Multileaf collimator characterization and modeling for a 1.5 T MR-linac using static synchronous and asynchronous sweeping gaps

Objective.The Elekta unity MR-linac delivers step-and-shoot intensity modulated radiotherapy plans using a multileaf collimator (MLC) based on the Agility MLC used on conventional Elekta linacs. Currently, details of the physical Unity MLC and the computational model within its treatment planning system (TPS)Monacoare lacking in published literature. Recently, a novel approach to characterize the physical properties of MLCs was introduced using dynamic synchronous and asynchronous sweeping gap (aSG) tests. Our objective was to develop a step-and-shoot version of the dynamic aSG test to characterize the Unity MLC and the computational MLC models in theMonacoandRayStationTPSs.Approach.Dynamic aSG were discretized into a step-and-shoot aSG by investigating the number of segments/sweep and the minimal number of monitor units (MU) per segment. The step-and-shoot aSG tests were compared to the dynamic aSG tests on a conventional linac at a source-to-detector distance of 143.5 cm, mimicking the Unity configuration. the step-and-shoot aSG tests were used to characterize the Unity MLC through measurements and dose calculations in both TPSs.Main results.The step-and-shoot aSGs tests with 100 segments and 5 MU/segment gave results very similar to the dynamic aSG experiments. The effective tongue-and-groove width of the Unity gradually increased up to 1.4 cm from the leaf tip end. The MLC models inRayStationandMonacoagreed with experimental data within 2.0% and 10%, respectively. The largest discrepancies inMonacowere found for aSG tests with >10 mm leaf interdigitation, which are non-typical for clinical plans.Significance.The step-and-shoot aSG tests accurately characterize the MLC in step-and-shoot delivery mode. The MLC model inRayStation2023B accurately describes the tongue-and-groove and leaf tip effects whereasMonacooverestimates the tongue-and-groove shadowing further away from the leaf tip end.

Characterization of the on-board megavoltage imager in a magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy machine for beam output checks

We characterized the on-board megavoltage imager (MVI) of a magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy machine for beam output checks. Linearity and repeatability of its dose response were investigated. Alignment relative to the beam under clinical circumstances was evaluated for a year using daily measurements. Linearity and short-term repeatability were excellent. Long-term repeatability drifted 0.8 % per year, which can be overcome by monthly cross calibrations. Long-term alignment was stable. Thus, the MVI has suitable characteristics for beam output checks.

The NCS code of practice for the quality assurance of treatment planning systems (NCS-35)

A subcommittee of the Netherlands Commission on Radiation Dosimetry (NCS) was initiated in 2018 with the task to update and extend a previous publication (NCS-15) on the quality assurance of treatment planning systems (TPS) (Bruinviset al2005). The field of treatment planning has changed considerably since 2005. Whereas the focus of the previous report was more on the technical aspects of the TPS, the scope of this report is broader with a focus on a department wide implementation of the TPS. New sections about education, automated planning, information technology (IT) and updates are therefore added. Although the scope is photon therapy, large parts of this report will also apply to all other treatment modalities. This paper is a condensed version of these guidelines; the full version of the report in English is freely available from the NCS website (http://radiationdosimetry.org/ncs/publications). The paper starts with the scope of this report in relation to earlier reports on this subject. Next, general aspects of the commissioning process are addressed, like e.g. project management, education, and safety. It then focusses more on technical aspects such as beam commissioning and patient modeling, dose representation, dose calculation and (automated) plan optimisation. The final chapters deal with IT-related subjects and scripting, and the process of updating or upgrading the TPS.

Beam output checks of a commercial high-field magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy machine with its on-board megavoltage imager

Beam output checks of a commercial high-field magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy machine can be performed with its on-board megavoltage imager (MVI). This is a fast and efficient method, but only recommended for daily checks. The aim of our study was to show its suitability for weekly checks by investigating its long-term agreement with the golden standard: ionization chamber measurements in a water tank. For one year, the output deviations obtained with both methods were compared. The difference was 0.1 ± 0.3 (1SD) percentage point. This indicated an excellent agreement, and translated into a tolerance level of ± 2 %.

The NCS code of practice for the quality assurance and control for volumetric modulated arc therapy

In 2010, the NCS (Netherlands Commission on Radiation Dosimetry) installed a subcommittee to develop guidelines for quality assurance and control for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatments. The report (published in 2015) has been written by Dutch medical physicists and has therefore, inevitably, a Dutch focus. This paper is a condensed version of these guidelines, the full report in English is freely available from the NCS website www.radiationdosimetry.org. After describing the transition from IMRT to VMAT, the paper addresses machine quality assurance (QA) and treatment planning system (TPS) commissioning for VMAT. The final section discusses patient specific QA issues such as the use of class solutions, measurement devices and dose evaluation methods.

Quality assurance for the EORTC 22071-26071 study: dummy run prospective analysis

Purpose

The phase III 22071–26071 trial was designed to evaluate the addition of panitumumab to adjuvant chemotherapy plus intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in locally advanced resected squamous cell head and neck cancer. We report the results of the dummy run (DR) performed to detect deviations from protocol guidelines.

Methods and Materials

DR datasets consisting of target volumes, organs at risk (OAR) and treatment plans were digitally uploaded, then compared with reference contours and protocol guidelines by six central reviewers. Summary statistics and analyses of potential correlations between delineations and plan characteristics were performed.

