Accelerator beam data commissioning equipment and procedures: Report of the TG-106 of the Therapy Physics Committee of the AAPM

Evaluating small field dosimetry with the Acuros XB (AXB) and analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) dose calculation algorithms in the eclipse treatment planning system

Background:

An increasing number of external beam treatment modalities including intensity modulated radiation therapy, volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and stereotactic radiosurgery uses very small fields for treatment planning and delivery. However, there are major challenges in small photon field dosimetry, due to the partial occlusion of the direct photon beam source’s view from the measurement point, lack of lateral charged particle equilibrium, steep dose-rate gradient and volume averaging effect of the detector response and variation of the energy fluence in the lateral direction of the beam. Therefore, experimental measurements of dosimetric parameters such as percent depth doses (PDDs), beam profiles and relative output factors (ROFs) for small fields continue to be a challenge.

Materials and Methods:

In this study, we used a homogeneous water phantom and the heterogeneous anthropomorphic stereotactic end-to-end verification (STEEV) head phantom for all dose measurements and calculations. PDDs, lateral dose profiles and ROFs were calculated in the Eclipse Treatment Planning System version 13·6 using the Acuros XB (AXB) and the analytical anisotropic algorithms (AAAs) in a homogenous water phantom. Monte Carlo (MC) simulations and measurements using the Exradin W1 Scintillator were also accomplished for four photon energies: 6 MV, 6FFF, 10 MV and 10FFF. Two VMAT treatment plans were generated for two different targets: one located in the brain and the other in the neck (close to the trachea) in the head phantom (CIRS, Norfolk, VA, USA). A Varian Truebeam linear accelerator (Varian, Palo Alto, CA, USA) was used for all treatment deliveries. Calculated results with AXB and AAA were compared with MC simulations and measurements.

Results:

The average difference of PDDs between W1 Exradin Scintillator measurements and MC simulations, AAA and AXB algorithm calculations were 1·2, 2·4 and 3·2%, respectively, for all field sizes and energies. AXB and AAA showed differences in ROF of about 0·3 and 2·9%, respectively, compared with W1 Exradin Scintillator measured values. For the target located in the brain in the head phantom, the average dose difference between W1 Exradin Scintillator and the MC simulations, AAA and AXB were 0·2, 3·2 and 2·7%, respectively, for all field sizes. Similarly, for the target located in the neck, the respective dose differences were 3·8, 5·7 and 3·5%.

Conclusion:

In this study, we compared dosimetric parameters such as PDD, beam profile and ROFs in water phantom and isocenter point dose measurements in an anthropomorphic head phantom representing a patient. We observed that measurements using the W1 Exradin scintillator agreed well with MC simulations and can be used efficiently for dosimetric parameters such as PDDs and dose profiles and patient-specific quality assurance measurements for small fields. In both homogenous and heterogeneous media, the AXB algorithm dose prediction agrees well with MC and measurements and was found to be superior to the AAA algorithm.

Cherenkov emission-based external radiotherapy dosimetry: I. Formalism and feasibility

PURPOSE

Cherenkov emission (CE)-based external beam dosimetry is envisioned to involve the detection of CE directly in water with placement of a high-resolution detector out of the field, avoiding perturbations encountered with traditional dosimeters. In this work, we lay out the groundwork for its implementation in the clinic and motivate CE-based dosimeter design efforts. To that end, we examine a formalism for broad-beam in-water CE-based dosimetry of external radiotherapy beams, design and test a Monte Carlo (MC) simulation framework for the calculation of CE-to-dose conversion factors used by the formalism, and demonstrate the experimental feasibility of this method.

METHODS

The formalism is conceptually analogous to ionization-based dosimetry and employs CE-to-dose conversion factors, k C θ ± δ θ , including only and all CE generated within polar angles θ ± δθ on beam axis. The EGSnrc user code SPRRZnrc is modified to calculate k C θ ± δ θ , as well as CE spectral and angular distributions. The modified code is tested with monoenergetic parallel electrons on a thin water slab. Detector configurations are examined for broad 6-22 MeV electron beams from a BEAMnrc TrueBeam model, with a focus on θ ± δ θ = 90 ∘ ± 90 ∘ (4π detection), 90 ∘ ± 5 ∘ , and 42 ∘ ± 5 ∘ ( θ = 42 ∘ is the CE angle of relativistic electrons in water). We perform a relative experimental validation at 90 ∘ with electron beams, using a simple detector design with spherical optics and geometrical optics approximation of the sensitive volume, which spans the water tank. Due to transient charged particle equilibrium, broad photon beams are generally less sensitive to beam quality, depth, and angle.

RESULTS

For 0.1-50 MeV electrons on a thin water slab, the code outputs CE photon spectral density per unit mass (calculated from dose and k C θ ± δ θ ) and angle in agreement with theory within ±0.03% and ± 0 . 01 ∘ , respectively, corresponding to the output precision. The 42 ∘ configuration was found impractical due to detection considerations. Detection at 90 ∘ ± δ θ for small δθ exhibited beam quality dependence of the same order as well as strong superficial depth dependence. A 4π configuration ameliorates these effects. A more practical approach may employ a large numerical aperture. In comparing with literature, we find that these effects are less pronounced for broad photon beams in water, as expected. Measured relative k C 90 ∘ ± δ θ at small δθ were within 1% of simulated factors (relative to their local average) for percent-depth CE (PDC) >50%. At other depths, deviations were in accordance with signal-to-noise, known detector limitations, and approximations. It was found that the CE spectrum is beam quality and depth invariant, while for electron beams the CE angular distribution is strongly dependent on beam quality and depth. However, the uncertainty of CE and PDC measurement at 90 ∘ ± δ θ detection for small δθ due to ± 0 . 1 ∘ deviations around δθ was shown to be ≤1% and <0.1% (k = 1), respectively. The robustness to expected detector setup variations was found to result in ≤1% (k = 1) local uncertainty contribution for PDC >50%.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our MC and experimental studies, we conclude that the CE-based method is promising for high-resolution, perturbation-free, three-dimensional dosimetry in water, with specific applications contingent on comprehensive detector development and characterization.

National survey of patient specific IMRT quality assurance in China

BACKGROUND

To analyze and present the China's national survey on patient-specific IMRT quality assurance (QA).

METHODS

A national survey was conducted in all radiotherapy centers in China to collect comprehensive information on status of IMRT QA practice, including machine, technique, equipment, issues and suggestions.

