Early outcomes after allogeneic hematopoietic SCT in pediatric patients with hematologic malignancies following single fraction TBI.

Fractionated TBI (FTBI) followed by allogeneic hematopoietic SCT results in donor engraftment and improves survival in children with high-risk hematologic malignancies. However, acute toxicities (skin, lung and mucosa) are common after FTBI. Late complications include cataracts, endocrine dysfunction, sterility and impaired neurodevelopment. Instead of FTBI, we used low-dose single fraction TBI (550 cGy) with CY as transplant conditioning for pediatric hematologic malignancies. GVHD prophylaxis included CYA and short-course MTX; methylprednisolone was added for unrelated donor transplants. A total of 55 children in first (40%) or second remission and beyond (60%) underwent transplantation from BM (65%) or peripheral blood; 62% from unrelated donors; 22% were mismatched. Median follow-up was 18.5 months (1-68). Overall survival and disease-free survival at 1 year were 60 and 47%, respectively. Acute toxicities included grade 3-4 mucositis (18%), invasive infections (11%), multiorgan failure/shock (11%), hemolytic anemia (7%), veno-occlusive disease (4%) and renal failure (4%). TRM was 11% at 100 days. Non-relapse mortality was 6% thereafter. Graft rejection occurred in 2%. Three patients (5%) died of GVHD. The regimen was well tolerated even in heavily pretreated children and supported donor cell engraftment; long-term follow up is in progress.

Interleaf leakage for 5 and 10 mm dynamic multileaf collimation systems incorporating patient motion.

Use of dynamic multileaf collimation (DMLC) for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is accelerating. Delivery systems have the ailment of interleaf leakage (IL). This is compounded by the inefficiency of IMRT delivery, estimated to be a factor of 5 for DMLC. With IL on the order of 4%, it is possible to deliver as much as 20% of the prescribed dose to nonprescribed regions. However, IL is characterized by narrow Gaussian peaks of approximately 0.5-1.0 mm full-width-half-maximum (FWHM). We performed a leakage study for 5 and 10 mm leaf systems, accounting for intratreatment and intertreatment motions. In solid phantoms, film was placed perpendicular to beams. DMLC patterns delivered step-wedged distributions. The same field was duplicated using a collimating jaw in a segmented fashion to obtain baseline data of primary and scatter contributions. Longitudinal shifts up to 4 mm and angulations up to 4 degrees were introduced during beam delivery by running multiple patterns, to arrive at a composite delivery. The intent of these rigid body motion experiments was to replicate patient motion. Clinical IMRT fields using segmented MLC were also tested. Films were scanned and converted to dose. A microionization chamber confirmed film data at discrete points. In all cases shifts diminished IL peak values. In the step-wedge case, the net 18 MV IL peaks diminished from 3.6% to 3.2% for the 10 mm system. The 5 mm system IL values decreased from 4.0% to 3.2% with a 2 mm shift but increased to 4.0% with 4 mm shifts. The clinical field data followed the same pattern with a washing out of peak values, but the overall transmission to shielded regions slightly increased. Therefore nonprescribed regions are influenced by an effective transmission value rather than discrete peak IL values. The 5 mm leaf system does not introduce increased IL and is an appropriate system for IMRT.

Characterization of a commercial multileaf collimator used for intensity modulated radiation therapy.

