Long-term dosimetric stability of multiple TomoTherapy delivery systems

IPEM topical report: results of a 2022 UK survey on the use of linac manufacturer integrated quality control (MIQC)

In recent years Radiotherapy linear accelerator (linac) vendors have developed their own integrated quality control (QC) systems. Such manufacturer-integrated-quality-control (MIQC) has the potential to improve both the quality and efficiency of linac QC but is currently being developed and utilised in the absence of specific best-practice guidance. An Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine working party was commissioned with a view to develop guidance for the commissioning and implementation of MIQC. This study is based upon a survey of United Kingdom (UK) radiotherapy departments performed by the working party. The survey was distributed to all heads of radiotherapy physics in the UK and investigated availability and uptake, community beliefs and opinions, utilisation, user experience and associated procedures. The survey achieved a 95% response rate and demonstrated strong support (>95%) for its use and further development. MIQC systems are available in 79% of respondents' centres, and are in clinical use in 66%. The most common MIQC system was Varian MPC, in clinical use in 58% of responding centres, with CyberKnife AQA\E2E in 11%, TomoTherapy TQA in 8% and no users of Elekta Machine QA. A majority of users found their MIQC to be easy to use, reliable, and had five or more years of experience. Most users reported occasions of discrepancy in results between MIQC and conventional testing, but the majority considered this acceptable, indicating a false reporting frequency of quarterly or less. MIQC has shown value in preventative maintenance and early detection of machine deviations. There were inconsistent approaches in the utilisation and commissioning tests performed. Fewer than half of users perform QC of MIQC. 45% of responders have modified their QC processes with the introduction of MIQC, via replacement of conventional tests or reduction in their frequency. Future guidance is recommended to assist in the implementation of MIQC.

AAPM Task Group Report 306: Quality control and assurance for tomotherapy: An update to Task Group Report 148

Since the publication of AAPM Task Group (TG) 148 on quality assurance (QA) for helical tomotherapy, there have been many new developments on the tomotherapy platform involving treatment delivery, on-board imaging options, motion management, and treatment planning systems (TPSs). In response to a need for guidance on quality control (QC) and QA for these technologies, the AAPM Therapy Physics Committee commissioned TG 306 to review these changes and make recommendations related to these technology updates. The specific objectives of this TG were (1) to update, as needed, recommendations on tolerance limits, frequencies and QC/QA testing methodology in TG 148, (2) address the commissioning and necessary QA checks, as a supplement to Medical Physics Practice Guidelines (MPPG) with respect to tomotherapy TPS and (3) to provide risk-based recommendations on the new technology implemented clinically and treatment delivery workflow. Detailed recommendations on QA tests and their tolerance levels are provided for dynamic jaws, binary multileaf collimators, and Synchrony motion management. A subset of TPS commissioning and QA checks in MPPG 5.a. applicable to tomotherapy are recommended. In addition, failure mode and effects analysis has been conducted among TG members to obtain multi-institutional analysis on tomotherapy-related failure modes and their effect ranking.

Tomotherapy: Comparison of Hi-ART, Tomo-HD, and Radixact

Aim In this study, we compared three generations of tomotherapy (Hi-ART, Tomo-HD, and Radixact). This is to study the difference among tomotherapy systems in terms of dose distribution to planning target volume and organs at risk, and irradiation time.  Materials and methods The treatment planning CT and contour information used were seven cases of rectum cancer pre-operative irradiation. The contour information used was the planning target volume, and the organs at risk were set as the bladder and body. Optimization was conducted at each planning station using the parameters that were actually used in a clinical setting. The prescribed radiation dose was 25 Gy in five fractions and normalized at the isodose line, covering 95% of the planning target volume. Results There were no significant differences in planning target volume among the three models. Meanwhile, Hi-ART had a significantly higher dose than Tomo-HD and Radixact at body D_50%. Radixact shortened the irradiation time by approximately 15% compared to Hi-ART/Tomo-HD. Conclusion Planning target volume dose distribution of tomotherapy devices was not different. Radixact required a significantly shorter time than Hi-ART and Tomo-HD.

Analysis of clinical patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance with the new helical tomotherapy platform, following the AAPM TG-218 report

Purpose

This study presents patient-specific quality assurance (QA) results from the first 395 clinical cases for the new helical TomoTherapy® platform (Radixact) coupled with dedicated Precision TPS.

Methods

The passing rate of the Gamma Index (GP%) of 395 helical QA of patient-specific tomotherapy, acquired with ArcCHECK, is presented, analysed and correlated to various parameters of the plan. Following TG-218 recommendations, the clinic specific action limit (AL_cs) and tolerance limit (TL_cs) were calculated for our clinic and monitored during the analysed period.

Results

The mean values ​​(± 1 standard deviation) of GP% (3%/2 mm) (both global and local normalization) are: 97.6% and 90.9%, respectively. The proposed AL_cs and TL_cs, after a period of two years’ process monitoring are 89.4% and 91.1% respectively.

Conclusions

The phantom measurements closely match the planned dose distributions, demonstrating that the calculation accuracy of the new Precision TPS and the delivery accuracy of the Radixact unit are adequate, with respect to international guidelines and reports. Furthermore, a first correlation with the planning parameters was made. Action and tolerance limits have been set for the new Radixact Linac.

