DETERMINATION OF TOLERANCE LEVELS IN RADIOTHERAPY DOSIMETRY BASED ON STATISTICAL INTERFERENCE

The most important dosimetry quantity that is determined at radiotherapy centers is the absorbed dose to water for external beams. Fixed tolerances for absorbed doses measured under reference conditions with an ionization chamber for high-energy photon and electron beams are usually 2 and 3%, respectively, regardless of uncertainties of the input variables and other conditions during evaluation. In reality, this agreement should be evaluated considering the uncertainties of the input variables because they affect the size of the random deviations of the measurements from their true values. The aim of this work was to develop a new approach to evaluate the agreement between measured and reported values based on statistical interference rather than to use fixed tolerance levels. The proposed method considers different scenarios that can occur during the evaluation of agreement. Because the method is described in general, it can be used in all similar situations when partial uncertainties can be established.

Comparison of the NMIJ and the ARPANSA standards for absorbed dose to water in high-energy photon beams

The authors report the results of an indirect comparison of the standards of absorbed dose to water in high-energy photon beams from a clinical linac and (60)Co radiation beam performed between the National Metrology Institute of Japan (NMIJ) and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA). Three ionisation chambers were calibrated by the NMIJ in April and June 2013 and by the ARPANSA in May 2013. The average ratios of the calibration coefficients for the three ionisation chambers obtained by the NMIJ to those obtained by the ARPANSA were 0.9994, 1.0040 and 1.0045 for 6-, 10- and 15-MV (18 MV at the ARPANSA) high-energy photon beams, respectively. The relative standard uncertainty of the value was 7.2 × 10(-3). The ratio for (60)Co radiation was 0.9986(66), which is consistent with the results published in the key comparison of BIPM.RI(I)-K4.

Direct megavoltage photon calibration service in Australia

The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) maintains the Australian primary standard of absorbed dose. Until recently, the standard was used to calibrate ionisation chambers only in (60)Co gamma rays. These chambers are then used by radiotherapy clinics to determine linac output, using a correction factor (k Q) to take into account the different spectra of (60)Co and the linac. Over the period 2010-2013, ARPANSA adapted the primary standard to work in megavoltage linac beams, and has developed a calibration service at three photon beams (6, 10 and 18 MV) from an Elekta Synergy linac. We describe the details of the new calibration service, the method validation and the use of the new calibration factors with the International Atomic Energy Agency's TRS-398 dosimetry Code of Practice. The expected changes in absorbed dose measurements in the clinic when shifting from (60)Co to the direct calibration are determined. For a Farmer chamber (model 2571), the measured chamber calibration coefficient is expected to be reduced by 0.4, 1.0 and 1.1 % respectively for these three beams when compared to the factor derived from (60)Co. These results are in overall agreement with international absorbed dose standards and calculations by Muir and Rogers in 2010 of k Q factors using Monte Carlo techniques. The reasons for and against moving to the new service are discussed in the light of the requirements of clinical dosimetry.

Development and reproducibility evaluation of a Monte Carlo-based standard LINAC model for quality assurance of multi-institutional clinical trials

Technical developments in radiotherapy (RT) have created a need for systematic quality assurance (QA) to ensure that clinical institutions deliver prescribed radiation doses consistent with the requirements of clinical protocols. For QA, an ideal dose verification system should be independent of the treatment-planning system (TPS). This paper describes the development and reproducibility evaluation of a Monte Carlo (MC)-based standard LINAC model as a preliminary requirement for independent verification of dose distributions. The BEAMnrc MC code is used for characterization of the 6-, 10- and 15-MV photon beams for a wide range of field sizes. The modeling of the LINAC head components is based on the specifications provided by the manufacturer. MC dose distributions are tuned to match Varian Golden Beam Data (GBD). For reproducibility evaluation, calculated beam data is compared with beam data measured at individual institutions. For all energies and field sizes, the MC and GBD agreed to within 1.0% for percentage depth doses (PDDs), 1.5% for beam profiles and 1.2% for total scatter factors (Scps.). Reproducibility evaluation showed that the maximum average local differences were 1.3% and 2.5% for PDDs and beam profiles, respectively. MC and institutions' mean Scps agreed to within 2.0%. An MC-based standard LINAC model developed to independently verify dose distributions for QA of multi-institutional clinical trials and routine clinical practice has proven to be highly accurate and reproducible and can thus help ensure that prescribed doses delivered are consistent with the requirements of clinical protocols.

[Development of the 60Co gamma-ray standard field for therapy-level dosimeter calibration in terms of absorbed dose to water (N(D,w))]

A primary standard for the absorbed dose rate to water in a 60Co gamma-ray field was established at National Metrology Institute of Japan (NMIJ) in fiscal year 2011. Then, a 60Co gamma-ray standard field for therapy-level dosimeter calibration in terms of absorbed dose to water was developed at National Institute of Radiological Sciences (NIRS) as a secondary standard dosimetry laboratory (SSDL). The results of an IAEA/WHO TLD SSDL audit demonstrated that there was good agreement between NIRS stated absorbed dose to water and IAEA measurements. The IAEA guide based on the ISO standard was used to estimate the relative expanded uncertainty of the calibration factor for a therapy-level Farmer type ionization chamber in terms of absorbed dose to water (N(D,w)) with the new field. The uncertainty of N(D,w) was estimated to be 1.1% (k = 2), which corresponds to approximately one third of the value determined in the existing air kerma field. The dissemination of traceability of the calibration factor determined in the new field is expected to diminish the uncertainty of dose delivered to patients significantly.

Dosimetric audits of photon beams in radiation therapy centres in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Data related to 11 y of high-energy photon radiotherapy beam dosimetry are presented and analysed. Dosimetric evaluations were carried out using water phantoms and thimble ionisation chambers and are part of the radiation protection regulatory licensing process for medicine facilities of Brazilian government. Measurements were done at reference conditions for a standard absorbed dose of 100 cGy [cGy (=1 rad)]. The absolute per cent deviation between the measured and presumed delivered doses should not exceed the tolerance level of +/-3%. The first dosimetry survey from 1996 to 1998 showed a situation that was an object of concern. Deviations of 22 and 18.7% could be measured, although small deviations were also obtained. After 1998, the improvement in dosimetry quality control by the radiotherapy centres became clear, with most of the deviations situated within the +/-3% range. The decrease in the measured deviations presents the effective success of the Institute of Radiation Protection and Dosimetry audit programme for the improvement in the control of radiotherapy photon beams in Rio de Janeiro. Also, it is possible to recommend to Brazilian regulatory organisation a decrease in the tolerance level for dosimetric deviations in order to achieve a more precise dose delivered to patients in radiotherapy centres.