RESULTS

Four hundred and three centers responded to this survey, accounting for 56.92% of all the centers implementing IMRT in China. The total number of medical physicists and the total number of patients treated with IMRT annually in these centers was 1599 and 305,000 respectively. All centers implemented measurement-based verification. Point dose verification and 2D dose verification was implemented in 331 and 399 centers, respectively. Three hundred forty-eight centers had 2D arrays, and 52 centers had detector devices designed to measure VMAT beams. EPID and film were used in 78 and 70 centers, respectively. Seventeen and 20 centers used log file and 3D DVH analysis, respectively. One hundred sixty-eight centers performed measurement-based verification not for each patient based on different selection criteria. The techniques and methods varied significantly in both point dose and dose distribution verification, from evaluation metrics, criteria, tolerance limit, and steps to check failed IMRT QA plans. Major issues identified in this survey were the limited resources of physicists, QA devices, and linacs.

CONCLUSIONS

IMRT QA was implemented in all the surveyed centers. The practice of IMRT QA varied significantly between centers. An increase in personnel, QA devices and linacs is highly desired. National standard, guideline, regulation and training programs are urgently needed in China for consistent and effective implementation of IMRT QA.

Application of TG-100 risk analysis methods to the acceptance testing and commissioning process of a Halcyon linear accelerator

PURPOSE

A new type of linear accelerator (linac) was recently introduced into the market by a major manufacturer. Our institution is one of the early users of this preassembled and preconfigured dual-layer multileaf collimator (MLC), ring-gantry linac - Halcyon™ (1st version). We performed a set of full acceptance testing and commissioning (ATC) measurements for three Halcyon machines and compared the measured data with the standard beam model provided by the manufacturer. The ATC measurements were performed following the guidelines given in different AAPM protocols as well as guidelines provided by the manufacturer. The purpose of the present work was to perform a risk assessment of the ATC process for this new type of linac and investigate whether the results obtained from this analysis could potentially be used as a guideline for improving the design features of this type of linac.

METHODS

AAPM's TG100 risk assessment methodology was applied to the ATC process. The acceptance testing process relied heavily on the use of a manufacturer-supplied phantom and the automated analysis of electronic portal imaging device (EPID) images. For the commissioning process, a conventional measurement setup and process (e.g., use of water tank for scanning) was largely used. ATC was performed using guidelines recommended in various AAPM protocols (e.g., TG-106, TG-51) as well as guidelines provided by the manufacturer. Six medical physicists were involved in this study. Process maps, process steps, and failure modes (FMs) were generated for the ATC procedures. Failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) were performed following the guidelines given in AAPM TG-100 protocol. The top 5 and top 10 highest-ranked FMs were identified for the acceptance and commissioning procedures, respectively. Quality control measures were suggested to mitigate these FMs.

RESULTS

A total of 38 steps and 88 FMs were identified for the entire ATC process. Fourteen steps and 34 FMs arose from acceptance testing. The top 5 FMs that were identified could potentially be mitigated by the manufacturer. For commissioning, a total of 24 steps and 54 potential FMs were identified. The use of separate measurement tools that are not machine-integrated has been identified as a cause for the higher number of steps and FMs generated from the conventional ATC approach. More than half of the quality control measures recommended for both acceptance and commissioning could potentially be incorporated by the manufacturer in the design of the Halcyon machine.

CONCLUSION

This paper presents the results of FMEA and quality control measures to mitigate the FMs for the ATC process for Halcyon machine. Unique FMs that result from the differences in the ATC guidelines provided by the vendor and current conventional protocols, and the challenges of performing the ATC due to the new linac features and ring-gantry design were highlighted for the first time. The FMs identified in the present work along with the suggested quality control measures, could potentially be used to improve the design features of future ring-gantry type of linacs that are likely to be preassembled, preconfigured, and heavily reliant on automation and image guidance.

Optimizing beam models for dosimetric accuracy over a wide range of treatments

This work presents a systematic approach for testing a dose calculation algorithm over a variety of conditions designed to span the possible range of clinical treatment plans. Using this method, a TrueBeam STx machine with high definition multi-leaf collimators (MLCs) was commissioned in the RayStation treatment planning system (TPS). The initial model parameters values were determined by comparing TPS calculations with standard measured depth dose and profile curves. The MLC leaf offset calibration was determined by comparing measured and calculated field edges utilizing a wide range of MLC retracted and over-travel positions. The radial fluence was adjusted using profiles through both the center and corners of the largest field size, and through measurements of small fields that were located at highly off-axis positions. The flattening filter source was adjusted to improve the TPS agreement for the output of MLC-defined fields with much larger jaw openings. The MLC leaf transmission and leaf end parameters were adjusted to optimize the TPS agreement for highly modulated intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans. The final model was validated for simple open fields, multiple field configurations, the TG 119 C-shape target test, and a battery of clinical IMRT and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans. The commissioning process detected potential dosimetric errors of over 10% and resulted in a final model that provided in general 3% dosimetric accuracy. This study demonstrates the importance of using a variety of conditions to adjust a beam model and provides an effective framework for achieving high dosimetric accuracy.

Do the representative beam data for TrueBeam™ linear accelerators represent average data?

If the vendor's representative beam data (RBD) for TrueBeam linear accelerators are to be valid for use in clinical practice, the variations in the beam data used for beam modeling must be small. Although a few studies have reported the variation of the beam data of the TrueBeam machines, the numbers of machines analyzed in those studies were small. In this study, we investigated the variation in the beam data for 21 TrueBeam machines collected from 17 institutions with their agreement. In the exponential regions, the percent depth dose (PDD) values showed very small variation, <1% for all the photon energies analyzed. Similarly, the off‐center ratio (OCR) values also showed small variation for all energies. In the field regions, the standard deviations of the values of dose difference (DD) between the data for each machine and the study average were <1% for field sizes ≥100 × 100 mm². The maximum distance‐to‐agreement from the average data was <0.5 mm in the penumbra regions. The output factor (OPF) values also showed very small variation (<1%) for all energies and field sizes. Both the PDD and OCR of the average study data showed good agreement with the vendor's RBD for field sizes ≥100 × 100 mm². The OPF of the average study data also showed good agreement with the vendor's RBD for all field sizes. However, although all the institutions used ionization chambers with similar cavity volumes, the 30 × 30 mm² field size showed large DD variations (≥2%) in OCR in the field regions. We conclude that the intermachine variability of TrueBeam linear accelerators was very small except for small field dosimetry, supporting the validity of the use of the RBD for clinical applications. The use of the vendor's RBD might greatly facilitate the quick installation of a new linear accelerator.

[Characterization of Small Volume Plastic Scintillation Detector]

Some radiation detectors are used for quality assurance and measured to radiation dose for high precision external beam radiotherapy. Recently, plastic scintillation detectors for MeV X-ray measurement are commercially released. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of a commercial plastic scintillation detector with respect to the dose linearity, dose rate dependence, and the output coefficient compared the ionization chamber and the semiconductor detector using each different X-ray energy with or without flattening filter. The result that the dose linearity of each detector showed a linear response in any detectors. Dose rate dependence of plastic scintillation detector was increased when setting dose rate was changed, especially setting to low dose rate. The output coefficient of plastic scintillation detector was equivalent as that of the semiconductor detector even in smallest irradiation field. In conclusion, it was suggested that the plastic scintillation detector is a suitable detector in dose verification measurements for high precision external beam radiotherapy, although we must be with care to low dose rate measurements.

