate detector, as well as the application of the necessary corrections. The International Atomic Energy Agency and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine provide the International Code of Practice (CoP) TRS-483 for the dosimetry of small static fields used in external MV photon beams. It gives guidelines on how to apply small-field correction factors for small field dosimetry. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of inaccurate small-field output factors on clinical brain stereotactic radiosurgery plans with and without applying the small-field correction factors as suggested in the CoP. Small-field correction factors for a Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator were applied to uncorrected relative dose factors. Uncorrected and corrected clinical plans were created with two different beam configurations, 6 MV with a flattening filter (6 WFF) and 6 MV without a flattening filter (6 FFF). For the corrected plans, the planning target volume mean dose was 1.6 ± 0.9% lower with p < 0.001 for 6 WFF and 1.8 ± 1.5% lower with p < 0.001 for 6 FFF. For brainstem, a major organ at risk, the corrected plans had a dose that was 1.6 ± 0.9% lower with p = 0.03 for 6 WFF and 1.8 ± 1.5% lower with p = 0.10 for 6 FFF. This represents a systematic error that should and can be corrected.

Multi-institutional dose audit in radiotherapy facilities using in-house developed optically stimulated luminescence disc dosimeters

Aim

The aim of this study was to carried out the audit of radiotherapy centers practicing conformal radiotherapy techniques and demonstrate the suitability of this indigenous optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) disc dosimeters in beam quality audit and verification of patient-specific dosimetry in conventional and conformal treatments in radiotherapy.

Materials and Methods

Dose audit in conventional and conformal (intensity-modulated radiotherapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy) radiotherapy techniques was conducted using in-house developed Al2O3:C-based OSL disc dosimeter and commercially available Gafchromic EBT3 film in 6 MV (flat and unflat) photon and 6 and 15 MeV electron beams. OSL disc dosimeter and Gafchromic EBT3 film measured dose values were verified using the ionization chamber measurements.

Results

Percentage variations of doses measured by OSL disc dosimeters and EBT3 Gafchromic film for conventional radiotherapy technique were in the range of 0.15%-4.6% and 0.40%-5.45%, respectively, with respect to the treatment planning system calculated dose values. For conformal radiotherapy techniques, the percentage variations of OSL disc and EBT3 film measured doses were in the range of 0.1%-4.9% and 0.3%-5.0%, respectively.

Conclusion

The results of this study supported by statistical evidence provided the confidence that indigenously developed Al2O3:C-based OSL disc dosimeters are suitable for dose audit in conventional and advanced radiotherapy techniques.

Small-field measurement and Monte Carlo model validation of a novel image-guided radiotherapy system

PURPOSE

The RefleXion™ X1 is a novel radiotherapy system that is designed for image-guided radiotherapy, and eventually, biology-guided radiotherapy (BgRT). BgRT is a treatment paradigm that tracks tumor motion using real-time positron emission signals. This study reports the small-field measurement results and the validation of a Monte Carlo (MC) model of the first clinical RefleXion unit.

METHODS

The RefleXion linear accelerator (linac) produces a 6 MV flattening filter free (FFF) photon beam and consists of a binary multileaf collimator (MLC) system with 64 leaves and two pairs of y-jaws. The maximum clinical field size achievable is 400 × 20 mm² . The y-jaws provide either a 10 or 20 mm opening at source-to-axis distance (SAD) of 850 mm. The width of each MLC leaf at SAD is 6.25 mm. Percentage depth doses (PDDs) and relative beam profiles were acquired using an Edge diode detector in a water tank for field sizes from 12.5 × 10 to 100 × 20 mm² . Beam profiles were also measured using films. Output factors of fields ranging from 6.25 × 10 to 100 × 20 mm² were measured using W2 scintillator detector, Edge detector, and films. Output correction factors k of the Edge detector for RefleXion were calculated. An MC model of the linac including pre-MLC beam sources and detailed structures of MLC and lower y-jaws was validated against the measurements. Simulation codes BEAMnrc and GATE were utilized.

