Correction for Ion Recombination in a Built-in Monitor Chamber of a Clinical Linear Accelerator at Ultra-High Dose Rates.

In the novel and promising radiotherapy technique known as FLASH, ultra-high dose-rate electron beams are used. As a step towards clinical trials, dosimetric advances will be required for accurate dose delivery of FLASH. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a built-in transmission chamber of a clinical linear accelerator can be used as a real-time dosimeter to monitor the delivery of ultra-high-dose-rate electron beams. This was done by modeling the drop-in ion-collection efficiency of the chamber with increasing dose-per-pulse values, so that the ion recombination effect could be considered. The raw transmission chamber signal was extracted from the linear accelerator and its response was measured using radiochromic film at different dose rates/dose-per-pulse values, at a source-to-surface distance of 100 cm. An increase of the polarizing voltage, applied over the transmission chamber, by a factor of 2 and 3, improved the ion-collection efficiency, with corresponding increased efficiency at the highest dose-per-pulse values by a factor 1.4 and 2.2, respectively. The drop-in ion-collection efficiency with increasing dose-per-pulse was accurately modeled using a logistic function fitted to the transmission chamber data. The performance of the model was compared to that of the general theoretical Boag models of ion recombination in ionization chambers. The logistic model was subsequently used to correct for ion recombination at dose rates ranging from conventional to ultra-high, making the transmission chamber useful as a real-time monitor for the dose delivery of FLASH electron beams in a clinical setup.

AAPM Task Group 329: Reference dose specification for dose calculations: Dose-to-water or dose-to-muscle?

Linac calibration is done in water, but patients are comprised primarily of soft tissue. Conceptually, and specified in NRG/RTOG trials, dose should be reported as dose-to-muscle to describe the dose to the patient. Historically, the dose-to-water of the linac calibration was often converted to dose-to-muscle for patient calculations through manual application of a 0.99 dose-to-water to dose-to-muscle correction factor, applied during the linac clinical reference calibration. However, many current treatment planning system (TPS) dose calculation algorithms approximately provide dose-to-muscle (tissue), making application of a manual scaling unnecessary. There is little guidance on when application of a scaling factor is appropriate, resulting in highly inconsistent application of this scaling by the community. In this report we provide guidance on the steps necessary to go from the linac absorbed dose-to-water calibration to dose-to-muscle in patient, for various commercial TPS algorithms. If the TPS does not account for the difference between dose-to-water and dose-to-muscle, then TPS reference dose scaling is warranted. We have tabulated the major vendors' TPS in terms of whether they approximate dose-to-muscle or calculate dose-to-water and recommend the correction factor required to report dose-to-muscle directly from the TPS algorithm. Physicists should use this report to determine the applicable correction required for specifying the reference dose in their TPS to achieve this goal and should remain attentive to possible changes to their dose calculation algorithm in the future.

Modifying a clinical linear accelerator for delivery of ultra-high dose rate irradiation.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to modify a clinical linear accelerator, making it capable of electron beam ultra-high dose rate (FLASH) irradiation. Modifications had to be quick, reversible, and without interfering with clinical treatments. METHODS: Performed modifications: (1) reduced distance with three setup positions, (2) adjusted/optimized gun current, modulator charge rate and beam steering values for a high dose rate, (3) delivery was controlled with a microcontroller on an electron pulse level, and (4) moving the primary and/or secondary scattering foils from the beam path. RESULTS: The variation in dose for a five-pulse delivery was measured to be 1% (using a diode, 4% using film) during 10 minutes after a warm-up procedure, later increasing to 7% (11% using film). A FLASH irradiation dose rate was reached at the cross-hair foil, MLC, and wedge position, with ≥30, ≥80, and ≥300 Gy/s, respectively. Moving the scattering foils resulted in an increased output of ≥120, ≥250, and ≥1000 Gy/s, at the three positions. The beam flatness was 5% at the cross-hair position for a 20 × 20 and a 10 × 10 cm2 area, with and without both scattering foils in the beam. The beam flatness was 10% at the wedge position for a 6 and 2.5 cm diametric area, with and without the scattering foils in the beam path. CONCLUSIONS: A clinical accelerator was modified to produce ultra-high dose rates, high enough for FLASH irradiation. Future work aims to fine-tune the dose delivery, using the on-board transmission chamber signal and adjusting the dose-per-pulse.

