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

Dosimetric commissioning of a high-resolution CMOS 2D detector array for patient-specific QA of single-isocenter multi-target VMAT stereotactic radiosurgery

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) using the single-isocenter-multiple-target (SIMT) technique by volumetric modulated arc therapy is increasingly popular for treating multiple brain metastases. However, the complex nature of SIMT SRS necessitates rigorous patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA). This study presents a multi-institutional dosimetric commissioning of a high-resolution complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) 2D detector array, the myQA SRS device for SIMT SRS PSQA. Basic dosimetric properties such as dose-rate, field-size, energy and angular dependencies were characterized for the CMOS detectors. Additionally, gamma index analyses were performed between the measured dose and the films for nine simulated and clinical plans. The results showed that the CMOS detector was dose-rate, field-size, energy and beam-angle dependent. Specific to SIMT SRS, angular dependence on gantry rotations was invariant to couch rotations but was sensitive to off-isocenter distances. With appropriate dose calibration and angular corrections, myQA SRS showed a high dosimetric correlation with films. The average gamma index pass rates were 99.9 ± 0.03% and 99.2 ± 1.1% at 3%/2 mm/10%thr(global) and 1 mm/1%/10%thr(local) criteria, respectively. The average dose difference between myQA SRS and films was 0.4 ± 1.3%. In conclusion, the CMOS 2D detector array has demonstrated its potential as a reliable tool for PSQA for SIMT SRS. The excellent dosimetric agreement with the films was consistent in multiple institutions, further validating the dosimetric accuracy and reproducibility. It provides a timely alternative to film dosimetry for commissioning and quality assurance.

Evaluation of Perkin Elmer Amorphous Silicon Electronic Portal Imaging Device for Small Photon Field Dosimetry

Background

Electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs) are applied to measure the dose and verify patients' position.

Objective

The present study aims to evaluate the performance of EPID for measuring dosimetric parameters in small photon fields.

Material and Methods

In this experimental study, the output factors and beam profiles were obtained using the amorphous silicon (a-Si) EPID for square field sizes ranging from 1×1 to 10×10 cm2 at energies 6 and 18 mega-voltage (MV). For comparison, the dosimetric parameters were measured with the pinpoint, diode, and Semiflex dosimeters. Additionally, the Monaco treatment planning system was selected to calculate the output factors and beam profiles.

Results

There was a significant difference between the output factors measured using the EPID and that measured with the other dosimeters for field sizes lower than 8×8 cm2. In the energy of 6 MV, the gamma passing rates (3%/3 mm) between EPID and diode profile were 98%, 98%, 95%, 94%, 93%, and 94% for 1×1, 2×2, 3×3, 4×4, 5×5, and 10×10 cm2, respectively. The measured penumbra width with EPID was higher compared to that measured by the diode dosimeter for both energies.

Conclusion

The EPID can measure the dosimetric parameters in small photon fields, especially for beam profiles and penumbra measurements.

Optimization of a commercial portal dose image prediction algorithm for pre-treatment verifications of plans using unflattened photon beams

Background

The aim was to improve the portal dosimetry-based quality assurance results of conventional treatment plans by adjusting the multileaf collimator (MLC) dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) and transmission (T) values of the anisotropic analytic algorithm (AAA) used for portal dose image prediction (PDIP).

Materials and methods

The AAA-based PDIP v. 16.1 algorithm (PDIP-AAA) of the Eclipse TPS was configured for 6 MV FFF energy. Optimal DLG and T values were achieved for this algorithm by comparing predicted versus measured portal images of the Chair pattern. Twenty clinical plans using 6 MV FFF beams were verified using the optimal PDIP-AAA algorithm and the standard PDIP v. 16 algorithm (PDIP-vE), configured using the van Esch package. The 3% global/2 mm gamma passing rates (GPRs) and average gamma indexes (AGIs) were computed for each acquired image. For each plan, the mean GPR (GPRmean) and mean GAI (GAImean) were compared for both algorithms. A 2-tailed Student t-test (α = 0.05) was used to evaluate whether there was a statistically significant difference.

