AAPM WGDCAB Report 372: A joint AAPM, ESTRO, ABG, and ABS report on commissioning of model-based dose calculation algorithms in brachytherapy.

The introduction of model-based dose calculation algorithms (MBDCAs) in brachytherapy provides an opportunity for a more accurate dose calculation and opens the possibility for novel, innovative treatment modalities. The joint AAPM, ESTRO, and ABG Task Group 186 (TG-186) report provided guidance to early adopters. However, the commissioning aspect of these algorithms was described only in general terms with no quantitative goals. This report, from the Working Group on Model-Based Dose Calculation Algorithms in Brachytherapy, introduced a field-tested approach to MBDCA commissioning. It is based on a set of well-characterized test cases for which reference Monte Carlo (MC) and vendor-specific MBDCA dose distributions are available in a Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine-Radiotherapy (DICOM-RT) format to the clinical users. The key elements of the TG-186 commissioning workflow are now described in detail, and quantitative goals are provided. This approach leverages the well-known Brachytherapy Source Registry jointly managed by the AAPM and the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) Houston Quality Assurance Center (with associated links at ESTRO) to provide open access to test cases as well as step-by-step user guides. While the current report is limited to the two most widely commercially available MBDCAs and only for 192 Ir-based afterloading brachytherapy at this time, this report establishes a general framework that can easily be extended to other brachytherapy MBDCAs and brachytherapy sources. The AAPM, ESTRO, ABG, and ABS recommend that clinical medical physicists implement the workflow presented in this report to validate both the basic and the advanced dose calculation features of their commercial MBDCAs. Recommendations are also given to vendors to integrate advanced analysis tools into their brachytherapy treatment planning system to facilitate extensive dose comparisons. The use of the test cases for research and educational purposes is further encouraged.

Dose-rate considerations for the INTRABEAM electronic brachytherapy system: Report from the American association of physicists in medicine task group no. 292.

The purpose of this report is to provide detailed guidance on the dosimetry of the INTRABEAM® (Carl Zeiss Medical AG, Jena, Germany) electronic brachytherapy (eBT) system as it stands at the present time. This report has been developed by the members of American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 292 and endorsed by the AAPM. Members of AAPM Task Group 292 on Electronic-Brachytherapy Dosimetry have reviewed pertinent publications and user manuals regarding the INTRABEAM system dosimetry and manufacturer-supplied dose calculation protocols. Formal written correspondence with Zeiss has also provided further clarification. Dose-rate calculations for the INTRABEAM system are highly dependent on choice of dosimetry protocol. Even with careful protocol selection, large uncertainties remain due to the incomplete characterization of the ionization chambers used for verification with respect to their energy dependence as well as manufacturing variations. There are two distinct sets of dose-rate data provided by Zeiss for the INTRABEAM system. One dataset (Calibration V4.0) is representative of the physical dose surrounding the source and the other dataset (TARGIT) has been adjusted to be consistent with a clinical trial named TARGIT (TARGeted Intraoperative RadioTherapy). The adjusted TARGIT doses are quite dissimilar to the physical doses, with differences ranging from 14% to 30% at the surface of a spherical applicator, depending on its diameter, and up to a factor of two at closer distances with the smaller needle applicators. In addition, ion chamber selection and associated manufacturing tolerances contribute to significant additional uncertainties. With these substantial differences in dose rates and their associated uncertainties, it is important for users to be aware of how each value is calculated and whether it is appropriate to be used for the intended treatment. If users intend to deliver doses that are the same as they were in 1998 at the onset of the TARGIT trial, then the TARGIT dose-rate tables should be used. The Calibration V4.0 dose rates may be more appropriate to use for applications other than TARGIT trial treatments, since they more closely represent the physical doses being delivered. Users should also be aware of the substantial uncertainties associated with the provided dose rates, which are due to beam hardening, chamber geometry, and selection of the point-of-measurement for a given ionization chamber. This report serves to describe the details and implications of the manufacturer-recommended dosimetry formalism for users of the INTRABEAM system.

Benchmark Credentialing Results for NRG-BR001: The First National Cancer Institute-Sponsored Trial of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Multiple Metastases.

