Radiation therapy with unflattened photon beams: Dosimetric accuracy of advanced dose calculation algorithms

Comparison of four commercial dose calculation algorithms in different evaluation tests

BACKGROUND

Accurate and fast dose calculation is crucial in modern radiation therapy. Four dose calculation algorithms (AAA, AXB, CCC, and MC) are available in Varian Eclipse and RaySearch Laboratories RayStation Treatment Planning Systems (TPSs).

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to evaluate and compare dosimetric accuracy of the four dose calculation algorithms applying to homogeneous and heterogeneous media, VMAT plans (based on AAPM TG-119 test cases), and the surface and buildup regions.

METHODS

The four algorithms are assessed in homogeneous (IAEA-TECDOCE 1540) and heterogeneous (IAEA-TECDOC 1583) media. Dosimetric evaluation accuracy for VMAT plans is then analyzed, along with the evaluation of the accuracy of algorithms applying to the surface and buildup regions.

RESULTS

Tests conducted in homogeneous media revealed that all algorithms exhibit dose deviations within 5% for various conditions, with pass rates exceeding 95% based on recommended tolerances. Additionally, the tests conducted in heterogeneous media demonstrate high pass rates for all algorithms, with a 100% pass rate observed for 6 MV and mostly 100% pass rate for 15 MV, except for CCC, which achieves a pass rate of 94%. The results of gamma index pass rate (GIPR) for dose calculation algorithms in IMRT fields show that GIPR (3% /3 mm) for all four algorithms in all evaluated tests based on TG119, are greater than 97%. The results of the algorithm testing for the accuracy of superficial dose reveal variations in dose differences, ranging from -11.9% to 7.03% for 15 MV and -9.5% to 3.3% for 6 MV, respectively. It is noteworthy that the AXB and MC algorithms demonstrate relatively lower discrepancies compared to the other algorithms.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that generally, two dose calculation algorithms (AXB and MC) that calculate dose in medium have better accuracy than other two dose calculation algorithms (CCC and AAA) that calculate dose to water.

Dose calculation accuracy in particle therapy: Comparing carbon ions with protons

Purpose

This work presents the validation of an analytical pencil beam dose calculation algorithm in a commercial treatment planning system (TPS) for carbon ions by measurements of dose distributions in heterogeneous phantom geometries. Additionally, a comparison study of carbon ions versus protons is performed considering current best solutions in commercial TPS.

Methods

All treatment plans were optimized and calculated using the RayStation TPS (RaySearch, Sweden). The dose distributions calculated with the TPS were compared with measurements using a 24‐pinpoint ionization chamber array (T31015, PTW, Germany). Tissue‐like inhomogeneities (bone, lung, and soft tissue) were embedded in water, while a target volume of 4 x 4 x 4 cm³ was defined at two different depths behind the heterogeneities. In total, 10 different test cases, with and without range shifter as well as different air gaps, were investigated. Dose distributions inside as well as behind the target volume were evaluated.

Results

Inside the target volume, the mean dose difference between calculations and measurements, averaged over all test cases, was 1.6% for carbon ions. This compares well to the final agreement of 1.5% obtained in water at the commissioning stage of the TPS for carbon ions and is also within the clinically acceptable interval of 3%. The mean dose difference and maximal dose difference obtained outside the target area were 1.8% and 13.4%, respectively. The agreement of dose distributions for carbon ions in the target volumes was comparable or better to that between Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculations and measurements for protons. Percentage dose differences of more than 10% were present outside the target area behind bone–lung structures, where the carbon ion calculations systematically over predicted the dose. MC dose calculations for protons were superior to carbon ion beams outside the target volumes.

Conclusion

The pencil beam dose calculations for carbon ions in RayStation were found to be in good agreement with dosimetric measurements in heterogeneous geometries for points of interest located within the target. Large local discrepancies behind the target may contribute to incorrect dose predictions for organs at risk.

Comparison of the RayStation photon Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm against measured data under homogeneous and heterogeneous irradiation geometries

PURPOSE

This work compares Monte Carlo dose calculations performed using the RayStation treatment planning system against data measured on a Varian Truebeam linear accelerator with 6 MV and 10 MV FFF photon beams.

METHODS

The dosimetric performance of the RayStation Monte Carlo calculations was evaluated in a variety of irradiation geometries employing homogeneous and heterogeneous phantoms. Profile and depth dose comparisons against measurement were carried out in relative mode using the gamma index as a quantitative measure of similarity within the central high dose regions.