RESULTS

The diode measured PDD at 10 cm depth (PDD10) increases from 53.6% to 56.9% as the field opens from 12.5 × 10 to 100 × 20 mm² . The W2-measured output factor increases from 0.706 to 1 as the field opens from 6.25 × 10 to 100 × 20 mm² (reference field size). The output factors acquired by diode and film differ from the W2 results by 1.65% (std = 1.49%) and 2.09% (std = 1.41%) on average, respectively. The profile penumbra and full-width half-maximum (FWHM) measured by diode agree well with the film results with a deviation of 0.60 mm and 0.73% on average, respectively. The averaged beam profile consistency calculated between the diode- and film-measured profiles among different depths is within 1.72%. By taking the W2 measurements as the ground truth, the output correction factors k for Edge detector ranging from 0.958 to 1 were reported. For the MC model validation, the simulated PDD10 agreed within 0.6% to the diode measurement. The MC-simulated output factor differed from the W2 results by 2.3% on average (std = 3.7%), while the MC simulated beam penumbra differed from the diode results by 0.67 mm on average (std = 0.42 mm). The MC FWHM agreed with the diode results to within 1.40% on average. The averaged beam profile consistency calculated between the diode and MC profiles among different depths is less than 1.29%.

CONCLUSIONS

This study represents the first small-field dosimetry of a clinical RefleXion system. A complete and accurate MC model of the RefleXion linac has been validated.

Dose calculation accuracy for photon small fields in treatment planning systems with comparison by Monte Carlo simulations

Purpose: Advanced radiation therapy techniques use small fields in treatment planning and delivery. Small fields have the advantage of more accurate dose delivery, but with the cost of some complications in dosimetry. Different dose calculation algorithms imported in various treatment planning systems (TPSs) which each of them has different accuracy. Monte Carlo (MC) simulation has been reported as one of the accurate methods for calculating dose distribution in radiation therapy. The aim of this study was the evaluation of TPS dose calculation algorithms in small fields against 2 MC codes.

Methods: A linac head was simulated in 2 MC codes, MCNPX, and GATE. Then three small fields (0.5×0.5, 1×1 and 1.5×1.5 cm2) were simulated with 2 MC codes, and also these fields were planned with different dose calculation algorithms in Isogray and Monaco TPS. PDDs and lateral dose profiles were extracted and compared between MC simulations and dose calculation algorithms.

Results: For 0.5×0.5 cm2 field mean differences in PDDs with MCNPX were 2.28, 4.6, 5.3, and 7.4% and with GATE were -0.29, 2.3, 3 and 5% for CCC, superposition, FFT and Clarkson algorithms respectively. For 1×1 cm2 field mean differences in PDDs with MCNPX were 1.58, 0.6, 1.1 and 1.4% and with GATE were 0.77, 0.1, 0.6 and 0.9% for CCC, superposition, FFT and Clarkson algorithms respectively. For 1.5×1.5 cm2 field mean differences in PDDs with MCNPX were 0.82, 0.4, 0.6 and -0.4% and with GATE were 2.38, 2.5, 2.7 and 1.7% for CCC, superposition, FFT and Clarkson algorithms respectively.

Conclusions: Different dose calculation algorithms were evaluated and compared with MC simulation in small fields. Mean differences with MC simulation decreased with the increase of field sizes for all algorithms.

