Independent monitor unit calculation for intensity modulated radiotherapy using the MIMiC multileaf collimator

Hypofractionation and SABR: 25 years of evolution in medical physics and a glimpse of the future

As we were invited to write an article for celebrating the 50^th Anniversary of Medical Physics journal, on something historically significant, commemorative, and exciting happening in the past decades, the first idea came to our mind is the fascinating radiotherapy paradigm shift from conventional fractionation to hypofractionation and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). It is historically and clinically significant since as we all know this RT treatment revolution not only reduces treatment duration for patients, but also improves tumor control and cancer treatment outcomes. It is also commemorative and exciting for us medical physicists since the technology development in medical physics has been the main driver for the success of this treatment regimen which requires high precision and accuracy throughout the entire treatment planning and delivery. This article provides an overview of the technological development and clinical trials evolvement in the past 25 years for hypofractionation and SABR, with an outlook to the future improvement.

Report of AAPM Task Group 219 on independent calculation-based dose/MU verification for IMRT

Independent verification of the dose per monitor unit (MU) to deliver the prescribed dose to a patient has been a mainstay of radiation oncology quality assurance (QA). We discuss the role of secondary dose/MU calculation programs as part of a comprehensive QA program. This report provides guidelines on calculation-based dose/MU verification for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) provided by various modalities. We provide a review of various algorithms for "independent/second check" of monitor unit calculations for IMRT/VMAT. The report makes recommendations on the clinical implementation of secondary dose/MU calculation programs; on commissioning and acceptance of various commercially available secondary dose/MU calculation programs; on benchmark QA and periodic QA; and on clinically reasonable action levels for agreement of secondary dose/MU calculation programs.

Independent verification of brachytherapy treatment plan by using deep learning inference modeling

This study aims to develop a deep learning-based strategy for treatment plan check and verification of high-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy. A deep neural network was trained to verify the dwell positions and times for a given input brachytherapy isodose distribution. In our modeling, each dwell position is represented by a Gaussian heatmap located in the vicinity of the dwell positions. A deep inception network based architecture was established to learn the mapping between CT, dose distribution and the heatmap volume. The dwell position coordinates were obtained from the predicted heatmap volume by finding the location of the Gaussian peak using non-maximum suppression. An encoder network was employed to predict dwell time by using the same input. 110 HDR brachytherapy cervical patients were used to train the proposed network. Additional 10 patients were employed to evaluate the accuracy of the proposed method through comparing the dwell position coordinates and dwell times with the results from a treatment planning system. The proposed deep learning-based dwell positions and times verification method achieved excellent predictive performance. For the tested patients, the deviation of the deep learning predicted dwell position coordinates was around one pixel from the planned positions (on average, a pixel is ∼0.5 mm), and the relative deviations of the predicted dwell times were within 2%. A deep learning-based plan check and verification method was established for brachytherapy. Our study showed that the model is capable of predicting the dwell positions and times reliably and promises to provide an efficient and accurate tool for independent verification of HDR brachytherapy treatment plan.

Estimation of monitor unit through analytical method for dynamic IMRT using control points as an effective parameter

Introduction:

The control points (CP) play a significant role in the delivery of segmented based Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) delivery, particularly in dynamic mode. The number of segments is determined by control points and these segments will transfer from one to the other either during beam ON called dynamic delivery or during beam OFF called static delivery or step and shoot. This study was aimed at indirect estimation of the total monitor units (MU) to be delivered per field by exploiting the control points and also to find the MUs at any nth segment.

Materials and methods:

This study was performed in the Eclipse treatment planning software version 13.8.0. The details of control points, metre set weight per segment, leaf positions for each segment, field size, etc. were taken into consideration.

Results:

TPS calculated MU value and analytically estimated MU value were compared and the percentage of difference was estimated. The overall mean percentage of deviation was 1·03% between the TPS calculated method and the analytical method. The paired sample t-test was performed and, p-value <0·05, no significant difference was found. The analytical relationship determined to estimate the total number of MU delivered for any nth control point was also evaluated.

Conclusion:

The control points are a potential parameter in the conventional IMRT delivery. Through this study, we have addressed the indirect method to estimate the monitor units delivered per segment.

Clinical implementation of a Monte Carlo based independent TPS dose checking system

The increase in complexity of treatment plans over time through modalities such as intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) has often not been met with an increase in capability of the secondary dose calculation checking systems typically used to verify the treatment planning system. Monte Carlo (MC) codes such as EGSnrc have become easily available and are capable of performing calculations of highly complex radiotherapy treatments. This educational note demonstrates a method for implementing and using a fully automated system for performing and analysing full MC calculations of conformal, IMRT and VMAT radiotherapy plans. Example calculations were based on BEAMnrc/DOSXYZnrc and are performed automatically after either uploading exported plan DICOM data through a Python-based web interface, or exporting DICOM data to a monitored network location. This note demonstrates how completed MC calculations can then be analysed using an automatically generated dose point comparison report, or easily re-imported back into the treatment planning system. Agreement between the TPS and MC calculation was an improvement on agreement between RadCalc and the TPS, with differences ranging from 1.2 to 5.5% between RadCalc and the treatment planning system (TPS), and 0.1-1.7% between MC and TPS. Comparison of the dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], and [Formula: see text] for the example VMAT plans showed agreement for the mean planning target volume dose within [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] generally within [Formula: see text] with the exception of a brain case, and [Formula: see text] within [Formula: see text]. Overall, this note provides a demonstration of a system that has been integrated well into existing clinical workflow, and has been shown to be a valuable additional tool in the secondary checking of treatment plan calculations.

