Sensitivity of the IQM transmission detector to errors of VMAT plans

Use of dose-area product to assess plan quality in robotic radiosurgery

PURPOSE

In robotic stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), optimal selection of collimators from a set of fixed cones must be determined manually by trial and error. A unique and uniformly scaled metric to characterize plan quality could help identify Pareto-efficient treatment plans.

METHODS

The concept of dose-area product (DAP) was used to define a measure (DAPratio) of the targeting efficiency of a set of beams by relating the integral DAP of the beams to the mean dose achieved in the target volume. In a retrospective study of five clinical cases of brain metastases with representative target volumes (range: 0.5-5.68 ml) and 121 treatment plans with all possible collimator choices, the DAPratio was determined along with other plan metrics (conformity index CI, gradient index R50%, treatment time, total number of monitor units TotalMU, radiotoxicity index f12, and energy efficiency index η50%), and the respective Spearman's rank correlation coefficients were calculated. The ability of DAPratio to determine Pareto efficiency for collimator selection at DAPratio < 1 and DAPratio < 0.9 was tested using scatter plots.

RESULTS

The DAPratio for all plans was on average 0.95 ± 0.13 (range: 0.61-1.31). Only the variance of the DAPratio was strongly dependent on the number of collimators. For each target, there was a strong or very strong correlation of DAPratio with all other metrics of plan quality. Only for R50% and η50% was there a moderate correlation with DAPratio for the plans of all targets combined, as R50% and η50% strongly depended on target size. Optimal treatment plans with CI, R50%, f12, and η50% close to 1 were clearly associated with DAPratio < 1, and plans with DAPratio < 0.9 were even superior, but at the cost of longer treatment times and higher total monitor units.

CONCLUSIONS

The newly defined DAPratio has been demonstrated to be a metric that characterizes the target efficiency of a set of beams in robotic SRS in one single and uniformly scaled number. A DAPratio < 1 indicates Pareto efficiency. The trade-off between plan quality on the one hand and short treatment time or low total monitor units on the other hand is also represented by DAPratio.

Feasibility of using a transmission ion chamber for QA tests of medical linear accelerators

PURPOSE

To study the feasibility of using the Integral Quality Monitoring (IQM) system for routine quality assurance (QA) of photon beams.

METHODS

The IQM system is a commercially available dose delivery verification tool, which consists of a spatially sensitive large area transmission ion chamber, mounted on the Linac collimator, and a calculation algorithm to predict the signals in response to radiation beams. By comparing the measured and predicted signals the system verifies the accuracy of beam delivery. The ion chamber unit is a battery powered system including a dual-electrometer, temperature and pressure sensors, and inclinometers. The feasibility of using the IQM system for routine QA tests was investigated by measuring constancy values of beam parameters, with specially designed tests fields, and comparing them with those determined by a conventional system.

RESULTS

The sensitivity of the beam output constancy measurements by the IQM system was found to agree with those measured by a Farmer type ion chamber placed in water phantoms to within 0.1% for typical daily output variation of ± 0.5% and ± 1%. The beam symmetry was measured with a 4 cm × 4 cm aperture at multiple off-axis distances and was found to have a highly linear relationship with those measured in a water phantom scan for intentionally introduced asymmetry between -3% and +3%. The beam flatness was measured with a two-field ratio method and was found to be linearly correlated with those measured by water phantom scan. The dosimetric equivalent of a picket fence test performed by the IQM system can serve as a constancy check of the multileaf collimator (MLC) bank positioning test.

CONCLUSIONS

The IQM system has been investigated for constancy measurements of various beam parameters for photon beams. The results suggest that the system can be used for most of the routine QA tests effectively and efficiently.

Sensitivity and specificity of secondary dose calculation for head and neck treatment plans

PURPOSE

Secondary dose calculation (SDC) with an independent algorithm is one option to perform plan-specific quality assurance (QA). While measurement-based QA can potentially detect errors in plan delivery, the dose values are typically only compared to calculations on homogeneous phantom geometries instead of patient CT data. We analyzed the sensitivity and specificity of an SDC software by purposely introducing different errors and determined thresholds for optimal decisions.