The effect of prostate motion during hypofractionated radiotherapy can be reduced by using flattening filter free beams.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Hypofractionated radiotherapy of prostate cancer reduces the overall treatment time but increases the per-fraction beam-on time due to the higher fraction doses. This increased fraction treatment time results in a larger uncertainty of the prostate position. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of prostate motion during flattening filter free (FFF) Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) in ultrahypofractionation of prostate cancer radiotherapy with preserved plan quality compared to conventional flattened beams. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine prostate patients from the Scandinavian HYPO-RT-PC trial were re-planned using VMAT technique with both conventional and flattening filter free beams. Two fractionation schedules were used, one hypofractionated (42.7 Gy in 7 fractions), and one conventional (78.0 Gy in 39 fractions). Pre-treatment verification measurements were performed on all plans and the treatment time was recorded. Measurements with simulated prostate motion were performed for the plans with the longest treatment times. RESULTS: All the 10FFF plans fulfilled the clinical gamma pass rate, 90% (3%, 2 mm), during all simulated prostate motion trajectories. The 10MV plans only fulfilled the clinical pass rate for three of the trajectories. The mean beam-on-time for the hypofractionated plans were reduced from 2.3 min to 1.0 min when using 10FFF compared to 10MV. No clinically relevant differences in dose distribution were identified when comparing the plans with different beam qualities. CONCLUSION: Flattening-filter free VMAT reduces treatment times, limiting the dosimetric effect of organ motion for ultrahypofractionated prostate cancer with preserved plan quality.

A dose based approach for evaluation of inter-observer variations in target delineation.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Substantial inter-observer variations in target delineation have been presented previously. Target delineation for paediatric cases is difficult due to the small number of children, the variation in paediatric targets, the number of study protocols, and the individual patient's specific needs and demands. Uncertainties in target delineation might lead to under-dosage or over-dosage. The aim of this work is to apply the concept of a consensus volume and good quality treatment plans to visualise and quantify inter-observer target delineation variations in dosimetric terms in addition to conventional geometrically based volume concordance indices. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two paediatric cases were used to demonstrate the potential of adding dose metrics when evaluating target delineation diversity; Hodgkin's disease (case 1) and rhabdomyosarcoma of the parotid gland (case 2). The variability in target delineation (PTV delineations) between six centres was quantified using the generalised conformity index, CIgen, generated for volume overlap. The STAPLE algorithm, as implemented in CERR, was used for both cases to derive a consensus volumes. STAPLE is a probabilistic estimate of the true volume generated from all observers. Dose distributions created by each centre for the original target volumes were then applied to this consensus volume. RESULTS: A considerable variation in target segmentation was seen in both cases. For case 1 the variation was 374-960 cm3 (average 669 cm3) and for case 2; 65-126 cm3 (average 109 cm3). CIgen were 0.53 and 0.70, respectively. The DVHs in absolute volume displayed for the delineated target volume as well as for the consensus volume adds information on both "compliant" target volumes as well as outliers which are hidden with just the use of concordance indices. CONCLUSIONS: The DVHs in absolute volume add valuable and easily understood information to various indices for evaluating uniformity in target delineation.

Combining tissue-phantom ratios to provide a beam-quality specifier for flattening filter free photon beams.