Migration of treatment planning system using existing commissioned planning system

Introduction:

Commissioning of a new planning system involves extensive data acquisition which can be onerous involving significant clinic downtime. This could be circumvented by extracting data from existing treatment planning system (TPS) to speed up the process.

Material and methods:

In this study, commissioning beam data was obtained from a clinically commissioned TPS (Pinnacle™) using Matlab™ generated Pinnacle™ executable scripts to commission an independent 3D dose verification TPS (Eclipse™). Profiles and output factors for commissioning as required by Eclipse™ were computed on a 50 × 50 × 50 cm3 water phantom at a dose grid resolution of 2 mm3. Verification doses were computed and compared to clinical TPS dose profiles based on TG-106 guidelines. Standard patient plans from Pinnacle™ including intensity modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy were re-computed on Eclipse™ TPS while maintaining the same monitor units. Computed dose was exported back to Pinnacle for comparison with the original plans. This methodology enabled us to alleviate all ambiguities that arise in such studies.

Results:

Profile analysis using in-house software showed that for all field sizes including small multi-leaf collimator-generated fields, >95% of infield and penumbra data points of Eclipse™ match Pinnacle™ generated and measured profiles with 2%/2 mm gamma criteria. Excellent agreement was observed in the penumbra regions, with >95% of the data points passing distance to agreement criteria for complex C-shaped and S-shaped profiles. Dose volume histograms and isodose lines of patient plans agreed well to within a 0·5% for target coverage.

Findings:

Migration of TPS is possible without compromising accuracy or enduring the cumbersome measurement of commissioning data. Economising time for commissioning such a verification system or for migration of TPS can add great QA value and minimise downtime.

Comparison of an in-house developed monitor unit double-check program for 3D conformal radiation therapy and treatment planning system verification

Aim

The treatment planning system (TPS) plays a key role in radiotherapy treatments; it is responsible for the accurate determination of the monitor unit (MU) needed to be delivered to treat a patient with cancer. The main goal of radiotherapy is to sterilise the tumour; however, any imprecise dose delivered could lead to deadly consequences. The TPS has a quality assurance tool, an independent program to double check the MU, evaluate patient plan correctness and search for any potential error.

Materials and methods

In this work, a comparison was carried out between a MU calculated by TPS and an independent in-house-developed monitor unit calculation program (MUCP). The program, written in Cplusplus (C++ Object-Oriented), requires a database of several measured quantities and uses a recently developed physically based method for field equivalence calculation. The ROOT CERN data analysis library has been used to establish fit functions, to extend MUCP use to a variety of photon beams. This study presents a new approach to checking MU correctness calculated by the TPS for a water-like tissue equivalent medium, using our MUCP, as the majority of previous studies on the MU independent checks were based on the Clarkson method. To evaluate each irradiated region, four calculation points corresponding to relative depths under the water phantom were tested for several symmetric, asymmetric, irregular symmetric and asymmetric field cases. A comparison of MU for each radiation fields from readings of the TPS and the MUCP was undertaken.

Results

A satisfactory agreement has been obtained and within the required standards (3%). Additional experimental measurements of dose deposited in a water phantom showed a deviation of &lt;1·6%.

Findings

The MUCP is a useful tool for basic and complex MU verification for 3D conformal radiation therapy plans.

Validation and clinical implementation of commercial secondary check software with heterogeneity corrections

AIM

To validate and implement PTW diamond secondary check software (SCS) in a routine clinical use.

BACKGROUND

The secondary independent monitor unit or dose calculation verifications have led to a significant increase in the workflow associated with QA treatments. Modelling, validation and commissioning are necessary steps thereby making it a useful tool for QA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PTW Diamond SCS is capable of calculating VMAT fields, based on modified Clarkson integration, accounting for multi-leaf collimators (MLC) transmission and measured collimator scatter factors. Validation for heterogeneity corrections is made using circular phantom with inserts of various density materials. 150 VMAT plans were compared using (i) plans calculated in homogeneous cylindrical phantom and (ii) VMAT plans calculated with heterogeneity corrections using electron density values for each organ.

RESULTS

Diamond SCS calculated dose for homogeneous cylindrical phantom resulted in average deviation of (0.1 ± 2.14%) with Eclipse TPS calculated dose and (-2.0 ± 1.66%) with absolute measured dose. PTW's OCTAVIUS-4D phantom with 729 ion chamber detector array measurements agreed well with Eclipse TPS calculated dose showing an average deviation of (-1.69 ± 1.56%). Diamond SCS dose calculations were performed with heterogeneity corrections for 124 VMAT plans with isocentre at a region above -350 HU. The overall MU variations between Diamond SCS and TPS Acuros-XB algorithms were within ±5%.

CONCLUSION

Hence, the Diamond SCS can be used as an additional tool along with phantom measurements for patient specific quality assurance of VMAT plans with heterogeneity corrections having isocentre at a region above -350 HU.

Towards effective and efficient patient-specific quality assurance for spot scanning proton therapy

An intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) program based on measurement alone can be very time consuming due to the highly modulated dose distributions of IMPT fields. Incorporating independent dose calculation and treatment log file analysis could reduce the time required for measurements. In this article, we summarize our effort to develop an efficient and effective PSQA program that consists of three components: measurements, independent dose calculation, and analysis of patient-specific treatment delivery log files. Measurements included two-dimensional (2D) measurements using an ionization chamber array detector for each field delivered at the planned gantry angles with the electronic medical record (EMR) system in the QA mode and the accelerator control system (ACS) in the treatment mode, and additional measurements at depths for each field with the ACS in physics mode and without the EMR system. Dose distributions for each field in a water phantom were calculated independently using a recently developed in-house pencil beam algorithm and compared with those obtained using the treatment planning system (TPS). The treatment log file for each field was analyzed in terms of deviations in delivered spot positions from their planned positions using various statistical methods. Using this improved PSQA program, we were able to verify the integrity of the data transfer from the TPS to the EMR to the ACS, the dose calculation of the TPS, and the treatment delivery, including the dose delivered and spot positions. On the basis of this experience, we estimate that the in-room measurement time required for each complex IMPT case (e.g., a patient receiving bilateral IMPT for head and neck cancer) is less than 1 h using the improved PSQA program. Our experience demonstrates that it is possible to develop an efficient and effective PSQA program for IMPT with the equipment and resources available in the clinic.

