Reference dosimetry in clinical high-energy electron beams: comparison of the AAPM TG-51 and AAPM TG-21 dosimetry protocols

Very High-Energy Electron Therapy Toward Clinical Implementation

The use of very high energy electron (VHEE) beams, with energies between 50 and 400 MeV, has drawn considerable interest in radiotherapy due to their deep tissue penetration, sharp beam edges, and low sensitivity to tissue density. VHEE beams can be precisely steered with magnetic components, positioning VHEE therapy as a cost-effective option between photon and proton therapies. However, the clinical implementation of VHEE therapy (VHEET) requires advances in several areas: developing compact, stable, and efficient accelerators; creating sophisticated treatment planning software; and establishing clinically validated protocols. In addition, the perspective of VHEE to access ultra-high dose-rate regime presents a promising avenue for the practical integration of FLASH radiotherapy of deep tumors and metastases with VHEET (FLASH-VHEET), enhancing normal tissue sparing while maintaining the inherent dosimetric advantages of VHEET. However, FLASH-VHEET systems require validation of time-dependent dose parameters, thus introducing additional technological challenges. Here, we discuss recent progress in VHEET research, focusing on both conventional and FLASH modalities, and covering key aspects including dosimetric properties, radioprotection, accelerator technology, beam focusing, radiobiological effects, and clinical outcomes. Furthermore, we comprehensively analyze initial VHEET in silico studies on coverage across various tumor sites.

Modified calibration protocols in electron beam dosimetry: comparison with IAEA TRS-398 and AAPM TG-51

This study aimed to compare absolute calibration outputs based on the protocols of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Technical Report Series (TRS)-398, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group (TG)-51, and modified calibration approach. The electron beam output calibration followed the IAEA TRS-398 and AAPM TG-51 protocols, both of which required cylindrical chambers and parallel plates. However, the use of cylindrical chambers is not recommended at low energies because of the large fluence-correction factor. TG-51 recommended cross-calibration of the parallel-plate chamber against the cylindrical chamber in a high-energy electron beam. In 2020, an electron beam dosimetry modification was introduced that used a cylindrical ionisation chamber at all energies and updated the data for beam quality conversion factors. This modification provided a lower deviation than that reported in AAPM TG-51. Thus, the modified calibration based on TRS-398 was applied in the present study, which yielded results below the permissible tolerance. The beam calibration at 6, 8, 10, 12, and 15 MeV energies was carried out for two Elekta linear accelerators.. Electron beam dosimetry followed the AAPM TG-51 and TRS-398 protocols, and modified calibration were performed to measure the dose at the maximum depth expressed in dose/monitor units (cGy/MU). Charge-reading measurements were measured using ionisation chambers PTW 30013, IBA CC13, and Exradin A11. The average absorbed dose ratios were 1.004 and 1.009 using the modified calibration and TRS-398 and modified calibration and TG-51, respectively. Therefore, based on IAEA TRS-398, the results were below the tolerance limit (±2%).

Reference dosimetry in MRI-linacs: evaluation of available protocols and data to establish a Code of Practice

With the rapid increase in clinical treatments with MRI-linacs, a consistent, harmonized and sustainable ground for reference dosimetry in MRI-linacs is needed. Specific for reference dosimetry in MRI-linacs is the presence of a strong magnetic field. Therefore, existing Code of Practices (CoPs) are inadequate. In recent years, a vast amount of papers have been published in relation to this topic. The purpose of this review paper is twofold: to give an overview and evaluate the existing literature for reference dosimetry in MRI-linacs and to discuss whether the literature and datasets are adequate and complete to serve as a basis for the development of a new or to extend existing CoPs. This review is prefaced with an overview of existing MRI-linac facilities. Then an introduction on the physics of radiation transport in magnetic fields is given. The main part of the review is devoted to the evaluation of the literature with respect to the following subjects: • beam characteristics of MRI-linac facilities; • formalisms for reference dosimetry in MRI-linacs; • characteristics of ionization chambers in the presence of magnetic fields; • ionization chamber beam quality correction factors; and • ionization chamber magnetic field correction factors. The review is completed with a discussion as to whether the existing literature is adequate to serve as basis for a CoP. In addition, it highlights subjects for future research on this topic.