[Quality Assurance Procedure for Linear Accelerators Measuring Direct Tissue Maximum Ratio with a Calibration Water Phantom]

In this paper, we proposed an efficient quality assurance method which can measure direct tissue maximum ratio (TMR_Dir), total scatter factor (S_{cp, Dir}), wedge factor (WF_Dir), tissue phantom ratio 20/10 (TPR20/10_Dir) by using a calibration water phantom and a Farmer chamber. The TMR_Dir was compared with the calculated TMR (TMR_Cal) that was calculated from the percentage depth dose at the time of the linear accelerator installation. S_{cp, Dir}, WF_Dir and TPR20/10_Dir calculated from TMR_Dir were compared with S_{cp, BD}, WF_BD, and TPR20/10_BD measured at the time of the linear accelerator installation. The difference between TMR_Dir and TMR_Cal was approximately within 1% except for using 60° wedge filter. The difference between S_{cp, Dir} and S_{cp, BD} was within 1%, between WF_Dir and WF_BD was within 2%, between TPR20/10_Dir and TPR20/10_BD was within 1%, these differences were acceptable levels of AAPM TG-142 report. Also, coefficient of variation (CV) of TMR_Dir, S_cpDir, WF_Dir and TPR20/10_Dir when changing days and measuring multiple times were approximately within 1%, these CVs were reference levels of AAPM TG-106 report. We validated that was an efficient quality assurance method by measuring direct tissue maximum ratio, but the propose method has limited in measurable field size.

The commissioning and validation of Monaco treatment planning system on an Elekta VersaHD linear accelerator

Accurate beam modeling is essential to help ensure overall accuracy in the radiotherapy process. This study describes our experience with beam model validation of a Monaco treatment planning system on a Versa HD linear accelerator. Data were collected such that Monaco beam models could be generated using three algorithms: collapsed cone (CC) and photon Monte Carlo (MC) for photon beams, and electron Monte Carlo (eMC) for electron beams. Validations are performed on measured percent depth doses (PDDs) and profiles, for open‐field point‐doses in homogenous and heterogeneous media, and for obliquely incident electron beams. Gamma analysis is used to assess the agreement between calculation and measurement for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans, including volumetric modulated arc therapy for stereotactic body radiation therapy (VMAT SBRT). For all relevant conditions, gamma index values below 1 are obtained when comparing Monaco calculated PDDs and profiles with measured data. Point‐doses in a water medium are found to be within 2% agreement of commissioning data in 99.5% and 98.6% of the points computed by MC and CC, respectively. All point‐dose calculations for the eMC algorithm in water are within 4% agreement of measurement, and 92% of measurements are within 3%. In heterogeneous media of air and cortical bone, both CC and MC yielded better than 3% agreement with ion chamber measurements. eMC yielded 3% agreement to measurement downstream of air with oblique beams of up to 27°, 5% agreement distal to bone, and within 4% agreement at extended source to surface distance (SSD) for all electron energies except 6 MeV. The 6‐MeV point of measurement is on a steep dose gradient which may impact the magnitude of discrepancy measured. The average gamma passing rate for IMRT/VMAT plans is 96.9% (±2.1%) and 98.0% (±1.9%) for VMAT SBRT when evaluated using 3%/2 mm criteria. Monaco beam models for the Versa HD linac were successfully commissioned for clinical use.

Can Gafchromic EBT3 films effectively characterize small fields of 6 MV unflattened photon beams of Cyberknife system?

Shielded silicon diodes are commonly employed in commissioning of Cyberknife 6 MV photon beams. This study aims to measure output factors, off centered ratio (OCR), percentage depth dose (PDD) of 6 MV photons using shielded and unshielded diodes and to compare with Gafchromic EBT3 film measurements to investigate whether EBT3 could effectively characterize small 6 MV photon beams. Output factors, OCR and PDD were measured with shielded and unshielded silicon detectors in a radiation field analyzer system at reference condition. Water equivalent solid phantom were used while irradiating EBT3 films. From multiuser data, diodes underestimated output factor by 3% for collimator fields ≤ 10 mm, while EBT3 underestimated the output factor by 3.9% for 5 mm collimator. 1D Gamma analysis of OCR between diode and film, results in gamma ≤ 1 for all measured points with 1 mm distance to agreement (DTA) and 1% relative dose difference (DD). Dose at surface is overestimated with diodes compared to EBT3. PDD results were within 2% relative dose values between diode and EBT3 except for 5 mm collimator. Except for small collimator fields of up to 10 mm, results of output factor, OCR, PDD of all detectors used in this study exhibited similar results. Relative dose measurements with Gafchromic EBT3 in this work show that EBT3 films can be used effectively as an independent tool to verify commissioning beam data of small fields only after careful verification of methodology for any systematic errors with appropriate readout procedure.

Evaluation of beam matching accuracy among six linacs from the same vendor

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the dosimetric variation among six non-beam-matched Varian linacs using different techniques for the same plans. Six non-beam-matched Varian machines, comprising two Clinac iX, two 600 C/D (Unique), and two True Beam Tx photon 6 MV X-ray devices were acquired. Sixty patients with of head and neck (H&N; 30) and pelvic (30) treatment sites were chosen. For all 60 patients, three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and volumetric-modulated radiotherapy (VMAT) plans were generated for the Clinac iX-1 device; all plans were migrated to the remaining machines, using the eclipse treatment planning system without any modification. The dosimetric variation among the six machines for each target volume and organ at risk was recorded and analyzed. In H&N cases, the maximum variation among the six machines with 3DCRT, IMRT, and VMAT was 2.57%, 2.6%, and 2.6%, respectively. In pelvic cases, the maximum variation among the six machines with 3DCRT, IMRT, and VMAT was 2.2%, 1.95%, and 2.05%, respectively. Our overall results show that dosimetric variation, while interchanging the plans among the six machines at phantom and patient levels, remains within the limits of clinical acceptability. The noted variation was not correlated with any of these treatment techniques: 3DCRT, IMRT, or VMAT.

Feasibility of photon beam profile deconvolution using a neural network

PURPOSE

Ionization chambers are the detectors of choice for photon beam profile scanning. However, they introduce significant volume averaging effect (VAE) that can artificially broaden the penumbra width by 2-3 mm. The purpose of this study was to examine the feasibility of photon beam profile deconvolution (the elimination of VAE from ionization chamber-measured beam profiles) using a three-layer feedforward neural network.

