Report of AAPM Task Group 155: Megavoltage photon beam dosimetry in small fields and non-equilibrium conditions

Small-field dosimetry used in advance treatment technologies poses challenges due to loss of lateral charged particle equilibrium (LCPE), occlusion of the primary photon source, and the limited choice of suitable radiation detectors. These challenges greatly influence dosimetric accuracy. Many high-profile radiation incidents have demonstrated a poor understanding of appropriate methodology for small-field dosimetry. These incidents are a cause for concern because the use of small fields in various specialized radiation treatment techniques continues to grow rapidly. Reference and relative dosimetry in small and composite fields are the subject of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) dosimetry code of practice that has been published as TRS-483 and an AAPM summary publication (IAEA TRS 483; Dosimetry of small static fields used in external beam radiotherapy: An IAEA/AAPM International Code of Practice for reference and relative dose determination, Technical Report Series No. 483; Palmans et al., Med Phys 45(11):e1123, 2018). The charge of AAPM task group 155 (TG-155) is to summarize current knowledge on small-field dosimetry and to provide recommendations of best practices for relative dose determination in small megavoltage photon beams. An overview of the issue of LCPE and the changes in photon beam perturbations with decreasing field size is provided. Recommendations are included on appropriate detector systems and measurement methodologies. Existing published data on dosimetric parameters in small photon fields (e.g., percentage depth dose, tissue phantom ratio/tissue maximum ratio, off-axis ratios, and field output factors) together with the necessary perturbation corrections for various detectors are reviewed. A discussion on errors and an uncertainty analysis in measurements is provided. The design of beam models in treatment planning systems to simulate small fields necessitates special attention on the influence of the primary beam source and collimating devices in the computation of energy fluence and dose. The general requirements for fluence and dose calculation engines suitable for modeling dose in small fields are reviewed. Implementations in commercial treatment planning systems vary widely, and the aims of this report are to provide insight for the medical physicist and guidance to developers of beams models for radiotherapy treatment planning systems.

Reference dosimetry of modulated and dynamic photon beams

In the late 1980s, a new technique was proposed that would revolutionize radiotherapy. Now referred to as intensity-modulated radiotherapy, it is at the core of state-of-the-art photon beam delivery techniques, such as helical tomotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy. Despite over two decades of clinical application, there are still no established guidelines on the calibration of dynamic modulated photon beams. In 2008, the IAEA-AAPM work group on nonstandard photon beam dosimetry published a formalism to support the development of a new generation of protocols applicable to nonstandard beam reference dosimetry (Alfonso et al 2008 Med. Phys. 35 5179-86). The recent IAEA Code of Practice TRS-483 was published as a result of this initiative and addresses exclusively small static beams. But the plan-class specific reference calibration route proposed by Alfonso et al (2008 Med. Phys. 35 5179-86) is a change of paradigm that is yet to be implemented in radiotherapy clinics. The main goals of this paper are to provide a literature review on the dosimetry of nonstandard photon beams, including dynamic deliveries, and to discuss anticipated benefits and challenges in a future implementation of the IAEA-AAPM formalism on dynamic photon beams.

Small-cavity chamber dose response in megavoltage photon beams coupled to magnetic fields

In MRgRT, dosimetry measurements are performed in the presence of magnetic fields. For high-resolution measurements, small-cavity ionization chambers are required. While Monte Carlo simulations are essential to determine dosimetry correction factors, models of small-chambers require careful validation with experimental measurements. The aim of this study is to characterize small-cavity chamber response coupled to magnetic fields. Small-cavity chambers (PTW31010, PTW31016, PTW31021 and PTW3022) are irradiated by a 6 MV photon beam for 9 magnetic field strengths between -1.5 T and +1.5 T. The chamber axis is orientated either parallel or perpendicular to the irradiation beam, with the magnetic field always perpendicular to the beam. MC simulations are performed in EGSnrc. The sensitive volume of the chambers is reduced to account for the inefficiency adjacent to the guard electrode (dead volume) based on COMSOL calculations of electric potentials. The magnetic field affects the chamber response by up to 4.1% and 4.5% in the parallel and perpendicular orientations, respectively, compared to no magnetic field. The maximal difference in dose response between experiments and simulations is up to 6.1% and 4.5% for parallel and perpendicular orientation, respectively. When the dead volume is removed, which accounts for the 15%-23% of the nominal volume, the difference, in most cases, is within the stated uncertainties. Nevertheless, for a particular chamber, the reduced nominal volume barely improved the agreement between the experimental and calculated relative response (4.53% to 4.13%). This disagreement may be due to the imperfect chamber geometry model, as was found from microCT images. A detailed uncertainty analysis is presented. The characterization of small-cavity ion chamber response coupled to magnetic fields is complex. Small differences between real and model chamber geometry that normally would be insignificant become an issue in the presence of magnetic fields. Accurate characterization of the nominal volume is essential for small-cavity ion chamber modelling.

