Uncertainties in IMRT dosimetry

Challenges in modeling the Agility multileaf collimator in treatment planning systems and current needs for improvement

BACKGROUND

The Agility multileaf collimator (MLC) mounted in Elekta linear accelerators features some unique design characteristics, such as large leaf thickness, eccentric curvature at the leaf tip, and defocused leaf sides ('tilting'). These characteristics offer several advantages but modeling them in treatment planning systems (TPSs) is challenging.

PURPOSE

The goals of this study were to investigate the challenges faced when modeling the Agility in two commercial TPSs (Monaco and RayStation) and to explore how the implemented MLC models could be improved in the future.

METHODS

Four linear accelerators equipped with the Agility, located at different centers, were used for the study. Three centers use the RayStation TPS and the other one uses Monaco. For comparison purposes, data from four Varian linear accelerators with the Millennium 120 MLC were also included. Average doses measured with asynchronous sweeping gap tests were used to characterize and compare the characteristics of the Millennium and the Agility MLCs and to assess the MLC model in the TPSs. The FOURL test included in the ExpressQA package, provided by Elekta, was also used to evaluate the tongue-and-groove with radiochromic films. Finally, raytracing was used to investigate the impact of the MLC geometry and to understand the results obtained for each MLC.

RESULTS

The geometry of the Agility produces dosimetric effects associated with the rounded leaf end up to a distance 20 mm away from the leaf tip end measured at the isocenter plane. This affects the tongue-and-groove shadowing, which progressively increases along the distance to the tip end. The RayStation and Monaco TPSs did not account for this effect, which made trade-offs in the MLC parameters necessary and greatly varied the final MLC parameters used by different centers. Raytracing showed that these challenging leaf tip effects were directly related to the MLC geometry and that the characteristics mainly responsible for the large leaf tip effects of the Agility were its tilting design and its small source-to-collimator distance.

CONCLUSIONS

The MLC models implemented in RayStation and Monaco could not accurately reproduce the leaf tip effects for the Agility. Therefore, trade-offs are needed and the optimal MLC parameters are dependent on the specific characteristics of treatment plans. Refining the MLC models for the Agility to better approximate the measured leaf tip and tongue-and-groove effects would extend the validity of the MLC model, reduce the variability in the MLC parameters used by the community, and facilitate the standardization of the MLC configuration process.

Plan quality assessment in clinical practice: Results of the 2020 ESTRO survey on plan complexity and robustness

PURPOSE

Plan complexity and robustness are two essential aspects of treatment plan quality but there is a great variability in their management in clinical practice. This study reports the results of the 2020 ESTRO survey on plan complexity and robustness to identify needs and guide future discussions and consensus.

METHODS

A survey was distributed online to ESTRO members. Plan complexity was defined as the modulation of machine parameters and increased uncertainty in dose calculation and delivery. Robustness was defined as a dose distribution's sensitivity towards errors stemming from treatment uncertainties, patient setup, or anatomical changes.

RESULTS

A total of 126 radiotherapy centres from 33 countries participated, 95 of them (75%) from Europe and Central Asia. The majority controlled and evaluated plan complexity using monitor units (56 centres) and aperture shapes (38 centres). To control robustness, 98 (97% of question responses) photon and 5 (50%) proton centres used PTV margins for plan optimization while 75 (94%) and 5 (50%), respectively, used margins for plan evaluation. Seventeen (21%) photon and 8 (80%) proton centres used robust optimisation, while 10 (13%) and 8 (80%), respectively, used robust evaluation. Primary uncertainties considered were patient setup (photons and protons) and range calculation uncertainties (protons). Participants expressed the need for improved commercial tools to control and evaluate plan complexity and robustness.

CONCLUSION

Clinical implementation of methods to control and evaluate plan complexity and robustness is very heterogeneous. Better tools are needed to manage complexity and robustness in treatment planning systems. International guidelines may promote harmonization.

