Universal evaluation of MLC models in treatment planning systems based on a common set of dynamic tests.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate the feasibility of characterising MLCs and MLC models implemented in TPSs using a common set of dynamic beams. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A set of tests containing synchronous (SG) and asynchronous sweeping gaps (aSG) was distributed among twenty-five participating centres. Doses were measured with a Farmer-type ion chamber and computed in TPSs, which provided a dosimetric characterisation of the leaf tip, tongue-and-groove, and MLC transmission of each MLC, as well as an assessment of the MLC model in each TPS. Five MLC types and four TPSs were evaluated, covering the most frequent combinations used in radiotherapy departments. RESULTS: Measured differences within each MLC type were minimal, while large differences were found between MLC models implemented in clinical TPSs. This resulted in some concerning discrepancies, especially for the HD120 and Agility MLCs, for which differences between measured and calculated doses for some MLC-TPS combinations exceeded 10%. These large differences were particularly evident for small gap sizes (5 and 10 mm), as well as for larger gaps in the presence of tongue-and-groove effects. A much better agreement was found for the Millennium120 and Halcyon MLCs, differences being within ± 5% and ± 2.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The feasibility of using a common set of tests to assess MLC models in TPSs was demonstrated. Measurements within MLC types were very similar, but TPS dose calculations showed large variations. Standardisation of the MLC configuration in TPSs is necessary. The proposed procedure can be readily applied in radiotherapy departments and can be a valuable tool in IMRT and credentialing audits.

Comparison of complexity metrics for multi-institutional evaluations of treatment plans in radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: It is known that intensity-modulated radiotherapy plans that are highly complex might be less accurate in dose calculation and treatment delivery. Multiple complexity metrics have been proposed, but the relationships between them have not been thoroughly investigated. This study investigated these relationships in multi-institutional comparisons of treatment plans, where plans from multiple treatment planning systems (TPSs) are typically evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A program was developed to compute several complexity indices and provide analysis of dynamic plan parameters. This in-house software was used to analyse plans from a recent multi-institutional audit. Additionally, 100 clinical volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans from two institutions using different TPSs were analysed. RESULTS: All plans produced satisfactory pre-treatment verification results and, hence, complexity metrics could not be used to predict plans failing QA. Regarding the relationship among complexity indices, some very strong correlations were found (r > 0.9 with p < 0.01). However, some relevant discrepancies between complexity indices were obtained, even with negative correlation coefficients (r ∼ -0.6) which were expected to be positive. These discrepancies could be explained because each complexity index focused on different features of the plan and different TPSs prioritised modulation of different plan parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Some complexity indices provided similar information and can be considered equivalent. However, indices that focused on different plan parameters yielded different results and it was unclear which complexity index should be used. Careful consideration should be given to the use of complexity metrics in multi-institutional studies.

Novel methodologies for dosimetry audits: Adapting to advanced radiotherapy techniques.

With new radiotherapy techniques, treatment delivery is becoming more complex and accordingly, these treatment techniques require dosimetry audits to test advanced aspects of the delivery to ensure best practice and safe patient treatment. This review of novel methodologies for dosimetry audits for advanced radiotherapy techniques includes recent developments and future techniques to be applied in dosimetry audits. Phantom-based methods (i.e. phantom-detector combinations) including independent audit equipment and local measurement equipment as well as phantom-less methods (i.e. portal dosimetry, transmission detectors and log files) are presented and discussed. Methodologies for both conventional linear accelerator (linacs) and new types of delivery units, i.e. Tomotherapy, stereotactic devices and MR-linacs, are reviewed. Novel dosimetry audit techniques such as portal dosimetry or log file evaluation have the potential to allow parallel auditing (i.e. performing an audit at multiple institutions at the same time), automation of data analysis and evaluation of multiple steps of the radiotherapy treatment chain. These methods could also significantly reduce the time needed for audit and increase the information gained. However, to maximise the potential, further development and harmonisation of dosimetry audit techniques are required before these novel methodologies can be applied.