METHODS

Thirty head and neck VMAT plans and 30 modifications of those plans, including errors related to density and beam modelling, were recalculated using RadCalc with a Monte Carlo algorithm. Decision thresholds were obtained by receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis. For comparison, measurement-based QA using the ArcCHECK phantom was carried out and evaluated in the same way.

RESULTS

Despite optimized decision thresholds, none of the systems was able to reliably detect all errors. ArcCHECK analysis using a 2%/2 mm criterion with a threshold of 91.1% had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.80. Evaluating differences in recalculated and planned DVH parameter of the target structures in RadCalc with a 2% threshold an AUC of 0.86 was achieved. Out-of-field deviations could be attributed to weaknesses in the beam model.

CONCLUSIONS

Secondary dose calculation with RadCalc is an alternative to established measurement-based phantom QA. Different tools catch different errors; therefore, a combination of approaches should be preferred.

Simulation of consequences of using nonideal detectors during beam data commissioning measurements

BACKGROUND

Beam data commissioning is a core task of radiotherapy physicists. Despite multiple detectors available, a feasible measurement program compromises between detector properties and time constraints. Therefore, it is important to understand how nonideal measurement data propagates into patient dose calculation.

PURPOSE

We simulated the effects of realistic errors, due to beam commissioning with presumably nonoptimal detectors, on the resulting patient dose distributions. Additionally, the detectability of such beam commissioning errors during patient plan quality assurance (QA) was evaluated.

METHODS

A clinically used beam model was re-commissioned introducing changes to depth dose curves, output factors, profiles or combinations of those. Seventeen altered beam models with incremental changes of the modelling parameters were created to analyze dose changes on simplified anatomical phantoms. Additionally, fourteen altered models incorporate changes in the order of signal differences reported for typically used detectors. Eighteen treatment plans of different types were recalculated on patient CT data sets using the altered beam models.

RESULTS

For the majority of clinical plans, dose distributions in the target volume recalculated on the patient computed tomography data were similar between the original and the modified beam models, yielding global 2%/2 mm gamma pass rates above 98.9%. Larger changes were observed for certain combinations of beam modelling errors and anatomical sites, most extreme for output factor changes in a small target volume plan with a pass rate of 80.6%. Modelling an enlarged penumbra as if measured with a 0.125 cm3 ion chamber had the largest effect on the dose distribution (average pass rate of 96.5%, lowest 85.4%). On different QA phantom geometries, dose distributions between calculations with modified and unmodified models typically changed too little to be detected in actual measurements.

CONCLUSION

While the simulated errors during beam modelling had little effect on most plans, in some cases changes were considerable. High-quality penumbra and small field output factor should be a main focus of commissioning measurements. Detecting modelling issues using standard patient QA phantoms is unlikely. Verification of a beam model should be performed especially for plans with high modulation and in different depths or geometries representing the variety of situations expected clinically.

IPEM topical report: guidance for the clinical implementation of online treatment monitoring solutions for IMRT/VMAT

This report provides guidance for the implementation of online treatment monitoring (OTM) solutions in radiotherapy (RT), with a focus on modulated treatments. Support is provided covering the implementation process, from identification of an OTM solution to local implementation strategy. Guidance has been developed by a RT special interest group (RTSIG) working party (WP) on behalf of the Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM). Recommendations within the report are derived from the experience of the WP members (in consultation with manufacturers, vendors and user groups), existing guidance or legislation and a UK survey conducted in 2020 (Stevenset al2021). OTM is an inclusive term representing any system capable of providing a direct or inferred measurement of the delivered dose to a RT patient. Information on each type of OTM is provided but, commensurate with UK demand, guidance is largely influenced byin vivodosimetry methods utilising the electronic portal imager device (EPID). Sections are included on the choice of OTM solutions, acceptance and commissioning methods with recommendations on routine quality control, analytical methods and tolerance setting, clinical introduction and staffing/resource requirements. The guidance aims to give a practical solution to sensitivity and specificity testing. Functionality is provided for the user to introduce known errors into treatment plans for local testing. Receiver operating characteristic analysis is discussed as a tool to performance assess OTM systems. OTM solutions can help verify the correct delivery of radiotherapy treatment. Furthermore, modern systems are increasingly capable of providing clinical decision-making information which can impact the course of a patient's treatment. However, technical limitations persist. It is not within the scope of this guidance to critique each available solution, but the user is encouraged to carefully consider workflow and engage with manufacturers in resolving compatibility issues.

