Flattening filter-free accelerators: a report from the AAPM Therapy Emerging Technology Assessment Work Group

Influence of tumor location on the intensity-modulated radiation therapy plan of helical tomotherapy

Given the design of the Helical TomoTherapy device, the patient's central axis is routinely aligned with the machine's rotational axis to prevent the patient's body from colliding with the machine walls. However, for treatment of tumors located away from the patient's central axis, this position may not be optimal as the adequate radiation dose may not reach the affected site. Our study aimed to investigate the influence of tumor location on dose quality and delivery efficiency of tomotherapy plans. A phantom and 15 patients were selected for this study. Two plans, A and B, were implemented for each case. In plan A, the patient's central axis was aligned with the machine's rotational axis, whereas in plan B, the center of the planning target volume (PTV) was aligned with the machine's rotational axis. Both plans were optimized with the same planning parameters, and the dose quality of the plans was evaluated using dosimetrics. The delivery efficiency was determined from delivery time and monitor units (MUs). A paired t-test or nonparametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for statistical comparison. In the phantom study, the median delivery times were 358 and 336 seconds for plans A and B, respectively, and this difference was significant (p = 0.005). In the patient study, the median delivery times were 348 and 317 seconds for plans A and B, respectively, and this difference was also significant (p = 0.001). The dose qualities of both plans for each patient were nearly identical. No significant differences were found in the conformal index, heterogeneity index, and mean dose delivered to normal tissue between the plans. Both phantom and patient studies showed that for normal-sized patients, the delivery time reduced as the distance between the PTV and the patient's central axis increased when the PTV center was aligned with the machine axis. In conclusion, aligning the PTV center with the machine's rotational axis by shifting the patient during tomotherapy reduces the delivery time without compromising the dose quality of intensity-modulated radiation therapy.

Development of a flattening filter free multiple source model for use as an independent, Monte Carlo, dose calculation, quality assurance tool for clinical trials

PURPOSE

The Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Houston (IROC-H) Quality Assurance Center (formerly the Radiological Physics Center) has reported varying levels of compliance from their anthropomorphic phantom auditing program. IROC-H studies have suggested that one source of disagreement between institution submitted calculated doses and measurement is the accuracy of the institution's treatment planning system dose calculations and heterogeneity corrections used. In order to audit this step of the radiation therapy treatment process, an independent dose calculation tool is needed.

METHODS

Monte Carlo multiple source models for Varian flattening filter free (FFF) 6 MV and FFF 10 MV therapeutic x-ray beams were commissioned based on central axis depth dose data from a 10 × 10 cm² field size and dose profiles for a 40 × 40 cm² field size. The models were validated against open-field measurements in a water tank for field sizes ranging from 3 × 3 cm² to 40 × 40 cm² . The models were then benchmarked against IROC-H's anthropomorphic head and neck phantom and lung phantom measurements.

RESULTS

Validation results, assessed with a ±2%/2 mm gamma criterion, showed average agreement of 99.9% and 99.0% for central axis depth dose data for FFF 6 MV and FFF 10 MV models, respectively. Dose profile agreement using the same evaluation technique averaged 97.8% and 97.9% for the respective models. Phantom benchmarking comparisons were evaluated with a ±3%/2 mm gamma criterion, and agreement averaged 90.1% and 90.8% for the respective models.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple source models for Varian FFF 6 MV and FFF 10 MV beams have been developed, validated, and benchmarked for inclusion in an independent dose calculation quality assurance tool for use in clinical trial audits.

Technical Report: Evaluation of peripheral dose for flattening filter free photon beams

PURPOSE

To develop a comprehensive peripheral dose (PD) dataset for the two unflattened beams of nominal energy 6 and 10 MV for use in clinical care.

