Off-axis dose response characteristics of an amorphous silicon electronic portal imaging device

Validation of virtual water phantom software for pre-treatment verification of single-isocenter multiple-target stereotactic radiosurgery

The aim of this study was to benchmark the accuracy of the VIrtual Phantom Epid dose Reconstruction (VIPER) software for pre-treatment dosimetric verification of multiple-target stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). VIPER is an EPID-based method to reconstruct a 3D dose distribution in a virtual phantom from in-air portal images. Validation of the VIPER dose calculation was assessed using several MLC-defined fields for a 6 MV photon beam. Central axis percent depth doses (PDDs) and output factors were measured with an ionization chamber in a water tank, while dose planes at a depth of 10 cm in a solid flat phantom were acquired with radiochromic films. The accuracy of VIPER for multiple-target SRS plan verification was benchmarked against Monte Carlo simulations. Eighteen multiple-target SRS plans designed with the Eclipse treatment planning system were mapped to a cylindrical water phantom. For each plan, the 3D dose distribution reconstructed by VIPER within the phantom was compared with the Monte Carlo simulation, using a 3D gamma analysis. Dose differences (VIPER vs. measurements) generally within 2% were found for the MLC-defined fields, while film dosimetry revealed gamma passing rates (GPRs) ≥95% for a 3%/1 mm criteria. For the 18 multiple-target SRS plans, average 3D GPRs greater than 93% and 98% for the 3%/2 mm and 5%/2 mm criteria, respectively. Our results validate the use of VIPER as a dosimetric verification tool for pre-treatment QA of single-isocenter multiple-target SRS plans. The method requires no setup time on the linac and results in an accurate 3D characterization of the delivered dose.

An Empirical Transmitted EPID Dosimetry Method using a Back-Projection Algorithm

Background:

The present study aimed to introduce a rapid transmission dosimetry through an electronic portal-imaging device (EPID) to achieve two-dimensional (2D) dose distribution for homogenous environments.

Material and Methods:

In this Phantom study, first, the EPID calibration curve and correction coefficients for field size were obtained from EPID and ionization chamber. Second, the EPID off-axis pixel response was measured, and the grey-scale image of the EPID was converted into portal dose image using the calibration curve. Next, the scattering contribution was calculated to obtain the primary dose. Then, by means of a verified back-projection algorithm and the Scatter-to-Primary dose ratio, a 2D dose distribution at the mid-plane was obtained.

Results:

The results obtained from comparing the transmitted EPID dosimetry to the calculated dose, using commercial treatment planning system with gamma function while there is 3% dose difference and 3mm distance to agreement criteria, were in a good agreement. In addition, the pass rates of γ < 1 was 94.89% for the homogeneous volumes.

Conclusion:

Based on the results, the method proposed can be used in EPID dosimetry.

Evaluating the sensitivity of Halcyon's automatic transit image acquisition for treatment error detection: A phantom study using static IMRT

PURPOSE

The Varian Halcyon™ electronic portal imaging detector is always in-line with the beam and automatically acquires transit images for every patient with full-field coverage. These images could be used for "every patient, every monitor unit" quality assurance (QA) and eventually adaptive radiotherapy. This study evaluated the imager's sensitivity to potential clinical errors and day-to-day variations from clinical exit images.

METHODS

Open and modulated fields were delivered for each potential error. To evaluate output changes, monitor units were scaled by 2%-10% and delivered to solid water slabs and a homogeneous CIRS phantom. To mimic weight changes, 0.5-5.0 cm of buildup was added to the solid water. To evaluate positioning changes, a homogeneous and heterogeneous CIRS phantom were shifted 2-10 cm and 0.2-1.5 cm, respectively. For each test, mean relative differences (MRDs) and standard deviations in the pixel-difference histograms (σ_RD ) between test and baseline images were calculated. Lateral shift magnitudes were calculated using cross-correlation and edge-detection filtration. To assess patient variations, MRD and σ_RD were calculated from six prostate patients' daily exit images and compared between fractions with and without gas present.

