Chromatic bleaching and fractionation effects on optically stimulated luminescent dosimeter reuse.

BACKGROUND: Optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters (OSLDs) can be bleached and reused, but questions remain about the effects of repeated bleaching and fractionation schedules on OSLD performance. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate how light sources with different wavelengths and different fractionation schemes affect the performance of reused OSLDs. METHODS: OSLDs (N = 240) were irradiated on a cobalt-60 beam in different step sizes until they reached an accumulated dose of 50 Gy. Between irradiations they were bleached using light sources of different wavelengths: the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) bleaching system (our control); monochromatic red, green, yellow, and blue lights; and a polychromatic white light. Sensitivity and linearity-based correction factors were determined as a function of dose step-size. The rate of signal removal from different light sources was characterized by sampling these OSLDs at various time points during their bleaching process. Relative doses were calculated according to the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group-191. Signal repopulation was investigated by irradiating OSLDs (N = 300) to various delivered doses of 2, 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 Gy in a single fraction, bleached with one of the colors, and read over time. Fractionation effects were evaluated by irradiating OSLDs up to 30 Gy in different size steps. After reading, the OSLDs were bleached following IROC protocol. OSLDs (N = 40) received irradiations in 5, 10, 15, 30 Gy fractions until they had an accumulated dose of 30 Gy; The sensitivity response of these OSLDs was compared with reference OSLDs that had no accumulated dose. RESULTS: Light sources with polychromatic spectrums (IROC and white) bleached OSLDs faster than did sources with monochromatic spectra. Polychromatic light sources (white light and IROC system) provided the greatest dose stability for OSLDs that had larger amounts of accumulated dose. Signal repopulation was related to the choice of bleaching light source, timing of bleaching, and amount of accumulated dose. Changes to relative dosimetry were more pronounced in OSLDs that received larger fractions. At 5-Gy fractions and above, all OSLDs had heightened sensitivity, with OSLDs exposed to 30-Gy fractions being 6.4% more sensitive than reference dosimeters. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of bleaching light plays a role in how fast an OSLD is bleached and how much accumulated dose an OSLD can be exposed to while maintaining stable signal sensitivity. We have expanded upon investigations into signal repopulation to show that bleaching light plays a role in the migration of deep traps to dosimetric traps after bleaching. Our research concludes that the bleaching light source and fractionation need to be considered when reusing OSLD.

Recommendations on the practice of calibration, dosimetry, and quality assurance for gamma stereotactic radiosurgery: Report of AAPM Task Group 178.

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) formed Task Group 178 (TG-178) to perform the following tasks: review in-phantom and in-air calibration protocols for gamma stereotactic radiosurgery (GSR), suggest a dose rate calibration protocol that can be successfully utilized with all gamma stereotactic radiosurgery (GSR) devices, and update quality assurance (QA) protocols in TG-42 (AAPM Report 54, 1995) for static GSR devices. The TG-178 report recommends a GSR dose rate calibration formalism and provides tabulated data to implement it for ionization chambers commonly used in GSR dosimetry. The report also describes routine mechanical, dosimetric, and safety checks for GSR devices, and provides treatment process quality assurance recommendations. Sample worksheets, checklists, and practical suggestions regarding some QA procedures are given in appendices. The overall goal of the report is to make recommendations that help standardize GSR physics practices and promote the safe implementation of GSR technologies.

Failure Modes in IROC Photon Liver Phantom Irradiations.

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to analyze and classify the patterns of failure for irradiations of the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core photon liver phantom. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core's anthropomorphic liver phantom simulates multitarget liver disease with respiratory motion. Two hundred forty-nine liver phantom results from 2013 to 2019 were analyzed. Phantom irradiations that failed were categorized by the error attributed to the failure. Phantom results were also compared by demographic data, such as machine type, treatment planning system, motion management technique, number of isocenters, and whether the phantom was a first time or repeat irradiation. RESULTS: The failure rate for the liver phantom was 27%. From the 68 irradiations that did not pass, 5 failure modes were identified. The most common failure mode was localization errors in the direction of motion, with over 50% of failures attributed to this mode. The second-most common failure mode was systematic dose errors. The internal target volume technique performed worse than other motion management techniques. Failure modes were different by the number of isocenters used, with multi-isocenter irradiations having more failure modes in a single phantom irradiation. CONCLUSIONS: Motion management techniques and proper alignment of moving targets play a large role in the successful irradiation of the liver phantom. These errors should be examined to ensure accurate patient treatment for liver disease or other sites where multiple moving targets are present.

Report of AAPM Task Group 235 Radiochromic Film Dosimetry: An Update to TG-55.