Adaptive beamlet-based finite-size pencil beam dose calculation for independent verification of IMRT and VMAT

PURPOSE

The use of sophisticated dose calculation procedure in modern radiation therapy treatment planning is inevitable in order to account for complex treatment fields created by multileaf collimators (MLCs). As a consequence, independent volumetric dose verification is time consuming, which affects the efficiency of clinical workflow. In this study, the authors present an efficient adaptive beamlet-based finite-size pencil beam (AB-FSPB) dose calculation algorithm that minimizes the computational procedure while preserving the accuracy.

METHODS

The computational time of finite-size pencil beam (FSPB) algorithm is proportional to the number of infinitesimal and identical beamlets that constitute an arbitrary field shape. In AB-FSPB, dose distribution from each beamlet is mathematically modeled such that the sizes of beamlets to represent an arbitrary field shape no longer need to be infinitesimal nor identical. As a result, it is possible to represent an arbitrary field shape with combinations of different sized and minimal number of beamlets. In addition, the authors included the model parameters to consider MLC for its rounded edge and transmission.

RESULTS

Root mean square error (RMSE) between treatment planning system and conventional FSPB on a 10 × 10 cm(2) square field using 10 × 10, 2.5 × 2.5, and 0.5 × 0.5 cm(2) beamlet sizes were 4.90%, 3.19%, and 2.87%, respectively, compared with RMSE of 1.10%, 1.11%, and 1.14% for AB-FSPB. This finding holds true for a larger square field size of 25 × 25 cm(2), where RMSE for 25 × 25, 2.5 × 2.5, and 0.5 × 0.5 cm(2) beamlet sizes were 5.41%, 4.76%, and 3.54% in FSPB, respectively, compared with RMSE of 0.86%, 0.83%, and 0.88% for AB-FSPB. It was found that AB-FSPB could successfully account for the MLC transmissions without major discrepancy. The algorithm was also graphical processing unit (GPU) compatible to maximize its computational speed. For an intensity modulated radiation therapy (∼12 segments) and a volumetric modulated arc therapy fields (∼90 control points) with a 3D grid size of 2.0 × 2.0 × 2.0 mm(3), dose was computed within 3-5 and 10-15 s timeframe, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors have developed an efficient adaptive beamlet-based pencil beam dose calculation algorithm. The fast computation nature along with GPU compatibility has shown better performance than conventional FSPB. This enables the implementation of AB-FSPB in the clinical environment for independent volumetric dose verification.

Improving spot-scanning proton therapy patient specific quality assurance with HPlusQA, a second-check dose calculation engine

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to validate the use of HPlusQA, spot-scanning proton therapy (SSPT) dose calculation software developed at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, as second-check dose calculation software for patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA). The authors also showed how HPlusQA can be used within the current PSQA framework.

METHODS

The authors compared the dose calculations of HPlusQA and the Eclipse treatment planning system with 106 planar dose measurements made as part of PSQA. To determine the relative performance and the degree of correlation between HPlusQA and Eclipse, the authors compared calculated with measured point doses. Then, to determine how well HPlusQA can predict when the comparisons between Eclipse calculations and the measured dose will exceed tolerance levels, the authors compared gamma index scores for HPlusQA versus Eclipse with those of measured doses versus Eclipse. The authors introduce the αβγ transformation as a way to more easily compare gamma scores.

RESULTS

The authors compared measured and calculated dose planes using the relative depth, z∕R × 100%, where z is the depth of the measurement and R is the proton beam range. For relative depths than less than 80%, both Eclipse and HPlusQA calculations were within 2 cGy of dose measurements on average. When the relative depth was greater than 80%, the agreement between the calculations and measurements fell to 4 cGy. For relative depths less than 10%, the Eclipse and HPlusQA dose discrepancies showed a negative correlation, -0.21. Otherwise, the correlation between the dose discrepancies was positive and as large as 0.6. For the dose planes in this study, HPlusQA correctly predicted when Eclipse had and had not calculated the dose to within tolerance 92% and 79% of the time, respectively. In 4 of 106 cases, HPlusQA failed to predict when the comparison between measurement and Eclipse's calculation had exceeded the tolerance levels of 3% for dose and 3 mm for distance-to-agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors found HPlusQA to be reasonably effective (79% ± 10%) in determining when the comparison between measured dose planes and the dose planes calculated by the Eclipse treatment planning system had exceeded the acceptable tolerance levels. When used as described in this study, HPlusQA can reduce the need for patient specific quality assurance measurements by 64%. The authors believe that the use of HPlusQA as a dose calculation second check can increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the QA process.