RESULTS

MRDs responded linearly to output and buildup changes with a standard deviation of 0.3%, implying a 1% output change and 0.2 cm changes in buildup could be detected with 2.5σ confidence. Shifting the homogenous phantom laterally resulted in detectable MRD and σ_RD changes, and the cross-correlation function calculated the shift to within 0.5 mm for the heterogeneous phantom. MRD and σ_RD values were significantly associated with the presence of gas for five of the six patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid analyses of automatically acquired Halcyon™ exit images could detect mid-treatment changes with high sensitivity, though appropriate thresholds will need to be set. This study presents the first steps toward developing effortless image evaluation for all aspects of every patient's treatment.

Quality assurance of intensity-modulated radiotherapy treatment planning: a dosimetric comparison

Aim

The purpose of this study was to analyse the comparison of intensity-modulated radiation therapy quality assurance (IMRT QA) using Gafchromic® EBT3 film, Electronic portal imaging device (EPID) and MapCHECK®2.

Background

Pretreatment authentication is the main apprehension in advanced radiation therapy treatment plans such as IMRT.

Materials and methods

A total of 20 patients were planned on Eclipse treatment planning system using 6 and 15 MV separately.

Results

Gamma index of EBT3 film results shows the following average passing rates: 97% for 6 MV and 96·6% for 15 MV using criteria of ±5% of 3 mm, ±3% of 3 mm and ±3% of 2 mm for brain. However, by using ±5% of 3 mm and ±3% of 3 mm criteria, the average passing rates were 95·4% on 6 MV and 95·2% on 15 MV for prostate. For EPID, the results show the average passing rates as 97·8% for 6 MV and 97·2% for 15 MV in for brain. In cases in which ±5% of 3 mm and ±3% of 3 mm were used, the average passing rates were 96·6% for 6 MVand 96·1% for 15 MV for prostate. MapCHECK®2 results show average passing rates of 96·4% for 6 and 96·2% for 15 MV, respectively, for brain using criteria of ±5% of 3 mm, ±3% of 3 mm and ±3% of 2 mm, whereas for ±5% of 3 mm and ±3% of 3 mm the average rates are 95·2% for 6 and 94·7% for 15 MV in prostate.

Conclusions

The EPID results are better than the other methods, and hence EPID can be used effectively for IMRT pretreatment verifications.

Commissioning and quality assurance for VMAT delivery systems: An efficient time-resolved system using real-time EPID imaging

PURPOSE

An ideal commissioning and quality assurance (QA) program for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) delivery systems should assess the performance of each individual dynamic component as a function of gantry angle. Procedures within such a program should also be time-efficient, independent of the delivery system and be sensitive to all types of errors. The purpose of this work is to develop a system for automated time-resolved commissioning and QA of VMAT control systems which meets these criteria.

METHODS

The procedures developed within this work rely solely on images obtained, using an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) without the presence of a phantom. During the delivery of specially designed VMAT test plans, EPID frames were acquired at 9.5 Hz, using a frame grabber. The set of test plans was developed to individually assess the performance of the dose delivery and multileaf collimator (MLC) control systems under varying levels of delivery complexities. An in-house software tool was developed to automatically extract features from the EPID images and evaluate the following characteristics as a function of gantry angle: dose delivery accuracy, dose rate constancy, beam profile constancy, gantry speed constancy, dynamic MLC positioning accuracy, MLC speed and acceleration constancy, and synchronization between gantry angle, MLC positioning and dose rate. Machine log files were also acquired during each delivery and subsequently compared to information extracted from EPID image frames.

RESULTS

The largest difference between measured and planned dose at any gantry angle was 0.8% which correlated with rapid changes in dose rate and gantry speed. For all other test plans, the dose delivered was within 0.25% of the planned dose for all gantry angles. Profile constancy was not found to vary with gantry angle for tests where gantry speed and dose rate were constant, however, for tests with varying dose rate and gantry speed, segments with lower dose rate and higher gantry speed exhibited less profile stability. MLC positional accuracy was not observed to be dependent on the degree of interdigitation. MLC speed was measured for each individual leaf and slower leaf speeds were shown to be compensated for by lower dose rates. The test procedures were found to be sensitive to 1 mm systematic MLC errors, 1 mm random MLC errors, 0.4 mm MLC gap errors and synchronization errors between the MLC, dose rate and gantry angle controls systems of 1°. In general, parameters measured by both EPID and log files agreed with the plan, however, a greater average departure from the plan was evidenced by the EPID measurements.