Portal dosimetry of small unflattened beams

We developed and validated a dedicated small field back-projection portal dosimetry model for pretreatment andin vivoverification of stereotactic plans entailing small unflattened photon beams. For this purpose an aSi-EPID was commissioned as a small field dosimeter. Small field output factors for 6 MV FFF beams were measured using the PTW microDiamond detector and the Agility 160-leaf MLC from Elekta. The back-projection algorithm developed in our department was modified to better model the small field physics. The feasibility of small field portal dosimetry was validated via absolute point dose differences w.r.t. small static beams, and 5 hypofractionated stereotactic VMAT clinical plans measured with the OCTAVIUS 1000 SRS array dosimeter and computed with the treatment planning system Pinnacle v16.2. Dose reconstructions using the currently clinically applied back-projection model were also computed for comparison. We found that the latter yields underdosage of about -8% for square beams with cross section near 10 mm x 10 mm and about -6% for VMAT treatments with PTV volumes smaller than about 2cm³. With the methods described in this work such errors can be reduced to less than the ±3.0% recommendations for clinical use. Our results indicate that aSi-EPIDs can be used as accurate small field radiation dosimeters, offering advantages over point dose detectors, the correct positioning and orientation of which is challenging for routine clinical QA.

The influence of small field output factors simulated uncertainties on the calculated dose in VMAT plans for brain metastases: a multicentre study

OBJECTIVES

This multicentric study was carried out to investigate the impact of small field output factors (OFs) inaccuracies on the calculated dose in volumetric arctherapy (VMAT) radiosurgery brain plans.

METHODS

Nine centres, realised the same five VMAT plans with common planning rules and their specific clinical equipment Linac/treatment planning system commissioned with their OFs measured values (OFbaseline). In order to simulate OFs errors, two new OFs sets were generated for each centre by changing only the OFs values of the smallest field sizes (from 3.2 × 3.2 cm² to 1 × 1 cm²) with well-defined amounts (positive and negative). Consequently, two virtual machines for each centre were recommissioned using the new OFs and the percentage dose differences ΔD (%) between the baseline plans and the same plans recalculated using the incremented (OFup) and decremented (OFdown) values were evaluated. The ΔD (%) were analysed in terms of planning target volume (PTV) coverage and organs at risk (OARs) sparing at selected dose/volume points.

RESULTS

The plans recalculated with OFdown sets resulted in higher variation of doses than baseline within 1.6 and 3.4% to PTVs and OARs respectively; while the plans with OFup sets resulted in lower variation within 1.3% to both PTVs and OARs. Our analysis highlights that OFs variations affect calculated dose depending on the algorithm and on the delivery mode (field jaw/MLC-defined). The Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm resulted significantly more sensitive to OFs variations than all of the other algorithms.

CONCLUSION

The aim of our study was to evaluate how small fields OFs inaccuracies can affect the dose calculation in VMAT brain radiosurgery treatments plans. It was observed that simulated OFs errors, return dosimetric calculation accuracies within the 3% between concurrent plans analysed in terms of percentage dose differences at selected dose/volume points of the PTV coverage and OARs sparing.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

First multicentre study involving different Planning/Linacs about undetectable errors in commissioning output factor for small fields.

Reference dosimetry of modulated and dynamic photon beams

In the late 1980s, a new technique was proposed that would revolutionize radiotherapy. Now referred to as intensity-modulated radiotherapy, it is at the core of state-of-the-art photon beam delivery techniques, such as helical tomotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy. Despite over two decades of clinical application, there are still no established guidelines on the calibration of dynamic modulated photon beams. In 2008, the IAEA-AAPM work group on nonstandard photon beam dosimetry published a formalism to support the development of a new generation of protocols applicable to nonstandard beam reference dosimetry (Alfonso et al 2008 Med. Phys. 35 5179-86). The recent IAEA Code of Practice TRS-483 was published as a result of this initiative and addresses exclusively small static beams. But the plan-class specific reference calibration route proposed by Alfonso et al (2008 Med. Phys. 35 5179-86) is a change of paradigm that is yet to be implemented in radiotherapy clinics. The main goals of this paper are to provide a literature review on the dosimetry of nonstandard photon beams, including dynamic deliveries, and to discuss anticipated benefits and challenges in a future implementation of the IAEA-AAPM formalism on dynamic photon beams.