What is plan quality in radiotherapy? The importance of evaluating dose metrics, complexity, and robustness of treatment plans

Plan evaluation is a key step in the radiotherapy treatment workflow. Central to this step is the assessment of treatment plan quality. Hence, it is important to agree on what we mean by plan quality and to be fully aware of which parameters it depends on. We understand plan quality in radiotherapy as the clinical suitability of the delivered dose distribution that can be realistically expected from a treatment plan. Plan quality is commonly assessed by evaluating the dose distribution calculated by the treatment planning system (TPS). Evaluating the 3D dose distribution is not easy, however; it is hard to fully evaluate its spatial characteristics and we still lack the knowledge for personalising the prediction of the clinical outcome based on individual patient characteristics. This advocates for standardisation and systematic collection of clinical data and outcomes after radiotherapy. Additionally, the calculated dose distribution is not exactly the dose delivered to the patient due to uncertainties in the dose calculation and the treatment delivery, including variations in the patient set-up and anatomy. Consequently, plan quality also depends on the robustness and complexity of the treatment plan. We believe that future work and consensus on the best metrics for quality indices are required. Better tools are needed in TPSs for the evaluation of dose distributions, for the robust evaluation and optimisation of treatment plans, and for controlling and reporting plan complexity. Implementation of such tools and a better understanding of these concepts will facilitate the handling of these characteristics in clinical practice and be helpful to increase the overall quality of treatment plans in radiotherapy.

A novel procedure for determining the optimal MLC configuration parameters in treatment planning systems based on measurements with a Farmer chamber

Modelling of the multi-leaf collimator (MLC) in treatment planning systems (TPS) is crucial for the dose calculation accuracy of intensity-modulated radiation therapy plans. However, no standardised methodology for their configuration exists to date. In this study we present a method that separates the effect of each dosimetric characteristic of the MLC, offering comprehensive equations for the determination of the configuration parameters used in the TPS model. The main advantage of the method is that it only requires prior knowledge of the nominal leaf width and is based on doses measured with a Farmer chamber, which is a very well established and robust methodology. Another significant advantage is the required time, since measuring the tests takes only about 30 minutes per energy. Firstly, we provide a theoretical general formalism in terms of the primary fluence constructed from the transmission map obtained from an MLC model for synchronous and asynchronous sweeping beams. Secondly, we apply the formalism to the RayStation TPS as a proof of concept and we derive analytical expressions that allow the determination of the configuration parameters (leaf tip width, tongue-and-groove width, x-position offset and MLC transmission) and describe how they intertwine. Finally, we apply the method to Varian's Millennium120 and HD120 MLCs in a TrueBeam linear accelerator for different energies and determine the optimal configuration parameters. The proposed procedure is much faster and streamlined than the typical trial-and-error methods and increases the accuracy of dose calculation in clinical plans. Additionally, the procedure can be useful for standardising the MLC configuration process and it exposes the limitations of the implemented MLC model, providing guidance for further improvement of these models in TPSs.

MLC parameters from static fields to VMAT plans: an evaluation in a RT-dedicated MC environment (PRIMO)

Background

PRIMO is a graphical environment based on PENELOPE Monte Carlo (MC) simulation of radiotherapy beams able to compute dose distribution in patients, from plans with different techniques. The dosimetric characteristics of an HD-120 MLC (Varian), simulated using PRIMO, were here compared with measurements, and also with Acuros calculations (in the Eclipse treatment planning system, Varian).

Materials and methods

A 10 MV FFF beam from a Varian EDGE linac equipped with the HD-120 MLC was used for this work. Initially, the linac head was simulated inside PRIMO, and validated against measurements in a water phantom. Then, a series of different MLC patterns were established to assess the MLC dosimetric characteristics. Those tests included: i) static fields: output factors from MLC shaped fields (2 × 2 to 10 × 10 cm²), alternate open and closed leaf pattern, MLC transmitted dose; ii) dynamic fields: dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) evaluated with sweeping gaps, tongue and groove (TG) effect assessed with profiles across alternate open and closed leaves moving across the field. The doses in the different tests were simulated in PRIMO and then compared with EBT3 film measurements in solid water phantom, as well as with Acuros calculations. Finally, MC in PRIMO and Acuros were compared in some clinical cases, summarizing the clinical complexity in view of a possible use of PRIMO as an independent dose calculation check.