The use of radiochromic film (RCF) dosimetry in radiation therapy is extensive due to its high level of achievable accuracy for a wide range of dose values and its suitability under a variety of measurement conditions. However, since the publication of the 1998 AAPM Task Group 55, Report No. 63 on RCF dosimetry, the chemistry, composition, and readout systems for RCFs have evolved steadily. There are several challenges in using the new RCFs, readout systems and validation of the results depending on their applications. Accurate RCF dosimetry requires understanding of RCF selection, handling and calibration methods, calibration curves, dose conversion methods, correction methodologies as well as selection, operation and quality assurance (QA) programs of the readout systems. Acquiring this level of knowledge is not straight forward, even for some experienced users. This Task Group report addresses these issues and provides a basic understanding of available RCF models, dosimetric characteristics and properties, advantages and limitations, configurations, and overall elemental compositions of the RCFs that have changed over the past 20 yr. In addition, this report provides specific guidelines for data processing and analysis schemes and correction methodologies for clinical applications in radiation therapy.

Evaluation of the high definition field of view option of a large-bore computed tomography scanner for radiation therapy simulation.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Computed tomography (CT) scanning is the basis for radiation treatment planning, but the 50-cm standard scanning field of view (sFOV) may be too small for imaging larger patients. We evaluated the 65-cm high-definition (HD) FOV of a large-bore CT scanner for CT number accuracy, geometric distortion, image quality degradation, and dosimetric accuracy of photon treatment plans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT number accuracy was tested by placing two 16-cm acrylic phantoms on either side of a 40-cm phantom to simulate a large patient extending beyond the 50-cm-diameter standard scanning FOV. Dosimetric accuracy was tested using anthropomorphic pelvis and thorax phantoms, with additional acrylic body parts on either side of the phantoms. Two volumetric modulated arc therapy beams (a 15-MV and a 6-MV) were used to cover the planning target volumes. Two-dimensional dose distributions were evaluated with GAFChromic film and point dose accuracy was checked with multiple thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) capsules placed in the phantoms. Image quality was tested by placing an American College of Radiology accreditation phantom inside the 40-cm phantom. RESULTS: The HD FOV showed substantial changes in CT numbers, with differences of 314 HU-725 HU at different density levels. The volume of the body parts extending into the HD FOV was distorted. However, TLD-reported doses for all PTVs agreed within ± 3%. Dose agreement in organs at risk were within the passing criteria, and the gamma index pass rate was >97%. Image quality was degraded. CONCLUSIONS: The HD FOV option is adequate for RT simulation and met accreditation standards, although care should be taken during contouring because of reduced image quality.

Differences in the Patterns of Failure Between IROC Lung and Spine Phantom Irradiations.

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to investigate and classify the reasons why institutions fail the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) spine and moving lung phantoms, which are used to credential institutions for clinical trial participation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: All IROC moving lung and SBRT spine phantom irradiation failures recorded from January 2012 to December 2018 were evaluated in this study. A failure was a case where the institution did not meet the established IROC criteria for agreement between planned and delivered dose. We analyzed the reports for all failing irradiations, including point dose disagreement, dose profiles, and gamma analyses. Classes of failure patterns were created and used to categorize each instance. RESULTS: There were 158 failing cases analyzed: 116 of 1052 total lung irradiations and 42 of 263 total spine irradiations. Seven categories were required to describe the lung phantom failures, whereas 4 were required for the spine. Types of errors present in both phantom groups included systematic dose and localization errors. Fifty percent of lung failures were due to a superior-inferior localization error, that is, error in the direction of major motion. Systematic dose errors, however, contributed to only 22% of lung failures. In contrast, the majority (60%) of spine phantom failures were due to systematic dose errors, with localization errors (in any direction) accounting for only 14% of failures. CONCLUSIONS: There were 2 distinct patterns of failure between the IROC moving lung and SBRT spine phantoms. The majority of the lung phantom failures were due to localization errors, whereas the spine phantom failures were largely attributed to systematic dose errors. Both of these errors are clinically relevant and could manifest as errors in patient cases. These findings highlight the value of independent end-to-end dosimetry audits and can help guide the community in improving the quality of radiation therapy by focusing attention on where errors manifest in the community.

Comparing the accuracy of four-dimensional photon dose calculations with three-dimensional calculations using moving and deforming phantoms.

