An automated phantom-film QA procedure for intensity-modulated radiation therapy

Simulation for improvement of system sensitivity of radiochromic film dosimetry with different band-pass filters and scanner light intensities

The delivered dose of high-energy photon beams is measured with radiochromic film. Previous studies sought to improve the system sensitivity of radiochromic film dosimetry by use of band-pass filters. However, band-pass filters reduce the scanning light intensity. To avoid a reduction of the signal-to-noise ratio, one must increase the scanner light intensity. Our purposes in this study were to develop an optical system model of GAFCHROMIC EBT2 radiochromic film dosimetry, and to estimate the system sensitivity characteristics by employing a combination of band-pass filters and scanner light intensities. The spectra of the scanner light source, band-pass filter, and irradiated EBT2 films were measured with a spectrometer. Meanwhile, the intensity of a light path from the scanner light source to the scanner detector was simulated. Then, the dose-response curves were computed with six simulated virtual band-pass filters of varying bandwidth. The simulated dose-response curves were in good agreement with the experimental values. The slope of the simulated dose-response curve was steeper when a filter of narrower bandwidth was used; however, at the same time, saturation was observed at a lower dose. For achieving the same dose response as was observed without a band-pass filter, it was necessary to increase the scanner light intensity. We proved that our proposed optical system model was valid, suggesting that a realistic simulation may be feasible with the proposed model. For improvement of the system sensitivity of radiochromic film dosimetry, it is necessary to select a well-balanced combination of band-pass filter and scanner light intensity.

Practical guidelines for routine intensity-modulated radiotherapy verification: pre-treatment verification with portal dosimetry and treatment verification with in vivo dosimetry

The purpose of this work is to provide guidelines for the routine use of portal dosimetry and in vivo diode measurements to verify intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatments. To achieve tolerance levels that are sensitive enough to intercept problems, both the portal dosimetry and the in vivo procedure must be optimised. Portal dosimetry was improved by the introduction of an optimised two-dimensional (2D) profile correction, which also accounted for the effect of backscatter from the R-arm. The scaled score, indicating the fraction of points not meeting the desired gamma evaluation criteria within the field opening, was determined as the parameter of interest. Using gamma criteria of a 3% dose difference and 3 mm distance to agreement, a "scaled score" threshold value of 1.5% was chosen to indicate excessive tongue and groove and other problems. The pre-treatment portal dosimetry quality assurance (QA) does not encompass verification of the patient dose calculation or position, and so it is complemented by in vivo diode measurements. Diode positioning is crucial in IMRT, and so we describe a method for diode positioning at any suitable point. We achieved 95% of IMRT field measurements within ±5% and 99% within ±8%, with improved accuracy being achieved over time owing to better positioning. Although the careful preparation and setup of the diode measurements can be time-consuming, this is compensated for by the time efficiency of the optimised procedure. Both methods are now easily absorbed into the routine work of the department.

Intensity modulated radiotherapy dosimetry with ion chambers, TLD, MOSFET and EDR2 film

Purpose of this study was to report in a together our experience of using ion chambers, TLD, MOSFET and EDR2 film for dosimetric verification of IMRT plans delivered with dynamic multileaf collimator (DMLC). Two ion chambers (0.6 and 0.13 CC) were used. All measurements were performed with a 6MV photon beam on a Varian Clinac 6EX LINAC equipped with a Millennium MLC. All measurements were additionally carried out with (LiF:Mg,TI) TLD chips. Five MOSFET detectors were also irradiated. EDR2 films were used to measure coronal planar dose for 10 patients. Measurements were carried out simultaneously for cumulative fields at central axis and at off-axis at isocenter plane (+/- 1, and +/- 2 cm). The mean percentage variation between measured cumulative central axis dose with 0.6 cc ion chamber and calculated dose with TPS was -1.4% (SD 3.2). The mean percentage variation between measured cumulative absolute central axis dose with 0.13 cc ion chamber and calculated dose with TPS was -0.6% (SD 1.9). The mean percentage variation between measured central axis dose with TLD and calculated dose with TPS was -1.8% (SD 2.9). A variation of less than 5% was found between measured off-axis doses with TLD and calculated dose with TPS. For all the cases, MOSFET agreed within +/- 5%. A good agreement was found between measured and calculated isodoses. Both ion chambers (0.6 CC and 0.13 CC) were found in good agreement with calculated dose with TPS.