METHODS

Measurements were made in a 40 × 120 × 20 cm(3) (width × length × depth) stack of solid water using an ionization chamber at varying depths (dmax, 5, and 10 cm), field sizes (3 × 3 to 30 × 30 cm(2)), and distances from the field edge (5-40 cm). The effects of the multileaf collimator (MLC) and collimator rotation were also evaluated for a 10 × 10 cm(2) field. Using the same phantom geometry, the accuracy of the analytic anisotropic algorithm (AAA) and Acuros dose calculation algorithm was assessed and compared to the measured values.

RESULTS

The PDs for both the 6 flattening filter free (FFF) and 10 FFF photon beams were found to decrease with increasing distance from the radiation field edge and the decreasing field size. The measured PD was observed to be higher for the 6 FFF than for the 10 FFF for all field sizes and depths. The impact of collimator rotation was not found to be clinically significant when used in conjunction with MLCs. AAA and Acuros algorithms both underestimated the PD with average errors of -13.6% and -7.8%, respectively, for all field sizes and depths at distances of 5 and 10 cm from the field edge, but the average error was found to increase to nearly -69% at greater distances.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the known inaccuracies of peripheral dose calculations, this comprehensive dataset can be used to estimate the out-of-field dose to regions of interest such as organs at risk, electronic implantable devices, and a fetus. While the impact of collimator rotation was not found to significantly decrease PD when used in conjunction with MLCs, results are expected to be machine model and beam energy dependent. It is not recommended to use a treatment planning system to estimate PD due to the underestimation of the out-of-field dose and the inability to calculate dose at extended distances due to the limits of the dose calculation matrix.

Efficient independent planar dose calculation for FFF IMRT QA with a bivariate Gaussian source model

The aim of this study is to perform a direct comparison of the source model for photon beams with and without flattening filter (FF) and to develop an efficient independent algorithm for planar dose calculation for FF‐free (FFF) intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA). The source model consisted of a point source modeling the primary photons and extrafocal bivariate Gaussian functions modeling the head scatter, monitor chamber backscatter, and collimator exchange effect. The model parameters were obtained by minimizing the difference between the calculated and measured in‐air output factors (S_c). The fluence of IMRT beams was calculated from the source model using a backprojection and integration method. The off‐axis ratio in FFF beams were modeled with a fourth degree polynomial. An analytical kernel consisting of the sum of three Gaussian functions was used to describe the dose deposition process. A convolution‐based method was used to account for the ionization chamber volume averaging effect when commissioning the algorithm. The algorithm was validated by comparing the calculated planar dose distributions of FFF head‐and‐neck IMRT plans with measurements performed with a 2D diode array. Good agreement between the measured and calculated S_c was achieved for both FF beams (<0.25%) and FFF beams (<0.10%). The relative contribution of the head‐scattered photons reduced by 34.7% for 6 MV and 49.3% for 10 MV due to the removal of the FF. Superior agreement between the calculated and measured dose distribution was also achieved for FFF IMRT. In the gamma comparison with a 2%/2 mm criterion, the average passing rate was 96.2 ± 1.9% for 6 MV FFF and 95.5 ± 2.6% for 10 MV FFF. The efficient independent planar dose calculation algorithm is easy to implement and can be valuable in FFF IMRT QA.

Ion recombination and polarity corrections for small-volume ionization chambers in high-dose-rate, flattening-filter-free pulsed photon beams

PURPOSE

To investigate ion recombination and polarity effects in scanning and microionization chambers when used with digital electrometers and high-dose-rate linac beams such as flattening-filter-free (FFF) fields, and to compare results against conventional pulsed and continuous photon beams.