RESULTS

The results demonstrate that the treatment planning system dose calculation engine agrees with measurement to within 2%/1 mm for more than 95% of the data points in the high dose regions for all test cases. A systematic underestimation was observed at the tail of the profile penumbra and out of field, with mean differences generally <0.5 mm or 1% of curve dose maximum respectively. Out of field agreement varied between evaluated beam models.

CONCLUSIONS

The RayStation implementation of photon Monte Carlo dose calculations show good agreement with measured data for the range of scenarios considered in this work and is deemed sufficiently accurate for introduction into clinical use.

Comparison of Air-Gaps Effect in a Small Cavity on Dose Calculation for 6 MV Linac

Background:

Many authors stated that cavities or air-gaps were the main challenge of dose calculation for head and neck with flattening filter medical linear accelerator (Linac) irradiation.

Objective:

The study aimed to evaluate the effect of air-gap dose calculation on flattening-filter-free (FFF) small field irradiation.

Material and Methods:

In this comparative study, we did the experimental and Monte Carlo (MC) simulation to evaluate the presence of heterogeneities in radiotherapy. We simulated the dose distribution on virtual phantom and the patient’s CT image to determine the air-gap effect of open small field and modulated photon beam, respectively. The dose ratio of air-gaps to tissue-equivalent was calculated both in Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA) and MC.

Results:

We found that the dose ratio of air to tissue-equivalent tends to decrease with a larger field size. This correlation was linear with a slope of -0.198±0.001 and -0.161±0.014 for both AAA and MC, respectively. On the other hand, the dose ratio below the air-gap was field size-dependent. The AAA to MC dose calculation as the impact of air-gap thickness and field size varied from 1.57% to 5.35% after the gap. Besides, patient’s skin and oral cavity on head and neck case received a large dose discrepancy according to this study.

Conclusion:

The dose air to tissue-equivalent ratio decreased with smaller air gaps and larger field sizes. Dose correction for AAA calculation of open small field size should be considered after small air-gaps. However, delivered beam from others gantry angle reduced this effect on clinical case.

Comparison of detector performance in small 6 MV and 6 MV FFF beams using a Versa HD accelerator

1. BACKGROUND & PURPOSE

Investigate the applicability of a series of detectors in small field dosimetry and the possible differences between their responses to FF and FFF beams. This work extends upon the series of detectors used by other authors to also include metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistors (MOSFETs) detectors and radiochromic film. We also included a later correction of output factors (OFs) recommended by the recently published IAEA´s code of practice TRS 483 on dosimetry of small static fields used in external beam radiotherapy.

2. MATERIALS & METHODS

The OFs, profiles, and PDDs of 6 MV and 6 MV FFF beams were measured with 11 different detectors using field sizes between 0.6 × 0.6 cm2 and 10 × 10 cm2.

3. RESULTS

The OFs of the FFF beams were lower than those of the FF beams for field sizes larger than 3 × 3 cm2 but higher for field sizes smaller than 3 × 3 cm2. After applying the IAEA´s TRS 483 corrections, the final OFs were compatible with our initial results when considering uncertainties involved. Small-volume detectors are preferable for measuring the penumbra of these small fields where this attribute is higher in the crossline direction than in the inline direction. The R100 of equivalent-quality FFF beams was higher compared to the corresponding flattened beams.

4. CONCLUSIONS

We observed no difference for the dose responses between 6 MV and 6 MV FFF beams for any of the detectors. OF results, profiles and PDDs were clearly consistent with the previously published literature regarding the Versa HD linac. Correcting our first OFs, taken as ratio of detector charges, with the IAEA´s TRS 483 corrections to obtain the final OFs, did not make the former significantly different.

