Particular issues to be considered in small field dosimetry for TrueBeam STx commissioning

This study aims to report the relevant issues concerning small fields in the commissioning of a TrueBeam STx for photon energies of 6MV, 10MV, 6FFF, and 10FFF. Percent depth doses, profiles, and field output factors were measured according to the beam model configuration of the treatment planning system. Multiple detectors were used based on the IAEA TRS-483 protocol as well as EBT3 radiochromic film. Analytical Anisotropic and Acuros XB algorithms, were configured and validated through basic dosimetry comparisons and end-to-end clinical tests.

Applicability evaluation of the TRS-483 protocol for the determination of small-field output factors using different multi-leaf collimator and field-shaping types

PURPOSE

To evaluate the applicability of TRS-483 output correction factors (CFs) for small-field output factors (OFs) using different multi-leaf collimators (MLC) and field-shaping types.

METHODS

All measurements were performed on TrueBeam, TrueBeam STx, and Halcyon using 6 MV flattening filter-free energy. Four detectors, including CC01, CC04, microDiamond, and EDGE, were used. Nominal field sizes ranging from 1 × 1 to 4 × 4, and 10 × 10 cm2 were used to measure small-field OFs at source-to-axis distance of 100 cm with a 0° gantry angle in a 3D water phantom. Further, the field-shaping types were defined using jaw collimator or MLC (five different configurations). A field size of 10 × 10 cm2 was used as the reference for calculation of OFs obtained as ratio of detector readings (OFdet). The percentage difference and coefficient of variation of OFdet and OFdet corrected by applying CF were compared for each field size and configuration.

RESULTS

For OFdet corrected by applying CF, the ranges of percentage difference and coefficient of variation in all configurations for ≥ 2 × 2 cm2 fields were reduced from 1.2-2.2 to 0.8-1.3 percentage points (%pt) and from 0.5-1.0 to 0.4-0.7%, respectively. For 1 × 1 cm2 field, the ranges of percentage difference and coefficient of variation were reduced from 3.3-5.7 to 1.2-2.2 %pt and from 2.2-3.7 to 0.8-1.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The CFs described in TRS-483 dosimetry protocol have broad applicability in reducing OF variations between detectors under different MLC and field-shaping types.

Technical note: Consistency of IAEA's TRS-483 and AAPM's extended TG-51 protocols for clinical reference dosimetry of the CyberKnife M6 machine

BACKGROUND

While IAEA's TRS-483 code of practice is adapted for the calibration of CyberKnife machines, AAPM's TG-51 is still the protocol recommended by the manufacturer for their calibration. The differences between both protocols could lead to differences in absorbed dose to water during the calibration process.

PURPOSE

The aims of this work are to evaluate the difference resulting from the application of TG-51 (including the manufacturer's adaptations) and TRS-483 in terms of absorbed dose to water for a CyberKnife M6, and to evaluate the consistency of TRS-483.

METHODS

Measurements are performed on a CyberKnife M6 unit under machine-specific reference conditions using a calibrated Exradin A12 ionization chamber. Monte Carlo (MC) simulations are performed to estimate k Q msr , Q 0 f msr , f ref $k_{Q_{\mathrm{msr}},Q_0}^{f_{\mathrm{msr}},f_{\mathrm{ref}}}$ and k vol $k_{\text{vol}}$ using a fully modeled detector and an optimized CyberKnife M6 beam model. The latter is also estimated experimentally. Differences between the adapted TG-51 and TRS-483 protocols are identified and their impact is quantified.

RESULTS

When using an in-house experimentally-evaluated volume averaging correction factor, a difference of 0.11% in terms of absorbed dose to water per monitor unit is observed when applying both protocols. This disparity is solely associated to the difference in beam quality correction factor. If a generic volume averaging correction factor is used during the application of TRS-483, the difference in calibration increases to 0.14%. In both cases, the disparity is not statistically significant according to TRS-483's reported uncertainties on their beam quality correction factor (i.e., 1%). MC results lead to k Q msr , Q 0 f msr , f ref = 1.0004 ± 0.0002 $k_{Q_{\mathrm{msr}},Q_0}^{f_{\mathrm{msr}},f_{\mathrm{ref}}}=1.0004\pm 0.0002$ and k vol = 1.0072 ± 0.0009 $k_{\text{vol}}=1.0072\pm 0.0009$ . Results illustrate that the generic beam quality correction factor provided in the TRS-483 might be overestimated by 0.36% compared to our specific model and that this overestimation could be due to the volume averaging component.

