The influence of errors in small field dosimetry on the dosimetric accuracy of treatment plans

Effect of modulation factor and low dose threshold level on gamma pass rates of single isocenter multi-target SRT treatment plans

PURPOSE

SRS MapCHECK (SMC) is a commercially available patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) tool for stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) applications. This study investigates the effects of degree of modulation, location off-axis, and low dose threshold (LDT) selection on gamma pass rates (GPRs) between SMC and treatment planning system, Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA), or Vancouver Island Monte Carlo (VMC++ algorithm) system calculated dose distributions.

METHODS

Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans with modulation factors (MFs) ranging from 2.7 to 10.2 MU/cGy were delivered to SMC at isocenter and 6 cm off-axis. SMC measured dose distributions were compared against AAA and VMC++ via gamma analysis (3%/1 mm) with LDT of 10% to 80% using SNC Patient software.

RESULTS

Comparing on-axis SMC dose against AAA and VMC++ with LDT of 10%, all AAA-calculated plans met the acceptance criteria of GPR ≥ 90%, and only one VMC++ calculated plan was marginally outside the acceptance criteria with pass rate of 89.1%. Using LDT of 80% revealed decreasing GPR with increasing MF. For AAA, GPRs reduced from 100% at MF of 2.7 MU/cGy to 57% at MF of 10.2 MU/cGy, and for VMC++ calculated plans, the GPRs reduced from 89% to 60% in the same MF range. Comparison of SMC dose off-axis against AAA and VMC++ showed more pronounced reduction of GPR with increasing MF. For LDT of 10%, AAA GPRs reduced from 100% to 83% in the MF range of 2.7 to 9.8 MU/cGy, and VMC++ GPR reduced from 100% to 91% in the same range. With 80% LDT, GPRs dropped from 100% to 42% for both algorithms.

CONCLUSIONS

MF, dose calculation algorithm, and LDT selections are vital in VMAT-based SRT PSQA. LDT of 80% enhances sensitivity of gamma analysis for detecting dose differences compared to 10% LDT. To achieve better agreement between calculated and SMC dose, it is recommended to limit the MF to 4.6 MU/cGy on-axis and 3.6 MU/cGy off-axis.

The IAEA remote audit of small field dosimetry for testing the implementation of the TRS-483 code of practice

BACKGROUND

The TRS‑483, an IAEA/AAPM International Code of Practice on dosimetry of small static photon fields, underwent testing via an IAEA coordinated research project (CRP). Alongside small field output factors (OFs) measurements using active dosimeters by CRP participants, the IAEA Dosimetry Laboratory received a mandate to formulate a remote small field dosimetry audit method using its passive dosimetry systems.

PURPOSE

This work aimed to develop a small field dosimetry audit methodology employing radiophotoluminescent dosimeters (RPLDs) and radiochromic films. The methodology was subsequently evaluated through a multicenter pilot study with CRP participants.

METHODS

The developments included designing and manufacturing a dosimeter holder set and the characterization of an RPLD system for measurements in small photon fields using the new holder. The audit included verification of small field OFs and lateral beam profiles for small fields. At first, treatment planning system (TPS) calculated OFs were checked against a reference data set that was available for conventional linacs. Second, calculated OFs were verified through the RPLD measurement of point doses in a machine-specific reference field, 4 cm × 4 cm, 2 cm × 2 cm, and 1 cm × 1 cm, corresponding size circular fields or nearest achievable field sizes. Lastly, profile checks in in-plane and cross-plane directions were done for the two smallest fields by comparing film measurements with TPS calculations at 20%, 50%, and 80% isodose levels.

RESULTS

RPLD correction factors for small field measurements were approximately unity. However, they influenced the dose determination's overall uncertainty in small fields, estimated at 2.30% (k = 1 level). Considering the previous experience in auditing reference beam output following the TRS-398 Code of Practice, the acceptance limit of 5% for the ratio of the dose determined by RPLD to the dose calculated by TPS, DRPLD/DTPS, was considered adequate. The multicenter pilot study included 15 participants from 14 countries (39 beams). Consistent with the previous findings, the results of the OF check against the reference data confirmed that TPSs tend to overestimate OFs for the smallest fields included in this exercise. All except three RPLD measurement results were within the acceptance limit, and the spread of results increased for smaller field sizes. The differences between the film measured and TPS calculated dose profiles were within 3 mm for most of the beams checked; deviated results revealed problems with TPS commissioning and calibration of the treatment unit collimation systems.

CONCLUSION

The newly developed small field dosimetry audit methodology proved effective and successfully complemented the CRP OF measurements by participants with RPLD audit results.