Sensitivity and specificity of Varian Halcyon's portal dosimetry for plan-specific pre-treatment QA

PURPOSE

Developed as a plan-specific pre-treatment QA tool, Varian portal dosimetry promises a fast, high-resolution, and integrated QA solution. In this study, the agreement between predicted fluence and measured cumulative portal dose was determined for the first 140 patient plans at our Halcyon linear accelerator. Furthermore, the capability of portal dosimetry to detect incorrect plan delivery was compared to that of a common QA phantom. Finally, tolerance criteria for verification of VMAT plan delivery with Varian portal dosimetry were derived.

METHODS

All patient plans and the corresponding verification plans were generated within the Eclipse treatment planning system. Four representative plans of different treatment sites (prostate, prostate with lymphatic drainage, rectum, and head & neck) were intentionally altered to model incorrect plan delivery. Investigated errors included both systematic and random errors. Gamma analysis was conducted on both portal dose (criteria γ2%/2 mm , γ2%/1 mm , and γ1%/1 mm ) and ArcCHECK measurements (criteria γ3%/3 mm , γ3%/2 mm , and γ2%/2 mm ) with a 10% low-dose threshold. Performance assessment of various acceptance criteria for plan-specific treatment QA utilized receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.

RESULTS

Predicted and acquired portal dosimetry fluences demonstrated a high agreement evident by average gamma passing rates for the clinical patient plans of 99.90%, 96.64%, and 91.87% for γ2%/2 mm , γ2%/1 mm , and γ1%/1 mm , respectively. The ROC analysis demonstrated a very high capability of detecting erroneous plan delivery for portal dosimetry (area under curve (AUC) > 0.98) and in this regard outperforms QA with the ArcCHECK phantom (AUC ≈ 0.82). With the suggested optimum decision thresholds excellent sensitivity and specificity is simultaneously possible.

CONCLUSIONS

Owing to the high achievable spatial resolution, portal dosimetry at the Halcyon can reliably be deployed as plan-specific pre-treatment QA tool to screen for errors. It is recommended to support the fluence integrated portal dosimetry QA by independent phantom-based measurements of a random sample survey of treatment plans.

Comparison of calculation algorithms to predict the IQM detector response for various modulation degrees of VMAT treatment plans on linear accelerator equipped with the HD120 MLC

PURPOSE

The calculation model for the integral quality monitor (IQM) system does not take into account the characteristics of the HD120 multileaf collimator (MLC), which some Varian accelerators are equipped with. Some treatment plans prepared with this collimator are characterized by a high level of modulation. The aim of the work was to prepare a model for that collimator and to determine the influence of modulation on results of the verification carried out with the use of IQM system.

METHODS

The short and long stabilities of the IQM detector response were verified by measuring the signal for a 6 MV flattening filter-free (FFF) beam with the static field of 10 × 10 cm² size. The obtained results were compared with the measurements performed with the PTW Farmer chamber. Next, the signals for 35 static square fields 4 × 4 cm² , covering the whole field 38 × 20 cm² , were measured with the IQM. Based on the results of these measurements, the original calculation model has been changed in order to achieve the smallest differences between calculations and measurements. While tuning the model, the characteristics of the HD120 MLC were included. Measurements were performed for 30 clinical plans (86 arcs) prepared with 6 MV FFF beams. Among those 30 plans, there were were multitarget plans with single isocenter. For each plan, the modulation complexity score (MCS) was calculated. The measurement results were compared with the calculation results performed with the original and authors' calculation model.