The UK Standardisation of Breast Radiotherapy (START) Trial B of radiotherapy hypofractionation for treatment of early breast cancer: a randomised trial

BACKGROUND

The international standard radiotherapy schedule for early breast cancer delivers 50 Gy in 25 fractions of 2.0 Gy over 5 weeks, but there is a long history of non-standard regimens delivering a lower total dose using fewer, larger fractions (hypofractionation). We aimed to test the benefits of radiotherapy schedules using fraction sizes larger than 2.0 Gy in terms of local-regional tumour control, normal tissue responses, quality of life, and economic consequences in women prescribed post-operative radiotherapy.

METHODS

Between 1999 and 2001, 2215 women with early breast cancer (pT1-3a pN0-1 M0) at 23 centres in the UK were randomly assigned after primary surgery to receive 50 Gy in 25 fractions of 2.0 Gy over 5 weeks or 40 Gy in 15 fractions of 2.67 Gy over 3 weeks. Women were eligible for the trial if they were aged over 18 years, did not have an immediate reconstruction, and were available for follow-up. Randomisation method was computer generated and was not blinded. The protocol-specified principal endpoints were local-regional tumour relapse, defined as reappearance of cancer at irradiated sites, late normal tissue effects, and quality of life. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN59368779.

FINDINGS

1105 women were assigned to the 50 Gy group and 1110 to the 40 Gy group. After a median follow up of 6.0 years (IQR 5.0-6.2) the rate of local-regional tumour relapse at 5 years was 2.2% (95% CI 1.3-3.1) in the 40 Gy group and 3.3% (95% CI 2.2 to 4.5) in the 50 Gy group, representing an absolute difference of -0.7% (95% CI -1.7% to 0.9%)--ie, the absolute difference in local-regional relapse could be up to 1.7% better and at most 1% worse after 40 Gy than after 50 Gy. Photographic and patient self-assessments indicated lower rates of late adverse effects after 40 Gy than after 50 Gy.

INTERPRETATION

A radiation schedule delivering 40 Gy in 15 fractions seems to offer rates of local-regional tumour relapse and late adverse effects at least as favourable as the standard schedule of 50 Gy in 25 fractions.

Variation in adherence to external beam radiotherapy quality measures among elderly men with localized prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To characterize the variation in adherence to quality measures of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for localized prostate cancer and its relation to patient and provider characteristics in a population-based, representative sample of U.S. men.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We evaluated EBRT quality measures proposed by a RAND expert panel of physicians among men aged >or=65 years diagnosed between 2000 and 2002 with localized prostate cancer and treated with primary EBRT using data from the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare program. We assessed the adherence to five EBRT quality measures that were amenable to analysis using SEER-Medicare data: (1) use of conformal RT planning; (2) use of high-energy (>10-MV) photons; (3) use of custom immobilization; (4) completion of two follow-up visits with a radiation oncologist in the year after therapy; and (5) radiation oncologist board certification.

RESULTS

Of the 11,674 patients, 85% had received conformal RT planning, 75% had received high-energy photons, and 97% had received custom immobilization. One-third of patients had completed two follow-up visits with a radiation oncologist, although 91% had at least one visit with a urologist or radiation oncologist. Most patients (85%) had been treated by a board-certified radiation oncologist.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall high adherence to EBRT quality measures masked substantial variation in geography, socioeconomic status in the area of residence, and teaching affiliation of the RT facility. Future research should examine the reasons for the variations in these measures and whether the variation is associated with important clinical outcomes.

A methodology for TLD postal dosimetry audit of high-energy radiotherapy photon beams in non-reference conditions

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

A strategy for national TLD audit programmes has been developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). It involves progression through three sequential dosimetry audit steps. The first step audits are for the beam output in reference conditions for high-energy photon beams. The second step audits are for the dose in reference and non-reference conditions on the beam axis for photon and electron beams. The third step audits involve measurements of the dose in reference, and non-reference conditions off-axis for open and wedged symmetric and asymmetric fields for photon beams. Through a co-ordinated research project the IAEA developed the methodology to extend the scope of national TLD auditing activities to more complex audit measurements for regular fields.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Based on the IAEA standard TLD holder for high-energy photon beams, a TLD holder was developed with horizontal arm to enable measurements 5cm off the central axis. Basic correction factors were determined for the holder in the energy range between Co-60 and 25MV photon beams.

RESULTS

New procedures were developed for the TLD irradiation in hospitals. The off-axis measurement methodology for photon beams was tested in a multi-national pilot study. The statistical distribution of dosimetric parameters (off-axis ratios for open and wedge beam profiles, output factors, wedge transmission factors) checked in 146 measurements was 0.999+/-0.012.

CONCLUSIONS

The methodology of TLD audits in non-reference conditions with a modified IAEA TLD holder has been shown to be feasible.

TG-69: Radiographic film for megavoltage beam dosimetry

TG-69 is a task group report of the AAPM on the use of radiographic film for dosimetry. Radiographic films have been used for radiation dosimetry since the discovery of x-rays and have become an integral part of dose verification for both routine quality assurance and for complex treatments such as soft wedges (dynamic and virtual), intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), image guided radiation therapy (IGRT), and small field dosimetry like stereotactic radiosurgery. Film is convenient to use, spatially accurate, and provides a permanent record of the integrated two dimensional dose distributions. However, there are several challenges to obtaining high quality dosimetric results with film, namely, the dependence of optical density on photon energy, field size, depth, film batch sensitivity differences, film orientation, processing conditions, and scanner performance. Prior to the clinical implementation of a film dosimetry program, the film, processor, and scanner need to be tested to characterize them with respect to these variables. Also, the physicist must understand the basic characteristics of all components of film dosimetry systems. The primary mission of this task group report is to provide guidelines for film selection, irradiation, processing, scanning, and interpretation to allow the physicist to accurately and precisely measure dose with film. Additionally, we present the basic principles and characteristics of film, processors, and scanners. Procedural recommendations are made for each of the steps required for film dosimetry and guidance is given regarding expected levels of accuracy. Finally, some clinical applications of film dosimetry are discussed.

Measurement of output factors for small photon beams

A variety of detectors and procedures for the measurement of small field output factors are discussed in the current literature. Different detectors with or without corrections are recommended. Correction factors are often derived by Monte Carlo methods, where the bias due to approximations in the model is difficult to judge. Over that, results appear to be contradictory in some cases. In this work, output factors were measured for field sizes from 4 mm up to 180 mm side length with different detectors. A simple linear correction for the energy response of solid state detectors is proposed. This led to identical values down to 8 mm field size, as long as the size of the detector is small against the field size. The correction was of the order of a few percent. For a shielded silicon diode it was well below 1%. A physically meaningful function is proposed in order to calculate output factors for arbitrary field sizes with high accuracy.

