Dosimetric and mechanical equivalency of Varian TrueBeam linear accelerators

Impact of delivery variations on 3D dose distributions for volumetric modulated arc therapy plans of various complexity

BACKGROUND

Delivery variations during radiotherapy can cause discrepancies between planned and delivered dose distribution. These variations could arise from random and systematic offsets in certain machine parameters or systematic offsets related to the calibration process of the treatment unit.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to present a novel simulation-based methodology to evaluate realistic delivery variations in three dimensions (3D). Additionally, we investigated the dosimetric impact of delivery variations for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for different treatment sites and complexities.

METHODS

Twelve VMAT plans for different treatment sites (prostate-, head & neck-, lung-, and gynecological cancer) were selected. The clinical plan used for the treatment of each patient was reoptimized to create one plan with reduced complexity (i.e., simple plan) and one of higher complexity (i.e., complex plan). This resulted in a total of 36 plans. Delivery variations were simulated by randomly introducing offsets in multi-leaf collimator position, jaw position, gantry angle and collimator angle simultaneously. Twenty simulations were carried out for each of the 36 plans, yielding 720 simulated deliveries. To explore the impact of individual offsets, additional simulations were conducted for each type of offset separately. A 3D dose calculation was performed for each simulation using the same calculation engine as for the clinical plan. Two standard deviations (2SD) of dose were determined for every voxel for 3D-spatial evaluations. The dose variation in certain DVH metrics, that is, D2% and D98% for the clinical target volume and five different DVH metrics for selected organs at risk, was calculated for the twenty simulated deliveries of each plan. For comparison, the effect of delivery variations was assessed by conducting measurements with the Delta4 phantom.

RESULTS

The volume of voxels with 2SD above 1% of the prescribed dose was consistently larger for the complex plans in comparison to their corresponding simple and clinical plans. 2SDs larger than 1% were in many cases, found to accumulate outside the planning target volume. For complex plans, regions with 2SDs larger than 1% were detected also inside the high dose region, exhibiting, on average, a size six times larger volume, than those observed in simple plans. Similar results were found for all treatment sites. Variation in the selected DVH metrics for the simulated deliveries was generally largest for the complex plans with few exceptions. When comparing the 2SD distribution of the measurements with the 2SD distribution from the simulations, the spatial information showed deviations outside the PTV in both simulations and measurements. However, the measured values were, on average, 35% higher for the prostate plans and 10% higher for the head & neck plans compared to the simulated values.

CONCLUSIONS

The presented methodology effectively quantified and localized dose deviations due to delivery offsets. The 3D analysis provided information that was undetectable using the analysis based on DVH metrics. Dosimetric uncertainties due to delivery variations were prominent at the edge of the high-dose region irrespective of treatment site and plan complexity. Dosimetric uncertainties inside the high-dose region was more profound for plans of higher complexity.

A radiotherapy community data-driven approach to determine which complexity metrics best predict the impact of atypical TPS beam modeling on clinical dose calculation accuracy

PURPOSE

To quantify the impact of treatment planning system beam model parameters, based on the actual spread in radiotherapy community data, on clinical treatment plans and determine which complexity metrics best describe the impact beam modeling errors have on dose accuracy.

METHODS

Ten beam modeling parameters for a Varian accelerator were modified in RayStation to match radiotherapy community data at the 2.5, 25, 50, 75, and 97.5 percentile levels. These modifications were evaluated on 25 patient cases, including prostate, non-small cell lung, H&N, brain, and mesothelioma, generating 1,000 plan perturbations. Differences in the mean planned dose to clinical target volumes (CTV) and organs at risk (OAR) were evaluated with respect to the planned dose using the reference (50th-percentile) parameter values. Correlation between CTV dose differences, and 18 different complexity metrics were evaluated using linear regression; R-squared values were used to determine the best metric.

RESULTS

Perturbations to MLC offset and transmission parameters demonstrated the greatest changes in dose: up to 5.7% in CTVs and 16.7% for OARs. More complex clinical plans showed greater dose perturbation with atypical beam model parameters. The mean MLC Gap and Tongue & Groove index (TGi) complexity metrics best described the impact of TPS beam modeling variations on clinical dose delivery across all anatomical sites; similar, though not identical, trends between complexity and dose perturbation were observed among all sites.

CONCLUSION

Extreme values for MLC offset and MLC transmission beam modeling parameters were found to most substantially impact the dose distribution of clinical plans and careful attention should be given to these beam modeling parameters. The mean MLC Gap and TGi complexity metrics were best suited to identifying clinical plans most sensitive to beam modeling errors; this could help provide focus for clinical QA in identifying unacceptable plans.

The assessment of the clinical impact of using a single set of radiotherapy planning data for two kilovoltage therapy units

Kilovoltage therapy units are used for superficial radiotherapy treatment delivery. Peer reviewed studies for MV linear accelerators describe tolerances to dosimetrically match multiple linear accelerators enabling patient treatment on any matched machine. There is an absence of literature on using a single planning data set for multiple kilovoltage units which have limited ability for beam adjustment. This study reviewed kilovoltage dosimetry and treatment planning scenarios to evaluate the feasibility of using ACPSEM annual QA tolerances to determine whether two units (of the same make and model) were dosimetrically matched. The dosimetric characteristics, such as measured half value layer (HVL), percentage depth dose (PDD), applicator factor and output variation with stand-off distance for each kV unit were compared to assess the agreement. Independent planning data based on the measured HVL for each beam energy from each kV unit was prepared. Monitor unit (MU) calculations were performed using both sets of planning data for approximately 200 clinical scenarios and compared with an overall agreement between units of < 2%. Additionally, a dosimetry measurement comparison was completed at each site for a subset of nine scenarios. All machine characterisation measurements were within the ACPSEM Annual QA tolerances, and dosimetric testing was within 2.5%. This work demonstrates that using a single set of planning data for two kilovoltage units is feasible, resulting in a clinical impact within published uncertainty.

