Electron streaming dose measurements and calculations on a 1.5 T MR-Linac.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of different dosimeters and the treatment planning system (TPS) for assessing the skin dose due to the electron streaming effect (ESE) on a 1.5 T magnetic resonance (MR)-linac. METHOD: Skin dose due to the ESE on an MR-linac (Unity, Elekta) was investigated using a solid water phantom rotated 45° in the x-y plane (IEC61217) and centered at the isocenter. The phantom was irradiated with 1 × 1, 3 × 3, 5 × 5, 10 × 10, and 22 × 22 cm2 fields, gantry at 90°. Out-of-field doses (OFDs) deposited by electron streams generated at the entry and exit surface of the angled phantom were measured on the surface of solid water slabs placed ±20.0 cm from the isocenter along the x-direction. A high-resolution MOSkin™ detector served as a benchmark due to its shallower depth of measurement that matches the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommended depth for skin dose assessment (0.07 mm). MOSkin™ doses were compared to EBT3 film, OSLDs, a diamond detector, and the TPS where the experimental setup was modeled using two separate calculation parameters settings: a 0.1 cm dose grid with 0.2% statistical uncertainty (0.1 cm, 0.2%) and a 0.2 cm dose grid with 3.0% statistical uncertainty (0.2 cm, 3.0%). RESULTS: OSLD, film, the 0.1 cm, 0.2%, and 0.2 cm, 3.0% TPS ESE doses, underestimated skin doses measured by the MOSkin™ by as much as -75.3%, -7.0%, -24.7%, and -41.9%, respectively. Film results were most similar to MOSkin™ skin dose measurements. CONCLUSIONS: These results show that electron streams can deposit significant doses outside the primary field and that dosimeter choice and TPS calculation settings greatly influence the reported readings. Due to the steep dose gradient of the ESE, EBT3 film remains the choice for accurate skin dose assessment in this challenging environment.

A comparison of measured and treatment planning system out-of-field dose for a 1.5 T MR linac.

Objective.Dose due to the electron streaming effect (ESE) is a significant contribution to out-of-field dose on the Elekta Unity MR-Linac. The aim of this work is to provide a systematic comparison of calculated and measured streaming dose for this system.Approach.Beams 1.0 × 1.0 cm2to 5.0 × 5.0 cm2, gantry 90.0°, 1000 MU, were incident on an in-house phantom. At the beam entrance and exit surfaces of the phantom, ESE was generated in theY-direction (IEC 61217). EBT3 film, orientated within theX-Zplane and at 14.0 mm depth in a solid water block, was used to determine ESE dose 5.0 cm beyond the phantom. The experimental arrangement was simulated in the Monaco v5.4 treatment planning system (TPS), utilising a CT phantom dataset with differing relative electron densities (RED) for the surrounding air. Horizontal (Xdirection) and vertical (Zdirection) film dose profiles were compared to the corresponding TPS profiles.Main results. For each field, the maximum ESE dose was observed at the beam exit, the magnitude of which decreases with decreasing field size. For the 5.0 × 5.0 cm2field, the exit and entry ESE doses were 19.6% and 7.0% of theDmaxdose to water, respectively. Across horizontal profiles, differences (simulated-measured) were reduced with smaller fields and lower RED. The maximum absolute profile difference was 1.7% of theDmaxdose to water for optimal RED and isocentre location. In vertical profiles an offset consistent with the Lorentz force was observed relative to theX-Yisoplane.Significance. For the fields investigated, maximum absolute differences (simulated-measured) ≤ 5.2% occurred in peak regions of ESE, at the beam entrance and exit from the phantom. Generally, there is good agreement between Monaco simulated and measured ESE. Simulated out-of-field dose is sensitive to the RED assigned to air structures and unforced RED optimises out-of-field dose calculation accuracy.

Commissioning measurements on an Elekta Unity MR-Linac.

Magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy technology is relatively new and commissioning publications, quality assurance (QA) protocols and commercial products are limited. This work provides guidance for implementation measurements that may be performed on the Elekta Unity MR-Linac (Elekta, Stockholm, Sweden). Adaptations of vendor supplied phantoms facilitated determination of gantry angle accuracy and linac isocentre, whereas in-house developed phantoms were used for end-to-end testing and anterior coil attenuation measurements. Third-party devices were used for measuring beam quality, reference dosimetry and during treatment plan commissioning; however, due to several challenges, variations on standard techniques were required. Gantry angle accuracy was within 0.1°, confirmed with pixel intensity profiles, and MV isocentre diameter was < 0.5 mm. Anterior coil attenuation was approximately 0.6%. Beam quality as determined by TPR20,10 was 0.705 ± 0.001, in agreement with treatment planning system (TPS) calculations, and gamma comparison against the TPS for a 22.0 × 22.0 cm2 field was above 95.0% (2.0%, 2.0 mm). Machine output was 1.000 ± 0.002 Gy per 100 MU, depth 5.0 cm. During treatment plan commissioning, sub-standard results indicated issues with machine behaviour. Once rectified, gamma comparisons were above 95.0% (2.0%, 2.0 mm). Centres which may not have access to specialized equipment can use in-house developed phantoms, or adapt those supplied by the vendor, to perform commissioning work and confirm operation of the MRL within published tolerances. The plan QA techniques used in this work can highlight issues with machine behaviour when appropriate gamma criteria are set.