CONCLUSION

QA test plans and analysis methods have been developed to assess the performance of each dynamic component of VMAT deliveries individually and as a function of gantry angle. This methodology relies solely on time-resolved EPID imaging without the presence of a phantom and has been shown to be sensitive to a range of delivery errors. The procedures developed in this work are both comprehensive and time-efficient and can be used for streamlined commissioning and QA of VMAT delivery systems.

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy dose verification using fluence and portal imaging device

Patient‐specific quality assurance for intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) dose verification is essential. The aim of this study is to provide a new method based on the relative error distribution by comparing the fluence map from the treatment planning system (TPS) and the incident fluence deconvolved from the electronic portal imaging device (EPID) images. This method is validated for 10 head and neck IMRT cases. The fluence map of each beam was exported from the TPS and EPID images of the treatment beams were acquired. Measured EPID images were deconvolved to the incident fluence with proper corrections. The relative error distribution between the TPS fluence map and the incident fluence from the EPID was created. This was also created for a 2D diode array detector. The absolute point dose was measured with an ionization chamber, and the dose distribution was measured by a radiochromic film. In three cases, MLC leaf positions were intentionally changed to create the dose error as much as 5% against the planned dose and our fluence‐based method was tested using gamma index. Absolute errors between the predicted dose of 2D diode detector and of our method and measurements were 1.26%±0.65% and 0.78%±0.81% respectively. The gamma passing rate (3% global / 3 mm) of the TPS was higher than that of the 2D diode detector (p<0.02), and lower than that of the EPID (p<0.04). The gamma passing rate (2% global / 2 mm) of the TPS was higher than that of the 2D diode detector, while the gamma passing rate of the TPS was lower than that of EPID (p<0.02). For three modified plans, the predicted dose errors against the measured dose were 1.10%, 2.14%, and −0.87%. The predicted dose distributions from the EPID were well matched to the measurements. Our fluence‐based method provides very accurate dosimetry for IMRT patients. The method is simple and can be adapted to any clinic for complex cases.

PACS numbers: 87.55.D‐, 87.55.km, 87.55.Qr, 87.57.uq

Dose calibration of EPIDs for segmented IMRT dosimetry

The purpose of this study was to investigate the dose response of amorphous silicon (a‐Si) electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs) under different acquisition settings for both open jaw defined fields and segmented intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) fields. Four different EPIDs were used. Two Siemens and one Elekta plus a standalone Perkin Elmer research EPID. Each was operated with different acquisition systems and settings. Dose response linearity was measured for open static jaw defined fields and ‘simple’ segmented IMRT fields for a range of equipment and system settings. Six ‘simple’ segmented IMRT fields were used. The segments of each IMRT field were fixed at 10×10cm2 field size with equal MU per segment, each field having a total of 20 MU. Simultaneous measurements with an ionization chamber array (ICA) and EPID were performed to separate beam and detector response characteristics. Three different pixel calibration methods were demonstrated and compared for an example ‘clinical IMRT field’. The dose response with the Elekta EPID for ‘simple’ segmented IMRT fields versus static fields agreed to within 2.5% for monitor unit (MU)≥2. The dose response for the Siemens systems was difficult to interpret due to the poor reproducibility for segmented delivery, at MU≤5, which was not observed with the standalone research EPID nor ICA on the same machine. The dose response measured under different acquisition settings and different linac/EPID combinations matched closely (≤1%), except for the Siemens EPID. Clinical IMRT EPID dosimetry implemented with the different pixel‐to‐dose calibration methods indicated that calibration at 20 MU provides equivalent results to implementing a ghosting correction model. The nonlinear dose response was consistent across both clinical EPIDs and the standalone research EPID, with the exception of the poor reproducibility seen with Siemens EPID images of IMRT fields. The nonlinear dose response was relatively insensitive to acquisition settings and appears to be primarily due to gain ghosting effects. No additional ghosting correction factor is necessary when the pixel‐to‐dose calibration factor at small MU calibration method is used.

