A mathematical approach to beam matching

Evaluation of patient-specific quality assurance for fractionated stereotactic treatment plans with 6 and 10MV photon beams in beam-matched linacs

Beam-matched linear accelerators (LA's) require accurate and precise dosimetry for fractionated stereotactic treatment. In this study, the beam data were validated by comparing the three-beam-matched LA's measured data and the vendor reference data. Upon its validation, the accuracy of the volumetric dose delivery for eighty patient-specific fractionated stereotactic treatment plans was evaluated. Measurements of the percentage depth dose (PDD), beam profiles, output factors (OFs), absolute output, and dynamic multi-leaf collimator (MLC) transmission factors for 6 MV and 10 MV flattening filter (FF) and flattening filter-free (FFF) photon beams were obtained from three-beam-matched LA's. The patient-specific quality assurance evaluation for all eighty plans was performed using PTW Octavius 1000 SRS™ array detectors for two-dimensional (2D) fluence measurement. The following 2D gamma passing criteria were used: 1%/1 mm, 2%/1 mm, 1%/2 mm, 2%/2 mm and 3%/2 mm. In all three LA's, gamma analysis for PDD and profile were above 97% with gamma criteria of 1%/1 mm. The differences OFs, absolute output, and dynamic MLC transmission factors were less than ± 1% of base value. For all eighty cases, the median passing rates on the three LA's were above 76%, 88%, 92%, 96%, and 98% for the above-mentioned gamma criteria of the three LA's. The beam-matched LA's showed good agreement between the measured and treatment planning system (TPS) calculated values for fractionated stereotactic VMAT plans with 6 MV and 10 MV (FF and FFF) photon beams. Patients can be shifted and treated on any beam-matched linac without the need of re-planning.

Commissioning and validation of a single photon beam model in RayStation for multiple matched Elekta Linacs

PURPOSE

A single treatment planning system (TPS) model for matched linacs provides flexible clinical workflows from patient treatment to intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA) measurement. Since general guidelines for building a single TPS model and its validation for matched linacs are not well established, we present our RayStation photon TPS modeling strategy for matched Elekta VersaHD linacs.

METHOD

The four linacs installed from 2013 to 2020 were matched in terms of Percent Depth Dose (PDD), profile, output factor and wedge factors for 6-MV, 10-MV, 15-MV, and 6-MV-FFF, and maintained following TG-142 recommendations until RayStation commissioning. The RayStation single model was built to represent all four linacs within the tolerance limits recommended by MPPG-5.a. The comprehensive validation tests were performed for one linac following MPPG-5.a and TG-119 guidelines, and spot checks for the other three. Our TPS modeling/validation method was evaluated by re-analyzing the previous 103 patient-specific IMRT/volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) QA measurements with the calculated planar doses by the single model in comparison with the analysis results using four individual Pinnacle TPS models.

RESULTS

For all energies, our single model PDDs were within 1% agreement of the four-linac commissioning measurements. The MPPG-5.a validation tests from 5.1 through 7.5 and all TG-119 measurements passed within the recommended tolerance limits. The IMRT QA results (mean ± standard deviation) for RayStation single model versus Pinnacle individual models were 98.9% ± 1.3% and 98.0% ± 1.4% for 6-MV, 99.9% ± 0.1% and 99.1% ± 1.9% for 10-MV, and 98.2% ± 1.3% and 97.9% ± 1.8% for 6-MV-FFF, respectively.

CONCLUSION

We successfully built and validated a single photon beam model in RayStation for four Elekta Linacs. The proposed new validation methods were proven to be both efficient and effective.

Comparative dosimetric, setup margin, and treatment time analysis between ring gantry and C-Arm linear accelerators for VMAT-based craniospinal irradiation plans

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the dosimetric and treatment delivery characteristics of volumetric modulated arc therapy technique (VMAT)-based craniospinal axis irradiation (CSI) between ring gantry Halcyon (HAL) and C-arm based Novalis Tx (NTx) linear accelerator. Set-up margin and treatment delivery time for both machines were also taken into account.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifteen patients, 4 females and 11 males treated between March 2019 and February 2022 within the age group 4-56 years simulated in the supine position and were planned for multiple isocentre VMAT technique in ring gantry Halcyon and C-Arm Novalis linear accelerator for 6FFF and 6 MV flatten beam energy. The number of isocenters was the same in both the machines, usually three for adult adolescent age group patients and two for pediatric patients. Total on-couch time and the patient positional shift were captured for each isocenter during each session of treatment. Margins were calculated using Herk's formula of margin = 2.5Σ +0.7σ. Dosimetry, on-couch time, and set-up margin were compared between two competing arms.