Results

Static output factor MLC tests showed an agreement between MC calculated and measured OF of 0.5%. The dynamic tests presented DLG values of 0.033 ± 0.003 cm and 0.032 ± 0.006 cm for MC and measurements, respectively. Regarding the TG tests, a general agreement between the dose distributions of 1–2% was achieved, except for the extreme patterns (very small gaps/field sizes and high TG effect) were the agreement was about 4–5%. The analysis of the clinical cases, the Gamma agreement between MC in PRIMO and Acuros dose calculation in Eclipse was of 99.5 ± 0.2% for 3%/2 mm criteria of dose difference/distance to agreement.

Conclusions

MC simulations in the PRIMO environment were in agreement with measurements for the HD-120 MLC in a 10 MV FFF beam from a Varian EDGE linac. This result allowed to consistently compare clinical cases, showing the possible use of PRIMO as an independent dose calculation check tool.

Beam modeling and beam model commissioning for Monte Carlo dose calculation-based radiation therapy treatment planning: Report of AAPM Task Group 157

Dose calculation plays an important role in the accuracy of radiotherapy treatment planning and beam delivery. The Monte Carlo (MC) method is capable of achieving the highest accuracy in radiotherapy dose calculation and has been implemented in many commercial systems for radiotherapy treatment planning. The objective of this task group was to assist clinical physicists with the potentially complex task of acceptance testing and commissioning MC-based treatment planning systems (TPS) for photon and electron beam dose calculations. This report provides an overview on the general approach of clinical implementation and testing of MC-based TPS with a specific focus on models of clinical photon and electron beams. Different types of beam models are described including those that utilize MC simulation of the treatment head and those that rely on analytical methods and measurements. The trade-off between accuracy and efficiency in the various source-modeling approaches is discussed together with guidelines for acceptance testing of MC-based TPS from the clinical standpoint. Specific recommendations are given on methods and practical procedures to commission clinical beam models for MC-based TPS.

Comparison of gamma index based on dosimetric error and clinically relevant dose-volume index based on three-dimensional dose prediction in breast intensity-modulated radiation therapy

Background

Measurement-guided dose reconstruction has lately attracted significant attention because it can predict the delivered patient dose distribution. Although the treatment planning system (TPS) uses sophisticated algorithm to calculate the dose distribution, the calculation accuracy depends on the particular TPS used. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between the gamma passing rate (GPR) and the clinically relevant dose–volume index based on the predicted 3D patient dose distribution derived from two TPSs (XiO, RayStation).

Methods

Twenty-one breast intensity-modulated radiation therapy plans were inversely optimized using XiO. With the same plans, both TPSs calculated the planned dose distribution. We conducted per-beam measurements on the coronal plane using a 2D array detector and analyzed the difference in 2D GPRs between the measured and planned doses by commercial software. Using in-house software, we calculated the predicted 3D patient dose distribution and derived the predicted 3D GPR, the predicted per-organ 3D GPR, and the predicted clinically relevant dose–volume indices [dose–volume histogram metrics and the value of the tumor-control probability/normal tissue complication probability of the planning target volume and organs at risk]. The results derived from XiO were compared with those from RayStation.

Results

While the mean 2D GPRs derived from both TPSs were 98.1% (XiO) and 100% (RayStation), the mean predicted 3D GPRs of ipsilateral lung (73.3% [XiO] and 85.9% [RayStation]; p < 0.001) had no correlation with 2D GPRs under the 3% global/3 mm criterion. Besides, this significant difference in terms of referenced TPS between XiO and RayStation could be explained by the fact that the error of predicted V_5Gy of ipsilateral lung derived from XiO (29.6%) was significantly larger than that derived from RayStation (− 0.2%; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

GPR is useful as a patient quality assurance to detect dosimetric errors; however, it does not necessarily contain detailed information on errors. Using the predicted clinically relevant dose–volume indices, the clinical interpretation of dosimetric errors can be obtained. We conclude that a clinically relevant dose–volume index based on the predicted 3D patient dose distribution could add to the clinical and biological considerations in the GPR, if we can guarantee the dose calculation accuracy of referenced TPS.