Effect of computed tomography number-relative electron density conversion curve on the calculation of radiotherapy dose and evaluation of Monaco radiotherapy treatment planning system

The accuracy of a computed tomography (CT)-relative electron density (RED) curve may have an indirect impact on the accuracy of dose calculation by a treatment planning system (TPS). This effect has not been previously quantified for input of different CT-RED curves from different CT-scan units in the Monaco TPS. This study aims to evaluate the effect of CT-RED curve on the dose calculation by the Monaco radiotherapy TPS. Four CT images of the CIRS phantom were obtained by different CT scanners. The accuracy of the dose calculation in the three algorithms of the Monaco TPS (Monte Carlo, collapse cone, and pencil beam) is also evaluated based on TECDOC 1583. The CT-RED curves from the CT scanners were transferred to the Monaco TPS to audit the different algorithms of the TPS. The dose values were measured with an ionization chamber in the CIRS phantom. Then, the dose values were calculated by the Monaco algorithms in the corresponding points. For the Monaco TPS and based on TECDOC 1583, the accuracy of the dose calculation in all the three algorithms is within the agreement criteria for most of the points evaluated. For low dose regions, the differences between the calculated and measured dose values are higher than the agreement criteria in a number of points. For the majority of the points, the algorithms underestimate the calculated dose values. It was also found that the use of different CT-RED curves can lead to minor discrepancies in the dose calculation by the Monaco TPS, especially in low dose regions. However, it appears that these differences are not clinically significant in most of the cases.

Density scaling of phantom materials for a 3D dose verification system

In this study, the optimum density scaling factors of phantom materials for a commercially available three‐dimensional (3D) dose verification system (Delta4) were investigated in order to improve the accuracy of the calculated dose distributions in the phantom materials. At field sizes of 10 × 10 and 5 × 5 cm² with the same geometry, tissue‐phantom ratios (TPRs) in water, polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), and Plastic Water Diagnostic Therapy (PWDT) were measured, and TPRs in various density scaling factors of water were calculated by Monte Carlo simulation, Adaptive Convolve (AdC, Pinnacle³), Collapsed Cone Convolution (CCC, RayStation), and AcurosXB (AXB, Eclipse). Effective linear attenuation coefficients (μ_eff) were obtained from the TPRs. The ratios of μ_eff in phantom and water ((μ_eff)_pl,water) were compared between the measurements and calculations. For each phantom material, the density scaling factor proposed in this study (DSF) was set to be the value providing a match between the calculated and measured (μ_eff)_pl,water. The optimum density scaling factor was verified through the comparison of the dose distributions measured by Delta4 and calculated with three different density scaling factors: the nominal physical density (PD), nominal relative electron density (ED), and DSF. Three plans were used for the verifications: a static field of 10 × 10 cm² and two intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment plans. DSF were determined to be 1.13 for PMMA and 0.98 for PWDT. DSF for PMMA showed good agreement for AdC and CCC with 6 MV x ray, and AdC for 10 MV x ray. DSF for PWDT showed good agreement regardless of the dose calculation algorithms and x‐ray energy. DSF can be considered one of the references for the density scaling factor of Delta4 phantom materials and may help improve the accuracy of the IMRT dose verification using Delta4.

Evaluation of dose calculations with inhomogeneity correction in intensity-modulated radiation therapy for esophagus cancer

BACKGROUND

Differences often exist in the dose calculation accuracy caused by using different dose calculation algorithms in non-uniform tissues.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the accuracy of dose calculation with inhomogeneity correction in intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) by comparing dose calculated in Monaco with measurements in lung-chest phantom for esophagus cancer treatments.

METHODS

Finite size pencil beam (FSPB) and X-ray voxel Monte Carlo (XVMC) were used respectively for IMRT dose recalculations. Ten IMRT plans were recalculated and measured in the chest-lung phantom. The dose measurements using the Gafchromic ® (EBT3) dosimetry films were validated with open fields in the interfaces of materials with various physical densities. The accuracy of dose calculations was then evaluated by both point dose comparison and Gamma analysis against the film measurements.

RESULTS

For regular open fields, the discrepancies of the point doses were less than 3.0% and 2.0% between measurement and calculations by FSPB and XVMC, respectively. For 6 MV IMRT plans, the average passing rates based on 3% /3 mm Gamma criteria were 82.8±1.0% and 96.4±0.7% for FSPB and XVMC, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The XVMC algorithms more accurate in IMRT dose calculations with inhomogeneity correction for esophagus cancer.

Technical Note: On the impact of the incident electron beam energy on the primary dose component of flattening filter free photon beams

PURPOSE

For commercially available linear accelerators (Linacs), the electron energies of flattening filter free (FFF) and flattened (FF) beams are either identical or the electron energy of the FFF beam is increased to match the percentage depth dose curve (PDD) of the FF beam (in reference geometry). This study focuses on the primary dose components of FFF beams for both kinds of settings, studied on the same Linac.

