Beam-commissioning methodology for a three-dimensional convolution/superposition photon dose algorithm

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

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

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

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

Maintaining dosimetric quality when switching to a Monte Carlo dose engine for head and neck volumetric-modulated arc therapy planning

Head and neck cancers present challenges in radiation treatment planning due to the large number of critical structures near the target(s) and highly heterogeneous tissue composition. While Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculations currently offer the most accurate approximation of dose deposition in tissue, the switch to MC presents challenges in preserving the parameters of care. The differences in dose‐to‐tissue were widely discussed in the literature, but mostly in the context of recalculating the existing plans rather than reoptimizing with the MC dose engine. Also, the target dose homogeneity received less attention. We adhere to strict dose homogeneity objectives in clinical practice. In this study, we started with 21 clinical volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans previously developed in Pinnacle treatment planning system. Those plans were recalculated “as is” with RayStation (RS) MC algorithm and then reoptimized in RS with both collapsed cone (CC) and MC algorithms. MC statistical uncertainty (0.3%) was selected carefully to balance the dose computation time (1–2 min) with the planning target volume (PTV) dose‐volume histogram (DVH) shape approaching that of a “noise‐free” calculation. When the hot spot in head and neck MC‐based treatment planning is defined as dose to 0.03 cc, it is exceedingly difficult to limit it to 105% of the prescription dose, as we were used to with the CC algorithm. The average hot spot after optimization and calculation with RS MC was statistically significantly higher compared to Pinnacle and RS CC algorithms by 1.2 and 1.0 %, respectively. The 95% confidence interval (CI) observed in this study suggests that in most cases a hot spot of ≤107% is achievable. Compared to the 95% CI for the previous clinical plans recalculated with RS MC “as is” (upper limit 108%), in real terms this result is at least as good or better than the historic plans.

Reference dataset of users' photon beam modeling parameters for the Eclipse, Pinnacle, and RayStation treatment planning systems

PURPOSE

The aim of this work was to provide a novel description of how the radiotherapy community configures treatment planning system (TPS) radiation beam models for clinically used treatment machines. Here we describe the results of a survey of self-reported TPS beam modeling parameter values across different C-arm linear accelerators, beam energies, and multileaf collimator (MLC) configurations.

ACQUISITION AND VALIDATION METHODS

Beam modeling data were acquired via electronic survey implemented through the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) Houston Quality Assurance Center's online facility questionnaire. The survey was open to participation from January 2018 through January 2019 for all institutions monitored by IROC. After quality control, 2818 beam models were collected from 642 institutions. This survey, designed for Eclipse, Pinnacle, and RayStation, instructed physicists to report parameter values used to model the radiation source and MLC for each treatment machine and beam energy used clinically for intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Parameters collected included the effective source/spot size, MLC transmission, dosimetric leaf gap, tongue and groove effect, and other nondosimetric parameters specific to each TPS. To facilitate survey participation, instructions were provided on how to identify requested beam modeling parameters within each TPS environment.

DATA FORMAT AND USAGE NOTES

Numeric values of the beam modeling parameters are compiled and tabulated according to TPS and calculation algorithm, linear accelerator model class, beam energy, and MLC configuration. Values are also presented as distributions, ranging from the 2.5th to the 97.5th percentile.

POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS

These data provide an independent guide describing how the radiotherapy community mathematically represents its clinical radiation beams. These distributions may be used by the community for comparison during the commissioning or verification of their TPS beam models. Ultimately, we hope that the current work will allow institutions to spot potentially suspicious parameter values and help ensure more accurate radiotherapy delivery.

Validation of a GPU-Based 3D dose calculator for modulated beams

A superposition/convolution GPU-accelerated dose computation algorithm (the Calculator) has been recently incorporated into commercial software. The algorithm requires validation prior to clinical use. Three photon energies were examined: conventional 6 MV and 15 MV, and 10 MV flattening filter free (10 MVFFF). For a set of IMRT and VMAT plans based on four of the five AAPM Practice Guideline 5a downloadable datasets, ion chamber (IC) measurements were performed on the water-equivalent phantoms. The average difference between the Calculator and IC was -0.3 ± 0.8% (1SD). The same plans were projected on a phantom containing a biplanar diode array. We used the forthcoming criteria for routine gamma analysis, 3% dose-error (global (G) normalization, 2 mm distance to agreement, and 10% low dose cutoff). The γ (3%G/2 mm) average passing rate was 98.9 ± 2.1%. Measurement-guided three-dimensional dose reconstruction on the patient CT dataset (excluding the Lung) resulted in a similar average agreement rate with the Calculator: 98.2 ± 2.0%. The mean γ (3%G/2 mm) passing rate comparing the Calculator to the TPS (again excluding the Lung) was 99.0 ± 1.0%. Because of the significant inhomogeneity, the Lung case was investigated separately. The calculator has an alternate heterogeneity correction mode that can change the results in the thorax for higher-energy beams (15 MV). As this correction is nonphysical and was optimized for simple slab geometries, its application leads to mixed results when compared to the TPS and independent Monte Carlo calculations, depending on the CT dataset and the plan. The Calculator vs. TPS 15 MV Guideline 5a IMRT and VMAT plans demonstrate 96.3% and 93.4% γ (3%G/2 mm) passing rates respectively. For the lower energies, which should be predominantly used in the thoracic region, the passing rates for the same plans and criteria range from 98.6 to 100%. Overall, the Calculator accuracy is sufficient for the intended use.