The characteristics of a commercial multileaf collimator (MLC) to deliver static and dynamic multileaf collimation (SMLC and DMLC, respectively) were investigated to determine their influence on intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment planning and quality assurance. The influence of MLC leaf positioning accuracy on sequentially abutted SMLC fields was measured by creating abutting fields with selected gaps and overlaps. These data were also used to measure static leaf positioning precision. The characteristics of high leaf-velocity DMLC delivery were measured with constant velocity leaf sequences starting with an open field and closing a single leaf bank. A range of 1-72 monitor units (MU) was used providing a range of leaf velocities. The field abutment measurements yielded dose errors (as a percentage of the open field max dose) of 16.7+/-0.7% mm(-1) and 12.8+/-0.7% mm(-1) for 6 MV and 18 MV photon beams, respectively. The MLC leaf positioning precision was 0.080+/-0.018 mm (single standard deviation) highlighting the excellent delivery hardware tolerances for the tested beam delivery geometry. The high leaf-velocity DMLC measurements showed delivery artifacts when the leaf sequence and selected monitor units caused the linear accelerator to move the leaves at their maximum velocity while modulating the accelerator dose rate to deliver the desired leaf and MU sequence (termed leaf-velocity limited delivery). According to the vendor, a unique feature to their linear accelerator and MLC is that the dose rate is reduced to provide the correct cm MU(-1) leaf velocity when the delivery is leaf-velocity limited. However, it was found that the system delivered roughly 1 MU per pulse when the delivery was leaf-velocity limited causing dose profiles to exhibit discrete steps rather than a smooth dose gradient. The root mean square difference between the steps and desired linear gradient was less than 3% when more than 4 MU were used. The average dose per MU was greater and less than desired for closing and opening leaf patterns, respectively, when the delivery was leaf-velocity limited. The results indicated that the dose delivery artifacts should be minor for most clinical cases, but limit the assumption of dose linearity when significantly reducing the delivered dose for dosimeter characterization studies or QA measurements.

Room shielding for intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment facilities.

PURPOSE: The traditional assumptions used in room-shielding calculations are reassessed for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). IMRT makes relatively inefficient use of monitor units (MUs) when compared to conventional radiation therapy, affecting the assumptions used in room-shielding calculations. For the same single-fraction tumor dose delivered, the total number of MUs for IMRT is much greater than for a conventional treatment. Therefore, the exposure contribution from the linear accelerator head leakage will be significantly greater than with conventional treatments. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We propose a shielding calculation model that decouples the concepts of workload, MUs, and target dose when determining primary and secondary barrier thicknesses. The workload for primary barrier calculations for conventional multileaf collimator (MLC) IMRT treatments is determined according to patient tumor doses. The same calculation for accelerator-based serial tomotherapy IMRT requires scaling by the average number of treatment slices. However, rotational therapy yields a small use factor that compensates for this increase. We further define a series of efficiency factors to account for the small field sizes employed in IMRT. For secondary barrier calculations, the patient-scattered radiation is assumed to be the same for all IMRT modalities as for conventional therapy. The accelerator head leakage contribution is proportional to the number of MUs. Knowledge of the average number of MUs per patient is required to estimate the head leakage contribution. We used a 6-MV linear accelerator photon beam to guide the development of this technique and to evaluate the adequacy of conventional barriers for IMRT. Average weekly IMRT workload estimates were made based on our experience with 180 serial tomotherapy patients and published data for both "step and shoot" and dynamic MLC delivered treatments. RESULTS: We found that conventional primary barriers are adequate for both dynamic MLC and serial tomotherapy IMRT. However, the excessive head leakage produced by these modalities requires an increase in secondary barrier shielding. CONCLUSION: When designing shielding for an IMRT facility, increases in accelerator head leakage must be taken into account for secondary shielding. Adequacy of secondary shielding will depend on the IMRT patient load. For conventional facilities that are being assessed for IMRT therapy, existing primary barriers will typically prove adequate.

Dosimetry and techniques for simultaneous hyperthermia and external beam radiation therapy.

An increased biological effect is realized when hyperthermia and radiation therapy are combined simultaneously. To take advantage of this effect, techniques have been developed that combine existing hyperthermia devices with a linear accelerator. This allows concomitant delivery of either ultrasound or microwave hyperthermia with photon radiation therapy. Two techniques have been used clinically: the orthogonal technique, in which the microwave or ultrasound beam and the radiation beam are orthogonal to one another, and the en face technique, in which the ultrasound or microwave beam and the radiation beam travel into the tumour through the same treatment window. The en face technique has necessitated the development of special attachments so that the hyperthermia device can be mounted to the linear accelerator and so that non-uniform portions of the hyperthermia device can be removed from the radiation beam. For microwave therapy, applicators are mounted onto the linear accelerator using the compensating filter tray holder. For ultrasound, special reflector devices are mounted to a frame that is mounted onto the compensating filter tray holder of the linear accelerator. Because the linear accelerator is an isocentric device, the height of the radiation source is fixed, and this has necessitated specially designed devices so that the ultrasound support system is compatible with the linear accelerator. The treatment setups for both the en face technique and the orthogonal technique require the interaction of both hyperthermia and radiation therapy personnel and equipment. The dosimetry and day-to-day operations for each technique are unique. The simulation for the en face technique is much different from the simulation of a normal radiation treatment and requires the presence of a hyperthermia physicist. Also, for the en face technique, the attenuation of the microwave applicator and the thickness and attenuation of the ultrasound reflector system are taken into account for radiation dosimetry. This paper presents details of the dosimetry and logistics of the techniques for simultaneous thermoradiotherapy based on 7 years of experience treating more than 50 patients.