METHODS

Transverse beam profiles of photon fields between 2 × 2 and 10 × 10 cm² were collected with both a CC13 ionization chamber and an EDGE diode detector on an Elekta Versa HD accelerator. These profiles were divided into three datasets (training, validation and test) to train and test a three-layer feedforward neural network. A sliding window was used to extract input data from the CC13-measured profiles. The neural network produced the deconvolved value at the center of the sliding window. The full deconvolved profile was obtained after the sliding window was moved over the measured profile from end to end. The EDGE-measured beam profiles were used as reference for the training, validation, and test. The number of input neurons, which equals the sliding window width, and the number of hidden neurons were optimized with a parametric sweeping method. A total of 135 neural networks were fully trained with the Levenberg-Marquardt backpropagation algorithm. The one with the best overall performance on the training and validation dataset was selected to test its generalization ability on the test dataset. The agreement between the neural network-deconvolved profiles and the EDGE-measured profiles was evaluated with two metrics: mean squared error (MSE) and penumbra width difference (PWD).

RESULTS

Based on the two-dimensional MSE plots, the optimal combination of sliding window width of 15 and 5 hidden neurons was selected for the final neural network. Excellent agreement was achieved between the neural network-deconvolved profiles and the reference profiles in all three datasets. After deconvolution, the mean PWD reduced from 2.43 ± 0.26, 2.44 ± 0.36, and 2.46 ± 0.29 mm to 0.15 ± 0.15, 0.04 ± 0.03, and 0.14 ± 0.09 mm for the training, validation, and test dataset, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated the feasibility of photon beam profile deconvolution with a feedforward neural network in this work. The beam profiles deconvolved with a three-layer neural network had excellent agreement with diode-measured profiles.

Use of a commercial ion chamber detector array for the measurement of high spatial-resolution photon beam profiles

Linear accelerator (linac) commissioning and quality assurance measurements are time‐consuming tasks that often require a water tank scanning system to acquire profile scans for full characterization of dosimetric beam properties. To increase efficiency, a method is demonstrated to acquire variable resolution, photon beam profile data using a commercially available ion chamber array (0.5 cm detector spacing). Field sizes of 2 × 2, 5 × 5, 10 × 10, and 15 × 15 cm² were acquired at depths in solid water of d_max, 5 cm, and 10 cm; additionally, beam profiles for field sizes of 25 × 25 and 40 × 40 cm² were acquired at 5 cm depth in solid water at x‐ray energies of 6 and 23 MV. 1D composite profiles were generated by combining discrete point measurements made at multiple couch positions. The 1D composite profile dataset was evaluated against a commissioning dataset acquired with a 3D water tank scan system utilizing (a) 0.125 cc ion chamber for 5 × 5, 10 × 10, 15 × 15, 25 × 25, and 40 × 40 field sizes and (b) a solid state detector for 2 × 2 cm² field size. The two datasets were compared to the gamma criteria at 1%/1 mm and 2%/2 mm tolerance. Almost all pass rates exceeded 95% at 2%/2 mm except for the 6 MV 2 × 2 cm² field size at d_max. Pass rates at 1%/1 mm ranged from 51% to 99%, with an average pass rate of 82%. A fourfold reduction in MU was achieved for scans larger than 15 × 15 cm² using this method compared to the water tank scans. Further, dynamic wedge measurements acquired with the ion chamber array showed reasonable agreement with the treatment planning system. This method opens up new possibilities for rapid acquisition of variable resolution 2D–3D dosimetric data mitigating the need for acquiring all scan data with in‐water measurements.

Equivalency of beam scan data collection using a 1D tank and automated couch movements to traditional 3D tank measurements

This work shows the feasibility of collecting linear accelerator beam data using just a 1‐D water tank and automated couch movements with the goal to maximize the cost effectiveness in resource‐limited clinical settings. Two commissioning datasets were acquired: (a) using a standard of practice 3D water tank scanning system (3DS) and (b) using a novel technique to translate a commercial TG‐51 complaint 1D water tank via automated couch movements (1DS). The Extensible Markup Language (XML) was used to dynamically move the linear accelerator couch position (and thus the 1D tank) during radiation delivery for the acquisition of inline, crossline, and diagonal profiles. Both the 1DS and 3DS datasets were used to generate beam models (BM_1DS and BM_3DS) in a commercial treatment planning system (TPS). 98.7% of 1DS measured points had a gamma value (2%/2 mm) < 1 when compared with the 3DS. Static jaw defined field and dynamic MLC field dose distribution comparisons for the TPS beam models BM_1DS and BM_3DS had 3D gamma values (2%/2 mm) < 1 for all 24,900,000 data points tested and >99.5% pass rate with gamma value (1%/1 mm) < 1. In conclusion, automated couch motions and a 1D scanning tank were used to collect commissioning beam data with accuracy comparable to traditionally acquired data using a 3D scanning system. TPS beam models generated directly from 1DS measured data were clinically equivalent to a model derived from 3DS data.

A proposed method for linear accelerator photon beam steering using EPID

Beam steering is the process of calibrating the angle and translational position with which a linear accelerator's (linac's) electron beam strikes the x‐ray target with respect to the collimator rotation axis. The shape of the dose profile is highly dependent on accurate beam steering and is essential for ensuring correct delivery of the radiotherapy treatment plan. Traditional methods of beam steering utilize a scanning water tank phantom that makes the process user‐dependent. This study is the first to provide a methodology for both beam angle steering and beam translational position steering based on EPID imaging of the beam and does not require a phantom. Both the EPID‐based beam angle steering and beam translational steering methods described have been validated against IC Profiler measurement. Wide field symmetry agreement was found between the EPID and IC Profiler to within 0.06 ± 0.14% (1 SD) and 0.32 ± 0.11% (1 SD) for flattened and flattening‐filter‐free (FFF) beams, respectively. For a 1.1% change in symmetry measured by IC Profiler the EPID method agreed to within 0.23%. For beam translational position steering, the EPID method agreed with IC Profiler method to within 0.03 ± 0.05 mm (1 SD) at isocenter. The EPID‐based methods presented are quick to perform, simple, accurate and could easily be integrated with the linac, potentially via the MPC application. The methods have the potential to remove user variability and to standardize the process of beam steering throughout the radiotherapy community.

"Characterization of ELEKTA SRS cone collimator using high spatial resolution monolithic silicon detector array"

PURPOSE

To investigate the accuracy of the dosimetry of radiation fields produced by small ELEKTA cone collimators used for stereotactic radiosurgery treatments (SRS) using commercially available detectors EBT3 GafchromicTM film, IBA Stereotactic diode (SFD), and the recently developed detector DUO, which is a monolithic silicon orthogonal linear diode array detector.

METHODS

These three detectors were used for the measurement of beam profiles, output factors, and percentage depth dose for SRS cone collimators with cone sizes ranging from 5 to 50 mm diameter. The measurements were performed at 10 cm depth and 90 cm SSD.