Calibration of a proton beam energy monitora)

Delivery of therapeutic proton beams requires an absolute energy accuracy of +/-0.64 to 0.27 MeV for patch fields and a relative energy accuracy of +/-0.10 to 0.25 MeV for tailoring the depth dose distribution using the energy stacking technique. Achromatic switchyard tunes, which lead to better stability of the beam incident onto the patient, unfortunately limit the ability of switchyard magnet tesla meters to verify the correct beam energy within the tolerances listed above. A new monitor to measure the proton energy before each pulse is transported through the switchyard has been installed into a proton synchrotron. The purpose of this monitor is to correct and/or inhibit beam delivery when the measured beam energy is outside of the tolerances for treatment. The monitor calculates the beam energy using data from two frequency and eight beam position monitors that measure the revolution frequency of the proton bunches and the effective offset of the orbit from the nominal radius of the synchrotron. The new energy monitor has been calibrated by measuring the range of the beam through water and comparing with published range-energy tables for various energies. A relationship between depth dose curves and range-energy tables was first determined using Monte Carlo simulations of particle transport and energy deposition. To reduce the uncertainties associated with typical scanning water phantoms, a new technique was devised in which the beam energy was scanned while fixed thickness water tanks were sandwiched between two fixed parallel plate ionization chambers. Using a multitude of tank sizes, several energies were tested to determine the nominal accelerator orbit radius. After calibration, the energy reported by the control system matched the energy derived by range measurements to better than 0.72 MeV for all nine energies tested between 40 and 255 MeV with an average difference of -0.33 MeV. A study of different combinations of revolution frequency and radial offsets to test the envelope of algorithm accuracy demonstrated a relative accuracy of +/-0.11 MeV for small energy changes between 126 and 250 MeV. These new measurements may serve as a data set for benchmarking range-energy relationships.

Dosimetric evaluation of a 2D pixel ionization chamber for implementation in clinical routine

In this paper we present the results of a dosimetric evaluation of a 2D ionization chamber array with the objective of its implementation for quality assurance in clinical routine. The pixel ionization chamber MatriXX (Scanditronix Wellhofer, Germany) consists of 32x32 chambers with a distance of 7.6 mm between chamber centres. The effective depth of measurement under the surface of the detector was determined. The dose and energy dependence, the behaviour of the device during its initial phase and its time stability as well as the lateral response of a single chamber of the detector in cross-plane and diagonal directions were analysed. It could be shown, that the detector's response is linear with dose and energy independent. Taking the lateral response into account, two different dose profiles, for a pyramidal and an IMRT dose distribution, were applied to compare the data generated by a treatment planning system with measurements. From these investigations it can be concluded that the detector is a suitable device for quality assurance and 2D dose verifications.

Patient dose measurements in radiological practices

Internationally agreed standards for radiation measurements applied to medicine underpin the application of scientific methods to both therapeutic and diagnostic radiological practices. Equally it is recommended that these standards should underpin radiation measurements within the fields of nuclear energy and industrial applications of ionizing radiations. Such measurements should also apply to all exposed groups: patients, workers and members of the general public. It would appear that the underlying philosophy as well as measurement methods, including units, employed in the therapeutic and diagnostic domains have developed separately and independently over the past 30 years. Similarly, although radiological imaging methods are fundamental to both domains, a similar situation appears to apply to the assessment of image quality. This letter attempts to highlight the present situation regarding the role and relevance of dosimetric methods applied in both therapeutic and diagnostic radiological practices. In particular the present situation is discussed in relation to the primary objectives of the International Commission on Radiological Units and Measurements (ICRU). Scope for harmonization and unification of scientific methods applied in therapy and diagnosis is highlighted.

Prospective randomised multicenter trial on single fraction radiotherapy (8Gy×1) versus multiple fractions (3Gy×10) in the treatment of painful bone metastases

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

To investigate whether single-fraction radiotherapy is equal to multiple fractions in the treatment of painful metastases.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study planned to recruit 1000 patients with painful bone metastases from four Norwegian and six Swedish hospitals. Patients were randomized to single-fraction (8 Gy x 1) or multiple-fraction (3 Gy x 10) radiotherapy. The primary endpoint of the study was pain relief, with fatigue and global quality of life as the secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

The data monitoring committee recommended closure of the study after 376 patients had been recruited because interim analyses indicated that, as in two other recently published trials, the treatment groups had similar outcomes. Both groups experienced similar pain relief within the first 4 months, and this was maintained throughout the 28-week follow-up. No differences were found for fatigue and global quality of life. Survival was similar in both groups, with median survival of 8-9 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-fraction 8 Gy and multiple-fraction radiotherapy provide similar pain benefit. These results, confirming those of other studies, indicate that single-fraction 8 Gy should be standard management policy for these patients.

Calculation of high-LET radiotherapy dose required for compensation of overall treatment time extensions

A method is presented that allows biological effective dose (BED) equations to be used to calculate compensatory doses for treatment time extensions when high-LET (linear energy transfer) radiotherapy schedules are used. The principles involved are the same as those for low-LET radiations, but incorporate two relative biological effectiveness (RBE) factors, RBE(max) and RBE(min), which represent the RBE at very low and very high fraction doses, respectively, with the actual RBE changing between these extremes. The method has the advantage that low-LET alpha/beta ratios and low-LET daily dose-equivalent repopulation factors are used in the calculations. The daily dose repopulation equivalents and increments in dose per fraction in the case of high LET radiotherapy are smaller than those for low LET.

Simplified TRS398 dosimetry protocol for dose determination in high-energy electrons beams

A method is proposed to simplify the IAEA TRS398 dosimetry code of practice in respect to dose determination of high-energy electron beams. The proposed method eliminates the use of the intermediate beam quality Q(int) (and beam quality correction factor k(Q,Q(int))) applicable for cross calibration and subsequent use of the user's chamber for dose determination in water for high-energy electron beams. This method allows calculation of the dose to water calibration factor for the user's instrument at the reference beam quality N(D)(w,Q0) directly from a cross calibration in a high-energy electron beam of quality Q(cross) at the user's institute.

Margins between clinical target volume and planning target volume for electron beam therapy

When growing a clinical target volume (CTV) to a planning target volume (PTV), it is necessary to determine suitable margins, based on the systematic and random uncertainties. For electron therapy, where treatments are usually given with single fields, the factors affecting the margin are very different in the direction of the incident beam from those in the perpendicular directions, since set-up errors do not affect the depth of the 90% isodose. For a typical case, the perpendicular margins are three times the margin in the direction of the incident beam. This gives rise to problems with volume growing algorithms if the beam axis is not aligned with a cardinal axis.

[Organization of work in the radiotherapy department in Burdenko MMCH]

Radiotherapy is one of the main methods of malignant tumor treatment. The radiotherapy department in Burdenko Main Military-and-clinical Hospital as a part of a radiological center has been working for 40 years. During vhis period it has constantly been developing its technical base, quality of irradiation and professionalism of its staff. And nowadays at the modern stage there exists a real perspective of future development of radiological treatment for servicemen and their families' members basing on the radiotherapy department in Burdenko MMCH.