PACS numbers: 87.53.Bn, 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc, 87.57.uq

Sensitivity of an Elekta iView GT a-Si EPID model to delivery errors for pre-treatment verification of IMRT fields

A Monte Carlo model of an Elekta iViewGT amorphous silicon electronic portal imaging device (a-Si EPID) has been validated for pre-treatment verification of clinical IMRT treatment plans. The simulations involved the use of the BEAMnrc and DOSXYZnrc Monte Carlo codes to predict the response of the iViewGT a-Si EPID model. The predicted EPID images were compared to the measured images obtained from the experiment. The measured EPID images were obtained by delivering a photon beam from an Elekta Synergy linac to the Elekta iViewGT a-Si EPID. The a-Si EPID was used with no additional build-up material. Frame averaged EPID images were acquired and processed using in-house software. The agreement between the predicted and measured images was analyzed using the gamma analysis technique with acceptance criteria of 3 %/3 mm. The results show that the predicted EPID images for four clinical IMRT treatment plans have a good agreement with the measured EPID signal. Three prostate IMRT plans were found to have an average gamma pass rate of more than 95.0 % and a spinal IMRT plan has the average gamma pass rate of 94.3 %. During the period of performing this work a routine MLC calibration was performed and one of the IMRT treatments re-measured with the EPID. A change in the gamma pass rate for one field was observed. This was the motivation for a series of experiments to investigate the sensitivity of the method by introducing delivery errors, MLC position and dosimetric overshoot, into the simulated EPID images. The method was found to be sensitive to 1 mm leaf position errors and 10 % overshoot errors.

A two-dimensional matrix correction for off-axis portal dose prediction errors

PURPOSE

This study presents a follow-up to a modified calibration procedure for portal dosimetry published by Bailey et al. ["An effective correction algorithm for off-axis portal dosimetry errors," Med. Phys. 36, 4089-4094 (2009)]. A commercial portal dose prediction system exhibits disagreement of up to 15% (calibrated units) between measured and predicted images as off-axis distance increases. The previous modified calibration procedure accounts for these off-axis effects in most regions of the detecting surface, but is limited by the simplistic assumption of radial symmetry.

METHODS

We find that a two-dimensional (2D) matrix correction, applied to each calibrated image, accounts for off-axis prediction errors in all regions of the detecting surface, including those still problematic after the radial correction is performed. The correction matrix is calculated by quantitative comparison of predicted and measured images that span the entire detecting surface. The correction matrix was verified for dose-linearity, and its effectiveness was verified on a number of test fields. The 2D correction was employed to retrospectively examine 22 off-axis, asymmetric electronic-compensation breast fields, five intensity-modulated brain fields (moderate-high modulation) manipulated for far off-axis delivery, and 29 intensity-modulated clinical fields of varying complexity in the central portion of the detecting surface.

RESULTS

Employing the matrix correction to the off-axis test fields and clinical fields, predicted vs measured portal dose agreement improves by up to 15%, producing up to 10% better agreement than the radial correction in some areas of the detecting surface. Gamma evaluation analyses (3 mm, 3% global, 10% dose threshold) of predicted vs measured portal dose images demonstrate pass rate improvement of up to 75% with the matrix correction, producing pass rates that are up to 30% higher than those resulting from the radial correction technique alone. As in the 1D correction case, the 2D algorithm leaves the portal dosimetry process virtually unchanged in the central portion of the detector, and thus these correction algorithms are not needed for centrally located fields of moderate size (at least, in the case of 6 MV beam energy).

CONCLUSION

The 2D correction improves the portal dosimetry results for those fields for which the 1D correction proves insufficient, especially in the inplane, off-axis regions of the detector. This 2D correction neglects the relatively smaller discrepancies that may be caused by backscatter from nonuniform machine components downstream from the detecting layer.

Optimized Varian aSi portal dosimetry: development of datasets for collective use

Although much literature has been devoted to portal dosimetry with the Varian amorphous silicon (aSi) portal imager, the majority of the described methods are not routinely adopted because implementation procedures are cumbersome and not within easy reach of most radiotherapy centers. To make improved portal dosimetry solutions more generally available, we have investigated the possibility of converting optimized configurations into ready-to-use standardized datasets. Firstly, for all commonly used photon energies (6, 10, 15, 18, and 20 MV), basic beam data acquired on 20 aSi panels were used to assess the interpanel reproducibility. Secondly, a standardized portal dose image prediction (PDIP) algorithm configuration was created for every energy, using a three-step process to optimize the aSi dose response function and profile correction files for the dosimetric calibration of the imager panel. An approximate correction of the backscatter of the Exact arm was also incorporated. Thirdly, a set of validation fields was assembled to assess the accuracy of the standardized configuration. Variations in the basic beam data measured on different aSi panels very rarely exceeded 2% (2 mm) and are of the same order of magnitude as variations between different Clinacs when measuring in reference conditions in water. All studied aSi panels can hence be regarded as nearly identical. Standardized datasets were successfully created and implemented. The test package proved useful in highlighting possible problems and illustrating remaining limitations, but also in demonstrating the good overall results (95% pass rate for 3%,3 mm) that can be obtained. The dosimetric behavior of all tested aSi panels was found to be nearly identical for all tested energies. The approach of using standardized datasets was then successfully tested through the creation and evaluation of PDIP preconfigured datasets that can be used within the Varian portal dosimetry solution.