Results

Optimal values of DLG = 0.1 mm and T = 0.01 were found for the PDIP-AAA algorithm, providing significantly better values of GPRmean and AGImean than PDIP-vE (p < 0.001). All plans verified with PIDP-AAA showed GPRmean ≥ 95%. In contrast, only 45% of the plans reported GPRmean ≥ 95% with the PDIP-vE algorithm.

Conclusions

The MLC parameters available in the PDIP-AAA model must be tuned to improve the accuracy of the predicted dose image. This work-around is not possible using the standard PDIP algorithm. The adjusted PDIP-AAA resulted in significantly better results than PDIP-vE.

Portal dosimetry correction method for validation of single isocenter VMAT plans for multiple brain metastases

Portal dosimetry is one option for verification of volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning for multiple brain metastases. However, due to the changing response of the portal imager with photon beam energy, the dose transmitted through closed multileaf collimator (MLC) leaves or narrow MLC gaps may be underestimated by the imager.

We present a simple method for correcting for these effects that may be implemented within the Eclipse treatment planning system. We recalculated the predicted portal dose with and without this correction for 20 multiple brain met VMAT plans. Before the correction, 3/20 composite plan fields passed our standard quality assurance (QA) criteria (54/80 individual fields); the average gamma passing rate for the composite plans was 76.9 ± 16.6%, and the average gamma value across the composite plans was 0.67 ± 0.23. After correction, 20/20 composite plan fields passed the QA criteria (80/80 individual fields); the average gamma passing rate for composite plans was 99.2 ± 1.4%, the average gamma value across the composite plans was 0.33 ± 0.90. A measure of plan complexity, the average leaf pair opening could be correlated to the gamma analysis results for the uncorrected plans but not for the corrected plans.

Predicting gamma evaluation results of patient-specific head and neck volumetric-modulated arc therapy quality assurance based on multileaf collimator patterns and fluence map features: A feasibility study

The purpose of this study was to develop a predictive model for patient-specific VMAT QA results using multileaf collimator (MLC) effect and texture analysis. The MLC speed, acceleration and texture analysis features were extracted from 106 VMAT plans as predictors. Gamma passing rate (GPR) was collected as a response class with gamma criteria of 2%/2 mm and 3%/2 mm. The model was trained using two machine learning methods: AdaBoost classification and bagged regression trees model. GPR was classified into the "PASS" and "FAIL" for the classification model using the institutional warning level. The accuracy of the model was assessed using sensitivity and specificity. In addition, the accuracy of the regression model was determined using the difference between predicted and measured GPR. For the AdaBoost classification model, the sensitivity/specificity was 94.12%/100% and 63.63%/53.13% at gamma criteria of 2%/2 mm and 3%/2 mm, respectively. For the bagged regression trees model, the sensitivity/specificity was 94.12%/91.89% and 61.18%/68.75% at gamma criteria of 2%/2 mm and 3%/2 mm, respectively. The root mean square error (RMSE) of difference between predicted and measured GPR was found at 2.44 and 1.22 for gamma criteria of 2%/2 mm and 3%/2 mm, respectively. The promising result was found at tighter gamma criteria 2%/2 mm with 94.12% sensitivity (both bagged regression trees and AdaBoost classification model) and 100% specificity (AdaBoost classification model).

The structural similarity index for IMRT quality assurance: radiomics-based error classification

PURPOSE

The implementation of radiomics and machine learning (ML) techniques on analyzing two-dimensional gamma maps has been demonstrated superior to the conventional gamma analysis for error identification in intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA). Recently, the Structural SIMilarity (SSIM) sub-index maps were shown to be able to reveal the error types of the dose distributions. In this study, we aimed to apply radiomics analysis on SSIM sub-index maps and develop ML models to classify delivery errors in patient-specific dynamic IMRT QA.

