AAPM WGTG51 Report 385: Addendum to the AAPM's TG-51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of high-energy electron beams.

An Addendum to the AAPM's TG-51 protocol for the determination of absorbed dose to water is presented for electron beams with energies between 4 MeV and 22 MeV ( 1.70 cm ≤ R 50 ≤ 8.70 cm $1.70\nobreakspace {\rm cm} \le R_{\text{50}} \le 8.70\nobreakspace {\rm cm}$ ). This updated formalism allows simplified calibration procedures, including the use of calibrated cylindrical ionization chambers in all electron beams without the use of a gradient correction. New k Q $k_{Q}$ data are provided for electron beams based on Monte Carlo simulations. Implementation guidance is provided. Components of the uncertainty budget in determining absorbed dose to water at the reference depth are discussed. Specifications for a reference-class chamber in electron beams include chamber stability, settling, ion recombination behavior, and polarity dependence. Progress in electron beam reference dosimetry is reviewed. Although this report introduces some major changes (e.g., gradient corrections are implicitly included in the electron beam quality conversion factors), they serve to simplify the calibration procedure. Results for absorbed dose per linac monitor unit are expected to be up to approximately 2 % higher using this Addendum compared to using the original TG-51 protocol.

Evaluation of the MIM Symphony treatment planning system for low-dose-rate- prostate brachytherapy.

MIM Symphony is a recently introduced low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy treatment planning system (TPS). We evaluated the dosimetric and planning accuracy of this new TPS compared to the universally used VariSeed TPS. For dosimetric evaluation of the MIM Symphony version 5.4 TPS, we compared dose calculations from the MIM Symphony TPS with the formalism recommended by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 43 report (TG-43) and those generated by the VariSeed version 8.0 TPS for iodine-125 (I-125; Models 6711 and IAI-125A), palladium-103 (Pd-103; Model 200), and cesium-131 (Cs-131; Model Cs-1). Validation was performed for both line source and point source approximations. As part of the treatment planning validation, first a QA phantom (CIRS Brachytherapy QA Phantom Model 045 SN#D7210-3) containing three ellipsoid objects with certified volumes was scanned in order to check the volume accuracy of the contoured structures in MIM Symphony. Then the DICOM data containing 100 patient plans from the VariSeed TPS were imported into the MIM Symphony TPS. The 100 plans included 25 each of I-125 pre-implant plans, Pd-103 pre-implant plans, I-125 Day 30 plans (i.e., from 1 month after implantation), and Pd-103 Day 30 plans. The dosimetric parameters (including prostate volume, prostate D90 values, and rectum V100 values) of the 100 plans were calculated independently on the two TPSs. Other TPS tests that were done included verification of source input and geometrical accuracy, data transfer between different planning systems, text printout, 2D dose plots, DVH printout, and template grid accuracy. According to the line source formalism, the dosimetric results between the MIM Symphony TPS and TG-43 were within 0.5% (0.02 Gy) for r > 1 cm. In the line source approximation validation, MIM Symphony TPS values agreed with VariSeed TPS values to within 0.5% (0.09 Gy) for r > 1 cm. Similarly, in point source approximation validation, the MIM Symphony values agreed to within 1% of the TG-43 and VariSeed values for r > 1 cm. The volume calculations obtained from the MIM Symphony TPS for the CIRS Brachytherapy QA Phantom were within 1% of the actual volume of the phantom. For the clinical cases, the volume and dosimetric parameter calculations for the prostate and rectum did not differ substantially between the pre-implant and Day 30 plans. Overall, our investigations showed negligible differences in dosimetry calculations and planning parameters between the two TPSs. The tests done to check the performance of the MIM Symphony TPS, such as the library data, data transfer, isodose and DVH printout, were found to be satisfactory. On the basis of these results, we conclude that the MIM Symphony TPS can be used as an alternative to the VariSeed TPS for low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy.

Quality assurance of proton beams using a multilayer ionization chamber system.