Implementation of the validation testing in MPPG 5.a "Commissioning and QA of treatment planning dose calculations-megavoltage photon and electron beams"

The AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) 5.a provides concise guidance on the commissioning and QA of beam modeling and dose calculation in radiotherapy treatment planning systems. This work discusses the implementation of the validation testing recommended in MPPG 5.a at two institutions. The two institutions worked collaboratively to create a common set of treatment fields and analysis tools to deliver and analyze the validation tests. This included the development of a novel, open‐source software tool to compare scanning water tank measurements to 3D DICOM‐RT Dose distributions. Dose calculation algorithms in both Pinnacle and Eclipse were tested with MPPG 5.a to validate the modeling of Varian TrueBeam linear accelerators. The validation process resulted in more than 200 water tank scans and more than 50 point measurements per institution, each of which was compared to a dose calculation from the institution's treatment planning system (TPS). Overall, the validation testing recommended in MPPG 5.a took approximately 79 person‐hours for a machine with four photon and five electron energies for a single TPS. Of the 79 person‐hours, 26 person‐hours required time on the machine, and the remainder involved preparation and analysis. The basic photon, electron, and heterogeneity correction tests were evaluated with the tolerances in MPPG 5.a, and the tolerances were met for all tests. The MPPG 5.a evaluation criteria were used to assess the small field and IMRT/VMAT validation tests. Both institutions found the use of MPPG 5.a to be a valuable resource during the commissioning process. The validation testing in MPPG 5.a showed the strengths and limitations of the TPS models. In addition, the data collected during the validation testing is useful for routine QA of the TPS, validation of software upgrades, and commissioning of new algorithms.

Quantitative analysis of brass compensators for commissioning of the Pinnacle planning system for IMRT

Brass compensators for beam modulation present an alternative method for IMRT treatment planning to traditional dynamic leaf modulation. In this work, we present a detailed method to commission the Pinnacle treatment planning system for IMRT using brass compensators. Beam attenuation from various brass thicknesses were measured using an ion chamber, as well as a MapCHECK device, for a representative seven-field IMRT plan. We show that Pinnacle's parameters for compensators can be optimized to match the measured results while still maintaining the original open-beam model. Only Pinnacle's modified scatter factor and brass density value were adjusted. Beam attenuation in several brass slabs were optimized by minimizing a χ(2) function of measured and modeled data for several depths in solid water. Using MapCHECK, Pinnacle's parameters were optimized by minimizing the number of points that fail during a gamma analysis of seven fields in a typical IMRT plan. Our results show that Pinnacle's 10X beam is best modeled using a brass density of 7.8 g/cm(3) and a modified scatter factor of 0.1 cm(-1).

AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 5.a.: Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations - Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8,000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States. The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for the purpose of revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner. Each medical physics practice guideline represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice guidelines and technical standards by those entities not providing these services is not authorized. The following terms are used in the AAPM practice guidelines:• Must and Must Not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline.• Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances.

A dosimetric evaluation of flattening filter-free volumetric modulated arc therapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma

PURPOSE

To explore the dosimetric effects of flattening filter-free (FFF) beams in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) of nasopharyngeal carcinoma via a retrospective planning study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A linear accelerator (LINAC) was prepared to operate in FFF mode and the beam data were collected and used to build a model in TPS. For 10 nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) cases, VMAT plans of FFF beams and normal flattened (FF) beams were designed. Differences of plan quality and delivery efficiency between FFF-VMAT plans and filter filtered VMAT (FF-VMAT) plans were analyzed using two-tailed paired t-tests.

RESULTS

Removal of the flattening filter increased the dose rate. Averaged beam on time (BOT) of FFF-VMAT plans was decreased by 24.2%. Differences of target dose coverage between plans with flattened and unflattened beams were statistically insignificant. For dose to normal organs, up to 4.9% decrease in V35 of parotid grand and 4.5% decrease in averaged normal tissue (NT) dose was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The TPS used in our study was able to handle FFF beams. The FFF beam prone to improve the normal tissue sparing while achieving similar target dose distribution. Decreasing of BOT in NPC cases was valuable in terms of patient's comfort.