Small-field output ratio determination using 6 mol% Ge-doped silica fibre dosimeters

This work investigates the suitability of locally fabricated 6 mol% Ge-doped optical fibres as dosimeters for small-field output ratio measurements. Two fabrications of fibre, cylindrical (CF) and flat (FF) fibres, were used to measure doses in small photon fields, from 4 to 15 mm. The findings were compared to those of commercial Ge-doped fibre (COMM), EBT3 film and an IBA CC01 ionization chamber. Irradiations were carried out using a 6 MV SRS photon beam operating at a dose rate of 1000 cGy min^-1, delivering a dose of 16 Gy. To minimise the possibility of the fibres failing to be exposed to the intended dose in small fields, the fibres were accommodated in a custom-made Perspex phantom. For the 4 mm cone the CF and FF measured output ratios were found to be smaller than obtained with EBT3 film by 32% and 13% respectively. Conversely, while for the 6 to 15 mm cone fields the FF output ratios were consistently greater than those obtained using EBT3 film, the CF output ratios differed from those of EBT3 film by at most 3.2%, at 6 mm, otherwise essentially agreeing with EBT3 values at the other field sizes. For the 4 to 7.5 mm cones, all output ratios obtained from Ge-doped optical fibre measurements were greater than those of IBA CC01 ionization chamber. The measured FF and CF output ratios for the 7.5 to 15 mm cones agreed with published MC estimates to within 15% and 13%, respectively. Down to 6 mm cone field, present measurements point to the potential of CF as a small-field dosimeter, its use recommended to be complemented by the use of EBT3 film for small-field dosimetry.

The role of SSDL in quality assurance in radiotherapy

This paper describes the role of the Polish Secondary Standard Dosimetry Laboratory (SSDL) in quality assurance in radiotherapy by means of providing calibration of ionisation chambers, TLD postal dosimetry audits and end-to-end audits for radiation therapy. A historical review of the methods and results are presented. The influence of the SSDL in Warsaw on radiation protection of patients in Poland is discussed. The International Atomic Energy Agency together with World Health Organisation (IAEA/WHO), through its network of SSDLs around the world, propagates newly developed methods for calibration and auditing. Suitable high quality equipment was provided by the IAEA, as well as special materials and technical support to the SSDL in Warsaw. The activity of the SSDL and the services provided for Polish radiotherapy centres have resulted in a reduction of discrepancies between planned doses and doses delivered to patients. The newly tested IAEA methods of end-to-end on-site dosimetry audits allow for monitoring and improving the quality of IMRT in Poland. The traceability of standards used for the calibration of therapy level dosimeters from Polish radiotherapy centres is assured by the IAEA dosimetry laboratory. The consistency of methods performed in the Polish SSDL with the ISO:17025 norm is supervised by the Polish Centre for Accreditation - a member of International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC), for calibration and testing. Due to the rapid technological development of radiotherapy, special attention has to be paid to newly developed methods for dosimetry auditing and institutions which provide services for assuring radiation safety of patients.

The influence of errors in small field dosimetry on the dosimetric accuracy of treatment plans

Background: Dosimetric effects of inaccuracies of output factors (OFs) implemented in treatment planning systems (TPSs) were investigated.Materials and methods: Modified beam models (MBM) for which the OFs of small fields (down to 1 × 1 cm²) were increased by up to 12% compared to the original beam models (OBM) were created for two TPSs. These beam models were used to recalculate treatment plans of different complexity. Treatment plans using stereotactic 3D-conformal (s3D-CRT) for brain metastasis as well as VMAT plans for head and neck and prostate cancer patients were generated. Dose distributions calculated with the MBM and the OBM were compared to measured dose distributions acquired using film dosimetry and a 2D-detector-array. For the s3D-CRT plans the calculated and measured dose at the isocenter was evaluated. For VMAT, gamma pass rates (GPRs) were calculated using global gamma index with 3%/3 mm, 2%/3 mm, 1%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm with a 20% threshold. Contribution of small fields to the total fluence was expressed as the ratio (F) of fluence trough leaf openings smaller than 2 cm to the total fluence.Results: Using film dosimetry for the s3D-CRT plans, the average of the ratio of calculated dose to measured dose at the isocenter was 1.01 and 1.06 for the OBM and MBM model, respectively. A significantly lower GPR of the MBM compared to the OBM was only found for the localized prostate cases (F = 12.4%) measured with the 2D-detector-array and an acceptance criterion of 1%/3 mm.Conclusion: The effects of uncertainties in small field OFs implemented in TPSs are most pronounced for s3D-CRT cases and can be clearly identified using patient specific quality assurance. For VMAT these effects mainly remain undetected using standard patient specific quality assurance. Using tighter acceptance criteria combined with an analysis of the fluence generated by small fields can help identifying inaccuracies of OFs implemented in TPSs.