PURPOSE: Four-dimensional (4D) dose calculation algorithms, which explicitly incorporate respiratory motion in the calculation of doses, have the potential to improve the accuracy of dose calculations in thoracic treatment planning; however, they generally require greater computing power and resources than currently used for three-dimensional (3D) dose calculations. The purpose of this work was to quantify the increase in accuracy of 4D dose calculations versus 3D dose calculations. METHODS: The accuracy of each dose calculation algorithm was assessed using measurements made with two phantoms. Specifically, the authors used a rigid moving anthropomorphic thoracic phantom and an anthropomorphic thoracic phantom with a deformable lung insert. To incorporate a clinically relevant range of scenarios, they programed the phantoms to move and deform with two motion patterns: A sinusoidal motion pattern and an irregular motion pattern that was extracted from an actual patient's breathing profile. For each combination of phantom and motion pattern, three plans were created: A single-beam plan, a multiple-beam plan, and an intensity-modulated radiation therapy plan. Doses were calculated using 4D dose calculation methods as well as conventional 3D dose calculation methods. The rigid moving and deforming phantoms were irradiated according to the three treatment plans and doses were measured using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and radiochromic film. The accuracy of each dose calculation algorithm was assessed using measured-to-calculated TLD doses and a gamma analysis. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between the measured-to-calculated TLD ratios among 4D and 3D dose calculations. The gamma results revealed that 4D dose calculations had significantly greater percentage of pixels passing the 5%/3 mm criteria than 3D dose calculations. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate no significant differences in the accuracy between the 4D and the 3D dose calculation methods inside the gross tumor volume. On the other hand, the film results demonstrated that the 4D dose calculations provided greater accuracy than 3D dose calculations in heterogeneous dose regions. The increase in accuracy of the 4D dose calculations was evident throughout the planning target volume.

Verification of four-dimensional photon dose calculations.

Recent work in the area of thoracic treatment planning has been focused on trying to explicitly incorporate patient-specific organ motion in the calculation of dose. Four-dimensional (4D) dose calculation algorithms have been developed and incorporated in a research version of a commercial treatment planning system (Pinnacle3, Philips Medical Systems, Milpitas, CA). Before these 4D dose calculations can be used clinically, it is necessary to verify their accuracy with measurements. The primary purpose of this study therefore was to evaluate and validate the accuracy of a 4D dose calculation algorithm with phantom measurements. A secondary objective was to determine whether the performance of the 4D dose calculation algorithm varied between different motion patterns and treatment plans. Measurements were made using two phantoms: A rigid moving phantom and a deformable phantom. The rigid moving phantom consisted of an anthropomorphic thoracic phantom that rested on a programmable motion platform. The deformable phantom used the same anthropomorphic thoracic phantom with a deformable insert for one of the lungs. Two motion patterns were investigated for each phantom: A sinusoidal motion pattern and an irregular motion pattern extracted from a patient breathing profile. A single-beam plan, a multiple-beam plan, and an intensity-modulated radiation therapy plan were created. Doses were calculated in the treatment planning system using the 4D dose calculation algorithm. Then each plan was delivered to the phantoms and delivered doses were measured using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and film. The measured doses were compared to the 4D-calculated doses using a measured-to-calculated TLD ratio and a gamma analysis. A relevant passing criteria (3% for the TLD and 5% /3 mm for the gamma metric) was applied to determine if the 4D dose calculations were accurate to within clinical standards. All the TLD measurements in both phantoms satisfied the passing criteria. Furthermore, 42 of the 48 evaluated films fulfilled the passing criteria. All films that did not pass the criteria were from the rigid phantom moving with irregular motion. The author concluded that if patient breathing is reproducible, the 4D dose calculations are accurate to within clinically acceptable standards. Furthermore, they found no statistically significant differences in the performance of the 4D dose calculation algorithm between treatment plans.

Challenges in credentialing institutions and participants in advanced technology multi-institutional clinical trials.

The Radiological Physics Center (RPC) has functioned continuously for 38 years to assure the National Cancer Institute and the cooperative groups that institutions participating in multi-institutional trials can be expected to deliver radiation treatments that are clinically comparable to those delivered by other institutions in the cooperative groups. To accomplish this, the RPC monitors the machine output, the dosimetry data used by the institutions, the calculation algorithms used for treatment planning, and the institutions' quality control procedures. The methods of monitoring include on-site dosimetry review by an RPC physicist and a variety of remote audit tools. The introduction of advanced technology clinical trials has prompted several study groups to require participating institutions and personnel to become credentialed, to ensure their familiarity and capability with techniques such as three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, stereotactic body radiotherapy, and brachytherapy. The RPC conducts a variety of credentialing activities, beginning with questionnaires to evaluate an institution's understanding of the protocol and their capabilities. Treatment-planning benchmarks are used to allow the institution to demonstrate their planning ability and to facilitate a review of the accuracy of treatment-planning systems under relevant conditions. The RPC also provides mailable anthropomorphic phantoms to verify tumor dose delivery for special treatment techniques. While conducting these reviews, the RPC has amassed a large amount of data describing the dosimetry at participating institutions. Representative data from the monitoring programs are discussed, and examples are presented of specific instances in which the RPC contributed to the discovery and resolution of dosimetry errors.