Infrastructure of radiation oncology in France: a large survey of evolution of external beam radiotherapy practice

PURPOSE

To study the structural characteristics of radiation oncology facilities for France and to examine how technological evolutions had to be taken into account in terms of accessibility and costs. This study was initiated by the three health care financing administrations that cover health care costs for the French population. The needs of the population in terms of the geographic distribution of the facilities were also investigated. The endpoint was to make proposals to enable an evolution of the practice of radiotherapy (RT) in France.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A survey designed by a multidisciplinary committee was distributed in all RT facilities to collect data on treatment machines, other equipment, personnel, new patients, and new treatments. Medical advisors ensured site visits in each facility. The data were validated at the regional level and aggregated at the national level for analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 357 machines had been installed in 179 facilities: 270 linear accelerators and 87 cobalt units. The distribution of facilities and megavoltage units per million inhabitants over the country was good, although some disparities existed between areas. It appeared that most megavoltage units had not benefited from technological innovation, because 25% of the cobalt units and 57% of the linear accelerators were between 6 and 15 years old. Computed tomography access for treatment preparation was not sufficient, and complete data management systems were scarce (15% of facilities). Seven centers had no treatment planning system. Electronic portal imaging devices were available in 44.7% of RT centers and in vivo dosimetry in 35%. A lack of physicians and medical physicists was observed; consequently, the workload exceeded the normal standard recommended by the French White Book. Discrepancies were found between the number of patients treated per machine per year in each area (range, 244.5-604). Most treatments were delivered in smaller facilities (61.6%).

CONCLUSION

On the basis of the findings of this study, measures were taken to update the infrastructure of RT in France. A first evaluation showed an improvement of care supply in RT in the country.

Determination of the relative linear collision stopping power and linear scattering power of electron bolus material

The linear collision stopping power and linear scattering power for machineable wax relative to water have been determined for electron energies between 2 and 20 MeV. Knowledge of these quantities is necessary for the use of this wax as bolus in electron pencil-beam dose algorithms. The atomic composition of the wax (rho = 0.920 +/- 0.001 g cm(-3)) was obtained by having the wax assayed. The formalisms expressed in the ICRU Report 35 were used to calculate the relative linear collision stopping and linear scattering powers of the wax. The calculated relative linear collision stopping powers of 2 to 20 MeV electrons in the wax ranged from 0.949 +/- 0.005 to 0.952 +/- 0.005, and the calculated relative linear scattering powers ranged from 0.734 +/- 0.004 to 0.729 +/- 0.004. As a check of the calculation method, the relative linear collision stopping power was measured by determining the shift in electron central-axis depth-ionization curves when varying thicknesses of water were replaced by wax. These measurements, made using 10, 12, 15 and 18 MeV electron beams with wax thicknesses from 1.0 - 4.0 cm, resulted in a mean value of 0.931 +/- 0.008. Determination of the relative linear stopping power and the linear scattering power by using the measured CT number to extract values from patient data tables resulted in values of 0.933 +/- 0.009 and 0.746 +/- 0.016, respectively, indicating that it should be acceptable to use the Hounsfield values obtained with CT scans for treatment planning dose calculations.

Dosimetric evaluation of the clinical implementation of the first commercial IMRT Monte Carlo treatment planning system at 6 MV

In this work we dosimetrically evaluated the clinical implementation of a commercial Monte Carlo treatment planning software (PEREGRINE, North American Scientific, Cranberry Township, PA) intended for quality assurance (QA) of intensity modulated radiation therapy treatment plans. Dose profiles calculated in homogeneous and heterogeneous phantoms using this system were compared to both measurements and simulations using the EGSnrc Monte Carlo code for the 6 MV beam of a Varian CL21EX linear accelerator. For simple jaw-defined fields, calculations agree within 2% of the dose at d(max) with measurements in homogeneous phantoms with the exception of the buildup region where the calculations overestimate the dose by up to 8%. In heterogeneous lung and bone phantoms the agreement is within 3%, on average, up to 5% for a 1 x 1 cm2 field. We tested two consecutive implementations of the MLC model. After matching the calculated and measured MLC leakage, simulations of static and dynamic MLC-defined fields using the most recent MLC model agreed to within 2% with measurements.

[Determination of absorbed dose to water for high energy photon and electron beams--comparison of different dosimetry protocols]

The determination of absorbed dose to water for high-energy photon and electron beams is performed in Germany according to the dosimetry protocol DIN 6800-2 (1997). At an international level, the main protocols used are the AAPM dosimetry protocol TG-51 (1999) and the IAEA Code of Practice TRS-398 (2000). The present paper systematically compares these three dosimetry protocols, and identifies similarities and differences. The investigations were performed using 4 and 10 MV photon beams, as well as 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 14 MeV electron beams. Two cylindrical and two plane-parallel type chambers were used for measurements. In general, the discrepancies among the three protocols were 1.0% for photon beams and 1.6% for electron beams. Comparative measurements in the context of measurement technical control (MTK) with TLD showed a deviation of less than 1.3% between the measurements obtained according to protocols DIN 6800-2 and MTK (exceptions: 4 MV photons with 2.9% and 6 MeV electrons with 2.4%). While only cylindrical chambers were used for photon beams, measurements of electron beams were performed using both cylindrical and plane-parallel chambers (the latter used after a cross-calibration to a cylindrical chamber, as required by the respective dosimetry protocols). Notably, unlike recommended in the corresponding protocols, we found out that cylindrical chambers can be used also for energies from 6 to 10 MeV.

Using the frame averaging of aS500 EPID for IMRT verification

In this study, we evaluated the use of aS500 EPID for the verification of IMRT beam delivery, using the synchronous, frame‐averaging acquisition. In this approach, an EPID continuously integrates frames while irradiated by an IMRT field; the averaged image is then converted to a dose profile using a linear calibration curve, and is compared with the planned profiles using a linear‐regression model, which returns an index σ (root mean squared error) for the goodness of fit. We identified several potential errors in this acquisition mode: missing data between the start of irradiation and imaging, and from the last (incomplete) frame, which we proved are insignificant for IMRT fields; and EPID dead time during irradiation stemming from data transfer, which we successfully corrected for clinical MU (>100). We compared the measured relative profiles and central axis dose of 25 prostate fields with the planned ones. Applying our correction methods, very good agreement was obtained between the measured and planned profiles with a mean a of 1.9% and a standard deviation of 0.5%; for central‐axis dose the agreement was better than 2.0%. We conclude that the aS500 is an effective tool for verification of IM beam delivery in the range of clinical MU (>100) settings. Although the vender is developing an upgrade to fix similar problems, our results demonstrate that the current configuration with simple correction schemes can achieve satisfactory results.