RESULTS

The SRS cone beam profiles measured with DUO, EBT3 film, and IBA SFD agreed well, results being in agreement within ±0.5 mm in the FWHM, and ±0.7 mm in the penumbra region. The output factor measured by DUO with 0.5 mm air gap above agrees within ±1% with EBT3. The OF measured by IBA SFD (corrected for the over-response) agreed with both EBT3 and DUO within ±2%. All three detectors agree within ±2% for PDD measurements for all SRS cones.

CONCLUSIONS

The characteristics of the ELEKTA SRS cone collimator have been evaluated by using a monolithic silicon high spatial resolution detector DUO, EBT3, and IBA SFD diode. The DUO detector is suitable for fast real-time quality assurance dosimetry in small radiation fields typical for SRS/SRT. This has been demonstrated by its good agreement of measured doses with EBT 3 films.

A simple method to account for skin dose enhancement during treatment planning of VMAT treatments of patients in contact with immobilization equipment

Purpose

The ability to accurately predict skin doses and thereby design radiotherapy treatments that balance the likelihood of skin reactions against other treatment objectives is especially important when hypofractionated prescription regimes are used. However, calculations of skin dose provided by many commercial radiotherapy treatment planning systems are known to be inaccurate, especially if the presence of immobilization equipment is not accurately taken into account. This study proposes a simple method by which the accuracy of skin dose calculations can be substantially improved, to allow informed evaluation of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment plans.

Method

A simple method was developed whereby dose calculation is split into grid regions, each with a correction factor which determines MU scaling for skin dose calculation. Correction factors were derived from film measurements made using a geometrically simple phantom in partial contact with a vacuum immobilization device. This method was applied to two different test treatments, planned for delivery to a humanoid phantom with a hypofractionated stereotactic body radiotherapy technique, and results were verified using film measurements of surface dose.

Results

Compared to the measured values, calculations of skin dose volumes corresponding to different grade tissue reactions were greatly improved through use of the method employed in this study. In some cases, the accuracy of skin dose evaluation improved by 76% and brought values to within 3% of those measured.

Conclusion

The method of skin dose calculation in this study is simple, can be made as accurate as the user requires and is applicable for various immobilization systems. This concept has been verified through use on SBRT lung treatment plans and will aid clinicians in predicting skin response in patients.

Open beam dosimetric characteristics of True Beam medical linear accelerator with flattening filter (WFF) and flattening filter free (FFF) beam

True Beam medical linear accelerator is capable of delivering flattening filter free (FFF) and with flattening filter (WFF) photon beams. True Beam linear accelerator is equipped with five photon beam energies (6 FFF, 6 WFF, 10 FFF, 10 WFF and 15 WFF) as well as six electron beam energies (6 MeV, 9 MeV, 12 MeV, 15 MeV and 18 MeV). The maximum dose rate for the 6 WFF, 10 WFF and 15 WFF is 600 MU/min, whereas 6 FFF has a maximum dose rate of 1400 MU/min and 10 FFF with a maximum dose rate of 2400 MU/min. In this report we discussed the open beam dosimetric characteristics of True Beam medical linear accelerator with FFF and WFF beam. All the dosimetric data (i.e. depth dose, cross-line profiles, diagonal profiles, output factors, MLC transmission, etc.) for 6 MV, 6 FFF, 10 MV, 10 FFF and 15 MV were measured and compared with the published data of the True Beam. Multiple detectors were used in order to obtain a consistent dataset. The measured data has a good consistency with the reference golden beam data. The measured beam quality index for all the beams are in good agreement with the published data. The percentage depth dose at 10 cm depth of all the available photon beams was within the tolerance of the Varian acceptance specification. The dosimetric data shows consistent and comparable results with the published data of other True Beam linear accelerators. The dosimetric data provide us an appreciated perception and consistent among the published data and may be used for future references.

Evaluation of machine log files/MC-based treatment planning and delivery QA as compared to ArcCHECK QA

PURPOSE

A treatment planning/delivery QA tool using linac log files (LF) and Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation is investigated as a standalone alternative to phantom-based patient-specific QA (ArcCHECK (AC)).

METHODS

Delivering a variety of fields onto MapCHECK2 and ArcCHECK, diode sensitivity dependence on dose rate (in-field) and energy (primarily out-of-field) was quantified. AC and LF QAs were analyzed with respect to delivery complexity by delivering 12 × 12 cm static fields/arcs comprised of varying numbers of abutting sub-fields onto ArcCHECK. About 11 clinical dual-arc VMAT patients planned using Pinnacle's convolution-superposition (CS) were delivered on ArcCHECK and log file dose (LF-CS and LF-MC) calculated. To minimize calculation time, reduced LF-CS sampling (1/2/3/4° control point spacing) was investigated. Planned ("Plan") and LF-reconstructed CS and MC doses were compared with each other and AC measurement via statistical [mean ± StdDev(σ)] and gamma analyses to isolate dosimetric uncertainties and quantify the relative accuracies of AC QA and MC-based LF QA.

RESULTS

Calculation and ArcCHECK measurement differed by up to 1.5% in-field due to variation in dose rate and up to 5% out-of-field. For the experimental segment-varying plans, despite CS calculation deviating by as much as 13% from measurement, Plan-MC and LF-MC doses generally matched AC measurement within 3%. Utilizing 1° control point spacing, 2%/2 mm LF-CS vs AC pass rates (97%) were slightly lower than Plan-CS vs AC pass rates (97.5%). Utilizing all log file samples, 2%/2 mm LF-MC vs AC pass rates (97.3%) were higher than Plan-MC vs AC (96.5%). Phantom-dependent, calculation algorithm-dependent (MC vs CS), and delivery error-dependent dose uncertainties were 0.8 ± 1.2%, 0.2 ± 1.1%, and 0.1 ± 0.9% respectively.

CONCLUSION

Reconstructing every log file sample with no increase in computational cost, MC-based LF QA is faster and more accurate than CS-based LF QA. Offering similar dosimetric accuracy compared to AC measurement, MC-based log files can be used for treatment planning QA.

Uncertainty in positioning ion chamber at reference depth for various water phantoms

BACKGROUND

Uncertainty in the calibration of high-energy radiation sources is dependent on user and equipment type.

AIM

We evaluated the uncertainty in the positioning of a cylindrical chamber at a reference depth for reference dosimetry of high-energy photon beams and the resulting uncertainty in the chamber readings for 6- and 10-MV photon beams. The aim was to investigate major contributions to the positioning uncertainty to reduce the uncertainty in calibration for external photon beam radiotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The following phantoms were used: DoseView 1D, WP1D, 1D SCANNER, and QWP-07 as one-dimensional (1D) phantoms for a vertical-beam geometry; GRI-7632 as a phantom for a fixed waterproofing sleeve; and PTW type 41023 and QWP-04 as 1D phantoms for a horizontal-beam geometry. The uncertainties were analyzed as per the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement.

