Imaging And Radiation Oncology Core Houston Research Articles

PRIMO Monte Carlo software as a tool for commissioning of an external beam radiotherapy treatment planning system.

The purpose was to validate the PRIMO Monte Carlo software to be used during the commissioning of a treatment planning system (TPS). The Acuros XB v. 16.1 algorithm of the Eclipse was configured for 6 MV and 6 MV flattening-filter-free (FFF) photon beams, from a TrueBeam linac equipped with a high-definition 120-leaf multileaf collimator (MLC). PRIMO v. 0.3.64.1814 software was used with the phase space files provided by Varian and benchmarked against the reference dosimetry dataset published by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Houston (IROC-H). Thirty Eclipse clinical intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)/volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were verified in three ways: 1) using the PTW Octavius 4D (O4D) system; 2) the Varian Portal Dosimetry system and 3) the PRIMO software. Clinical validation of PRIMO was completed by comparing the simulated dose distributions on the O4D phantom against dose measurements for these 30 clinical plans. Agreement evaluations were performed using a 3% global/2 mm gamma index analysis. PRIMO simulations agreed with the benchmark IROC-H data within 2.0% for both energies. Gamma passing rates (GPRs) from the 30 clinical plan verifications were (6 MV/6MV FFF): 99.4% ± 0.5%/99.9% ± 0.1%, 99.8% ± 0.4%/98.9% ± 1.4%, 99.7% ± 0.4%/99.7% ± 0.4%, for the 1), 2) and 3) verification methods, respectively. Agreement between PRIMO simulations on the O4D phantom and 3D dose measurements resulted in GPRs of 97.9% ± 2.4%/99.7% ± 0.4%. The PRIMO software is a valuable tool for dosimetric verification of clinical plans during the commissioning of the primary TPS.

Predicted Inferior Outcomes for Lung SBRT With Treatment Planning Systems That Fail Independent Phantom-Based Audits

More than 15% of radiotherapy clinics fail external audits with anthropomorphic phantoms conducted by Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Houston (IROC-H) while passing other industry-standard quality assurance (QA) tests. We seek to evaluate the predicted impact of such failed plans on outcomes for patients treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for lung tumors. We conducted a retrospective study of 55 patients treated with SBRT for lung tumors with prescription BED10 ≥100Gy using a treatment planning system (TPS) that passed IROC-H phantom audits. Sample linac beam models with introduced errors were commissioned by varying the multi-leaf collimator leaf tip offset parameter (i.e., 'dosimetric leaf gap') over the range +/-1.0 mm relative to the validated model. These models mimic TPS that pass internal QA measures but fail IROC-H tests. Patient plans were recalculated on sample beam models. Predicted tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were calculated based on published dose-response models. A leaf tip offset value of -1.0 mm decreased the fraction of plans receiving a PTV BED10 ≥100 Gy from 95% to 27%. This translated to a significant decrease in 2-yr TCP of 4.8% (95% CI: 2.0-5.5%) with a decrease in TCP up to 21%. Conversely, leaf tip offset of +1.0 mm resulted in 36% of patients exceeding previously met OAR constraints, including two instances of spinal cord and brachial plexus overdoses and a small increase in chest wall NTCP by 0.7%, (95% CI 0.5%-0.8%). Simulated treatment plans with modest MLC leaf offsets result in lung SBRT plans that significantly under-dose tumor or exceed OAR constraints. These dosimetric endpoints translate to significant detriments in TCP. These simulated plans mimic planning systems that pass internal QA measures but fail independent phantom-based tests, underscoring the need for enhanced quality assurance including external audits of TPS.

Investigation of absolute dose calibration accuracy for TomoTherapy using real water.

A systematic bias in TomoTherapy output calibration was reported by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Houston (IROC‐H) after analyzing intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) credentialing results from hundreds of TomoTherapy units. Multiple theories were developed to explain this observation. One theory was that the use of a solid water “cheese” phantom instead of real water in the calibration measurement was the culprit. A phantom filled with distilled water was built to investigate whether our TomoTherapy was miscalibrated due to the use of a solid water phantom. A miscalibration of −1.47% was detected on our TomoTherapy unit. It is found that despite following the vendor's updated recommendation on computed tomography (CT) number to density calibration, the cheese phantom was still mapped to a density of 1.028 g/cm3, rather than the 1.01 g/cm3 value reported in literature. When the density of the cheese phantom was modified to 1.01 g/cm3 in the treatment planning system, the measurement also indicated that our TomoTherapy machine was miscalibrated by −1.52%, agreeing with the real water phantom findings. Our single‐institution finding showed that the cheese phantom density assignment can introduce greater than 1% errors in the TomoTherapy absolute dose calibration. It is recommended that the absolute dose calibration for TomoTherapy be performed either in real water or in the cheese phantom with the density in TPS overridden as 1.01 g/cm3.