Accurate machine-specific reference and small-field dosimetry for a self-shielded neuro-radiosurgical system

BACKGROUND

The newly available ZAP-X stereotactic radiosurgical system is designed for the treatment of intracranial lesions, with several unique features that include a self-shielding, gyroscopic gantry, wheel collimation, non-orthogonal kV imaging, short source-axis distance, and low-energy megavoltage beam. Systematic characterization of its radiation as well as other properties is imperative to ensure its safe and effective clinical application.

PURPOSE

To accurately determine the radiation output of the ZAP-X with a special focus on the smaller diameter cones and an aim to provide useful recommendations on quantification of small field dosimetry.

METHODS

Six different types of detectors were used to measure relative output factors at field sizes ranging from 4 to 25 mm, including the PTW microSilicon and microdiamond diodes, Exradin W2 plastic scintillator, Exradin A16 and A1SL ionization chambers, and the alanine dosimeter. The 25 mm cone served as the reference field size. Absolute dose was determined with both TG-51-based dosimetry using a calibrated PTW Semiflex ion chamber and measurements using alanine dosimeters.

RESULTS

The average radiation output factors (maximum deviation from the average) measured with the microDiamond, microSilicon, and W2 detectors were: for the 4 mm cone, 0.741 (1.0%); for the 5 mm cone: 0.817 (1.0%); for the 7.5 mm cone: 0.908 (1.0%); for the 10 mm cone: 0.946 (0.4%); for the 12.5 mm cone: 0.964 (0.2%); for the 15 mm cone: 0.976 (0.1%); for the 20 mm cone: 0.990 (0.1%). For field sizes larger than 10 mm, the A1SL and A16 micro-chambers also yielded consistent output factors within 1.5% of those obtained using the microSilicon, microdiamond, and W2 detectors. The absolute dose measurement obtained with alanine was within 1.2%, consistent with combined uncertainties, compared to the PTW Semiflex chamber for the 25 mm reference cone.

CONCLUSION

For field sizes less than 10 mm, the microSilicon diode, microDiamond detector, and W2 scintillator are suitable devices for accurate small field dosimetry of the ZAP-X system. For larger fields, the A1SL and A16 micro-chambers can also be used. Furthermore, alanine dosimetry can be an accurate verification of reference and absolute dose typically measured with ion chambers. Use of multiple suitable detectors and uncertainty analyses were recommended for reliable determination of small field radiation outputs.

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.

Small field output correction factors at 18 MV

BACKGROUND

The response of various detectors in the radiotherapy energy range has been investigated, especially for 6 and 10 MV energies for small fields, and is summarized in TRS-483. However, data for accelerator energies above 10 MV are sparse or unavailable for many detectors, especially for the energy of 18 MV. Small variations in field output factors for the commissioning of a treatment planning system can have a high impact on calculation of dose distributions.

PURPOSE

Many studies describe an energy dependence of the response for a large number of detectors. We wanted to close the gap for the 18 MV energy regime and determined field output correction factors for different detectors at 18 MV.

METHODS

An ELEKTA Versa HD accelerator at 18 MV was used together with a PTW MP3 water phantom at an SSD of 90 cm. The following detectors were examined: PTW Semiflex 31021, PinPoint 3D 31022, diode 60012, diode 60008 and microDiamond 60019, Sun Nuclear EDGE detector, IBA PFD, SFD, Razor Chamber, Razor Nano Chamber and Razor Diode, Standard Imaging Scintillator Exradin W2 1x3, W2 1x1 and Gafchromic EBT3 film. The dose response was determined at a depth of 10 cm for square fields between 0.5 and 10 cm side length. As reference data a composure of radiochromic film data for small fields (s ≤ 3 $s\le 3$  cm) and data of all compatible chambers for larger fields (s ≥ 3 $s\ge 3$  cm) was used. The effective field sizes of small fields were determined from profiles obtained on radiochromic film. The obtained field output correction factors obey the rules of the TRS-483 protocol.

RESULTS

The W2 1x1 scintillator and the Razor Chamber showed the smallest deviations from the reference curve. The shielded diodes (diode 60008, EDGE detector) showed the highest over-response at small fields, followed by PFD, microDiamond and the unshielded diodes (diode 60012, SFD). The ionization chambers exhibited the well-known volume effect, that is, strong under-response at small fields of up to 9% for the PinPoint 3D, 7% for the Razor Chamber and up to 30% for the Semiflex detector for the smallest studied field size. The small chambers showed a polarity effect in axial orientation, especially the Razor Nano Chamber. Corrections at 18 MV are generally larger than those provided by TRS-483, continuing the trend of increasing corrections between 6 and 10 MV also at a higher accelerator energy. Only the PinPoint 3D Chamber showed a slightly smaller correction.