Differential dosing of prostate and seminal vesicles using dynamic multileaf collimation.

PURPOSE: We have investigated the potential of applying different doses to the prostate (PTV2) and prostate/seminal vesicles (PTV1) using multileaf collimation (MLC) for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Current dose-escalation studies call for treatment of the PTV1 to 54 Gy in 27 fractions followed by 20 Gy minimum to the PTV2. A daily minimum PTV dose of 2 Gy using a 7-field technique (4 obliques, opposed laterals, and an ant-post field) is delivered. This requires monitor unit calculations, paper and electronic chart entry, and quality assurance for a total of 14 fields. The goal of MLC IMRT is to improve efficiency and deliver superior dose distributions. Acceptance testing and commissioning of the dynamic MLC (DMLC) option on a dual-energy accelerator was accomplished. Most of the testing was performed using segmental MLC (SMLC) IMRT with stop-and-shoot sequences built within the dynamic mode of the DMLC. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The MLC IMRT fields were forward planned using a three-dimensional treatment planning system. The 14 fields were condensed to 7 SMLC IMRT fields with two segments each. In this process, steps were created by moving the leaves to the reduced field positions. No dose (<0.01%) was delivered during this motion. The monitor units were proportioned according to the planned treatment weights. Film and ionization chamber dosimetry were used to analyze leaf positional accuracy and speed, output, and depth-dose characteristics. A geometric phantom was used for absolute and relative measurements. We obtained a volumetric computerized tomography (CT) scan of the phantom, performed 3D planning, and then delivered a single treatment fraction. RESULTS: The acceptance testing and commissioning demonstrated that the leaves move to programmed positions accurately and in a timely manner. We did find an approximately 1 mm offset of the set leaf position and radiation edge (50%) due to the curved-end nature and calibration limitations. The 7-field SMLC IMRT treatment duplicated the 14-field static plan dose distribution with variations no greater than 1.5%. CONCLUSIONS: The MLC IMRT approach will improve efficiency because the number of electronic and chart entries has decreased by a factor of 2. Portal images are able to capture the initial and final MLC segments. The question of differential daily dose to the prostate and seminal vesicles remains.

A reduction in the AAPM TG-36 reported peripheral dose distributions with tertiary multileaf collimation. American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 36.

PURPOSE: The American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 36 (AAPM TG-36) data can be used to estimate peripheral dose (PD) distributions outside the primary radiation field. However, the report data apply to linear accelerators not equipped with tertiary multileaf collimators (MLCs). Peripheral dose distributions consist of internal scatter, collimation scatter, transmission through collimation, head leakage, and room scatter. Tertiary MLCs may significantly reduce the PD due to a reduction in collimation scatter, transmission through collimation, and head leakage. Measurements were performed on a multimodality linear accelerator, equipped with a tertiary MLC, to determine PD distributions as a function of energy, field size, distance from the primary radiation field edge, MLC position, and collimator orientation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Measurements were made using an ionization chamber embedded in a 20 x 40 x 120-cm3 water-equivalent plastic phantom with the secondary collimator and MLC settings of 10 x 10, 15 x 15, 20 x 20, 25 x 25 cm2, and with the MLC fully retracted. Data were taken along the longitudinal axis of the machine for 6 and 18 MV photons. Peripheral dose distributions were evaluated with the collimator set to 180 and 90 degrees. Rotation of the collimator allowed measurements parallel and orthogonal to the direction of motion of the MLC. RESULTS: For both photon energies, peripheral doses measured on a MLC machine were lower than the TG-36 data. When the collimator is rotated by 90 degrees, placing the lower jaws and the MLC leaves along the plane of interest, PD was reduced by as much as a factor of three compared with PDs measured with the MLC fully retracted and the collimator rotated to 180 degrees. PDs measured with the MLC fully retracted and collimator rotated to 180 degrees were comparable to the TG-36 data. Measured PDs were lower when the MLC was used to shape the field than when the MLC was fully retracted. CONCLUSION: A strategic orientation of the collimator with a tertiary MLC can reduce PD distributions by more than a factor of two. This decrease significantly lessens or eliminates the need for external lead shielding to reduce the critical organ dose. This method can be used even when Lipowitz metal blocking (such as for mantle fields) is used, with the MLC leaves oriented along the longitudinal plane.