RESULTS

Ninety-five percent of PTV coverage (P = 0.333), volume receiving 107% (P = 0.676), total MU (P = 0.818) in both the arms were comparable and statically insignificant. Low-dose spillage such as D20% (P = 0.212) and D50% (P = 0.008) was lesser in HAL comparable to NTx. CI and HI were statically insignificant. Out of 26 organs at risk (OAR), only 3 organs showed a statically significant dose difference. The mean and maximum setup margin in any linear direction was 0.45 and 0.53 cm for HAL and 0.37 and 0.56 cm for NTx and, variation was statistically insignificant (0.23 < P < 0.47). On-couch time was 4.0 ± 5.5 min lesser for HAL and the difference in on-couch time between the two arms was statistically different.

CONCLUSION

Even though the majority of the delivery parameters such as gantry speed, dose rate, beam characteristic (flatten or unflatten), MLC width, and speed between the ring gantry HAL and C-arm NTx linear accelerators were distinctly different, they offered no or minimal difference in the dose distribution and in the setup margin. HAL gives a faster treatment time delivery, which could be crucial for some selective cases such as patients receiving treatment under general anesthesia.

Determination of small-field output factors for beam-matched linear accelerators using various detectors and comparison of detector-specific output correction factors using IAEA Technical Report Series 483 protocol

Background

Beam matching is widely used to ensure that linear accelerators used in radiotherapy have equal dosimetry characteristics. Small-field output factors (OF) were measured using different detectors infour beam-matched linear accelerators and the measured OFs were compared with existing treatment planning system (TPS) Monte Carlo algorithm calculated OFs.

Materials and methods

Three Elekta Versa HD^TM and one Elekta Infinity^TMlinear accelerators with photon energies of 6 MV flattening filter (FF), 10 MVFF, 6 MV flattening filter free (FFF) and 10 MVFFF were used in this study. All the Linac'swere beam-matched, Dosimetry beam data were ± 1% compare with Reference Linac. Ten different type of detectors (four ionizationchambers and six diode detectors) were used for small-field OF measurements. The OFs were measured for field sizes of 1 × 1 to 10 × 10 cm², and normalized to 10 × 10 cm² field size. The uncorrected and corrected OFs were calculated from these measurements. The corrected OF was compare with existing treatment planning system (TPS) Monte Carlo algorithm calculated OFs.

Results

The small-field corrected and Uncorrected OF variations among the linear accelerators was within 1% for all energies and detectors. An increase in field size led to a reduction in the difference between OFs among the detectors, which was the case for all energies. The RSD values decreased with increasing field size. The TRS 483 provided Detector-specificoutput-correction factor (OCF) reduced uncertainty in small-field measurements.

Conclusion

It is necessary to implement the OF-correction of small fields in a TPS. Special care must be taken to incorporate the corrected small-field OF in a TPS.

A method for selecting reference beam model of VMAT plans with three 6MV beam-matched linear accelerators during radiation oncology