PURPOSE: The measurement of percentage depth-dose (PDD) distributions for the quality assurance of clinical proton beams is most commonly performed with a computerized water tank dosimetry system with ionization chamber, commonly referred to as water tank. Although the accuracy and reproducibility of this method is well established, it can be time-consuming if a large number of measurements are required. In this work the authors evaluate the linearity, reproducibility, sensitivity to field size, accuracy, and time-savings of another system: the Zebra, a multilayer ionization chamber system. METHODS: The Zebra, consisting of 180 parallel-plate ionization chambers with 2 mm resolution, was used to measure depth-dose distributions. The measurements were performed for scattered and scanned proton pencil beams of multiple energies delivered by the Hitachi PROBEAT synchrotron-based delivery system. For scattered beams, the Zebra-measured depth-dose distributions were compared with those measured with the water tank. The principal descriptors extracted for comparisons were: range, the depth of the distal 90% dose; spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP) length, the region between the proximal 95% and distal 90% dose; and distal-dose fall off (DDF), the region between the distal 80% and 20% dose. For scanned beams, the Zebra-measured ranges were compared with those acquired using a Bragg peak chamber during commissioning. RESULTS: The Zebra demonstrated better than 1% reproducibility and monitor unit linearity. The response of the Zebra was found to be sensitive to radiation field sizes greater than 12.5 × 12.5 cm; hence, the measurements used to determine accuracy were performed using a field size of 10 × 10 cm. For the scattered proton beams, PDD distributions showed 1.5% agreement within the SOBP, and 3.8% outside. Range values agreed within -0.1 ± 0.4 mm, with a maximum deviation of 1.2 mm. SOBP length values agreed within 0 ± 2 mm, with a maximum deviation of 6 mm. DDF values agreed within 0.3 ± 0.1 mm, with a maximum deviation of 0.6 mm. For the scanned proton pencil beams, Zebra and Bragg peak chamber range values demonstrated agreement of 0.0 ± 0.3 mm with a maximum deviation of 1.3 mm. The setup and measurement time for all Zebra measurements was 3 and 20 times less, respectively, compared to the water tank measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Our investigation shows that the Zebra can be useful not only for fast but also for accurate measurements of the depth-dose distributions of both scattered and scanned proton beams. The analysis of a large set of measurements shows that the commonly assessed beam quality parameters obtained with the Zebra are within the acceptable variations specified by the manufacturer for our delivery system.

Cobalt-60 tomotherapy: clinical treatment planning and phantom dose delivery studies.

PURPOSE: Investigations have shown that a Cobalt-60 (Co-60) radioactive source has the potential to play a role in intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). In this paper, Co-60 tomotherapy's conformal dose delivery potential is evaluated by delivering conformal dose plans on a cylindrical homogeneous phantom containing clinical structures similar to those found in a typical head and neck (H&N) cancer. Also, the clinical potential of Co-60 tomotherapy is investigated by generating 2D clinical treatment plans for H&N and prostate anatomical regions. These plans are compared with the 6 MV based treatment plans for modalities such as linear accelerator-based tomotherapy and broad beam IMRT, and 15 MV based 3D conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT). METHODS: For experimental validation studies, clinical and nonclinical conformal dose patterns were delivered on circular, homogeneous phantoms containing GafChromic film. For clinical planning study, dose calculations were performed with the EGSnrc Monte Carlo program, where a Theratronics 780C Co-60 unit and a 6 MV linear accelerator were modeled with a MIMiC binary multileaf collimator. An inhouse inverse treatment planning system was used to optimize tomotherapy plans using the same optimization parameters for both Co-60 and 6 MV beams. The IMRT and 3DCRT plans for the clinical cases were generated entirely in the Eclipse treatment planning system based on inhouse IMRT and 3DCRT site specific protocols. RESULTS: The doses delivered to the homogeneous phantoms agreed with the calculations, indicating that it is possible to deliver highly conformal doses with the Co-60 unit. The dose distributions for Co-60 tomotherapy clinical plans for both clinical cases were similar to those obtained with 6 MV based tomotherapy and IMRT, and much more conformal compared to 3DCRT plans. The dose area histograms showed that the Co-60 plans achieve the dose objectives for the targets and organs at risk. CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm that Co-60 tomotherapy is capable of providing state-of-the-art conformal dose delivery and could be used for the treatment of targets in both small and larger separation anatomical regions.