Assessing the dose rate delivery of helical TomoTherapy prostate and head & neck treatments

The dose rate distributions delivered to 55 prostate and head & neck (H&N) cancer patients treated with a helical TomoTherapy (HT) system were resolved and assessed with regard to pitch and field width defined during treatment planning. Statistical analysis of the studied cases showed that the median treatment delivery time was 4.4 min and 6.3 min for the prostate and H&N cases, respectively. Dose rate volume histogram data for the studied cases showed that the 25% and 12% of the volume of the planning target volumes of the prostate and H&N cases are irradiated with a dose rate of greater or equal to 1 Gy min^-1. Quartile dose rate (QDR) data confirmed that in HT, where the target is irradiated in slices, most of the dose is delivered to each voxel of the target when it travels within the beam. Analysis of the planning data from all cases showed that this lasts for 68 s (median value). QDRs results showed that using the 2.5 cm field width, 75% of the prescribed dose is delivered to target voxels with a median dose rate of at least 3.2 Gy min^-1and 4.5 Gy min^-1, for the prostate and H&N cases, respectively. Systematically higher dose rates were observed for the H&N cases due to the shallower depths of the lesions in this anatomical site. Delivered dose rates were also found to increase with field width and pitch setting, due to the higher output of the system which, in general, results in accordingly decreased total treatment time. The biological effect of the dose rate findings of this work needs to be further investigated using in-vitro studies and clinical treatment data.

A patient risk model to determine the optimal output constancy check frequency for a radiotherapy machine

PURPOSE

The output constancy check, a basic quality control (QC) item for radiotherapy machines, is performed daily according to suggestions in technical reports by experienced experts. In this study, a patient risk model was built to determine the optimal frequency of an output constancy check for a specific radiotherapy machine.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The method was based on the patient risk model and comprised three steps: 1) the power function graph was used to select a proper QC rule and the average number of QC measurements per QC rule evaluation. 2) The optimal QC frequency was determined by the minimum integer value of expected patients treated between QC measurements. 3) The individual control chart (I-Chart) was used to evaluate the effectiveness of the model. The model was implemented on the output constancy check of a Tomotherapy machine.

RESULTS

The QC rule with the limits set to the mean ± 3 standard deviations and 5 measurements per QC were selected according to the power function graph. The optimal frequency was observed every 21 patients. The I-Chart showed that the optimal frequency detected the machine failure earlier compared to the conventional daily frequency. The model could monitor whether Tomotherapy machine was in good condition and predicted the time to adjust the machine.

CONCLUSIONS

The optimal output constancy check frequency of a radiotherapy machine is determined by the number of patients, which uses patient risk model. The optimal frequency is superior to the conventional daily frequency in identifying machine failure earlier.

Do all the linear accelerators comply with the ICRU 91's constraints for stereotactic body radiation therapy treatments?

Recent technological developments in linear accelerators (linacs) and their imaging systems have made it possible to routinely perform stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) treatments. To ensure the security and quality of the treatments, national and international recommendations have been written. This review focuses on the recommendations of the report 91 of the International Commission on Radiation Units (ICRU) on stereotactic treatments with small photon beams and proposes to answer the question of the eligibility of the commercially available accelerators for the treatment of extra-cranial SRT (SBRT). The ICRU 91 report outlines important features needed to respect the constraints, which are high intensity photon beam, integrated image-guidance, high mechanical accuracy of the linac, multileaf collimator with reduced leaf width, bundled motion management and bundled 6 Dimensional "robotic" couch tabletop. Most of the contemporary linacs meet these recommendations, in particular, stereotactic dedicated linacs, or modern gantry-based linacs equipped with 3 dimensional cone-beam CT imaging and 2D-stereoscopic planar imaging. Commercially available ring-based linacs have some limitations: they offer only coplanar treatments, and couch movements are limited to translations and, some have limited imaging equipment and no ability to manage intrafraction motion. However, for performing SBRT, non-coplanar irradiations are not mandatory, contrarily to intracranial stereotactic irradiations. Furthermore, patients' rotations can be corrected, thanks to real-time adaptive radiotherapy available on MRI-linacs. Finally, significant improvements are expected in the short term to compensate the weaknesses of the current devices.

Couch modeling optimization for tomotherapy planning and delivery

We sought to validate new couch modeling optimization for tomotherapy planning and delivery. We constructed simplified virtual structures just above a default setting couch through a planning support system (MIM Maestro, version 8.2, MIM Software Inc, Cleveland, OH, USA). Based on ionization chamber measurements, we performed interactive optimization and determined the most appropriate physical density of these virtual structures in a treatment planning system (TPS). To validate this couch optimization, Gamma analysis and these statistical analyses between a three‐dimensional diode array QA system (ArcCHECK, Sun Nuclear, Melbourne, FL, USA) results and calculations from ionization chamber measurements were performed at 3%/2 mm criteria with a threshold of 10% in clinical QA plans. Using a virtual model consisting of a center slab density of 4.2 g/cm³ and both side slabs density of 1.9 g/cm³, we demonstrated close agreement between measured dose and the TPS calculated dose. Agreement was within 1% for all gantry angles at the isocenter and within 2% in off‐axis plans. In validation of the couch modeling in a clinical QA plan, the average gamma passing rate improved approximately 0.6%–5.1%. It was statistically significant (P < 0.05) for all treatment sites. We successfully generated an accurate couch model for a TomoTherapy TPS by interactively optimizing the physical density of the couch using a planning support system. This modeling proved to be an efficient way of correcting the dosimetric effects of the treatment couch in tomotherapy planning and delivery.