Our objective was to provide a method for selecting reference beam model and evaluating the dosimetric accuracy of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans delivered on three Elekta beam-matched linacs during radiation oncology. Beam data was measured on three beam-matched linacs including Synergy1, Synergy2 and VersaHD. For eighteen lung and esophagus cases, fifty-four plans were generated using VMAT technique with three linac beam models respectively for point dose measurement and three-dimensional dose measurement. Each VMAT plan was executed sequentially on three linacs respectively. Measurement results were compared with treatment planning system (TPS) calculation results for all VMAT plans. Among three beam-matched linacs, discrepancy in beam output factor, percentage depth dose at 5 cm, 10 cm, 20 cm depth and MLC leaf offset are all within 1% except 20 × 20 cm2 and 30 × 30 cm2 field sizes, and discrepancy in beam profile is all within 2%. With comparison between measurement result and TPS calculation result, the absolute dose deviations are within the range of ± 3%, and the gamma passing rates are all over 95% for all VMAT plans, which are within the tolerance of clinical acceptability. Compared with all plans delivered on Synegy1 and VersaHD, the point dose discrepancy between measured results and TPS calculated results for plans delivered on Synergy2 is smallest, and the gamma passing rate between measured results and TPS calculated results for plans delivered on Synergy2 is highest. The beam-matched linacs demonstrate good agreement between measurement result and TPS calculation result for VMAT plans. The method can be used for selecting reference beam model for VMAT plans.

Delivery accuracy of VMAT on two beam-matched linacs provided by accelerated go live service

INTRODUCTION

Dosimetric accuracy is critical when a patient treated with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is transferred to another beam-matched linac. To evaluate the performance of Accelerated Go Live (AGL) service, the measured beam characteristics and patient specific quality assurance (QA) results between two AGL-matched linacs were compared.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two VersaHD linacs were installed using the AGL service. After the installation, the beam data such as percentage depth dose (PDD), lateral profiles and output factors for all photon beams were measured. Relative doses were also measured as a function of the multi-leaf collimator (MLC) leaf gap width. Subsequently, VMAT plans were created for prostate, pelvis, head and neck, liver, lung cancers and multiple brain metastases. Dose distributions and point doses were measured by multi-dimensional detectors and ionization chambers for patient specific quality assurance, and comparisons were made between the two linacs.

RESULTS

Dose differences in PDDs were all within ± 1% except the entrance region, and the averaged gamma indices of the lateral profiles were within 0.3. The differences in doses as a function of the MLC leaf gap width between the two linacs were within ±0.5%. For all the plans, gamma passing rates were all higher than 95% with criteria of 2%/2 mm. The average and the SD of dose differences on the multi-dimensional detector between both measurements was 0.06 ± 2.12%, and the average of point dose differences was -0.03 ± 0.33%.

CONCLUSION

We have evaluated the AGL performance in the context of beam characteristics and patient specific QA. It was demonstrated that the AGL service provides an accurate VMAT treatment reproducibility for many tumor sites with gamma pass rates greater than 95% under criteria of 2%/2 mm.

Transferability of patients for radiation treatment between unmatched machines

Purpose

The feasibility of transferring patients between unmatched machines for a limited number of treatment fractions was investigated for three‐dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatments.

Methods

Eighty patient‐plans were evaluated on two unmatched linacs: Elekta Versa HD and Elekta Infinity. Plans were equally divided into pelvis 3DCRT, prostate VMAT, brain VMAT, and lung VMAT plans. While maintaining the number of monitor units (MUs), plans were recalculated on the machine not originally used for treatment. Relative differences in dose were calculated between machines for the target volume and organs at risk (OARs). Differences in mean dose were assessed with paired t‐tests (p < 0.05). The number of interchangeable fractions allowable before surpassing a cumulative ±5% difference in dose was determined. Additionally, patient‐specific quality assurance (PSQA) measurements using ArcCHECK for both machines were compared with distributions calculated on the machine originally used for treatment using gradient compensation (GC) with 2%/2‐mm criteria.

Results

Interchanging the two machines for pelvic 3DCRT and VMAT (prostate, brain, and lung) plans resulted in an average change in target mean dose of 0.9%, −0.5%, 0.6%, 0.5%, respectively. Based on the differences in dose to the prescription point when changing machines, statistically, nearly one‐fourth of the prescribed fractions could be transferred between linacs for 3DCRT plans. While all of the prescribed fractions could typically be transferred among prostate VMAT plans, a rather large number of treatment fractions, 31% and 38%, could be transferred among brain and lung VMAT plans, respectively, without exceeding a ±5% change in the prescribed dose for two Elekta machines. Additionally, the OAR dosage was not affected within the given criterion with change of machine.