IAEA methodology for on-site end-to-end IMRT/VMAT audits: an international pilot study

Background: The IAEA has developed and tested an on-site, end-to-end IMRT/VMAT dosimetry audit methodology for head and neck cases using an anthropomorphic phantom. The audit methodology is described, and the results of the international pilot testing are presented.Material and methods: The audit utilizes a specially designed, commercially available anthropomorphic phantom capable of accommodating a small volume ion chamber (IC) in four locations (three in planning target volumes (PTVs) and one in an organ at risk (OAR)) and a Gafchromic film in a coronal plane for the absorbed dose to water and two-dimensional dose distribution measurements, respectively. The audit consists of a pre-visit and on-site phases. The pre-visit phase is carried out remotely and includes a treatment planning task and a set of computational exercises. The on-site phase aims at comparing the treatment planning system (TPS) calculations with measurements in the anthropomorphic phantom following an end-to-end approach. Two main aspects were tested in the pilot study: feasibility of the planning constraints and the accuracy of IC and film results in comparison with TPS calculations. Treatment plan quality was scored from 0 to 100.Results: Forty-two treatment plans were submitted by 14 institutions from 10 countries, with 79% of them having a plan quality score over 90. Seventeen sets of IC measurement results were collected, and the average measured to calculated dose ratio was 0.988 ± 0.016 for PTVs and 1.020 ± 0.029 for OAR. For 13 film measurement results, the average gamma passing rate was 94.1% using criteria of 3%/3 mm, 20% threshold and global gamma.Conclusions: The audit methodology was proved to be feasible and ready to be adopted by national dosimetry audit networks for local implementation.

Testing the methodology for a dosimetric end-to-end audit of IMRT/VMAT: results of IAEA multicentre and national studies

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

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.

IMRT national audit in Portugal

PURPOSE

The IAEA newly developed "end-to-end" audit methodology for on-site verification of IMRT dose delivery has been carried out in Portugal in 2018. The main goal was to evaluate the physical aspects of the head and neck (H&N) cancer IMRT treatments. This paper presents the national results.

METHODS

All institutions performing IMRT treatments in Portugal, 20 out of 24, have voluntarily participated in this audit. Following the adopted methodology, a Shoulder, Head and Neck End-to-End phantom (SHANE) - that mimics an H&N region, underwent all steps of an IMRT treatment, according to the local practices. The measurements using an ionization chamber placed inside the SHANE phantom at four reference locations (three in PTVs and one in the spinal cord) and an EBT3 film positioned in a coronal plane were compared with calculated doses. FilmQA Pro software was used for film analysis.

RESULTS

For ionization chamber measurements, the percent difference was within the specified tolerances of ±5% for PTVs and ±7% for the spinal cord in all participating institutions. Considering film analysis, gamma passing rates were on average 96.9%±2.9% for a criterion of 3%/3 mm, 20% threshold, all above the acceptance limit of 90%.

CONCLUSIONS

The national results of the H&N IMRT audit showed a compliance between the planned and the delivered doses within the specified tolerances, confirming no major reasons for concern. At the same time the audit identified factors that contributed to increased uncertainties in the IMRT dose delivery in some institutions resulting in recommendations for quality improvement.