Modulation factors calculated with an EPID-derived MLC fluence model to streamline IMRT/VMAT second checks

This work outlines the development of a robust method of calculating modulation factors used for the independent verification of MUs for IMRT and VMAT treatments, to replace onerous ion chamber measurements. Two‐dimensional fluence maps were calculated for dynamic MLC fields that include MLC interleaf leakage, transmission, and tongue‐and‐groove effects, as characterized from EPID‐acquired images. Monte Carlo‐generated dose kernels were then used to calculate doses for a modulated field and that field with the modulation removed at a depth specific to the calculation point in the patient using in‐house written software, Mod_Calc. The ratio of these two doses was taken to calculate modulation factors. Comparison between Mod_Calc calculation and ion chamber measurement of modulation factors for 121 IMRT fields yielded excellent agreement, where the mean difference between the two was −0.3%±1.2%. This validated use of Mod_Calc clinically. Analysis of 5,271 dynamic fields from clinical use of Mod_Calc gave a mean difference of 0.3%±1.0% between Mod_Calc and Eclipse‐generated factors. In addition, 99.3% and 96.5% fields pass 5% and 2% criteria, respectively, for agreement between these two predictions. The development and use of Mod_Calc at our clinic has considerably streamlined our QA process for IMRT and RapidArc fields, compared to our previous method based on ion chamber measurements. As a result, it has made it feasible to maintain our established and trusted current in‐house method of MU verification, without resorting to commercial software alternatives.

PACS numbers: 87.55.km, 87.55.Qr, 87.55.kd, 87.57.uq

Independent calculation-based verification of IMRT plans using a 3D dose-calculation engine

Independent monitor unit verification of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans requires detailed 3-dimensional (3D) dose verification. The aim of this study was to investigate using a 3D dose engine in a second commercial treatment planning system (TPS) for this task, facilitated by in-house software. Our department has XiO and Pinnacle TPSs, both with IMRT planning capability and modeled for an Elekta-Synergy 6MV photon beam. These systems allow the transfer of computed tomography (CT) data and RT structures between them but do not allow IMRT plans to be transferred. To provide this connectivity, an in-house computer programme was developed to convert radiation therapy prescription (RTP) files as generated by many planning systems into either XiO or Pinnacle IMRT file formats. Utilization of the technique and software was assessed by transferring 14 IMRT plans from XiO and Pinnacle onto the other system and performing 3D dose verification. The accuracy of the conversion process was checked by comparing the 3D dose matrices and dose volume histograms (DVHs) of structures for the recalculated plan on the same system. The developed software successfully transferred IMRT plans generated by 1 planning system into the other. Comparison of planning target volume (TV) DVHs for the original and recalculated plans showed good agreement; a maximum difference of 2% in mean dose, - 2.5% in D95, and 2.9% in V95 was observed. Similarly, a DVH comparison of organs at risk showed a maximum difference of +7.7% between the original and recalculated plans for structures in both high- and medium-dose regions. However, for structures in low-dose regions (less than 15% of prescription dose) a difference in mean dose up to +21.1% was observed between XiO and Pinnacle calculations. A dose matrix comparison of original and recalculated plans in XiO and Pinnacle TPSs was performed using gamma analysis with 3%/3mm criteria. The mean and standard deviation of pixels passing gamma tolerance for XiO-generated IMRT plans was 96.1 ± 1.3, 96.6 ± 1.2, and 96.0 ± 1.5 in axial, coronal, and sagittal planes respectively. Corresponding results for Pinnacle-generated IMRT plans were 97.1 ± 1.5, 96.4 ± 1.2, and 96.5 ± 1.3 in axial, coronal, and sagittal planes respectively.

Dosimetric validation of a redundant independent calculation software for VMAT fields

A redundant independent dosimetric calculation (RIDC) prior to treatment has become a basic part of the QA process for 3D conventional radiotherapy, and is strongly recommended in several international publications. On the other hand, the rapid growth in the number of intensity modulated treatments has led to a significant increase in the workflow associated with QA treatments. Diamond ("K&S Associates") is RIDC software which is capable of calculating VMAT (Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy) fields. Modeling, validation and commissioning are necessary steps thereby making it a useful tool for VMAT QA. In this paper, a procedure for the validation of the calculation algorithm is demonstrated. A set 3D conventional field was verified in two ways: firstly, a comparison was made between Diamond calculations and experimental measures obtaining an average deviation of -0.1 ± 0.7%(1SD), and secondly, a comparison made between Diamond and the treatment planning system (TPS) Eclipse, obtaining an average deviation of 0.4 ± 0.8%(1SD). For both steps, a plastic slab phantom was used. VMAT validation was carried out by analyzing 59 VMAT plans in two ways: first, Diamond calculation versus experimental measurement with an average deviation of -0.2 ± 1.7%(1SD), and second, Diamond calculation versus TPS calculation with an average deviation of 0.0 ± 1.6%(1SD). In this phase a homogeneous cylindrical phantom was used. These results led us to consider this calculation algorithm validated for use in VMAT verifications.

A patient-specific quality assurance study on absolute dose verification using ionization chambers of different volumes in RapidArc treatments