CONCLUSIONS

For clinical reference dosimetry of the CyberKnife M6, the application of TRS-483 is found to be consistent with TG-51.

A multi-institutional evaluation of small field output factor determination following the recommendations of IAEA/AAPM TRS-483

Purpose

The aim of this work was to test the implementation of small field dosimetry following TRS‐483 and to develop quality assurance procedures for the experimental determination of small field output factors (SFOFs).

Materials and methods

Twelve different centers provided SFOFs determined with various detectors. Various linac models using the beam qualities 6 MV and 10 MV with flattening filter and without flattening filter were utilized to generate square fields down to a nominal field size of 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm. The detectors were positioned at 10 cm depth in water. Depending on the local situation, the source‐to‐surface distance was either set to 90 cm or 100 cm. The SFOFs were normalized to the output of the 10 cm × 10 cm field. The spread of SFOFs measured with different detectors was investigated for each individual linac beam quality and field size. Additionally, linac‐type specific SFOF curves were determined for each beam quality and the SFOFs determined using individual detectors were compared to these curves. Example uncertainty budgets were established for a solid state detector and a micro ionization chamber.

Results

The spread of SFOFs for each linac and field was below 5% for all field sizes. With the exception of one linac‐type, the SFOFs of all investigated detectors agreed within 10% with the respective linac‐type SFOF curve, indicating a potential inter‐detector and inter‐linac variability.

Conclusion

Quality assurance on the SFOF measurements can be done by investigation of the spread of SFOFs measured with multiple detectors and by comparison to linac‐type specific SFOFs. A follow‐up of a measurement session should be conducted if the spread of SFOFs is larger than 5%, 3%, and 2% for field sizes of 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm, 1 cm × 1 cm, and field sizes larger than 2 cm × 2 cm, respectively. Additionally, deviations of measured SFOFs to the linac‐type‐curves of more than 7%, 3%, and 2% for field sizes 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm, 1 cm × 1 cm, and field sizes larger than 1 cm × 1 cm, respectively, should be followed up.

Development of an independent MU calculation software for radiotherapy treatments with stereotactic cones

Purpose

Development of an independent MU calculator (StereoCalc) with and without heterogeneity corrections for stereotactic treatments, in a Varian TrueBeam STx LINAC using stereotactic cones, with flattening filter‐free photon energies.

Methods

Multiple depth curves and output factors were measured, following the dosimetry formalism for small fields proposed by the TRS‐483. The developed StereoCalc imports and processes the beam data files and calculates the patient plans with and without heterogeneity correction. Validation of the developed software was carried out using phantoms. The accuracy of the StereoCalc software was verified in stereotactic patient plans.

Results

A maximum difference of 2.47% and 2.07% was obtained in the phantom validation tests with and without heterogeneity correction, respectively. The mean percentual difference of StereoCalc from cone dose calculation (CDC) in the clinical testing was 2.86% ±1.27% and 0.78% ±0.48% with and without heterogeneity correction, respectively. The largest differences found were 7.34% and 1.98%, respectively.

Conclusions

The results obtained in this work show that the MU calculated with StereoCalc software is in good agreement with the values calculated by the treatment planning systems, both in static fields and arcs. We have also improved the software to consider heterogeneity corrections calculations. As expected, and as a major achievement of this work, some differences were observed when heterogeneities were considered. StereoCalc proved to be a powerful tool that can be integrated into the specific quality assurance program in a medical physics department for independent verification in stereotactic treatment with cones.

Evaluation of Acuros® XB accuracy for static small fields dose calculations based on the IAEA/AAPM TRS-483 recommendation

PURPOSE

Evaluate Acuros® XB dose calculation accuracy following TRS-483 recommendations in small static fields for flattened and un-flattened 6 MV X-ray beams.