EPID dosimetry for pretreatment quality assurance with two commercial systems

This study compares the EPID dosimetry algorithms of two commercial systems for pretreatment QA, and analyzes dosimetric measurements made with each system alongside the results obtained with a standard diode array. 126 IMRT fields are examined with both EPID dosimetry systems (EPIDose by Sun Nuclear Corporation, Melbourne FL, and Portal Dosimetry by Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto CA) and the diode array, MapCHECK (also by Sun Nuclear Corporation). Twenty-six VMAT arcs of varying modulation complexity are examined with the EPIDose and MapCHECK systems. Optimization and commissioning testing of the EPIDose physics model is detailed. Each EPID IMRT QA system is tested for sensitivity to critical TPS beam model errors. Absolute dose gamma evaluation (3%, 3 mm, 10% threshold, global normalization to the maximum measured dose) yields similar results (within 1%-2%) for all three dosimetry modalities, except in the case of off-axis breast tangents. For these off-axis fields, the Portal Dosimetry system does not adequately model EPID response, though a previously-published correction algorithm improves performance. Both MapCHECK and EPIDose are found to yield good results for VMAT QA, though limitations are discussed. Both the Portal Dosimetry and EPIDose algorithms, though distinctly different, yield similar results for the majority of clinical IMRT cases, in close agreement with a standard diode array. Portal dose image prediction may overlook errors in beam modeling beyond the calculation of the actual fluence, while MapCHECK and EPIDose include verification of the dose calculation algorithm, albeit in simplified phantom conditions (and with limited data density in the case of the MapCHECK detector). Unlike the commercial Portal Dosimetry package, the EPIDose algorithm (when sufficiently optimized) allows accurate analysis of EPID response for off-axis, asymmetric fields, and for orthogonal VMAT QA. Other forms of QA are necessary to supplement the limitations of the Portal Vision Dosimetry system.

A study on dosimetric properties of electronic portal imaging device and its use as a quality assurance tool in Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy

AIM

In this study, the dosimetric properties of the electronic portal imaging device were examined and the quality assurance testing of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy was performed.

BACKGROUND

RapidArc involves the variable dose rate, leaf speed and the gantry rotation. The imager was studied for the effects like dose, dose rate, field size, leaf speed and sag during gantry rotation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Varian RapidArc machine equipped with 120 multileaf collimator and amorphous silicon detector was used for the study. The characteristics that are variable in RapidArc treatment were studied for the portal imager. The accuracy of a dynamic multileaf collimator position at different gantry angles and during gantry rotation was examined using the picket fence test. The control of the dose rate and gantry speed was verified using a test field irradiating seven strips of the same dose with different dose rate and gantry speeds. The control over leaf speed during arc was verified by irradiating four strips of different leaf speeds with the same dose in each strip. To verify the results, the RapidArc test procedure was compared with the X-Omat film and verified for a period of 6 weeks using EPID.

RESULTS

The effect of gantry rotation on leaf accuracy was minimal. The dose in segments showed good agreement with mean deviation of 0.8% for dose rate control and 1.09% for leaf speed control over different gantry speeds.

CONCLUSION

The results provided a precise control of gantry speed, dose rate and leaf speeds during RapidArc delivery and were consistent over 6 weeks.

