1
|
Abdullah N, Bradley D, Nisbet A, Kamarul Zaman Z, Deraman S, Mohd Noor N. Dosimetric characteristics of fabricated germanium doped optical fibres for a postal audit of therapy electron beams. Radiat Phys Chem Oxf Engl 1993 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radphyschem.2022.110346] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/31/2022]
|
2
|
Lehmann J, Hussein M, Barry M, Siva S, Moore A, Chu M, Díez P, Eaton DJ, Harwood J, Lonski P, Claridge Mackonis E, Meehan C, Patel R, Ray X, Shaw M, Shepherd J, Smyth G, Standen TS, Subramanian B, Greer P, Clark CH. SEAFARER – A new concept for validating radiotherapy patient specific QA for clinical trials and clinical practice. Radiother Oncol 2022; 171:121-128. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.04.019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/20/2021] [Revised: 03/22/2022] [Accepted: 04/14/2022] [Indexed: 01/12/2023]
|
3
|
Bolt M, Clark CH, Nisbet A, Chen T. Quantification of the uncertainties within the radiotherapy dosimetry chain and their impact on tumour control. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 2021; 19:33-38. [PMID: 34307916 PMCID: PMC8295844 DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2021.06.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/14/2020] [Revised: 06/17/2021] [Accepted: 06/21/2021] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Dose delivered during radiotherapy has uncertainty arising from a number of sources including machine calibration, treatment planning and delivery and can impact outcomes. Any systematic uncertainties will impact all patients and can continue for extended periods. The impact on tumour control probability (TCP) of the uncertainties within the radiotherapy calibration process has been assessed. MATERIALS AND METHODS The linear-quadratic model was used to simulate the TCP from two prostate cancer and a head and neck (H&N) clinical trial. The uncertainty was separated into four components; 1) initial calibration, 2) systematic shift due to output drift, 3) drift during treatment and 4) daily fluctuations. Simulations were performed for each clinical case to model the variation in TCP present at the end of treatment arising from the different components. RESULTS Overall uncertainty in delivered dose was +/-2.1% (95% confidence interval (CI)), consisting of uncertainty standard deviations of 0.7% in initial calibration, 0.8% due to subsequent calibration shift due to output drift, 0.1% due to drift during treatment, and 0.2% from daily variations. The overall uncertainty of TCP (95% CI) for a population of patients treated on different machines was +/-3%, +/-5%, and +/-3% for simulations based on the two prostate trials and H&N trial respectively. CONCLUSION The greatest variation in delivered target volume dose arose from calibration shift due to output drift. Careful monitoring of beam output following initial calibration remains vital and may have a significant impact on clinical outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew Bolt
- Department of Medical Physics, St Luke’s Cancer Centre, Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK
- National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, UK
- Department of Chemical and Process Engineering, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
| | - Catharine H. Clark
- National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, UK
- Radiotherapy Physics, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Andrew Nisbet
- Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, UK
| | - Tao Chen
- Department of Chemical and Process Engineering, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Eaton DJ, Bass G, Booker P, Byrne J, Duane S, Frame J, Grattan M, Thomas RAS, Thorp N, Nisbet A. IPEM code of practice for high-energy photon therapy dosimetry based on the NPL absorbed dose calibration service. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2020; 65:195006. [DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ab99e3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
|
5
|
Multi-institutional dosimetric delivery assessment of intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery on different treatment platforms. Radiother Oncol 2020; 147:153-161. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.05.024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/16/2019] [Revised: 04/30/2020] [Accepted: 05/12/2020] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
|
6
|
Kry SF, Peterson CB, Howell RM, Izewska J, Lye J, Clark CH, Nakamura M, Hurkmans C, Alvarez P, Alves A, Bokulic T, Followill D, Kazantsev P, Lowenstein J, Molineu A, Palmer J, Smith SA, Taylor P, Wesolowska P, Williams I. Remote beam output audits: a global assessment of results out of tolerance. PHYSICS & IMAGING IN RADIATION ONCOLOGY 2018; 7:39-44. [PMID: 31872085 PMCID: PMC6927685 DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2018.08.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