RESULTS

Very good stability of the short and long stabilities of the IQM detector response was obtained. Measurements performed for 35 static fields revealed that for the manufacturer's and for the authors' models, the deviation exceeded 3% for 12 and five of the 35 static fields, respectively. The differences for the manufacturer's and authors' algorithms were in the range of ±2% for the 15 and 26 of the fields, respectively. For original and the authors' models, the differences between measured and calculated signals (starting with the segment number 40) were within the range of ±3.5% for 87.6% and 96.7% of all arcs for the respective models. For both models, the dependence of the compliance of measurements and calculations on the MCS was observed. For most of the very modulated arcs, the measured signal was at least 3% lower than the calculated one. The largest differences between measurements and calculations were obtained for single-isocenter multitarget plans.

CONCLUSIONS

The signal predicted by an algorithm taking into account the real geometry of the collimating system of the Edge accelerator (equipped with the HD120 MLC) made it possible to obtain greater consistency between the measurements and calculations. We characterized the dependence between the MCS of each arc and the compliance of the measurements and calculations. Much worse results were obtained for single-isocenter multitarget plans.

An investigation of the IQM signal variation and error detection sensitivity for patient specific pre-treatment QA

PURPOSE

To evaluate the Integral Quality Monitor (IQM) as a clinical dosimetry device for detecting photon beam delivery errors in clinically relevant conditions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The IQM's ability to detect delivery errors introduced into clinical VMAT plans for two different treatment sites was assessed. This included measuring 103 nasopharynx VMAT plans and 78 lung SBRT VMAT plans with introduced errors in gantry angle (1-5°) and in MLC-defined field size and field shift (1-5 mm). The IQM sensitivity was compared to ArcCheck detector performance. Signal dependence on field position for on-axis and asymmetrically offset square field sizes from 1 × 1 cm² to 30 × 30 cm² was also investigated.

RESULTS

The IQM detected almost all introduced clinically-significant MLC field size errors, but not some small gantry angle errors or most MLC field shift errors. The IQM sensitivity was comparable to the ArcCheck for lung SBRT, but worse for the nasopharynx plans. Differences between IQM calculated/predicted and measured signals were within ± 2% for all on-axis square fields, but up to 60% for the smallest asymmetrically offset fields at large offsets.

CONCLUSION

The IQM performance was consistent and reproducible. It showed highest sensitivity to the field size errors for these plans, but did not detect some clinically-significant introduced gantry angle errors or most MLC field shift errors. The IQM calculation model is still being developed, which should improve small offset-field performance. Care is required in IQM use for plan verification or online monitoring, especially for small fields that are off-axis in the detector gradient direction.

Comparison of pretreatment VMAT quality assurance with the integral quality monitor (IQM) and electronic portal imaging device (EPID)

The purpose of this study was to compare pretreatment volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) quality assurance (QA) measurements and evaluate the multileaf collimator (MLC) error sensitivity of two detectors: the integral quality monitor (IQM) system (iRT systems IQM) and the electronic portal imaging device (EPID) (Varian PortalVision aS1200). Pretreatment QA measurements were performed for 20 retrospective VMAT plans (53 arcs). A subset of ten plans (23 arcs) was used to investigate MLC error sensitivity of each device. Eight MLC error plans were created for each VMAT plan. The errors included systematic opening/closing (±0.25, ±0.50, ±0.75 mm) of the MLC and random positional errors (1 mm) for individual/groups of leaves. The IQM was evaluated using the percent error of the measured cumulative signal relative to the calculated signal. The EPID was evaluated using two methods: a novel percent error of the measured relative to the predicted cumulative signals, and gamma (γ) analysis (1%/1 mm, 2%/2 mm, 3%/3 mm and 3%/1 mm for Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy plans). The average change in maximum dose obtained from dose-volume histogram (DVH) data and change in detector signals for different systematic MLC shifts was also compared. Cumulative signal differences showed similar levels of agreement between measured and expected detector signals (IQM: 1.00 ± 0.55%; EPID: 1.22 ± 0.92%). Results from γ analysis lacked specificity. Only the 1%/1 mm criteria produced data with remarkable differences. A strong linear correlation was observed between IQM and EPID cumulative signal differences with MLC error magnitude (R = 0.99). Likewise, results indicate a strong correlation between the cumulative signal for both detectors and DVH dose (R_IQM  = 0.99; R_EPID  = 0.97). In conclusion, use of cumulative signal differences could be more useful for detecting errors in treatment delivery in EPID than γ analysis.