QA of dynamic MLC based on EPID portal dosimetry

PURPOSE

Dynamic delivery of intensity modulated beams (dIMRT) requires not only accurate verification of leaf positioning but also a control on the speed of motion. The latter is a parameter that has a major impact on the dose delivered to the patient. Time consumed in quality assurance (QA) procedures is an issue of relevance in any radiotherapy department. Electronic portal imaging dosimetry (EPID) can be very efficient for routine tests. The purpose of this work is to investigate the ability of our EPID for detecting small errors in leaf positioning, and to present our daily QA procedures for dIMRT based on EPID.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A Varian 2100 CD Clinac equipped with an 80 leaf Millennium MLC and with amorphous silicon based EPID (aS500, Varian) is used. The daily QA program consists in performing: Stability check of the EPID signal, Garden fence test, Sweeping slit test, and Leaf speed test.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The EPID system exhibits good long term reproducibility. The mean portal dose at the centre of a 10 × 10 cm(2) static field was 1.002 ± 0.004 (range 1.013-0.995) for the period evaluated of 47 weeks. Garden fence test shows that leaf position errors of up to 0.2 mm can be detected. With the Sweeping slit test we are able to detect small deviations on the gap width and errors of individual leaves of 0.5 and 0.2 mm. With the Leaf speed test problems due to motor fatigue or friction between leaves can be detected.

CONCLUSIONS

This set of tests takes no longer than 5 min in the linac treatment room. With EPID dosimetry, a consistent daily QA program can be applied, giving complete information about positioning/speed MLC.

An effective correction algorithm for off-axis portal dosimetry errors

Portal dosimetric images acquired for IMRT pretreatment verification show dose errors of up to 15% near the detector edges as compared to dose predictions calculated by a treatment planning system for these off-axis regions. A method is proposed to account for these off-axis effects by precisely correcting the off-axis output factors, which calibrate the imager for absolute dose. Using this method, agreement between the predicted and the measured doses improves by up to 15% for fields near the detector edges, resulting in passing rate improvements of as much as 60% for gamma evaluation of 3 mm, 3% within the collimator jaws.

[Quality assurance of enhanced dynamic wedge using the aS500-II, EPID]

PURPOSE

The work presented herein rests on the study of the Varian EPID aS500-II and the Image Acquisition system IAS3. We assessed the dosimetric performance of this EPID for measurements and quality assurance of enhanced dynamic wedge profiles and wedge factors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We evaluated the dosimeter properties using the integrated asynchronous mode of acquisition in treatments with enhanced dynamic wedges (EDW). We studied the performance, stability and the reproducibility in measurements of the transmission factors and profiles of the fields with dynamic wedges. EPID profiles were compared to the "Profiler Sun Nuclear" diode array and PTW ion chamber. Analytical functions were developed in order to correct EDW profiles. The dependence of EPID measurements on wedge direction, beam dimensions and source to EPID distance was assessed.

RESULTS

The backscatter produced by the "exact arm" was evaluated; EPID profiles depended on the EDW direction and on the detector source distance. Wedge factors were determined using this detector and compared to the ion chamber response, differences were all within 1 %. Two empirical correction functions were developed to produce EPID wedge profiles that correspond to diode for all wedge angles and energies depending on the wedge direction.

CONCLUSION

The EPID is highly suited to regular measurement of EDW due to the reproducibility of the EPID-measured wedge factors and profiles.

Monte Carlo-based adaptive EPID dose kernel accounting for different field size responses of imagers

The aim of this study is to present an efficient method to generate imager-specific Monte Carlo (MC)-based dose kernels for amorphous silicon-based electronic portal image device dose prediction and determine the effective backscattering thicknesses for such imagers. EPID field size-dependent responses were measured for five matched Varian accelerators from three institutions with 6 MV beams at the source to detector distance (SDD) of 105 cm. For two imagers, measurements were made with and without the imager mounted on the robotic supporting arm. Monoenergetic energy deposition kernels with 0-2.5 cm of water backscattering thicknesses were simultaneously computed by MC to a high precision. For each imager, the backscattering thickness required to match measured field size responses was determined. The monoenergetic kernel method was validated by comparing measured and predicted field size responses at 150 cm SDD, 10 x 10 cm2 multileaf collimator (MLC) sliding window fields created with 5, 10, 20, and 50 mm gaps, and a head-and-neck (H&N) intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) patient field. Field size responses for the five different imagers deviated by up to 1.3%. When imagers were removed from the robotic arms, response deviations were reduced to 0.2%. All imager field size responses were captured by using between 1.0 and 1.6 cm backscatter. The predicted field size responses by the imager-specific kernels matched measurements for all involved imagers with the maximal deviation of 0.34%. The maximal deviation between the predicted and measured field size responses at 150 cm SDD is 0.39%. The maximal deviation between the predicted and measured MLC sliding window fields is 0.39%. For the patient field, gamma analysis yielded that 99.0% of the pixels have gamma < 1 by the 2%, 2 mm criteria with a 3% dose threshold. Tunable imager-specific kernels can be generated rapidly and accurately in a single MC simulation. The resultant kernels are imager position independent and are able to predict fields with varied incident energy spectra and a H&N IMRT patient field. The proposed adaptive EPID dose kernel method provides the necessary infrastructure to build reliable and accurate portal dosimetry systems.

