A Mail Audit Independent Peer Review System for Dosimetry Verification of a Small Animal Irradiator

Multi-Institutional Audit of FLASH and Conventional Dosimetry With a 3D Printed Anatomically Realistic Mouse Phantom

PURPOSE

We conducted a multi-institutional dosimetric audit between FLASH and conventional dose rate (CONV) electron irradiations by using an anatomically realistic 3-dimensional (3D) printed mouse phantom.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A computed tomography (CT) scan of a live mouse was used to create a 3D model of bony anatomy, lungs, and soft tissue. A dual-nozzle 3D printer was used to print the mouse phantom using acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (∼1.02 g/cm3) and polylactic acid (∼1.24 g/cm3) simultaneously to simulate soft tissue and bone densities, respectively. The lungs were printed separately using lightweight polylactic acid (∼0.64 g/cm3). Hounsfield units (HU), densities, and print-to-print stability of the phantoms were assessed. Three institutions were each provided a phantom and each institution performed 2 replicates of irradiations at selected anatomic regions. The average dose difference between FLASH and CONV dose distributions and deviation from the prescribed dose were measured with radiochromic film.

RESULTS

Compared with the reference CT scan, CT scans of the phantom demonstrated mass density differences of 0.10 g/cm3 for bone, 0.12 g/cm3 for lung, and 0.03 g/cm3 for soft tissue regions. Differences in HU between phantoms were <10 HU for soft tissue and bone, with lung showing the most variation (54 HU), but with minimal effect on dose distribution (<0.5%). Mean differences between FLASH and CONV decreased from the first to the second replicate (4.3%-1.2%), and differences from the prescribed dose decreased for both CONV (3.6%-2.5%) and FLASH (6.4%-2.7%). Total dose accuracy suggests consistent pulse dose and pulse number, although these were not specifically assessed. Positioning variability was observed, likely due to the absence of robust positioning aids or image guidance.

CONCLUSIONS

This study marks the first dosimetric audit for FLASH using a nonhomogeneous phantom, challenging conventional calibration practices reliant on homogeneous phantoms. The comparison protocol offers a framework for credentialing multi-institutional studies in FLASH preclinical research to enhance reproducibility of biologic findings.

Machine characterization and central axis depth dose data of a superficial x-ray radiotherapy unit

Objectives. The purpose of this study is to present data from the clinical commissioning of an Xstrahl 150 x-ray unit used for superficial radiotherapy,Methods. Commissioning tasks included vendor acceptance tests, timer reproducibility, linearity and end-effect measurements, half-value layer (HVL) measurements, inverse square law verification, head-leakage measurements, and beam output calibration. In addition, percent depth dose (PDD) curves were determined for different combinations of filter/kV settings and applicators. Automated PDD water phantom scans were performed utilizing four contemporary detectors: a microDiamond detector, a microSilicon detector, an EDGE detector, and a PinPoint ionization chamber. The measured PDD data were compared to the published values in BJR Supplement 25,Results. The x-ray unit's mechanical, safety, and radiation characteristics were within vendor-stated specifications. Across sixty commissioned x-ray beams, the PDDs determined in water using solid state detectors were in excellent agreement with the BJR 25 data. For the lower (<100 kVp) and medium-energy (≥100 kVp) superficial beams the average agreement was within [-3.6,+0.4]% and [-3.7,+1.4]% range, respectively. For the high-energy superficial (low-energy orthovoltage) x-rays at 150 kVp, the average difference for the largest 20 × 20 cm²collimator was (-0.7 ± 1.0)%,Conclusions. This study presents machine characterization data collected for clinical use of a superficial x-ray unit. Special focus was placed on utilizing contemporary detectors and techniques for the relative PDD measurements using a motorized water phantom. The results in this study confirm that the aggregate values published in the BJR 25 report still serve as a valid benchmark when comparing data from site-specific measurements, or the reference data for clinical utilization without such measurements,Advances in knowledge. This paper presents comprehensive data from the acceptance and commissioning of a modern kilovoltage superficial x-ray radiotherapy machine. Comparisons between the PDD data measured in this study using different detectors and BJR 25 data are highlighted.