Dosimetric evaluation of the compass program for patient dose analysis in IMRT delivery quality assurance

A practical method was designed to verify the accuracy of dose distributions calculated using Compass, which can reconstruct the dose distribution inside a patient’s body during intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Twelve virtual IMRT treatment plans were developed using an ArcCHECK diode detector array, and then the recalculated and reconstructed doses in Compass were compared with the actual measurements to assess the dosimetric accuracy. Based on the results of gamma evaluation for the 12 plans, Compass achieved average pass rates higher than 98%, which confirmed proper dosimetric accuracy in the IMRT quality assurance process. The validity of Compass for clinical applications was also confirmed through an additional comparison with the results calculated using 3DVH, another dose reconstruction program. It is necessary to verify the accuracy of the dose calculated using the program in advance before the commercialized dose reconstruction program is applied in clinical practice. This study has limitations in that it did not provide a real scientific contribution such as an introduction of new algorithm for dose calculation and the development of new measurement tools. However, the method based on the comparative analysis with the actual measured dose values as devised in this study seems to be useful in that it can be applied effectively to verify the dosimetric accuracy of the dose reconstruction program before first using it in the clinical cases.

A new method for modelling the tongue-and-groove in treatment planning systems

Commercial TPSs typically model the tongue-and-groove (TG) by extending the projections of the leaf sides by a certain constant width. However, this model may produce discrepancies of as much as 7%-10% in the calculated average doses, especially for the High Definition multi-leaf collimator (MLC) (Hernandez et al 2017 Phys. Med. Biol. 62 6688-707). The purpose of the present study is to introduce and validate a new method for modelling the TG that uses a non constant TG width. We provide the theoretical background and a detailed methodology to determine the optimal shape of this TG width from measurements and we fit an empirical function to the TG width that depended on two parameters [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text]. Parameter [Formula: see text] represents the TG width and [Formula: see text] introduces a curvature correction in the width near the leaf tip end. The new TG model was implemented in MATLAB and when the curvature correction was zero ([Formula: see text]) it caused the same discrepancies as the constant width model used by the Eclipse TPS. On the other hand, when the experimentally determined [Formula: see text] was used the new model's calculations were in close agreement with measurements, with all differences in average doses [Formula: see text]1%. Additionally, film dosimetry was used to successfully validate the potential of the new TG model to recreate the fine spatial details associated to TG effects. We also showed that the parameters [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text] depend solely on the MLC design by evaluating three different linear accelerators for each MLC model considered, namely Varian's High Definition and Millennium120 MLCs. In conclusion, a new method was presented that greatly improves the TG modelling. The present method can be easily implemented in commercial TPSs and has the potential to further increase their accuracy, especially for MLCs with rounded leaf ends.

Comparison of complexity metrics for multi-institutional evaluations of treatment plans in radiotherapy

•

Several complexity metrics were highly correlated and can be considered equivalent.

•

Other metrics produced different results, especially for plans from different TPSs.

•

Different TPSs prioritise modulation of different plan parameters.

•

The ranking of plan complexity can greatly depend on the metric used.

•

This must be carefully considered in multi-institutional plan comparisons.

Background and purpose

It is known that intensity-modulated radiotherapy plans that are highly complex might be less accurate in dose calculation and treatment delivery. Multiple complexity metrics have been proposed, but the relationships between them have not been thoroughly investigated. This study investigated these relationships in multi-institutional comparisons of treatment plans, where plans from multiple treatment planning systems (TPSs) are typically evaluated.

Materials and methods

A program was developed to compute several complexity indices and provide analysis of dynamic plan parameters. This in-house software was used to analyse plans from a recent multi-institutional audit. Additionally, 100 clinical volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans from two institutions using different TPSs were analysed.

Results

All plans produced satisfactory pre-treatment verification results and, hence, complexity metrics could not be used to predict plans failing QA. Regarding the relationship among complexity indices, some very strong correlations were found (r > 0.9 with p < 0.01). However, some relevant discrepancies between complexity indices were obtained, even with negative correlation coefficients (r ∼ −0.6) which were expected to be positive. These discrepancies could be explained because each complexity index focused on different features of the plan and different TPSs prioritised modulation of different plan parameters.