METHODS

Field output factors were measured following TRS-483 recommendations using four radiation detectors. Two sets of field output factors were measured. One set was used to configure the beam model into Acuros® XB down to a jaw-defined field size of 1.0 cm × 1.0 cm. The second set was used to evaluate the differences between calculated and measured field output factors for MLC-fields down to a field size of 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm.

RESULTS

Acuros® XB showed an accuracy within 1.5% down to an MLC-field of 1.0 cm × 1.0 cm, for a focal spot size of 1.0 and 0.0 mm in the cross and in-plane directions. For an MLC-field of 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm, an agreement was found within 3% between calculated and measured field output factors. These results were addressed by optimizing the focal spot size to minimize the differences between calculated and measured dose profiles.

CONCLUSIONS

By optimizing the focal spot size, Acuros® XB showed an acceptable agreement within 3% down to an MLC-field of 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm. The results of this work suggest that if static and modulated delivery of very small targets is planned, then a field output factor table down to a field size of 1.0 cm is required in the beam configuration model.

Monte Carlo verification of output correction factors for a TrueBeam STx®

The recent publication of the new code of practice IAEA/AAPM TRS-483 introduces output correction factors to correct detector response changes in relative dosimetry of small photon beams. In TRS-483, average correction factors are reported for several detectors in high-energy photon beams at 6 and 10 MV with and without flattening filter. These correction factors were determined by Monte Carlo simulation or experimental measurements using several linacs of different brands and vendors. The goal of this work was to validate the output correction factors reported in TRS-483 for 6 MV photon beams of a TrueBeam STx® linac. The validation was performed using Monte Carlo simulations of four radiation detectors employed in the dosimetry of small photon beams and whose output correction factors were determined using a different radiation source than TrueBeam STx®. The results show that Monte Carlo calculated output correction factors, and those reported in the code of practice TRS-483 fully agree within ∼1%. The use of generic correction factors for a TrueBeam STx® and the detectors studied in this work is suitable for small field dosimetry static beams within the uncertainties of Monte Carlo calculations and output correction factors reported in TRS-483.

IAEA-AAPM TRS-483-based reference dosimetry of the new RefleXion biology-guided radiotherapy (BgRT) machine

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to provide data for the calibration of the recent RefleXion TM biology-guided radiotherapy (BgRT) machine (Hayward, CA, USA) following the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) TRS-483 code of practice (COP) (Palmans et al. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 2017) and (Mirzakhanian et al. Med Phys, 2020).

METHODS

In RefleXion BgRT machine, reference dosimetry was performed using two methodologies described in TRS-483 and (Mirzakhanian et al. Med Phys, 2020) In the first approach (Approach 1), the generic beam quality correction factor k Q A , Q 0 f A , f ref was calculated using an accurate Monte Carlo (MC) model of the beam and of six ionization chamber types. The k Q A , Q 0 f A , f ref is a beam quality factor that corrects N D , w , Q 0 f ref (absorbed dose to water calibration coefficient in a calibration beam quality Q 0 ) for the differences between the response of the chamber in the conventional reference calibration field f ref with beam quality Q 0 at the standards laboratory and the response of the chamber in the user's A field f A with beam quality Q A . Field A represents the reference calibration field that does not fulfill msr conditions. In the second approach (Approach 2), a square equivalent field size was determined for field A of 10 × 2 cm 2 and 10 × 3 cm 2 . Knowing the equivalent field size, the beam quality specifier for the hypothetical 10 × 10 cm 2 field size was derived. This was used to calculate the beam quality correction factor analytically for the six chamber types using the TRS-398. (Andreo et al. Int Atom Energy Agency 420, 2001) Here, TRS-398 was used instead of TRS-483 since the beam quality correction values for the chambers used in this study are not tabulated in TRS-483. The accuracy of Approach 2 is studied in comparison to Approach 1.

