Report of AAPM Task Group 219 on independent calculation-based dose/MU verification for IMRT.

Independent verification of the dose per monitor unit (MU) to deliver the prescribed dose to a patient has been a mainstay of radiation oncology quality assurance (QA). We discuss the role of secondary dose/MU calculation programs as part of a comprehensive QA program. This report provides guidelines on calculation-based dose/MU verification for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) provided by various modalities. We provide a review of various algorithms for "independent/second check" of monitor unit calculations for IMRT/VMAT. The report makes recommendations on the clinical implementation of secondary dose/MU calculation programs; on commissioning and acceptance of various commercially available secondary dose/MU calculation programs; on benchmark QA and periodic QA; and on clinically reasonable action levels for agreement of secondary dose/MU calculation programs.

Beam modeling and beam model commissioning for Monte Carlo dose calculation-based radiation therapy treatment planning: Report of AAPM Task Group 157.

Dose calculation plays an important role in the accuracy of radiotherapy treatment planning and beam delivery. The Monte Carlo (MC) method is capable of achieving the highest accuracy in radiotherapy dose calculation and has been implemented in many commercial systems for radiotherapy treatment planning. The objective of this task group was to assist clinical physicists with the potentially complex task of acceptance testing and commissioning MC-based treatment planning systems (TPS) for photon and electron beam dose calculations. This report provides an overview on the general approach of clinical implementation and testing of MC-based TPS with a specific focus on models of clinical photon and electron beams. Different types of beam models are described including those that utilize MC simulation of the treatment head and those that rely on analytical methods and measurements. The trade-off between accuracy and efficiency in the various source-modeling approaches is discussed together with guidelines for acceptance testing of MC-based TPS from the clinical standpoint. Specific recommendations are given on methods and practical procedures to commission clinical beam models for MC-based TPS.

Positioning errors of metal localization devices with motion artifacts on kV and MV cone beam CT.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate motion artifacts on kV CBCT and MV CBCT images with metal localization devices for image-guided radiation therapy. METHODS: The 8 µ pelvis CBCT template for the Siemens Artiste MVision and Pelvis template for the Varian IX on-board Exact Arms kV were used to acquire CBCT images in this study. Images from both CBCT modalities were compared in CNRs, metal landmark absolute positions, and image volume distortion on three different planes of view. The images were taken on a breathing-simulated thoracic phantom in which several typical metal localization devices were implanted, including clips and wires for breast patients, gold seeds for prostate patients, and BBs as skin markers. To magnify the artifacts, a 4 cm diameter metal ball was also implanted into the thoracic phantom to mimic the metal artifacts. RESULTS: For MV CBCT, the CNR at a 4 sec breathing cycle with 1 cm breathing amplitude was 5.0, 3.4 and 4.6 for clips, gold seeds and BBs, respectively while it was 1.5, 2.0 and 1.6 for the kV CBCT. On the images, the kV CBCT showed symmetric streaking artifacts both in the transverse and longitudinal directions relative to the motion direction. The kV CBCT images predicted 89 % of the expected volume, while the MV CBCT images predicted 95 % of the expected volume. The simulated soft tissue observed in the MVCT could not be detected in the kV CBCT. CONCLUSION: The MV CBCT images showed better volume prediction, less streaking effects and better CNRs of a moving metal target, i.e. clips, BBs, gold seeds and metal balls than on the kV CBCT images. The MV CBCT was more advantageous compared to the kV CBCT with less motion artifacts for metal localization devices. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study would benefit clinicians to prescribe MV CBCT as localization modality for radiation treatment with moving target when metal markers are implanted.

Dosimetric and delivery efficiency investigation for treating hepatic lesions with a MLC-equipped robotic radiosurgery-radiotherapy combined system.

PURPOSE: The CyberKnife M6 (CK-M6) Series introduced a multileaf collimator (MLC) for extending its capability from stereotactic radiosurgery/stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT) to conventionally fractionated radiotherapy. This work is to investigate the dosimetric quality of plans that are generated using MLC-shaped beams on the CK-M6, as well as their delivery time, via comparisons with the intensity modulated radiotherapy plans that were clinically used on a Varian Linac for treating hepatic lesions. METHODS: Nine patient cases were selected and divided into three groups with three patients in each group: (1) the group-one patients were treated conventionally (25 fractions); (2) the group-two patients were treated with SBRT-like hypofractionation (5 fractions); and (3) the group-three patients were treated similar to group-one patients, but with two planning target volumes (PTVs) and two different prescription dose levels correspondingly. The clinically used plans were generated on the eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) and delivered on a Varian Linac (E-V plans). The multiplan (MP) TPS was used to replan these clinical cases with the MLC as the beam device for the CK-M6 (C-M plans). After plans were normalized to the same PTV dose coverage, comparisons between the C-M and E-V plans were performed based on D(99%) (percentage of prescription dose received by 99% of the PTV), D(0.1cm(3)) (the percentage of prescription dose to 0.1 cm(3) of the PTV), and doses received by critical structures. Then, the delivery times for the C-M plans will be obtained, which are the MP TPS generated estimations assuming having an imaging interval of 60 s. RESULTS: The difference in D(99%) between C-M and E-V plans is +0.6% on average (+ or - indicating a higher or lower dose from C-M plans than from E-V plans) with a range from -4.1% to +3.8%, and the difference in D(0.1cm(3)) was -1.0% on average with a range from -5.1% to +2.9%. The PTV conformity index (CI) for the C-M plans ranges from 1.07 to 1.29 with a mean of 1.19, slightly inferior to the E-V plans, in which the CI ranges from 1.00 to 1.15 with a mean of 1.07. Accounting for all nine patients in three groups, 45% of the critical structures received a lower mean dose for the C-M plans as compared with the E-V plans, and similarly, 48% received a lower maximum dose. Furthermore, the average difference of the mean critical structure dose between the C-M and E-V plans over all critical structures for all patients showed only +2.10% relative to the prescription dose and the similar comparison finds the average difference of the maximum critical structure dose of only +1.24%. The estimated delivery times for the C-M plans on the CK-M6 range from 18 to 24 minutes while they are from 7 to 13.7 min for the E-V plans on the Varian Linac. CONCLUSIONS: For treating hepatic lesions, for the C-M plans that are comparable to E-V plans in quality, the times needed to deliver these C-M plans on the CK-M6 are longer than the delivery time for the E-V plans on the Varian Linac, but may be clinically acceptable.

