A dose verification method using a monitor unit matrix for dynamic IMRT on Varian linear accelerators

Adaptive beamlet-based finite-size pencil beam dose calculation for independent verification of IMRT and VMAT

PURPOSE

The use of sophisticated dose calculation procedure in modern radiation therapy treatment planning is inevitable in order to account for complex treatment fields created by multileaf collimators (MLCs). As a consequence, independent volumetric dose verification is time consuming, which affects the efficiency of clinical workflow. In this study, the authors present an efficient adaptive beamlet-based finite-size pencil beam (AB-FSPB) dose calculation algorithm that minimizes the computational procedure while preserving the accuracy.

METHODS

The computational time of finite-size pencil beam (FSPB) algorithm is proportional to the number of infinitesimal and identical beamlets that constitute an arbitrary field shape. In AB-FSPB, dose distribution from each beamlet is mathematically modeled such that the sizes of beamlets to represent an arbitrary field shape no longer need to be infinitesimal nor identical. As a result, it is possible to represent an arbitrary field shape with combinations of different sized and minimal number of beamlets. In addition, the authors included the model parameters to consider MLC for its rounded edge and transmission.

RESULTS

Root mean square error (RMSE) between treatment planning system and conventional FSPB on a 10 × 10 cm(2) square field using 10 × 10, 2.5 × 2.5, and 0.5 × 0.5 cm(2) beamlet sizes were 4.90%, 3.19%, and 2.87%, respectively, compared with RMSE of 1.10%, 1.11%, and 1.14% for AB-FSPB. This finding holds true for a larger square field size of 25 × 25 cm(2), where RMSE for 25 × 25, 2.5 × 2.5, and 0.5 × 0.5 cm(2) beamlet sizes were 5.41%, 4.76%, and 3.54% in FSPB, respectively, compared with RMSE of 0.86%, 0.83%, and 0.88% for AB-FSPB. It was found that AB-FSPB could successfully account for the MLC transmissions without major discrepancy. The algorithm was also graphical processing unit (GPU) compatible to maximize its computational speed. For an intensity modulated radiation therapy (∼12 segments) and a volumetric modulated arc therapy fields (∼90 control points) with a 3D grid size of 2.0 × 2.0 × 2.0 mm(3), dose was computed within 3-5 and 10-15 s timeframe, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors have developed an efficient adaptive beamlet-based pencil beam dose calculation algorithm. The fast computation nature along with GPU compatibility has shown better performance than conventional FSPB. This enables the implementation of AB-FSPB in the clinical environment for independent volumetric dose verification.

Monitor unit calculations for external photon and electron beams: Report of the AAPM Therapy Physics Committee Task Group No. 71

A protocol is presented for the calculation of monitor units (MU) for photon and electron beams, delivered with and without beam modifiers, for constant source-surface distance (SSD) and source-axis distance (SAD) setups. This protocol was written by Task Group 71 of the Therapy Physics Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) and has been formally approved by the AAPM for clinical use. The protocol defines the nomenclature for the dosimetric quantities used in these calculations, along with instructions for their determination and measurement. Calculations are made using the dose per MU under normalization conditions, D'0, that is determined for each user's photon and electron beams. For electron beams, the depth of normalization is taken to be the depth of maximum dose along the central axis for the same field incident on a water phantom at the same SSD, where D'0 = 1 cGy/MU. For photon beams, this task group recommends that a normalization depth of 10 cm be selected, where an energy-dependent D'0 ≤ 1 cGy/MU is required. This recommendation differs from the more common approach of a normalization depth of dm, with D'0 = 1 cGy/MU, although both systems are acceptable within the current protocol. For photon beams, the formalism includes the use of blocked fields, physical or dynamic wedges, and (static) multileaf collimation. No formalism is provided for intensity modulated radiation therapy calculations, although some general considerations and a review of current calculation techniques are included. For electron beams, the formalism provides for calculations at the standard and extended SSDs using either an effective SSD or an air-gap correction factor. Example tables and problems are included to illustrate the basic concepts within the presented formalism.

Evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of independent dose calculation followed by machine log file analysis against conventional measurement based IMRT QA