Results

Of 23 datasets, 20 (87.0%) GTVs were evaluated as acceptable/borderline, along with 13 (56.5%) CTVs and 10 (43.5%) PTVs. All PTV dose requirements were met by 73.9% of cases. Dose constraints were met for 65.2-100% of mandatory OARs. Statistically significant correlations were observed between the subjective acceptability of contours and the ability to meet dose constraints for all OARs (p ≤ 0.01) except for the parotids and spinal cord. Ipsilateral parotid doses correlated significantly with CTV and PTV volumes (p ≤ 0.05).

Conclusions

The observed wide variations in treatment planning, despite strict guidelines, confirms the complexity of development and quality assurance of IMRT-based multicentre studies for head and neck cancer.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13014-014-0248-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Multi-institutional comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy vs. intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head-and-neck cancer: a planning study

Background

Compared to static beam Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT), the main advantage of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) is a shortened delivery time, which leads to improved patient comfort and possibly smaller intra-fraction movements. This study aims at a treatment planner-independent comparison of radiotherapy treatment planning of IMRT and VMAT for head-and-neck cancer performed by several institutes and based on the same CT- and contouring data.

Methods

Five institutes generated IMRT and VMAT plans for five oropharyngeal cancer patients using either Pinnacle³ or Oncentra Masterplan to be delivered on Elekta linear accelerators.

Results

Comparison of VMAT and IMRT plans within the same patient and institute showed significantly better sparing for almost all OARs with VMAT. The average mean dose to the parotid glands and oral cavity was reduced from 27.2 Gy and 39.4 Gy for IMRT to 25.0 Gy and 36.7 Gy for VMAT, respectively. The dose conformity at 95% of the prescribed dose for PTV_boost and PTV_total was 1.45 and 1.62 for IMRT and 1.37 and 1.50 for VMAT, respectively. The average effective delivery time was reduced from 13:15 min for IMRT to 5:54 min for VMAT.

Conclusions

Independently of institution-specific optimization strategies, the quality of the VMAT plans including double arcs was superior to step-and-shoot IMRT plans including 5–9 beam ports, while the effective treatment delivery time was shortened by ~50% with VMAT.

Recommendations for implementing stereotactic radiotherapy in peripheral stage IA non-small cell lung cancer: report from the Quality Assurance Working Party of the randomised phase III ROSEL study

BACKGROUND

A phase III multi-centre randomised trial (ROSEL) has been initiated to establish the role of stereotactic radiotherapy in patients with operable stage IA lung cancer. Due to rapid changes in radiotherapy technology and evolving techniques for image-guided delivery, guidelines had to be developed in order to ensure uniformity in implementation of stereotactic radiotherapy in this multi-centre study.

METHODS/DESIGN

A Quality Assurance Working Party was formed by radiation oncologists and clinical physicists from both academic as well as non-academic hospitals that had already implemented stereotactic radiotherapy for lung cancer. A literature survey was conducted and consensus meetings were held in which both the knowledge from the literature and clinical experience were pooled. In addition, a planning study was performed in 26 stage I patients, of which 22 were stage 1A, in order to develop and evaluate the planning guidelines. Plans were optimised according to parameters adopted from RTOG trials using both an algorithm with a simple homogeneity correction (Type A) and a more advanced algorithm (Type B). Dose conformity requirements were then formulated based on these results.

CONCLUSION

Based on current literature and expert experience, guidelines were formulated for this phase III study of stereotactic radiotherapy versus surgery. These guidelines can serve to facilitate the design of future multi-centre clinical trials of stereotactic radiotherapy in other patient groups and aid a more uniform implementation of this technique outside clinical trials.

Developing and evaluating stereotactic lung RT trials: what we should know about the influence of inhomogeneity corrections on dose

Purpose

To investigate the influence of inhomogeneity corrections on stereotactic treatment plans for non-small cell lung cancer and determine the dose delivered to the PTV and OARs.

Materials and methods

For 26 patients with stage-I NSCLC treatment plans were optimized with unit density (UD), an equivalent pathlength algorithm (EPL), and a collapsed-cone (CC) algorithm, prescribing 60 Gy to the PTV. After optimization the first two plans were recalculated with the more accurate CC algorithm. Dose parameters were compared for the three different optimized plans. Dose to the target and OARs was evaluated for the recalculated plans and compared with the planned values.

Results

For the CC algorithm dose constraints for the ratio of the 50% isodose volume and the PTV, and the V_{20 Gy} are harder to fulfill. After recalculation of the UD and EPL plans large variations in the dose to the PTV were observed. For the unit density plans, the dose to the PTV varied from 42.1 to 63.4 Gy for individual patients. The EPL plans all overestimated the PTV dose (average 48.0 Gy). For the lungs, the recalculated V_{20 Gy} was highly correlated to the planned value, and was 12% higher for the UD plans (R² = 0.99), and 15% lower for the EPL plans (R² = 0.96).

Conclusion

Inhomogeneity corrections have a large influence on the dose delivered to the PTV and OARs for SBRT of lung tumors. A simple rescaling of the dose to the PTV is not possible, implicating that accurate dose calculations are necessary for these treatment plans in order to prevent large discrepancies between planned and actually delivered doses to individual patients.