PURPOSE: There are currently several commercially available radiotherapy treatment units without a flattening filter in the beam line. Unflattened photon beams have an energy and lateral fluence distribution that is different from conventional beams and, thus, their attenuation properties differ. As a consequence, for flattening filter free (FFF) beams, the relationship between the beam-quality specifier TPR20,10 and the Spencer-Attix restricted water-to-air mass collision stopping-power ratios, L̄/ρair (water), may have to be refined in order to be used with equivalent accuracy as for beams with a flattening filter. The purpose of this work was twofold. First, to study the relationship between TPR20,10 and L̄/ρair (water) for FFF beams, where the flattening filter has been replaced by a metal plate as in most clinical FFF beams. Second, to investigate the potential of increasing the accuracy in determining L̄/ρair (water) by adding another beam-quality metric, TPR10,5. The relationship between L̄/ρair (water) and %dd(10)x for beams with and without a flattening filter was also included in this study. METHODS: A total of 24 realistic photon beams (10 with and 14 without a flattening filter) from three different treatment units have been used to calculate L̄/ρair (water), TPR20,10, and TPR10,5 using the EGSnrc Monte Carlo package. The relationship between L̄/ρair (water) and the dual beam-quality specifier TPR20,10 and TPR10,5 was described by a simple bilinear equation. The relationship between the photon beam-quality specifier %dd(10)x used in the AAPM's TG-51 dosimetry protocol and L̄/ρair (water) was also investigated for the beams used in this study, by calculating the photon component of the percentage depth dose at 10 cm depth with SSD 100 cm. RESULTS: The calculated L̄/ρair (water) for beams without a flattening filter was 0.3% lower, on average, than for beams with a flattening filter and comparable TPR20,10. Using the relationship in IAEA, TRS-398 resulted in a root mean square deviation (RMSD) of 0.0028 with a maximum deviation of 0.0043 (0.39%) from Monte Carlo calculated values. For all beams in this study, the RMSD between the proposed model and the Monte Carlo calculated values was 0.0006 with a maximum deviation of 0.0013 (0.1%). Using an earlier proposed relationship [Xiong and Rogers, Med. Phys. 35, 2104-2109 (2008)] between %dd(10)x and L̄/ρair (water) gave a RMSD of 0.0018 with a maximum deviation of 0.0029 (0.26%) for all beams in this study (compared to RMSD 0.0015 and a maximum deviation of 0.0048 (0.47%) for the relationship used in AAPM TG-51 published by Almond et al. [Med. Phys. 26, 1847-1870 (1999)]). CONCLUSIONS: Using TPR20,10 as a beam-quality specifier, for the flattening filter free beams used in this study, gave a maximum difference of 0.39% between L̄/ρair (water) predicted using IAEA TRS-398 and Monte Carlo calculations. An additional parameter for determining L̄/ρair (water) has been presented. This parameter is easy to measure; it requires only an additional dose measurement at 5 cm depth with SSD 95 cm, and provides information for accurate determination of the L̄/ρair (water) ratio for beams both with and without a flattening filter at the investigated energies.

Haematological toxicity in adult patients receiving craniospinal irradiation--indication of a dose-bath effect.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the correlation between the haematological toxicity observed in patients treated with craniospinal irradiation, and the dose distribution in normal tissue, specifically the occurrence of large volumes exposed to low dose. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty adult male patients were included in this study; eight treated with helical tomotherapy (HT), and twelve with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy. The relative volume of red bone marrow and body that was exposed to low dose (i.e. the so-called dose bath) was evaluated and correlated with nadir blood values during treatment, i.e. the severity of anaemia, leukopaenia, and thrombocytopaenia. The correlation was tested for different dose levels representing the dose bath using the Pearson product-moment correlation method. RESULTS: We found a significant correlation between the volume of red bone marrow exposed to low dose and the severity of thrombocytopaenia during treatment. Furthermore, for the HT patients, a significant correlation was found between the relative volume of the body exposed to low dose and the severity of anaemia and leukopenia. CONCLUSIONS: The severity of haematological toxicity correlated with the fraction of red bone marrow or body that was exposed to low dose.

Treatment plan comparison using grading analysis based on clinical judgment.

