Monte Carlo-based correction factors for ion chamber dosimetry in heterogeneous phantoms for megavoltage photon beams

Electron beam response corrections for an ultra-high-dose-rate capable diode dosimeter

BACKGROUND

Ultra-high-dose-rate (UHDR) electron beams have been commonly utilized in FLASH studies and the translation of FLASH Radiotherapy (RT) to the clinic. The EDGE diode detector has potential use for UHDR dosimetry albeit with a beam energy dependency observed.

PURPOSE

The purpose is to present the electron beam response for an EDGE detector in dependence on beam energy, to characterize the EDGE detector's response under UHDR conditions, and to validate correction factors derived from the first detailed Monte Carlo model of the EDGE diode against measurements, particularly under UHDR conditions.

METHODS

Percentage depth doses (PDDs) for the UHDR Mobetron were measured with both EDGE detectors and films. A detailed Monte Carlo (MC) model of the EDGE detector has been configured according to the blueprint provided by the manufacturer under an NDA agreement. Water/silicon dose ratios of EDGE detector for a series of mono-energetic electron beams have been calculated. The dependence of the water/silicon dose ratio on depth for a FLASH relevant electron beam was also studied. An analytical approach for the correction of PDD measured with EDGE detectors was established.

RESULTS

Water/silicon dose ratio decreased with decreasing electron beam energy. For the Mobetron 9 MeV UHDR electron beam, the ratio decreased from 1.09 to 1.03 in the build-up region, maintained in range of 0.98-1.02 at the fall-off region and raised to a plateau in value of 1.08 at the tail. By applying the corrections, good agreement between the PDDs measured by the EDGE detector and those measured with film was achieved.

CONCLUSIONS

Electron beam response of an UHDR capable EDGE detector was derived from first principles utilizing a sophisticated MC model. An analytical approach was validated for the PDDs of UHDR electron beams. The results demonstrated the capability of EDGE detector in measuring PDDs of UHDR electron beams.

Dosimetric verification of four dose calculation algorithms for spine stereotactic body radiotherapy

The applications of Type B [anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and collapsed cone (CC)] and Type C [Acuros XB (AXB) and photon Monte Carlo (PMC)] dose calculation algorithms in spine stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) were evaluated. Water- and bone-equivalent phantoms were combined to evaluate the percentage depth dose and dose profile. Subsequently, 48 consecutive patients with clinical spine SBRT plans were evaluated. All treatment plans were created using AXB in Eclipse. The prescription dose was 24 Gy in two fractions at a 10 MV FFF on TrueBeam. The doses were then recalculated with AAA, CC and PMC while maintaining the AXB-calculated monitor units and beam arrangement. The dose index values obtained using the four dose calculation algorithms were then compared. The AXB and PMC dose distributions agreed with the bone-equivalent phantom measurements (within ±2.0%); the AAA and CC values were higher than those in the bone-equivalent phantom region. For the spine SBRT plans, PMC, AAA and CC were overestimated compared with AXB in terms of the near minimum and maximum doses of the target and organ at risk, respectively; the mean dose difference was within 4.2%, which is equivalent with within 1 Gy. The phantom study showed that the results from AXB and PMC agreed with the measurements within ±2.0%. However, the mean dose difference ranged from 0.5 to 1 Gy in the spine SBRT planning study when the dose calculation algorithms changed. Users should incorporate a clinical introduction that includes an awareness of these differences.

Monte Carlo calculation of perturbation correction factors for air-filled ionization chambers in clinical proton beams using TOPAS/GEANT

INTRODUCTION

Current dosimetry protocols for clinical protons using air-filled ionization chambers assume that the perturbation correction factor is equal to unity for all ionization chambers and proton energies. Since previous Monte Carlo based studies suggest that perturbation correction factors might be significantly different from unity this study aims to determine perturbation correction factors for six plane-parallel and four cylindrical ionization chambers in proton beams at clinical energies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The dose deposited in the air cavity of the ionization chambers was calculated with the help of the Monte Carlo code TOPAS/Geant4 while specific constructive details of the chambers were removed step by step. By comparing these dose values the individual perturbation correction factors p_cel, p_stem, p_sleeve, p_wall, p_cav⋅p_dis as well as the total perturbation correction factor p_Q were derived for typical clinical proton energies between 80 and 250MeV.