METHODS

Saturation curves were obtained for one Farmer-type ionization chamber and eight small-volume chamber models with volumes ranging from 0.01 to 0.13 cm³ using a Varian TrueBeam™ STx with FFF capability. Three beam modes (6 MV, 6 MV FFF, and 10 MV FFF) were investigated, with nominal dose-per-pulse values of 0.0278, 0.0648, and 0.111 cGy/pulse, respectively, at d_max . Saturation curves obtained using the Theratronics T1000 ⁶⁰ Co unit at the UWADCL and a conventional linear accelerator (Varian Clinac iX) were used to establish baseline behavior. Jaffé plots were fitted to obtain P_ion , accounting for exponential effects such as charge multiplication. These values were compared with the two-voltage technique recommended in TG-51, and were plotted as a function of dose-per-pulse to assess the ability of small-volume chambers to meet reference-class criteria in FFF beams.

RESULTS

Jaffé- and two-voltage-determined P_ion values measured for high-dose-rate beams agreed within 0.1% for the Farmer-type chamber and 1% for scanning and microionization chambers, with the exception of the CC01 which agreed within 2%. With respect to ion recombination and polarity effects, the Farmer-type chamber, scanning chambers and the Exradin A26 microchamber exhibited reference-class behavior in all beams investigated, with the exception of the IBA CC04 scanning chamber, which had an initial recombination correction that varied by 0.2% with polarity. All microchambers investigated, with the exception of the A26, exhibited anomalous polarity and ion recombination behaviors that make them unsuitable for reference dosimetry in conventional and high-dose-rate photon beams.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this work demonstrate that recombination and polarity behaviors seen in conventional pulsed and continuous photon beams trend accordingly in high-dose-rate FFF linac beams. Several models of small-volume ionization chambers used with a digital electrometer have been shown to meet reference-class requirements with respect to ion recombination and polarity, even in the high-dose-rate environment. For such chambers, a two-voltage technique agreed well with more rigorous methods of determining P_ion . However, the results emphasize the need for careful reference detector selection, and indicate that ionization chambers ought to be extensively tested in each beam of interest prior to their use for reference dosimetry.

Choice of a Suitable Dosimeter for Photon Percentage Depth Dose Measurements in Flattening Filter-Free Beams

The International Atomic Energy Agency Technical Reports Series-398 code of practice for dosimetry recommends measuring photon percentage depth dose (PDD) curves with parallel-plate chambers. This code of practice was published before flattening filter-free (FFF) beams were widely used in clinical linear accelerators. The choice of detector for PDD measurements needs to be reassessed for FFF beams given the physical differences between FFF beams and flattened ones. The present study compares PDD curves for FFF beams of nominal energies 6 MV, 6 FFF, 10 MV, and 10 FFF from a Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, USA) acquired with Scanditronix photon diodes, two scanning type chambers (both PTW 31010 Semiflex), two small volume chambers (Wellhofer CC04 and PTW 31016 PinPoint 3D), PTW 34001 Roos, Scanditronix Roos, and NACP 02 parallel-plate chambers. Results show that parallel-plate ion chambers can be used for photon PDD measurements, although for better accuracy, recombination effects should be taken into account.

Clinically relevant investigation of flattening filter-free skin dose

As flattening filter‐free (FFF) photon beams become readily available for treatment delivery in techniques such as SBRT, thorough investigation of skin dose from FFF photon beams is necessary under clinically relevant conditions. Using a parallel‐plate PTW Markus chamber placed in a custom water‐equivalent phantom, surface‐dose measurements were taken at 2×2,3×3,4×4,6×6,8×8,10×10,20×20, and 30×30 cm2 field sizes, at 80, 90, and 100 cm source‐to‐surface distances (SSDs), and with fields defined by jaws and multileaf collimator (MLC) using multiple beam energies (6X, 6XFFF, 10X, and 10XFFF). The same set of measurements was repeated with the chamber at a reference depth of 10 cm. Each surface measurement was normalized by its corresponding reference depth measurement for analysis. The FFF surface doses at 100 cm SSD were higher than flattened surface doses by 45% at 2×2 cm2 to 13% at 20×20 cm2 for 6 MV energy. These surface dose differences varied to a greater degree as energy increased, ranging from +63% at 2×2 cm2 to −2% at 20×20 cm2 for 10 MV. At small field sizes, higher energy increased FFF surface dose relative to flattened surface dose; while at larger field sizes, relative FFF surface dose was higher for lower energies. At both energies investigated, decreasing SSD caused a decrease in the ratios of FFF‐to‐flattened surface dose. Variability with SSD of FFF‐to‐flattened surface dose differences increased with field size and ranged from 0% to 6%. The field size at which FFF and flattened beams gave the same skin dose increased with decreasing beam energy. Surface dose was higher with MLC fields compared to jaw fields under most conditions, with the difference reaching its maximum at a field size between 4×4 cm2 and 6×6 cm2 for a given energy and SSD. This study conveyed the magnitude of surface dose in a clinically meaningful manner by reporting results normalized to 10 cm depth dose instead of depth of dose maximum.