PURPOSE: In this work we explore a method named clinical grading analysis (CGA) which is based on clinical assessments performed by radiation oncologists (ROs). The purpose is to investigate how useful the method is for treatment plan comparisons, and how the CGA results correlate with dosimetric evaluation parameters, traditionally used for treatment plan comparisons. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Helical tomotherapy (HTT) and seven-beam step-and-shoot intensity modulated radiation therapy (SS-IMRT) plans were compared and assessed by 10 experienced ROs for 23 patient cases. A CGA was performed where the plans were graded based on how the ROs thought they compared to each other. The resulting grades from the CGA were analyzed and compared to dose-volume statistics and equivalent uniform dose (EUD) data. RESULTS: For eight of the 23 cases the CGA revealed a significant difference between the HTT and the SS-IMRT plans, five cases were in favor of HTT, and three in favor of SS-IMRT. Comparing the dose-volume statistics and EUD-data with the result from the CGA showed that CGA results correlated well with dose-volume statistics for cases regarding difference in target coverage or doses to organs at risk. The CGA results also correlated well with EUD-data for cases with difference in clinical target volume (CTV) coverage but the correlation for cases with difference in planning target volume (PTV) coverage was not as clear. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents CGA as a useful method of comparing radiotherapy treatment plans. The proposed method offers a formalized way of introducing and evaluating the implementation of new radiotherapy techniques in a clinical setting. The CGA identify patients that have a clinical benefit of one or the other of the advanced treatment techniques available to them, i.e. in this study HTT and SS-IMRT, which facilitates a more optimal use of a clinics' advanced treatment resources.

Introducing multiple treatment plan-based comparison to investigate the performance of gantry angle optimisation (GAO) in IMRT for head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of gantry angle optimisation (GAO) compared to equidistant beam geometry for two inverse treatment planning systems (TPSs) by utilising the information obtained from a range of treatment plans. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The comparison was based on treatment plans generated for four different head and neck (H&N) cancer cases using two inverse treatment planning systems (TPSs); Varian Eclipse™ representing dynamic MLC intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and Oncentra® Masterplan representing segmented MLC-based IMRT. The patient cases were selected on the criterion of representing different degrees of overlap between the planning target volume (PTV) and the investigated organ at risk, the ipsilateral parotid gland. For each case, a number of 'Pareto optimal' plans were generated in order to investigate the trade-off between the under-dosage to the PTV (V(PTV,D < 95%)) or the decrease in dose homogeneity (D(5)-D(95)) to the PTV as a function of the mean absorbed dose to the ipsilateral parotid gland ((parotid gland)). RESULTS: For the Eclipse system, GAO had a clear advantage for the cases with smallest overlap (Cases 1 and 2). The set of data points, representing the underlying trade-offs, generated with and without using GAO were, however, not as clearly separated for the cases with larger overlap (Cases 3 and 4). With the OMP system, the difference was less pronounced for all cases. The Eclipse GAO displays the most favourable trade-off for all H&N cases. CONCLUSIONS: We have found differences in the effectiveness of GAO as compared to equidistant beam geometry, in terms of handling conflicting trade-offs for two commercial inverse TPSs. A comparison, based on a range of treatment plans, as developed in this study, is likely to improve the understanding of conflicting trade-offs and might apply to other thorough comparison techniques.

Conversion of helical tomotherapy plans to step-and-shoot IMRT plans--Pareto front evaluation of plans from a new treatment planning system.

PURPOSE: The resulting plans from a new type of treatment planning system called SharePlan have been studied. This software allows for the conversion of treatment plans generated in a TomoTherapy system for helical delivery, into plans deliverable on C-arm linear accelerators (linacs), which is of particular interest for clinics with a single TomoTherapy unit. The purpose of this work was to evaluate and compare the plans generated in the SharePlan system with the original TomoTherapy plans and with plans produced in our clinical treatment planning system for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) on C-arm linacs. In addition, we have analyzed how the agreement between SharePlan and TomoTherapy plans depends on the number of beams and the total number of segments used in the optimization. METHODS: Optimized plans were generated for three prostate and three head-and-neck (H&N) cases in the TomoTherapy system, and in our clinical treatment planning systems (TPS) used for IMRT planning with step-and-shoot delivery. The TomoTherapy plans were converted into step-and-shoot IMRT plans in SharePlan. For each case, a large number of Pareto optimal plans were created to compare plans generated in SharePlan with plans generated in the Tomotherapy system and in the clinical TPS. In addition, plans were generated in SharePlan for the three head-and-neck cases to evaluate how the plan quality varied with the number of beams used. Plans were also generated with different number of beams and segments for other patient cases. This allowed for an evaluation of how to minimize the number of required segments in the converted IMRT plans without compromising the agreement between them and the original TomoTherapy plans. RESULTS: The plans made in SharePlan were as good as or better than plans from our clinical system, but they were not as good as the original TomoTherapy plans. This was true for both the head-and-neck and the prostate cases, although the differences between the plans for the latter were small. The evaluation of the head-and-neck cases also showed that the plans generated in SharePlan were improved when more beams were used. The SharePlan Pareto front came close to the front for the TomoTherapy system when a sufficient number of beams were added. The results for plans generated with varied number of beams and segments demonstrated that the number of segments could be minimized with maintained agreement between SharePlan and TomoTherapy plans when 10-19 beams were used. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed (using Pareto front evaluation) that the plans generated in Share-Plan are comparable to plans generated in other TPSs. The evaluation also showed that the plans generated in SharePlan could be improved with the use of more beams. To minimize the number of segments needed in a plan with maintained agreement between the converted IMRT plans and the original TomoTherapy plans, 10-19 beams should be used, depending on target complexity. SharePlan has proved to be useful and should thereby be a time-saving complement as a backup system for clinics with a single TomoTherapy system installed alongside conventional C-arm linacs.

