Improvements in dose calculation accuracy for small off-axis targets in high dose per fraction tomotherapy

AAPM Task Group Report 306: Quality control and assurance for tomotherapy: An update to Task Group Report 148

Since the publication of AAPM Task Group (TG) 148 on quality assurance (QA) for helical tomotherapy, there have been many new developments on the tomotherapy platform involving treatment delivery, on-board imaging options, motion management, and treatment planning systems (TPSs). In response to a need for guidance on quality control (QC) and QA for these technologies, the AAPM Therapy Physics Committee commissioned TG 306 to review these changes and make recommendations related to these technology updates. The specific objectives of this TG were (1) to update, as needed, recommendations on tolerance limits, frequencies and QC/QA testing methodology in TG 148, (2) address the commissioning and necessary QA checks, as a supplement to Medical Physics Practice Guidelines (MPPG) with respect to tomotherapy TPS and (3) to provide risk-based recommendations on the new technology implemented clinically and treatment delivery workflow. Detailed recommendations on QA tests and their tolerance levels are provided for dynamic jaws, binary multileaf collimators, and Synchrony motion management. A subset of TPS commissioning and QA checks in MPPG 5.a. applicable to tomotherapy are recommended. In addition, failure mode and effects analysis has been conducted among TG members to obtain multi-institutional analysis on tomotherapy-related failure modes and their effect ranking.

Independent calculation of dose distributions for helical tomotherapy using a conventional treatment planning system

PURPOSE

The dosimetric verification of treatment plans in helical tomotherapy usually is carried out via verification measurements. In this study, a method for independent dose calculation of tomotherapy treatment plans is presented, that uses a conventional treatment planning system with a pencil kernel dose calculation algorithm for generation of verification dose distributions based on patient CT data.

METHODS

A pencil beam algorithm that directly uses measured beam data was configured for dose calculation for a tomotherapy machine. Tomotherapy treatment plans were converted into a format readable by an in-house treatment planning system by assigning each projection to one static treatment field and shifting the calculation isocenter for each field in order to account for the couch movement. The modulation of the fluence for each projection is read out of the delivery sinogram, and with the kernel-based dose calculation, this information can directly be used for dose calculation without the need for decomposition of the sinogram. The sinogram values are only corrected for leaf output and leaf latency. Using the converted treatment plans, dose was recalculated with the independent treatment planning system. Multiple treatment plans ranging from simple static fields to real patient treatment plans were calculated using the new approach and either compared to actual measurements or the 3D dose distribution calculated by the tomotherapy treatment planning system. In addition, dose-volume histograms were calculated for the patient plans.

RESULTS

Except for minor deviations at the maximum field size, the pencil beam dose calculation for static beams agreed with measurements in a water tank within 2%/2 mm. A mean deviation to point dose measurements in the cheese phantom of 0.89% ± 0.81% was found for unmodulated helical plans. A mean voxel-based deviation of -0.67% ± 1.11% for all voxels in the respective high dose region (dose values >80%), and a mean local voxel-based deviation of -2.41% ± 0.75% for all voxels with dose values >20% were found for 11 modulated plans in the cheese phantom. Averaged over nine patient plans, the deviations amounted to -0.14% ± 1.97% (voxels >80%) and -0.95% ± 2.27% (>20%, local deviations). For a lung case, mean voxel-based deviations of more than 4% were found, while for all other patient plans, all mean voxel-based deviations were within ± 2.4%.

CONCLUSIONS

The presented method is suitable for independent dose calculation for helical tomotherapy within the known limitations of the pencil beam algorithm. It can serve as verification of the primary dose calculation and thereby reduce the need for time-consuming measurements. By using the patient anatomy and generating full 3D dose data, and combined with measurements of additional machine parameters, it can substantially contribute to overall patient safety.