Commissioning and verification of the collapsed cone convolution superposition algorithm for SBRT delivery using flattening filter-free beams

Linacs equipped with flattening filter‐free (FFF) megavoltage photon beams are now commercially available. However, the commissioning of FFF beams poses challenges that are not shared with traditional flattened megavoltage X‐ray beams. The planning system must model a beam that is peaked in the center and has an energy spectrum that is softer than the flattened beam. Removing the flattening filter also increases the maximum possible dose rates from 600 MU/min up to 2400 MU/min in some cases; this increase in dose rate affects the recombination correction factor, Pion, used during absolute dose calibration with ionization chambers. We present the first‐reported experience of commissioning, verification, and clinical use of the collapsed cone convolution superposition (CCCS) dose calculation algorithm for commercially available flattening filter‐free beams. Our commissioning data are compared to previously reported measurements and Monte Carlo studies of FFF beams. Commissioning was verified by making point‐dose measurement of test plans, irradiating the RPC lung phantom, and performing patient‐specific QA. The average point‐dose difference between calculations and measurements of all test plans and all patient specific QA measurements is 0.80%, and the RPC phantom absolute dose differences for the two thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) in the phantom planning target volume (PTV) were 1% and 2%, respectively. One hundred percent (100%) of points in the RPC phantom films passed the RPC gamma criteria of 5% and 5 mm. Our results show that the CCCS algorithm can accurately model FFF beams and calculate SBRT dose distributions using those beams.

PACS number: 87.55.kh

Equivalent-quality unflattened photon beam modeling, planning, and delivery

The clinical application of the flattening filter‐free photon beam (FFF) has enjoyed greater use due to its advantage of reduced treatment time because of the increased dose rate. Its unique beam characteristics, along with the very high‐dose rate, require a thorough knowledge of the capability and accuracy in FFF beam modeling, planning, and delivery. This work verifies the feasibility of modeling an equivalent quality unflattened photon beam (eqUF), and the dosimetric accuracy in eqUF beam planning and delivery. An eqUF beam with a beam quality equivalent to a conventional 6 MV photon beam with the filter in place (WF) was modeled for the Pinnacle³ TPS and the beam model quality was evaluated by gamma index test. Results showed that the eqUF beam modeling was similar to that of the WF beam, as the overall passing rate of the 2%/2mm gamma index test was 99.5% in the eqUF beam model and 96% in the WF beam model. Hypofractionated IMRT plans were then generated with the same constraints using both WF and eqUF beams, and the similarity was evaluated by DVH comparison and generalized 3D gamma index test. The WF and eqUF plans showed no clinically significant differences in DVH comparison and, on average >98% voxels passed the 3%/3mm 3D gamma index test. Dosimetric accuracy in gated phantom delivery was verified by ion chamber and film measurements. All ion chamber measurements at the isocenter were within 1% of calculated values and film measurements passed the 3mm/3% gamma index test with an overall passing rate >95% in the high‐dose and low‐gradient region in both WF and eqUF cases. Treatment plan quality assurance (QA), using either measurement‐based or independent calculation‐based methods of ten clinically treated eqUF IMRT plans were analyzed. In both methods, the point dose differences were all within 2% difference. In the relative 2D dose distribution comparison, >95% points were within 3% dose difference or 3 mm DTA.

PACS number: 87.55.kh

Beam modeling and VMAT performance with the Agility 160-leaf multileaf collimator

The Agility multileaf collimator (Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden) has 160 leaves of projected width 0.5 cm at the isocenter, with maximum leaf speed 3.5cms−1. These characteristics promise to facilitate fast and accurate delivery of radiotherapy, particularly volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT). The aim of this study is therefore to create a beam model for the Pinnacle3 treatment planning system (Philips Radiation Oncology Systems, Fitchburg, WI), and to use this beam model to explore the performance of the Agility MLC in delivery of VMAT. A 6 MV beam model was created and verified by measuring doses under irregularly shaped fields. VMAT treatment plans for five typical head‐and‐neck patients were created using the beam model and delivered using both binned and continuously variable dose rate (CVDR). Results were compared with those for an MLCi unit without CVDR. The beam model has similar parameters to those of an MLCi model, with interleaf leakage of only 0.2%. The verification of irregular fields shows a mean agreement between measured and planned dose of 1.3% (planned dose higher). The Agility VMAT head‐and‐neck plans show equivalent plan quality and delivery accuracy to those for an MLCi unit, with 95% of verification measurements within 3% and 3 mm of planned dose. Mean delivery time is 133 s with the Agility head and CVDR, 171 s without CVDR, and 282 s with an MLCi unit. Pinnacle3 has therefore been shown to model the Agility MLC accurately, and to provide accurate VMAT treatment plans which can be delivered significantly faster with Agility than with an MLCi.

PACS number: 87.55kd, 87.55km, 87.56bd, 87.56jk

Accuracy and sources of error of out-of field dose calculations by a commercial treatment planning system for intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatments

Although treatment planning systems are generally thought to have poor accuracy for out‐of‐field dose calculations, little work has been done to quantify this dose calculation inaccuracy for modern treatment techniques, such as intensity‐ modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), or to understand the sources of this inaccuracy. The aim of this work is to evaluate the accuracy of out‐of‐field dose calculations by a commercial treatment planning system (TPS), Pinnacle3 v.9.0, for IMRT treatment plans. Three IMRT plans were delivered to anthropomorphic phantoms, and out‐of‐field doses were measured using thermoluminescent detectors (TLDs). The TLD‐measured dose was then compared to the TPS‐calculated dose to quantify the accuracy of TPS calculations at various distances from the field edge and out‐of‐field anatomical locations of interest (i.e., radiosensitive organs). The individual components of out‐of‐field dose (patient scatter, collimator scatter, and head leakage) were also calculated in Pinnacle and compared to Monte Carlo simulations for a 10×10 cm2 field. Our results show that the treatment planning system generally underestimated the out‐of‐field dose and that this underestimation worsened (accuracy decreased) for increasing distances from the field edge. For the three IMRT treatment plans investigated, the TPS underestimated the dose by an average of 50%. Our results also showed that collimator scatter was underestimated by the TPS near the treatment field, while all components of out‐of‐field dose were severely underestimated at greater distances from the field edge. This study highlights the limitations of commercial treatment planning systems in calculating out‐of‐field dose and provides data about the level of accuracy, or rather inaccuracy, that can be expected for modern IMRT treatments. Based on our results, use of the TPS‐reported dose could lead to an underestimation of secondary cancer induction risk, as well as poor clinical decision‐making for pregnant patients or patients with implantable cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators.

PACS numbers: 87.53.Bn; 7.55.D‐

Commissioning and dosimetric characteristics of TrueBeam system: composite data of three TrueBeam machines

PURPOSE

A TrueBeam linear accelerator (TB-LINAC) is designed to deliver traditionally flattened and flattening-filter-free (FFF) beams. Although it has been widely adopted in many clinics for patient treatment, limited information is available related to commissioning of this type of machine. In this work, commissioning data of three units were measured, and multiunit comparison was presented to provide valuable insights and reliable evaluations on the characteristics of the new treatment system.

METHODS

The TB-LINAC is equipped with newly designed waveguide, carousel assembly, monitoring control, and integrated imaging systems. Each machine in this study has 4, 6, 8, 10, 15 MV flattened photon beams, and 6 MV and 10 MV FFF photon beams as well as 6, 9, 12, 16, 20, and 22 MeV electron beams. Dosimetric characteristics of the three new TB-LINAC treatment units are systematically measured for commissioning. High-resolution diode detectors and ion chambers were used to measure dosimetric data for a range of field sizes from 10 × 10 to 400 × 400 mm(2). The composite dosimetric data of the three units are presented in this work. The commissioning of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), image-guided radiation therapy, and gating systems are also illustrated. Critical considerations of P(ion) of FFF photon beams and small field dosimetric measurements were investigated.

RESULTS

The authors found all PDDs and profiles matched well among the three machines. Beam data were quantitatively compared and combined through average to yield composite beam data. The discrepancies among the machines were quantified using standard deviation (SD). The mean SD of the PDDs among the three units is 0.12%, and the mean SD of the profiles is 0.40% for 10 MV FFF open fields. The variations of P(ion) of the chamber CC13 is 1.2 ± 0.1% under 6 MV FFF and 2.0 ± 0.5% under 10 MV FFF from dmax to the 18 cm-off-axis point at 35 cm depth under 40 × 40 cm(2). The mean penumbra of crossplane flattened photon beams at collimator angle of 0° is measured from 5.88 ± 0.09 to 5.99 ± 0.13 mm from 4 to 15 MV at 10 cm depth of 100 × 100 mm(2). The mean penumbra of crossplane beams at collimator angle of 0° is measured as 3.70 ± 0.21 and 4.83 ± 0.04 mm for 6 MV FFF and 10 MV FFF, respectively, at 10 cm depth with a field size of 5 × 5 cm(2). The end-to-end test procedures of both IMRT and VMAT were performed for various energy modes. The mean ion chamber measurements of three units showed less than 2% between measurement and calculation; the mean MultiCube ICA measurements demonstrated over 90% pixels passing gamma analysis (3%, 3 mm, 5% threshold). The imaging dosimetric data of KV planar imaging and CBCT demonstrated improved consistency with vendor specifications and dose reduction for certain imaging protocols. The gated output verification showed a discrepancy of 0.05% or less between gating radiation delivery and nongating radiation delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

The commissioning data indicated good consistency among the three TB-LINAC units. The commissioning data provided us valuable insights and reliable evaluations on the characteristics of the new treatment system. The systematically measured data might be useful for future reference.

Commissioning compensator-based IMRT on the Pinnacle treatment planning system

We present a systematic approach to commissioning of the compensator‐based IMRT in Pinnacle treatment planning system for commercially manufactured brass compensators. Some model parameters for the beams modulated by the variable‐thickness compensators can only be associated with a single compensator thickness. To intelligently choose that thickness for beam modeling, we empirically determined the most probable filter thickness occurring within the modulated portion of the compensators typically used in clinics. We demonstrated that a set of relative output factors measured with the brass slab of most probable thickness (2 cm) differs from the traditionally used open field set, and leads to improved agreement between measurements and calculations, particularly for the larger field sizes. By iteratively adjusting the modifier scatter factor and filter density, the calculated effective attenuation of the flat filters was brought to within 2% of the ion chamber measurement for the clinically‐relevant range of filter thicknesses, depths and filed sizes. Beam hardening representation in Pinnacle provides for adequate depth dose modeling beyond the depth of about 5 cm. Disagreement at shallower depth for the large field sizes is likely due to the algorithm's inability to account for the low‐energy scattered photons generated in the filter. The average ion chamber point dose error at isocenter for ten clinical compensator‐based IMRT plans was under 1%. A biplanar 3D diode dosimeter was calibrated and validated for use with the compensators. The average gamma analysis (3%/3 mm) passing rate for ten IMRT plans was 98.9%± 1.0%. The device is particularly attractive because it easily generates dose comparisons at both the fraction and beam levels. Overlaying dose profiles for individual beams would easily uncover any errors in compensator orientation.