RESULTS

The positioning and resultant uncertainties in chamber readings ranged from 0.22 to 0.35 mm and 0.12-0.25%, respectively, among the phantoms (using a coverage factor k = 1 in both cases). The major contributions to positioning uncertainty are: definition of the origin for phantoms among users for the 1D phantoms for a vertical-beam geometry, water level adjustment among users for the phantom for a fixed waterproofing sleeve, phantom window deformation, and non-water material of the window for the 1D phantoms for a horizontal-beam geometry.

CONCLUSION

The positioning and resultant uncertainties in chamber readings exhibited minor differences among the seven phantoms. The major components of these uncertainties differed among the phantom types investigated.

Output factor determination based on Monte Carlo simulation for small cone field in 10-MV photon beam

The difficulty of measuring output factor (OPF) in a small field has been frequently discussed in recent publications. This study is aimed to determine the OPF in a small field using 10-MV photon beam and stereotactic conical collimator (cone). The OPF was measured by two diode detectors (SFD, EDGE detector) and one micro-ion chamber (PinPoint 3D chamber) in a water phantom. A Monte Carlo simulation using simplified detector model was performed to obtain the correction factor for the detector measurements. About 12% OPF difference was observed in the measurement at the smallest field (7.5 mm diameter) for EDGE detector and PinPoint 3D chamber. By applying the Monte Carlo-based correction factor to the measurement, the maximum discrepancy among the three detectors was reduced to within 3%. The results indicate that determination of OPF in a small field should be carefully performed. Especially, detector choice and appropriate correction factor application are very important in this regard.

Quantification of beam steering with an ionization chamber array

Routine quality assurance for linear accelerators (linacs) usually involves verification of beam steering with a water scanning system. We established a beam steering procedure that uses a 2D ionization chamber array (ICA) and verified the equivalence of beam symmetry between the ICA and a water scanning system. The ICA calibration accuracy, reproducibility and stability were evaluated and the uncertainty in the measurement of beam symmetry due to the array calibration was examined. Forty‐five photon beams and 80 electron beams across 7 Varian C‐series and 4 TrueBeam linacs were steered in the radial and transverse directions using an ICA. After beam steering, profiles were re‐measured using the ICA and in‐water using a 3D Scanner (3DS). Beam symmetries measured with the ICA and 3DS were compared by (a) calculating the difference in point‐by‐point symmetry, (b) plotting the histogram distribution of the symmetry differences, and (c) comparing ICA and 3DS differences with their respective Varian symmetry protocol analysis. Array calibrations from five different occurrences (2012 to 2016) over six different beams reproduced within 0.5%. The uncertainty in beam symmetry was less than 0.5% due to the uncertainties in the array calibration. After all beams were steered using the ICA, the point‐by‐point symmetry differences between ICA and 3DS at the off‐axis positions of 20% and 80% of field size for all beam profiles indicated that 95% of point‐by‐point symmetry comparisons agreed within 0.7%, and 100% agreed within 1.0%; after steering with the ICA 97.8% of photon beam profiles (88 of 90) and 97.5% of electron beam profiles (156 of 160) had symmetry within 1% when measured with the 3DS. All photon and electron beam profiles had symmetry within 1.1% and 1.2%, respectively, for profiles measured with the 3DS. Our data demonstrate that a calibrated ICA can be used to steer photon and electron beams achieving beam symmetry within 1% when re‐measured with a 3D water scanning system.

Photon beam commissioning of an Elekta Synergy linear accelerator

The aim of this study is to present the results of commissioning of Elekta Synergy linear accelerator (linac). The acceptance test and commissioning were performed for three photon beams energies 4 MV, 6 MV and 15 MV and for the multileaf collimator (MLC). The percent depth doses (PDDs), in-plane and cross-plane beam profiles, head scatter factors (Sc), relative photon output factors (Scp), universal wedge transmission factor and MLC transmission factors were measured. The size of gantry, collimator, and couch isocenter were also measured.

Dosimetric comparison of photon beam profile characteristics for different treatment parameters

Purpose

To deliver radiation doses with higher accuracy, radiation treatment through megavoltage photon beams from linear accelerators, is accepted widely for treating malignancies. Before calibrating the linear accelerators, it is essential to make a complete analysis of all photon beam profile parameters. The main objective of this exploration was to investigate the 6 and 15 MV photon beam profile characteristics to improve the accuracy of radiation treatment plans.

Methods

In this exploration, treatment parameters like depth, field size and beam energy were varied to observe their effect on dosimetric characteristics of beam profiles in a water phantom, generated by linear accelerator Varian Clinac.

Results

The results revealed thatDmaxandDmindecreased with increasing depth but increased with increasing field sizes. Both left and right penumbras increased with increasing depth, field size and energy. Homogeneity increased with field size but decreased with depth. Symmetry had no dependence on depth, energy and field size.

Conclusion

All the characteristics of photon beam dosimetry were analysed and the characteristics like homogeneity and symmetry measured by an ion chamber in a water phantom came within clinically acceptable level of 3 and 103%, respectively, thus fulfilled the requirements of standard linear accelerator specifications. This exploration can be extended to the determination of beam profile characteristics of electron and photon beams of other energies at various depths and field sizes for designing optimum treatment plans.

Dosimetric validation of Monaco treatment planning system on an Elekta VersaHD linear accelerator

The purpose of this study is to perform dosimetric validation of Monaco treatment planning system version 5.1. The Elekta VersaHD linear accelerator with high dose rate flattening filter‐free photon modes and electron energies was used in this study. The dosimetric output of the new Agility head combined with the FFF photon modes warranted this investigation into the dosimetric accuracy prior to clinical usage. A model of the VersaHD linac was created in Monaco TPS by Elekta using commissioned beam data including percent depth dose curves, beam profiles, and output factors. A variety of 3D conformal fields were created in Monaco TPS on a combined Plastic water/Styrofoam phantom and validated against measurements with a calibrated ion chamber. Some of the parameters varied including source to surface distance, field size, wedges, gantry angle, and depth for all photon and electron energies. In addition, a series of step and shoot IMRT, VMAT test plans, and patient plans on various anatomical sites were verified against measurements on a Delta⁴ diode array. The agreement in point dose measurements was within 2% for all photon and electron energies in the homogeneous phantom and within 3% for photon energies in the heterogeneous phantom. The mean ± SD gamma passing rates of IMRT test fields yielded 93.8 ± 4.7% based on 2% dose difference and 2 mm distance‐to‐agreement criteria. Eight previously treated IMRT patient plans were replanned in Monaco TPS and five measurements on each yielded an average gamma passing rate of 95% with 6.7% confidence limit based on 3%, 3 mm gamma criteria. This investigation on dosimetric validation ensures accuracy of modeling VersaHD linac in Monaco TPS thereby improving patient safety.