Conclusions

Some complexity indices provided similar information and can be considered equivalent. However, indices that focused on different plan parameters yielded different results and it was unclear which complexity index should be used. Careful consideration should be given to the use of complexity metrics in multi-institutional studies.

The Impact of Dose Rate on the Accuracy of Step-and-Shoot Intensity-modulated Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance Using Varian 2300CD

Introduction

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) delivery using "step-and-shoot" technique on Varian C-Series linear accelerator (linac) is influenced by the communication frequency between the multileaf collimator and linac controllers. Hence, the dose delivery accuracy is affected by the dose rate.

Aim

Our aim was to quantify the impact of using two dose rates on plan quality assurance (QA).

Materials and Methods

Twenty IMRT patients were selected for this study. The plan QA was measured at two different dose rates. A gamma analysis was performed, and the degree of plan modulation on the QA pass rate was also evaluated in terms of average monitor unit per segment (MU/segment) and the total number of segments.

Results

The mean percentage gamma pass rate of 94.9% and 93.5% for 300 MU/min and 600 MU/min dose rate, respectively, was observed. There was a significant (P = 0.001) decrease in percentage gamma pass rate when the dose rate was increased from 300 MU/min to 600 MU/min. There was a weak, but significant association between the percentage pass rate at both dose rate and total number of segments. The total number of MU was significantly correlated to the total number of segments (r = 0.59). We found a positive correlation between the percentage pass rate and mean MU/segment, r = 0.52 and r = 0.57 for 300 MU/min and 600 MU/min, respectively.

Conclusion

IMRT delivery using step-and-shoot technique on Varian 2300CD is impacted by the dose rate and the total amount of segments.

Interpretation of Gamma Index for Quality Assurance of Simultaneously Integrated Boost (SIB) IMRT Plans for Head and Neck Carcinoma

Objective: The Gamma Index is prerequisite to estimate point-by-point difference between measured and calculated dose distribution in terms of both Distance to Agreement (DTA) and Dose Difference (DD). This study aims to inquire what percentage of pixels passing a certain criteria assure a good quality plan and suggest gamma index as efficient mechanism for dose verification of Simultaneous Integrated Boost Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy plans.

Method: In this study, dose was calculated for 14 head and neck patients and IMRT Quality Assurance was performed with portal dosimetry using the Eclipse treatment planning system. Eclipse software has a Gamma analysis function to compare measured and calculated dose distribution. Plans of this study were deemed acceptable when passing rate was 95% using tolerance for Distance to agreement (DTA) as 3mm and Dose Difference (DD) as 5%.

Result and Conclusion: Thirteen cases pass tolerance criteria of 95% set by our institution. Confidence Limit for DD is 9.3% and for gamma criteria our local CL came out to be 2.0% (i.e., 98.0% passing). Lack of correlation was found between DD and γ passing rate with R2 of 0.0509. Our findings underline the importance of gamma analysis method to predict the quality of dose calculation. Passing rate of 95% is achieved in 93% of cases which is adequate level of accuracy for analyzed plans thus assuring the robustness of SIB IMRT treatment technique. This study can be extended to investigate gamma criteria of 5%/3mm for different tumor localities and to explore confidence limit on target volumes of small extent and simple geometry.

Dosimetric evaluation of MobiusFX in the RapidArc delivery quality assurance comparing with 3DVH

The dosimetric characteristics of MobiusFX, which uses the treatment machine log file to calculate the dose inside the patient body, were analyzed for use in the RapidArc delivery quality assurance (DQA) process. The accuracy and usefulness of MobiusFX in clinical cases was evaluated by comparing the dose calculated by MobiusFX with that calculated by the conventional measurement dose based program, 3DVH. The results of gamma evaluation with three different criteria (3%–3 mm, 4%–3 mm, 5%–3 mm) were analyzed, and the dose changes were calculated while simulating variable position errors (6 mm, 3 mm) and dosimetric output increases (6%, 3%). Although the doses calculated by each tool were not identical due to differences in the calculation algorithms, the doses calculated by MobiusFX were generally similar to those calculated by 3DVH. Based on these results, MobiusFX exhibited the required accuracy for clinical application. However, it could not determine the dosimetric output variation. It should therefore be considered a supplementary DQA tool that can verify the error in the daily treatment process, but not an ideal DQA tool that can replace conventional measurement based DQA methods.