Modification and validation of an analytical source model for external beam radiotherapy Monte Carlo dose calculations

PURPOSE

A dose calculation tool, which combines the accuracy of the dose planning method (DPM) Monte Carlo code and the versatility of a practical analytical multisource model, which was previously reported has been improved and validated for the Varian 6 and 10 MV linear accelerators (linacs). The calculation tool can be used to calculate doses in advanced clinical application studies. One shortcoming of current clinical trials that report dose from patient plans is the lack of a standardized dose calculation methodology. Because commercial treatment planning systems (TPSs) have their own dose calculation algorithms and the clinical trial participant who uses these systems is responsible for commissioning the beam model, variation exists in the reported calculated dose distributions. Today's modern linac is manufactured to tight specifications so that variability within a linac model is quite low. The expectation is that a single dose calculation tool for a specific linac model can be used to accurately recalculate dose from patient plans that have been submitted to the clinical trial community from any institution. The calculation tool would provide for a more meaningful outcome analysis.

METHODS

The analytical source model was described by a primary point source, a secondary extra-focal source, and a contaminant electron source. Off-axis energy softening and fluence effects were also included. The additions of hyperbolic functions have been incorporated into the model to correct for the changes in output and in electron contamination with field size. A multileaf collimator (MLC) model is included to facilitate phantom and patient dose calculations. An offset to the MLC leaf positions was used to correct for the rudimentary assumed primary point source.

RESULTS

Dose calculations of the depth dose and profiles for field sizes 4 × 4 to 40 × 40 cm agree with measurement within 2% of the maximum dose or 2 mm distance to agreement (DTA) for 95% of the data points tested. The model was capable of predicting the depth of the maximum dose within 1 mm. Anthropomorphic phantom benchmark testing of modulated and patterned MLCs treatment plans showed agreement to measurement within 3% in target regions using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD). Using radiochromic film normalized to TLD, a gamma criteria of 3% of maximum dose and 2 mm DTA was applied with a pass rate of least 85% in the high dose, high gradient, and low dose regions. Finally, recalculations of patient plans using DPM showed good agreement relative to a commercial TPS when comparing dose volume histograms and 2D dose distributions.

CONCLUSIONS

A unique analytical source model coupled to the dose planning method Monte Carlo dose calculation code has been modified and validated using basic beam data and anthropomorphic phantom measurement. While this tool can be applied in general use for a particular linac model, specifically it was developed to provide a singular methodology to independently assess treatment plan dose distributions from those clinical institutions participating in National Cancer Institute trials.

Addendum to the AAPM's TG-51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of high-energy photon beams

An addendum to the AAPM's TG-51 protocol for the determination of absorbed dose to water in megavoltage photon beams is presented. This addendum continues the procedure laid out in TG-51 but new kQ data for photon beams, based on Monte Carlo simulations, are presented and recommendations are given to improve the accuracy and consistency of the protocol's implementation. The components of the uncertainty budget in determining absorbed dose to water at the reference point are introduced and the magnitude of each component discussed. Finally, the consistency of experimental determination of ND,w coefficients is discussed. It is expected that the implementation of this addendum will be straightforward, assuming that the user is already familiar with TG-51. The changes introduced by this report are generally minor, although new recommendations could result in procedural changes for individual users. It is expected that the effort on the medical physicist's part to implement this addendum will not be significant and could be done as part of the annual linac calibration.