Current status and future perspective of flattening filter free photon beams.

PURPOSE: Flattening filters (FFs) have been considered as an integral part of the treatment head of a medical accelerator for more than 50 years. The reasons for the longstanding use are, however, historical ones. Advanced treatment techniques, such as stereotactic radiotherapy or intensity modulated radiotherapy have stimulated the interest in operating linear accelerators in a flattening filter free (FFF) mode. The current manuscript reviews treatment head physics of FFF beams, describes their characteristics and the resulting potential advantages in their medical use, and closes with an outlook. METHODS: A number of dosimetric benefits have been determined for FFF beams, which range from increased dose rate and dose per pulse to favorable output ratio in-air variation with field size, reduced energy variation across the beam, and reduced leakage and out-of-field dose, respectively. Finally, the softer photon spectrum of unflattened beams has implications on imaging strategies and radiation protection. RESULTS: The dosimetric characteristics of FFF beams have an effect on treatment delivery, patient comfort, dose calculation accuracy, beam matching, absorbed dose determination, treatment planning, machine specific quality assurance, imaging, and radiation protection. When considering conventional C-arm linacs in a FFF mode, more studies are needed to specify and quantify the clinical advantages, especially with respect to treatment plan quality and quality assurance. CONCLUSIONS: New treatment units are already on the market that operate without a FF or can be operated in a dedicated clinical FFF mode. Due to the convincing arguments of removing the FF, it is expected that more vendors will offer dedicated treatment units for advanced photon beam therapy in the near future. Several aspects related to standardization, dosimetry, treatment planning, and optimization need to be addressed in more detail in order to facilitate the clinical implementation of unflattened beams.

Beam commissioning and measurements validating the beam model in a new TPS that converts helical tomotherapy plans to step-and-shoot IMRT plans.

PURPOSE: A new type of treatment planning system called SHAREPLAN has been studied, which enables the transfer of treatment plans generated for helical tomotherapy delivery to plans that can be delivered on C-arm linacs. The purpose is to ensure continuous patient treatment during periods of unscheduled downtime for the TomoTherapy unit, particularly in clinics without a backup unit. The purpose of this work was to verify that the plans generated in this novel planning system are deliverable and accurate. The work consists primarily of beam commissioning, verification of the beam model, and measurements verifying that generated plans are deliverable with sufficient accuracy. METHODS: The beam commissioning process involves input of general geometric properties of the modeled linac, profiles and depth dose curves for a specific photon nominal energy (6 MV), and the automated modeling of other beam properties. Some manual tuning of the beam model is required. To evaluate its accuracy, the confidence limit concept [J. Venselaar et al., "Tolerances for the accuracy of photon beam dose calculations of treatment planning systems," Radiother. Oncol. 60, 191-201 (2001)] was used, which is a method supported by ESTRO. Measurements were conducted with a 2D diode array at the commissioned linac as a final check of the beam model and to evaluate whether the generated plans were deliverable and accurate. RESULTS: The comparison and evaluation of calculated data points and measured data according to the method applied confirmed the accuracy of the beam model. The profiles had a confidence limit of 1.1% and the depth dose curves had a confidence limit of 1.7%, both of which were well below the tolerance limit of 2%. Plan specific QC measurements and evaluation verified that different plans generated in the TPS were deliverable with sufficient accuracy at the commissioned linac, as none of the 160 beams for the 20 different plans evaluated had a fraction of approved data points below 90%, the local clinical approval criterion for delivery QA measurements. CONCLUSIONS: This study is a validation of the new TPS as it verifies that the generated plans are deliverable at a commissioned linac with adequate accuracy. A thorough investigation of the treatment plan quality will require a separate study. The TPS is proving to be a useful and time-saving complement, especially for clinics having a single unit for helical delivery among its conventional linacs.