Conclusions

Despite small differences in calculated dose, transferring patients between two unmatched Elekta machines with similar multileaf collimator (MLC)‐head for target coverage and minimum changes in OAR dose is possible for a limited number of fractions (≤3) to improve clinical flexibility and institutional throughput along with patient satisfaction. A similar study could be carried out for other machines for operational throughput.

Consistency of small-field dosimetry, on and off axis, in beam-matched linacs used for stereotactic radiosurgery

PURPOSE

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) can be delivered with a standard linear accelerator (linac). At institutions having more than one linac, beam matching is common practice. In the literature, there are indications that machine central axis (CAX) matching for broad fields does not guarantee matching of small fields with side ≤2 cm. There is no indication on how matching for broad fields on axis translates to matching small fields off axis. These are of interest to multitarget single-isocenter (MTSI) SRS planning and the present work addresses that gap in the literature.

METHODS

We used 6 MV flattening filter free (FFF) beams from four Elekta VersaHD® linacs equipped with an Agility™ multileaf collimator (MLC). The linacs were strictly matched for broad fields on CAX. We compared output factors (OPFs) and effective field size, measured concurrently using a novel 2D solid-state dosimeter "Duo" with a spatial resolution of 0.2 mm, in square and rectangular static fields with sides from 0.5 to 2 cm, either on axis or away from it by 5 to 15 cm.

RESULTS

Among the four linacs, OPF for fields ≥1 × 1 cm2 ranged 1.3% on CAX, whereas off axis a maximum range of 1.9% was observed at 15 cm. A larger variability in OPF was noted for the 0.5 × 0.5 cm2 field, with a range of 5.9% on CAX, which improved to a maximum of 2.3% moving off axis. Two linacs showed greater consistency with a range of 1.4% on CAX and 2.2% at 15 cm off axis. Between linacs, the effective field size varied by <0.04 cm in most cases, both on and off axis. Tighter matching was observed for linacs with a similar focal spot position.

CONCLUSIONS

Verification of small-field consistency for matched linacs used for SRS is an important task for dosimetric validation. A significant benefit of concurrent measurement of field size and OPF allowed for a comprehensive assessment using a novel diode array. Our study showed the four linacs, strictly matched for broad fields on CAX, were still matched down to a field size of 1 x 1 cm2 on and off axis.

Dosimetric and mechanical equivalency of Varian TrueBeam linear accelerators

PURPOSE

To investigate and improve the level of equivalency of Varian TrueBeam linear accelerators (linacs) in energy-, dosimetric leaf gap- (DLG) and jaw calibration.

METHODS

Eight linacs with four photon energies: 6 MV, 6 MV FFF, 10 MV FFF, and 15 MV, and three electron energies (on two linacs): 6, 9, and 12 MeV were commisioned and beam-matched. Initially, symmetry of lateral profiles was calibrated for maximum field size. Energy-matching was then performed for photons by adjusting diagonal profiles at maximum field size and depth of maximum dose to coincide with the reference linac, and for electrons by matching the range at percentage depth of ionization of 90%, 80%, and 50%. Calibration of DLG was performed for 6 MV and evaluated among the linacs. The relationship between DLG and the Gap value was investigated. A method using electronic portal imaging device (EPID) was developed and implemented for jaw calibration.

RESULTS

Symmetry calibration for photons (electrons) was within 1% (0.7%), further improving the vendor's acceptance criteria. Photon and electron energy-matching was within 0.5% and 0.1 mm, respectively. Calibration of DLG was within 0.032 mm among the linacs and utilizing the relationship between DLG and the Gap value resulted in an empirical calibration method which was implemented to simplify DLG adjustment. Using EPID-based method of calibration, evaluation of the jaw-positioning among the linacs for 30 cm × 30 cm field size was within 0.4 mm and in the junction area within 0.2 mm. Dose delivery error of VMAT-plans were at least 99.2% gamma pass rate (1%, 1 mm).

CONCLUSIONS

High level of equivalency, beyond clinically accepted criteria, of TrueBeam linacs could be achieved which reduced dose delivery systematic errors and increased confidence in interchanging patients among linacs.