The recalculation of 1 fraction from a patient treatment plan on a phantom and subsequent measurements have become the norms for measurement-based verification, which combines the quality assurance recommendations that deal with the treatment planning system and the beam delivery system. This type of evaluation has prompted attention to measurement equipment and techniques. Ionization chambers are considered the gold standard because of their precision, availability, and relative ease of use. This study evaluates and compares 5 different ionization chambers: phantom combinations for verification in routine patient-specific quality assurance of RapidArc treatments. Fifteen different RapidArc plans conforming to the clinical standards were selected for the study. Verification plans were then created for each treatment plan with different chamber-phantom combinations scanned by computed tomography. This includes Medtec intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) phantom with micro-ionization chamber (0.007 cm(3)) and pinpoint chamber (0.015 cm(3)), PTW-Octavius phantom with semiflex chamber (0.125 cm(3)) and 2D array (0.125 cm(3)), and indigenously made Circular wax phantom with 0.6 cm(3) chamber. The measured isocenter absolute dose was compared with the treatment planning system (TPS) plan. The micro-ionization chamber shows more deviations when compared with semiflex and 0.6 cm(3) with a maximum variation of -4.76%, -1.49%, and 2.23% for micro-ionization, semiflex, and farmer chambers, respectively. The positive variations indicate that the chamber with larger volume overestimates. Farmer chamber shows higher deviation when compared with 0.125 cm(3). In general the deviation was found to be <1% with the semiflex and farmer chambers. A maximum variation of 2% was observed for the 0.007 cm(3) ionization chamber, except in a few cases. Pinpoint chamber underestimates the calculated isocenter dose by a maximum of 4.8%. Absolute dose measurements using the semiflex ionization chamber with intermediate volume (0.125 cm(3)) shows good agreement with the TPS calculated among the detectors used in this study. Positioning is very important when using smaller volume chambers because they are more sensitive to geometrical errors within the treatment fields. It is also suggested to average the dose over the sensitive volume for larger-volume chambers. The ionization chamber-phantom combinations used in this study can be used interchangeably for routine RapidArc patient-specific quality assurance with a satisfactory accuracy for clinical practice.

Optimized point dose measurement for monitor unit verification in intensity modulated radiation therapy using 6 MV photons by three different methodologies with different detector-phantom combinations: A comparative study

The study was aimed to compare accuracy of monitor unit verification in intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using 6 MV photons by three different methodologies with different detector phantom combinations. Sixty patients were randomly chosen. Zero degree couch and gantry angle plans were generated in a plastic universal IMRT verification phantom and 30×30×30 cc water phantom and measured using 0.125 cc and 0.6 cc chambers, respectively. Actual gantry and couch angle plans were also measured in water phantom using 0.6 cc chamber. A suitable point of measurement was chosen from the beam profile for each field. When the zero-degree gantry, couch angle plans and actual gantry, couch angle plans were measured by 0.6 cc chamber in water phantom, the percentage mean difference (MD) was 1.35%, 2.94 % and Standard Deviation (SD) was 2.99%, 5.22%, respectively. The plastic phantom measurements with 0.125 cc chamber Semiflex ionisation chamber (SIC) showed an MD=4.21% and SD=2.73 %, but when corrected for chamber-medium response, they showed an improvement, with MD=3.38 % and SD=2.59 %. It was found that measurements with water phantom and 0.6cc chamber at gantry angle zero degree showed better conformity than other measurements of medium-detector combinations. Correction in plastic phantom measurement improved the result only marginally, and actual gantry angle measurement in a flat- water phantom showed higher deviation.

Sensitivity study to evaluate the dosimetric impact of off-axis ratio profiles misalignment on TomoTherapy second dose validation

Accurate dose planning and delivery are very important in the intensity modulated radiation therapy. For helical TomoTherapy dose validation, a TomoTherapy second check software, called MU-Tomo, has been developed using archived patient documents, initial coordinates and planned dose of the point of calculation, and common dosimetric functions. Based on this software, sensitivity studies on 50 patient cases have been evaluated to show the impact of off-axis ratio profile misalignment on point dose calculation. Off-axis ratio is defined as the dose profile normalized to its maximum dose value. Sensitivity studies were done for three scenarios: oscillating the fluctuation regions of two off-axis profiles, shifting the profiles, and rotating the profiles. The result of the oscillation trial is linear along the change of longitudinal off-axis ratio (OARy), while oscillating the lateral off-axis ratio (OARx) has little influence on the dose calculation. For shifting, the variation in the percentage difference from the non-shifting value is about 15 times larger in OARy modification than in OARx modification. Rotating OARx by +/- 6' gave less than 1.5% +/- 0.20% difference compared to the non-rotating value. Rotating OARy by +/- 1' changes the result more than 5% +/- 2.69%. Therefore, for helical TomoTherapy dose validation, commissioned OARy profiles are more sensitive than OARx to oscillation, shifting and rotating. As a result, different tolerances for OARx and OARy may be required for annual quality assurance.

IMRT quality assurance using a second treatment planning system

We used a second treatment planning system (TPS) for independent verification of the dose calculated by our primary TPS in the context of patient-specific quality assurance (QA) for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). QA plans for 24 patients treated with inverse planned dynamic IMRT were generated using the Nomos Corvus TPS. The plans were calculated on a computed tomography scan of our QA phantom that consists of three Solid Water slabs sandwiching radiochromic films, and an ion chamber that is inserted into the center slab of the phantom. For the independent verification, the dose was recalculated using the Varian Eclipse TPS using the multileaf collimator files and beam geometry from the original plan. The data was then compared in terms of absolute dose to the ion chamber volume as well as relative dose on isodoses calculated at the film plane. The calculation results were also compared with measurements performed for each case. When comparing ion chamber doses, the mean ratio was 0.999 (SD 0.010) for Eclipse vs. Corvus, 0.988 (SD 0.020) for the ionization chamber measurements vs. Corvus, and 0.989 (SD 0.017) for the ionization chamber measurements vs. Eclipse. For 2D doses with gamma histogram, the mean value of the percentage of pixels passing the criteria of 3%, 3 mm was 94.4 (SD 5.3) for Eclipse vs. Corvus, 85.1 (SD 10.6) for Corvus vs. film, and 93.7 (SD 4.1) for Eclipse vs. film; and for the criteria of 5%, 3 mm, 98.7 (SD 1.5) for Eclipse vs. Corvus, 93.0 (SD 7.8) for Corvus vs. film, and 98.0 (SD 1.9) for Eclipse vs. film. We feel that the use of the Eclipse TPS as an independent, accurate, robust, and time-efficient method for patient-specific IMRT QA is feasible in clinic.