Flattening filter free beams in SBRT and IMRT: dosimetric assessment of peripheral doses.

PURPOSE: Recently, there has been a growing interest in operating medical linear accelerators without a flattening filter. Due to reduced scatter, leaf transmission and radiation head leakage a reduction of out-of-field dose is expected for flattening filter free beams. The aim of the present study was to determine the impact of unflattened beams on peripheral dose for advanced treatment techniques with a large number of MUs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An Elekta Precise linac was modified to provide 6 and 10 MV photon beams without a flattening filter. Basic beam data were collected and implemented into the TPS Oncentra Masterplan (Nucletron). Leakage radiation, which predominantly contributes to peripheral dose at larger distances from the field edge, was measured using a Farmer type ionisation chamber. SBRT (lung) and IMRT (prostate, head&neck) treatment plans were generated for 6 and 10 MV for both flattened and unflattened beams. All treatment plans were delivered to the relevant anatomic region of an anthropomorphic phantom which was extended by a solid water slab phantom. Dosimetric measurements were performed with TLD-700 rods, radiochromic films and a Farmer type ionisation chamber. The detectors were placed within the slab phantom and positioned along the isocentric longitudinal axis. RESULTS: Using unflattened beams results in a reduction of treatment head leakage by 52% for 6 and 65% for 10 MV. Thus, peripheral doses were in general smaller for treatment plans calculated with unflattened beams. At about 20 cm distance from the field edge the dose was on average reduced by 23 and 31% for the 6 and 10 MV SBRT plans. For the IMRT plans (10 MV) the average reduction was 16% for the prostate and 18% for the head&neck case, respectively. For all examined cases, the relative deviation between peripheral doses of flattened and unflattened beams was found to increase with increasing distance from the field. CONCLUSIONS: Removing the flattening filter lead to reduced peripheral doses for advanced treatment techniques. The relative difference between peripheral doses of flattened and unflattened beams was more pronounced when the nominal beam energy was increased. Patients may benefit by decreased exposure of normal tissue to scattered dose outside the field.

Radiation Oncology Safety Information System (ROSIS)--profiles of participants and the first 1074 incident reports.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Radiation Oncology Safety Information System (ROSIS) was established in 2001. The aim of ROSIS is to collate and share information on incidents and near-incidents in radiotherapy, and to learn from these incidents in the context of departmental infrastructure and procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A voluntary web-based cross-organisational and international reporting and learning system was developed (cf. the www.rosis.info website). Data is collected via online Department Description and Incident Report Forms. A total of 101 departments, and 1074 incident reports are reviewed. RESULTS: The ROSIS departments represent about 150,000 patients, 343 megavoltage (MV) units, and 114 brachytherapy units. On average, there are 437 patients per MV unit, 281 per radiation oncologist, 387 per physicist and 353 per radiation therapy technologist (RT/RTT). Only 14 departments have a completely networked system of electronic data transfer, while 10 departments have no electronic data transfer. On average seven quality assurance (QA) or quality control (QC) methods are used at each department. A total of 1074 ROSIS reports are analysed; 97.7% relate to external beam radiation treatment and 50% resulted in incorrect irradiation. Many incidents arise during pre-treatment but are not detected until later in the treatment process. Where an incident is not detected prior to treatment, an average of 22% of the prescribed treatment fractions were delivered incorrectly. The most commonly reported detection methods were "found at time of patient treatment" and during "chart-check". CONCLUSION: While the majority of the incidents that reported to this international cross-organisational reporting system are of minor dosimetric consequence, they affect on average more than 20% of the patient's treatment fractions. Nonetheless, defence-in-depth is apparent in departments registered with ROSIS. This indicates a need for further evaluation of the effectiveness of quality controls.