PACS number: 87.55Qr

Monte Carlo study on mucosal dose in oral and naval cavity using photon beams with small field

We study how mucosal dose in the oral or nasal cavity depends on the irradiated small segmental photon fields varying with beam energy, beam angle and mucosa thickness. Dose ratio (mucosal dose with bone underneath to dose at the same point without bone) reflecting the dose enhancement due to the bone backscatter was determined by Monte Carlo simulation (EGSnrc-based code), validated by measurements. Phase space files based on the 6 and 18 MV photon beams with small field size of 1 × 1 cm2, produced by a Varian 21 EX linear accelerator, were generated using the BEAMnrc Monte Carlo code. Mucosa phantoms (mucosa thickness = 1, 2 and 3 mm) with and without a bone under the mucosa were irradiated by photon beams with gantry angles varying from 0 to 30°. Doses along the central beam axis in the mucosa and the dose ratio were calculated with different mucosa thicknesses. For the 6 MV photon beams, the dose at the mucosa-bone interface increased by 44.9–41.7%, when the mucosa thickness increased from 1 to 3 mm for the beam angle ranging from 0 to 30°. These values were lower than those (58.8–53.6%) for the 18 MV photon beams with the same beam angle range. For both the 6 and 18 MV photon beams, depth doses in the mucosa were found to increase with an increase of the beam angle. Moreover, the dose gradient in the mucosa was greater for the 18 MV photon beams compared to the 6 MV. For the dose ratio, it was found that the dose enhancement due to the bone backscatter increased with a decrease of mucosa thickness, and was more significant at both the air-mucosa and mucosa-bone interface. Mucosal dose with bone was investigated by Monte Carlo simulations with different experimental configurations, and was found vary with the beam energy, beam angle and mucosa thickness for a small segmental photon field. The dosimetric information in this study should be considered when searching for an optimized treatment strategy to minimize the mucosal complications in the head-and-neck intensity-modulated radiation therapy.

GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo convolution/superposition implementation for dose calculation

PURPOSE

Dose calculation is a key component in radiation treatment planning systems. Its performance and accuracy are crucial to the quality of treatment plans as emerging advanced radiation therapy technologies are exerting ever tighter constraints on dose calculation. A common practice is to choose either a deterministic method such as the convolution/superposition (CS) method for speed or a Monte Carlo (MC) method for accuracy. The goal of this work is to boost the performance of a hybrid Monte Carlo convolution/superposition (MCCS) method by devising a graphics processing unit (GPU) implementation so as to make the method practical for day-to-day usage.

METHODS

Although the MCCS algorithm combines the merits of MC fluence generation and CS fluence transport, it is still not fast enough to be used as a day-to-day planning tool. To alleviate the speed issue of MC algorithms, the authors adopted MCCS as their target method and implemented a GPU-based version. In order to fully utilize the GPU computing power, the MCCS algorithm is modified to match the GPU hardware architecture. The performance of the authors' GPU-based implementation on an Nvidia GTX260 card is compared to a multithreaded software implementation on a quad-core system.

RESULTS

A speedup in the range of 6.7-11.4x is observed for the clinical cases used. The less than 2% statistical fluctuation also indicates that the accuracy of the authors' GPU-based implementation is in good agreement with the results from the quad-core CPU implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

This work shows that GPU is a feasible and cost-efficient solution compared to other alternatives such as using cluster machines or field-programmable gate arrays for satisfying the increasing demands on computation speed and accuracy of dose calculation. But there are also inherent limitations of using GPU for accelerating MC-type applications, which are also analyzed in detail in this article.

Dose discrepancies in the buildup region and their impact on dose calculations for IMRT fields

PURPOSE

Dose accuracy in the buildup region for radiotherapy treatment planning suffers from challenges in both measurement and calculation. This study investigates the dosimetry in the buildup region at normal and oblique incidences for open and IMRT fields and assesses the quality of the treatment planning calculations.

METHODS

This study was divided into three parts. First, percent depth doses and profiles (for 5 x 5, 10 x 10, 20 x 20, and 30 x 30 cm2 field sizes at 0 degrees, 45 degrees, and 70 degrees incidences) were measured in the buildup region in Solid Water using an Attix parallel plate chamber and Kodak XV film, respectively. Second, the parameters in the empirical contamination (EC) term of the convolution/ superposition (CVSP) calculation algorithm were fitted based on open field measurements. Finally, seven segmental head-and-neck IMRT fields were measured on a flat phantom geometry and compared to calculations using gamma and dose-gradient compensation (C) indices to evaluate the impact of residual discrepancies and to assess the adequacy of the contamination term for IMRT fields.