PACS number(s): 87.53.Bn, 87.53.Ly, 87.55.‐x, 87.55.N‐, 87.56.N‐

Technical Note: On the impact of the incident electron beam energy on the primary dose component of flattening filter free photon beams

PURPOSE

For commercially available linear accelerators (Linacs), the electron energies of flattening filter free (FFF) and flattened (FF) beams are either identical or the electron energy of the FFF beam is increased to match the percentage depth dose curve (PDD) of the FF beam (in reference geometry). This study focuses on the primary dose components of FFF beams for both kinds of settings, studied on the same Linac.

METHODS

The measurements were conducted on a VersaHD Linac (Elekta, Crawley, UK) for both FF and FFF beams with nominal energies of 6 and 10 MV. In the clinical setting of the VersaHD, the energy of FFFM (Matched) beams is set to match the PDDs of the FF beams. In contrast the incident electron beam of the FFFU beam was set to the same energy as for the FF beam. Half value layers (HVLs) and a dual parameter beam quality specifier (DPBQS) were determined.

RESULTS

For the 6 MV FFFM beam, HVL and DPBQS values were very similar compared to those of the 6 MV FF beam, while for the 10 MV FFFM and FF beams, only %dd(10)x and HVL values were comparable (differences below 1.5%). This shows that matching the PDD at one depth does not guarantee other beam quality dependent parameters to be matched. For FFFU beams, all investigated beam quality specifiers were significantly different compared to those for FF beams of the same nominal accelerator potential. The DPBQS of the 6 MV FF and FFFM beams was equal within the measurement uncertainty and was comparable to published data of a machine with similar TPR20,10 and %dd(10)x. In contrast to that, the DPBQS's two parameters of the 10 MV FFFM beam were substantially higher compared to those for the 10 MV FF beam.

CONCLUSIONS

PDD-matched FF and FFF beams of both nominal accelerator potentials were observed to have similar HVL values, indicating similarity of their primary dose components. Using the DPBQS revealed that the mean attenuation coefficient was found to be the same within the uncertainty of 0.8% for 6 MV FF and 6 MV FFFM beams, while for 10 MV beams, they differed by 6.4%. This shows that the DPBQS can provide a differentiation of photon beam characteristics that would remain hidden by the use of a single beam quality specifier, such as %dd(10)x or HVL.

Small field detector correction factors: effects of the flattening filter for Elekta and Varian linear accelerators

Flattening filter‐free (FFF) beams are becoming the preferred beam type for stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR), as they enable an increase in dose rate and a decrease in treatment time. This work assesses the effects of the flattening filter on small field output factors for 6 MV beams generated by both Elekta and Varian linear accelerators, and determines differences between detector response in flattened (FF) and FFF beams. Relative output factors were measured with a range of detectors (diodes, ionization chambers, radiochromic film, and microDiamond) and referenced to the relative output factors measured with an air core fiber optic dosimeter (FOD), a scintillation dosimeter developed at Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, Sydney. Small field correction factors were generated for both FF and FFF beams. Diode measured detector response was compared with a recently published mathematical relation to predict diode response corrections in small fields. The effect of flattening filter removal on detector response was quantified using a ratio of relative detector responses in FFF and FF fields for the same field size. The removal of the flattening filter was found to have a small but measurable effect on ionization chamber response with maximum deviations of less than ±0.9% across all field sizes measured. Solid‐state detectors showed an increased dependence on the flattening filter of up to ±1.6%. Measured diode response was within ±1.1% of the published mathematical relation for all fields up to 30 mm, independent of linac type and presence or absence of a flattening filter. For 6 MV beams, detector correction factors between FFF and FF beams are interchangeable for a linac between FF and FFF modes, providing that an additional uncertainty of up to ±1.6% is accepted.

