Collection and analysis of photon beam data for Varian C-series linear accelerators: a potential reference beam data set.

This study aimed to collect and analyze photon beam data for the Varian C-series linear accelerators (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA, USA). We evaluated the potential of the average data to be used as reference beam data for the radiotherapy treatment planning system commissioning verification. We collected 20 data sets for 4 and 6 MV photon beams, and 40 data sets for a 10 MV photon beam generated by the Varian C-series machines, which contained the percent depth dose (PDD), off-center ratio (OCR), and output factor (OPF) from 20 institutions. The average for each of the data types was calculated across the 20 machines. Dose differences from the average for PDD at the dose fall-off region were less than 1.0%. Relative differences from the average for the OPF data were almost within 1.0% for all energies and field sizes. For OCR data in the flat regions, the standard deviation of the dose differences from the average was within 1.0%, excluding that of the 30 × 30 mm2 field size being approximately 1.5%. For all energies and field sizes, the distance to agreement from the average in the OCR penumbra regions was less than 1.0 mm. The average data except for the small field size found in this study can be used as reference beam data for verifying users' commissioning results.

Evaluation of the Differences Between Measurements in Multiple Institutions and Calculation Modeled by Representative Beam Data in Prostate VMAT Plan.

BACKGROUND/AIM: This study aimed to investigate the potential differences between multi-institutional measurements and treatment planning system (TPS) calculation modeled by representative beam data for patient-specific quality assurance (QA), including multi-leaf collimator (MLC) parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eleven TrueBeam from nine institutions were used in this study. Volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) plan for verification was created using Eclipse. The point dose of the CC13 ionization chamber and the dose distribution of the GAFCHROMIC EBT3 film were measured and analyzed. RESULTS: Point dose differences in patient-specific QA provided a mean±standard deviation of 1.0%±0.6%. Mean gamma pass rates of dose distribution were in excess of 99% and 96% for 3%/2 mm and 2%/2 mm gamma criteria, respectively. CONCLUSION: There was good agreement between measurements and calculations, indicating the small influence of complex VMAT in the underlying processes. Therefore, implementation of the same MLC parameters on TPS among different institutions with the same planning policy should be considered to ensure consistency and efficiency in radiation treatment processes.

[Summary of the Report of Task Group 100 of the AAPM: Application of Risk Analysis Methods to Radiation Therapy Quality Management].

In 2016, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) has published a report of task group (TG) 100 with a completely new concept, entitled "application of risk analysis methods to radiation therapy quality management." TG-100 proposed implementation of risk analysis in radiotherapy to prevent harmful radiotherapy accidents. In addition, it enables us to conduct efficient and effective quality management in not only advanced radiotherapy such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy and image-guided radiotherapy but also new technology in radiotherapy. It should be noted that treatment process in modern radiotherapy is absolutely more complex and it needs skillful staff and adequate resources. TG-100 methodology could identify weakness in radiotherapy procedure through assessment of failure modes that could occur in overall treatment processes. All staff in radiotherapy have to explore quality management in radiotherapy safety.

Inter-unit variability of multi-leaf collimator parameters for IMRT and VMAT treatment planning: a multi-institutional survey.

Modern treatment machines have shown small inter-unit variability regarding beam data. Recently, vendor-provided average beam data, such as the Representative Beam Data (RBD) of the TrueBeam (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA, USA), has been used for modeling of the Eclipse (Varian Medical Systems) treatment planning system. However, RBD does not provide multi-leaf collimator (MLC) parameters, such as MLC leaf transmission factor (LTF) and dosimetric leaf gap (DLG). We performed a web-based multi-institutional survey to investigate these parameters as well as the measurement protocols and customization of the parameters for intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and/or volumetric modulated radiotherapy (VMAT) commissioning. We collected 69 sets of linear accelerator (linac) data from 58 institutions. In order to measure MLC parameters, most institutions used farmer-type ionization chambers with a sensitive volume of 0.6 cm3, water phantoms, source surface distance of 90 cm with 10 cm depth, and a vendor-provided plan. The LTF showed small inter-unit variabilities, although the DLG showed large variations. For optimization of the parameters for IMRT/VMAT calculations, DLG values were upwardly adjusted at many institutions, whereas the LTF values were modestly changed. We clarified that MLC parameters were measured under the same conditions at more than half of the facilities. Most institutions customized parameters in a similar manner for IMRT/VMAT. The median measured and customized values obtained in our study will be valuable to verify MLC installation accuracy and to shorten the iterative processes of finding the optimal values.

Small-field dosimetry of TrueBeamTM flattened and flattening filter-free beams: A multi-institutional analysis.