CONCLUSIONS

Field output correction factors were determined for square field sizes between 0.5 and 10 cm at 18 MV. Most detectors needed a larger correction than at 6 and 10 MV. Thus, the use of correction factors will improve beam data for 18 MV.

Mitigating the uncertainty in small field dosimetry by leveraging machine learning strategies

Small field dosimetry is significantly different from the dosimetry of broad beams due to loss of electron side scatter equilibrium, source occlusion, and effects related to the choice of detector. However, use of small fields is increasing with the increase in indications for intensity-modulated radiation therapy and stereotactic body radiation therapy, and thus the need for accurate dosimetry is ever more important. Here we propose to leverage machine learning (ML) strategies to reduce the uncertainties and increase the accuracy in determining small field output factors (OFs). Linac OFs from a Varian TrueBeam STx were calculated either by the treatment planning system (TPS) or measured with a W1 scintillator detector at various multi-leaf collimator (MLC) positions, jaw positions, and with and without contribution from leaf-end transmission. The fields were defined by the MLCs with the jaws at various positions. Field sizes between 5 and 100 mm were evaluated. Separate ML regression models were generated based on the TPS calculated or the measured datasets. Accurate predictions of small field OFs at different field sizes (FSs) were achieved independent of jaw and MLC position. A mean and maximum % relative error of 0.38 ± 0.39% and 3.62%, respectively, for the best-performing models based on the measured datasets were found. The prediction accuracy was independent of contribution from leaf-end transmission. Several ML models for predicting small field OFs were generated, validated, and tested. Incorporating these models into the dose calculation workflow could greatly increase the accuracy and robustness of dose calculations for any radiotherapy delivery technique that relies heavily on small fields.

Treatment planning system commissioning of the first clinical biology-guided radiotherapy machine

PURPOSE

The RefleXion X1 is a novel radiotherapy machine designed for image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) and biology-guided radiotherapy (BgRT). Its treatment planning system (TPS) generates IMRT and SBRT plans for a 6MV-FFF beam delivered axially via 50 firing positions with the couch advancing every 2.1 mm. The purpose of this work is to report the TPS commissioning results for the first clinical installation of RefleXion™ X1.

METHODS

CT images of multiple phantoms were imported into the RefleXion TPS to evaluate the accuracy of data transfer, anatomical modeling, plan evaluation, and dose calculation. Comparisons were made between the X1, Eclipse™, and MIM™. Dosimetric parameters for open static fields were evaluated in water and heterogeneous slab phantoms. Representative clinical IMRT and SBRT cases were planned and verified with ion chamber, film, and ArcCHECK@ measurements. The agreement between TPS and measurements for various clinical plans was evaluated using Gamma analysis with a criterion of 3%/2 mm for ArcCHECK@ and film. End-to-end (E2E) testing was performed using anthropomorphic head and lung phantoms.

RESULTS

The average difference between the TPS-reported and known HU values was -1.4 ± 6.0 HU. For static fields, the agreements between the TPS-calculated and measured PDD10 , crossline profiles, and inline profiles (FWHM) were within 1.5%, 1.3%, and 0.5 mm, respectively. Measured output factors agreed with the TPS within 1.3%. Measured and calculated dose for static fields in heterogeneous phantoms agreed within 2.5%. The ArcCHECK@ mean absolute Gamma passing rate was 96.4% ± 3.4% for TG 119 and TG 244 plans and 97.8% ± 3.6% for the 21 clinical plans. E2E film analysis showed 0.8 mm total targeting error for isocentric and 1.1 mm for off-axis treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

The TPS commissioning results of the RefleXion X1 TPS were within the tolerances specified by AAPM TG 53, MPPG 5.a, TG 119, and TG 148. A subset of the commissioning tests has been identified as baseline data for an ongoing QA program.

A multi-institutional evaluation of small field output factor determination following the recommendations of IAEA/AAPM TRS-483

Purpose

The aim of this work was to test the implementation of small field dosimetry following TRS‐483 and to develop quality assurance procedures for the experimental determination of small field output factors (SFOFs).

Materials and methods

Twelve different centers provided SFOFs determined with various detectors. Various linac models using the beam qualities 6 MV and 10 MV with flattening filter and without flattening filter were utilized to generate square fields down to a nominal field size of 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm. The detectors were positioned at 10 cm depth in water. Depending on the local situation, the source‐to‐surface distance was either set to 90 cm or 100 cm. The SFOFs were normalized to the output of the 10 cm × 10 cm field. The spread of SFOFs measured with different detectors was investigated for each individual linac beam quality and field size. Additionally, linac‐type specific SFOF curves were determined for each beam quality and the SFOFs determined using individual detectors were compared to these curves. Example uncertainty budgets were established for a solid state detector and a micro ionization chamber.

