Evaluation of differences and dosimetric influences of beam models using golden and multi-institutional measured beam datasets in radiation treatment planning systems

Technical note: Point-by-point ion-recombination correction for accurate dose profile measurement in high dose-per-pulse irradiation field

BACKGROUND

Although flattening filter free (FFF) beams are commonly used in clinical treatment, the accuracy of dose measurements in FFF beams has been questioned. Higher dose per pulse (DPP) such as FFF beams from a linear accelerator may cause problems in dose profile measurements using an ionization chamber due to the change of the charge collection efficiency. Ionization chambers are commonly used for percent depth dose (PDD) measurements. Changes of DPP due to chamber movement during PDD measurement can vary the ion collection efficiency of ionization chambers. In the case of FF beams, the DPP fluctuation is negligible, but in the case of the FFF beams, the DPP is 2.5 ∼ 4 times larger than that of the FF beam, and the change in ion collection efficiency is larger than that of the FF beam. PDD profile normalized by maximum dose depth, 10 cm depth for example, may therefore be affected by the ion collection efficiency.

PURPOSE

In this study, we investigate the characteristics of the ion collection efficiency change depending on the DPP of each ionization chamber in the FFF beam. We furthermore propose a method to obtain the chamber- independent PDD by applying a DPP-dependent ion recombination correction.

METHODS

Prior to investigating the relationship between DPP and charge collection efficiency, Jaffe-plots were generated with different DPP settings to investigate the linearity between the applied voltage and collected charge. The absolute dose measurement using eight ionization chambers under the irradiation settings of 0.148, 0.087, and 0.008 cGy/pulse were performed. Applied voltages for the Jaffe-plots were 100, 125, 150, 200, 250, and 300 V. The ion recombination correction factor Pion was calculated by the two-voltage analysis (TVA) method at the applied voltages of 300 and 100 V. The DPP dependency of the charge collection efficiency for each ionization chamber were evaluated from the DPP- Pion plot. PDD profiles for the 10 MV FFF beam were measured using Farmer type chambers (TN30013, FC65-P, and FC65-G) and mini-type chambers (TN31010, TN31021, CC13, CC04, and FC23-C). The PDD profiles were corrected with ion recombination correction at negative and positive polar applied voltages of 100 and 300 V.

RESULTS

From the DPP-Pion relation for each ionization chamber with DPP ranging from 0.008 cGy/pulse to 0.148 cGy/pulse, all Farmer and mini-type chambers satisfied the requirements described in AAPM TG-51 addendum. However, Pion for the CC13 was most affected by DPP among tested chambers. The maximum deviation among PDDs using eight ionization chambers for 10 MV FFF was about 1%, but the deviation was suppressed to about 0.5% by applying ion recombination correction at each depth.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the deviation of PDD profile among the ionization chambers was reduced by the ion recombination coefficient including the DPP dependency, especially for high DPP beams such as FFF beams. The present method is particularly effective for CC13, where the ion collection efficiency is highly DPP dependent.

Delivery accuracy of VMAT on two beam-matched linacs provided by accelerated go live service

INTRODUCTION

Dosimetric accuracy is critical when a patient treated with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is transferred to another beam-matched linac. To evaluate the performance of Accelerated Go Live (AGL) service, the measured beam characteristics and patient specific quality assurance (QA) results between two AGL-matched linacs were compared.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two VersaHD linacs were installed using the AGL service. After the installation, the beam data such as percentage depth dose (PDD), lateral profiles and output factors for all photon beams were measured. Relative doses were also measured as a function of the multi-leaf collimator (MLC) leaf gap width. Subsequently, VMAT plans were created for prostate, pelvis, head and neck, liver, lung cancers and multiple brain metastases. Dose distributions and point doses were measured by multi-dimensional detectors and ionization chambers for patient specific quality assurance, and comparisons were made between the two linacs.

RESULTS

Dose differences in PDDs were all within ± 1% except the entrance region, and the averaged gamma indices of the lateral profiles were within 0.3. The differences in doses as a function of the MLC leaf gap width between the two linacs were within ±0.5%. For all the plans, gamma passing rates were all higher than 95% with criteria of 2%/2 mm. The average and the SD of dose differences on the multi-dimensional detector between both measurements was 0.06 ± 2.12%, and the average of point dose differences was -0.03 ± 0.33%.

CONCLUSION

We have evaluated the AGL performance in the context of beam characteristics and patient specific QA. It was demonstrated that the AGL service provides an accurate VMAT treatment reproducibility for many tumor sites with gamma pass rates greater than 95% under criteria of 2%/2 mm.

Evaluation of candidate template beam models for a matched TrueBeam treatment delivery system

PURPOSE

To explore candidate RayStation beam models to serve as a class-specific template for a TrueBeam treatment delivery system.

METHODS

Established validation techniques were used to evaluate three photon beam models: a clinically optimized model from the authors' institution, the built-in RayStation template, and a hybrid consisting of the RayStation template except substituting average MLC parameter values from a recent IROC survey. Comparisons were made for output factors, dose profiles from open fields, as well as representative VMAT test plans.

RESULTS

For jaw-defined output factors, each beam model was within 1.6% of expected published values. Similarly, the majority (57-66%) of jaw-defined dose curves from each model had a gamma pass rate >95% (2% / 3 mm, 20% threshold) when compared to TrueBeam representative beam data. For dose curves from MPPG 5.a MLC-defined fields, average gamma pass rates (1% / 1 mm, 20% threshold) were 92.9%, 85.1%, and 86.0% for the clinical, template, and hybrid models, respectively. For VMAT test plans measured with a diode array detector, median dose differences were 0.6%, 1.3%, and 1.1% for the clinical, template, and hybrid models, respectively. For in-phantom ionization chamber measurements with the same VMAT test plans, the average percent difference was -0.3%, -1.4%, and -1.0% for the clinical, template, and hybrid models, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Beam model templates taken from the vendor and aggregate results within the community were both reasonable starting points, but neither approach was as optimal as a clinically tuned model, the latter producing better agreement with all validation measurements. Given these results, the clinically optimized model represents a better candidate as a consensus template. This can benefit the community by reducing commissioning time and improving dose calculation accuracy for matched TrueBeam treatment delivery systems.