Commissioning of the tongue-and-groove modelling in treatment planning systems: from static fields to VMAT treatments

Adequate modelling of the multi-leaf collimator (MLC) by treatment planning systems (TPS) is essential for accurate dose calculations in intensity-modulated radiation-therapy. For this reason modern TPSs incorporate MLC characteristics such as the leaf end curvature, MLC transmission and the tongue-and-groove. However, the modelling of the tongue-and-groove is often neglected during TPS commissioning and it is not known how accurate it is. This study evaluates the dosimetric consequences of the tongue-and-groove effect for two different MLC models using both film dosimetry and ionisation chambers. A set of comprehensive tests are presented that evaluate the ability of TPSs to accurately model this effect in (a) static fields, (b) sliding window beams and (c) VMAT arcs. The tests proposed are useful for the commissioning of TPSs and for the validation of major upgrades. With the ECLIPSE TPS, relevant differences were found between calculations and measurements for beams with dynamic MLCs in the presence of the TG effect, especially for the High Definition MLC, small gap sizes and the 1 mm calculation grid. For this combination, dose differences as high as 10% and 7% were obtained for dynamic MLC gaps of 5 mm and 10 mm, respectively. These differences indicate inadequate modelling of the tongue-and-groove effect, which might not be identified without the proposed tests. In particular, the TPS tended to underestimate the calculated dose, which may require tuning of other configuration parameters in the TPS (such as the dosimetric leaf gap) in order to maximise the agreement between calculations and measurements in clinical plans. In conclusion, a need for better modelling of the MLC by TPSs is demonstrated, one of the relevant aspects being the tongue-and-groove effect. This would improve the accuracy of TPS calculations, especially for plans using small MLC gaps, such as plans with small target volumes or high complexities. Improved modelling of the MLC would also reduce the need for tuning parameters in the TPS, facilitating a more comprehensive configuration and commissioning of TPSs.

Determining the optimal dosimetric leaf gap setting for rounded leaf-end multileaf collimator systems by simple test fields

Individual QA for IMRT/VMAT plans is required by protocols. Sometimes plans cannot pass the institute's QA criteria. For the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) with rounded leaf‐end multileaf collimator (MLC), one practical way to improve the agreement of planned and delivered doses is to tune the value of dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) in the TPS from the measured DLG. We propose that this step may be necessary due to the complexity of the MLC system, including dosimetry of small fields and the tongue‐and‐groove (T&G) effects, and report our use of test fields to obtain linac‐specific optimal DLGs in TPSs. More than 20 original patient plans were reoptimized with the linac‐specific optimal DLG value. We examined the distribution of gaps and T&G extensions in typical patient plans and the effect of using the optimal DLG on the distribution. The QA pass rate of patient plans using the optimal DLG was investigated. The dose‐volume histograms (DVHs) of targets and organs at risk were checked. We tested three MLC systems (Varian millennium 120 MLC, high‐definition 120 MLC, and Siemens 160 MLC) installed in four Varian linear accelerators (linacs) (TrueBEAM STx, Trilogy, Clinac 2300 iX, and Clinac 21 EX) and 1 Siemens linac (Artiste). With an optimal DLG, the individual QA for all those patient plans passed the institute's criteria (95% in DTA test or gamma test with 3%/3 mm/10%), even though most of these plans had failed to pass QA when using original DLGs optimized from typical patient plans or from the optimization process (automodeler) of Pinnacle TPS. Using either our optimal DLG or one optimized from typical patient plans or from the Pinnacle optimization process yielded similar DVHs.

PACS number: 87.55Qr

Dosimetric effects of multileaf collimator leaf width on intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head and neck cancer

PURPOSE

The authors evaluated the effects of multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf width (2.5 vs. 5 mm) on dosimetric parameters and delivery efficiencies of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for head and neck (H&N) cancers.