Experimental methods are commonly used for patient-specific IMRT delivery verification. There are a variety of IMRT QA techniques which have been proposed and clinically used with a common understanding that not one single method can detect all possible errors. The aim of this work was to compare the efficiency and effectiveness of independent dose calculation followed by machine log file analysis to conventional measurement-based methods in detecting errors in IMRT delivery. Sixteen IMRT treatment plans (5 head-and-neck, 3 rectum, 3 breast, and 5 prostate plans) created with a commercial treatment planning system (TPS) were recalculated on a QA phantom. All treatment plans underwent ion chamber (IC) and 2D diode array measurements. The same set of plans was also recomputed with another commercial treatment planning system and the two sets of calculations were compared. The deviations between dosimetric measurements and independent dose calculation were evaluated. The comparisons included evaluations of DVHs and point doses calculated by the two TPS systems. Machine log files were captured during pretreatment composite point dose measurements and analyzed to verify data transfer and performance of the delivery machine. Average deviation between IC measurements and point dose calculations with the two TPSs for head-and-neck plans were 1.2 ± 1.3% and 1.4 ± 1.6%, respectively. For 2D diode array measurements, the mean gamma value with 3% dose difference and 3 mm distance-to-agreement was within 1.5% for 13 of 16 plans. The mean 3D dose differences calculated from two TPSs were within 3% for head-and-neck cases and within 2% for other plans. The machine log file analysis showed that the gantry angle, jaw position, collimator angle, and MUs were consistent as planned, and maximal MLC position error was less than 0.5 mm. The independent dose calculation followed by the machine log analysis takes an average 47 ± 6 minutes, while the experimental approach (using IC and 2D diode array measurements) takes an average about 2 hours in our clinic. Independent dose calculation followed by machine log file analysis can be a reliable tool to verify IMRT treatments. Additionally, independent dose calculations have the potential to identify several problems (heterogeneity calculations, data corruptions, system failures) with the primary TPS, which generally are not identifiable with a measurement-based approach. Additionally, machine log file analysis can identify many problems (gantry, collimator, jaw setting) which also may not be detected with a measurement-based approach. Machine log file analysis could also detect performance problems for individual MLC leaves which could be masked in the analysis of a measured fluence.

Sensitivity study to evaluate the dosimetric impact of off-axis ratio profiles misalignment on TomoTherapy second dose validation

Accurate dose planning and delivery are very important in the intensity modulated radiation therapy. For helical TomoTherapy dose validation, a TomoTherapy second check software, called MU-Tomo, has been developed using archived patient documents, initial coordinates and planned dose of the point of calculation, and common dosimetric functions. Based on this software, sensitivity studies on 50 patient cases have been evaluated to show the impact of off-axis ratio profile misalignment on point dose calculation. Off-axis ratio is defined as the dose profile normalized to its maximum dose value. Sensitivity studies were done for three scenarios: oscillating the fluctuation regions of two off-axis profiles, shifting the profiles, and rotating the profiles. The result of the oscillation trial is linear along the change of longitudinal off-axis ratio (OARy), while oscillating the lateral off-axis ratio (OARx) has little influence on the dose calculation. For shifting, the variation in the percentage difference from the non-shifting value is about 15 times larger in OARy modification than in OARx modification. Rotating OARx by +/- 6' gave less than 1.5% +/- 0.20% difference compared to the non-rotating value. Rotating OARy by +/- 1' changes the result more than 5% +/- 2.69%. Therefore, for helical TomoTherapy dose validation, commissioned OARy profiles are more sensitive than OARx to oscillation, shifting and rotating. As a result, different tolerances for OARx and OARy may be required for annual quality assurance.

IMRT quality assurance using a second treatment planning system

We used a second treatment planning system (TPS) for independent verification of the dose calculated by our primary TPS in the context of patient-specific quality assurance (QA) for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). QA plans for 24 patients treated with inverse planned dynamic IMRT were generated using the Nomos Corvus TPS. The plans were calculated on a computed tomography scan of our QA phantom that consists of three Solid Water slabs sandwiching radiochromic films, and an ion chamber that is inserted into the center slab of the phantom. For the independent verification, the dose was recalculated using the Varian Eclipse TPS using the multileaf collimator files and beam geometry from the original plan. The data was then compared in terms of absolute dose to the ion chamber volume as well as relative dose on isodoses calculated at the film plane. The calculation results were also compared with measurements performed for each case. When comparing ion chamber doses, the mean ratio was 0.999 (SD 0.010) for Eclipse vs. Corvus, 0.988 (SD 0.020) for the ionization chamber measurements vs. Corvus, and 0.989 (SD 0.017) for the ionization chamber measurements vs. Eclipse. For 2D doses with gamma histogram, the mean value of the percentage of pixels passing the criteria of 3%, 3 mm was 94.4 (SD 5.3) for Eclipse vs. Corvus, 85.1 (SD 10.6) for Corvus vs. film, and 93.7 (SD 4.1) for Eclipse vs. film; and for the criteria of 5%, 3 mm, 98.7 (SD 1.5) for Eclipse vs. Corvus, 93.0 (SD 7.8) for Corvus vs. film, and 98.0 (SD 1.9) for Eclipse vs. film. We feel that the use of the Eclipse TPS as an independent, accurate, robust, and time-efficient method for patient-specific IMRT QA is feasible in clinic.