Real-time beam monitoring for error detection in IMRT plans and impact on dose-volume histograms : A multi-center study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to test the sensitivity of a transmission detector for online dose monitoring of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for detecting small delivery errors. Furthermore, the correlation of changes in detector output induced by small delivery errors with other metrics commonly employed to quantify the deviations between calculated and delivered dose distributions was investigated. METHODS: Transmission detector measurements were performed at three institutions. Seven types of errors were induced in nine clinical step-and-shoot (S&S) IMRT plans by modifying the number of monitor units (MU) and introducing small deviations in leaf positions. Signal reproducibility was investigated for short- and long-term stability. Calculated dose distributions were compared in terms of γ passing rates and dose-volume histogram (DVH) metrics (e.g., Dmean, Dx%, Vx%). The correlation between detector signal variations, γ passing rates, and DVH parameters was investigated. RESULTS: Both short- and long-term reproducibility was within 1%. Dose variations down to 1 MU (∆signal 1.1 ± 0.4%) as well as changes in field size and positions down to 1 mm (∆signal 2.6 ± 1.0%) were detected, thus indicating high error-detection sensitivity. A moderate correlation of detector signal was observed with γ passing rates (R2 = 0.57-0.70), while a good correlation was observed with DVH metrics (R2 = 0.75-0.98). CONCLUSION: The detector is capable of detecting small delivery errors in MU and leaf positions, and is thus a highly sensitive dose monitoring device for S&S IMRT for clinical practice. The results of this study indicate a good correlation of detector signal with DVH metrics; therefore, clinical action levels can be defined based on the presented data.

Error detection capability of a novel transmission detector: a validation study for online VMAT monitoring.

The purpose of this study was to characterize a new single large-area ionization chamber, the integral quality monitor system (iRT, Germany), for online and real-time beam monitoring. Signal stability, monitor unit (MU) linearity and dose rate dependence were investigated for static and arc deliveries and compared to independent ionization chamber measurements. The dose verification capability of the transmission detector system was evaluated by comparing calculated and measured detector signals for 15 volumetric modulated arc therapy plans. The error detection sensitivity was tested by introducing MLC position and linac output errors. Deviations in dose distributions between the original and error-induced plans were compared in terms of detector signal deviation, dose-volume histogram (DVH) metrics and 2D γ-evaluation (2%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm). The detector signal is linearly dependent on linac output and shows negligible (<0.4%) dose rate dependence up to 460 MU min-1. Signal stability is within 1% for cumulative detector output; substantial variations were observed for the segment-by-segment signal. Calculated versus measured cumulative signal deviations ranged from -0.16%-2.25%. DVH, mean 2D γ-value and detector signal evaluations showed increasing deviations with regard to the respective reference with growing MLC and dose output errors; good correlation between DVH metrics and detector signal deviation was found (e.g. PTV D mean: R 2 = 0.97). Positional MLC errors of 1 mm and errors in linac output of 2% were identified with the transmission detector system. The extensive tests performed in this investigation show that the new transmission detector provides a stable and sensitive cumulative signal output and is suitable for beam monitoring during patient treatment.

Influence of the Integral Quality Monitor transmission detector on high energy photon beams: A multi-centre study.