Dose verification of volumetric-modulated arc therapy using one-dimensional and two-dimensional dosimeters

AbstractPurposeTo verify dose delivery and quality assurance of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for head and neck (H&N) cancer.MethodThe Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Houston (IROC-H) H&N phantom with thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and films, were imaged with computed tomography scan and the reconstructed image was transferred to pinnacle treatment planning system (TPS). On TPS, the planning target volume (PTV), secondary target volume (STV) and organ at risk (OAR) were delineated manually and a treatment plan was made. The dose constraints were determined for the concerned organs according to IROC-H prescription. The treatment plan was optimised using adoptive convolution algorithm to improve dose homogeneity and conformity. The dose calculation was performed using C.C Convolution algorithm and a Varian True Beam linear accelerator was used to deliver the treatment plan to the H&N phantom. The delivered radiation dose to the phantom was measured through TLDs and GafChromic external beam radiotherapy 2 (EBT2) films. The dosimetric performance of the VMAT delivery was studied by analysing percent dose difference, isodose line profile and gamma analysis of the TPS-computed dose and linac-delivered doses.ResultThe percent dose difference of 3.8% was observed between the planned and measured doses of TLDs and a 1.5-mm distance to agreement (DTA) was observed by comparing isodose line profiles. Passed the gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm was with good percentages.ConclusionThe dosimetric performance of VMAT delivery for a challenging H&N radiotherapy can be verified using TLDs and films embedded in an anthropomorphic H&N phantom.

An Anthropomorphic Head and Neck Quality Assurance Phantom for Credentialing of Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy.

To design and commission a head and neck (H&N) anthropomorphic phantom that the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Houston (IROC-H) can use to verify the quality of intensity-modulated proton therapy H&N treatments for institutions participating in National Cancer Institute-sponsored clinical trials. The phantom design was based on a generalized oropharyngeal tumor, including critical H&N structures (parotid glands and spinal cord). Radiochromic film and thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD)-100 capsules were embedded in the phantom and used to evaluate dose delivery. A spot-scanning treatment plan with typical clinical constraints for H&N cancer was created by using the Eclipse analytic algorithm. The treatment plan was approved by a radiation oncologist and the phantom was irradiated 4 times. The measured dose distribution using a ±7%/4 mm gamma analysis (85% of pixels passing) and point doses were compared with the treatment planning system calculations. The prescribed target dose was 6 Gy (RBE) with 646.2 cGy (RBE) and 648.6 cGy (RBE) planned to the superior and inferior TLD, respectively. For point dosimetry, the average measured-to-calculated dose ratios were 0.984 and 0.986 for the superior and inferior target TLD, respectively. Dose values for the superior and inferior target TLDs were 636.1 cGy and 639.6 cGy, respectively. For the relative dose comparison, the pixel passing rates for the axial and sagittal films, respectively, were 95.5% and 94.2% for trial 1, 97.3% and 93.2% for trial 2, 93.4% and 90.0% for trial 3, and 96.2% and 92.7% for trial 4. The anthropomorphic H&N phantom was successfully designed so that TLD measured-to-calculated ratios were within IROC-H's 7% acceptance criteria, 1.6% and 1.4% lower than expected for the superior and inferior target TLDs, respectively. All trials passed the 85% pixel passing criteria established at IROC-H for the relative dose comparison performed when using a gamma index of ±7%/4 mm.

Development of a Monte Carlo multiple source model for inclusion in a dose calculation auditing tool.

The Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Houston (IROC-H) (formerly the Radiological Physics Center) has reported varying levels of agreement in their anthropomorphic phantom audits. There is reason to believe one source of error in this observed disagreement is the accuracy of the dose calculation algorithms and heterogeneity corrections used. To audit this component of the radiotherapy treatment process, an independent dose calculation tool is needed. Monte Carlo multiple source models for Elekta 6MV and 10MV therapeutic x-ray beams were commissioned based on measurement of central axis depth dose data for a 10×10cm2 field size and dose profiles for a 40×40cm2 field size. The models were validated against open field measurements consisting of depth dose data and dose profiles for field sizes ranging from 3×3cm2 to 30×30cm2 . The models were then benchmarked against measurements in IROC-H's anthropomorphic head and neck and lung phantoms. Validation results showed 97.9% and 96.8% of depth dose data passed a ±2% Van Dyk criterion for 6MV and 10MV models respectively. Dose profile comparisons showed an average agreement using a ±2%/2mm criterion of 98.0% and 99.0% for 6MV and 10MV models respectively. Phantom plan comparisons were evaluated using ±3%/2mm gamma criterion, and averaged passing rates between Monte Carlo and measurements were 87.4% and 89.9% for 6MV and 10MV models respectively. Accurate multiple source models for Elekta 6MV and 10MV x-ray beams have been developed for inclusion in an independent dose calculation tool for use in clinical trial audits.