RESULTS

Local deviations between measurements and calculations for open fields were within 1% and 4% in the buildup region for normal and oblique incidences, respectively. The C index with 5%/1 mm criteria for IMRT fields ranged from 89% to 99% and from 96% to 98% at 2 mm and 10 cm depths, respectively. The quality of agreement in the buildup region for open and IMRT fields is comparable to that in nonbuildup regions.

CONCLUSIONS

The added EC term in CVSP was determined to be adequate for both open and IMRT fields. Due to the dependence of calculation accuracy on (1) EC modeling, (2) internal convolution and density grid sizes, (3) implementation details in the algorithm, and (4) the accuracy of measurements used for treatment planning system commissioning, the authors recommend an evaluation of the accuracy of near-surface dose calculations as a part of treatment planning commissioning.

Dosimetric evaluation of heterogeneity corrections for RTOG 0236: stereotactic body radiotherapy of inoperable stage I-II non-small-cell lung cancer

PURPOSE

Using a retrospective analysis of treatment plans submitted from multiple institutions accruing patients to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0236 non-small-cell stereotactic body radiotherapy protocol, the present study determined the dose prescription and critical structure constraints for future stereotactic body radiotherapy lung protocols that mandate density-corrected dose calculations.

METHOD AND MATERIALS

A subset of 20 patients from four institutions participating in the RTOG 0236 protocol and using superposition/convolution algorithms were compared. The RTOG 0236 protocol required a prescription dose of 60 Gy delivered in three fractions to cover 95% of the planning target volume. Additional requirements were specified for target dose heterogeneity and the dose to normal tissue/structures. The protocol required each site to plan the patient's treatment using unit density, and another plan with the same monitor units and applying density corrections was also submitted. These plans were compared to determine the dose differences. Two-sided, paired Student's t tests were used to evaluate these differences.

RESULTS

With heterogeneity corrections applied, the planning target volume receiving >/=60 Gy decreased, on average, 10.1% (standard error, 2.7%) from 95% (p = .001). The maximal dose to any point >/=2 cm away from the planning target volume increased from 35.2 Gy (standard error, 1.7) to 38.5 Gy (standard error, 2.2).

CONCLUSION

Statistically significant dose differences were found with the heterogeneity corrections. The information provided in the present study is being used to design future heterogeneity-corrected RTOG stereotactic body radiotherapy lung protocols to match the true dose delivered for RTOG 0236.

Development of an optimum photon beam model for head and-neck intensity-modulated radiotherapy

Intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for complex sites such as tumors of the head and neck requires a level of accuracy in dose calculation beyond that currently used for conformal treatment planning. Recent advances in treatment planning systems have aimed to improve the dose calculation accuracy by improving the modeling of machine characteristics such as interleaf leakage, tongue and groove, and rounded multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf ends. What is uncertain is the extent to which these model parameters improve the agreement between dose calculation and measurements for IMRT treatments.

We used Pinnacle version 7.4f (Philips Medical Systems, Andover, MA) to carry out optimization of additional photon‐beam model parameters for both an Elekta Precise (Elekta, Stockholm, Sweden) and a Varian (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) linear accelerator (LINAC). One additional parameter was added to the beam models in turn, and associated models were commissioned to investigate the dosimetric impact of each model parameter on 5 clinical head‐and‐neck IMRT plans. The magnitude and location of differences between the models was determined from gamma analysis of the calculated planar dose maps. A final model that incorporated all of the changes was then commissioned. For the Elekta Precise, the impact of all the changes was determined using a gamma analysis as compared with measured films.

Cumulative differences of up to more than 3%/3 mm were observed when dose distributions with and without all of the model changes were compared. Individually, for both LINACs, the addition of modeling for the rounded MLC leaf ends caused the most dramatic change to the calculation of the dose distribution, generating a difference of 3%/3 mm in up to 5% of pixels for the 5 patient plans sampled. The effect of tongue‐and‐groove modeling was more significant for the Varian LINAC (at 1%/1 mm, mean of 25% of pixels as compared with 5% of pixels with the Elekta Precise LINAC). The combined changes to the Elekta model were found to improve agreement with measurement.

Current commercially available treatment planning systems offer accuracy sufficient for clinical implementation of head‐and‐neck IMRT. For this treatment site, the ability to accurately model the rounded MLC leaf ends has the greatest affect on the similarity of the calculated dose distribution to measurements. In addition, for the Varian LINAC, modeling of the tongue‐and‐groove effect was also advantageous.