Absorbed dose to water reference dosimetry using solid phantoms in the context of absorbed-dose protocols

For reasons of phantom material reproducibility, the absorbed dose protocols of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) (TG-51) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (TRS-398) have made the use of liquid water as a phantom material for reference dosimetry mandatory. In this work we provide a formal framework for the measurement of absorbed dose to water using ionization chambers calibrated in terms of absorbed dose to water but irradiated in solid phantoms. Such a framework is useful when there is a desire to put dose measurements using solid phantoms on an absolute basis. Putting solid phantom measurements on an absolute basis has distinct advantages in verification measurements and quality assurance. We introduce a phantom dose conversion factor that converts a measurement made in a solid phantom and analyzed using an absorbed dose calibration protocol into absorbed dose to water under reference conditions. We provide techniques to measure and calculate the dose transfer from solid phantom to water. For an Exradin A12 ionization chamber, we measured and calculated the phantom dose conversion factor for six Solid Water phantoms and for a single Lucite phantom for photon energies between 60Co and 18 MV photons. For Solid Water of certified grade, the difference between measured and calculated factors varied between 0.0% and 0.7% with the average dose conversion factor being low by 0.4% compared with the calculation whereas for Lucite, the agreement was within 0.2% for the one phantom examined. The composition of commercial plastic phantoms and their homogeneity may not always be reproducible and consistent with assumed composition. By comparing measured and calculated phantom conversion factors, our work provides methods to verify the consistency of a given plastic for the purpose of clinical reference dosimetry.

Advances in the determination of absorbed dose to water in clinical high-energy photon and electron beams using ionization chambers

During the last two decades, absorbed dose to water in clinical photon and electron beams was determined using dosimetry protocols and codes of practice based on radiation metrology standards of air kerma. It is now recommended that clinical reference dosimetry be based on standards of absorbed dose to water. Newer protocols for the dosimetry of radiotherapy beams, based on the use of an ionization chamber calibrated in terms of absorbed dose to water, N(D,w), in a standards laboratory's reference quality beam, have been published by several national or regional scientific societies and international organizations. Since the publication of these protocols multiple theoretical and experimental dosimetry comparisons between the various N(D,w) based recommendations, and between the N(D,w) and the former air kerma (NK) based protocols, have been published. This paper provides a comprehensive review of the dosimetry protocols based on these standards and of the intercomparisons of the different protocols published in the literature, discussing the reasons for the observed discrepancies between them. A summary of the various types of standards of absorbed dose to water, together with an analysis of the uncertainties along the various steps of the dosimetry chain for the two types of formalism, is also included. It is emphasized that the NK-N(D,air) and N(D,w) formalisms have very similar uncertainty when the same criteria are used for both procedures. Arguments are provided in support of the recommendation for a change in reference dosimetry based on standards of absorbed dose to water.

A dosimetry study comparing NCS report-5, IAEA TRS-381, AAPM TG-51 and IAEA TRS-398 in three clinical electron beam energies

New codes of practice for reference dosimetry in clinical high-energy photon and electron beams have been published recently, to replace the air kerma based codes of practice that have determined the dosimetry of these beams for the past twenty years. In the present work, we compared dosimetry based on the two most widespread absorbed dose based recommendations (AAPM TG-51 and IAEA TRS-398) with two air kerma based recommendations (NCS report-5 and IAEA TRS-381). Measurements were performed in three clinical electron beam energies using two NE2571-type cylindrical chambers, two Markus-type plane-parallel chambers and two NACP-02-type plane-parallel chambers. Dosimetry based on direct calibrations of all chambers in 60Co was investigated, as well as dosimetry based on cross-calibrations of plane-parallel chambers against a cylindrical chamber in a high-energy electron beam. Furthermore, 60Co perturbation factors for plane-parallel chambers were derived. It is shown that the use of 60Co calibration factors could result in deviations of more than 2% for plane-parallel chambers between the old and new codes of practice, whereas the use of cross-calibration factors, which is the first recommendation in the new codes, reduces the differences to less than 0.8% for all situations investigated here. The results thus show that neither the chamber-to-chamber variations, nor the obtained absolute dose values are significantly altered by changing from air kerma based dosimetry to absorbed dose based dosimetry when using calibration factors obtained from the Laboratory for Standard Dosimetry, Ghent, Belgium. The values of the 60Co perturbation factor for plane-parallel chambers (k(att) x k(m) for the air kerma based and p(wall) for the absorbed based codes of practice) that are obtained from comparing the results based on 60Co calibrations and cross-calibrations are within the experimental uncertainties in agreement with the results from other investigators.