Results

The spread of SFOFs for each linac and field was below 5% for all field sizes. With the exception of one linac‐type, the SFOFs of all investigated detectors agreed within 10% with the respective linac‐type SFOF curve, indicating a potential inter‐detector and inter‐linac variability.

Conclusion

Quality assurance on the SFOF measurements can be done by investigation of the spread of SFOFs measured with multiple detectors and by comparison to linac‐type specific SFOFs. A follow‐up of a measurement session should be conducted if the spread of SFOFs is larger than 5%, 3%, and 2% for field sizes of 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm, 1 cm × 1 cm, and field sizes larger than 2 cm × 2 cm, respectively. Additionally, deviations of measured SFOFs to the linac‐type‐curves of more than 7%, 3%, and 2% for field sizes 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm, 1 cm × 1 cm, and field sizes larger than 1 cm × 1 cm, respectively, should be followed up.

Selection Strategy of Jaw Tracking in VMAT Planning for Lung SBRT

Purpose

This study aimed to investigate the dosimetric effect and delivery reliability of jaw tracking (JT) with increasing planning target volume (PTV) for lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) plans. A threshold of PTV was proposed as a selection criterion between JT and fixed-jaw (FJ) techniques.

Methods

A total of 28 patients with early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer were retrospectively included. The PTVs ranged from 4.88 cc to 68.74 cc, prescribed with 48 Gy in four fractions. Three-partial-arc volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans with FJ and with JT were created for each patient with the same optimization objectives. These two sets of plans were compared using metrics, including conformity index (CI), V_50%, R_50%, D_2cm, dose–volume parameters of organs at risk, and monitor units (MUs). The ratio of small subfields (<3 cm in either dimension), %SS, was acquired as a surrogate for the small-field uncertainty. Statistical analyses were performed to evaluate the correlation between the differences in these parameters and the PTV.

Results

The V_50%, R_50%, D_2cm, and V_20Gy, D_1,500cc, and D_1,000cc of the lung showed a statistically significant improvement in JT plans as opposed to FJ plans, while the number of MU in JT plans was higher by an average of 1.9%. Between FJ and JT plans, the PTV was strongly correlated with the differences in V_50%, moderately correlated with those in V_20Gy of the lung, and weakly correlated with those in D_2cm and D_1,500cc of the lung. By using JT, %SS was found to be negatively correlated with the PTV, and the PTV should be at least approximately 12.5 cc for an expected %SS <50%, which was 15 cc for a %SS <20% and 20 cc for a %SS <5%.

Conclusions

Considering the dosimetric differences and small-field uncertainties, JT could be selected using a PTV threshold, such as 12.5, 15, or 20 cc, on the basis of the demand of delivery reliability for lung SBRT.

A Dosimetric Parameter Reference Look-Up Table for GRID Collimator-Based Spatially Fractionated Radiation Therapy

Simple Summary

Dose prescription for the inhomogeneous dosing in spatially fractionated radiation therapy (SFRT) is challenging, and further hampered by the inability of several planning systems to incorporate complex SFRT dose patterns. We developed dosing reference tables for an inventory of tumour scenarios and tested their accuracy with water phantom measurements of GRID therapy, delivered by a standard commercial GRID collimator. We find that dose heterogeneity parameters and EUD modeling are consistent across tumour sizes, configurations, and treatment depths. These results suggest that the developed reference tables can be used as a practical clinical resource for clinical decision-making on GRID therapy and to facilitate heterogeneity dose estimates in clinical patients when this commercially available GRID device is used.

Abstract

Computations of heterogeneity dose parameters in GRID therapy remain challenging in many treatment planning systems (TPS). To address this difficulty, we developed reference dose tables for a standard GRID collimator and validate their accuracy. The .decimal Inc. GRID collimator was implemented within the Eclipse TPS. The accuracy of the dose calculation was confirmed in the commissioning process. Representative sets of simulated ellipsoidal tumours ranging from 6–20 cm in diameter at a 3-cm depth; 16-cm ellipsoidal tumours at 3, 6, and 10 cm in depth were studied. All were treated with 6MV photons to a 20 Gy prescription dose at the tumour center. From these, the GRID therapy dosimetric parameters (previously recommended by the Radiosurgery Society white paper) were derived. Differences in D5 through D95 and EUD between different tumour sizes at the same depth were within 5% of the prescription dose. PVDR from profile measurements at the tumour center differed from D10/D90, but D10/D90 variations for the same tumour depths were within 11%. Three approximation equations were developed for calculating EUDs of different prescription doses for three radiosensitivity levels for 3-cm deep tumours. Dosimetric parameters were consistent and predictable across tumour sizes and depths. Our study results support the use of the developed tables as a reference tool for GRID therapy.