Background and purpose Remote beam output audits, which independently measure an institution’s machine calibration, are a common component of independent radiotherapy peer review. This work reviews the results and trends of these audit results across several organisations and geographical regions. Materials and methods Beam output audit results from the Australian Clinical Dosimetry Services, International Atomic Energy Agency, Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, and Radiation Dosimetry Services were evaluated from 2010 to the present. The rate of audit results outside a ±5% tolerance was evaluated for photon and electron beams as a function of the year of irradiation and nominal beam energy. Additionally, examples of confirmed calibration errors were examined to provide guidance to clinical physicists and auditing bodies. Results Of the 210,167 audit results, 1323 (0.63%) were outside of tolerance. There was a clear trend of improved audit performance for more recent dates, and while all photon energies generally showed uniform rates of results out of tolerance, low (6 MeV) and high (≥18 MeV) energy electron beams showed significantly elevated rates. Twenty nine confirmed calibration errors were explored and attributed to a range of issues, such as equipment failures, errors in setup, and errors in performing the clinical reference calibration. Forty-two percent of these confirmed errors were detected during ongoing periodic monitoring, and not at the time of the first audit of the machine. Conclusions Remote beam output audits have identified, and continue to identify, numerous and often substantial beam calibration errors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephen F Kry
- Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston USA.,Department of Radiation Physics, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston USA
| | | | - Rebecca M Howell
- Department of Radiation Physics, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston USA.,Radiation Dosimetry Services, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston USA
| | - Joanna Izewska
- Dosimetry Laboratory, Dosimetry and Medical Radiation Physics Section, Division of Human Health, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna Austria
| | - Jessica Lye
- Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service, ARPANSA, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Catharine H Clark
- RadioTherapy Trials Quality Assurance Group, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, London UK.,Metrology for Medical Physics, National Physical Laboratory, Teddington UK.,Department of Medical Physics, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Surrey UK
| | - Mitsuhiro Nakamura
- JCOG Division of Medical Physics, Department of Information Technology and Medical Engineering, Human Health Sciences, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University
| | - Coen Hurkmans
- EORTC Radiation Oncology Group, Brussels, Belgium.,Department of radiation Oncology, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Paola Alvarez
- Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston USA.,Department of Radiation Physics, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston USA
| | - Andrew Alves
- Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service, ARPANSA, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Tomislav Bokulic
- Dosimetry Laboratory, Dosimetry and Medical Radiation Physics Section, Division of Human Health, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna Austria
| | - David Followill
- Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston USA.,Department of Radiation Physics, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston USA
| | - Pavel Kazantsev
- Dosimetry Laboratory, Dosimetry and Medical Radiation Physics Section, Division of Human Health, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna Austria
| | - Jessica Lowenstein
- Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston USA.,Department of Radiation Physics, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston USA
| | - Andrea Molineu
- Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston USA.,Department of Radiation Physics, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston USA
| | - Jacob Palmer
- Department of Radiation Physics, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston USA.,Radiation Dosimetry Services, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston USA
| | - Susan A Smith
- Department of Radiation Physics, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston USA.,Radiation Dosimetry Services, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston USA
| | - Paige Taylor
- Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston USA.,Department of Radiation Physics, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston USA
| | - Paulina Wesolowska
- Dosimetry Laboratory, Dosimetry and Medical Radiation Physics Section, Division of Human Health, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna Austria
| | - Ivan Williams
- Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service, ARPANSA, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Lehmann J, Alves A, Dunn L, Shaw M, Kenny J, Keehan S, Supple J, Gibbons F, Manktelow S, Oliver C, Kron T, Williams I, Lye J. Dosimetric end-to-end tests in a national audit of 3D conformal radiotherapy. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 2018; 6:5-11. [PMID: 33458381 PMCID: PMC7807562 DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2018.03.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/04/2017] [Revised: 03/14/2018] [Accepted: 03/14/2018] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Independent dosimetry audits improve quality and safety of radiation therapy. This work reports on design and findings of a comprehensive 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) Level III audit. MATERIALS AND METHODS The audit was conducted as onsite audit using an anthropomorphic thorax phantom in an end-to-end test by the Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service (ACDS). Absolute dose point measurements were performed with Farmer-type ionization chambers. The audited treatment plans included open and half blocked fields, wedges and lung inhomogeneities. Audit results were determined as Pass Optimal Level (deviations within 3.3%), Pass Action Level (greater than 3.3% but within 5%) and Out of Tolerance (beyond 5%), as well as Reported Not Scored (RNS). The audit has been performed between July 2012 and January 2018 on 94 occasions, covering approximately 90% of all Australian facilities. RESULTS The audit pass rate was 87% (53% optimal). Fifty recommendations were given, mainly related to planning system commissioning. Dose overestimation behind low density inhomogeneities by the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) was identified across facilities and found to extend to beam setups which resemble a typical breast cancer treatment beam placement. RNS measurements inside lung showed a variation in the opposite direction: AAA under-dosed a target beyond lung and over-dosed the lung upstream and downstream of the target. Results also highlighted shortcomings of some superposition and convolution algorithms in modelling large angle wedges. CONCLUSIONS This audit showed that 3D-CRT dosimetry audits remain relevant and can identify fundamental global and local problems that also affect advanced treatments.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joerg Lehmann
- Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service (ACDS), Australian Radiation Protection and National Safety Agency (ARPANSA), 619 Lower Plenty Road, Yallambie, VIC 3085, Australia
- Institute of Medical Physics, School of Physics A28, University of Sydney NSW 2006, Australia
- School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, The University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia
- School of Science, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) University, 124 La Trobe Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia
| | - Andrew Alves
- Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service (ACDS), Australian Radiation Protection and National Safety Agency (ARPANSA), 619 Lower Plenty Road, Yallambie, VIC 3085, Australia
| | - Leon Dunn
- Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service (ACDS), Australian Radiation Protection and National Safety Agency (ARPANSA), 619 Lower Plenty Road, Yallambie, VIC 3085, Australia
| | - Maddison Shaw
- Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service (ACDS), Australian Radiation Protection and National Safety Agency (ARPANSA), 619 Lower Plenty Road, Yallambie, VIC 3085, Australia
- School of Science, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) University, 124 La Trobe Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia
| | - John Kenny
- Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service (ACDS), Australian Radiation Protection and National Safety Agency (ARPANSA), 619 Lower Plenty Road, Yallambie, VIC 3085, Australia
| | - Stephanie Keehan
- Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service (ACDS), Australian Radiation Protection and National Safety Agency (ARPANSA), 619 Lower Plenty Road, Yallambie, VIC 3085, Australia
- School of Science, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) University, 124 La Trobe Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia
| | - Jeremy Supple
- Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service (ACDS), Australian Radiation Protection and National Safety Agency (ARPANSA), 619 Lower Plenty Road, Yallambie, VIC 3085, Australia
| | - Francis Gibbons
- Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service (ACDS), Australian Radiation Protection and National Safety Agency (ARPANSA), 619 Lower Plenty Road, Yallambie, VIC 3085, Australia
| | - Sophie Manktelow
- Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service (ACDS), Australian Radiation Protection and National Safety Agency (ARPANSA), 619 Lower Plenty Road, Yallambie, VIC 3085, Australia
| | - Chris Oliver
- Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service (ACDS), Australian Radiation Protection and National Safety Agency (ARPANSA), 619 Lower Plenty Road, Yallambie, VIC 3085, Australia
| | - Tomas Kron
- Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service (ACDS), Australian Radiation Protection and National Safety Agency (ARPANSA), 619 Lower Plenty Road, Yallambie, VIC 3085, Australia
- School of Science, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) University, 124 La Trobe Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, 305 Grattan Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia
| | - Ivan Williams
- Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service (ACDS), Australian Radiation Protection and National Safety Agency (ARPANSA), 619 Lower Plenty Road, Yallambie, VIC 3085, Australia
| | - Jessica Lye
- Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service (ACDS), Australian Radiation Protection and National Safety Agency (ARPANSA), 619 Lower Plenty Road, Yallambie, VIC 3085, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