Technology assessment of multileaf collimation: a North American users survey.

PURPOSE: The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) initiated an Assessment of Technology Subcommittee (ATS) to help the radiotherapy community evaluate emerging technologies. The ATS decided to first address multileaf collimation (MLC) by means of a North American users survey. The survey attempted to address issues such as MLC utility, efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and customer satisfaction. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The survey was designed with 38 questions, with cross-tabulation set up to decipher a particular clinic's perception of MLC. The surveys were coded according to MLC types, which were narrowed to four: Elekta, Siemens, Varian 52-leaf, and Varian 80-leaf. A 40% return rate was desired. RESULTS: A 44% (108 of 250) return was achieved. On an MLC machine, 76.5% of photon patients are being treated with MLC. The main reasons for not using MLC were stair stepping, field size limitation, and physician objection. The most common sites in which MLC is being used are lung, pelvis, and prostate. The least used sites are head & neck and mantle fields. Of the facilities, 31% claimed an increase in number of patients being treated since MLC was installed, and 44% claimed an increase in the number of fields. Though the staffing for block cutting has decreased, therapist staffing has not. However, 91% of the facilities claimed a decreased workload for the therapists, despite the increase in daily treated patients and fields. Of the facilities that justified MLC purchase for more daily patients, 63% are actually treating more patients. Only 26% of the facilities that justified an MLC purchase for intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) are currently using it for that purpose. The satisfaction rating (1 = low to 5 = high) for department groups averaged 4.0. Therapists ranked MLC as 4.6. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey shows that most users have successfully introduced MLC into the clinic as a block replacement. Most have found MLC to be cost-effective and efficient. The use of MLC for IMRT has progressed slower, but users anticipate escalated use.

A change in treatment process with a modern record and verify system.

PURPOSE: With the introduction of new treatment devices, such as a multileaf collimator (MLC) and dynamic wedge (DW), therapists have an increased responsibility to ensure correct treatment. Simultaneously, three-dimensional treatment planning (3DTP) has led to an increased number of portals and table movements. To counteract this challenge and maintain efficiency, a comprehensive record and verify (R&V) system is mandatory. We evaluated a commercial system (Varis) for reliability, ease of use, efficiency, and integration with our planning systems. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Some key elements of the Varis system are: integration of MLC and DW; auto setup for MLC, jaw, collimator, gantry, and limited table parameters; direct download of simulation beam data; and a regimented field scheduling system that prescribes all beam data for particular fractions. Evaluation of the system was driven by treatment time analysis, error rates, and an increased workload. These issues were governed by how we disseminated duties and how the system accommodated or changed our processes. RESULTS: Most data entry is performed by our dosimetry staff. Data can be downloaded from the simulator, but more patients now move from CT simulation and/or 3DTP to the treatment machine. Varis does not link to these systems. The physics staff confirms all entries to correct data entry errors. The workload for dosimetrists increased by an average of 8 minutes/patient entry; physics time increased by 7 minutes/patient entry; the weekly electronic chart check takes approximately 3 minutes/patient. Therapists who used Varis efficiently showed a slight decrease in treatment times, attributed to MLC integration and auto-setup. Some therapists experienced a decrease in efficiency, because of unfamiliarity and excess intervention. On a positive note, notable events have decreased by a factor of 10 since full initiation. Unfortunately, the remaining errors are often the result of a therapist relying on incorrect electronic information. CONCLUSION: The Varis R&V system has had an impact on our clinic's process and efficiency. Checking of all beam data and related field scheduling have helped reduce errors and misconceptions. We feel a dual-energy machine can be operated with two experienced therapists and an up-to-date R&V system more accurately and efficiently than with three therapists working without an integrated R&V. We anticipate future Varis releases will further promote efficiency and accuracy.

