Dosimetric intercomparison for two Australasian clinical trials using an anthropomorphic phantom

Abstract

Introduction: Many different factors can affect the accurate delivery of dose to the clinical target volume in radiotherapy. This is particularly important in the context of multicenter clinical trials where different equipment and techniques may be used for supposedly identical treatments. A dosimetric intercomparison employing an anthropomorphic phantom (level III dosimetric intercomparison) can be used to check many of the factors that could affect treatment by mimicking the radiotherapy pathway of a patient as closely as possible. Methods and Materials: An anthropomorphic phantom (ART) was taken to 18 radiotherapy centers in Australia and New Zealand and treated for two different treatment scenarios based on current clinical trials of the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG): a two-field treatment of a carcinoma of the tonsil (TROG 91.01), and a four-field prostate treatment (TROG 96.01). The dose distribution was assessed in two consecutive treatments using thermoluminescence dosimeters (TLDs) placed throughout the target volume and in “critical” structures such as the lens of the eye or the rectum. The study also included a check of absolute dose calibration in a slab phantom (level I dosimetric intercomparison). The influence of a variety of treatment parameters on the dose homogeneity in the target and the measured dose in the target and the critical organs was evaluated. Results: The dose measurements confirmed that in all participating centers the correct dose was delivered to the ICRU reference point (tonsil: 99.8 ± 2.3%; prostate: 100.9 ± 1.9% [1 SD]). Also the absolute dose calibration and the mean dose in the target volume were within the specified action levels of ± 5% for all participating centers. No influence of shielding, beam modifiers, beam weighting, treatment planning approach (CT, 2D, 3D), and type of equipment used on the dose in the target and its homogeneity could be demonstrated. However, treatment technique and energy used influenced the dose to the critical organs. It was shown that the interpretation of results could be improved by including two complementary treatment scenarios and a level I intercomparison with the level III dosimetric intercomparison. Conclusion: The study demonstrated the feasibility of a level III dosimetric intercomparison service at a cost of approximately $US 1000 per center in Australasia. It confirmed that the dose delivered by all participating centers was as intended in the two treatment scenarios chosen. While this provides reassurance to the oncology community and the general public, the service must be extended to all centers and other potentially more complex treatment scenarios. The present study has built the foundation for this by establishing a baseline and action levels and suggesting improvements in phantom design which will be included in future TROG quality assurance exercises.