1
|
Das IJ, Francescon P, Moran JM, Ahnesjö A, Aspradakis MM, Cheng CW, Ding GX, Fenwick JD, Saiful Huq M, Oldham M, Reft CS, Sauer OA. Report of AAPM Task Group 155: Megavoltage photon beam dosimetry in small fields and non-equilibrium conditions. Med Phys 2021; 48:e886-e921. [PMID: 34101836 DOI: 10.1002/mp.15030] [Citation(s) in RCA: 56] [Impact Index Per Article: 18.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/02/2021] [Revised: 05/06/2021] [Accepted: 06/02/2021] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Small-field dosimetry used in advance treatment technologies poses challenges due to loss of lateral charged particle equilibrium (LCPE), occlusion of the primary photon source, and the limited choice of suitable radiation detectors. These challenges greatly influence dosimetric accuracy. Many high-profile radiation incidents have demonstrated a poor understanding of appropriate methodology for small-field dosimetry. These incidents are a cause for concern because the use of small fields in various specialized radiation treatment techniques continues to grow rapidly. Reference and relative dosimetry in small and composite fields are the subject of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) dosimetry code of practice that has been published as TRS-483 and an AAPM summary publication (IAEA TRS 483; Dosimetry of small static fields used in external beam radiotherapy: An IAEA/AAPM International Code of Practice for reference and relative dose determination, Technical Report Series No. 483; Palmans et al., Med Phys 45(11):e1123, 2018). The charge of AAPM task group 155 (TG-155) is to summarize current knowledge on small-field dosimetry and to provide recommendations of best practices for relative dose determination in small megavoltage photon beams. An overview of the issue of LCPE and the changes in photon beam perturbations with decreasing field size is provided. Recommendations are included on appropriate detector systems and measurement methodologies. Existing published data on dosimetric parameters in small photon fields (e.g., percentage depth dose, tissue phantom ratio/tissue maximum ratio, off-axis ratios, and field output factors) together with the necessary perturbation corrections for various detectors are reviewed. A discussion on errors and an uncertainty analysis in measurements is provided. The design of beam models in treatment planning systems to simulate small fields necessitates special attention on the influence of the primary beam source and collimating devices in the computation of energy fluence and dose. The general requirements for fluence and dose calculation engines suitable for modeling dose in small fields are reviewed. Implementations in commercial treatment planning systems vary widely, and the aims of this report are to provide insight for the medical physicist and guidance to developers of beams models for radiotherapy treatment planning systems.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Indra J Das
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Paolo Francescon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ospedale Di Vicenza, Vicenza, Italy
| | - Jean M Moran
- Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Anders Ahnesjö
- Medical Radiation Sciences, Department of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Maria M Aspradakis
- Institute of Radiation Oncology, Cantonal Hospital of Graubünden, Chur, Switzerland
| | - Chee-Wai Cheng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - George X Ding
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - John D Fenwick
- Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, Institute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - M Saiful Huq
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh, School of Medicine and UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Mark Oldham
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Chester S Reft
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Otto A Sauer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Klinik fur Strahlentherapie, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Knutson NC, Schmidt MC, Reynoso FJ, Hao Y, Mazur TR, Laugeman E, Hugo G, Mutic S, Li HH, Ngwa W, Cai B, Sajo E. Automated and robust beam data validation of a preconfigured ring gantry linear accelerator using a 1D tank with synchronized beam delivery and couch motions. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2020; 21:200-207. [PMID: 32614511 PMCID: PMC7484825 DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12946] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/02/2020] [Revised: 04/25/2020] [Accepted: 05/12/2020] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To develop an efficient and automated methodology for beam data validation for a preconfigured ring gantry linear accelerator using scripting and a one-dimensional (1D) tank with automated couch motions. MATERIALS AND METHODS Using an application programming interface, a program was developed to allow the user to choose a set of beam data to validate with measurement. Once selected the program generates a set of instructions for radiation delivery with synchronized couch motions for the linear accelerator in the form of an extensible markup language (XML) file to be delivered on the ring gantry linear accelerator. The user then delivers these beams while measuring with the 1D tank and data logging electrometer. The program also automatically calculates this set of beams on the measurement geometry within the treatment planning system (TPS) and extracts the corresponding calculated dosimetric data for comparison to measurement. Once completed the program then returns a comparison of the measurement to the predicted result from the TPS to the user and prints a report. In this work lateral, longitudinal, and diagonal profiles were taken for fields sizes of 6 × 6, 8 × 8, 10 × 10, 20 × 20, and 28 × 28 cm2 at depths of 1.3, 5, 10, 20, and 30 cm. Depth dose profiles were taken for all field sizes. RESULTS Using this methodology, the TPS was validated to agree with measurement. All compared points yielded a gamma value less than 1 for a 1.5%/1.5 mm criteria (100% passing rate). Off axis profiles had >98.5% of data points producing a gamma value <1 with a 1%/1 mm criteria. All depth profiles produced 100% of data points with a gamma value <1 with a 1%/1 mm criteria. All data points measured were within 1.5% or 2 mm distance to agreement. CONCLUSIONS This methodology allows for an increase in automation in the beam data validation process. Leveraging the application program interface allows the user to use a single system to create the measurement files, predict the result, and then compare to actual measurement increasing efficiency and reducing the chance for user input errors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nels C Knutson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.,Department of Physics, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA, USA
| | - Matthew C Schmidt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.,Department of Physics, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA, USA
| | - Francisco J Reynoso
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Yao Hao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Thomas R Mazur
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Eric Laugeman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Geoffrey Hugo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Sasa Mutic
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - H Harold Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Wilfred Ngwa
- Department of Physics, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA, USA
| | - Bin Cai
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Erno Sajo
- Department of Physics, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|