Study of lung density corrections in a clinical trial (RTOG 88-08). Radiation Therapy Oncology Group.

PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of lung density corrections on the dose delivered to lung cancer radiotherapy patients in a multi-institutional clinical trial, and to determine whether commonly available density-correction algorithms are sufficient to improve the accuracy and precision of dose calculation in the clinical trials setting. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A benchmark problem was designed (and a corresponding phantom fabricated) to test density-correction algorithms under standard conditions for photon beams ranging from 60Co to 24 MV. Point doses and isodose distributions submitted for a Phase III trial in regionally advanced, unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 88-08) were calculated with and without density correction. Tumor doses were analyzed for 322 patients and 1236 separate fields. RESULTS: For the benchmark problem studied here, the overall correction factor for a four-field treatment varied significantly with energy, ranging from 1.14 (60Co) to 1.05 (24 MV) for measured doses, or 1.17 (60Co) to 1.05 (24 MV) for doses calculated by conventional density-correction algorithms. For the patient data, overall correction factors (calculated) ranged from 0.95 to 1.28, with a mean of 1.05 and distributional standard deviation of 0.05. The largest corrections were for lateral fields, with a mean correction factor of 1.11 and standard deviation of 0.08. CONCLUSIONS: Lung inhomogeneities can lead to significant variations in delivered dose between patients treated in a clinical trial. Existing density-correction algorithms are accurate enough to significantly reduce these variations.

Geometric and dosimetric analysis of multileaf collimation conformity.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There is concern over the stepped edges of multileaf collimator (MLC) fields for target coverage compared with those of cerrobend. Despite recent reports dispelling this concern, users are still cautious when using MLCs for small fields. Leaf orientation can be a problem if one is required to orient the leaves along an axis not ideal for conformity (such as dynamic or universal wedge cases). In this study we examined the dependence of MLC field conformity on field size and elongation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined circles of varying diameter and ellipses of varying eccentricity with leaves oriented along the major and minor axes of ellipses. The tests were both geometric, comparing areas of overblocking or underblocking (leaves inside and outside the field), and dosimetric, using radiographic films at depth in the beam's eye view plane. RESULTS: For the geometric comparison there is a rapid increase in non-conformity, defined as the percentage of overblocking or underblocking area, as the circle diameter decreases. For ellipses, when the leaves move along one axis direction, the conformity does not depend on the diameter of the same axis, but instead improves as the dimension of the axis in the non-leaf motion direction increases. The best conformity is achieved when the maximum number of leaves is used to shape the field. When the dosimetry is analyzed, the predictability of these trends decreases due to the impact of undulations (scatter), leaf inaccuracies and dosimetric uncertainties. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that for small round fields MLC should be used with caution and that for ellipses the direction of leaf movement should be aligned with the minor axis whenever possible. Though these experiments are for idealized geometries, the observations can be applied to clinical fields. An MLC with a thinner leaf width could be beneficial for small round fields.

Multiple machine implementation of enhanced dynamic wedge.

PURPOSE: After acquiring 4 years of experience with Dynamic Wedge, a software-driven one-dimensional (1D) compensation system, we implemented a new software version called Enhanced Dynamic Wedge (EDW). The EDW allows larger (30 cm) and asymmetric field sizes and additional angles for wedged fields. We implemented this software on four similar dual-energy accelerators that also possess upper and lower physical wedge sets. Our goal was to implement EDW with one common wedge factor (WF) table and one set of treatment-planning files. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We measured WFs with an ionization chamber and isodose profiles with both film and a diode array. We used a calculation scheme that requires only entry of the wedge angle and fixed jaw value. Filters for computerized treatment planning were configured for each wedge angle. We also examined to what degree the multileaf collimation (MLC) orientation, which is orthogonal to the EDW direction, was compromised for specific treatment sites. As a comparative test, we examined the dosimetric consistency for the 8 sets of physical wedges on the four machines. Finally, we updated our DW quality assurance program for EDW. RESULTS: The measured EDW WF was common for all four machines to within +/- 1.5% and the calculation scheme held to within 1.5%. The EDW isodoses were consistent among the machines as measured by film and diode array. The treatment-planning filters provided computed isodose profiles that were nearly identical to measured profiles. Regarding MLC orientation, we found that the collimator angle needed for EDW did not compromise isodose distributions, as apparent in measured isodoses and calculated dose-volume histograms. The consistency of the physical wedges did not fare as well. Two of the lower wedge sets had Wfs and profiles different (> 3%) from the other wedge sets. CONCLUSIONS: We have successfully implemented EDW on four machines using only one WF table and one set of treatment-planning filters. The EDW provides for improved treatment techniques for particular sites due to the large field sizes and additional angles available. Daily treatment efficiency has increased because of the remote capability provided by EDW.