Technical Note: Vendor miscalibration of preclinical orthovoltage irradiator identified through independent output check

PURPOSE

Accurate radiation dosimetry in radiobiological experiments is crucial for preclinical research in advancement of cancer treatment. Vendors of cell irradiators often perform calibration for end-users. However, calibration accuracy remains unclear due to missing detailed information on calibration equipment and procedures. In this study, we report our findings of a vender miscalibration of the radiation output and our investigation on the root cause of the discrepancy.

METHODS

Independent calibration verification for a commercial preclinical orthovoltage irradiator was conducted. Initially, in the absence of ionization chambers calibrated at kV energy, radiochromic films (EBT3) was first calibrated at MV energy. Energy correction factors from literature were used to create an in-house kV dosimetry system. The miscalibration identified with the in-house kV EBT3 dosimetry was later confirmed by ADCL calibrated ionization chambers (Exradin A1SL and PTW 30013) at kV energy. Ionization chambers were suspended in-air following TG-61 recommendation for output calibration. To investigate the root cause of the miscalibration, additional measurements were performed with ionization chambers placed on the shelf. A validated Monte Carlo simulation code was also used to investigate the impact of placing the ionization chamber on the shelf instead of suspending it in air during the vendor-performed calibration process.

RESULTS

Up to a 6% dosimetry error was observed when comparing the vendor calibrated output of the preclinical irradiator with our independent calibration check. Further investigation showed incorrect setups in the vendor's calibration procedure which may result in dose errors up to 11% from the backscatter of the shelf board during calibration, and up to 5% from omitting temperature and pressure corrections to ionization chamber readings.

CONCLUSION

Our study revealed large dose calibration errors caused by incorrect setup and the omission of temperature/pressure correction in the vendor's calibration procedure. The findings also highlighted the importance of performing an independent check of the dose calibration for preclinical kV irradiators. More absolute dosimetry training is needed for both vendors and end users for establishing accurate absolute dosimetry.

Dose rate determination for preclinical total body irradiation

The accuracy of delivered radiation dose and the reproducibility of employed radiotherapy methods are key factors for preclinical radiobiology applications and research studies. In this work, ionization chamber (IC) measurements and Monte Carlo (MC) simulations were used to accurately determine the dose rate for total body irradiation (TBI), a classic radiobiologic and immunologic experimental method. Several phantom configurations, including large solid water slab, small water box and rodentomorphic mouse and rat phantoms were simulated and measured for TBI setup utilizing a preclinical irradiator XRad320. The irradiator calibration and the phantom measurements were performed using an ADCL calibrated IC N31010 following the AAPM TG-61 protocol. The MC simulations were carried out using Geant4/GATE to compute absorbed dose distributions for all phantom configurations. All simulated and measured geometries had favorable agreement. On average, the relative dose rate difference was 2.3%. However, the study indicated large dose rate deviations, if calibration conditions are assumed for a given experimental setup as commonly done for a quick determination of irradiation times utilizing lookup tables and hand calculations. In a TBI setting, the reference calibration geometry at an extended source-to-surface distance and a large reference field size is likely to overestimate true photon scatter. Consequently, the measured and hand calculated dose rates, for TBI geometries in this study, had large discrepancies: 16% for a large solid water slab, 27% for a small water box, and 31%, 36%, and 30% for mouse phantom, rat phantom, and mouse phantom in a pie cage, respectively. Small changes in TBI experimental setup could result in large dose rate variations. MC simulations and the corresponding measurements specific to a designed experimental setup are vital for accurate preclinical dosimetry and reproducibility of radiobiological findings. This study supports the well-recognized need for physics consultation for all radiobiological investigations.