PURPOSE: Detector-dependent interinstitutional variations of the beam data may lead to uncertainties of the delivered dose to patients. Here we evaluated the inter-unit variability of the flattened and flattening filter-free (FFF) beam data of multiple TrueBeam (Varian Medical Systems) linear accelerators focusing on the small-field dosimetry. METHODS: The beam data of 6- and 10-MV photon beams with and without flattening filter measured for modeling of an iPLAN treatment planning system (BrainLAB) were collected from 12 institutions - ten HD120 Multileaf Collimator (MLC) and two Millennium120 MLC. Percent-depth dose (PDD), off-center ratio (OCR), and detector output factors (OFdet ) measured with different detectors were evaluated. To investigate the detector-associated effects, we evaluated the inter-unit variations of the OFdet before and after having applied the output correction factors provided by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Technical Reports Series no. 483. RESULTS: PDD measured with a field size of 5 × 5 mm2 showed that the data measured using an ionization chamber had variations exceeding 1% from the median values. The maximum difference from median value was 2.87% for 10 MV photon beam. The maximum variations of the penumbra width for OCR with 10 × 10 mm2 field size were 0.97 mm. The OFdet showed large variations exceeding 15% for a field size of 5 × 5 mm2 . When the output correction factors were applied to the OFdet , the variations were greatly reduced. The relative difference of almost all field output factors were within ± 5% from the median field output factors. CONCLUSION: In this study, the inter-unit variability of small-field dosimetry was evaluated for TrueBeam linear accelerators. The variations were large at a field size of 5 × 5 mm2 , and most occurred in a detector-dependent manner.

Impact of detector selections on inter-institutional variability of flattening filter-free beam data for TrueBeam™ linear accelerators.

This study evaluates the type of detector influencing the inter-institutional variability in flattening filter-free (FFF) beam-specific parameters for TrueBeam™ linear accelerators (Varian Medical Systems,Palo Alto, CA, USA). Twenty-four beam data sets, including the percent depth dose (PDD), off-center ratio (OCR), and output factor (OPF) for modeling within the Eclipse (Varian Medical Systems) treatment planning system, were collected from 19 institutions. Although many institutions collected the data using CC13 (IBA Dosimetry, Schwarzenbruck, Germany) or PTW31010 semiflex (PTW Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany) ionization chambers, some institutions used diode detectors, diamond detectors, and ionization chambers with smaller cavities. The OCR data included penumbra width, full width at half maximum (FWHM), and FFF beam-specific parameters, including unflatness and slope. The data measured by CC13/PTW31010 ionization chambers were compared with those measured by all other detectors. PDD data demonstrated the variations within ±1% at the dose fall-off region deeper than peak depth. The penumbra widths of the OCR measured with the CC13/PTW31010 detectors were significantly larger than those measured with all other detectors (P < 0.05). Especially the EDGE detector (Sun Nuclear Corp., Melbourne, FL, USA) and the microDiamond detectors (model 60019; PTW Freiburg) demonstrated much smaller penumbra values compared to those of the CC13/PTW31010 detectors for the 30 × 30 mm2 field. There was no difference in the FWHM, unflatness, and slope parameters between the values for the CC13/PTW31010 detectors and all other detectors. OPF curves demonstrated small variations, and the relative difference from the mean value of each data point was almost within 1% for all field sizes. Although the penumbra region exhibited detector-dependent variations, all other parameters showed tiny interunit variations regardless of the detector type.

[A Human Factors Study Using VTA for Incident Cases in Radiotherapy].

In recent years, workload has increased with higher precision of radiotherapy. Although both efficiency and thoroughness of treatment are crucial, in such conditions, human error is easy to occur. In this study, five incident cases that occurred in four facilities were studied and analyzed from the viewpoint of human factors that contribute to errors using variation tree analysis. We also analyzed resilience (the ability to return to one's original state even if the system deviates from a stable state), which has attracted attention in recent safety research. There were potential factors represented by patient factors in all cases. These factors caused deviations from standard operations, and incidents occurred due to unfamiliar situations and operations. Furthermore, in four of the five cases, the cause of the incident was a resilience action or judgment that was deemed to have required "some sort of ingenuity or adjustment." It was found that human error occurred due to multiple simultaneous occurrences of potential factors, i.e., patient and human factors such as high workload, impatience, and work interruptions. A reduction in human errors can be achieved by avoiding time pressure and multitasking, creating work environment and working conditions that make resilience work well, revising ambiguous rules and procedures, and promoting standardized working methods.

Do the representative beam data for TrueBeam™ linear accelerators represent average data?