Modulated electron beams using multi-segmented multileaf collimation.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Conformal radiation therapy by modulation of photon and electron beams has been described for many techniques. Modulation of electron beams with the use of either bolus or altered scanned beams is reported. Our institution previously investigated the use of MLC for fixed static electron fields. The results were dismal due to the wide penumbra associated with multileaf collimated electrons scattered from foils. The purpose of this study was to decipher whether multi-segmented electron beams using MLC would provide a useful and practical modulated beam by taking advantage of matching the diffuse beam edges. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We started by planning simple target shapes, such as wedged and parabolic shapes. We optimized the segment widths, weights, gaps between segments and energies. We then irradiated phantoms using film to confirm the calculations. The study was limited to single-plane irradiation. We also planned and measured isodoses for a parotid target volume that possessed varying depths from surface to medial aspect. RESULTS: We found that we could optimize distributions by using the treatment depth and points of inflection to derive optimal segments. The planned treatments using a simple CET (coefficient of equivalent thickness) algorithm were confirmed with reasonable success. A 24 cm wide target was treated with nine segments in under 5 min, while most cases, including the parotid volume, were treated in under 3 min. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a technique to complement a photon modulation program by treating lesions close to the surface. The debate as to whether this technique is optimal and more efficient than a bolus technique continues. We are currently devising methods for optimizing modulated electron MLC beams in multiple planes.

Treatment planning for enhanced dynamic wedge with the CMS focus/Modulex treatment planning system.

The current versions of the CMS treatment planning systems, the FOCUS system for three dimensional planning, and Modulex for two dimensional planning, both require modeling dynamic wedges as filters. In this paper we describe methods for generating dynamic wedge filters for treatment planning. In our previous work with dynamic wedge we used measured data to back project the filter that would have delivered the wedge shaped isodoses. With the current version of Enhanced Dynamic Wedge, we use the segmented treatment table (STT) to create filters. For each wedge angle we created a 30 cm filter, for which the field is truncated by blocks according to the dynamic jaw settings. We found the filters provided isodoses that were within 2 degrees of the measured angles. Central axis dose was within 1% due to the fact the system does not account for beam hardening. Although an undesirable solution to model dynamic wedging, we found the filter method to be workable.

1995 survey of physics teaching efforts in radiation oncology residency programs.

A physics teaching survey was constructed and sent to the 83 radiation oncologist training programs. The survey requested program information regarding size, staffing, curriculum, lab/rotation programs, organization, requirements, instructor makeup, teaching materials, and board certification examination results. The surveys were sent to the physicist responsible for the physics program. Forty-nine (59%) institutions returned completed surveys, of which 43 (88%) were university-associated programs, and 27 (55%) were 4-year programs. On average, there were two residents/year. Most programs (39) taught physics exclusively during the first year (PG2). Some programs taught different subjects (or levels) to different year residents. Radiation dosimetry, treatment planning, and brachytherapy constituted nearly half of the teaching hours. On average the total classroom time expended by physicists was 61.4 h/year with a range of 24-118 h. The mean for laboratory/demonstration time was 27 h/year with 18 programs providing none. Physics orientation/rotations ranged from 1 to 480 h with a mean of 170 h for a physics rotation taking place in year 2 (PG3). Mandatory attendance was 80% for first-year residents and decreased in later years. Homework was assigned in 76% of the programs, and 65% of the programs were graded. The primary instructors averaged 18.2 years of experience, and the majority were ABR/ABMP certified. Khan's textbook was the most prevalent resource for most subjects. No correlation could be made between teaching hours and ABR physics percentile scoring. The survey results reveal enormous differences in national teaching efforts.

