A brief look at model-based dose calculation principles, practicalities, and promise.

Model-based dose calculation algorithms (MBDCAs) have recently emerged as potential successors to the highly practical, but sometimes inaccurate TG-43 formalism for brachytherapy treatment planning. So named for their capacity to more accurately calculate dose deposition in a patient using information from medical images, these approaches to solve the linear Boltzmann radiation transport equation include point kernel superposition, the discrete ordinates method, and Monte Carlo simulation. In this overview, we describe three MBDCAs that are commercially available at the present time, and identify guidance from professional societies and the broader peer-reviewed literature intended to facilitate their safe and appropriate use. We also highlight several important considerations to keep in mind when introducing an MBDCA into clinical practice, and look briefly at early applications reported in the literature and selected from our own ongoing work. The enhanced dose calculation accuracy offered by a MBDCA comes at the additional cost of modelling the geometry and material composition of the patient in treatment position (as determined from imaging), and the treatment applicator (as characterized by the vendor). The adequacy of these inputs and of the radiation source model, which needs to be assessed for each treatment site, treatment technique, and radiation source type, determines the accuracy of the resultant dose calculations. Although new challenges associated with their familiarization, commissioning, clinical implementation, and quality assurance exist, MBDCAs clearly afford an opportunity to improve brachytherapy practice, particularly for low-energy sources.

Transit dose contributions to intracavitary and interstitial PDR brachytherapy treatments.

The objective of this study was to determine the magnitude of transit dose contributions to the planned dose in common intracavitary and interstitial brachytherapy treatments delivered using a pulsed dose rate (PDR) remote afterloader. The total transit dose arises from the travel of the radiation source into (entry) and out of (exit) the applicator, and between the dwell positions (inter-dwell). In this paper, we used a well-type ionization chamber to measure the transit dose component for a PDR afterloader and compared the results against measurements for a high dose rate (HDR) afterloader. Our results show that for typical intracavitary and interstitial treatments, the major contribution to transit dose is from the entry+exit source travel, as the inter-dwell component is effectively compensated for (<0.5%) by the afterloader. The transit dose was generally found to be larger for PDR treatments than for HDR treatments, as it is influenced by the source activity, dwell times and number of radiation pulses. The overall increase in the planned dose contributed by the transit dose in a typical intracavitary PDR treatment was estimated to be <2%, but much higher for interstitial treatments. This study shows that the effect of the transit dose on common clinical intracavitary PDR brachytherapy treatments is practically negligible, but requires attention in highly fractionated large volume interstitial treatments.

Compensator thickness verification using an a-Si EPID.

Electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs) are being increasingly employed to make therapy verification and dose measurements in the clinic. In this work, we investigate the use of an amorphous silicon (a-Si) EPID to verify the accuracy of compensator fabrication and mounting. Compensator thickness estimates on a two-dimensional grid were calculated from the primary component of transmission obtained by subtracting a modeled scatter component from the total transmission measured with the EPID. The primary component was related to the thickness via an exponential relation that includes beam hardening. Implementation of the method involved determination of: (i) a calibration curve relating EPID pixel values to energy fluence for open and attenuated fields, which was found to be linear for open fields but to have a small quadratic component for attenuated beams; (ii) EPID scatter factors to account for field size effects, which exhibited a small dependence on compensator thickness and field size; (iii) the attenuation coefficient of the steel shot compensator material, which varied slightly with off-axis distance and field size, and (iv) an analytical model to predict scatter from the compensator, which was calculated to be <4% at the standard EPID imaging distance of 140 cm. Thickness distributions were then measured for several types of attenuators including flat, test, and clinical compensators. Although uncertainties associated with compensator manufacturing were non-negligible and made assessment of thickness measurement uncertainty difficult, we estimate the latter to be approximately 0.5 mm for steel shot compensators of thickness <4 cm.

Quality assurance measurements of a-Si EPID performance.

The performance stability of a Varian aS500 amorphous silicon (a-Si) electronic portal imaging device (EPID) was monitored over an 18-month period using a variety of standard quality assurance (QA) tests. The tests were selected to provide ongoing information about image quality and dose response from the time of EPID acceptance into clinical service. To evaluate imaging performance, we made spatial resolution and contrast measurements using both PortalVision and QC-3V phantoms for 6- and 15-MV photon beams at repetition rates of 100, 300, and 400 MU/min in standard scanning mode. To assess operational stability for dosimetry applications, we measured central axis radiation response and beam pulse variability for the same image acquisition modes. Using the QC-3V phantom, values for the critical frequency of 0.435 +/- 0.005 lp/mm for 6 MV and 0.382 +/- 0.003 lp/mm for 15 MV were obtained. The contrast-to-noise ratio was found to be approximately 20% higher for the lower photon energy. Beam pulse variability remained within the tolerance of 3% set by the manufacturer. The central axis pixel response of the EPID remained constant within +/-1% over a 5-month period for the 6-MV beam, but fell approximately 4% over the same period for the 15-MV beam. The Varian aS500 EPID studied exhibited consistent image quality and a stable radiation response. These characteristics render it suitable for quantitative applications such as clinical dose measurement.

Compensator quality control with an amorphous silicon EPID.

The calibration and quality control of compensators is conventionally performed with an ion chamber in a water-equivalent phantom. In our center, the compensator factor and four off-axis fluence ratios are measured to verify the central axis beam modulation and orientation of the compensator. Here we report the investigation of an alternative technique for compensator quality control using an amorphous silicon electronic portal imaging device (a-Si EPID). Preliminary experiments were performed to identify appropriate EPID operating parameters for this relative dosimetric study and also to quantify EPID operation. The pixel value versus energy fluence response of the EPID for both open and compensated fields was then determined, and expressed via calibration curves. For open fields the response was seen to be linear, whereas for compensated fields it exhibited a small quadratic component. To account for field size effects, we measured EPID scatter factors. These exhibited small but non-negligible dependencies on compensator thickness and source-detector distance. Finally, a number of test and clinical compensators were evaluated to assess the suitability of the EPID for compensator quality control. Our results indicate that the a-Si EPID can measure clinical compensator factors and off-axis energy fluence ratios to within 2% of values measured by a Farmer chamber on average, and so is a suitable ion chamber replacement.