Sources of out-of-field dose in MRgRT: an inter-comparison of measured and Monaco treatment planning system doses for the Elekta Unity MR-linac.

With the clinical introduction of MR-linacs, out-of-field dose (OFD) associated with head leakage/scatter (HLS), spiralling contaminant electrons (SCE) and the electron streaming effect (ESE) is of interest. To investigate HLS and SCE, EBT3 film on solid water 5.0 cm beyond each edge of a 10.0 × 10.0 cm2 field was used to determine depth-dose for 0 T and 1.5 T, in the isocentric plane. Additionally, ESE induced by the anterior imaging coil was quantified and the experimental arrangements to measure SCE and ESE were modelled using Monaco. For a clinical treatment of supraclavicular nodal disease, Monaco OFD was compared to in vivo measurements. For 0 T, depth-dose was isotropic and surface dose was approximately 4.4% of Dmax. With 1.5 T surface doses were approximately 3.8% of Dmax at ± Y (IEC61217), compared to 2.6% and 0.6% of Dmax at - X and X, respectively. For both field strengths, the TPS depth-dose variation was consistent with experimental trends; however, near surface doses calculated at ± Y differed significantly from measurements. For the field sizes investigated, measured coil ESE dose was between 9.0 and 28.0% of Dmax and Monaco coil ESE was less than measured by up to 13.0%. OFD in 0 T and 1.5 T are comparable at ± Y, inconsistent with previous work. Anterior coil ESE should be mitigated during treatment and for the clinical case investigated, in vivo OFD was within 2σ of TPS calculations. Monaco overestimates near surface SCE and underestimates coil ESE.

An alternative to the use of lead for patient treatment shielding in superficial radiotherapy.

Lead shielding is commonly used in the delivery of superficial radiotherapy albeit that the toxicity of this substance is of concern. The feasibility of using a non-toxic alternative, AttenuFlex™, is assessed using Xstrahl and Sensus treatment units. A series of lead and AttenuFlex™ circular cut outs and applicators were used with superficial beams (1.0-8.5 mm Al HVL) to measure percentage depth dose (PDD), output factors (OF) and surface dose correction factors (DCF). X-ray transmission for each material was determined for each beam quality. For these measurements an Advanced Markus chamber either embedded within a virtual water phantom (PDD, OF, transmission) or placed on the surface of the phantom with entrance window downstream (DCF), was used. The depth of the phantom is 10 cm for PDD and surface OF measurements. DCF(t) measurements were obtained with underlying lead or AttenuFlex™ at depth t = 0.1-10 cm. Additionally, using EBT3 film fluorescent surface doses, to non-target tissue, due to underlying lead or AttenuFlex™ were compared. PDDs and OFs for both materials were within ± 1%. Lead and AttenuFlex™ transmission differences were clinically acceptable, all transmission values were < 5% and non-target doses were comparable. The variation of DCF(t) for lead and AttenuFlex™ exhibit a minima for all beams. In the minima region energy and applicator dependent differences between DCF(lead) and DCF(AttenuFlex™) are observed. These differences do not preclude the use of AttenuFlex™ as an alternative to lead in superficial therapy.

Agility MLC transmission optimization in the Monaco treatment planning system.

The Monaco Monte Carlo treatment planning system uses three-beam model components to achieve accuracy in dose calculation. These components include a virtual source model (VSM), transmission probability filters (TPFs), and an x-ray voxel Monte Carlo (XVMC) engine to calculate the dose in the patient. The aim of this study was to assess the TPF component of the Monaco TPS and optimize the TPF parameters using measurements from an Elekta linear accelerator with an Agility™ multileaf collimator (MLC). The optimization began with all TPF parameters set to their default value. The function of each TPF parameter was characterized and a value was selected that best replicated measurements with the Agility™ MLC. Both vendor provided fields and a set of additional test fields were used to create a rigorous systematic process, which can be used to optimize the TPF parameters. It was found that adjustment of the TPF parameters based on this process resulted in improved point dose measurements and improved 3D gamma analysis pass rates with Octavius 4D. All plans calculated with the optimized beam model had a gamma pass rate of > 95% using criteria of 2% global dose/2 mm distance-to-agreement, while some plans calculated with the default beam model had pass rates as low as 88.4%. For measured point doses, the improvement was particularly noticeable in the low-dose regions of the clinical plans. In these regions, the average difference from the planned dose reduced from 4.4 ± 4.5% to 0.9 ± 2.7% with a coverage factor (k = 2) using the optimized beam model. A step-by-step optimization guide is provided at the end of this study to assist in the optimization of the TPF parameters in the Monaco TPS. Although it is possible to achieve good clinical results by randomly selecting TPF parameter values, it is recommended that the optimization process outlined in this study is followed so that the transmission through the TPF is characterized appropriately.