METHODS

Twenty-one sliding-window IMRT plans of 180 beams for three treatment sites were involved in this study. Four types of machine-related errors of various magnitudes were simulated for each beam at each control point, including the monitor unit (MU) variations, same-directional and opposite-directional shifts of the multileaf collimators (MLCs) and random mispositioning of the MLCs. In the QA process, a total of 1620 portal dose (PD) images were acquired for the beams with and without errors. The predicted PD images of the original beams were set as references. To quantify the agreement between a measured PD image and the corresponding predicted PD image, four difference maps including three SSIM sub-index maps, and one dose difference-derived map were calculated. Then, radiomic features were extracted from the four difference maps of each measured PD image. We tested four typical classifiers including linear discriminant classifier (LDC), two supporting vector machine (SVM) classifiers, and random forest (RF) for this multiclass classification task. A nested cross-validation scheme was used for model evaluations, where the SVM recursive feature elimination method was applied for feature selection. Finally, the performance of the ML model on identifying the error-free and the erroneous cases was compared to that of the conventional gamma analysis.

RESULTS

The statistics of the selected features showed that all of the difference maps and the feature categories made balanced contributions to solve this classification task. Best performance was achieved by the Linear-SVM model with average overall classification accuracy of 0.86. Specifically, the average classification accuracies of the shift, opening, and the random errors were around 0.9. Moreover, ~80% of error-free and MU errors were correctly classified. Using gamma analysis, the 3 mm/3% criterion was found insensitive to errors (sensitivity was only 0.33). Although the sensitivity to errors with the 2 mm/2% criterion increased to 0.79, still 8% worse than that of the ML model.

CONCLUSIONS

We proposed an ML-based method for machine-related error identification in patient-specific dynamic IMRT QA, where radiomic analysis on SSIM sub-index maps were used for feature extraction. With extensive validation to select the best features and classifiers, high accuracies in error classification were achieved. Compared with the conventional gamma threshold method, this approach has great potential in error identification for the patient-specific IMRT QA process.

[Study of Stability and Sensitivity of Three-dimensional Diode Array Detector]

PURPOSE

Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has become a widely accepted and efficient treatment technique for many types of cancers. Patient's specific quality assurance (QA) should be performed with QA devices. Stability and sensitivity tests conducted on the ArcCHECK (AC) 3D diode array were performed.

METHODS

Set-up error test with AC was performed. The set-up position moved to lateral (mm), longitudinal (mm) and rotational (°) were 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0, respectively. Sensitivity change test of diode array with AC through 230 days was also performed. Same array calibration data was applied to all measurements of volumetric-modulated arc therapy benchmark test through 230 days. Gamma method (2 mm/2% criteria) was performed to analyze the result of all measurements.

RESULTS

In the results of positional error, gamma pass rate become degenerate according to positional error became larger. With 0.5 mm or 0.5° positional error, decreasing rate of the pass rate of lateral, longitudinal and rotational were 1.0%, 2.5% and 4.2%, respectively. In the sensitivity change test, the gamma pass rate decreased 2.2%/100 days with same calibration data.

CONCLUSION

AC has highly sensitivity against positional error. Sensitivity of AC has been changed and pass rate was decreased 2.2%/100 days through 230 days. Array calibration should be performed in consideration of change of sensitivity.

IMRT QA using machine learning: A multi-institutional validation

Purpose

To validate a machine learning approach to Virtual intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA) for accurately predicting gamma passing rates using different measurement approaches at different institutions.

Methods

A Virtual IMRT QA framework was previously developed using a machine learning algorithm based on 498 IMRT plans, in which QA measurements were performed using diode‐array detectors and a 3%local/3 mm with 10% threshold at Institution 1. An independent set of 139 IMRT measurements from a different institution, Institution 2, with QA data based on portal dosimetry using the same gamma index, was used to test the mathematical framework. Only pixels with ≥10% of the maximum calibrated units (CU) or dose were included in the comparison. Plans were characterized by 90 different complexity metrics. A weighted poison regression with Lasso regularization was trained to predict passing rates using the complexity metrics as input.