METHODS

The measurements were conducted on a VersaHD Linac (Elekta, Crawley, UK) for both FF and FFF beams with nominal energies of 6 and 10 MV. In the clinical setting of the VersaHD, the energy of FFFM (Matched) beams is set to match the PDDs of the FF beams. In contrast the incident electron beam of the FFFU beam was set to the same energy as for the FF beam. Half value layers (HVLs) and a dual parameter beam quality specifier (DPBQS) were determined.

RESULTS

For the 6 MV FFFM beam, HVL and DPBQS values were very similar compared to those of the 6 MV FF beam, while for the 10 MV FFFM and FF beams, only %dd(10)x and HVL values were comparable (differences below 1.5%). This shows that matching the PDD at one depth does not guarantee other beam quality dependent parameters to be matched. For FFFU beams, all investigated beam quality specifiers were significantly different compared to those for FF beams of the same nominal accelerator potential. The DPBQS of the 6 MV FF and FFFM beams was equal within the measurement uncertainty and was comparable to published data of a machine with similar TPR20,10 and %dd(10)x. In contrast to that, the DPBQS's two parameters of the 10 MV FFFM beam were substantially higher compared to those for the 10 MV FF beam.

CONCLUSIONS

PDD-matched FF and FFF beams of both nominal accelerator potentials were observed to have similar HVL values, indicating similarity of their primary dose components. Using the DPBQS revealed that the mean attenuation coefficient was found to be the same within the uncertainty of 0.8% for 6 MV FF and 6 MV FFFM beams, while for 10 MV beams, they differed by 6.4%. This shows that the DPBQS can provide a differentiation of photon beam characteristics that would remain hidden by the use of a single beam quality specifier, such as %dd(10)x or HVL.

Determination of MLC model parameters for Monaco using commercial diode arrays

Multileaf collimators (MLCs) need to be characterized accurately in treatment planning systems to facilitate accurate intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT). The aim of this study was to examine the use of MapCHECK 2 and ArcCHECK diode arrays for optimizing MLC parameters in Monaco X‐ray voxel Monte Carlo (XVMC) dose calculation algorithm. A series of radiation test beams designed to evaluate MLC model parameters were delivered to MapCHECK 2, ArcCHECK, and EBT3 Gafchromic film for comparison. Initial comparison of the calculated and ArcCHECK‐measured dose distributions revealed it was unclear how to change the MLC parameters to gain agreement. This ambiguity arose due to an insufficient sampling of the test field dose distributions and unexpected discrepancies in the open parts of some test fields. Consequently, the XVMC MLC parameters were optimized based on MapCHECK 2 measurements. Gafchromic EBT3 film was used to verify the accuracy of MapCHECK 2 measured dose distributions. It was found that adjustment of the MLC parameters from their default values resulted in improved global gamma analysis pass rates for MapCHECK 2 measurements versus calculated dose. The lowest pass rate of any MLC‐modulated test beam improved from 68.5% to 93.5% with 3% and 2 mm gamma criteria. Given the close agreement of the optimized model to both MapCHECK 2 and film, the optimized model was used as a benchmark to highlight the relatively large discrepancies in some of the test field dose distributions found with ArcCHECK. Comparison between the optimized model‐calculated dose and ArcCHECK‐measured dose resulted in global gamma pass rates which ranged from 70.0%–97.9% for gamma criteria of 3% and 2 mm. The simple square fields yielded high pass rates. The lower gamma pass rates were attributed to the ArcCHECK overestimating the dose in‐field for the rectangular test fields whose long axis was parallel to the long axis of the ArcCHECK. Considering ArcCHECK measurement issues and the lower gamma pass rates for the MLC‐modulated test beams, it was concluded that MapCHECK 2 was a more suitable detector than ArcCHECK for the optimization process.

PACS number(s): 87.55.Qr

Dosimetric differences in flattened and flattening filter-free beam treatment plans

This study investigated the dosimetric differences in treatment plans from flattened and flattening filter-free (FFF) beams from the TrueBeam System. A total of 104 treatment plans with static (sliding window) intensity-modulated radiotherapy beams and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) beams were generated for 15 patients involving three cancer sites. In general, the FFF beam provides similar target coverage as the flattened beam with improved dose sparing to organ-at-risk (OAR). Among all three cancer sites, the head and neck showed more important differences between the flattened beam and FFF beam. The maximum reduction of the FFF beam in the mean dose reached up to 2.82 Gy for larynx in head and neck case. Compared to the 6 MV flattened beam, the 10 MV FFF beam provided improved dose sparing to certain OARs, especially for VMAT cases. Thus, 10 MV FFF beam could be used to improve the treatment plan.