Effect of inaccurate small field output factors on brain SRS plans

External beam radiotherapy often includes the use of field sizes 3 × 3 cm²or less, which can be defined as small fields. Dosimetry is a difficult, yet important part of the radiotherapy process. The dosimetry of small fields has additional challenges, which can lead to treatment inconsistencies if not done properly. Most important is the use of an appropriate detector, as well as the application of the necessary corrections. The International Atomic Energy Agency and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine provide the International Code of Practice (CoP) TRS-483 for the dosimetry of small static fields used in external MV photon beams. It gives guidelines on how to apply small-field correction factors for small field dosimetry. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of inaccurate small-field output factors on clinical brain stereotactic radiosurgery plans with and without applying the small-field correction factors as suggested in the CoP. Small-field correction factors for a Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator were applied to uncorrected relative dose factors. Uncorrected and corrected clinical plans were created with two different beam configurations, 6 MV with a flattening filter (6 WFF) and 6 MV without a flattening filter (6 FFF). For the corrected plans, the planning target volume mean dose was 1.6 ± 0.9% lower with p < 0.001 for 6 WFF and 1.8 ± 1.5% lower with p < 0.001 for 6 FFF. For brainstem, a major organ at risk, the corrected plans had a dose that was 1.6 ± 0.9% lower with p = 0.03 for 6 WFF and 1.8 ± 1.5% lower with p = 0.10 for 6 FFF. This represents a systematic error that should and can be corrected.

Photon beam modeling variations predict errors in IMRT dosimetry audits

Background & purpose:

To evaluate treatment planning system (TPS) beam modeling parameters as contributing factors to IMRT audit performance.

Materials & methods:

We retrospectively analyzed IROC Houston phantom audit performance and concurrent beam modeling survey responses from 337 irradiations performed between August 2017 and November 2019. Irradiation results were grouped based on the reporting of typical or atypical beam modeling parameter survey responses (<10th or >90th percentile values), and compared for passing versus failing (>7% error) or “poor” (>5% error) irradiation status. Additionally, we assessed the impact on the planned dose distribution from variations in modeling parameter value. Finally, we estimated the overall impact of beam modeling parameter variance on dose calculations, based on reported community variations.

Results:

Use of atypical modeling parameters were more frequently seen with failing phantom audit results (p = 0.01). Most pronounced was for Eclipse AAA users, where phantom irradiations with atypical values of dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) showed a greater incidence of both poor-performing (p = 0.048) and failing phantom audits (p = 0.014); and in general, DLG value was correlated with dose calculation accuracy (r = 0.397, p < 0.001). Manipulating TPS parameters induced systematic changes in planned dose distributions which were consistent with prior observations of how failures manifest. Dose change estimations based on these dose calculations agreed well with true dosimetric errors identified.

Conclusion:

Atypical TPS beam modeling parameters are associated with failing phantom audits. This is identified as an important factor contributing to the observed failing phantom results, and highlights the need for accurate beam modeling.

Properties of IBA Razor Nano Chamber in small-field radiation therapy using 6 MV FF, 6 MV FFF, and 10 MV FFF photon beams

BACKGROUND

Small megavoltage photon fields are increasingly used in modern radiotherapy techniques such as stereotactic radiotherapy. Therefore, it is important to study the reliability of dosimetry in the small-field conditions. The IBA Razor Nano Chamber (Nano chamber) ionization chamber is particularly intended for small-field measurements. In this work, properties of the Nano chamber were studied with both measurements and Monte Carlo (MC) simulations.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The measurements and MC simulations were performed with 6 MV, 6 MV FFF and 10 MV FFF photon beams from the Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator. The source-to-surface distance was fixed at 100 cm. The measurements and MC simulations included profiles, percentage depth doses (PDD), and output factors (OF) in square jaw-collimated fields. The MC simulations were performed with the EGSnrc software system in a large water phantom.

RESULTS

The measured profiles and PDDs obtained with the Nano chamber were compared against IBA Razor Diode, PTW microDiamond and the PTW Semiflex ionization chamber. These results indicate that the Nano chamber is a high-resolution detector and thus suitable for small field profile measurements down to field sizes 2 × 2 cm² and appropriate for the PDD measurements. The field output correction factors kQclin, Qmsrfclin, fmsr and field OFs ΩQclin, Qmsrfclin, fmsr were determined according to TRS-483 protocol In the 6 MV FF and FFF beams, the determined correction factors kQclin, Qmsrfclin, fmsr were within 1.2% for the field sizes of 1 × 1 cm²-3 × 3 cm² and the experimental and MC defined field output factors ΩQclin,Qmsrfclin,fmsr showed good agreement.