Characterization and clinical evaluation of a novel IMRT quality assurance system

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is a complex procedure that involves the delivery of complex intensity patterns from various gantry angles. Due to the complexity of the treatment plans, the standard-of-care is to perform measurement based patient-specific quality assurance (QA). IMRT QA is traditionally done with film for relative dose in a plane and an ion chamber for absolute dose. This is a laborious and time-consuming process. In this work, we characterized, commissioned, and evaluated the QA capabilities of a novel commercial IMRT device Delta4, (Scandidos, Uppsala, Sweden). This device consists of diode matrices in 2 orthogonal planes inserted in a cylindrical acrylic phantom that is 22 cm in diameter. Although the system has detectors in only 2 planes, it provides a novel interpolation algorithm that is capable of estimating doses at points where no detectors are present. Each diode is sampled per beam pulse so that the dose distribution can be evaluated on segment-by-segment, beam-by-beam, or as a composite plan from a single set of measurements. The end user can calibrate the system to perform absolute dosimetry eliminating the need for additional ion chamber measurements. The patient's IMRT plan is imported into the device over the hospital LAN and the results of measurements can be displayed as gamma profiles, distance-to-agreement maps, dose difference maps, or the measured dose distribution can be superimposed of the patient's anatomy to display an as-delivered plan. We evaluated the system's reproducibility, stability, pulse-rate dependence, dose-rate dependence, angular dependence, linearity of dose response and energy response using carefully planned measurements. We also validated the system's interpolation algorithm by measuring a complex dose distribution from an IMRT treatment. Several simple and complex isodose distributions planned using a treatment planning system were delivered to the QA device; the planned and measured dose distributions were then compared and analyzed. In addition, the dose distributions measured by conventional IMRT QA, which uses an ion chamber and film, were compared. We found that this device is accurate and reproducible and that its interpolation algorithm is valid. In addition the supplied software and network interface allow a streamlined IMRT QA process.

Optimal matching of 3D film-measured and planned doses for intensity-modulated radiation therapy quality assurance

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is one of the most complex applications of radiotherapy that requires patient-specific quality assurance (QA). Here, we describe a novel method of 3-dimensional (3D) dose-verification using 12 acrylic slabs in a 3D phantom (30 x 30 x 12 cm(3)) with extended dose rate (EDR2) films, which is both faster than conventionally used methods, and clinically useful. With custom-written software modules written in Microsoft Excel Visual Basic Application, the measured and planned dose distributions for the axial, coronal, and sagittal planes were superimposed by matching their origins, and the point doses were compared at all matched positions. Then, an optimization algorithm was used to correct the detected setup errors. The results show that this optimization method significantly reduces the average maximum dose difference by 7.73% and the number of points showing dose differences of more than 5% by 8.82% relative to the dose differences without an optimization. Our results indicate that the dose difference was significantly decreased with optimization and this optimization method is statistically reliable and effective. The results of 3D optimization are discussed in terms of various patient-specific QA data obtained from statistical analyses.

Patient-specific IMRT verification using independent fluence-based dose calculation software: experimental benchmarking and initial clinical experience

Experimental methods are commonly used for patient-specific intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) verification. The purpose of this study was to investigate the accuracy and performance of independent dose calculation software (denoted as 'MUV' (monitor unit verification)) for patient-specific quality assurance (QA). 52 patients receiving step-and-shoot IMRT were considered. IMRT plans were recalculated by the treatment planning systems (TPS) in a dedicated QA phantom, in which an experimental 1D and 2D verification (0.3 cm(3) ionization chamber; films) was performed. Additionally, an independent dose calculation was performed. The fluence-based algorithm of MUV accounts for collimator transmission, rounded leaf ends, tongue-and-groove effect, backscatter to the monitor chamber and scatter from the flattening filter. The dose calculation utilizes a pencil beam model based on a beam quality index. DICOM RT files from patient plans, exported from the TPS, were directly used as patient-specific input data in MUV. For composite IMRT plans, average deviations in the high dose region between ionization chamber measurements and point dose calculations performed with the TPS and MUV were 1.6 +/- 1.2% and 0.5 +/- 1.1% (1 S.D.). The dose deviations between MUV and TPS slightly depended on the distance from the isocentre position. For individual intensity-modulated beams (total 367), an average deviation of 1.1 +/- 2.9% was determined between calculations performed with the TPS and with MUV, with maximum deviations up to 14%. However, absolute dose deviations were mostly less than 3 cGy. Based on the current results, we aim to apply a confidence limit of 3% (with respect to the prescribed dose) or 6 cGy for routine IMRT verification. For off-axis points at distances larger than 5 cm and for low dose regions, we consider 5% dose deviation or 10 cGy acceptable. The time needed for an independent calculation compares very favourably with the net time for an experimental approach. The physical effects modelled in the dose calculation software MUV allow accurate dose calculations in individual verification points. Independent calculations may be used to replace experimental dose verification once the IMRT programme is mature.

Optimized matching of film dosimetry with calculated doses for IMRT quality assurance

We develop a new method with a global optimization for registering films to calculate doses for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and intensity-modulated radiosurgery (IMRS) quality assurance (QA). Both absolute point dosimetry and two-dimensional (2D) film dosimetry are performed through the IMRT and IMRS using Clinac 21EX's 120 millenium MLC and BrainLab's micro-MLC, respectively. The measured and calculated dose distributions are superimposed by coincidence of their origins, followed by comparison of the point doses at all matched positions. Then, with the optimization algorithm the setup error of the dosimeter is corrected. An example of IMRT cases shows that the average percentage showing 3% of dose difference for 10 patients has been reduced from 19% to 9%, before and after optimization and weight, respectively. Similar results are obtained for IMRS. This method dramatically reduces the difference between measured and calculated dose distributions in all cases investigated.