PACS number(s): 87.53.Oq, 87.53.Xd

Comparison between TG-51 and TRS-398: electron contamination effect on photon beam-quality specification

Two dosimetry protocols based on absorbed dose to water have recently been implemented: TG-51 and TRS-398. These protocols use different beam-quality indices: %dd(10)x and TPR20,10. The effect of electron contamination in measurements of %dd(10)x has been proposed as a disadvantage of the TG-51. For actual measurements of %dd(10)x in five clinical beams (Primus 6-18 MV, SL-75/5 6 MV, SL-18 6-15 MV) a purging magnet was employed to remove the electron contamination. Also, %dd(10)x was measured in the different ways described in TG-51 for high-energy beams: with a lead foil at 50 cm from the phantom surface, at 30 cm, and for open beam. Moreover, TPR20,10 was determined. Also, periodic quality-control measurements were used for comparing both quality indices and variation over time, but D20,10 was used instead of TPR20,10 and measurements in open beam for the %dd(10)x determination. Considering both protocols, S(w,air) and kQ were calculated in order to compare the results with the experimental data. Significant differences (0.3% for kQ) were only found for the two high-energy beams, but when the electron contamination is underestimated by TG-51, the difference in kQ is lower. Differences in the other cases and variations over time were less than 0.1%.

Summary and recommendations of a National Cancer Institute workshop on issues limiting the clinical use of Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithms for megavoltage external beam radiation therapy

Due to the significant interest in Monte Carlo dose calculations for external beam megavoltage radiation therapy from both the research and commercial communities, a workshop was held in October 2001 to assess the status of this computational method with regard to use for clinical treatment planning. The Radiation Research Program of the National Cancer Institute, in conjunction with the Nuclear Data and Analysis Group at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, gathered a group of experts in clinical radiation therapy treatment planning and Monte Carlo dose calculations, and examined issues involved in clinical implementation of Monte Carlo dose calculation methods in clinical radiotherapy. The workshop examined the current status of Monte Carlo algorithms, the rationale for using Monte Carlo, algorithmic concerns, clinical issues, and verification methodologies. Based on these discussions, the workshop developed recommendations for future NCI-funded research and development efforts. This paper briefly summarizes the issues presented at the workshop and the recommendations developed by the group.

Reference photon dosimetry data: a preliminary study of in-air off-axis factor, percentage depth dose, and output factor of the Siemens Primus linear accelerator

The dosimetric characteristics for modern computer-controlled linear accelerators with the same make, model, and nominal energy are known to be very similar, as long as the machines are unaltered from the manufacturer's original specifications. In this preliminary study, a quantitative investigation of the similarity in the basic photon dosimetry data from the Siemens Primus linear accelerators at eight different institutions is reported. The output factor, percentage depth dose (PDD), and in-air off-axis factor (OAF) for the 6 and 18 MV photon beams measured or verified by the Radiological Physics Center (RPC) were analyzed. The RPC-measured output factors varied by less than about 2% for each field size. The difference between the maximum and minimum RPC-verified PDD values at each depth was less than about 3%. The difference between the maximum and minimum RPC-measured in-air OAF was no more than 4% at all off-axis distances considered in this study. These results strongly suggest that it is feasible to establish a reference photon dosimetry data set for each make, model, and nominal energy, universally applicable to those machines unaltered from the manufacturers' original specifications, within a clinically acceptable tolerance (e.g., approximately +/-2%).

The IAEA/WHO TLD postal dose quality audits for radiotherapy: a perspective of dosimetry practices at hospitals in developing countries

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The IAEA/WHO TLD postal programme for external audits of the calibration of high-energy photon beams used in radiotherapy has been in operation since 1969. This work presents a survey of the 1317 TLD audits carried out during 1998-2001. The TLD results are discussed from the perspective of the dosimetry practices in hospitals in developing countries, based on the information provided by the participants in their TLD data sheets.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A detailed analysis of the TLD data sheets is systematically performed at the IAEA. It helps to trace the source of any discrepancy between the TLD measured dose and the user stated dose, and also provides information on equipment, dosimetry procedures and the use of codes of practice in the countries participating in the IAEA/WHO TLD audits.

RESULT

The TLD results are within the 5% acceptance limit for 84% of the participants. The results for accelerator beams are typically better than for Co-60 units. Approximately 75% of participants reported dosimetry data, including details on their procedure for dose determination from ionisation chamber measurements. For the remaining 25% of hospitals, who did not submit these data, the results are poorer than the global TLD results. Most hospitals have Farmer type ionisation chambers calibrated in terms of air kerma by a standards laboratory. Less than 10% of the hospitals use new codes of practice based on standards of absorbed dose to water.

CONCLUSION

Despite the differences in dosimetry equipment, traceability to different standards laboratories and uncertainties arising from the use of various dosimetry codes of practice, the determination of absorbed dose to water for photon beams typically agrees within 2% among hospitals. Correct implementation of any of the dosimetry protocols should ensure that significant errors in dosimetry are avoided.

The IPEM code of practice for electron dosimetry for radiotherapy beams of initial energy from 4 to 25 MeV based on an absorbed dose to water calibration

This report contains the recommendations of the Electron Dosimetry Working Party of the UK Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM). The recommendations consist of a code of practice for electron dosimetry for radiotherapy beams of initial energy from 4 to 25 MeV. The code is based on the absorbed dose to water calibration service for electron beams provided by the UK standards laboratory, the National Physical Laboratory (NPL). This supplies direct N(D,w) calibration factors, traceable to a calorimetric primary standard, at specified reference depths over a range of electron energies up to approximately 20 MeV. Electron beam quality is specified in terms of R(50,D), the depth in water along the beam central axis at which the dose is 50% of the maximum. The reference depth for any given beam at the NPL for chamber calibration and also for measurements for calibration of clinical beams is 0.6R(50.D) - 0.1 cm in water. Designated chambers are graphite-walled Farmer-type cylindrical chambers and the NACP- and Roos-type parallel-plate chambers. The practical code provides methods to determine the absorbed dose to water under reference conditions and also guidance on methods to transfer this dose to non-reference points and to other irradiation conditions. It also gives procedures and data for extending up to higher energies above the range where direct calibration factors are currently available. The practical procedures are supplemented by comprehensive appendices giving discussion of the background to the formalism and the sources and values of any data required. The electron dosimetry code improves consistency with the similar UK approach to megavoltage photon dosimetry, in use since 1990. It provides reduced uncertainties, approaching 1% standard uncertainty in optimal conditions, and a simpler formalism than previous air kerma calibration based recommendations for electron dosimetry.