Re-irradiating spinal column metastases using IMRT and VMAT with and without flattening filter - a treatment planning study

Background

The aim of this study was to investigate the potential of the flattening filter free (FFF) mode of a linear accelerator for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for patients with in-field recurrence of vertebral metastases.

Methods

An Elekta Synergy Linac with Agility™ head is used to simulate the treatment of ten patients with locally recurrent spinal column metastases. Four plans were generated for each patient treating the vertebrae sparing the spinal cord: Dual arc VMAT and nine field step and shoot IMRT each with and without flattening filter. Plan quality was assessed considering target coverage and sparing of the spinal cord and normal tissue. All plans were verified by a 2D-ionisation-chamber-array, peripheral doses were measured and compared to calculations. Delivery times were measured and compared. The Wilcoxon test was used for statistical analysis with a significance level of 0.05.

Results

Target coverage, homogeneity index and conformity index were comparable for both flat and flattening filter free beams. The volume of the spinal cord receiving the allowed maximum dose to keep the risk of radiation myelopathy at 0 % was at the same time significantly reduced to below the clinically relevant 1 ccm using FFF mode. In addition the mean dose deposited in the surrounding healthy tissue was significantly reduced in the FFF mode. All four techniques showed equally good gamma scores for plan verification. FFF plans required considerably more MU per fraction dose. Regardless of the large number of MU, out-of-field point dose was significantly lower for FFF plans, with an average reduction of 33 % and mean delivery time was significantly reduced by 22 % using FFF beams. When compared to IMRT FF, VMAT FFF offered even a reduction of 71 % in delivery time and 45 % in peripheral dose.

Conclusions

FFF plans showed a significant improvement in sparing of normal tissue and the spinal cord, keeping target coverage and homogeneity comparable. In addition, delivery times were significantly reduced for FFF treatments, minimizing intrafractional motion as well as strain for the patient. Shortest delivery times were achieved using VMAT FFF. For radiotherapy of spinal column metastases VMAT FFF may therefore be considered the preferable treatment option for the combination of Elekta Synergy Linacs and Oncentra® External Beam v4.5 treatment planning system.

Pinnacle3 modeling and end-to-end dosimetric testing of a Versa HD linear accelerator with the Agility head and flattening filter-free modes

The Elekta Versa HD incorporates a variety of upgrades to the line of Elekta linear accelerators, primarily including the Agility head and flattening filter‐free (FFF) photon beam delivery. The completely distinct dosimetric output of the head from its predecessors, combined with the FFF beams, requires a new investigation of modeling in treatment planning systems. A model was created in Pinnacle³ v9.8 with the commissioned beam data. A phantom consisting of several plastic water and Styrofoam slabs was scanned and imported into Pinnacle³, where beams of different field sizes, source‐to‐surface distances (SSDs), wedges, and gantry angles were devised. Beams included all of the available photon energies (6, 10, 18, 6 FFF, and 10 FFF MV), as well as the four electron energies commissioned for clinical use (6, 9, 12, and 15 MeV). The plans were verified at calculation points by measurement with a calibrated ionization chamber. Homogeneous and heterogeneous point‐dose measurements agreed within 2% relative to maximum dose for all photon and electron beams. AP photon open field measurements along the central axis at 100 cm SSD passed within 1%. In addition, IMRT testing was also performed with three standard plans (step and shoot IMRT, as well as a small‐ and large‐field VMAT plan). The IMRT plans were delivered on the Delta⁴ IMRT QA phantom, for which a gamma passing rate was >99.5% for all plans with a 3% dose deviation, 3 mm distance‐to‐agreement, and 10% dose threshold. The IMRT QA results for the first 23 patients yielded gamma passing rates of 97.4%±2.3%. Such testing ensures confidence in the ability of Pinnacle³ to model photon and electron beams with the Agility head.

PACS numbers: 87.55.D, 87.56.bd

Flattening Filter-Free Beams in Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Sinonasal Cancer

PURPOSE

To evaluate the dosimetric impacts of flattening filter-free (FFF) beams in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for sinonasal cancer.