Results

The methodology predicted passing rates within 3% accuracy for all composite plans measured using diode‐array detectors at Institution 1, and within 3.5% for 120 of 139 plans using portal dosimetry measurements performed on a per‐beam basis at Institution 2. The remaining measurements (19) had large areas of low CU, where portal dosimetry has a larger disagreement with the calculated dose and as such, the failure was expected. These beams need further modeling in the treatment planning system to correct the under‐response in low‐dose regions. Important features selected by Lasso to predict gamma passing rates were as follows: complete irradiated area outline (CIAO), jaw position, fraction of MLC leafs with gaps smaller than 20 or 5 mm, fraction of area receiving less than 50% of the total CU, fraction of the area receiving dose from penumbra, weighted average irregularity factor, and duty cycle.

Conclusions

We have demonstrated that Virtual IMRT QA can predict passing rates using different measurement techniques and across multiple institutions. Prediction of QA passing rates can have profound implications on the current IMRT process.

Pixel response-based EPID dosimetry for patient specific QA

Increasing use of high dose rate, flattening filter free (FFF), and/or small‐sized field beams presents a significant challenge to the medical physics community. In this work, we develop a strategy of using a high spatial resolution and high frame rate amorphous silicon flat panel electronic portal imaging device (EPID) for dosimetric measurements of these challenging cases, as well as for conventional external beam therapy. To convert a series of raw EPID‐measured radiation field images into water‐based dose distribution, a pixel‐to‐pixel dose–response function of the EPID specific to the linac is essential. The response function was obtained by using a Monte Carlo simulation of the photon transport in the EPID with a comprehensive calibration. After the raw image was converted into the primary incident photon fluence, the fluence was further convolved into a water‐based dose distribution of the dynamic field by using a pregenerated pencil‐beam kernel. The EPID‐based dosimetric measurement technique was validated using beams with and without flattening filter of all energies available in Varian TrueBeam STx™. Both regularly and irregularly shaped fields measured using a PTW 729 ion chamber array in plastic water phantom. The technique was also applied to measure the distribution for a total of 23 treatment plans of different energies to evaluate the accuracy of the proposed approach. The EPID measurements of square fields of 4 × 4 cm² to 20 × 20 cm², circular fields of 2–15 cm diameters, rectangular fields of various sizes, and irregular MLC fields were in accordance with measurements using a Farmer chamber and/or ion chamber array. The 2D absolute dose maps generated from EPID raw images agreed with ion chamber measurements to within 1.5% for all fields. For the 23 patient cases examined in this work, the average γ‐index passing rate were found to be 99.2 ± 0.6%, 97.4 ± 2.4%, and 72.6 ± 8.4%, respectively, for criterions of 3 mm/3%, 2 mm/2%, and 1 mm/1%. The high spatial resolution and high frame rate EPID provides an accurate and efficient dosimetric tool for QA of modern radiation therapy. Accurate absolute 2D dose maps can be generated from the system for an independent dosimetric verification of treatment delivery.

Development of an accurate EPID-based output measurement and dosimetric verification tool for electron beam therapy

PURPOSE

To develop an efficient and robust tool for output measurement and absolute dose verification of electron beam therapy by using a high spatial-resolution and high frame-rate amorphous silicon flat panel electronic portal imaging device (EPID).

METHODS

The dosimetric characteristics of the EPID, including saturation, linearity, and ghosting effect, were first investigated on a Varian Clinac 21EX accelerator. The response kernels of the individual pixels of the EPID to all available electron energies (6, 9, 12, 16, and 20 MeV) were calculated by using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations, which formed the basis to deconvolve an EPID raw images to the incident electron fluence map. The two-dimensional (2D) dose distribution at reference depths in water was obtained by using the constructed fluence map with a MC simulated pencil beam kernel with consideration of the geometric and structural information of the EPID. Output factor measurements were carried out with the EPID at a nominal source-surface distance of 100 cm for 2 × 2, 3 × 3, 6 × 6, 10 × 10, and 15 × 15 cm(2) fields for all available electron energies, and the results were compared with that measured in a solid water phantom using film and a Farmer-type ion chamber. The dose distributions at a reference depth specific to each energy and the flatness and symmetry of the 10 × 10 cm(2) electron beam were also measured using EPID, and the results were compared with ion chamber array and water scan measurements. Finally, three patient cases with various field sizes and irregular cutout shapes were also investigated.