Intensity modulated radiotherapy dosimetry with ion chambers, TLD, MOSFET and EDR2 film

Purpose of this study was to report in a together our experience of using ion chambers, TLD, MOSFET and EDR2 film for dosimetric verification of IMRT plans delivered with dynamic multileaf collimator (DMLC). Two ion chambers (0.6 and 0.13 CC) were used. All measurements were performed with a 6MV photon beam on a Varian Clinac 6EX LINAC equipped with a Millennium MLC. All measurements were additionally carried out with (LiF:Mg,TI) TLD chips. Five MOSFET detectors were also irradiated. EDR2 films were used to measure coronal planar dose for 10 patients. Measurements were carried out simultaneously for cumulative fields at central axis and at off-axis at isocenter plane (+/- 1, and +/- 2 cm). The mean percentage variation between measured cumulative central axis dose with 0.6 cc ion chamber and calculated dose with TPS was -1.4% (SD 3.2). The mean percentage variation between measured cumulative absolute central axis dose with 0.13 cc ion chamber and calculated dose with TPS was -0.6% (SD 1.9). The mean percentage variation between measured central axis dose with TLD and calculated dose with TPS was -1.8% (SD 2.9). A variation of less than 5% was found between measured off-axis doses with TLD and calculated dose with TPS. For all the cases, MOSFET agreed within +/- 5%. A good agreement was found between measured and calculated isodoses. Both ion chambers (0.6 CC and 0.13 CC) were found in good agreement with calculated dose with TPS.

A separated primary and scatter model for independent dose calculation of intensity modulated radiotherapy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Independent checking of beam monitor units is an essential step in the preparation of any radiotherapy plan. The present work describes a simple model for calculating a point dose from an arbitrary number of irregular, asymmetric fields, typical of beam segments used for IMRT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Primary and scatter dose contributions were separated using a two-parameter exponential fit to measured beam data, from which differential scatter is determined. A total of 60 IMRT patient plans for a five-field prostate class solution were investigated to validate the model.

RESULTS

The average difference between the model's prediction and direct measurement of reference dose was found to be -0.6% (ranging from -2.9% to +1.6%), with a standard deviation of 1.0%. This compares well with the observed average difference between treatment planning system prediction and direct measurement of +0.8% (SD 0.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

The model is shown to provide a reliable and accurate independent check of planning system monitor units for the prostate IMRT plans studied. Implementation of the model could significantly reduce the time needed for point dose verification of IMRT plans currently performed by direct measurement.

A practical Monte Carlo MU verification tool for IMRT quality assurance

Quality assurance (QA) for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment planning and beam delivery, using ionization chamber measurements and film dosimetry in a phantom, is time consuming. The Monte Carlo method is the most accurate method for radiotherapy dose calculation. However, a major drawback of Monte Carlo dose calculation as currently implemented is its slow speed. The goal of this work is to bring the efficiency of Monte Carlo into a practical range by developing a fast Monte Carlo monitor unit (MU) verification tool for IMRT. A special estimator for dose at a point called the point detector has been used in this research. The point detector uses the next event estimation (NEE) method to calculate the photon energy fluence at a point of interest and then converts it to collision kerma by the mass energy absorption coefficient assuming the presence of transient charged particle equilibrium. The MU verification tool has been validated by comparing the calculation results with measurements. It can be used for both patient dose verification and phantom QA calculation. The dynamic leaf-sequence log file is used to rebuild the actual MLC leaf sequence in order to predict the dose actually received by the patient. Dose calculations for 20 patient plans have been performed using the point detector method. Results were compared with direct Monte Carlo simulations using EGS4/MCSIM, which is a well-benchmarked Monte Carlo code. The results between the point detector and MCSIM agreed to within 2%. A factor of 20 speedup can be achieved with the point detector method compared with direct Monte Carlo simulations.

A clinical application of an automated phantom-film QA procedure for validation of IMRT treatment planning and delivery

To quantify the correlation between planned and delivered intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) dose distributions, IMRT plans for 37 prostate carcinoma patients were analyzed. IMRT treatment plans were converted into hybrid phantom plans using a commercially available treatment planning system and delivered to a specialized film phantom via a static-tomotherapy technique. The films were analyzed using a commercial film dosimetry system. Hybrid phantom axial dose maps and film images were normalized, registered to one another, and subtracted to calculate the overall relative dose difference throughout the entire film area on a pixel-by-pixel basis. The average percentage of pixels with dose-difference values greater than +/- 3% among analyzed hybrid patient plans was 8.6% +/- 3%. The average percentage of pixels with dose differences greater than +/- 5% was 1.7% +/- 1.0%. The number of pixels with more than +/- 10% dose differences was negligible. An initial subset of hybrid plans was used to develop a quantitative criterion to verify for positional accuracy based on dosimetric verification of intensity map of IMRT plans for prostate patients in our institution. Plans with less than 5% of the pixels outside the +/- 5% dose-difference range were accepted. This method could be implemented for other anatomical sites or treatment planning and delivery systems.