AAPM-RSS Medical Physics Practice Guideline 9.a. for SRS-SBRT

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education, and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8,000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States. The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner. Each medical physics practice guideline represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice guidelines and technical standards by those entities not providing these services is not authorized. The following terms are used in the AAPM practice guidelines: Must and Must Not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline. Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances. Approved by AAPM Professional Council 3-31-2017 and Executive Committee 4-4-2017.

FMEA of manual and automated methods for commissioning a radiotherapy treatment planning system

PURPOSE

To evaluate the level of risk involved in treatment planning system (TPS) commissioning using a manual test procedure, and to compare the associated process-based risk to that of an automated commissioning process (ACP) by performing an in-depth failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA).

METHODS

The authors collaborated to determine the potential failure modes of the TPS commissioning process using (a) approaches involving manual data measurement, modeling, and validation tests and (b) an automated process utilizing application programming interface (API) scripting, preloaded, and premodeled standard radiation beam data, digital heterogeneous phantom, and an automated commissioning test suite (ACTS). The severity (S), occurrence (O), and detectability (D) were scored for each failure mode and the risk priority numbers (RPN) were derived based on TG-100 scale. Failure modes were then analyzed and ranked based on RPN. The total number of failure modes, RPN scores and the top 10 failure modes with highest risk were described and cross-compared between the two approaches. RPN reduction analysis is also presented and used as another quantifiable metric to evaluate the proposed approach.

RESULTS

The FMEA of a MTP resulted in 47 failure modes with an RPN_ave of 161 and S_ave of 6.7. The highest risk process of "Measurement Equipment Selection" resulted in an RPN_max of 640. The FMEA of an ACP resulted in 36 failure modes with an RPN_ave of 73 and S_ave of 6.7. The highest risk process of "EPID Calibration" resulted in an RPN_max of 576.

CONCLUSIONS

An FMEA of treatment planning commissioning tests using automation and standardization via API scripting, preloaded, and pre-modeled standard beam data, and digital phantoms suggests that errors and risks may be reduced through the use of an ACP.

Adverse Events Involving Radiation Oncology Medical Devices: Comprehensive Analysis of US Food and Drug Administration Data, 1991 to 2015

PURPOSE

Radiation oncology relies on rapidly evolving technology and highly complex processes. The US Food and Drug Administration collects reports of adverse events related to medical devices. We sought to characterize all events involving radiation oncology devices (RODs) from the US Food and Drug Administration's postmarket surveillance Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database, comparing these with non-radiation oncology devices.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

MAUDE data on RODs from 1991 to 2015 were sorted into 4 product categories (external beam, brachytherapy, planning systems, and simulation systems) and 5 device problem categories (software, mechanical, electrical, user error, and dose delivery impact). Outcomes included whether the device was evaluated by the manufacturer, adverse event type, remedial action, problem code, device age, and time since 510(k) approval. Descriptive statistics were performed with linear regression of time-series data. Results for RODs were compared with those for other devices by the Pearson χ² test for categorical data and 2-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for distributions.

RESULTS

There were 4234 ROD and 4,985,698 other device adverse event reports. Adverse event reports increased over time, and events involving RODs peaked in 2011. Most ROD reports involved external beam therapy (50.8%), followed by brachytherapy (24.9%) and treatment planning systems (21.6%). The top problem types were software (30.4%), mechanical (20.9%), and user error (20.4%). RODs differed significantly from other devices in each outcome (P<.001). RODs were more likely to be evaluated by the manufacturer after an event (46.9% vs 33.0%) but less likely to be recalled (10.5% vs 37.9%) (P<.001). Device age and time since 510(k) approval were shorter among RODs (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with other devices, RODs may experience adverse events sooner after manufacture and market approval. Close postmarket surveillance, improved software design, and manufacturer-user training may help mitigate these events.

Comparison of the recommendations of the AAPM TG ‐51 and TG ‐51 addendum reference dosimetry protocols

This work quantified differences between recommendations of the TG‐51 and TG‐51 addendum reference dosimetry protocols. Reference dosimetry was performed for flattened photon beams with nominal energies of 6, 10, 15, and 23 MV, as well as flattening‐filter free (FFF) beam energies of 6 and 10 MV, following the recommendations of both the TG‐51 and TG‐51 addendum protocols using both a Farmer^® ionization chamber and a scanning ionization chamber with calibration coefficients traceable to absorbed dose‐to‐water (D_w) standards. Differences in D_w determined by the two protocols were 0.1%–0.3% for beam energies with a flattening filter, and up to 0.2% and 0.8% for FFF beams measured with the scanning and Farmer^® ionization chambers, respectively, due to k_Q determination, volume‐averaging correction, and collimator jaw setting. Combined uncertainty was between 0.91% and 1.2% (k = 1), varying by protocol and detector.

Design of experiments in medical physics: Application to the AAA beam model validation

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the usefulness of the design of experiments in the analysis of multiparametric problems related to the quality assurance in radiotherapy. The main motivation is to use this statistical method to optimize the quality assurance processes in the validation of beam models.

METHOD

Considering the Varian Eclipse system, eight parameters with several levels were selected: energy, MLC, depth, X, Y₁ and Y₂ jaw dimensions, wedge and wedge jaw. A Taguchi table was used to define 72 validation tests. Measurements were conducted in water using a CC04 on a TrueBeam STx, a TrueBeam Tx, a Trilogy and a 2300IX accelerator matched by the vendor. Dose was computed using the AAA algorithm. The same raw data was used for all accelerators during the beam modelling.

RESULTS

The mean difference between computed and measured doses was 0.1±0.5% for all beams and all accelerators with a maximum difference of 2.4% (under the 3% tolerance level). For all beams, the measured doses were within 0.6% for all accelerators. The energy was found to be an influencing parameter but the deviations observed were smaller than 1% and not considered clinically significant.

CONCLUSION

Designs of experiment can help define the optimal measurement set to validate a beam model. The proposed method can be used to identify the prognostic factors of dose accuracy. The beam models were validated for the 4 accelerators which were found dosimetrically equivalent even though the accelerator characteristics differ.