An on-site dosimetry audit for high-energy electron beams. PHYSICS & IMAGING IN RADIATION ONCOLOGY 2018; 5:44-51. [PMID: 33458368 PMCID: PMC7807662 DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2018.02.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/29/2017] [Revised: 01/30/2018] [Accepted: 02/01/2018] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
Background and purpose External dosimetry audits are powerful quality assurance instruments for radiotherapy. The aim of this study was to implement an electron dosimetry audit based on a contemporary code of practice within the requirements for calibration laboratories performing proficiency tests. This involved the determination of suitable acceptance criteria based on thorough uncertainty analyses. Materials and methods Subject of the audit was the determination of absorbed dose to water, D w, and the beam quality specifier, R 50,dos. Fifteen electron beams were measured in four institutes according to the Belgian-Dutch code of practice for high-energy electron beams. The expanded uncertainty (k = 2) for the D w values was 3.6% for a Roos chamber calibrated in 60Co and 3.2% for a Roos chamber cross-calibrated against a Farmer chamber. The expanded uncertainty for the beam quality specifier, R 50,dos, was 0.14 cm. The audit acceptance levels were based on the expanded uncertainties for the comparison results and estimated to be 2.4%. Results The audit was implemented and validated successfully. All D w audit results were satisfactory with differences in D w values mostly smaller than 0.5% and always smaller than 1%. Except for one, differences in R 50,dos were smaller than 0.2 cm and always smaller than 0.3 cm. Conclusions An electron dosimetry audit based on absorbed dose to water and present-day requirements for calibration laboratories performing proficiency tests was successfully implemented. It proved international traceability of the participants value with an uncertainty better than 3.6% (k = 2).
Collapse
|
9
|
Affiliation(s)
- Catharine H. Clark
- Medical Physics Department, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford Surrey, UK
- Metrology for Medical Physics, National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, Middx, UK
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Pasler M, Hernandez V, Jornet N, Clark CH. Novel methodologies for dosimetry audits: Adapting to advanced radiotherapy techniques. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 2018; 5:76-84. [PMID: 33458373 PMCID: PMC7807589 DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2018.03.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/29/2017] [Revised: 03/08/2018] [Accepted: 03/08/2018] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
With new radiotherapy techniques, treatment delivery is becoming more complex and accordingly, these treatment techniques require dosimetry audits to test advanced aspects of the delivery to ensure best practice and safe patient treatment. This review of novel methodologies for dosimetry audits for advanced radiotherapy techniques includes recent developments and future techniques to be applied in dosimetry audits. Phantom-based methods (i.e. phantom-detector combinations) including independent audit equipment and local measurement equipment as well as phantom-less methods (i.e. portal dosimetry, transmission detectors and log files) are presented and discussed. Methodologies for both conventional linear accelerator (linacs) and new types of delivery units, i.e. Tomotherapy, stereotactic devices and MR-linacs, are reviewed. Novel dosimetry audit techniques such as portal dosimetry or log file evaluation have the potential to allow parallel auditing (i.e. performing an audit at multiple institutions at the same time), automation of data analysis and evaluation of multiple steps of the radiotherapy treatment chain. These methods could also significantly reduce the time needed for audit and increase the information gained. However, to maximise the potential, further development and harmonisation of dosimetry audit techniques are required before these novel methodologies can be applied.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marlies Pasler
- Lake Constance Radiation Oncology Center Singen-Friedrichshafen, Germany
| | - Victor Hernandez
- Department of Medical Physics, Hospital Sant Joan de Reus, IISPV, Tarragona, Spain
| | - Núria Jornet
- Servei de RadiofísicaiRadioprotecció, Hospital de la Santa CreuiSant Pau, Spain
| | - Catharine H. Clark
- Department of Medical Physics, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, Surrey, UK
- Metrology for Medical Physics (MEMPHYS), National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, Middlesex, UK
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Muren LP. The first year achievements of Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 2018; 5:111-112. [PMID: 33458379 PMCID: PMC7807658 DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2018.03.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Ludvig P. Muren
- Department of Medical Physics, Aarhus University/Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Bolt MA, Clark CH, Chen T, Nisbet A. A multi-centre analysis of radiotherapy beam output measurement. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 2017. [DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2017.12.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/18/2022] Open
|