A volumetric study of measurements and calculations of lung density corrections for 6 and 18 MV photons.

PURPOSE: For treatment of lung cancer, dose heterogeneity corrections and subsequent prescription alteration remain controversial. Previous dosimetry studies based on slab geometry with a single beam geometry do not represent the clinical situation. A circumscribed tumor within lung poses a more complex problem. Energy choice also remains controversial. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An anthropomorphic phantom was modified by replacing lung cylinders (2.5 and 5.0 cm diameters by 5.0 cm length) with muscle-equivalent cylinders. The phantom was scanned on a CT simulator. Gross, clinical, and planning target volumes (GTV, CTV, PTV1 including tumor and regional nodes, PTV2 including tumor only) were designated slice-by-slice. Three-dimensional planning was performed with large fields (AP/PA/RPO) covering PTV1 and boost fields optimized for each PTV2, for 6 and 18 MV photons. Homogeneous, Ratio-Tissue-Air-Ratio (RTAR), and convolution-adapted RTAR (CARTAR) calculation algorithms were tested. Film was placed between phantom slices at the "tumor" levels. The phantom was irradiated with monitor units corresponding to homogeneous calculations, based on a homogeneous prescription. Measured and calculated doses were compared by isodoses and dose volume histograms. Ionization chambers and TLDs were also used for some test cases. RESULTS: The measured minimum dose covering PTV2 was within 5% of the homogeneous prescription dose of 70 Gy for 6 MV photons, while a lower dose (89% of prescription dose) was measured for 18 MV. The algorithms overpredicted the minimum dose to PTV2 by 6-18%. If the monitor units had been reduced according to simplistic heterogeneous calculations, the small PTV2 would have only been covered by 58 Gy for 18 MV irradiation. Based on this, a clinician may opt to actually increase the prescribed dose, thereby offsetting decreased monitor units. None of the algorithms predicted the diffuse penumbra associated with 18 MV photons in lung. CONCLUSION: Before adjusting dose prescriptions based on heterogeneity corrections, realistic phantom studies must be performed. The accuracy and effect of the corrections must then be assessed. The deficient coverage of PTV2 by the 18 MV beam compares unfavorably with the slight increase (5%) in hot spots associated with 6 MV. Our studies support strong caution before reducing dose prescriptions based on simple algorithms.

The incidence of breast cancer following mantle field radiation therapy as a function of dose and technique.

BACKGROUND: There is an increased incidence of breast cancer following mantle field radiation therapy for Hodgkin's disease (HD). We reviewed the experience at the Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology (MIR) for radiation factors related to the development of breast cancer after mantle field radiation therapy for HD. METHODS: The radiation therapy records of 152 women treated with mantle field irradiation for HD at MIR between 1966-1985 were reviewed for the development of breast cancer and treatment-related factors. All patients had a minimum of 5 years of follow-up. The treatment era (1966-1974 vs. 1975-1985), stage of HD, mediastinal dose, axillary dose, maximum dose from the anterior field (anterior d(max) dose), the anterior-posterior:posterior-anterior (AP:PA) ratio, age at the time of treatment, length of follow-up, and history of splenectomy were analyzed as possible contributing factors for the development of breast cancer. The observed number of breast cancers was compared to the expected number based on age-adjusted incidences from the Connecticut Tumor Registry. RESULTS: Ten breast cancers occurred in the population. Eight involved an upper outer quadrant. In a multivariate analysis, the development of breast cancer was significantly associated with axillary dose. Patients in the early treatment era were at an increased risk for the development of breast cancer due to high anterior d(max) and breast doses from weighting the fields anteriorly on a low energy linear accelerator. The use of current radiation therapy techniques was not related to an increased risk of breast cancer with a median follow-up of 13 years. CONCLUSIONS: A high dose to the axilla and the anterior d(max) point is significantly associated with the development of breast cancer after mantle field irradiation for HD. Efforts to protect the breast from high doses will likely lessen the increased risk of breast cancer in women treated with radiation therapy for HD.

Surface and peripheral doses of dynamic and physical wedges.