PURPOSE: The NRG-BR001 trial is the first National Cancer Institute-sponsored trial to treat multiple (range 2-4) extracranial metastases with stereotactic body radiation therapy. Benchmark credentialing is required to ensure adherence to this complex protocol, in particular, for metastases in close proximity. The present report summarizes the dosimetric results and approval rates. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The benchmark used anonymized data from a patient with bilateral adrenal metastases, separated by <5 cm of normal tissue. Because the planning target volume (PTV) overlaps with organs at risk (OARs), institutions must use the planning priority guidelines to balance PTV coverage (45 Gy in 3 fractions) against OAR sparing. Submitted plans were processed by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core and assessed by the protocol co-chairs by comparing the doses to targets, OARs, and conformity metrics using nonparametric tests. RESULTS: Of 63 benchmarks submitted through October 2015, 94% were approved, with 51% approved at the first attempt. Most used volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) (78%), a single plan for both PTVs (90%), and prioritized the PTV over the stomach (75%). The median dose to 95% of the volume was 44.8 ± 1.0 Gy and 44.9 ± 1.0 Gy for the right and left PTV, respectively. The median dose to 0.03 cm3 was 14.2 ± 2.2 Gy to the spinal cord and 46.5 ± 3.1 Gy to the stomach. Plans that spared the stomach significantly reduced the dose to the left PTV and stomach. Conformity metrics were significantly better for single plans that simultaneously treated both PTVs with VMAT, intensity modulated radiation therapy, or 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy compared with separate plans. No significant differences existed in the dose at 2 cm from the PTVs. CONCLUSIONS: Although most plans used VMAT, the range of conformity and dose falloff was large. The decision to prioritize either OARs or PTV coverage varied considerably, suggesting that the toxicity outcomes in the trial could be affected. Several benchmarks met the dose-volume histogram metrics but produced unacceptable plans owing to low conformity. Dissemination of a frequently-asked-questions document improved the approval rate at the first attempt. Benchmark credentialing was found to be a valuable tool for educating institutions about the protocol requirements.

Rationale of technical requirements for NRG-BR001: The first NCI-sponsored trial of SBRT for the treatment of multiple metastases.

INTRODUCTION: In 2014, the NRG Oncology Group initiated the first National Cancer Institute-sponsored, phase 1 clinical trial of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for the treatment of multiple metastases in multiple organ sites (BR001; NCT02206334). The primary endpoint is to test the safety of SBRT for the treatment of 2 to 4 multiple lesions in several anatomic sites in a multi-institutional setting. Because of the technical challenges inherent to treating multiple lesions as their spatial separation decreases, we present the technical requirements for NRG-BR001 and the rationale for their selection. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with controlled primary tumors of breast, non-small cell lung, or prostate are eligible if they have 2 to 4 metastases distributed among 7 extracranial anatomic locations throughout the body. Prescription and organ-at-risk doses were determined by expert consensus. Credentialing requirements include (1) irradiation of the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core phantom with SBRT, (2) submitting image guided radiation therapy case studies, and (3) planning the benchmark. Guidelines for navigating challenging planning cases including assessing composite dose are discussed. RESULTS: Dosimetric planning to multiple lesions receiving differing doses (45-50 Gy) and fractionation (3-5) while irradiating the same organs at risk is discussed, particularly for metastases in close proximity (≤5 cm). The benchmark case was selected to demonstrate the planning tradeoffs required to satisfy protocol requirements for 2 nearby lesions. Examples of passing benchmark plans exhibited a large variability in plan conformity. DISCUSSION: NRG-BR001 was developed using expert consensus on multiple issues from the dose fractionation regimen to the minimum image guided radiation therapy guidelines. Credentialing was tied to the task rather than the anatomic site to reduce its burden. Every effort was made to include a variety of delivery methods to reflect current SBRT technology. Although some simplifications were adopted, the successful completion of this trial will inform future designs of both national and institutional trials and would allow immediate clinical adoption of SBRT trials for oligometastases.

Report of AAPM TG 135: quality assurance for robotic radiosurgery.

The task group (TG) for quality assurance for robotic radiosurgery was formed by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine's Science Council under the direction of the Radiation Therapy Committee and the Quality Assurance (QA) Subcommittee. The task group (TG-135) had three main charges: (1) To make recommendations on a code of practice for Robotic Radiosurgery QA; (2) To make recommendations on quality assurance and dosimetric verification techniques, especially in regard to real-time respiratory motion tracking software; (3) To make recommendations on issues which require further research and development. This report provides a general functional overview of the only clinically implemented robotic radiosurgery device, the CyberKnife. This report includes sections on device components and their individual component QA recommendations, followed by a section on the QA requirements for integrated systems. Examples of checklists for daily, monthly, annual, and upgrade QA are given as guidance for medical physicists. Areas in which QA procedures are still under development are discussed.

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.