Universal evaluation of MLC models in treatment planning systems based on a common set of dynamic tests

PURPOSE

To demonstrate the feasibility of characterising MLCs and MLC models implemented in TPSs using a common set of dynamic beams.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A set of tests containing synchronous (SG) and asynchronous sweeping gaps (aSG) was distributed among twenty-five participating centres. Doses were measured with a Farmer-type ion chamber and computed in TPSs, which provided a dosimetric characterisation of the leaf tip, tongue-and-groove, and MLC transmission of each MLC, as well as an assessment of the MLC model in each TPS. Five MLC types and four TPSs were evaluated, covering the most frequent combinations used in radiotherapy departments.

RESULTS

Measured differences within each MLC type were minimal, while large differences were found between MLC models implemented in clinical TPSs. This resulted in some concerning discrepancies, especially for the HD120 and Agility MLCs, for which differences between measured and calculated doses for some MLC-TPS combinations exceeded 10%. These large differences were particularly evident for small gap sizes (5 and 10 mm), as well as for larger gaps in the presence of tongue-and-groove effects. A much better agreement was found for the Millennium120 and Halcyon MLCs, differences being within ± 5% and ± 2.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The feasibility of using a common set of tests to assess MLC models in TPSs was demonstrated. Measurements within MLC types were very similar, but TPS dose calculations showed large variations. Standardisation of the MLC configuration in TPSs is necessary. The proposed procedure can be readily applied in radiotherapy departments and can be a valuable tool in IMRT and credentialing audits.

Dosimetric evaluation of high-Z inhomogeneity with modern algorithms: A collaborative study

PURPOSE

To evaluate modern dose calculation algorithms with high-Z prosthetic devices used in radiation treatment.

METHODS

A bilateral hip prosthetic patient was selected to see the effect of modern algorithms from the commercial system for plan comparisons. The CT data with dose constraints were sent to various institutions for dose calculations. The dosimetric parameters, D98%, D90%, D50% and D2% were compared. A water phantom with an actual prosthetic device was used to measure the dose using a parallel plate ionization chamber.

RESULTS

Dosimetric variability in PTV coverage was significant (>10%) among various treatment planning algorithms. The comparison of PTV dosimetric parameters, D98%, D90%, D50% and D2% as well as organs at risk (OAR) have large discrepancies compared to our previous publication with older algorithms (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2022.02.007) but provides realistic dose distribution with better homogeneity index (HI). Backscatter and forward scatter attenuation of the prosthesis was measured showing differences <15.7% at the interface among various algorithms.

CONCLUSIONS

Modern algorithms dose distributions have improved greatly compared to older generation algorithms. However, there is still significant differences at high-Z-tissue interfaces compared to the measurements. To ensure accuracy, it's important to take precautions avoiding placing any prosthesis in the beam direction and using type C algorithms.

Transferability of patients for radiation treatment between unmatched machines

Purpose

The feasibility of transferring patients between unmatched machines for a limited number of treatment fractions was investigated for three‐dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatments.

Methods

Eighty patient‐plans were evaluated on two unmatched linacs: Elekta Versa HD and Elekta Infinity. Plans were equally divided into pelvis 3DCRT, prostate VMAT, brain VMAT, and lung VMAT plans. While maintaining the number of monitor units (MUs), plans were recalculated on the machine not originally used for treatment. Relative differences in dose were calculated between machines for the target volume and organs at risk (OARs). Differences in mean dose were assessed with paired t‐tests (p < 0.05). The number of interchangeable fractions allowable before surpassing a cumulative ±5% difference in dose was determined. Additionally, patient‐specific quality assurance (PSQA) measurements using ArcCHECK for both machines were compared with distributions calculated on the machine originally used for treatment using gradient compensation (GC) with 2%/2‐mm criteria.

Results

Interchanging the two machines for pelvic 3DCRT and VMAT (prostate, brain, and lung) plans resulted in an average change in target mean dose of 0.9%, −0.5%, 0.6%, 0.5%, respectively. Based on the differences in dose to the prescription point when changing machines, statistically, nearly one‐fourth of the prescribed fractions could be transferred between linacs for 3DCRT plans. While all of the prescribed fractions could typically be transferred among prostate VMAT plans, a rather large number of treatment fractions, 31% and 38%, could be transferred among brain and lung VMAT plans, respectively, without exceeding a ±5% change in the prescribed dose for two Elekta machines. Additionally, the OAR dosage was not affected within the given criterion with change of machine.

Conclusions

Despite small differences in calculated dose, transferring patients between two unmatched Elekta machines with similar multileaf collimator (MLC)‐head for target coverage and minimum changes in OAR dose is possible for a limited number of fractions (≤3) to improve clinical flexibility and institutional throughput along with patient satisfaction. A similar study could be carried out for other machines for operational throughput.