RESULTS

Among the chambers, the PTW 31010 had the largest k Q A , Q 0 f A , f ref correction due to the volume averaging effect. The smallest-volume chamber (IBA CC01) had the smallest correction followed by the other microchambers Exradin-A14 and -A14SL. The equivalent square fields sizes were found to be 3.6 cm and 4.8 cm for the 10 × 2 cm 2 and 10 × 3 cm 2 field sizes, respectively. The beam quality correction factors calculated using the two approaches were within 0.27% for all chambers except IBA CC01. The latter chamber has an electrode made of steel and the differences between the correction calculated using the two approaches was the largest, that is, 0.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we provided the k Q A , Q 0 f A , f ref values as a function of the beam quality specifier at the RefleXion BgRT setup ( TPR 20 , 10 ( S ) and % d d ( 10 , S ) x ) for six chamber types. We suggest using the first approach for calibration of the RefleXion BgRT machine. However, if the MC correction is not available for a user's detector, the user can use the second approach for estimating the beam quality correction factor to sufficient accuracy (0.3%) provided the chamber electrode is not made of high Z material.

A novel and effective method for validation and measurement of output factors for Leksell Gamma Knife® Icon™ using TRS 483 protocol

The objective of this work was to identify the exact location of the effective point of measurement (EPM) of four different active detectors to compare the relative collimator output factors (ROF) of Leksell Gamma Knife (LGK) according to IAEA TRS-483 recommendations. ROF was measured at the center of the spherical LGK-Solid Water (LGK-SW) Phantom for three (4-, 8-, and 16-mm in diameter) collimators using four (PTW-TN60008, PTW-TN60016, PTW-TN60017, and PTW-60019 diode/diamond) detectors. Since diode detectors have a much smaller sensitive volume than the PTW-31010 ion chamber used for reference dosimetry, its EPM might not be at the center of the phantom, or (100, 100, 100) of the Leksell Coordinate System, particularly in the z-direction. Hence for each diode detector, a CBCT image was acquired after it was inserted into the phantom, from which the z-Leksell coordinate of EPM was determined. Relative collimator output factors was then measured by focusing GK beams on the determined EPM of each diode. Measured ROFs were compared with the vendor-provided values in GK treatment planning system. For validation, a plan was generated to measure the output of 4-mm collimator for PTW-TN60017 at various couch locations along the z-axis. For PTW-TN60008, the percentage variations were 0.6 ± 0.4%, and -0.8 ± 0.2% for 4 and 8-mm collimators, respectively. For PTW-TN60016, the percentage variations were 0.8 ± 0.0%, and 0.2 ± 0.1%, respectively. The percentage variations were -3.3 ± 0.0% and -0.9 ± 0.1%, respectively, for PTW-TN60017, and -0.5 ± 0.0% and -0.8 ± 0.2%, respectively, for PTW-TN60019. Center of the measured profile for PTW-TN60017 was only 0.1 mm different from that identified using the CBCT. In conclusion, we have developed a simple and effective method to determine the EPMs of diode detectors when inserted into the existing LGK-SW phantom. With the acquired positional information and using TRS-483 protocol, good agreements were obtained between the measured ROFs and manufacturer recommended values.

Evaluation of the IAEA-TRS 483 protocol for the dosimetry of small fields (square and stereotactic cones) using multiple detectors

The IAEA TRS 483 protocol¹ for the dosimetry of small static fields in radiotherapy was used to calculate output factors for the Elekta Synergy linac at the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA). Small field output factors for both square and circular fields were measured using nine different detectors. The “corrected” output factors (ratio of detector readings multiplied by the appropriate correction factor from the protocol) showed better consistency compared to the “uncorrected” output factors (ratio of detector readings only), with the relative standard deviation decreasing by approximately 1% after the application of the relevant correction factors. Comparisons relative to an arbitrarily chosen PTW 60019 microDiamond detector showed a reduction of maximal variation for the corrected values of approximately 3%. A full uncertainty budget was prepared to analyze the consistency of the output factors. Agreement within uncertainties between all detectors and field sizes was found, except for the 15 mm circular field. The results of this study show that the application of IAEA TRS 483¹ when measuring small fields will improve the consistency of small field measurements when using multiple detectors contained within the protocol.