PURPOSE: The physical and dosimetric differences between three different wedge systems on a multileaf collimator (MLC) equiped linear accelerator are discussed in this report. In particular, the in-field and peripheral surface doses from these wedge systems are measured and their clinical differences discussed. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A parallel-plate chamber was used in a solid water phantom to measure the surface doses of the wedges. Published correction factors were used to convert relative ionization to relative surface dose. Measurements were performed for 6 and 18 MV photon beams for different field sizes, source-surface distances (SSD), and distances outside the field for peripheral dose measurements. Surface-dose profiles across a field in the wedge-gradient direction were measured for the dynamic and upper wedges. Dose profiles in the nonwedge gradient direction were measured for open beam as well as the three wedges using films at depths of maximum dose (d(max)). RESULTS: At 85 cm SSD, surface doses on the central axis under a dynamic wedge or upper wedges are similar to those of an open field, while those of a lower wedged field are as much as 100% higher. Differences in surface doses due to beam energy are relatively minor compared with differences due to SSD or wedge systems. Dynamic and upper wedges produce similar peripheral doses, much lower than those produced by the lower wedges. The surface dose profile across the field under the dynamic wedge has a higher slope than that under the upper wedge, when the difference in wedge angles is compensated for by normalization to the dose profile at d(max). In the nonwedge gradient direction, the dose profiles at d(max) of both the upper and the lower wedges demonstrate a marked effect of oblique filtration of the primary beam, resulting in an off-axis ratio at 80% of the field width of 0.95, in contrast to the off-axis ratio of 1.05 in the open and the dynamic wedged fields. CONCLUSIONS: The three wedge systems produce significantly different surface and peripheral doses that should be considered in properly choosing a wedge system for clinical use. Dynamic wedge and upper wedge systems deliver surface and peripheral doses similar to those of open fields and much lower than the lower wedge system. Both physical wedge systems degrade beam profiles in the nonwedged direction.

An ultrasound system for simultaneous ultrasound hyperthermia and photon beam irradiation.

PURPOSE: An existing ultrasound system has been adapted for simultaneous use with external photon beam irradiation. The system is being used to investigate the potential for increased biological benefit of simultaneously combined hyperthermia and external beam irradiation with currently achievable temperature distributions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An existing clinical ultrasound system has been modified for simultaneous operation with a 60Co teletherapy machine. The generator, thermometry system, computer, and applicators are located inside the treatment room, while the monitor and system control are located at the control console. Two approaches have been used clinically to combine the two modalities. In the first approach, an en-face setup is used in which the ultrasound beam and the photon beam travel through the same window of entry to the tumor. This is acheived by a reflecting system designed to deflect the ultrasound to the tumor while positioning the ultrasound transducer outside the radiation beam. The reflecting system consists of water and water-equivalent materials except for a 1 mm sheet of polished brass that is used as the reflector. The relative pressure fields were measured in water at the same distance from the ultrasound source using a scanning hydrophone with and without the reflector at the two operating frequencies of the device (1.0 and 3.4 MHz) for two applicators. Radiation dosimetry measurements were performed to determine the relationship between 60Co irradiation through the reflector and absorbed dose. In the second approach the ultrasound and the radiation beam travel into the tumor from different windows of entry such that the radiation beam passes through no portion of the water bolus prior to entering the patient. We have termed this approach the orthogonal approach. For both approaches, the radiation fraction is given in the middle of an uninterrupted 60-min hyperthermia treatment. RESULTS: The system modifications did not impair the ability to effectively deliver ultrasound hyperthermia or 60Co teletherapy. With the en-face approach the ultrasonic patterns generated with and without the reflector demonstrated that the ultrasound system maintained both a uniform and controllable heating pattern. The 60Co beam had no effect on the performance of the thermocouple thermometers. The radiation beam is attenuated nearly uniformly by the reflector system. To date, 10 patients have been treated with the en-face approach and 12 have been treated with the orthogonal approach (90 treatments). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical implementation of ultrasound hyperthermia simultaneous with 60Co irradiation is technically and clinically feasible without any complications or hazards to the patient. The implementation of a reflecting device allows en-face delivery of both the ultrasound and 60Co irradiation. Temperatures obtained during simultaneous treatments are comparable to those historically obtained during sequential treatments with the same commercial ultrasound device.