PACS numbers: 87.53.‐j, 87.53.Bn, 87.53.Tf

Validation of physics improvements for IMRT with a commercial treatment-planning system

A new Pinnacle 3D treatment‐planning system software release has recently become available (v7.4, Philips Radiation Oncology Systems, Milpitas, CA), which supports modeling of rounded multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf ends; it also includes a number of other software enhancements intended to improve the overall dose calculation accuracy. In this report, we provide a general discussion of the dose calculation algorithm and new beam‐modeling parameters. The accuracy of a diode dosimeter was established for measurement of MLC‐shaped beam profiles required by the new software version by comparison with film and ion chamber measurements in various regions of the field. The results suggest that a suitable diode or other small volume dosimeter with appropriate energy sensitivity should be used to obtain profiles for commissioning the planning system. Film should be used with caution, especially for larger field profile measurements. The dose calculation algorithm and modeling parameters chosen were validated through various test field measurements including a bar pattern, a strip pattern, and a clinical head and neck IMRT field. For the bar and strip patterns, the agreement between Pinnacle calculations and diode measurements was generally very good. These tests were helpful in establishing the new model parameter values, especially tongue‐and‐groove width, additional interleaf leakage, rounded leaf tip radius, and MLC transmission. For the clinical head and neck field, the comparison between Pinnacle and film measurements showed regions of approximately 2 cGy under‐ or overdose. However, the Pinnacle calculations agreed with diode measurements at all points to within 1 cGy or 1% of the maximum dose for the field (67 cGy). The greatest discrepancy between film and diode measurements for the clinical field (maximum of 2.8%) occurred in low‐dose regions in the central part of the field. The disagreement may be due to the overresponse of film to scattered radiation in the low‐dose regions, which have significant shielding by the MLCs.

PACS numbers: 87.53.Bn, 87.53.Dq

Spectral sensitivity study of dose distributions for a commercial convolution/superposition algorithm

The focus of this study is to validate whether the sensitivity of dose distribution following the interface of different media can be used to distinguish between small variations of photon energy spectra in the context of the convolution/superposition algorithm in the polyenergetic implementation (Philips Pinnacle3, ADAC Laboratories, Milpitas, CA). Calculations were performed in homogeneous water and heterogeneous lung/water phantoms. Spectra were generated, in which the weights of the low-, medium- and high-energy components were adjusted sequentially. The heterogeneity correction factor CFlung, the D20/D10 ratio for homogeneous water and logarithmic derivative in buildup region LDbuildup were assessed for their relative ability to discriminate between different spectra for various field sizes. In accordance with another study (Charland et al 2004), the superior discrimination ability of the CFlung and LDbuildup tests over the D20/D10 test was observed for changes in an energy component as small as 0.3% of the total weight in the energy spectrum. Furthermore, new tests utilizing transverse dose profile data for discriminating between spectra, Fringe Index (FI) and Penumbra Index (PI), were introduced. The discrimination ability of the PI and FI tests was superior when a medium containing interface effects was exploited to obtain the transverse profile data (water/lung phantom for PIhung and FIlung tests) as opposed to when a homogeneous water medium was used (PIwater and FIwater tests).

Clinical helical tomotherapy commissioning dosimetry

Helical tomotherapy presented many unique dosimetric challenges and solutions during the initial commissioning process, and some of them are presented. The dose calculation algorithm is convolution/superposition based. This requires that the energy fluence spectrum and magnitude be quantified. The methodology for doing so is described. Aspects of the energy fluence characterization that are unique to tomotherapy are highlighted. Many beam characteristics can be measured automatically by an included megavoltage computed tomography imaging system. This greatly improves data collection efficiency.

Convolution/superposition using the Monte Carlo method

The convolution/superposition calculations for radiotherapy dose distributions are traditionally performed by convolving polyenergetic energy deposition kernels with TERMA (total energy released per unit mass) precomputed in each voxel of the irradiated phantom. We propose an alternative method in which the TERMA calculation is replaced by random sampling of photon energy, direction and interaction point. Then, a direction is randomly sampled from the angular distribution of the monoenergetic kernel corresponding to the photon energy. The kernel ray is propagated across the phantom, and energy is deposited in each voxel traversed. An important advantage of the explicit sampling of energy is that spectral changes with depth are automatically accounted for. No spectral or kernel hardening corrections are needed. Furthermore, the continuous sampling of photon direction allows us to model sharp changes in fluence, such as those due to collimator tongue-and-groove. The use of explicit photon direction also facilitates modelling of situations where a given voxel is traversed by photons from many directions. Extra-focal radiation, for instance, can therefore be modelled accurately. Our method also allows efficient calculation of a multi-segment/multi-beam IMRT plan by sampling of beam angles and field segments according to their relative weights. For instance, an IMRT plan consisting of seven 14 x 12 cm2 beams with a total of 300 field segments can be computed in 15 min on a single CPU, with 2% statistical fluctuations at the isocentre of the patient's CT phantom divided into 4 x 4 x 4 mm3 voxels. The calculation contains all aperture-specific effects, such as tongue and groove, leaf curvature and head scatter. This contrasts with deterministic methods in which each segment is given equal importance, and the time taken scales with the number of segments. Thus, the Monte Carlo superposition provides a simple, accurate and efficient method for complex radiotherapy dose calculations.