The GLAaS algorithm for portal dosimetry and quality assurance of RapidArc, an intensity modulated rotational therapy

BACKGROUND

To expand and test the dosimetric procedure, known as GLAaS, for amorphous silicon detectors to the RapidArc intensity modulated arc delivery with Varian infrastructures and to test the RapidArc dosimetric reliability between calculation and delivery.

METHODS

The GLAaS algorithm was applied and tested on a set of RapidArc fields at both low (6 MV) and high (18 MV) beam energies with a PV-aS1000 detector. Pilot tests for short arcs were performed on a 6 MV beam associated to a PV-aS500. RapidArc is a novel planning and delivery method in the category of intensity modulated arc therapies aiming to deliver highly modulated plans with variable MLC shapes, dose rate and gantry speed during rotation. Tests were repeated for entire (360 degrees) gantry rotations on composite dose plans and for short partial arcs (of approximately 6 or 12 degrees) to assess GLAaS and RapidArc mutual relationships on global and fine delivery scales. The gamma index concept of Low and the Modulation Index concept of Webb were applied to compare quantitatively TPS dose matrices and dose converted PV images.

RESULTS

The Gamma Agreement Index computed for a Distance to Agreement of 3 mm and a Dose Difference (DeltaD) of 3% was, as mean +/- 1 SD, 96.7 +/- 1.2% at 6 MV and 94.9 +/- 1.3% at 18 MV, over the field area. These findings deteriorated slightly is DeltaD was reduced to 2% (93.4 +/- 3.2% and 90.1 +/- 3.1%, respectively) and improved with DeltaD = 4% (98.3 +/- 0.8% and 97.3 +/- 0.9%, respectively). For all tests a grid of 1 mm and the AAA photon dose calculation algorithm were applied. The spatial resolution of the PV-aS1000 is 0.392 mm/pxl. The Modulation Index for calculations resulted 17.0 +/- 3.2 at 6 MV and 15.3 +/- 2.7 at 18 MV while the corresponding data for measurements were: 18.5 +/- 3.7 and 17.5 +/- 3.7. Partial arcs findings were (for DeltaD = 3%): GAI = 96.7 +/- 0.9% for 6 degrees rotations and 98.0 +/- 1.1% for 12 degrees rotations.

CONCLUSION

The GLAaS method can be considered as a valid Quality Assurance tool for the verification of RapidArc fields. The two implementations (composite rotation or short arcs) allow the verification of either the entire delivery or of short partial segments to possibly identify local discrepancies between delivery and calculations. RapidArc, according to the findings, appears to be a safe delivery method in terms of dosimetric accuracy allowing its clinical application.

A literature review of electronic portal imaging for radiotherapy dosimetry

Electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs) have been the preferred tools for verification of patient positioning for radiotherapy in recent decades. Since EPID images contain dose information, many groups have investigated their use for radiotherapy dose measurement. With the introduction of the amorphous-silicon EPIDs, the interest in EPID dosimetry has been accelerated because of the favourable characteristics such as fast image acquisition, high resolution, digital format, and potential for in vivo measurements and 3D dose verification. As a result, the number of publications dealing with EPID dosimetry has increased considerably over the past approximately 15 years. The purpose of this paper was to review the information provided in these publications. Information available in the literature included dosimetric characteristics and calibration procedures of various types of EPIDs, strategies to use EPIDs for dose verification, clinical approaches to EPID dosimetry, ranging from point dose to full 3D dose distribution verification, and current clinical experience. Quality control of a linear accelerator, pre-treatment dose verification and in vivo dosimetry using EPIDs are now routinely used in a growing number of clinics. The use of EPIDs for dosimetry purposes has matured and is now a reliable and accurate dose verification method that can be used in a large number of situations. Methods to integrate 3D in vivo dosimetry and image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) procedures, such as the use of kV or MV cone-beam CT, are under development. It has been shown that EPID dosimetry can play an integral role in the total chain of verification procedures that are implemented in a radiotherapy department. It provides a safety net for simple to advanced treatments, as well as a full account of the dose delivered. Despite these favourable characteristics and the vast range of publications on the subject, there is still a lack of commercially available solutions for EPID dosimetry. As strategies evolve and commercial products become available, EPID dosimetry has the potential to become an accurate and efficient means of large-scale patient-specific IMRT dose verification for any radiotherapy department.