Investigating beam matching for multi-room pencil beam scanning proton therapy

The purpose of this study was to investigate the proton beam matching for a multi-room ProteusPLUS pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy system and quantify the agreement among three beam-matched treatment rooms (GTR1, GTR2, and GTR3). In-air spot size measurements were acquired using a 2D scintillation detector at various gantry angles. Range and absolute dose measurements were performed in water at gantry angle 0°. Patient-specific quality assurance (QA) plans of four different disease sites (brain, mediastinum, sacrum, and prostate) and machine QA fields with uniform dose were delivered for various beam conditions. The results from GTR1 were considered as reference values. The average difference in spot sizes between GTR2 and GTR1 was - 0.3% ± 2.2% (range, - 5.9 to 5.8%). For GTR3 vs. GTR1, the average difference in spot sizes was 0.6% ± 1.7% (range, - 4.8 to 4.6%). The spot symmetry was found to be ≤ 4.4%. For proton range, the difference among three rooms was within ± 0.5 mm. On average, the difference in absolute dose was - 0.1 ± 0.7% (range, - 1.3 to 2.1%) for GTR2 vs. GTR1 and 0.7 ± 0.6% (range, - 0.1 to 2.1%) for GTR3 vs. GTR1. The average gamma passing rate of patient-specific QA measurements (n = 29) was ≥ 98.6%. The average gamma passing rate of machine QA fields was 99.9%. In conclusion, proton beam matching was quantified for three beam-matched rooms of an IBA ProteusPLUS system with a PBS dedicated nozzle. It is feasible to match the spot size and absolute dose within ± 5% and ± 2%, respectively. Proton range can be matched within ± 0.5 mm.

Derivative-based gamma index: a novel methodology for stringent patient-specific quality assurance in the stereotactic treatment planning of liver cancer

Objective:The development of a stringent derivative-based gamma (DBG) index for patient-specific QA in stereotactic radiotherapy treatment planning (SRTP) to account for the spatial change in dose.Methods:Twenty-five patients of liver SBRT were selected retrospectively for this study. Deliberately, two different kinds of treatment planning approaches were used for each patient. Firstly, the treatment plans were generated using a conventional treatment planning (CTP) approach in which the target was covered with a homogeneous dose along with the nominal dose fall-off around the treatment field. Subsequently, the other treatment plans were generated using an SRTP approach with the intent of heterogeneous dose within the target region along with a steeper dose gradient outside the treatment field as much as possible. For both kinds of treatment plans, two dimensional (2D) conventional gamma (CG) and DBG analysis were performed using the 2D ion chamber array and radiochromic film.Results:Difference in the DBG index was statistically significant whereas, for CG analysis, the difference in CG index was insignificant for both types of treatment plans (CTP and SRTP). A significant positive correlation was observed between the difference in the DBG index and the difference in HI for high gamma criteria.Conclusion:The DBG evaluation is found to be more rigorous, and sensitive to the only SRTP. The proposed method could be opted-in the routine clinical practice in addition to CG.Advances in knowledge:DBG is more sensitive to detect the spatial change of dose, especially in high dose gradient regions.

Distributive quality assurance and delivery of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy treatments amongst beam matched linear accelerators: A feasibility study

PURPOSE

Beam matching occurs on all linacs to some degree and when two are more are matched to each other, patients are able to be transferred between machines. Quality assurance of plans can also be performed "distributively" on any of the matched linacs. The degree to which machines are matched and how this translates to like delivery of plans has been the focus of a number of studies. This concept has not yet been explored for stereotactic techniques which require a higher degree of accuracy. This study proposes beam matching criteria which allows for the distributive delivery and quality assurance of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) plans.

METHOD

Two clinically relevant and complex volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) SBRT spine and lung plans were chosen as benchmarking cases. These were delivered on nine previously beam matched linacs with quality assurance performed through ArcCheck and film exposure in the sagittal plane. Measured doses were compared to their treatment planning system predictions through gamma analysis at a range of criteria.

RESULTS

Despite differences in beam match parameters and variations in small fields, all nine linacs produced accurate deliveries with a tight deviation in the population sample. Pass rates were well above suggested tolerances at the recommended gamma criterion. Film was able to detect dose errors to a greater degree than ArcCheck.