RESULTS

The total perturbation correction factor p_Q was smaller than unity for almost every ionization chamber and proton energy and in some cases significantly different from unity (deviation larger than 1%). The maximum deviation from unity was 2.0% for cylindrical and 1.5% for plane-parallel ionization chambers. Especially the factor p_wall was found to differ significantly from unity. It was shown that this is due to the fact that secondary particles, especially alpha particles and fragments, are scattered from the chamber wall into the air cavity resulting in an overresponse of the chamber.

CONCLUSION

Perturbation correction factors for ionization chambers in proton beams were calculated using Monte Carlo simulations. In contrast to the assumption of current dosimetry protocols the total perturbation correction factor p_Q can be significantly different from unity. Hence, beam quality correction factors [Formula: see text] that are calculated with the help of perturbation correction factors that are assumed to be unity come with a corresponding additional uncertainty.

Validation of secondary dose calculation system with manufacturer-provided reference beam data using heterogeneous phantoms

The Mobius3D (M3D) system (Mobius Medical Systems) is a second-check dosimetry system. We investigated the dose calculation accuracy of this system using heterogeneous phantoms with reference beam data provided by the manufacturer using simple and patient plans. We compared the dose distributions between M3D and the treatment planning system, as well as the measurements in solid water phantoms, heterogeneous phantoms, and patient plans for Varian and Elekta accelerators. The M3D results agreed well with the measurements in the solid water phantoms for the simple plans. However, the accuracy of M3D appeared to depend on the type of accelerator, as indicated by the slight differences in the dose measurements. Furthermore, the M3D dose measurements differed by 5-10% in the lung and bone regions. Regarding the patient plans, we confirmed that M3D is reasonably accurate as a second-check system, despite the slight accelerator type-dependent dose difference.

Dependence of volume dose indices on dose calculation algorithms for VMAT-SBRT plans for peripheral lung tumor

The purpose of this study was to investigate the dependence of volume dose indices on dose calculation algorithms for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) plans to treat peripheral lung tumors by comparing them with those of Monte Carlo (MC) calculations. VMAT-SBRT plans for peripheral lung tumors were created using the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) for 24 patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer. VMAT dose distributions for gross tumor volume (GTV), internal target volume (ITV), and planning target volume (PTV) were calculated using the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA), the Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm, and a MC algorithm. VMAT dose distributions of the 3 algorithms were compared using their volume dose indices from dose volume histograms (DVHs), a dose difference map, and 3-dimensional gamma analysis. The DVHs for GTV and ITV from AAA, AXB, and MC were in good agreement. The difference between the ITV and PTV volume dose indices from AAA and MC increased as D₉₈, D₉₅, D₈₀, D₅₀, and D₂. In particular, the difference between D₉₈ for PTV from AAA and MC was up to 48%. A >5% difference between D₉₅ for PTV from AAA and MC was 11 patients, but only 2 patients for ITV. The volume dose indices for AXB were near those of MC. AAA tended to overestimate the PTV volume dose indices compared to AXB and MC. Thus, we propose that the volume dose indices for the ITV be used because they are independent of dose calculation algorithms.