Determining the incident electron fluence for Monte Carlo-based photon treatment planning using a standard measured data set

An accurate dose calculation in phantom and patient geometries requires an accurate description of the radiation source. Errors in the radiation source description are propagated through the dose calculation. With the emergence of linear accelerators whose dosimetric characteristics are similar to within measurement uncertainty, the same radiation source description can be used as the input to dose calculation for treatment planning at many institutions with the same linear accelerator model. Our goal in the current research was to determine the initial electron fluence above the linear accelerator target for such an accelerator to allow a dose calculation in water to within 1% or 1 mm of the measured data supplied by the manufacturer. The method used for both the radiation source description and the patient transport was Monte Carlo. The linac geometry was input into the Monte Carlo code using the accelerator's manufacturer's specifications. Assumptions about the initial electron source above the target were made based on previous studies. The free parameters derived for the calculations were the mean energy and radial Gaussian width of the initial electron fluence and the target density. A combination of the free parameters yielded an initial electron fluence that, when transported through the linear accelerator and into the phantom, allowed a dose-calculation agreement to the experimental ion chamber data to within the specified criteria at both 6 and 18 MV nominal beam energies, except near the surface, particularly for the 18 MV beam. To save time during Monte Carlo treatment planning, the initial electron fluence was transported through part of the treatment head to a plane between the monitor chambers and the jaws and saved as phase-space files. These files are used for clinical Monte Carlo-based treatment planning and are freely available from the authors.

Differences in electron beam dosimetry using two commercial ionization chambers and the TG-21 protocol: another reason to switch to TG-51

Two of the most popular dosimetry systems used for calibration of megavoltage photon and electron beams in radiation therapy are (i) cylindrical Farmer-type chambers in liquid water and (ii) Holt Memorial parallel-plate chambers in clear polystyrene. Since implementation of the AAPM TG-21 calibration protocol, the Radiological Physics Center (which uses the Farmer in-water system) has compared machine calibrations on two occasions with those of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (which uses the Holt in-polystyrene system). Two years post publication of the TG-51 protocol, 70% of the clinics monitored by the RPC still use TG-21. Seventeen photon beams from cobalt-60 to 18 MV and 31 electron beams from 6 to 20 MeV were compared using the TG-21 protocol. These data represent the most comprehensive comparison of the two most popular systems in use. Based on the average percent difference, the two systems yielded the same absorbed dose to water at the reference point in phantom to within 1.5% for both modalities. No energy dependence was evident in the results; however, a systematic average percent difference between photons and electrons was seen, with the Farmer in-water system consistently predicting a dose 1.3% lower for electrons than the Holt in-polystyrene system. For photons both systems predicted the same dose to within 0.3% on average. When a physicist converts from TG-21 to TG-51, these data may be of assistance in explaining unexpected changes in output that are different from previously published values. Implementation of the TG-51 protocol should eliminate any of the observed differences in electron beam dosimetry between the two dosimetry systems because the Holt system cannot be used with TG-51.

TG-51: experience from 150 institutions, common errors, and helpful hints

The Radiological Physics Center (RPC) is a resource to the medical physics community for assistance regarding dosimetry procedures. Since the publication of the AAPM TG-51 calibration protocol, the RPC has responded to numerous phone calls raising questions and describing areas in the protocol where physicists have had problems. At the beginning of the year 2000, the RPC requested that institutions participating in national clinical trials provide the change in measured beam output resulting from the conversion from the TG-21 protocol to TG-51. So far, the RPC has received the requested data from approximately 150 of the approximately 1300 institutions in the RPC program. The RPC also undertook a comparison of TG-21 and TG-51 and determined the expected change in beam calibration for ion chambers in common use, and for the range of photon and electron beam energies used clinically. Analysis of these data revealed two significant outcomes: (i) a large number (approximately 1/2) of the reported calibration changes for photon and electron beams were outside the RPC's expected values, and (ii) the discrepancies in the reported versus the expected dose changes were as large as 8%. Numerous factors were determined to have contributed to these deviations. The most significant factors involved the use of plane-parallel chambers, the mixing of phantom materials and chambers between the two protocols, and the inconsistent use of depth-dose factors for transfer of dose from the measurement depth to the depth of dose maximum. In response to these observations, the RPC has identified a number of circumstances in which physicists might have difficulty with the protocol, including concerns related to electron calibration at low energies (R50<2 cm), and the use of a cylindrical chamber at 6 MeV electrons. In addition, helpful quantitative hints are presented, including the effect of the prescribed lead filter for photon energy measurements, the impact of shifting the chamber depth for photon depth-dose measurements, and the impact of updated stopping-power data used in TG-51 versus that used in TG-21, particularly for electron calibrations.