On dose distribution comparison

In radiotherapy practice, one often needs to compare two dose distributions. Especially with the wide clinical implementation of intensity-modulated radiation therapy, software tools for quantitative dose (or fluence) distribution comparison are required for patient-specific quality assurance. Dose distribution comparison is not a trivial task since it has to be performed in both dose and spatial domains in order to be clinically relevant. Each of the existing comparison methods has its own strengths and weaknesses and there is room for improvement. In this work, we developed a general framework for comparing dose distributions. Using a new concept called maximum allowed dose difference (MADD), the comparison in both dose and spatial domains can be performed entirely in the dose domain. Formulae for calculating MADD values for various comparison methods, such as composite analysis and gamma index, have been derived. For convenience in clinical practice, a new measure called normalized dose difference (NDD) has also been proposed, which is the dose difference at a point scaled by the ratio of MADD to the predetermined dose acceptance tolerance. Unlike the simple dose difference test, NDD works in both low and high dose gradient regions because it considers both dose and spatial acceptance tolerances through MADD. The new method has been applied to a test case and a clinical example. It was found that the new method combines the merits of the existing methods (accurate, simple, clinically intuitive and insensitive to dose grid size) and can easily be implemented into any dose/intensity comparison tool.

Quantitative analysis of patient-specific dosimetric IMRT verification

Patient-specific dosimetric verification methods for IMRT treatments are variable, time-consuming and frequently qualitative, preventing evidence-based reduction in the amount of verification performed. This paper addresses some of these issues by applying a quantitative analysis parameter to the dosimetric verification procedure. Film measurements in different planes were acquired for a series of ten IMRT prostate patients, analysed using the quantitative parameter, and compared to determine the most suitable verification plane. Film and ion chamber verification results for 61 patients were analysed to determine long-term accuracy, reproducibility and stability of the planning and delivery system. The reproducibility of the measurement and analysis system was also studied. The results show that verification results are strongly dependent on the plane chosen, with the coronal plane particularly insensitive to delivery error. Unexpectedly, no correlation could be found between the levels of error in different verification planes. Longer term verification results showed consistent patterns which suggest that the amount of patient-specific verification can be safely reduced, provided proper caution is exercised: an evidence-based model for such reduction is proposed. It is concluded that dose/distance to agreement (e.g., 3%/3 mm) should be used as a criterion of acceptability. Quantitative parameters calculated for a given criterion of acceptability should be adopted in conjunction with displays that show where discrepancies occur. Planning and delivery systems which cannot meet the required standards of accuracy, reproducibility and stability to reduce verification will not be accepted by the radiotherapy community.

A clinical application of an automated phantom-film QA procedure for validation of IMRT treatment planning and delivery

To quantify the correlation between planned and delivered intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) dose distributions, IMRT plans for 37 prostate carcinoma patients were analyzed. IMRT treatment plans were converted into hybrid phantom plans using a commercially available treatment planning system and delivered to a specialized film phantom via a static-tomotherapy technique. The films were analyzed using a commercial film dosimetry system. Hybrid phantom axial dose maps and film images were normalized, registered to one another, and subtracted to calculate the overall relative dose difference throughout the entire film area on a pixel-by-pixel basis. The average percentage of pixels with dose-difference values greater than +/- 3% among analyzed hybrid patient plans was 8.6% +/- 3%. The average percentage of pixels with dose differences greater than +/- 5% was 1.7% +/- 1.0%. The number of pixels with more than +/- 10% dose differences was negligible. An initial subset of hybrid plans was used to develop a quantitative criterion to verify for positional accuracy based on dosimetric verification of intensity map of IMRT plans for prostate patients in our institution. Plans with less than 5% of the pixels outside the +/- 5% dose-difference range were accepted. This method could be implemented for other anatomical sites or treatment planning and delivery systems.