METHODS

For fourteen cases, IMRT and VMAT planning was performed using 6-MV photon beams with both conventional flattened and FFF modes. The four types of plans were compared in terms of target dose homogeneity and conformity, organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing, number of monitor units (MUs) per fraction, treatment time and pure beam-on time.

RESULTS

FFF beams led to comparable target dose homogeneity, conformity, increased number of MUs and lower doses to the spinal cord, brainstem and normal tissue, compared with flattened beams in both IMRT and VMAT. FFF beams in IMRT resulted in improvements by up to 5.4% for sparing of the contralateral optic structures, with shortened treatment time by 9.5%. However, FFF beams provided comparable overall OAR sparing and treatment time in VMAT. With FFF mode, VMAT yielded inferior homogeneity and superior conformity compared with IMRT, with comparable overall OAR sparing and significantly shorter treatment time.

CONCLUSIONS

Using FFF beams in IMRT and VMAT is feasible for the treatment of sinonasal cancer. Our results suggest that the delivery mode of FFF beams may play an encouraging role with better sparing of contralateral optic OARs and treatment efficiency in IMRT, but yield comparable results in VMAT.

Flattening filter-free accelerators: a report from the AAPM Therapy Emerging Technology Assessment Work Group

This report describes the current state of flattening filter‐free (FFF) radiotherapy beams implemented on conventional linear accelerators, and is aimed primarily at practicing medical physicists. The Therapy Emerging Technology Assessment Work Group of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) formed a writing group to assess FFF technology. The published literature on FFF technology was reviewed, along with technical specifications provided by vendors. Based on this information, supplemented by the clinical experience of the group members, consensus guidelines and recommendations for implementation of FFF technology were developed. Areas in need of further investigation were identified. Removing the flattening filter increases beam intensity, especially near the central axis. Increased intensity reduces treatment time, especially for high‐dose stereotactic radiotherapy/radiosurgery (SRT/SRS). Furthermore, removing the flattening filter reduces out‐of‐field dose and improves beam modeling accuracy. FFF beams are advantageous for small field (e.g., SRS) treatments and are appropriate for intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). For conventional 3D radiotherapy of large targets, FFF beams may be disadvantageous compared to flattened beams because of the heterogeneity of FFF beam across the target (unless modulation is employed). For any application, the nonflat beam characteristics and substantially higher dose rates require consideration during the commissioning and quality assurance processes relative to flattened beams, and the appropriate clinical use of the technology needs to be identified. Consideration also needs to be given to these unique characteristics when undertaking facility planning. Several areas still warrant further research and development. Recommendations pertinent to FFF technology, including acceptance testing, commissioning, quality assurance, radiation safety, and facility planning, are presented. Examples of clinical applications are provided. Several of the areas in which future research and development are needed are also indicated.

PACS number: 87.53.‐j, 87.53.Bn, 87.53.Ly, 87.55.‐x, 87.55.N‐, 87.56.bc

An institutional experience of quality assurance of a treatment planning system on photon beam

AIM

The purpose of the present study is to show the application of the IAEA TRS-430 QA procedures of Eclipse™v7.5 TPS for photon energies. In addition, the trends of the deviations found in the conducted tests were determined.

BACKGROUND

In the past, the lack of complete TPS QA procedures led to some serious accidents. So, QA in the radiotherapy treatment planning process is essential for determination of accuracy in the radiotherapy process and avoidance of treatment errors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The calculations of TPS and measurements of irradiations of the treatment device were compared in the study. As a result, the local dose deviation values (δ 1: central beam axis, δ 2: penumbra and build up region, δ 3: inside field, δ 4: outside beam edges, δ 50-90: beam fringe, RW50: radiological width) and their confidence limit values (including systematic and random errors) were obtained.

RESULTS

The confidence limit values of δ 4 were detected to increase with expanding field size. The values of δ 1 and δ 3 of hard wedge were larger than open fields. The values of δ 2 and δ 50-90 of the inhomogeneity effect test were larger, especially than other tests of this study. The average deviation was showed to increase with the rise of the wedge angle. The values of δ 3 and δ 4 of lung irradiation were outside tolerance.

CONCLUSIONS

The QA of TPS was done and it was found that there were no reservations in its use in patient treatment. The trend of the deviations is shown.