CONCLUSION

The Nano chamber with its small cavity volume is a potential detector for the small-field dosimetry. In this study, the properties of this detector were characterized with measurements and MC simulations. The determined correction factors kQclin, Qmsrfclin, fmsr are novel results for the NC in the TrueBeam fields.

Small-field measurement and Monte Carlo model validation of a novel image-guided radiotherapy system

PURPOSE

The RefleXion™ X1 is a novel radiotherapy system that is designed for image-guided radiotherapy, and eventually, biology-guided radiotherapy (BgRT). BgRT is a treatment paradigm that tracks tumor motion using real-time positron emission signals. This study reports the small-field measurement results and the validation of a Monte Carlo (MC) model of the first clinical RefleXion unit.

METHODS

The RefleXion linear accelerator (linac) produces a 6 MV flattening filter free (FFF) photon beam and consists of a binary multileaf collimator (MLC) system with 64 leaves and two pairs of y-jaws. The maximum clinical field size achievable is 400 × 20 mm² . The y-jaws provide either a 10 or 20 mm opening at source-to-axis distance (SAD) of 850 mm. The width of each MLC leaf at SAD is 6.25 mm. Percentage depth doses (PDDs) and relative beam profiles were acquired using an Edge diode detector in a water tank for field sizes from 12.5 × 10 to 100 × 20 mm² . Beam profiles were also measured using films. Output factors of fields ranging from 6.25 × 10 to 100 × 20 mm² were measured using W2 scintillator detector, Edge detector, and films. Output correction factors k of the Edge detector for RefleXion were calculated. An MC model of the linac including pre-MLC beam sources and detailed structures of MLC and lower y-jaws was validated against the measurements. Simulation codes BEAMnrc and GATE were utilized.

RESULTS

The diode measured PDD at 10 cm depth (PDD10) increases from 53.6% to 56.9% as the field opens from 12.5 × 10 to 100 × 20 mm² . The W2-measured output factor increases from 0.706 to 1 as the field opens from 6.25 × 10 to 100 × 20 mm² (reference field size). The output factors acquired by diode and film differ from the W2 results by 1.65% (std = 1.49%) and 2.09% (std = 1.41%) on average, respectively. The profile penumbra and full-width half-maximum (FWHM) measured by diode agree well with the film results with a deviation of 0.60 mm and 0.73% on average, respectively. The averaged beam profile consistency calculated between the diode- and film-measured profiles among different depths is within 1.72%. By taking the W2 measurements as the ground truth, the output correction factors k for Edge detector ranging from 0.958 to 1 were reported. For the MC model validation, the simulated PDD10 agreed within 0.6% to the diode measurement. The MC-simulated output factor differed from the W2 results by 2.3% on average (std = 3.7%), while the MC simulated beam penumbra differed from the diode results by 0.67 mm on average (std = 0.42 mm). The MC FWHM agreed with the diode results to within 1.40% on average. The averaged beam profile consistency calculated between the diode and MC profiles among different depths is less than 1.29%.

CONCLUSIONS

This study represents the first small-field dosimetry of a clinical RefleXion system. A complete and accurate MC model of the RefleXion linac has been validated.

Retrospective analysis of portal dosimetry pre-treatment quality assurance of intracranial SRS/SRT VMAT treatment plans

Background:

The complexity associated with the treatment planning and delivery of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) or stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans which employs continuous dynamic modulation of dose rate, field aperture and gantry speed necessitates diligent pre-treatment patient-specific quality assurance (QA). Numerous techniques for pre-treatment VMAT treatment plans QA are currently available with the aid of several different devices including the electronic portal imager (EPID). Although several studies have provided recommendations for gamma criteria for VMAT pre-treatment QA, there are no specifics for SRS/SRT VMAT QA. Thus, we conducted a study to evaluate intracranial SRS/SRT VMAT QA to determine clinical action levels for gamma criteria based on the institutional estimated means and standard deviations.

Materials and methods:

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 118 EPID patient-specific pre-treatment QA dosimetric measurements of 47 brain SRS/SRT VMAT treatment plans using the integrated Varian solution (RapidArcTM planning, EPID and Portal dosimetry system) for planning, delivery and EPID QA analysis. We evaluated the maximum gamma (γmax), average gamma (γave) and percentage gamma passing rate (%GP) for different distance-to-agreement/dose difference (DTA/DD) criteria and low-dose thresholds.