A novel method for the determination of field output factors and output correction factors for small static fields for six diodes and a microdiamond detector in megavoltage photon beams

Purpose

The goal of this work is to provide a large and consistent set of data for detector‐specific output correction factors, kQclin,Qreffclin,fref, for small static fields for seven solid‐state detectors and to determine field output factors, ΩQclin,Qreffclin,fref, using EBT3 radiochromic films and W1 plastic scintillator as reference detectors on two different linear accelerators and four megavoltage photon beams. Consistent measurement conditions and recommendations given in the International Code of Practice TRS‐483 for small‐field dosimetry were followed throughout the study.

Methods

ΩQclin,Qreffclin,fref were determined on two linacs, Elekta Versa HD and Varian TrueBeam, for 6 and 10 MV beams with and without flattening filter and for nine fields ranging from 0.5 × 0.5 cm² to 10 × 10 cm². Signal readings obtained with EBT3 radiochromic films and W1 plastic scintillator were fitted by an analytical function. Volume averaging correction factors, determined from two‐dimensional (2D) dose matrices obtained with EBT3 films and fitted to bivariate Gaussian function, were used to correct measured signals. kQclin,Qreffclin,fref were determined empirically for six diodes, IBA SFD, IBA Razor, PTW 60008 P, PTW 60012 E, PTW 60018 SRS, and SN EDGE, and a PTW 60019 microDiamond detector.

Results

Field output factors and detector‐specific kQclin,Qreffclin,fref are presented in the form of analytical functions as well as in the form of discrete values. It is found that in general, for a given linac, small‐field output factors need to be determined for every combination of beam energy and filtration (WFF or FFF) and field size as the differences between them can be statistically significant (P < 0.05). For different beam energies, the present data for kQclin,Qreffclin,fref are found to differ significantly (P < 0.05) from the corresponding data published in TRS‐483 mostly for the smallest fields (<1.5 cm). For the PTW microDiamond detector, statistically significant differences (P < 0.05) between kQclin,Qreffclin,fref values were found for all investigated beams on an Elekta Versa HD linac for field sizes 0.5 × 0.5 cm² and 0.8 × 0.8 cm². Significant differences in kQclin,Qreffclin,fref between beams of a given energy but with and without flattening filters are found for measurements made in small fields (<1.5 cm) at a given linac. Differences in kQclin,Qreffclin,fref are also found when measurements are made at different linacs using the same beam energy filtration combination; for the PTW microDiamond detector, these differences were found to be around 6% and were considered as significant.

Conclusions

Selection of two reference detectors, EBT3 films and W1 plastic scintillator, and use of an analytical function, is a novel approach for the determination of ΩQclin,Qreffclin,fref for small static fields in megavoltage photon beams. Large set of kQclin,Qreffclin,fref data for seven solid‐state detectors and four beam energies determined on two linacs by a single group of researchers can be considered a valuable supplement to the literature and the TRS‐483 dataset.

AAPM-RSS Medical Physics Practice Guideline 9.a. for SRS-SBRT

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education, and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8,000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States. The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner. Each medical physics practice guideline represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice guidelines and technical standards by those entities not providing these services is not authorized. The following terms are used in the AAPM practice guidelines: Must and Must Not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline. Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances. Approved by AAPM Professional Council 3-31-2017 and Executive Committee 4-4-2017.