METHODS

The authors employed two types of mock phantoms: large-sized head and neck (LH&N) and small-sized C-shape (C-shape) phantoms. Step-and-shoot IMRT (S&S_IMRT) and VMAT treatment plans were designed with 2.5- and 5.0-mm MLC for both C-shape and LH&N phantoms. Their dosimetric characteristics were compared in terms of the conformity index (CI) and homogeneity index (HI) for the planning target volume (PTV), the dose to organs at risk (OARs), and the dose-spillage volume. To analyze the effects of the field and arc numbers, 9-field IMRT (9F-IMRT) and 13-field IMRT (13F-IMRT) plans were established for S&S_IMRT. For VMAT, single arc (VMAT1) and double arc (VMAT2) plans were established. For all plans, dosimetric verification was performed using the phantom to examine the relationship between dosimetric errors and the two leaf widths. Delivery efficiency of the two MLCs was compared in terms of beam delivery times, monitor units (MUs) per fraction, and the number of segments for each plan.

RESULTS

2.5-mm MLC showed better dosimetric characteristics in S&S_IMRT and VMAT for C-shape, providing better CI for PTV and lower spinal cord dose and high and intermediate dose-spillage volume as compared with the 5-mm MLC (p < 0.05). However, no significant dosimetric benefits were provided by the 2.5-mm MLC for LH&N (p > 0.05). Further, beam delivery efficiency was not observed to be significantly associated with leaf width for either C-shape or LH&N. However, MUs per fraction were significantly reduced for the 2.5-mm MLC for the LH&N. In dosimetric error analysis, absolute dose evaluations had errors of less than 3%, while the Gamma passing rate was greater than 95% according to the 3%/3 mm criteria. There were no significant differences in dosimetric error between the 2.5- and 5-mm MLCs.

CONCLUSIONS

As compared with MLC of 5-mm leaf widths, MLC with finer leaf width (2.5-mm) can provide better dosimetric outcomes in IMRT for C-shape. However, the MLC leaf width may only have minor effects on dosimetric characteristics in IMRT for LH&N. The results of the present study will serve as a useful assessment standard when assigning or introducing equipment for the treatment of H&N cancers.

A systematic approach to statistical analysis in dosimetry and patient-specific IMRT plan verification measurements

PURPOSE

In the presence of random uncertainties, delivered radiation treatment doses in patient likely exhibit a statistical distribution. The expected dose and variance of this distribution are unknown and are most likely not equal to the planned value since the current treatment planning systems cannot exactly model and simulate treatment machine. Relevant clinical questions are 1) how to quantitatively estimate the expected delivered dose and extrapolate the expected dose to the treatment dose over a treatment course and 2) how to evaluate the treatment dose relative to the corresponding planned dose. This study is to present a systematic approach to address these questions and to apply this approach to patient-specific IMRT (PSIMRT) plan verifications.

METHODS

The expected delivered dose in patient and variance are quantitatively estimated using Student T distribution and Chi Distribution, respectively, based on pre-treatment QA measurements. Relationships between the expected dose and the delivered dose over a treatment course and between the expected dose and the planned dose are quantified with mathematical formalisms. The requirement and evaluation of the pre-treatment QA measurement results are also quantitatively related to the desired treatment accuracy and to the to-be-delivered treatment course itself. The developed methodology was applied to PSIMRT plan verification procedures for both QA result evaluation and treatment quality estimation.

RESULTS

Statistically, the pre-treatment QA measurement process was dictated not only by the corresponding plan but also by the delivered dose deviation, number of measurements, treatment fractionation, potential uncertainties during patient treatment, and desired treatment accuracy tolerance. For the PSIMRT QA procedures, in theory, more than one measurement had to be performed to evaluate whether the to-be-delivered treatment course would meet the desired dose coverage and treatment tolerance.

CONCLUSION

By acknowledging and considering the statistical nature of multi-fractional delivery of radiation treatment, we have established a quantitative methodology to evaluate the PSIMRT QA results. Both the statistical parameters associated with the QA measurement procedure and treatment course need to be taken into account to evaluate the QA outcome and to determine whether the plan is acceptable and whether additional measures should be taken to reduce treatment uncertainties. The result from a single QA measurement without the appropriate statistical analysis can be misleading. When the required number of measurements is comparable to the planned number of fractions and the variance is unacceptably high, action must be taken to either modify the plan or adjust the beam delivery system.