If the vendor's representative beam data (RBD) for TrueBeam linear accelerators are to be valid for use in clinical practice, the variations in the beam data used for beam modeling must be small. Although a few studies have reported the variation of the beam data of the TrueBeam machines, the numbers of machines analyzed in those studies were small. In this study, we investigated the variation in the beam data for 21 TrueBeam machines collected from 17 institutions with their agreement. In the exponential regions, the percent depth dose (PDD) values showed very small variation, <1% for all the photon energies analyzed. Similarly, the off-center ratio (OCR) values also showed small variation for all energies. In the field regions, the standard deviations of the values of dose difference (DD) between the data for each machine and the study average were <1% for field sizes ≥100 × 100 mm2 . The maximum distance-to-agreement from the average data was <0.5 mm in the penumbra regions. The output factor (OPF) values also showed very small variation (<1%) for all energies and field sizes. Both the PDD and OCR of the average study data showed good agreement with the vendor's RBD for field sizes ≥100 × 100 mm2 . The OPF of the average study data also showed good agreement with the vendor's RBD for all field sizes. However, although all the institutions used ionization chambers with similar cavity volumes, the 30 × 30 mm2 field size showed large DD variations (≥2%) in OCR in the field regions. We conclude that the intermachine variability of TrueBeam linear accelerators was very small except for small field dosimetry, supporting the validity of the use of the RBD for clinical applications. The use of the vendor's RBD might greatly facilitate the quick installation of a new linear accelerator.

Inter-institutional variability of small-field-dosimetry beams among HD120™ multileaf collimators: a multi-institutional analysis.

Detector selection and technical problems can result in large variations in small-field-dosimetry data among institutions. In this study, we evaluated inter-institutional variability in the small-field-beam data of the Novalis Tx linear accelerator (Varian Medical Systems and BrainLAB) with an HD120™ multileaf collimator. Beam data for modeling an iPLAN treatment planning system (BrainLAB) were collected from 19 institutions and median values of percentage depth doses (PDD), diagonal profiles, transversal profiles, and ratios of detector readings (detector output factors; OF det) were calculated. Inter-institutional variability was defined as the difference between the median value and the value for each machine. PDD measured with a 100 mm square field size and diagonal profiles showed only small variations; however, when measured with a 5 mm square field size, the PDD variation from the median exceeded ±2%, especially for ionization chambers. With a 10 mm square field, the variation was within approximately ±1%. The OF det variation was within ±2% for ⩾20 mm square field sizes. The maximum variation exceeded 20% for 5 mm square fields. The ionization chambers' OF det values were smaller than the median, whereas those for the EDGE detector (Sun Nuclear Corp) were larger. When the OF det values were corrected by output factor correction factors, the variation was greatly reduced, with only a few machines showing variations greater than ±5% from the median value. In conclusion, this multi-institutional investigation of small field dosimetry for HD120 multileaf collimators demonstrated some large variations in the dosimetric parameters, especially for a 5 mm square field size. Most differences were detector-dependent, and the variation was reduced when output correction factors were applied. However, variations probably due to measurement errors were also observed, indicating that careful management is needed for small-field dosimetry.

A multi-institutional study of secondary check of treatment planning using Clarkson-based dose calculation for three-dimensional radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: As there have been few reports on quantitative analysis of inter-institutional results for independent monitor unit (MU) verification, we performed a multi-institutional study of verification to show the feasibility of applying the 3-5% action levels used in the U.S. and Europe, and also to show the results of inter-institutional comparisons. METHODS: A total of 5936 fields were collected from 12 institutions. We used commercial software employing the Clarkson algorithm for verification after a validation study of measurement and software comparisons was performed. The doses generated by the treatment planning systems (TPSs) were retrospectively analyzed using the verification software. RESULTS: Mean ±â€¯two standard deviations of all locations were 1.0 ±â€¯3.6%. There were larger differences for breast (4.0 ±â€¯4.0%) and for lung (2.5 ±â€¯5.8%). A total of 80% of the fields with differences over 5% of the action level involved breast and lung targets, with 7.2 ±â€¯5.4%. Inter-institutional comparisons showed various systematic differences for field shape for breast and differences in the fields were attributable to differences in reference point placement for lung. The large differences for breast and lung are partially attributable to differences in the methods used to correct for heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: The 5% action level may be feasible for verification; however, an understanding of larger differences in breast and lung plans is important in clinical practice. Based on the inter-institutional comparisons, care must be taken when determining an institution-specific action level from plans with different field shape settings and incorrectly placed reference points.

Multi-institutional comparison of computer-based independent dose calculation for intensity modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy.