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for pancreatic and prostate cancer using pulsed low-dose rate delivery techniques.

Reirradiation of patients who were previously treated with radiotherapy is vastly challenging. Pulsed low-dose rate (PLDR) external beam radiotherapy has the potential to reduce normal tissue toxicities while providing significant tumor control for recurrent cancers. This work investigates treatment planning techniques for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)-based PLDR treatment of various sites, including cases with pancreatic and prostate cancer. A total of 20 patients with clinical recurrence were selected for this study, including 10 cases with pancreatic cancer and 10 with prostate cancer. Large variations in the target volume were included to test the ability of IMRT using the existing treatment planning system and optimization algorithm to deliver uniform doses in individual gantry angles/fields for PLDR treatments. Treatment plans were generated with 10 gantry angles using the step-and-shoot IMRT delivery technique, which can be delivered in 3-minute intervals to achieve an effective low dose rate of 6.7cGy/min. Instead of dose constraints on critical structures, ring structures were mainly used in PLDR-IMRT optimization. In this study, the PLDR-IMRT plans were compared with the PLDR-3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) plans and the PLDR-RapidArc plans. For the 10 cases with pancreatic cancer that were investigated, the mean planning target volume (PTV) dose for each gantry angle in the PLDR-IMRT plans ranged from 17.6 to 22.4cGy. The maximum doses ranged between 22.9 and 34.8cGy. The minimum doses ranged from 8.2 to 17.5cGy. For the 10 cases with prostate cancer that were investigated, the mean PTV doses for individual gantry angles ranged from 18.8 to 22.6cGy. The maximum doses per gantry angle were between 24.0 and 34.7cGy. The minimum doses per gantry angle ranged from 4.4 to 17.4cGy. A significant reduction in the organ at risk (OAR) dose was observed with the PLDR-IMRT plan when compared with that using the PLDR-3DCRT plan. The volume receiving an 18-Gy (V18) dose for the left and right kidneys was reduced by 10.6% and 12.5%, respectively, for the pancreatic plans. The volume receiving a 45-Gy (V45) dose for the small bowel decreased from 65.3% to 45.5%. For the cases with prostate cancer, the volume receiving a 40-Gy (V40) dose for the bladder and the rectum was reduced significantly by 25.1% and 51.2%, respectively. When compared with the RapidArc technique, the volume receiving a 30-Gy (V30) dose for the left and the right kidneys was lower in the IMRT plans. For most OARs, no significant differences were observed between the PLDR-IMRT and the PLDR-RapidArc plans. These results clearly demonstrated that the PLDR-IMRT plan was suitable for PLDR pancreatic and prostate cancer treatments in terms of the overall plan quality. A significant reduction in the OAR dose was achieved with the PLDR-IMRT plan when compared with that using the PLDR-3DCRT plan. For most OARs, no significant differences were observed between the PLDR-IMRT and the PLDR-RapidArc plans. When compared with the PLDR-3DCRT plan, the PLDR-IMRT plan could provide superior target coverage and normal tissue sparing for PLDR reirradiation of recurrent pancreatic and prostate cancers. The PLDR-IMRT plan is an effective treatment choice for recurrent cancers in most cancer centers.