Verification of the accuracy of a photon dose-calculation algorithm

An extensive set of measured data was developed for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of a photon dose-calculation algorithm. Dose distributions from a linear accelerator were measured using an ion chamber in a water phantom and thermoluminescent dosimeters in a heterogeneous anthropomorphic phantom. Test cases included square fields, rectangular fields, fields having different source-to-surface distances, wedged fields, irregular fields, obliquely incident fields, asymmetrically collimated fields with wedges, multileaf collimator-shaped fields, and two heterogeneous density cases. The data set was used to validate the photon dose-calculation algorithm in a commercial radiation treatment planning system. The treatment planning system calculated photon doses to within the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 53 (TG-53) criteria for 99% of points in the buildup region, 90% of points in the inner region, 88% of points in the outer region, and 93% of points in the penumbra. For the heterogeneous phantoms, calculations agreed with actual measurements to within +/-3%. The monitor unit tests revealed that the 18-MV open square fields, oblique incidence, oblique incidence with wedge, and mantle field test cases did not meet the TG-53 criteria but were within +/-2.5% of measurements. It was concluded that (i) the photon dose calculation algorithm used by the treatment planning system did not meet the TG-53 criteria 100% of the time; (ii) some of the TG-53 criteria may need to be modified, and (iii) the generally stated goal of accuracy in dose delivery of within 5% cannot be met in all situations using this beam model in the treatment planning system.

Verification of the accuracy of 3D calculations of breast dose during tangential irradiation: measurements in a breast phantom

This report specifically describes the use of a unique anthropomorphic breast phantom to validate the accuracy of three-dimensional dose calculations performed by a commercial treatment-planning system for intact-breast tangential irradiation. The accuracy of monitor-unit calculations has been corroborated using ionization chamber measurements made in this phantom. Measured doses have been compared to those calculated from a variety of treatment plans. The treatment plans utilized a 6-MV x-ray beam and incorporated a variety of field configurations and wedge combinations. Dose measurements at several clinically relevant points within the breast phantom have confirmed the accuracy of calculated doses generated from the variety of treatment plans. Overall agreement between measurements and calculations averaged 0.998+/-0.009. These results indicate that the dose per monitor-unit calculations performed by the treatment-planning system can be confidently utilized in the fulfillment of clinical dose prescriptions.

Comment on "Independent corroboration of monitor unit calculations performed by a 3D computerized planning system" [J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 1, 120-125 (2000)]

PACS number(s): 87.53.–j, 87.66.–a

Verification of tangential breast treatment dose calculations in a commercial 3D treatment planning system

The accuracy of the photon convolution/superposition dose algorithm employed in a commercial radiation treatment planning system was evaluated for conditions simulating tangential breast treatment. A breast phantom was fabricated from machineable wax and placed on the chest wall of an anthropomorphic phantom. Radiographic film was used to measure the dose distribution at the axial midplane of the breast phantom. Subsequently, thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) were used to measure the dose at four points within the midplane to validate the accuracy of the film dosimetry. Film measurements were compared with calculations performed using the treatment planning system for four types of treatment: optimized wedged beams at 6 and 18 MV and two-dimensional compensated beams at 6 and 18 MV. Both the film- and TLD-measured doses had a precision of approximately 0.6%. The film-measured doses were approximately 1.5% lower than the TLD-measured doses, ranging from 0-3% at 6 MV and 0.5-1% at 18 MV. Such results placed a high level of confidence in the accuracy and precision of the film data. The measured and calculated doses agreed to within +/-3% for both the film and TLD measurements throughout the midplane exclusive of areas not having charged particle equilibrium. Good agreement was not expected within these regions due to the limitations in both film dosimetry and the dose-calculation algorithm. These results indicated that the treatment planning system calculates doses at the midplane with clinically acceptable accuracy in conditions simulating tangential breast treatment.

On the need for monitor unit calculations as part of a beam commissioning methodology for a radiation treatment planning system

This paper illustrates the need for validating the calculation of monitor units as part of the process of commissioning a photon beam model in a radiation treatment planning system. Examples are provided in which this validation identified subtle errors, either in the dose model or in the implementation of the dose algorithm. These errors would not have been detected if the commissioning process only compared relative dose distributions. A set of beam configurations, with varying field sizes, source-to-skin distances, wedges, and blocking, were established to validate monitor unit calculations for two different beam models in two different radiation treatment planning systems. Monitor units calculated using the treatment planning systems were compared with monitor units calculated from point dose calculations from tissue-maximum ratio (TMR) tables. When discrepancies occurred, the dose models and the code were analyzed to identify the causes of the discrepancies. Discrepancies in monitor unit calculations were both significant (up to 5%) and systematic. Analysis of the dose computation software found: (1) a coordinate system transformation error, (2) mishandling of dose-spread arrays, (3) differences between dose calculations in the commissioning software and the planning software, and (4) shortcomings in modeling of head scatter. Corrections were made in the beam calculation software or in the data sets to overcome these discrepancies. Consequently, we recommend incorporating validation of monitor unit calculations as part of a photon beam commissioning process.