RESULTS

EPID-measured dose changed linearly with the monitor units and showed little ghosting effect for dose rate up to 600 MU/min. The flatness and symmetry measured with the EPID were found to be consistent with ion chamber array and water scan measurements. The EPID-measured output factors for standard square fields of 2 × 2, 3 × 3, 6 × 6, 10 × 10, 15 × 15 cm(2) agreed with film and ion chamber measurements. The average discrepancy between EPID and ion chamber/film measurements was 0.81% ± 0.60% (SD) and 1.34% ± 0.75%, respectively. For the three clinical cases, the difference in output between the EPID- and ion chamber array measured values was found to be 1.13% ± 0.11%, 0.54% ± 0.10%, and 0.74% ± 0.11%, respectively. Furthermore, the γ-index analysis showed an excellent agreement between the EPID- and ion chamber array measured dose distributions: 100% of the pixels passed the criteria of 3%/3 mm. When the γ-index was set to be 2%/2 mm, the pass rate was found to be 99.0% ± 0.07%, 98.2% ± 0.14%, and 100% for the three cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The EPID dosimetry system developed in this work provides an accurate and reliable tool for routine output measurement and dosimetric verification of electron beam therapy. Coupled with its portability and ease of use, the proposed system promises to replace the current film-based approach for fast and reliable assessment of small and irregular electron field dosimetry.

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

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.

aSi-EPID transit signal calibration for dynamic beams: a needful step for the IMRT in vivo dosimetry

This work reports a method based on correlation functions to convert EPID transit signals into in vivo dose values at the isocenter point, D_iso, of dynamic IMRT beams supplied by Varian linac. Dose reconstruction for intensity-modulated beams required significant corrections of EPID response, due to the X-ray component transmitted through multileaf collimator. The algorithm was formulated using a set of simulated IMRT beams. The beams were parameterized by means of a fluence inhomogeneity index, FI, introduced to describe the degree of beam modulation with respect to open beams. This way, all dosimetric parameters involved in D_iso reconstruction algorithm, such as the correlation functions, the correction factor for EPID to phantom distance and the modulated tissue maximum ratios, were determined as a function of the FI index. Clinical IMRT beams were used to irradiate a homogeneous phantom, and for each beam, the agreement between the reconstructed dose, D_iso, and the dose computed by TPS, D_iso,TPS, was well within 5 %. Moreover, the average ratios, R, between the D_iso, and D_iso,TPS, resulted equal to 1.002 ± 0.030. Thirty-five IMRT fields of 5 different patients undergoing radiotherapy for head–neck tumors were tested and the results were displayed on a computer screen after 2 min from the end of the treatment. However, 350 in vivo tests supplied an average ratio R equal to 1.004 ± 0.040. The in vivo dosimetry procedure here presented is among the objectives of a National Project financially supported by the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare for the development of in vivo dosimetry procedures (Piermattei et al. in Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 274:42–50, 2012) connected to the Record–Verify system of the radiotherapy center.

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.

Calculation of exit dose for conformal and dynamically-wedged fields, based on water-equivalent path length measured with an amorphous silicon electronic portal imaging device

In this study, we use the quadratic calibration method (QCM), in which an EPID image is converted into a matrix of equivalent path lengths (EPLs) and, therefore, exit doses, so as to model doses in conformal and enhanced dynamic wedge (EDW) fields. The QCM involves acquiring series of EPID images at a reference field size for different thicknesses of homogeneous solid water blocks. From these, a set of coefficients is established that is used to compute the EPL of any other irradiated material. To determine the EPL, the irradiated area must be known in order to establish the appropriate scatter correction. A method was devised for the automatic calculation of areas from the EPID image that facilitated the calculation of EPL for any field and exit dose. For EDW fields, the fitting coefficients were modified by utilizing the linac manufacturer's golden segmented treatment tables (GSTT) methodology and MU fraction model. The nonlinear response of the EPL with lower monitor units (MUs) was investigated and slight modification of the algorithm performed to account for this. The method permits 2D dose distributions at the exit of phantom or patient to be generated by relating the EPL with an appropriate depth dose table. The results indicate that the inclusion of MU correction improved the EPL determination. The irradiated field areas can be accurately determined from EPID images to within ± 1% uncertainty. Cross-plane profiles and 2D dose distributions of EPID predicted doses were compared with those calculated with the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) and those measured directly with MapCHECK 2 device. Comparison of the 2D EPID dose maps to those from TPS and MapCHECK shows that more than 90% of all points passed the gamma index acceptance criteria of 3% dose difference and 3 mm distance to agreement (DTA), for both conformal and EDW study cases. We conclude that the EPID QCM is an accurate and convenient method for in vivo dosimetry and may, therefore, complement existing techniques.