Protocols for the dosimetry of high-energy photon and electron beams: a comparison of the IAEA TRS-398 and previous international codes of practice. International Atomic Energy Agency

A new international Code of Practice for radiotherapy dosimetry co-sponsored by several international organizations has been published by the IAEA, TRS-398. It is based on standards of absorbed dose to water, whereas previous protocols (TRS-381 and TRS-277) were based on air kerma standards. To estimate the changes in beam calibration caused by the introduction of TRS-398, a detailed experimental comparison of the dose determination in reference conditions in high-energy photon and electron beams has been made using the different IAEA protocols. A summary of the formulation and reference conditions in the various Codes of Practice, as well as of their basic data, is presented first. Accurate measurements have been made in 25 photon and electron beams from 10 clinical accelerators using 12 different cylindrical and plane-parallel chambers, and dose ratios under different conditions of TRS-398 to the other protocols determined. A strict step-by-step checklist was followed by the two participating clinical institutions to ascertain that the resulting calculations agreed within tenths of a per cent. The maximum differences found between TRS-398 and the previous Codes of Practice TRS-277 (2nd edn) and TRS-381 are of the order of 1.5-2.0%. TRS-398 yields absorbed doses larger than the previous protocols, around 1.0% for photons (TRS-277) and for electrons (TRS-381 and TRS-277) when plane-parallel chambers are cross-calibrated. For the Markus chamber, results show a very large variation, although a fortuitous cancellation of the old stopping powers with the ND,w/NK ratios makes the overall discrepancy between TRS-398 and TRS-277 in this case smaller than for well-guarded plane-parallel chambers. Chambers of the Roos-type with a 60Co ND,w calibration yield the maximum discrepancy in absorbed dose, which varies between 1.0% and 1.5% for TRS-381 and between 1.5% and 2.0% for TRS-277. Photon beam calibrations using directly measured or calculated TPR20,10 from a percentage dose data at SSD = 100 cm were found to be indistinguishable. Considering that approximately 0.8% of the differences between TRS-398 and the NK-based protocols are caused by the change to the new type of standards, the remaining difference in absolute dose is due either to a close similarity in basic data or to a fortuitous cancellation of the discrepancies in data and type of chamber calibration. It is emphasized that the NK-ND,air and ND,w formalisms have very similar uncertainty when the same criteria are used for both procedures. Arguments are provided in support of the recommendation for a change in reference dosimetry based on standards of absorbed dose to water.

Calculated absorbed-dose ratios, TG51/TG21, for most widely used cylindrical and parallel-plate ion chambers over a range of photon and electron energies