PURPOSE: The influence of the Integral Quality Monitor (IQM) transmission detector on photon beam properties was evaluated in a preclinical phase, using data from nine participating centres: (i) the change of beam quality (beam hardening), (ii) the influence on surface dose, and (iii) the attenuation of the IQM detector. METHODS: For 6 different nominal photon energies (4 standard, 2 FFF) and square field sizes from 1×1cm2 to 20×20cm2, the effect of IQM on beam quality was assessed from the PDD20,10 values obtained from the percentage dose depth (PDD) curves, measured with and without IQM in the beam path. The change in surface dose with/without IQM was assessed for all available energies and field sizes from 4×4cm2 to 20×20cm2. The transmission factor was calculated by means of measured absorbed dose at 10cm depth for all available energies and field sizes. RESULTS: (i) A small (0.11-0.53%) yet statistically significant beam hardening effect was observed, depending on photon beam energy. (ii) The increase in surface dose correlated with field size (p<0.01) for all photon energies except for 18MV. The change in surface dose was smaller than 3.3% in all cases except for the 20×20cm2 field and 10MV FFF beam, where it reached 8.1%. (iii) For standard beams, transmission of the IQM showed a weak dependence on the field size, and a pronounced dependence on the beam energy (0.9412 for 6MV to 0.9578 for 18MV and 0.9440 for 6MV FFF; 0.9533 for 10MV FFF). CONCLUSIONS: The effects of the IQM detector on photon beam properties were found to be small yet statistically significant. The magnitudes of changes which were found justify treating IQM either as tray factors within the treatment planning system (TPS) for a particular energy or alternatively as modified outputs for specific beam energy of linear accelerators, which eases the introduction of the IQM into clinical practice.

Linking log files with dosimetric accuracy--A multi-institutional study on quality assurance of volumetric modulated arc therapy.

PURPOSE: To systematically evaluate machine specific quality assurance (QA) for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) based on log files by applying a dynamic benchmark plan. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A VMAT benchmark plan was created and tested on 18 Elekta linacs (13 MLCi or MLCi2, 5 Agility) at 4 different institutions. Linac log files were analyzed and a delivery robustness index was introduced. For dosimetric measurements an ionization chamber array was used. Relative dose deviations were assessed by mean gamma for each control point and compared to the log file evaluation. RESULTS: Fourteen linacs delivered the VMAT benchmark plan, while 4 linacs failed by consistently terminating the delivery. The mean leaf error (±1SD) was 0.3±0.2 mm for all linacs. Large MLC maximum errors up to 6.5 mm were observed at reversal positions. Delivery robustness index accounting for MLC position correction (0.8-1.0) correlated with delivery time (80-128 s) and depended on dose rate performance. Dosimetric evaluation indicated in general accurate plan reproducibility with γ(mean)(±1 SD)=0.4±0.2 for 1 mm/1%. However single control point analysis revealed larger deviations and attributed well to log file analysis. CONCLUSION: The designed benchmark plan helped identify linac related malfunctions in dynamic mode for VMAT. Log files serve as an important additional QA measure to understand and visualize dynamic linac parameters.

VMAT techniques for lymph node-positive left sided breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To investigate the plan quality of two different volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques for lymph node-positive left-sided breast cancer. METHODS: Two VMAT plans were generated for 10 lymph node-positive left-sided breast cancer patients: one plan using one single segment of a full rotation, typically an arc segment of 230° (1s-VMAT); and a second plan consisting of 2 small tangential arc segments of about 50° (2s-VMAT). For plan comparison, various dose and dose volume metrics (Dmean, D98%, D2% for target volumes, D2%, Dmean and Vx% for organs at risk (OAR)) were evaluated. RESULTS: Both techniques fulfilled both clinical target dose and OAR goals. 1s-VMAT achieved a slightly better homogeneity and better target coverage (D2%= 54.2 ± 0.7 Gy, D98%= 30.3 ± 1.8 Gy) compared to 2s-VMAT (D2%= 55.0 ± 1.1 Gy, D98%= 29.9 ± 1.7 Gy). For geometrical reasons, OAR sparing was noticeable but not significant better using 2s-VMAT, particularly heart and contralateral breast. The heart received a mean dose of 4.4 ± 0.8 Gy using 1s-VMAT and 3.3 ± 1.0 Gy using 2s-VMAT; the contralateral breast received 1.5 ± 0.3 Gy and 0.9 ± 0.3 Gy, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A VMAT technique based on two small tangential arc segments enables improved OAR sparing; the differences between the two techniques in target coverage and homogeneity are minor. Patient age and -anatomy must be considered for each individual case when deciding which technique to be used.