Robust optimization of VMAT for lung cancer: Dosimetric implications of motion compensation techniques

In inverse planning of lung radiotherapy, techniques are required to ensure dose coverage of target disease in the presence of tumor motion as a result of respiration. A range of published techniques for mitigating motion effects were compared for dose stability across 5 breath cycles of ±2 cm. Techniques included planning target volume (PTV) expansions, internal target volumes with (OITV) and without tissue override (ITV), average dataset scans (ADS), and mini-max robust optimization. Volumetric arc therapy plans were created on a thorax phantom and verified with chamber and film measurements. Dose stability was compared by DVH analysis in calculations across all geometries. The lung override technique resulted in a substantial lack of dose coverage (-10%) to the tumor in the presence of large motion. PTV, ITV and ADS techniques resulted in substantial (up to 25%) maximum dose increases where solid tissue travelled into low density optimized regions. The results highlight the need for care in optimization of highly heterogeneous where density variations may occur with motion. Robust optimization was shown to provide greater stability in both maximum (<3%) and minimum dose variations (<2%) over all other techniques.

A Feasibility Study on the Use of TomoTherapy Megavoltage Computed Tomography Images for Palliative Patient Treatment Planning

Dedicated rapid access palliative radiation therapy improves patients' access to care, allowing more timely treatment which would positively impact on quality of life. The TomoTherapy (Accuray, Sunnyvale, CA) system provides megavoltage (MV) fan-beam computed tomography (FBCT) as the image guidance technique, and a module called "statRT" that allows the use of these MV FBCT images for direct planning. The possibility of using this imaging modality for palliative radiotherapy treatment planning is assessed against accepted planning CT standards by performing tests following AAPM TG 66 and an end-to-end measurement. Results have shown that MV FBCT images acquired by TomoTherapy are of sufficient quality for the purpose of target delineation and dose calculation for palliative treatments. Large image noise and extended scan acquisition time are the two main drawbacks, so this imaging modality should only be used for palliative treatments at areas with well-known, easily distinguishable, and relatively immobile targets such as spine and whole brain.

Dosimetric evaluation of the Acuros XB algorithm for a 4 MV photon beam in head and neck intensity-modulated radiation therapy

In this study, we assessed the differences in the dose distribution of a 4 MV photon beam among different calculation algorithms: the Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm, the analytic anisotropic algorithm (AAA), and the pencil beam convolution (PBC) algorithm (ver. 11.0.31), in phantoms and in clinical intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans. Homogeneous and heterogeneous, including middle‐, low‐, and high‐density, phantoms were combined to assess the percentage depth dose and lateral dose profiles among AXB, AAA, and PBC. For the phantom containing the low‐density area, AXB was in agreement with measurement within 0.5%, while the greatest differences between the AAA and PBC calculations and measurement were 2.7% and 3.6%, respectively. AXB showed agreement with measurement within 2.5% at the high‐density area, while AAA and PBC overestimated the dose by more than 4.5% and 4.0%, respectively. Furthermore, 15 IMRT plans, calculated using AXB, for oropharyngeal, hypopharyngeal, and laryngeal carcinomas were analyzed. The dose prescription was 70 Gy to 50% of the planning target volume (PVT70). Subsequently, each plan was recalculated using AAA and PBC while maintaining the AXB‐calculated monitor units, leaf motion, and beam arrangement. Additionally, nine hypopharyngeal and laryngeal cancer patients were analyzed in terms of PTV70 for cartilaginous structures (PVT70_cartilage). The doses covering 50% to PTV70 calculated by AAA and PBC were 2.1%±1.0% and 3.7%±0.8% significantly higher than those using AXB, respectively (p<0.01). The increases in doses to PTV70_cartilage calculated by AAA and PBC relative to AXB were 3.9% and 5.3% on average, respectively, and were relatively greater than those in the entire PVT70. AXB was found to be in better agreement with measurement in phantoms in heterogeneous areas for the 4 MV photon beam. Considering AXB as the standard, AAA and PBC overestimated the IMRT dose for head and neck cancer. The dosimetric differences should not be ignored, particularly with cartilaginous structures in PTV.

PACS number: 87.55.‐x, 87.55.dk, 87.55.kd