PURPOSE: No multi-institutional studies of computer-based independent dose calculation have addressed the discrepancies among radiotherapy treatment planning systems (TPSs) and the verification programs for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). We conducted a multi-institutional study to investigate whether ±5% is a reasonable action level for independent dose calculation for IMRT/VMAT. METHODS: In total, 477 IMRT/VMAT plans for prostate or head and neck (H&N) malignancies were retrospectively analyzed using a modified Clarkson-based commercial verification program. The doses from the TPSs and verification programs were compared using the mean ±1 standard deviation (SD). RESULTS: In the TPS-calculated dose comparisons for prostate and H&N malignancies, the sliding window (SW) technique (-2.5 ±â€¯1.8% and -5.3 ±â€¯2.6%) showed greater negative systematic differences than the step-and-shoot (S&S) technique (-0.3 ±â€¯2.2% and -0.8 ±â€¯2.2%). The VMAT dose differences for prostate and H&N malignancies were 0.9 ±â€¯1.8% and 1.1 ±â€¯3.3%, respectively. The SDs were larger for the H&N plans than for the prostate plans in both IMRT and VMAT. Such plans including more out-of-field control points showed greater systematic differences and SDs. CONCLUSIONS: This study will help individual institutions to establish an action level for agreement between primary calculations and verification for IMRT/VMAT. A local dose difference of ±5% at a point within the planning target volume (above -350 HU) may be a reasonable action level.

Precision in Wedge Off-axis Using Independent Dose Verification.

It is essential for quality assurance to verify the safety of each individual patient's plan in radiation therapy. The tolerance level for independent verification of monitor unit calculations for non-IMRT clinical radiotherapy has been shown in the AAPM TG114. Thus, we investigated the precision of independent MU (dose) verification considering a wedge off-axis calculation and we conducted a study at twelve institutes for independent verification with the wedge off-axis calculation. The results obtained with the wedge off-axis calculation showed better agreement with the treatment planning system calculation results than those without the former calculation in a phantom study and in the patient retrospective study. The confidence limits with the wedge off-axis calculation were 2.2±3.4% and 2.0±4.3% for the plans with a physical wedge and a non-physical wedge in the patient study, respectively. However, the confidence limits were over 5% without the off-axis calculation. From our multi-institutional study, the results suggested that the tolerance level for the wedge off-axis plan would be 5% when considering the wedge off-axis calculation and the level was similar to that of the treatment planning system using other conventional irradiation techniques.

Variation of the prescription dose using the analytical anisotropic algorithm in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy.

PURPOSE: The aim of the present investigation was to evaluate the dosimetric variation regarding the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) relative to other algorithms in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). We conducted a multi-institutional study involving six institutions using a secondary check program and compared the AAA to the Acuros XB (AXB) in two institutions. METHODS: All lung SBRT plans (128 patients) were generated using the AAA, pencil beam convolution with the Batho (PBC-B) and adaptive convolve (AC). All institutions used the same secondary check program (simple MU analysis [SMU]) implemented by a Clarkson-based dose calculation algorithm. Measurement was performed in a heterogeneous phantom to compare doses using the three different algorithms and the SMU for the measurements. A retrospective analysis was performed to compute the confidence limit (CL; mean±2SD) for the dose deviation between the AAA, PBC, AC and SMU. The variations between the AAA and AXB were evaluated in two institutions, then the CL was acquired. RESULTS: In comparing the measurements, the AAA showed the largest systematic dose error (3%). In calculation comparisons, the CLs of the dose deviation were 8.7±9.9% (AAA), 4.2±3.9% (PBC-B) and 5.7±4.9% (AC). The CLs of the dose deviation between the AXB and the AAA were 1.8±1.5% and -0.1±4.4%, respectively, in the two institutions. CONCLUSIONS: The CL of the AAA showed much larger variation than the other algorithms. Relative to the AXB, larger systematic and random deviations still appeared. Thus, care should be taken in the use of AAA for lung SBRT.

[influence and improvement of metal artifacts in dental structures by CT for radiation treatment planning: reconstruction of transverse images using oblique images by gantry tilt scanning].

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) radiation treatment planning (RTP) requires accuracy. Metal artifacts are one of the factors that influence RTP. The metal artifacts from dental structures are problems at the level of the oropharynx, since these artifacts impair visualization of tumors or lymph nodes and change CT (computed tomography) values. We simulated RTP at the level of the oropharynx using CT images with and without artifacts from dental structures. Gantry tilt scanning was performed to avoid artifacts from dental structures and transverse images reconstructed from oblique images by gantry tilt scanning using a technique of multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) . The reconstructed transverse images were used for the RTP. The reconstructed transverse images were useful to obtain accurate target volumes and the RTP of two opposed equally weighted beams by correct CT values. As dose distribution was changed slightly by the metal artifacts, the use of CT images without artifact is recommended in RTP.