Testing the portal imager GLAaS algorithm for machine quality assurance

Background

To report about enhancements introduced in the GLAaS calibration method to convert raw portal imaging images into absolute dose matrices and to report about application of GLAaS to routine radiation tests for linac quality assurance procedures programmes.

Methods

Two characteristic effects limiting the general applicability of portal imaging based dosimetry are the over-flattening of images (eliminating the "horns" and "holes" in the beam profiles induced by the presence of flattening filters) and the excess of backscattered radiation originated by the detector robotic arm supports. These two effects were corrected for in the new version of GLAaS formalism and results are presented to prove the improvements for different beams, detectors and support arms. GLAaS was also tested for independence from dose rate (fundamental to measure dynamic wedges).

With the new corrections, it is possible to use GLAaS to perform standard tasks of linac quality assurance. Data were acquired to analyse open and wedged fields (mechanical and dynamic) in terms of output factors, MU/Gy, wedge factors, profile penumbrae, symmetry and homogeneity. In addition also 2D Gamma Evaluation was applied to measurement to expand the standard QA methods. GLAaS based data were compared against calculations on the treatment planning system (the Varian Eclipse) and against ion chamber measurements as consolidated benchmark. Measurements were performed mostly on 6 MV beams from Varian linacs. Detectors were the PV-as500/IAS2 and the PV-as1000/IAS3 equipped with either the robotic R- or Exact- arms.

Results

Corrections for flattening filter and arm backscattering were successfully tested. Percentage difference between PV-GLAaS measurements and Eclipse calculations relative doses at the 80% of the field size, for square and rectangular fields larger than 5 × 5 cm² showed a maximum range variation of -1.4%, + 1.7% with a mean variation of <0.5%. For output factors, average percentage difference between GLAaS and Eclipse (or ion chamber) data was -0.4 ± 0.7 (-0.2 ± 0.4) respectively on square fields. Minimum, maximum and average percentage difference between GLAaS and Eclipse (or ion chamber) data in the flattened field region were: 0.1 ± 1.0, 0.7 ± 0.8, 0.1 ± 0.4 (1.0 ± 1.4, -0.3 ± 0.2, -0.1 ± 0.2) respectively. Similar minimal deviations were observed for flatness and symmetry.

For Dynamic wedges, percentage difference of MU/Gy between GLAaS and Eclipse (or ion chamber) was: -1.1 ± 1.6 (0.4 ± 0.7). Minimum, maximum and average percentage difference between GLAaS and Eclipse (or ion chamber) data in the flattened field region were: 0.4 ± 1.6, -1.5 ± 1.8, -0.1 ± 0.3 (-2.2 ± 2.3, 2.3 ± 1.2, 0.8 ± 0.3) respectively.

For mechanical wedges differences of transmission factors were <1.6% (Eclipse) and <1.1% (ion chamber) for all wedges. Minimum, maximum and average percentage difference between GLAaS and Eclipse (or ion chamber) data in the flattened field region were: -1.3 ± 0.7, -0.7 ± 0.7, -0.2 ± 0.2 (-0.8 ± 0.8, 0.7 ± 1.1, 0.2 ± 0.3) respectively.

Conclusion

GLAaS includes now efficient methods to correct for missing "horns" and "holes" induced by flattening filter in the beam and to compensate for excessive backscattering from the support arm. These enhancements allowed to use GLAaS based dosimetric measurement to perform standard tasks of Linac quality assurance with reliable and consistent results. This fast method could be applied to routine practice being also fast in usage and because it allows the introduction of new analysis tools in routine QA by means, e.g., of the Gamma Index analysis.