What accuracy is required and can be achieved in radiation therapy (review of radiobiological and clinical data)

Evaluation of beam matching accuracy among six linacs from the same vendor

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the dosimetric variation among six non-beam-matched Varian linacs using different techniques for the same plans. Six non-beam-matched Varian machines, comprising two Clinac iX, two 600 C/D (Unique), and two True Beam Tx photon 6 MV X-ray devices were acquired. Sixty patients with of head and neck (H&N; 30) and pelvic (30) treatment sites were chosen. For all 60 patients, three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and volumetric-modulated radiotherapy (VMAT) plans were generated for the Clinac iX-1 device; all plans were migrated to the remaining machines, using the eclipse treatment planning system without any modification. The dosimetric variation among the six machines for each target volume and organ at risk was recorded and analyzed. In H&N cases, the maximum variation among the six machines with 3DCRT, IMRT, and VMAT was 2.57%, 2.6%, and 2.6%, respectively. In pelvic cases, the maximum variation among the six machines with 3DCRT, IMRT, and VMAT was 2.2%, 1.95%, and 2.05%, respectively. Our overall results show that dosimetric variation, while interchanging the plans among the six machines at phantom and patient levels, remains within the limits of clinical acceptability. The noted variation was not correlated with any of these treatment techniques: 3DCRT, IMRT, or VMAT.

Image guidance doses delivered during radiotherapy: Quantification, management, and reduction: Report of the AAPM Therapy Physics Committee Task Group 180

BACKGROUND

With radiotherapy having entered the era of image guidance, or image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT), imaging procedures are routinely performed for patient positioning and target localization. The imaging dose delivered may result in excessive dose to sensitive organs and potentially increase the chance of secondary cancers and, therefore, needs to be managed.

AIMS

This task group was charged with: a) providing an overview on imaging dose, including megavoltage electronic portal imaging (MV EPI), kilovoltage digital radiography (kV DR), Tomotherapy MV-CT, megavoltage cone-beam CT (MV-CBCT) and kilovoltage cone-beam CT (kV-CBCT), and b) providing general guidelines for commissioning dose calculation methods and managing imaging dose to patients.

MATERIALS & METHODS

We briefly review the dose to radiotherapy (RT) patients resulting from different image guidance procedures and list typical organ doses resulting from MV and kV image acquisition procedures.

RESULTS

We provide recommendations for managing the imaging dose, including different methods for its calculation, and techniques for reducing it. The recommended threshold beyond which imaging dose should be considered in the treatment planning process is 5% of the therapeutic target dose.

DISCUSSION

Although the imaging dose resulting from current kV acquisition procedures is generally below this threshold, the ALARA principle should always be applied in practice. Medical physicists should make radiation oncologists aware of the imaging doses delivered to patients under their care.

CONCLUSION

Balancing ALARA with the requirement for effective target localization requires that imaging dose be managed based on the consideration of weighing risks and benefits to the patient.

Accuracy requirements and uncertainties in radiotherapy: a report of the International Atomic Energy Agency

BACKGROUND

Radiotherapy technology continues to advance and the expectation of improved outcomes requires greater accuracy in various radiotherapy steps. Different factors affect the overall accuracy of dose delivery. Institutional comprehensive quality assurance (QA) programs should ensure that uncertainties are maintained at acceptable levels. The International Atomic Energy Agency has recently developed a report summarizing the accuracy achievable and the suggested action levels, for each step in the radiotherapy process. Overview of the report: The report seeks to promote awareness and encourage quantification of uncertainties in order to promote safer and more effective patient treatments. The radiotherapy process and the radiobiological and clinical frameworks that define the need for accuracy are depicted. Factors that influence uncertainty are described for a range of techniques, technologies and systems. Methodologies for determining and combining uncertainties are presented, and strategies for reducing uncertainties through QA programs are suggested. The role of quality audits in providing international benchmarking of achievable accuracy and realistic action levels is also discussed.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The report concludes with nine general recommendations: (1) Radiotherapy should be applied as accurately as reasonably achievable, technical and biological factors being taken into account. (2) For consistency in prescribing, reporting and recording, recommendations of the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements should be implemented. (3) Each institution should determine uncertainties for their treatment procedures. Sample data are tabulated for typical clinical scenarios with estimates of the levels of accuracy that are practically achievable and suggested action levels. (4) Independent dosimetry audits should be performed regularly. (5) Comprehensive quality assurance programs should be in place. (6) Professional staff should be appropriately educated and adequate staffing levels should be maintained. (7) For reporting purposes, uncertainties should be presented. (8) Manufacturers should provide training on all equipment. (9) Research should aid in improving the accuracy of radiotherapy. Some example research projects are suggested.

Is the dose distribution distorted in IMRT and RapidArc treatment when patient plans are swapped across beam-matched machines?

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the degree of dose distribution distortion in advanced treatments like IMRT and RapidArc when patient plans are swapped across dosimetrically equivalent so‐called “beam‐matched” machines. For this purpose the entire work is divided into two stages. At forefront stage all basic beam properties of 6 MV X‐rays like PDD, profiles, output factors, TPR20/10 and MLC transmission of two beam‐matched machines — Varian Clinac iX and Varian 600 C/D Unique — are compared and evaluated for differences. At second stage 40 IMRT and RapidArc patient plans from the pool of head and neck (H&N) and pelvis sites are selected for the study. The plans are swapped across the machines for dose recalculation and the DVHs of target and critical organs are evaluated for dose differences. Following this, the accuracy of the beam‐matching at the TPS level for treatments like IMRT and RapidArc are compared. On PDD, profile (central 80%) and output factor comparison between the two machines, a maximum percentage disagreement value of −2.39%,−2.0% and −2.78%, respectively, has been observed. The maximum dose difference observed at volumes in IMRT and RapidArc treatments for H&N dose prescription of 69.3 Gy/33 fractions is 0.88 Gy and 0.82 Gy, respectively. Similarly, for pelvis, with a dose prescription of 50 Gy/25 fractions, a maximum dose difference of 0.55 Gy and 0.53 Gy is observed at volumes in IMRT and RapidArc treatments, respectively. Overall results of the swapped plans between two machines' 6 MV X‐rays are well within the limits of accepted clinical tolerance.

PACS number(s): 87.56.bd

A beam-matching concept for medical linear accelerators

The flexibility in radiotherapy can be improved if a patient can be moved between any one of the department's medical linear accelerators without the need to change anything in the patient's treatment plan. For this to be possible, the dosimetric characteristics of the various accelerators must be the same, or nearly the same i.e. the accelerators must be beam-matched. During a period of nine months, eight Varian iX accelerators with 6 and 15 MV photon beams and 6-18 MeV electron beams (only four of the eight) were installed at our clinic. All accelerators fulfilled the vendor-defined "fine beam-match" criteria, and a more extensive set of measurements was carried out during commissioning. The measured absorbed dose data for each accelerator were compared with the first accelerator, chosen as reference, and the TPS calculations. Two of the eight accelerators showed a larger discrepancy for the 15 MV beam not revealed by the vendor-defined acceptance criteria, whereas the other six accelerators were satisfactorily matched. The beam-matching acceptance criteria defined by the vendor are not strict enough to guarantee optimal beam-match. Deviations related to dose calculations and to beam-matched accelerators may add up. The safest and most practical way to ensure that all accelerators are within clinical acceptable accuracy is to include TPS calculations in the evaluation. Further, comparisons between measurements and calculations should be done in absolute dose terms.