Results:

The gamma index analysis shows that for patient-specific SRS/SRT VMAT QA with the portal dosimetry, the mean %GP is ≥98% for 2–3 mm/1–3% and Field+0%, +5% and +10% low-dose thresholds. When applying stricter spatial criteria of 1 mm, the mean %GP is >90% for DD of 2–3% and ≥88% for DD of 1%. The mean γmax ranges: 1·32 ± 1·33–2·63 ± 2·35 for 3 mm/1–3%, 1·57 ± 1·36–2·87 ± 2·29 for 2 mm/1–3% and 2·36 ± 1·83–3·58 ± 2·23 for 1 mm/1–3%. Similarly the mean γave ranges: 0·16 ± 0·06–0·19 ± 0·07 for 3 mm/1–3%, 0·21 ± 0·08–0·27 ± 0·10 for 2 mm/1–3% and 0·34 ± 0·14–0·49 ± 0·17 for 1 mm/1–3%. The mean γmax and mean γave increase with increased DTA and increased DD for all low-dose thresholds.

Conclusions:

The establishment of gamma criteria local action levels for SRS/SRT VMAT pre-treatment QA based on institutional resources is imperative as a useful tool for standardising the evaluation of EPID-based patient-specific SRS/SRT VMAT QA. Our data suggest that for intracranial SRS/SRT VMAT QA measured with the EPID, a stricter gamma criterion of 1 mm/2% or 1 mm/3% with ≥90% %GP could be used while still maintaining an in-control QA process with no extra burden on resources and time constraints.

The influence of basic plan parameters on calculated small field output factors - A multicenter study

PURPOSE

The influence of basic plan parameters such as slice thickness, grid resolution, algorithm type and field size on calculated small field output factors (OFs) was evaluated in a multicentric study.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Three computational homogeneous water phantoms with slice thicknesses (ST) 1, 2 and 3 mm were shared among twenty-one centers to calculate OFs for 1x1, 2x2 and 3x3 cm² field sizes (FSs) (normalized to 10x10 cm² FS), with their own treatment planning system (TPS) and the energy clinically used for stereotactic body radiation therapy delivery. OFs were calculated for each combination of grid resolution (GR) (1, 2 and 3 mm) and ST and finally compared with the OFs measured for the TPS commissioning. A multivariate analysis was performed to test the effect of basic plan parameters on calculated OFs.

RESULTS

A total of 509 data points were collected. Calculated OFs are slightly higher than measured ones. The multivariate analysis showed that Center, GR, algorithm type, and FS are predictive variables of the difference between calculated and measured OFs (p < 0.001). As FS decreases, the spread in the difference between calculated and measured OFs became larger when increasing the GR. Monte Carlo and Analytical Anisotropic Algorithms, presented a dependence on GR (p < 0.01), while Collapsed Cone Convolution and Acuros did not. The effect of the ST was found to be negligible.

CONCLUSIONS

Modern TPSs slightly overestimate the calculated small field OFs compared with measured ones. Grid resolution, algorithm, center number and field size influence the calculation of small field OFs.

Consistency of small-field dosimetry, on and off axis, in beam-matched linacs used for stereotactic radiosurgery

PURPOSE

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) can be delivered with a standard linear accelerator (linac). At institutions having more than one linac, beam matching is common practice. In the literature, there are indications that machine central axis (CAX) matching for broad fields does not guarantee matching of small fields with side ≤2 cm. There is no indication on how matching for broad fields on axis translates to matching small fields off axis. These are of interest to multitarget single-isocenter (MTSI) SRS planning and the present work addresses that gap in the literature.

METHODS

We used 6 MV flattening filter free (FFF) beams from four Elekta VersaHD® linacs equipped with an Agility™ multileaf collimator (MLC). The linacs were strictly matched for broad fields on CAX. We compared output factors (OPFs) and effective field size, measured concurrently using a novel 2D solid-state dosimeter "Duo" with a spatial resolution of 0.2 mm, in square and rectangular static fields with sides from 0.5 to 2 cm, either on axis or away from it by 5 to 15 cm.

RESULTS

Among the four linacs, OPF for fields ≥1 × 1 cm2 ranged 1.3% on CAX, whereas off axis a maximum range of 1.9% was observed at 15 cm. A larger variability in OPF was noted for the 0.5 × 0.5 cm2 field, with a range of 5.9% on CAX, which improved to a maximum of 2.3% moving off axis. Two linacs showed greater consistency with a range of 1.4% on CAX and 2.2% at 15 cm off axis. Between linacs, the effective field size varied by <0.04 cm in most cases, both on and off axis. Tighter matching was observed for linacs with a similar focal spot position.