Task Group 51 (TG51), of the Radiation Therapy Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM), has developed a calibration protocol for high-energy photon and electron therapy beams based on absorbed dose standards. This protocol is intended to replace the air-kerma based protocol developed by an earlier AAPM task group (TG21). Conversion to the newer protocol introduces a change in the determined absorbed dose. In this work, the change in dose is expressed as the ratio of the doses (TG51/TG21) based on the two protocols. Dose is compared at the TG-51 reference depths of 10 cm for photons and d(ref) for electrons. Dose ratios are presented for a variety of ion chambers over a range of photon and electron energies. The TG51/TG21 dose ratios presented here are based on the dosimetry factors provided by the two protocols and the chamber-specific absorbed dose and exposure calibration factors (N60Co(D,w) and Nx) provided by the Accredited Dosimetry Calibration Laboratory (ADCL) at The University of Texas, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC). As such, the values presented here represent the expected discrepancies between the two protocols due only to changes in the dosimetry parameters and the differences in chamber-specific dose and air-kerma standards. These values are independent of factors such as measurement uncertainties, setup errors, and inconsistencies arising from the mix of different phantoms and ion chambers for the two protocols. Therefore, these ratios may serve as a guide for institutions performing measurements for the switch from TG21-to-TG51 based calibration. Any significant deviation in the ratio obtained from measurements versus those presented here should prompt a review to identify possible errors and inconsistencies. For all cylindrical chambers included here, the TG51/TG21 dose ratios are the same within +/-0.6%, irrespective of the make and model of the chamber, for each photon and electron beam included. Photon beams show the TG51/TG21 dose ratios decreasing with energy, whereas electrons exhibit the opposite trend. The dose ratio for photons is near 1.00 at 18 mV increasing to near 1.01 at 4 mV while the dose ratio for electrons is near 1.02 at 20 MeV decreasing only 0.5% to near 1.015 at 6 MeV. For parallel-plate chambers, the situation is complicated by the two possible methods of obtaining calibration factors: through an ADCL or through a cross-comparison with a cylindrical chamber in a high-energy electron beam. For some chambers, the two methods lead to significantly different calibration factors, which in turn lead to significantly different TG51/TG21 results for the same chamber. Data show that if both N60Co(D,w) and Nx are obtained from the same source, namely an ADCL or a cross comparison, the TG51/TG21 results for parallel-plate chambers are similar to those for cylindrical chambers. However, an inconsistent set of calibration factors, i.e., using N60Co(D,w) x k(ecal) from an ADCL but Ngas from a cross comparison or vice versa, can introduce an additional uncertainty up to 2.5% in the TG51/TG21 dose ratios.

Comparison of the IAEA TRS-398 and AAPM TG-51 absorbed dose to water protocols in the dosimetry of high-energy photon and electron beams

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA TRS-398) and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM TG-51) have published new protocols for the calibration of radiotherapy beams. These protocols are based on the use of an ionization chamber calibrated in terms of absorbed dose to water in a standards laboratory's reference quality beam. This paper compares the recommendations of the two protocols in two ways: (i) by analysing in detail the differences in the basic data included in the two protocols for photon and electron beam dosimetry and (ii) by performing measurements in clinical photon and electron beams and determining the absorbed dose to water following the recommendations of the two protocols. Measurements were made with two Farmer-type ionization chambers and three plane-parallel ionization chamber types in 6, 18 and 25 MV photon beams and 6, 8, 10, 12, 15 and 18 MeV electron beams. The Farmer-type chambers used were NE 2571 and PTW 30001, and the plane-parallel chambers were a Scanditronix-Wellhöfer NACP and Roos, and a PTW Markus chamber. For photon beams, the measured ratios TG-51/TRS-398 of absorbed dose to water Dw ranged between 0.997 and 1.001, with a mean value of 0.999. The ratios for the beam quality correction factors kQ were found to agree to within about +/-0.2% despite significant differences in the method of beam quality specification for photon beams and in the basic data entering into kQ. For electron beams, dose measurements were made using direct N(D,w) calibrations of cylindrical and plane-parallel chambers in a 60Co gamma-ray beam, as well as cross-calibrations of plane-parallel chambers in a high-energy electron beam. For the direct N(D,w) calibrations the ratios TG-51/TRS-398 of absorbed dose to water Dw were found to lie between 0.994 and 1.018 depending upon the chamber and electron beam energy used, with mean values of 0.996, 1.006, and 1.017, respectively, for the cylindrical, well-guarded and not well-guarded plane-parallel chambers. The Dw ratios measured for the cross-calibration procedures varied between 0.993 and 0.997. The largest discrepancies for electron beams between the two protocols arise from the use of different data for the perturbation correction factors p(wall) and p(dis) of cylindrical and plane-parallel chambers, all in 60Co. A detailed analysis of the reasons for the discrepancies is made which includes comparing the formalisms, correction factors and the quantities in the two protocols.