A fully electronic intensity-modulated radiation therapy quality assurance (IMRT QA) process implemented in a network comprised of independent treatment planning, record and verify, and delivery systems

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to implement an electronic method to perform and analyze intensity-modulated radiation therapy quality assurance (IMRT QA) using an aSi megavoltage electronic portal imaging device in a network comprised of independent treatment planning, record and verify (R&V), and delivery systems.

METHODS

A verification plan was generated in the treatment planning system using the actual treatment plan of a patient. After exporting the treatment fields to the R&V system, the fields were delivered in QA mode with the aSi imager deployed. The resulting dosimetric images are automatically stored in a DICOM-RT format in the delivery system treatment console computer. The relative dose density images are subsequently pushed to the R&V system. The absolute dose images are then transferred electronically from the treatment console computer to the treatment planning system and imported into the verification plan in the dosimetry work space for further analysis. Screen shots of the gamma evaluation and isodose comparison are imported into the R&V system as an electronic file (e.g. PDF) to be reviewed prior to initiation of patient treatment. A relative dose image predicted by the treatment planning system can also be sent to the R&V system to be compared with the relative dose density image measured with the aSi imager.

RESULTS

Our department does not have integrated planning, R&V, and delivery systems. In spite of this, we are able to fully implement a paperless and filmless IMRT QA process, allowing subsequent analysis and approval to be more efficient, while the QA document is directly attached to its specific patient chart in the R&V system in electronic form. The calculated and measured relative dose images can be compared electronically within the R&V system to analyze the density differences and ensure proper dose delivery to patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In the absence of an integrated planning, verifying, and delivery system, we have shown that it is nevertheless possible to develop a completely electronic IMRT QA process.

Evaluation of a fast method of EPID-based dosimetry for intensity-modulated radiation therapy

Electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs) could potentially be useful for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) QA. The data density, high resolution, large active area, and efficiency of the MV EPID make it an attractive option. However, EPIDs were designed as imaging devices, not dosimeters, and as a result they do not inherently measure dose in tissue equivalent media. EPIDose (Sun Nuclear, Melbourne, FL) is a tool designed for the use of EPIDs in IMRT QA that uses raw MV EPID images (no additional build-up and independent of gantry angle, but with dark and flood field corrections applied) to estimate absolute dose planes normal to the beam axis in a homogeneous media (i.e. similar to conventional IMRT QA methods). However, because of the inherent challenges of the EPID-based dosimetry, validating and commissioning such a system must be done very carefully, by exploring the range of use cases and using well-proven "standards" for comparison. In this work, a multi-institutional study was performed to verify accurate EPID image to dose plane conversion over a variety of conditions. Converted EPID images were compared to 2D diode array absolute dose measurements for 188 fields from 28 clinical IMRT treatment plans. These plans were generated using a number of commercially available treatment planning systems (TPS) covering various treatment sites including prostate, head and neck, brain, and lung. The data included three beam energies (6, 10, and 15 MV) and both step-and-shoot and dynamic MLC fields. Out of 26,207 points of comparison over 188 fields analyzed, the average overall field pass rate was 99.7% when 3 mm/3% DTA criteria were used (range 94.0-100 per field). The pass rates for more stringent criteria were 97.8% for 2mm/2% DTA (range 82.0-100 per field), and 84.6% for 1 mm/1% DTA (range 54.7-100 per field). Individual patient-specific sites as well, as different beam energies, followed similar trends to the overall pass rates.

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.