Independent dosimetric calculation with inclusion of head scatter and MLC transmission for IMRT

Independent verification of the MU settings and dose calculation of IMRT treatment plans is an important step in the IMRT quality assurance (QA) procedure. At present, the verification is mainly based on experimental measurements, which are time consuming and labor intensive. Although a few simplified algorithms have recently been proposed for the independent dose (or MU) calculation, head scatter has not been precisely taken into account in all these investigations and the dose validation has mainly been limited to the central axis. In this work we developed an effective computer algorithm for IMRT MU and dose validation. The technique is superior to the currently available computer-based MU check systems in that (1) it takes full consideration of the head scatter and leaf transmission effects; and (2) it allows a precise dose calculation at an arbitrary spatial point instead of merely a point on the central axis. In the algorithm the dose at an arbitrary spatial point is expressed as a summation of the contributions of primary and scatter radiation from all beamlets. Each beamlet is modulated by a dynamic modulation factor (DMF), which is determined by the MLC leaf trajectories, the head scatter, the jaw positions, and the MLC leaf transmission. A three-source model was used to calculate the head scatter distribution for irregular segments shaped by MLC and the scatter dose contributions were computed using a modified Clarkson method. The system reads in MLC leaf sequence files (or RTP files) generated by the Corvus (NOMOS Corporation, Sewickley, PA) inverse planning system and then computes the doses at the desired points. The algorithm was applied to study the dose distributions of several testing intensity modulated fields and two multifield Corvus plans and the results were compared with Corvus plans and experimental measurements. The final dose calculations at most spatial points agreed with the experimental measurements to within 3% for both the specially designed testing fields and the clinical intensity modulated field. Furthermore, excellent agreement (mostly within +/- 3.0%) was also found between our independent calculation and the ion chamber measurements at both central axis and off-axis positions for the multifield Corvus IMRT plans. These results indicate that the approach is robust and valuable for routine clinical IMRT plan validation.

Monitor unit calculation for Monte Carlo treatment planning

In this work, we investigate a formalism for monitor unit (MU) calculation in Monte Carlo based treatment planning. By relating MU to dose measured under reference calibration conditions (central axis, depth of dose maximum in water, 10 cm x 10 cm field defined at 100 cm source-to-surface distance) our formalism determines the MU required for a treatment plan based on the prescription dose and Monte Carlo calculated dose distribution. Detailed descriptions and formulae are given for various clinical situations including conventional treatments and advanced techniques such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and modulated electron radiotherapy (MERT). Analysis is made of the effects of source modelling, beam modifier simulation and patient dose calculation accuracy, all of which are important factors for absolute dose calculations using Monte Carlo simulations. We have tested the formalism through phantom measurements and the predicted MU values were consistent with measured values to within 2%. The formalism has been used for MU calculation and plan comparison for advanced treatment techniques such as MERT, extracranial stereotactic IMRT, MRI-based treatment planning and intensity-modulated laser-proton therapy studies. It is also used for absolute dose calculations using Monte Carlo simulations for treatment verification, which has become part of our comprehensive IMRT quality assurance programme.

Patient-specific point dose measurement for IMRT monitor unit verification

PURPOSE

To review intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) monitor unit verification in a phantom for 751 clinical cases.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A custom water-filled phantom was used to measure the integral dose with an ion chamber for patient-specific quality assurance. The Corvus IMRT planning system was used for all cases reviewed. The 751 clinical cases were classified into 9 treatment sites: central nervous system (27 cases), gastrointestinal (24 cases), genitourinary (447 cases), gynecologic (18 cases), head and neck (200 cases), hematology (12 cases), pediatric (3 cases), sarcoma (8 cases), and thoracic (12 cases). Between December 1998 and January 2002, 1591 measurements were made for these 751 IMRT quality assurance plans.

RESULTS

The mean difference (MD) in percent between the measurements and the calculations was +0.37% (with the measurement being slightly higher). The standard deviation (SD) was 1.7%, and the range of error was from -4.5% to 9.5%. The MD and SD were +0.49% and 1.4% for MIMiC treatments delivered in 2-cm mode (261 cases) and -0.33% and 2.7% for those delivered in 1-cm mode (36 cases). Most treatments (420) were delivered using the step-and-shoot multileaf collimator with a 6-MV photon beam; the MD and SD were +0.31% and 1.8%, respectively. Among the 9 treatment sites, the prostate IMRT (in genitourinary site) was most consistent with the smallest SD (1.5%). There were 23 cases (3.1% of all cases) in which the measurement difference was greater than 3.5%; of those, 6 cases used the MIMiC in 1-cm mode, and 14 of the cases were from the head-and-neck treatment site.

CONCLUSION

IMRT monitor unit calculations from the Corvus planning system agreed within 3.5% with the point-dose ion chamber measurement in 97% of 751 cases representing 9 different treatment sites. A good consistency was observed across sites.

A quality assurance phantom for IMRT dose verification

This paper investigates a quality assurance (QA) phantom specially designed to verify the accuracy of dose distributions and monitor units (MU) calculated by clinical treatment planning optimization systems and by the Monte Carlo method for intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). The QA phantom is a PMMA cylinder of 30 cm diameter and 40 cm length with various bone and lung inserts. A procedure (and formalism) has been developed to measure the absolute dose to water in the PMMA phantom. Another cylindrical phantom of the same dimensions, but made of water, was used to confirm the results obtained with the PMMA phantom. The PMMA phantom was irradiated by 4, 6 and 15 MV photon beams and the dose was measured using an ionization chamber and compared to the results calculated by a commercial inverse planning system (CORVUS, NOMOS, Sewickley, PA) and by the Monte Carlo method. The results show that the dose distributions calculated by both CORVUS and Monte Carlo agreed to within 2% of dose maximum with measured results in the uniform PMMA phantom for both open and intensity-modulated fields. Similar agreement was obtained between Monte Carlo calculations and measured results with the bone and lung heterogeneity inside the PMMA phantom while the CORVUS results were 4% different. The QA phantom has been integrated as a routine QA procedure for the patient's IMRT dose verification at Stanford since 1999.