Estimating dose delivery accuracy in stereotactic body radiation therapy: A review of in-vivo measurement methods

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has been recognized as a standard treatment option for many anatomical sites. Sophisticated radiation therapy techniques have been developed for carrying out these treatments and new quality assurance (QA) programs are therefore required to guarantee high geometrical and dosimetric accuracy. This paper focuses on recent advances on in-vivo measurements methods (IVM) for SBRT treatment. More specifically, all of the online QA methods for estimating the effective dose delivered to patients were compared. Determining the optimal IVM for performing SBRT treatments would reduce the risk of errors that could jeopardize treatment outcome. A total of 89 papers were included. The papers were subdivided into the following topics: point dosimeters (PD), transmission detectors (TD), log file analysis (LFA), electronic portal imaging device dosimetry (EPID), dose accumulation methods (DAM). The detectability capability of the main IVM detectors/devices were evaluated. All of the systems have some limitations: PD has no spatial data, EPID has limited sensitivity towards set-up errors and intra-fraction motion in some anatomical sites, TD is insensitive towards patient related errors, LFA is not an independent measure, DAMs are not always based on measures. In order to minimize errors in SBRT dose delivery, we recommend using synergic combinations of two or more of the systems described in our review: on-line tumor position and patient information should be combined with MLC position and linac output detection accuracy. In this way the effects of SBRT dose delivery errors will be reduced.

External beam patient dose verification based on the integral quality monitor (IQM®) output signals

BACKGROUND

The Integral Quality Monitor (IQM^®) can essentially measure the integral fluence through a segment and provide real-time information about the accuracy of radiation delivery based on comparisons of measured segment signals and pre-calculated reference values. However, the present IQM chamber cannot calculate the dose in the patient.

AIM

This study aims to make use of IQM field output signals to calculate the number of monitor units (MUs) delivered through an arbitrary treatment field in order to convert Monte Carlo (MC)-generated dose distributions in a patient model into absolute dose.

METHODS

XiO and Monaco treatment planning systems (TPSs) were used to define treatment beam portals for cervix and esophagus conformal radiotherapy as well as prostate intensity-modulated radiotherapy for the translation of patient and beam setup information from DICOM to DOSXYZnrc. The planned beams were simulated in a patient model built from actual patient CT images and each simulated integral field/segment was weighted with its MUs before summation to get the total dose in the plan. The segment beam weights (MUs) were calculated as the ratio of the open-field IQM measured signal and the calculated signal per MU extracted from chamber sensitivity maps. These are the actual MUs delivered not just MUs set. The beam weighting method was evaluated by comparing weighted MC doses with original planned doses using profile and isodose comparisons, dose difference maps, γ analysis and dose-volume histogram (DVH) data.

RESULTS

γ pass rates of up to 98% were found, except for the esophagus plan where the γ pass rate was below 45%. DVH comparisons showed good agreement for most organs, with the largest differences observed in low-density lung. However, these discrepancies can result from differences in dose calculation algorithms or differences in MUs used for dose weighting planned by the TPS and MUs calculated using IQM field output signals. To test this, a 4-field box DOSXYZnrc MC simulation weighted with planned (XiO) MUs was compared with the same simulation weighted with IQM-based MUs. Dose differences of up to 5% were found on the isocentre slice. For XiO versus MC, up to 7% dose differences were found, indicating additional error due to limitations of XiO's superposition algorithm. Dose differences between MC Monaco and MC EGSnrc were less than 3%.

CONCLUSIONS

The most valuable comparison was MC versus MC as it eliminated algorithm discrepancies and evaluated dose differences precisely according to beam weighting. For XiO TPS, care must be taken as dose differences may also arise due to limitations in XiO's planning software, not merely due to differences in MUs. Overall, the IQM was successfully used to compute beam dose weights to accurately reconstruct the patient dose using unweighted MC beams. Our technique can be used for pre-treatment QA provided each segment output is known and an accurate linac source model is available.