Independent calculation of dose from a helical TomoTherapy unit

A new calculation algorithm has been developed for independently verifying doses calculated by the TomoTherapy Hi.Art treatment planning system (TPS). The algorithm is designed to confirm the dose to a point in a high dose, low dose-gradient region. Patient data used by the algorithm include the radiological depth to the point for each projection angle and the treatment sinogram file controlling the leaf opening time for each projection. The algorithm uses common dosimetric functions [tissue phantom ratio (TPR) and output factor (Scp)] for the central axis combined with lateral and longitudinal beam profile data to quantify the off-axis dose dependence. Machine data for the dosimetric functions were measured on the Hi.Art machine and simulated using the TPS. Point dose calculations were made for several test phantoms and for 97 patient treatment plans using the simulated machine data. Comparisons with TPS-predicted point doses for the phantom treatment plans demonstrated agreement within 2% for both on-axis and off-axis planning target volumes (PTVs). Comparisons with TPS-predicted point doses for the patient treatment plans also showed good agreement. For calculations at sites other than lung and superficial PTVs, agreement between the calculations was within 2% for 94% of the patient calculations (64 of 68). Calculations within lung and superficial PTVs overestimated the dose by an average of 3.1% (sigma=2.4%) and 3.2% (sigma=2.2%), respectively. Systematic errors within lung are probably due to the weakness of the algorithm in correcting for missing tissue and/or tissue density heterogeneities. Errors encountered within superficial PTVs probably result from the algorithm overestimating the scatter dose within the patient. Our results demonstrate that for the majority of cases, the algorithm could be used without further refinement to independently verify patient treatment plans.

The impact of MLC transmitted radiation on EPID dosimetry for dynamic MLC beams

The purpose of this study was to experimentally quantify the change in response of an amorphous silicon (a-Si) electronic portal imaging device (EPID) to dynamic multileaf collimator (dMLC) beams with varying MLC-transmitted dose components and incorporate the response into a commercial treatment planning system (TPS) EPID prediction model. A combination of uniform intensity dMLC beams and static beams were designed to quantify the effect of MLC transmission on EPID response at the central axis of 10 x 10 cm2 beams, at off-axis positions using wide dMLC beam profiles, and at different field sizes. The EPID response to MLC transmitted radiation was 0.79 +/- 0.02 of the response to open beam radiation at the central axis of a 10 x 10 cm2 field. The EPID response to MLC transmitted radiation was further reduced relative to the open beam response with off-axis distance. The EPID response was more sensitive to field size changes for MLC transmitted radiation compared to open beam radiation by a factor of up to 1.17 at large field sizes. The results were used to create EPID response correction factors as a function of the fraction of MLC transmitted radiation, off-axis distance, and field size. Software was developed to apply the correction factors to each pixel in the TPS predicted EPID image. The corrected images agreed more closely with the measured EPID images in areas of intensity modulated fields with a large fraction of MLC transmission and, as a result the accuracy of portal dosimetry with a-Si EPIDs can be improved. Further investigation into the detector response function and the radiation source model are required to achieve improvements in accuracy for the general case.

Patient-specific IMRT verification using independent fluence-based dose calculation software: experimental benchmarking and initial clinical experience

Experimental methods are commonly used for patient-specific intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) verification. The purpose of this study was to investigate the accuracy and performance of independent dose calculation software (denoted as 'MUV' (monitor unit verification)) for patient-specific quality assurance (QA). 52 patients receiving step-and-shoot IMRT were considered. IMRT plans were recalculated by the treatment planning systems (TPS) in a dedicated QA phantom, in which an experimental 1D and 2D verification (0.3 cm(3) ionization chamber; films) was performed. Additionally, an independent dose calculation was performed. The fluence-based algorithm of MUV accounts for collimator transmission, rounded leaf ends, tongue-and-groove effect, backscatter to the monitor chamber and scatter from the flattening filter. The dose calculation utilizes a pencil beam model based on a beam quality index. DICOM RT files from patient plans, exported from the TPS, were directly used as patient-specific input data in MUV. For composite IMRT plans, average deviations in the high dose region between ionization chamber measurements and point dose calculations performed with the TPS and MUV were 1.6 +/- 1.2% and 0.5 +/- 1.1% (1 S.D.). The dose deviations between MUV and TPS slightly depended on the distance from the isocentre position. For individual intensity-modulated beams (total 367), an average deviation of 1.1 +/- 2.9% was determined between calculations performed with the TPS and with MUV, with maximum deviations up to 14%. However, absolute dose deviations were mostly less than 3 cGy. Based on the current results, we aim to apply a confidence limit of 3% (with respect to the prescribed dose) or 6 cGy for routine IMRT verification. For off-axis points at distances larger than 5 cm and for low dose regions, we consider 5% dose deviation or 10 cGy acceptable. The time needed for an independent calculation compares very favourably with the net time for an experimental approach. The physical effects modelled in the dose calculation software MUV allow accurate dose calculations in individual verification points. Independent calculations may be used to replace experimental dose verification once the IMRT programme is mature.