Effect of processing time delay on the dose response of Kodak EDR2 film

Kodak EDR2 film is a widely used two-dimensional dosimeter for intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) measurements. Our clinical use of EDR2 film for IMRT verifications revealed variations and uncertainties in dose response that were larger than expected, given that we perform film calibrations for every experimental measurement. We found that the length of time between film exposure and processing can affect the absolute dose response of EDR2 film by as much as 4%-6%. EDR2 films were exposed to 300 cGy using 6 and 18 MV 10 x 10 cm2 fields and then processed after time delays ranging from 2 min to 24 h. An ion chamber measured the relative dose for these film exposures. The ratio of optical density (OD) to dose stabilized after 3 h. Compared to its stable value, the film response was 4%-6% lower at 2 min and 1% lower at 1 h. The results of the 4 min and 1 h processing time delays were verified with a total of four different EDR2 film batches. The OD/dose response for XV2 films was consistent for time periods of 4 min and 1 h between exposure and processing. To investigate possible interactions of the processing time delay effect with dose, single EDR2 films were irradiated to eight different dose levels between 45 and 330 cGy using smaller 3 x 3 cm2 areas. These films were processed after time delays of 1, 3, and 6 h, using 6 and 18 MV photon qualities. The results at all dose levels were consistent, indicating that there is no change in the processing time delay effect for different doses. The difference in the time delay effect between the 6 and 18 MV measurements was negligible for all experiments. To rule out bias in selecting film regions for OD measurement, we compared the use of a specialized algorithm that systematically determines regions of interest inside the 10 x 10 cm2 exposure areas to manually selected regions of interest. There was a maximum difference of only 0.07% between the manually and automatically selected regions, indicating that the use of a systematic algorithm to determine regions of interest in large and fairly uniform areas is not necessary. Based on these results, we recommend a minimum time of 1 h between exposure and processing for all EDR2 film measurements.

Evaluation of a 2D diode array for IMRT quality assurance

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The QA of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) dosimetry is a laborious task. The goal of this work is to evaluate the dosimetric characteristics of a new 2D diode array (MapCheck from Sun Nuclear Corporation, Melbourne, Florida) and assess the role it can play in routine IMRT QA.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fundamental properties of the MapCheck such as reproducibility, linearity and temperature dependence are studied for high-energy photon beams. The accuracy of the correction for difference of diode sensitivity is also assessed. The diode array is benchmarked against film and ion chambers for conventional and IMRT treatments. The MapCheck sensitivity to multileaf collimator position errors is determined.

RESULTS

The diode array response is linear with dose up to 295 cGy. All diodes are calibrated to within +/-1% of each other, and mostly within +/-0.5%. The MapCheck readings are reproducible to within a maximum SD of +/-0.15%. A temperature dependence of 0.57%/ degrees C was noted and should be taken into account for absolute dosimetric measurement. Clinical performance of the MapCheck for relative and absolute dosimetry is demonstrated with seven beam (6 MV) head and neck IMRT plans, and compares well with film and ion chamber measurements. Comparison to calculated dose maps demonstrates that the planning system model underestimates the dose gradients in the penumbra region.

CONCLUSIONS

The MapCheck offers the dosimetric characteristics required for performing both relative and absolute dose measurements. Its use in the clinic can simplify and reduce the IMRT QA workload.

Validation of dynamic MLC-controller log files using a two-dimensional diode array

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) delivered with multi-leaf collimator (MLC) in the step-and-shoot mode uses multiple static MLC segments to achieve intensity modulation. For typical IMRT treatment plans, significant numbers of segments are delivered with monitor units (MUs) of much less than 10. Verification of the ability of the linear accelerator (linac) to deliver small MU segments accurately is an important step in the IMRT commissioning and quality assurance (QA) process. Recent studies have reported large discrepancies between the intended and delivered segment MUs. These discrepancies could potentially cause large errors in the delivered patient dose. We have undertaken a systematic study to evaluate the accuracy of the dynamic MLC log files, which are created automatically by our commercial MLC workstation after each delivery, in recording the fractional MU delivered in the step-and-shoot mode. Two linac models were evaluated with simple-geometry leaf sequences and delivered with different total MUs and different nominal dose rates. A commercial two-dimensional diode array was used for the measurement. Large discrepancies between the intended and delivered segment MUs were found. The discrepancies were larger for small MU segments at higher dose rate, with some small MU segments completely undelivered. The recorded fractional MUs in the log files were found to agree with what was delivered within the limits of our experimental uncertainty. Our results indicate that it is important to verify the delivery accuracy of small MU segments that could potentially occur in a patient treatment and that the log files are useful in checking the integrity of the linac delivery once validated. Thus validated log files can be used as a QA tool for general IMRT delivery and patient-specific plan verification.