A Monte Carlo study of a flattening filter-free linear accelerator verified with measurements.

A Monte Carlo model of an Elekta Precise linear accelerator has been built and verified by measured data for a 6 and 10 MV photon beam running with and without a flattening filter in the beam line. In this study the flattening filter was replaced with a 6 mm thick copper plate, provided by the linac vendor, in order to stabilize the beam. Several studies have shown that removal of the filter improves some properties of the photon beam, which could be beneficial for radiotherapy treatments. The investigated characteristics of this new beam included output, spectra, mean energy, half value layer and the origin of scattered photons. The results showed an increased dose output per initial electron at the central axis of 1.76 and 2.66 for the 6 and 10 MV beams, respectively. The number of scattered photons from the accelerator head was reduced by (31.7 ± 0.03)% (1 SD) for the 6 MV beam and (47.6 ± 0.02)% for the 10 MV beam. The photon energy spectrum of the unflattened beam was softer compared to a conventional beam and did not vary significantly with the off-axis distance, even for the largest field size (0-20 cm off-axis).

Prediction of stopping-power ratios in flattening-filter free beams.

PURPOSE: In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in flattening-filter free (FFF) beams. However, since the removal of the flattening filter will affect both the mean and the variance of the energy spectrum, current beam-quality specifiers may not be adequate for reference dosimetry in such beams. The purpose of this work was to investigate an alternative, more general beam-quality specifier. METHODS: The beam-quality specifier used in this work was a combination of the kerma-weighted mean and the coefficient of variation of the linear attenuation coefficient in water. These parameters can in theory be determined from narrow-beam transmission measurements using a miniphantom "in-air," which is a measurement condition well suited also to small and nonstandard fields. The relation between the Spencer-Attix stopping-power ratios and this novel beam-quality specifier was described by a simple polynomial. For reference, the authors used Monte Carlo calculated spectra and stopping-power data for nine different beams, with and without flattening filter. RESULTS: The polynomial coefficients were obtained by least-squares optimization. For all beams included in this investigation, the average of the differences between the predicted and the Monte Carlo calculated stopping-power ratios was 0.02 +/- 0.17% (1 SD) (including TomoTherapy and CyberKnife example beams). CONCLUSIONS: An alternative dual-parameter beam-quality specifier was investigated. The evaluation suggests that it can be used successfully to predict stopping-power ratios in FFF as well as conventional beams, regardless of filtration.

Photon beam quality variations of a flattening filter free linear accelerator.

PURPOSE: Recently, there has been an increasing interest in operating conventional linear accelerators without a flattening filter. The aim of this study was to determine beam quality variations as a function of off-axis ray angle for unflattened beams. In addition, a comparison was made with the off-axis energy variation in flattened beams. METHODS: Two Elekta Precise linear accelerators were modified in order to enable radiation delivery with and without the flattening filter in the beam line. At the Medical University Vienna (Vienna, Austria), half value layer (HVL) measurements were performed for 6 and 10 MV with an in-house developed device that can be easily mounted on the gantry. At St. Luke's Hospital (Dublin, Ireland), measurements were performed at 6 MV in narrow beam geometry with the gantry tilted around 270 degrees with pinhole collimators, an attenuator, and the chamber positioned on the table. All attenuation measurements were performed with ionization chambers and a buildup cap (2 mm brass) or a PMMA mini phantom (diameter 3 cm, measurement depth 2.5 cm). RESULTS: For flattened 6 and 10 MV photon beams from the Elekta linac the relative HVL(theta) varies by about 11% for an off-axis ray angle theta = 10 degrees. These results agree within +/- 2% with a previously proposed generic off-axis energy correction. For unflattened beams, the variation was less than 5% in the whole range of off-axis ray angles up to 10 degrees. The difference in relative HVL data was less than 1% for unflattened beams at 6 and 10 MV. CONCLUSIONS: Off-axis energy variation is rather small in unflattened beams and less than half the one for flattened beams. Thus, ignoring the effect of off-axis energy variation for dose calculations in unflattened beams can be clinically justified.