[Improvement of the accuracy of the Laplace transform method for the determination of radiotherapy spectra of clinical linear accelerators]

The present study focused on the reconstruction of the bremsstrahlung spectrum of a clinical linear accelerator from the measured transmission curve, with the aim of improving the accuracy of this method. The essence of the method was the analytic inverse Laplace transform of a parameter function fitted to the measured transmission curve. We tested known fitting functions, however they resulted in considerable fitting inaccuracy, leading to inaccuracies of the bremsstrahlung spectrum. In order to minimise the fitting errors, we employed a linear combination of n equations with 2n-1 parameters. The fitting errors are now considerably smaller. The measurement of the transmission function requires that the energy-dependent detector response is taken into account. We analysed the underlying physical context and developed a function that corrects for the energy-dependent detector response. The factors of this function were experimentally determined or calculated from tabulated values.

[Radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery in the treatment of breast cancer: early results from a non-university hospital in Norway]

BACKGROUND

In 1998 the first radiotherapy unit located outside a university hospital in Norway was established at Rogaland Central Hospital.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Results from 222 consecutive patients treated between June 1999 and March 2002 are presented. Median time to follow up was 25 months (range 8-41). All patients underwent a lumpectomy combined with a complete axillary dissection or a sentinel node biopsy. The entire breast was irradiated using 6MV photon energy to a total dose of 50 Gy.

RESULTS

As of October 2002, there has not been registered any local breast failures. Three patients developed distant metastases and subsequently died from their disease. Contralateral breast cancer has occurred in one patient. The relative number of patients treated with breast conservation therapy, as compared to the total number of patients operated, has not changed after a unit of radiotherapy was established locally.

INTERPRETATION

Our findings show that radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery can be performed safely in a non-university hospital such as Rogaland Central Hospital.

Electron energy constancy verification using a double-wedge phantom

Routine constancy checks of electron energy are often time consuming because of the necessity to measure a dose at two depths. A technique is described that uses a double-wedge shaped phantom positioned on a Profiler diode array for measuring an electron energy constancy metric similar to R(50). The double-wedge electron profiles are invariant to phantom alignment in the wedge direction, unlike single wedge techniques, and the sensitivity of the technique is similar to water-based depth-dose measurements over an energy range of 6 to 20 MeV. Reproducibility results ranging from 0.01 to 0.03 cm were achieved for measurements taken over the course of 1.5 yrs. The technique is efficient in that only one phantom setup is required for all electron energies.

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

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

A fast, independent dose check of HDR plans

High dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy often involves optimization routines to calculate the dwell times and positions of a radioactive source along specified applicator paths. These routines optimize the dwells in such a way as to deliver the prescribed dose at one or more points while satisfying various constraints. The importance of independently verifying the doses calculated by the optimization software prior to treatment delivery has been recognized in various works, and is a requirement of various regulatory agencies. Most previous methods are specific to particular treatment configurations, or require a full replanning of the case. In this work we describe an in-house software which provides an independent verification of dose calculations in less than 3 min, which adds negligible additional waiting time for the patient, regardless of the number of applicators, paths of the applicators, or complexity of the dwell times and positions. In order to verify errors which may occur between the planning and delivery stages, the verification code directly uses the treatment file used to control the HDR afterloader to compute the dose. Since this file references the source positions in the frame of reference of the catheters, an algorithm is described to convert these positions to Cartesian coordinates. We validate the code for various arbitrary cases ranging from a single catheter to complex multicatheter plans, and show results for various clinical plans. The maximum discrepancy observed for these clinical plans is 2%.

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

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

Effects of positioning uncertainty and breathing on dose delivery and radiation pneumonitis prediction in breast cancer

The quality of the radiation therapy delivered in the treatment of breast cancer is susceptible to setup errors and organ motion uncertainties. For 60 breast cancer patients (24 resected with negative node involvement, 13 resected with positive node involvement and 23 ablated) who were treated with three different irradiation techniques. these uncertainties are simulated. The delivered dose distributions in the lung were recalculated taking positioning uncertainty and breathing effects into account. In this way the real dose distributions delivered to the patients are more closely determined. The positioning uncertainties in the anteroposterior (AP) and the craniocaudal (CC) directions are approximated by Gaussian distributions based on the fact that setup errors are random. Breathing is assumed to have a linear behavior because of the chest wall movement during expiration and inspiration. The combined frequency distribution of the positioning and breathing distributions is obtained by convolution. By integrating the convolved distribution over a number of intervals, the positions and the weights of the fields that simulate the original 'effective fields' are calculated. Opposed tangential fields are simulated by a set of 5 pairs of fields in the AP direction and 3 such sets in the CC direction. Opposed AP + PA fields are simulated by a set of 3 pairs of fields in the AP direction and 3 such sets in the CC direction. Single frontal fields are simulated by a set of 5 fields. In radiotherapy for breast cancer, the lung is often partly within the irradiated volume even though it is a sensitive organ at risk. The influence of the deviation in the dose delivered by the original and the adjusted treatment plans on the clinical outcome is estimated by using the relative seriality model and the biologically effective uniform dose concept. Radiation pneumonitis is used as the clinical endpoint for lung complications. The adjusted treatment plans show larger lung complication probabilities than the original plans. This means that the true expected complications are often underestimated in clinical practice. The lung density variation during breathing is calculated from the maximal change in average density during tidal breathing. The change in density in the lung due to breathing is shown to have almost no influence on the dose distribution in the lung. The proposed treatment-plan adjustments taking positioning uncertainty and breathing effects into account indicate significant deviations in the dose delivery and the predicted lung complications.

Fluence correction factors in plastic phantoms for clinical proton beams

In recent codes of practice for reference dosimetry in clinical proton beams using ionization chambers, it is recommended to perform the measurement in a water phantom. However, in situations where the positioning accuracy is very critical, it could be more convenient to perform the measurement in a plastic phantom. In proton beams, a similar approach as in electron beams could be applied by introducing fluence correction factors in order to account for the differences in particle fluence distributions at equivalent depths in plastic and water. In this work, fluence correction factors as a function of depth were determined for proton beams with different energies using the Monte Carlo code PTRAN for PMMA and polystyrene with reference to water. The influence of non-elastic nuclear interaction cross sections was investigated. It was found that differences in proton fluence distributions are almost entirely due to differences in non-elastic nuclear interaction cross sections between the plastic materials and water. For proton beams with energies lower than 100 MeV, for which the contributions from non-elastic interactions become small compared to the total dose, the fluence corrections are smaller than 1%. For beams with energies above 200 MeV, depending on the cross sections dataset for non-elastic nuclear interactions, fluence corrections of 2-5% were found at the largest depths. The results could, with an acceptable accuracy, be represented as a correction per cm penetration of the beam, yielding values between 0.06% and 0.15% per cm for PMMA and 0.06% to 0.20% per cm for polystyrene. Experimental information on these correction factors was obtained from depth dose measurements in PMMA and water. The experiments were performed in 75 MeV and 191 MeV non-modulated and range-modulated proton beams. From the experiments, values ranging from 0.03% to 0.15% per cm were obtained. A decisive answer about which dataset for non-elastic nuclear interactions would result in a better representation of the measurements could not be given. We conclude that below 100 MeV, dosimetry could be performed in plastic phantoms without a dramatic loss of accuracy. On the other hand, in clinical high-energy proton beams, where accurate positioning in water is in general not an issue, substantial correction factors would be required for converting dose measurements in a plastic phantom to absorbed dose to water. It is therefore not advisable to perform absorbed dose measurements nor to measure depth dose distributions in a plastic phantom in high-energy proton beams.