Acceptance and Commissioning of a Treatment Planning System Based on Monte Carlo Calculations

The Monaco Treatment Planning System (TPS), based on a virtual energy fluence model of the photon beam head components of the linac and a dose computation engine made with Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm X-Ray Voxel MC (XVMC), has been tested before being put into clinical use. An Elekta Synergy with 6 MV was characterized using routine equipment. After the machine's model was installed, a set of functionality, geometric, dosimetric and data transfer tests were performed. The dosimetric tests included dose calculations in water, heterogeneous phantoms and Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) verifications. Data transfer tests were run for every imaging device, TPS and the electronic medical record linked to Monaco. Functionality and geometric tests were run properly. Dose calculations in water were in accordance with measurements so that, in 95% of cases, differences were up to 1.9%. Dose calculation in heterogeneous media showed expected results found in the literature. IMRT verification results with an ionization chamber led to dose differences lower than 2.5% for points inside a standard gradient. When an 2-D array was used, all the fields passed the γ (3%, 3 mm) test with a percentage of succeeding points between 90% and 95%, of which the majority of the mentioned fields had a percentage of succeeding points between 95% and 100%. Data transfer caused problems that had to be solved by means of changing our workflow. In general, tests led to satisfactory results. Monaco performance complied with published international recommendations and scored highly in the dosimetric ambit. However, the problems detected when the TPS was put to work together with our current equipment showed that this kind of product must be completely commissioned, without neglecting data workflow, before treating the first patient.

Evaluation of treatment plan quality of IMRT and VMAT with and without flattening filter using Pareto optimal fronts

PURPOSE

To investigate the differences in treatment plan quality of IMRT and VMAT with and without flattening filter using Pareto optimal fronts, for two treatment sites of different anatomic complexity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Pareto optimal fronts (POFs) were generated for six prostate and head-and-neck cancer patients by stepwise reduction of the constraint (during the optimization process) of the primary organ-at-risk (OAR). 9-static field IMRT and 360°-single-arc VMAT plans with flattening filter (FF) and without flattening filter (FFF) were compared. The volume receiving 5 Gy or more (V5 Gy) was used to estimate the low dose exposure. Furthermore, the number of monitor units (MUs) and measurements of the delivery time (T) were used to assess the efficiency of the treatment plans.

RESULTS

A significant increase in MUs was found when using FFF-beams while the treatment plan quality was at least equivalent to the FF-beams. T was decreased by 18% for prostate for IMRT with FFF-beams and by 4% for head-and-neck cases, but increased by 22% and 16% for VMAT. A reduction of up to 5% of V5 Gy was found for IMRT prostate cases with FFF-beams.

CONCLUSIONS

The evaluation of the POFs showed an at least comparable treatment plan quality of FFF-beams compared to FF-beams for both treatment sites and modalities. For smaller targets the advantageous characteristics of FFF-beams could be better exploited.

Monte Carlo investigation into feasibility and dosimetry of flat flattening filter free beams

Flattening filter free (FFF) beams due to their non-uniformity, are sub-optimal for larger field sizes. The purpose of this study was to investigate the incident electron beam distributions that would produce flat FFF (F4) beams without the use of a flattening filter (FF). Monte Carlo (MC) simulations with BEAMnrc and DOSXYZnrc codes have been performed to evaluate feasibility of this approach. The dose distributions in water for open 6 MV beams were simulated using the Varian 21EX linac head model, which will be called the FF model. The FF was then removed from the FF model, and MC simulations were performed using (1) 6 MeV electrons incident on the target and (2) a 6 MeV electron beam with electron angular distributions optimized to provide as flat dose profiles as possible. Configuration (1) represents FFF beam while configuration (2) allowed producing a F4 beam. Optimizations have also been performed to produce flattest profiles for a set of dose rates (DRs) in the range from 1.25 to 2.4 of the DR of FF beam. Profiles and percentage depth doses (PDDs) from 6 MV F4 beams have been calculated and compared to those from the FF beam. Calculated profiles demonstrated improved flatness of the FFF beams. In fact, up to field sizes within the circle of 35 cm diameter the flatness of F4 beam at dmax was better or comparable to that of FF beam. At 20 cm off-axis the dose increased from 52% for FFF to 92% for F4 beam. Also, profiles of F4 beams did not change considerably with depth. PDDs from F4 beams were similar to those of the FFF beam. The DR for the largest modeled (44 cm diameter) F4 beam was higher than the DR from FF beam by a factor of 1.25. It was shown that the DR can be increased while maintaining beam flatness, but at the cost of reduced field size.