PACS number(s): 87.55.km, 87.56.bd, 87.56.Da

Absorbed dose measurements in the build-up region of flattened versus unflattened megavoltage photon beams

This study evaluated absorbed dose measurements in the build-up region of conventional (FF) versus flattening filter-free (FFF) photon beams. The absorbed dose in the build-up region of static 6 and 10MV FF and FFF beams was measured using radiochromic film and extrapolation chamber dosimetry for single beams with a variety of field sizes, shapes and positions relative to the central axis. Removing the flattening filter generally resulted in slightly higher relative build-up doses. No considerable impact on the depth of maximum dose was found.

Pinnacle3 modeling and end-to-end dosimetric testing of a Versa HD linear accelerator with the Agility head and flattening filter-free modes

The Elekta Versa HD incorporates a variety of upgrades to the line of Elekta linear accelerators, primarily including the Agility head and flattening filter‐free (FFF) photon beam delivery. The completely distinct dosimetric output of the head from its predecessors, combined with the FFF beams, requires a new investigation of modeling in treatment planning systems. A model was created in Pinnacle³ v9.8 with the commissioned beam data. A phantom consisting of several plastic water and Styrofoam slabs was scanned and imported into Pinnacle³, where beams of different field sizes, source‐to‐surface distances (SSDs), wedges, and gantry angles were devised. Beams included all of the available photon energies (6, 10, 18, 6 FFF, and 10 FFF MV), as well as the four electron energies commissioned for clinical use (6, 9, 12, and 15 MeV). The plans were verified at calculation points by measurement with a calibrated ionization chamber. Homogeneous and heterogeneous point‐dose measurements agreed within 2% relative to maximum dose for all photon and electron beams. AP photon open field measurements along the central axis at 100 cm SSD passed within 1%. In addition, IMRT testing was also performed with three standard plans (step and shoot IMRT, as well as a small‐ and large‐field VMAT plan). The IMRT plans were delivered on the Delta⁴ IMRT QA phantom, for which a gamma passing rate was >99.5% for all plans with a 3% dose deviation, 3 mm distance‐to‐agreement, and 10% dose threshold. The IMRT QA results for the first 23 patients yielded gamma passing rates of 97.4%±2.3%. Such testing ensures confidence in the ability of Pinnacle³ to model photon and electron beams with the Agility head.

PACS numbers: 87.55.D, 87.56.bd

Pion effects in flattening filter-free radiation beams

Flattening filter‐free radiation beams have higher dose rates that significantly increase the ion recombination rate in an ion chamber's volume and lower the signal read by the chamber‐electrometer pair. The ion collection efficiency correction (Pion) accounts for the loss of signal and subsequently changes dosimetric quantities when applied. We seek to characterize the changes to the percent depth dose, tissue maximum ratio, relative dose factor, absolute dose calibration, off‐axis ratio, and the field width. We measured Pion with the two‐voltage technique and represented Pion as a linear function of the signal strength. This linear fit allows us to correct measurement sets when we have only gathered the high voltage signal and to correct derived quantities. The changes to dosimetric quantities can be up to 1.5%. Charge recombination significantly affects percent depth dose, tissue maximum ratio, and off‐axis ratio, but has minimal impact on the relative dose factor, absolute dose calibration, and field width.

PACS number: 87.55.N‐