CONCLUSION

Distributive quality assurance and delivery of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy treatments amongst beam matched linacs is certainly feasible provided the linacs are matched to a strict protocol like that suggested in this study and regular quality assurance is performed on the matched fleet. Distributive quality assurance and delivery of SBRT provides the possibility of efficiency gains for physicists as well as treatment staff.

Assessment of beam-matched linacs quality/accuracy for interchanging SBRT or SRT patient using VMAT without replanning

PURPOSE

Dosimetric accuracy is critical when switching a patient treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) or stereotactic fractionated radiotherapy (SRT) among beam-matched linacs. In this study, the dose delivery accuracy of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for SBRT/SRT patients were evaluated on three beam-matched linacs.

METHOD

Beam data measurements such as percentage depth dose (PDD₁₀ ), beam profiles, output factors, and multi-leaf collimator (MLC) leaf transmission factor for 6 MV photon beam were performed on three beam-matched linacs. The Edge™ diode detector was used for measurements of beams of field size less than 5 × 5 cm² . Ten lung and 15 brain plans were generated using VMAT with the same beam model. Modulation complexity score of the VMAT plan (MCSv) was used as a plan complexity indicator. Doses were measured using ArcCHECK™ and GafChromic™ EBT3 films. The measurements were compared with calculated doses through absolute dose gamma comparison using 3%/2 mm and 2%/2 mm criteria. Correlation between difference in passing rates among beam-matched linacs and MCSv was evaluated using the Pearson coefficient. Point doses were measured with the A1SL micro ion chamber.

RESULTS

Difference in beam outputs, beam profiles, and MLC leaf transmission factors of beam-matched linacs were all within ±1%, except the difference in output factor for 1 × 1 cm² field between linac 1 and 3 (1.3%). For all 25 cases, passing rates of measured doses on three linacs were all higher than 90% when using 2%/2 mm gamma criteria. The average difference in point dose measurements among three beam-matched linacs was 0.1 ± 0.2% (P > 0.05, one-way ANOVA).

CONCLUSION

Minimal differences in beam parameters, point doses, and passing rates among three linacs proved the viability of swapping SBRT/SRT using VMAT among beam-matched linacs. The effect of plan complexity on passing rate difference among beam-matched linacs is not statistically significant.

Derivative based sensitivity analysis of gamma index

Originally developed as a tool for patient-specific quality assurance in advanced treatment delivery methods to compare between measured and calculated dose distributions, the gamma index (γ) concept was later extended to compare between any two dose distributions. It takes into effect both the dose difference (DD) and distance-to-agreement (DTA) measurements in the comparison. Its strength lies in its capability to give a quantitative value for the analysis, unlike other methods. For every point on the reference curve, if there is at least one point in the evaluated curve that satisfies the pass criteria (e.g., δDD = 1%, δDTA = 1 mm), the point is included in the quantitative score as "pass." Gamma analysis does not account for the gradient of the evaluated curve - it looks at only the minimum gamma value, and if it is <1, then the point passes, no matter what the gradient of evaluated curve is. In this work, an attempt has been made to present a derivative-based method for the identification of dose gradient. A mathematically derived reference profile (RP) representing the penumbral region of 6 MV 10 cm × 10 cm field was generated from an error function. A general test profile (GTP) was created from this RP by introducing 1 mm distance error and 1% dose error at each point. This was considered as the first of the two evaluated curves. By its nature, this curve is a smooth curve and would satisfy the pass criteria for all points in it. The second evaluated profile was generated as a sawtooth test profile (STTP) which again would satisfy the pass criteria for every point on the RP. However, being a sawtooth curve, it is not a smooth one and would be obviously poor when compared with the smooth profile. Considering the smooth GTP as an acceptable profile when it passed the gamma pass criteria (1% DD and 1 mm DTA) against the RP, the first and second order derivatives of the DDs (δD', δD") between these two curves were derived and used as the boundary values for evaluating the STTP against the RP. Even though the STTP passed the simple gamma pass criteria, it was found failing at many locations when the derivatives were used as the boundary values. The proposed derivative-based method can identify a noisy curve and can prove to be a useful tool for improving the sensitivity of the gamma index.