Aperture superposition dose model versus pencil beam superposition dose model for a finite size Cobalt-60 source for tomotherapy deliveries.

PURPOSE: The finite size pencil beam (FSPB) superposition method is a commonly used dose calculation method in intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). The FSPB model assumes that dose for a broad intensity modulated beam can be calculated by superposition of dose from small, pencil-like beams. However, this model is limited to point-like radiation sources and is not valid for finite size sources, such as a Cobalt-60 (Co-60) source of 2 cm diameter. In this paper, the authors present results that show the limitation of this model and propose an alternative model, namely the aperture superposition (AS) model, to calculate photon dose for intensity modulated beams arising from finite size radiation sources. METHODS: The AS model is based on adding beam apertures rather than pencil beams. Each aperture is defined as a series of adjacently opened leaves of a multileaf collimator with no closed leaves in between them. The apertures are calculated using the EGSnrc Monte Carlo program. The accuracy of the AS model was tested for dose calculations of fan beams, as encountered in tomotherapy treatment plans. The results were compared with the FSPB model and GafChromic film measurements. The measurements and simulations were performed for a clinical Theratronics T780C Co-60 unit with MIMiC binary multileaf collimator mounted on it. RESULTS: The comparisons between the AS model and film measurements show agreement better than 1.5% in the high dose regions and 3.7% in the low dose regions. On the contrary, film measurement comparisons to the FSPB model show that the FSPB model underestimates the dose by up to 7% for small field sizes such as 2 × 2 cm(2) and 20% for larger field sizes such as 20 × 2 cm(2). CONCLUSIONS: The results presented in this paper indicate that the AS model provides better accuracy than the FSPB model when calculating dose for fan beams from large radiation sources. The implementation of this model to the current treatment planning systems has the scope of advancing Co-60 based IMRT and tomotherapy.

The role of Cobalt-60 in modern radiation therapy: Dose delivery and image guidance.

The advances in modern radiation therapy with techniques such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy and image-guided radiation therapy (IMRT and IGRT) have been limited almost exclusively to linear accelerators. Investigations of modern Cobalt-60 (Co-60) radiation delivery in the context of IMRT and IGRT have been very sparse, and have been limited mainly to computer-modeling and treatment-planning exercises. In this paper, we report on the results of experiments using a tomotherapy benchtop apparatus attached to a conventional Co-60 unit. We show that conformal dose delivery is possible and also that Co-60 can be used as the radiation source in megavoltage computed tomography imaging. These results complement our modeling studies of Co-60 tomotherapy and provide a strong motivation for continuing development of modern Cobalt-60 treatment devices.

Practical and clinical considerations in Cobalt-60 tomotherapy.

Cobalt-60 (Co-60) based radiation therapy continues to play a significant role in not only developing countries, where access to radiation therapy is extremely limited, but also in industrialized countries. Howver, technology has to be developed to accommodate modern techniques, including image guided and adaptive radiation therapy (IGART). In this paper we describe some of the practical and clinical considerations for Co-60 based tomotherapy by comparing Co-60 and 6 MV linac-based tomotherapy plans for a head and neck (HandN) cancer and a prostate cancer case. The tomotherapy IMRT plans were obtained by modeling a MIMiC binary multi-leaf collimator attached to a Theratron-780c Co-60 unit and a 6 MV linear accelerator (CL2100EX). The EGSnrc/BEAMnrc Monte Carlo (MC) code was used for the modeling of the treatment units with the MIMiC collimator and EGSnrc/DOSXYZnrc code was used for beamlet dose data. An in-house inverse treatment planning program was then used to generate optimized tomotherapy dose distributions for the H and N and prostate cases. The dose distributions, cumulative dose area histograms (DAHs) and dose difference maps were used to evaluate and compare Co-60 and 6 MV based tomotherapy plans. A quantitative analysis of the dose distributions and dose-volume histograms shows that both Co-60 and 6 MV plans achieve the plan objectives for the targets (CTV and nodes) and OARs (spinal cord in HandN case, and rectum in prostate case).