Five-year local control in a phase II study of hypofractionated intensity modulated radiation therapy with an incorporated boost for early stage breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Conventional radiation fractionation of 1.8-2 Gy per day for early stage breast cancer requires daily treatment for 6-7 weeks. We report the 5-year results of a phase II study of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), hypofractionation, and incorporated boost that shortened treatment time to 4 weeks. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The study design was phase II with a planned accrual of 75 patients. Eligibility included patients aged≥18 years, Tis-T2, stage 0-II, and breast conservation. Photon IMRT and an incorporated boost was used, and the whole breast received 2.25 Gy per fraction for a total of 45 Gy, and the tumor bed received 2.8 Gy per fraction for a total of 56 Gy in 20 treatments over 4 weeks. Patients were followed every 6 months for 5 years. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were treated from December 2003 to November 2005. The median follow-up was 69 months. Median age was 52 years (range, 31-81). Median tumor size was 1.4 cm (range, 0.1-3.5). Eighty percent of tumors were node negative; 93% of patients had negative margins, and 7% of patients had close (>0 and <2 mm) margins; 76% of cancers were invasive ductal type: 15% were ductal carcinoma in situ, 5% were lobular, and 4% were other histology types. Twenty-nine percent of patients 29% had grade 3 carcinoma, and 20% of patients had extensive in situ carcinoma; 11% of patients received chemotherapy, 36% received endocrine therapy, 33% received both, and 20% received neither. There were 3 instances of local recurrence for a 5-year actuarial rate of 2.7%. CONCLUSIONS: This 4-week course of hypofractionated radiation with incorporated boost was associated with excellent local control, comparable to historical results of 6-7 weeks of conventional whole-breast fractionation with sequential boost.

Report of AAPM Therapy Physics Committee Task Group 74: in-air output ratio, Sc, for megavoltage photon beams.

The concept of in-air output ratio (Sc) was introduced to characterize how the incident photon fluence per monitor unit (or unit time for a Co-60 unit) varies with collimator settings. However, there has been much confusion regarding the measurement technique to be used that has prevented the accurate and consistent determination of Sc. The main thrust of the report is to devise a theoretical and measurement formalism that ensures interinstitutional consistency of Sc. The in-air output ratio, Sc, is defined as the ratio of primary collision water kerma in free-space, Kp, per monitor unit between an arbitrary collimator setting and the reference collimator setting at the same location. Miniphantoms with sufficient lateral and longitudinal thicknesses to eliminate electron contamination and maintain transient electron equilibrium are recommended for the measurement of Sc. The authors present a correction formalism to extrapolate the correct Sc from the measured values using high-Z miniphantom. Miniphantoms made of high-Z material are used to measure Sc for small fields (e.g., IMRT or stereotactic radiosurgery). This report presents a review of the components of Sc, including headscatter, source-obscuring, and monitor-backscattering effects. A review of calculation methods (Monte Carlo and empirical) used to calculate Sc for arbitrary shaped fields is presented. The authors discussed the use of Sc in photon dose calculation algorithms, in particular, monitor unit calculation. Finally, a summary of Sc data (from RPC and other institutions) is included for QA purposes.

Photonuclear dose calculations for high-energy photon beams from Siemens and Varian linacs.

The dose from photon-induced nuclear particles (neutrons, protons, and alpha particles) generated by high-energy photon beams from medical linacs is investigated. Monte Carlo calculations using the MCNPX code are performed for three different photon beams from two different machines: Siemens 18 MV, Varian 15 MV, and Varian 18 MV. The linac head components are simulated in detail. The dose distributions from photons, neutrons, protons, and alpha particles are calculated in a tissue-equivalent phantom. Neutrons are generated in both the linac head and the phantom. This study includes (a) field size effects, (b) off-axis dose profiles, (c) neutron contribution from the linac head, (d) dose contribution from capture gamma rays, (e) phantom heterogeneity effects, and (f) effects of primary electron energy shift. Results are presented in terms of absolute dose distributions and also in terms of DER (dose equivalent ratio). The DER is the maximum dose from the particle (neutron, proton, or alpha) divided by the maximum photon dose, multiplied by the particle quality factor and the modulation scaling factor. The total DER including neutrons, protons, and alphas is about 0.66 cSv/Gy for the Siemens 18 MV beam (10 cm x 10 cm). The neutron DER decreases with decreasing field size while the proton (or alpha) DER does not vary significantly except for the 1 cm x 1 cm field. Both Varian beams (15 and 18 MV) produce more neutrons, protons, and alphas particles than the Siemens 18 MV beam. This is mainly due to their higher primary electron energies: 15 and 18.3 MeV, respectively, vs 14 MeV for the Siemens 18 MV beam. For all beams, neutrons contribute more than 75% of the total DER, except for the 1 cm x 1 cm field (approximately 50%). The total DER is 1.52 and 2.86 cSv/Gy for the 15 and 18 MV Varian beams (10 cm x 10 cm), respectively. Media with relatively high-Z elements like bone may increase the dose from heavy charged particles by a factor 4. The total DER is sensitive to primary electron energy shift. A Siemens 18 MV beam with 15 MeV (instead of 14 MeV) primary electrons would increase by 40% the neutron DER and by 210% the proton + alpha DER. Comparisons with measurements (neutron yields from different materials and neutron dose equivalent) are also presented. Using the NCRP risk assessment method, we found that the dose equivalent from leakage neutrons (at 50-cm off-axis distance) represent 1.1, 1.1, and 2.0% likelihood of fatal secondary cancer for a 70 Gy treatment delivered by the Siemens 18 MV, Varian 15 MV, and Varian 18 MV beams, respectively.