Flattening-filter-free intensity modulated breath-hold image-guided SABR (Stereotactic ABlative Radiotherapy) can be applied in a 15-min treatment slot

Hypofractionated image-guided stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (igSABR) is effective in small lung/liver lesions. Computer-assisted breath-hold reduces intrafraction motion but, as every gating/triggering strategy, reduces the duty cycle, resulting in long fraction times if combined with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). 10 MV flattening-filter-free IMRT reduces daily fraction duration to <10 min for single doses of 5-20 Gy.

The impact of flattening-filter-free beam technology on 3D conformal RT

Background

The removal of the flattening filter (FF) leads to non-uniform fluence distribution with a considerable increase in dose rate. It is possible to adapt FFF beams (flattening-filter-free) in 3D conformal radiation therapy (3D CRT) by using field in field techniques (FiF). The aim of this retrospective study is to clarify whether the quality of 3D CRT plans is influenced by the use of FFF beams.

Method

This study includes a total of 52 CT studies of RT locations that occur frequently in clinical practice. Dose volume targets were provided for the PTV of breast (n=13), neurocranium (n=11), lung (n=7), bone metastasis (n=10) and prostate (n=11) in line with ICRU report 50/62. 3D CRT planning was carried out using FiF methods. Two clinically utilized photon energies are used for a Siemens ARTISTE linear accelerator in FFF mode at 7MV_FFF and 11MV_FFF as well as in FF mode at 6MV_FF and 10MV_FF. The plan quality in relation to the PTV coverage, OAR (organs at risk) and low dose burden as well as the 2D dosimetric verification is compared with FF plans.

Results

No significant differences were found between FFF and FF plans in the mean dose for the PTV of breast, lung, spine metastasis and prostate. The low dose parameters V5Gy and V10Gy display significant differences for FFF and FF plans in some subgroups. The DVH analysis of the OAR revealed some significant differences. Significantly more fields (1.9 – 4.5) were necessary in the use of FFF beams for each location (p<0.0001) in order to achieve PTV coverage. All the tested groups displayed significant increases (1.3 – 2.2 times) in the average number of necessary MU with the use of FFF beams (p<0.001).

Conclusions

This study has shown that the exclusive use of a linear accelerator in FFF mode is feasible in 3D CRT. It was possible to realize RT plans in comparable quality in typical cases of clinical radiotherapy. The 2D dosimetric validation of the modulated fields verified the dose calculation and thus the correct reproduction of the characteristic FFF parameters in the planning system that was used.

Validation of a virtual source model for Monte Carlo dose calculations of a flattening filter free linac

PURPOSE

A linac delivering intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) can benefit from a flattening filter free (FFF) design which offers higher dose rates and reduced accelerator head scatter than for conventional (flattened) delivery. This reduction in scatter simplifies beam modeling, and combining a Monte Carlo dose engine with a FFF accelerator could potentially increase dose calculation accuracy. The objective of this work was to model a FFF machine using an adapted version of a previously published virtual source model (VSM) for Monte Carlo calculations and to verify its accuracy.

METHODS

An Elekta Synergy linear accelerator operating at 6 MV has been modified to enable irradiation both with and without the flattening filter (FF). The VSM has been incorporated into a commercially available treatment planning system (Monaco™ v 3.1) as VSM 1.6. Dosimetric data were measured to commission the treatment planning system (TPS) and the VSM adapted to account for the lack of angular differential absorption and general beam hardening. The model was then tested using standard water phantom measurements and also by creating IMRT plans for a range of clinical cases.

RESULTS

The results show that the VSM implementation handles the FFF beams very well, with an uncertainty between measurement and calculation of <1% which is comparable to conventional flattened beams. All IMRT beams passed standard quality assurance tests with >95% of all points passing gamma analysis (γ < 1) using a 3%/3 mm tolerance.

CONCLUSIONS

The virtual source model for flattened beams was successfully adapted to a flattening filter free beam production. Water phantom and patient specific QA measurements show excellent results, and comparisons of IMRT plans generated in conventional and FFF mode are underway to assess dosimetric uncertainties and possible improvements in dose calculation and delivery.