Effect of photon-beam energy on VMAT and IMRT treatment plan quality and dosimetric accuracy for advanced prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: The goal of the research was to evaluate treatment plan quality and dosimetric accuracy of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans using 6, 10, and 15 MV photon beams for prostate cancer including lymph nodes. METHODS: In this retrospective study, VMAT and IMRT plans were generated with the Pinnacle© treatment planning system (TPS) (V9.0) for 10 prostate cancer cases. Each plan consisted of two target volumes: PTV(B) included the prostate bed, PTV(PC+LN) contained PTV(B) and lymph nodes. For plan evaluation statistics, the homogeneity index, conformity index, mean doses, and near-max doses to organs at risk (OAR) were analyzed. Treatment time and number of monitor units were assessed to compare delivery efficiency. Dosimetric plan verification was performed with a 2D ionization chamber array placed in a full scatter phantom. RESULTS: No differences were found for target and OAR parameters in low and high energy photon beam plans for both VMAT and IMRT. A slightly higher low dose volume was detected for 6 MV VMAT plans (normal tissue: D(mean) = 16.47 Gy) compared to 10 and 15 MV VMAT plans (D(mean) = 15.90 Gy and 15.74 Gy, respectively), similar to the findings in IMRT. In VMAT, > 96% of detector points passed the 3%/ 3 mm γ criterion; marginally better accuracy was found in IMRT (> 97%). CONCLUSION: For static and rotational IMRT, 15 MV photons did not show advantages over 6 and 10 MV high energy photon beams in large volume pelvic plans. For the investigated TPS and linac combination, 10 MV photon beams can be used as the general purpose energy for intensity modulation.

Impact of gantry rotation time on plan quality and dosimetric verification--volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) vs. intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT).

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To compare plan quality criteria and dosimetric accuracy of step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiotherapy (ss-IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) using two different gantry rotation times. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective planning study based on 20 patients was comprised of 10 prostate cancer (PC) and 10 head and neck (HN) cancer cases. Each plan contained two target volumes: a primary planning target volume (PTV) and a boost volume. For each patient, one ss-IMRT plan and two VMAT plans at 90 s (VMAT90) and 120 s (VMAT120) per arc were generated with the Pinnacle© planning system. Two arcs were provided for the PTV plans and a single arc for boost volumes. Dosimetric verification of the plans was performed using a 2D ionization chamber array placed in a full scatter phantom. RESULTS: VMAT reduced delivery time and monitor units for both treatment sites compared to IMRT. VMAT120 vs. VMAT90 increased delivery time and monitor units in PC plans without improving plan quality. For HN cases, VMAT120 provided comparable organs at risk sparing and better target coverage and conformity than VMAT90. In the VMAT plan verification, an average of 97.1% of the detector points passed the 3 mm, 3% γ criterion, while in IMRT verification it was 98.8%. CONCLUSION: VMAT90, VMAT120, and IMRT achieved comparable treatment plans. Slower gantry movement in VMAT120 plans only improves dosimetric quality for highly complex targets.

Image quality and stability of image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) devices: A comparative study.

INTRODUCTION: Our aim was to implement standards for quality assurance of IGRT devices used in our department and to compare their performances with that of a CT simulator. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We investigated image quality parameters for three devices over a period of 16months. A multislice CT was used as a benchmark and results related to noise, spatial resolution, low contrast visibility (LCV) and uniformity were compared with a cone beam CT (CBCT) at a linac and simulator. RESULTS: All devices performed well in terms of LCV and, in fact, exceeded vendor specifications. MTF was comparable between CT and linac CBCT. Integral nonuniformity was, on average, 0.002 for the CT and 0.006 for the linac CBCT. Uniformity, LCV and MTF varied depending on the protocols used for the linac CBCT. Contrast-to-noise ratio was an average of 51% higher for the CT than for the linac and simulator CBCT. No significant time trend was observed and tolerance limits were implemented. DISCUSSION: Reasonable differences in image quality between CT and CBCT were observed. Further research and development are necessary to increase image quality of commercially available CBCT devices in order for them to serve the needs for adaptive and/or online planning.