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

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

Accuracy of inhomogeneity correction in photon radiotherapy from CT scans with different settings

We report an investigation on the accuracy of inhomogeneity correction in photon radiotherapy from CT scans with different settings. Specifically, the dosimetric differences from different CT scan parameters (kV, mAs) to phantoms and from different Hounsfield unit versus electron density (HU-ED) curves to patients are investigated. The absolute dose per monitor units (dose/MU) is used to quantify the results. We found that only for high-density bones (cranium, femoral tube, etc) using small field 18 MV beams, the dose/MU is up to 2% higher for CT scans using 80 kV than for 130 kV at a depth just beyond the bone and is up to 1-1.5% higher for CT scans using 80 mAs than for 300 mAs. For low-density bones (such as femoral head) and lung, the difference is 1% or less with different kV or mAs settings. The dose/MU varies with different HU-ED curves by up to 2%. The HU-ED curve from the stochiometric calibration was found to be more accurate based on a real measurement. A simplified 4-point curve provides nearly the same accuracy as the stochiometric calibration and may be used as an alternative for routine clinical application.

Quality assurance of the EORTC trial 22911. A phase III study of post-operative external radiotherapy in pathological stage T3N0 prostatic carcinoma: the dummy run

INTRODUCTION

A dry run of a clinical trial (EORTC 22911) is presented in which 12 centres have participated. These are the centres which have contributed the largest number of patients to the trial.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Each participating centre received data from a suitable patient. Investigators were asked to plan and 'treat' the patient according to the protocol guidelines and return the data for evaluation of compliance.

RESULTS

The results show that compliance to the protocol guidelines was generally good. There were a few minor deviations in the dose and fractionation schedule, in the volume reduction for the booster dose and in the dose prescription point. None of these deviations will affect the outcome of the study. The most important observation is the large inter-centre variation in target volumes.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study underlines the need for a strict definition of the target volume and the adoption of the ICRU 50 recommendations in future protocols.

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

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

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

A comparison of the determination of absorbed dose to water in reference conditions with high-energy electron beams (Enominal of 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 18 MeV) following the recommendations given in the AAPM TG-51 and in the original TG-21 dosimetry protocols has been made. Six different ionization chamber types have been used, two Farmer-type cylindrical (PTW 30001, PMMA wall; NE 2571, graphite wall) and four plane parallel (PTW Markus, and Scanditronix-Wellhöfer NACP, PPC-05 and Roos PPC-40). Depending upon the cylindrical chamber type used and the beam energy, the doses at dmax determined with TG-51 were higher than with TG-21 by about 1%-3%. Approximately 1% of this difference is due to the differences in the data given in the two protocols; another 1.1%-1.2% difference is due to the change of standards, from air-kerma to absorbed dose to water. For plane-parallel chambers, absorbed doses were determined by using two chamber calibration methods: (i) direct use of the ADCL calibration factors N(60Co)D,w and Nx for each chamber type in the appropriate equations for dose determination recommended by each protocol, and (ii) cross-calibration techniques in a high-energy electron beam, as recommended by TG-21, TG-39, and TG-51. Depending upon the plane-parallel chamber type used and the beam energy, the doses at dmax determined with TG-51 were higher than with TG-21 by about 0.7%-2.9% for the direct calibration procedures and by 0.8%-3.2% for the cross-calibration techniques. Measured values of photon-electron conversion kecal, for the NACP and Markus chambers were found to be 0.3% higher and 1.7% lower than the corresponding values given in TG-51. For the PPC-05 and PPC-40 (Roos) chamber types, the values of kecal were measured to be 0.889 and 0.893, respectively. The uncertainty for the entire calibration chain, starting from the calibration of the ionization chamber in the standards laboratory to the determination of absorbed dose to water in the user beam, has been analyzed for the two formalisms. For cylindrical chambers, the observed differences between the two protocols are within the estimated combined uncertainty of the ratios of absorbed doses for 6 and 8 MeV; however, at higher energies (10< or =E< or =18 MeV), the differences are larger than the estimated combined uncertainties by about 1%. For plane-parallel chambers, the observed differences are within the estimated combined uncertainties for the direct calibration technique; for the cross-calibration technique the differences are within the uncertainty estimates at low energies whereas they are comparable to the uncertainty estimates at higher energies. A detailed analysis of the reasons for the discrepancies is made which includes comparing the formalisms, correction factors, and quantities in the two protocols, as well as the influence of the implementation of the different standards for chamber calibration.

Formalisms for MU calculations, ESTRO booklet 3 versus NCS report 12

Although the relevance and importance of quality assurance and quality control in radiotherapy is generally accepted, only recently, methods for monitor unit (MU) calculation and verification have been addressed in recognized recommendations, published by the European Society of Therapeutic Radiation Oncology (ESTRO) and by the Netherlands Commission on Radiation Dosimetry (Dutreix A, Bjärngard BE, Bridier A, Mijnheer B, Shaw JE, Svensson H. Monitor unit calculation for high-energy photon beams. Physics for clinical radiotherapy. ESTRO Booklet No. 3. Leuven: Garant, 1997; Netherlands Commission on Radiation Dosimetry (NCS). Determination and use of scatter correction factors of megavoltage photon beams. NCS report 12. Deift: NCS, 1998). Both documents are based on the same principles: (i) the separation of the output factor into a head and a volume (or phantom) scatter component; (ii) the use of a so-called mini-phantom to measure and verify the head scatter component; and (iii) the recommendation to use a single reference depth of 10 cm for all photon beam qualities. However, there are substantial differences between the approach developed in the IAEA-ESTRO task group and the NCS approach for MU calculations, which might lead to confusion and/or misinterpretation if both reports are used simultaneously or if data from the NCS report is applied in the algorithms of the ESTRO report without careful consideration. The aim of the present paper is to discuss and to clearly point out these differences (e.g. field size definitions, phantom scatter parameters, etc.). Additionally, corresponding quantities in the two reports are related where possible and several aspects concerning the use of a mini-phantom (e.g. size, detector position, composition) are addressed.