CONCLUSIONS

Verification of small-field consistency for matched linacs used for SRS is an important task for dosimetric validation. A significant benefit of concurrent measurement of field size and OPF allowed for a comprehensive assessment using a novel diode array. Our study showed the four linacs, strictly matched for broad fields on CAX, were still matched down to a field size of 1 x 1 cm2 on and off axis.

The influence of small field output factors simulated uncertainties on the calculated dose in VMAT plans for brain metastases: a multicentre study

OBJECTIVES

This multicentric study was carried out to investigate the impact of small field output factors (OFs) inaccuracies on the calculated dose in volumetric arctherapy (VMAT) radiosurgery brain plans.

METHODS

Nine centres, realised the same five VMAT plans with common planning rules and their specific clinical equipment Linac/treatment planning system commissioned with their OFs measured values (OFbaseline). In order to simulate OFs errors, two new OFs sets were generated for each centre by changing only the OFs values of the smallest field sizes (from 3.2 × 3.2 cm² to 1 × 1 cm²) with well-defined amounts (positive and negative). Consequently, two virtual machines for each centre were recommissioned using the new OFs and the percentage dose differences ΔD (%) between the baseline plans and the same plans recalculated using the incremented (OFup) and decremented (OFdown) values were evaluated. The ΔD (%) were analysed in terms of planning target volume (PTV) coverage and organs at risk (OARs) sparing at selected dose/volume points.

RESULTS

The plans recalculated with OFdown sets resulted in higher variation of doses than baseline within 1.6 and 3.4% to PTVs and OARs respectively; while the plans with OFup sets resulted in lower variation within 1.3% to both PTVs and OARs. Our analysis highlights that OFs variations affect calculated dose depending on the algorithm and on the delivery mode (field jaw/MLC-defined). The Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm resulted significantly more sensitive to OFs variations than all of the other algorithms.

CONCLUSION

The aim of our study was to evaluate how small fields OFs inaccuracies can affect the dose calculation in VMAT brain radiosurgery treatments plans. It was observed that simulated OFs errors, return dosimetric calculation accuracies within the 3% between concurrent plans analysed in terms of percentage dose differences at selected dose/volume points of the PTV coverage and OARs sparing.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

First multicentre study involving different Planning/Linacs about undetectable errors in commissioning output factor for small fields.

An analytical formalism for the assessment of dose uncertainties due to positioning uncertainties

PURPOSE

To present an analytical formalism for the in depth assessment of uncertainties of field output factors in small fields related to detector positioning based on dose profile measurements. Additionally, a procedure for the propagation of these uncertainties was developed.

METHODS

Based on the assumption that one dimensional and two dimensional second-order polynomial functions can be fitted to dose profiles of small photon beams, equations for the calculation of the expectation value, the variance, and the standard deviation were developed. The following fitting procedures of the dose profiles were considered: A one-dimensional case (1D), a quasi two-dimensional case (2Dq) based on independently measured line profiles and a full 2D case (2Df) which also considers cross-correlations in a two-dimensional dose distribution. A rectangular and a Gaussian probability density function (PDF) characterizing the probability of possible positions of the detector relative to the maximum dose were used. Uncertainty components such as the finite resolution of the scanning water phantom, the reproducibility of the determination of the position of the maximum dose, and the reproducibility of the collimator system were investigated. This formalism was tested in a 0.5 x 0.5 cm² photon field where dose profiles were measured using a radiochromic film, a synthetic diamond detector, and an unshielded diode detector. Additionally, the dose distribution measured with the radiochromic film was convoluted with a convolution kernel mimicking the active volume of the unshielded diode.

RESULTS

Analytic expressions for the calculation of uncertainties on field output factors were found for the 1D, the 2Dq, and the 2Df case. The uncertainty of the field output factor related to the relative position of the detector to the maximum dose increased quadratically with increasing limits of possible detector positions. Analysis of the radiochromic film showed that the 2Dq case gave a more conservative assessment of the uncertainty compared to the 2Df case with a difference of < 0.1%. The 2Dq case applied to the film measurements agreed well with the same approach as was applied to the unshielded diode. The investigated uncertainty components propagated to an uncertainty of the field output factors of 0.5% and 0.4% for the synthetic diamond and the unshielded diode, respectively. Additionally, the expectation value was lower than the maximum dose. The difference was 0.4% and 0.3% for the synthetic diamond and the unshielded diode, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The assessment of uncertainties of field output factors related to detector positioning is feasible using the proposed formalism. The 2Dq case is applicable when using online detectors. Accurate positioning in small fields is essential for accurate dosimetry as its related uncertainty increases quadratically. The observed drop of the expectation value needs to be considered in small field dosimetry.