Evaluation of triple channel correction acquisition method for radiochromic film dosimetry

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the triple channel correction acquisition (TCCA) method for radiochromic film dosimetry performed with a flatbed scanner. The study had two parts: a fundamental and a clinical examination. In the fundamental examination, we evaluated the accuracy of calibration curves for Gafchromic EBT2 (EBT2). The films were calibrated using a field-by-field method with 13 dose steps. Seven calibration curves obtained by TCCA were compared with those produced by a single channel acquisition (SCA) method. For the clinical examination, we compared relative dose distributions obtained by TCCA and SCA for four cases of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT). The fundamental examination showed that the consistency of the calibration curves was better for TCCA than for SCA, particularly for the dose range between 0.25 Gy and 1.00 Gy. The clinical examination showed that the dose differences between the measured and calculated doses in high-gradient regions were smaller with TCCA than with SCA. The average pass rates in gamma analysis for the TCCA and SCA methods were 97.2 ± 0.8% (n = 20) and 93.0 ± 1.2% (n = 20), respectively. In conclusion, TCCA can acquire accurate average dose values when creating the calibration curve. The potential advantage of TCCA for EBT2 film dosimetry was seen in high-gradient regions in clinically relevant IMRT and IMAT cases. TCCA is useful to verify dose distribution.

Statistical analysis of IMRT dosimetry quality assurance measurements for local delivery guideline

Purpose

To establish our institutional guideline for IMRT delivery, we statistically evaluated the results of dosimetry quality assurance (DQA) measurements and derived local confidence limits using the concept confidence limit of |mean|+1.96σ.

Materials and methods

From June 2006 to March 2009, 206 patients with head and neck cancer, prostate cancer, liver cancer, or brain tumor were treated using LINAC-based IMRT technique. In order to determine site specific DQA tolerances at a later stage, a hybrid plan with the same fluence maps as in the treatment plan was generated on CT images of a cylindrical phantom of acryl. Points of measurement using a 0.125 cm³ ion-chamber were typically located in the region of high and uniform doses. The planar dose distributions perpendicular to the central axis were measured by using a diode array in solid water with all fields delivered, and assessed using gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm. The mean values and standard deviations were used to develop the local confidence and tolerance limits. The dose differences and gamma pass rates for the different treatment sites were also evaluated in terms of total monitor uints (MU), MU/cGy, and the number of PTV's pieces.

Results

The mean values and standard deviations of ion-chamber dosimetry differences between calculated and measured doses were -1.6 ± 1.2% for H&N cancer, -0.4 ± 1.2% for prostate and abdominal cancer, and -0.6 ± 1.5% for brain tumor. Most of measured doses (92.2%) agreed with the calculated doses within a tolerance limit of ±3% recommended in the literature. However, we found some systematic under-dosage for all treatment sites. The percentage of points passing the gamma criteria, averaged over all treatment sites was 97.3 ± 3.7%. The gamma pass rate and the agreement of ion-chamber dosimetry generally decreased with increasing the number of PTV's pieces, the degree of modulation (MU/cGy), and the total MU beyond 700. Our local confidence limits were comparable to those of AAPM TG 119 and ESTRO guidelines that were provided as a practical baseline for center-to-center commissioning comparison. Thus, our institutional confidence and action limits for IMRT delivery were set into the same levels of those guidelines.

Discussion and Conclusions

The systematic under-dosage were corrected by tuning up the MLC-related factors (dosimetric gap and transmission) in treatment planning system (TPS) and further by incorporating the tongue-and groove effect into TPS. Institutions that have performed IMRT DQA measurements over a certain period of time need to analyze their accrued DQA data. We confirmed the overall integrity of our IMRT system and established the IMRT delivery guideline during this procedure. Dosimetric corrections for the treatment plans outside of the action level can be suggested only with such rigorous DQA and statistical analysis.