Characterization of Water-Clear Polymeric Gels for Use as Radiotherapy Bolus

Our purpose was to investigate polymeric gels for use as a highly transparent radiotherapy bolus and determine the relevant physical and dosimetric properties. We first quantified tensile properties (maximum stress, strain, and Young modulus) for various polymeric gels, along with a commercial bolus product in order to illustrate the wide variety of potential materials. For a select polymeric gel with tensile properties similar to currently used radiotherapy bolus, we also evaluated mass and electron density, effective atomic number, optical transparency, and percent depth dose in clinical megavoltage photon and electron beams. For this polymeric gel, mass density was 872 ± 12 and 896 ± 13 g/cm³ when measured via weight/volume and computed tomography Hounsfield units, respectively. Electron density was 2.95 ± 0.04 ×10²³ electrons/cm³. Adding fused silica (9% by weight) increases density to that of water. The ratio of the effective atomic number to that of water without and with added silica was 0.780 and 0.835 at 1 MeV, 0.767 and 0.826 at 6 MeV, and 0.746 and 0.809 at 20 MeV. Percent depth dose for 6 MV photons was within 2% of water within the first 2.5 cm and after scaling by the density coincided within 1% out to >7 cm. For 6 and 20 MeV electrons, after scaling for density D_80% was within 1.3 and 1.5 mm of water, respectively. The high transparency and mechanical flexibility of polymeric gels indicate potential for use as a radiotherapy bolus; differences in density from water may be managed via either using “water equivalent thickness” or by incorporating fused silica into the material.

AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 8.a.: Linear accelerator performance tests

PURPOSE

The purpose of this guideline is to provide a list of critical performance tests in order to assist the Qualified Medical Physicist (QMP) in establishing and maintaining a safe and effective quality assurance (QA) program. The performance tests on a linear accelerator (linac) should be selected to fit the clinical patterns of use of the accelerator and care should be given to perform tests which are relevant to detecting errors related to the specific use of the accelerator.

METHODS

A risk assessment was performed on tests from current task group reports on linac QA to highlight those tests that are most effective at maintaining safety and quality for the patient. Recommendations are made on the acquisition of reference or baseline data, the establishment of machine isocenter on a routine basis, basing performance tests on clinical use of the linac, working with vendors to establish QA tests and performing tests after maintenance.

RESULTS

The recommended tests proposed in this guideline were chosen based on the results from the risk analysis and the consensus of the guideline's committee. The tests are grouped together by class of test (e.g., dosimetry, mechanical, etc.) and clinical parameter tested. Implementation notes are included for each test so that the QMP can understand the overall goal of each test.

CONCLUSION

This guideline will assist the QMP in developing a comprehensive QA program for linacs in the external beam radiation therapy setting. The committee sought to prioritize tests by their implication on quality and patient safety. The QMP is ultimately responsible for implementing appropriate tests. In the spirit of the report from American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 100, individual institutions are encouraged to analyze the risks involved in their own clinical practice and determine which performance tests are relevant in their own radiotherapy clinics.

Small field dose measurements using plastic scintillation detector in heterogeneous media

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate a plastic scintillation detector for the measurement of small field dosimetry and to verify the accuracy of measured dose in comparison with Monte Carlo calculation in a heterogeneous medium.

METHODS

The study is performed with CyberKnife planning and delivery system. The setup consists of a custom made solid lung phantom with the insert of an Exradin W1 scintillation detector or an Exradin A16 ion chamber. The measurement was done for a series of cone sizes from 5 mm to 60 mm, and the dose was calculated by Monte Carlo algorithm in MultiPlan workstation. The difference between measurement and calculation was reported.

RESULTS

Our preliminary results demonstrated the applicability of plastic scintillation detectors in the measurement of small field dosimetry in a heterogeneous medium. The difference between the calculated and measured output factors was less than 3% for all cone sizes from 60 mm down to 5 mm. Without any corrections, the measured dose from the scintillation detector calibrated to the ion chamber reading was also within 3% of the Monte Carlo calculation in the lung phantom for cone sizes 20 mm or larger.

CONCLUSIONS

Small field dosimetry is particularly relevant to stereotactic radiation treatment. The accuracy of dose calculation for small static beams is critical to dose planning so would potentially affect the treatment outcomes in a heterogeneous medium. Our results have shown good agreement with plastic scintillation detector in both homogeneous and heterogeneous medium.

Changes in deviation of absorbed dose to water among users by chamber calibration shift

PURPOSE

The JSMP01 dosimetry protocol had adopted the provisional ⁶⁰Co calibration coefficient [Formula: see text], namely, the product of exposure calibration coefficient N _C and conversion coefficient k _D,X. After that, the absorbed dose to water D _w standard was established, and the JSMP12 protocol adopted the [Formula: see text] calibration. In this study, the influence of the calibration shift on the measurement of D _w among users was analyzed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The intercomparison of the D _w using an ionization chamber was annually performed by visiting related hospitals. Intercomparison results before and after the calibration shift were analyzed, the deviation of D _w among users was re-evaluated, and the cause of deviation was estimated.

RESULTS

As a result, the stability of LINAC, calibration of the thermometer and barometer, and collection method of ion recombination were confirmed. The statistical significance of standard deviation of D _w was not observed, but that of difference of D _w among users was observed between N _C and [Formula: see text] calibration.

CONCLUSION

Uncertainty due to chamber-to-chamber variation was reduced by the calibration shift, consequently reducing the uncertainty among users regarding D _w. The result also pointed out uncertainty might be reduced by accurate and detailed instructions on the setup of an ionization chamber.

Quantitative ionization chamber alignment to a water surface: Theory and simulation

PURPOSE

To examine the response properties of cylindrical cavity ionization chambers (ICs) in the depth-ionization buildup region so as to obtain a robust chamber-signal - based method for definitive water surface identification, hence absolute ionization chamber depth localization.

METHOD & MATERIALS

An analytical model with simplistic physics and geometry is developed to explore the theoretical aspects of ionization chamber response near a phantom water surface. Monte Carlo simulations with full physics and ionization chamber geometry are utilized to extend the model's findings to realistic ion chambers in realistic beams and to study the effects of IC design parameters on the entrance dose response. Design parameters studied include full and simplified IC designs with varying central electrode thickness, wall thickness, and outer chamber radius. Piecewise continuous fits to the depth-ionization signal gradient are used to quantify potential deviation of the gradient discontinuity from the chamber outer radius. Exponential, power, and hyperbolic sine functional forms are used to model the gradient for chamber depths of zero to the depth of the gradient discontinuity.

RESULTS

The depth-ionization gradient as a function of depth is maximized and discontinuous when a submerged IC's outer radius coincides with the water surface. We term this depth the gradient chamber alignment point (gCAP). The maximum deviation between the gCAP location and the chamber outer radius is 0.13 mm for a hypothetical 4 mm thick wall, 6.45 mm outer radius chamber using the power function fit, however, the chamber outer radius is within the 95% confidence interval of the gCAP determined by this fit. gCAP dependence on the chamber wall thickness is possible, but not at a clinically relevant level.

CONCLUSIONS

The depth-ionization gradient has a discontinuity and is maximized when the outer-radius of a submerged IC coincides with the water surface. This feature can be used to auto-align ICs to the water surface at the time of scanning and/or be applied retrospectively to scan data to quantify absolute IC depth. Utilization of the gCAP should yield accurate and reproducible depth calibration for clinical depth-ionization measurements between setups and between users.