Determination of absorbed dose for photon and electron beams from a linear accelerator by comparing various protocols on different phantoms

Protocols developed for high-energy dosimetry IAEA (Technical Reports Series No. 277, 1997), AAPM (Med. Phys. 10 (1983) 741: Med. Phys. 18 (1991) 73: Med. Phys. 21 (1994) 1251), IPEMB (Phys. Med. Biol. 41 (1996) 2557), and HPA (Phys. Med. Biol. 28 (1983) 1097) have continued to enhance precision in dose measurements and the optimization of radiotherapy procedures. While recent dosimetry protocols, including those due to the IAEA and IPEMB, have made a number of improvements compared with previous protocols, it is further desirable to develop absolute dosimetry methods of dose measurements. Measurements based on careful implementation of procedures contained within the various protocols have been carried out in an effort to determine the extent to which discrepancies exist among the protocols. Dose in water at dmax was measured using cylindrical and parallel-plate ionization chambers for 6 MV photon beams and 5 and 12 MeV electron beams. Results obtained from the use of the AAPM and HPA protocols for 6 MV photon beams were found to be 0.9% larger and 0.1% smaller, respectively, than those measured following the IAEA protocol. Calibration dose measurements for 5 and 12 MeV electron beams in water phantoms were found to agree to within 1%, this being well within recommendations from the ICRU and other sources regarding the accuracy of dose delivery.

[The role of high-energy imaging in a radiotherapy service and its incorporation in a network]

To directly compare the clinical efficacy of electronic to film portal images and the advantages of comparing directly on the monitor the simulation image and the portal image.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This study was designed to compare clinical efficacy of electronic to film portal images acquired using a liquid matrix ion-chamber electronic portal imaging device (EPID) and a conventional film system. Two radiation oncologists served as observers and evaluated a total of 30 sets of images for three different treatment sites: lung, pelvis, and head/neck. Each set of images included a simulation image, a portal film, a video paper print of electronic portal images, and a video prints of electronic portal images. Four to six anatomical landmarks were selected from each treatment site. Each observer was asked to rate each landmark in terms of its clinical visibility and to rate the ease of making the pertinent verification decision in the corresponding electronic and film portal images with the aid of the simulation image. The time needed to obtain and analyse a conventional portal image and an EPID would be analysed for the radiotherapist and the medical technicians.

RESULTS

Ratings for the visibility of landmarks and for the verification decision of treatment ports were similar for electronic and film images for most landmarks. However, vertebral bodies and several landmarks in the pelvis such as the acetabulum and pubic symphysis were more visible in the electronic portal images than in the portal film images. For the medical technicians, the EPID is more comfortable, and they do not need to develop any images.

CONCLUSION

The visibility of landmarks in electronic portal images is comparable to that in film portal images. Verification of treatment ports based only on electronic portal images acquired using an electronic portal imaging device is generally achievable. Thus the integration of the EPID and simulation image in a network provides more flexibility in the daily work of a medical radiotherapy team.

Room shielding for intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment facilities

PURPOSE

The traditional assumptions used in room-shielding calculations are reassessed for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). IMRT makes relatively inefficient use of monitor units (MUs) when compared to conventional radiation therapy, affecting the assumptions used in room-shielding calculations. For the same single-fraction tumor dose delivered, the total number of MUs for IMRT is much greater than for a conventional treatment. Therefore, the exposure contribution from the linear accelerator head leakage will be significantly greater than with conventional treatments.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We propose a shielding calculation model that decouples the concepts of workload, MUs, and target dose when determining primary and secondary barrier thicknesses. The workload for primary barrier calculations for conventional multileaf collimator (MLC) IMRT treatments is determined according to patient tumor doses. The same calculation for accelerator-based serial tomotherapy IMRT requires scaling by the average number of treatment slices. However, rotational therapy yields a small use factor that compensates for this increase. We further define a series of efficiency factors to account for the small field sizes employed in IMRT. For secondary barrier calculations, the patient-scattered radiation is assumed to be the same for all IMRT modalities as for conventional therapy. The accelerator head leakage contribution is proportional to the number of MUs. Knowledge of the average number of MUs per patient is required to estimate the head leakage contribution. We used a 6-MV linear accelerator photon beam to guide the development of this technique and to evaluate the adequacy of conventional barriers for IMRT. Average weekly IMRT workload estimates were made based on our experience with 180 serial tomotherapy patients and published data for both "step and shoot" and dynamic MLC delivered treatments.

RESULTS

We found that conventional primary barriers are adequate for both dynamic MLC and serial tomotherapy IMRT. However, the excessive head leakage produced by these modalities requires an increase in secondary barrier shielding.

CONCLUSION

When designing shielding for an IMRT facility, increases in accelerator head leakage must be taken into account for secondary shielding. Adequacy of secondary shielding will depend on the IMRT patient load. For conventional facilities that are being assessed for IMRT therapy, existing primary barriers will typically prove adequate.

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

Task Group 51 (TG-51) of the Radiation Therapy Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) has recently developed a new protocol for the calibration of high-energy photon and electron beams used in radiation therapy. The formalism and the dosimetry procedures recommended in this protocol are based on the use of an ionization chamber calibrated in terms of absorbed dose-to-water in a standards laboratory's 60Co gamma ray beam. This is different from the recommendations given in the AAPM TG-21 protocol, which are based on an exposure calibration factor of an ionization chamber in a 60Co beam. The purpose of this work is to compare the determination of absorbed dose-to-water in reference conditions in high-energy photon beams following the recommendations given in the two dosimetry protocols. This is realized by performing calibrations of photon beams with nominal accelerating potential of 6, 18 and 25 MV, generated by an Elekta MLCi and SL25 series linear accelerator. Two widely used Farmer-type ionization chambers having different composition, PTW 30001 (PMMA wall) and NE 2571 (graphite wall), were used for this study. Ratios of AAPM TG-51 to AAPM TG-21 doses to water are found to be 1.008, 1.007 and 1.009 at 6, 18 and 25 MV, respectively when the PTW chamber is used. The corresponding results for the NE chamber are 1.009, 1.010 and 1.013. The uncertainties for the ratios of the absorbed dose determined by the two protocols are estimated to be about 1.5%. A detailed analysis of the reasons for the discrepancies is made which includes comparing the formalisms, correction factors and quantities in the two protocols, as well as the influence of the implementation of the different standards for chamber calibration. The latter has been found to have a considerable influence on the differences in clinical dosimetry, even larger than the adoption of the new data and recommended procedures, as most intrinsic differences cancel out due to the adoption of the new formalism.

A simple method for electron energy constancy measurement

A device is described for use in confirming the energy constancy of clinical electron beams. A wedge shaped absorber is placed over an ionization chamber leading to an energy dependent response. A measurement under the energy filter is divided by a measurement in air to correct for the inherent energy dependence of the chamber. A nearly linear response is demonstrated.