Development of a flattening filter free multiple source model for use as an independent, Monte Carlo, dose calculation, quality assurance tool for clinical trials.

The Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Houston (IROC-H) Quality Assurance Center (formerly the Radiological Physics Center) has reported varying levels of compliance from their anthropomorphic phantom auditing program. IROC-H studies have suggested that one source of disagreement between institution submitted calculated doses and measurement is the accuracy of the institution's treatment planning system dose calculations and heterogeneity corrections used. In order to audit this step of the radiation therapy treatment process, an independent dose calculation tool is needed. Monte Carlo multiple source models for Varian flattening filter free (FFF) 6 MV and FFF 10 MV therapeutic x-ray beams were commissioned based on central axis depth dose data from a 10 × 10 cm2 field size and dose profiles for a 40 × 40 cm2 field size. The models were validated against open-field measurements in a water tank for field sizes ranging from 3 × 3 cm2 to 40 × 40 cm2 . The models were then benchmarked against IROC-H's anthropomorphic head and neck phantom and lung phantom measurements. Validation results, assessed with a ±2%/2 mm gamma criterion, showed average agreement of 99.9% and 99.0% for central axis depth dose data for FFF 6 MV and FFF 10 MV models, respectively. Dose profile agreement using the same evaluation technique averaged 97.8% and 97.9% for the respective models. Phantom benchmarking comparisons were evaluated with a ±3%/2 mm gamma criterion, and agreement averaged 90.1% and 90.8% for the respective models. Multiple source models for Varian FFF 6 MV and FFF 10 MV beams have been developed, validated, and benchmarked for inclusion in an independent dose calculation quality assurance tool for use in clinical trial audits.

MO-FG-202-05: Identifying Treatment Planning System Errors in IROC-H Phantom Irradiations

Purpose: Treatment Planning System (TPS) errors can affect large numbers of cancer patients receiving radiation therapy. Using an independent recalculation system, the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Houston (IROC-H) can identify institutions that have not sufficiently modelled their linear accelerators in their TPS model. Methods: Linear accelerator point measurement data from IROC-H's site visits was aggregated and analyzed from over 30 linear accelerator models. Dosimetrically similar models were combined to create “classes”. The class data was used to construct customized beam models in an independent treatment dose verification system (TVS). Approximately 200 head and neck phantom plans from 2012 to 2015 were recalculated using this TVS. Comparison of plan accuracy was evaluated by comparing the measured dose to the institution's TPS dose as well as the TVS dose. In cases where the TVS was more accurate than the institution by an average of >2%, the institution was identified as having a non-negligible TPS error. Results: Of the ∼200 recalculated plans, the average improvement using the TVS was ∼0.1%; i.e. the recalculation, on average, slightly outperformed the institution's TPS. Of all the recalculated phantoms, 20% were identified as having a non-negligible TPS error. Fourteen plans failed current IROC-H criteria; the average TVS improvement of the failing plans was ∼3% and 57% were found to have non-negligible TPS errors. Conclusion: IROC-H has developed an independent recalculation system to identify institutions that have considerable TPS errors. A large number of institutions were found to have non-negligible TPS errors. Even institutions that passed IROC-H criteria could be identified as having a TPS error. Resolution of such errors would improve dose delivery for a large number of IROC-H phantoms and ultimately, patients.

SU‐F‐T‐168: Development and Implementation of An Anthropomorphic Head & Neck Phantom for the Assessment of Proton Therapy Treatment Procedures

Purpose:To design a Head and Neck (H&N) anthropomorphic QA phantom that the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Houston (IROC‐H) can use to verify the quality of intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) H&N treatments for institutions participating in NCI clinical trials.Methods:The phantom was created to serve as a remote auditing tool for IROC‐H to evaluate an institution's IMPT planning and delivery abilities. The design was based on the composition, size, and geometry of a generalized oropharyngeal tumor and contains critical structures (parotids and spinal cord). Radiochromic film in the axial and sagittal planes and thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD)‐100 capsules were embedded in the phantom and used to perform the dose delivery evaluation. A CT simulation was used to create a passive scatter and a spot scanning treatment plan with typical clinical constraints for H&N cancer. The IMPT plan was approved by a radiation oncologist and the phantom was irradiated multiple times. The measured dose distribution using a 7%/4mm gamma analysis (85% of pixels passing) and point doses were compared with the treatment planning system calculations.Results:The designed phantom could not achieve the target dose prescription and organ at risk dose constraints with the passive scatter treatment plan. The target prescription dose could be met but not the parotid dose constraint. The average TLD point dose ratio in the target was 0.975, well within the 5% acceptance criterion. The dose distribution analysis using various acceptance criteria, 5%/4mm, 5%/3mm, 7%/4mm and 7%/5mm, had average pixel passing rates of 85.9%, 81.8%, 89.6% and 91.6%, and respectively.Conclusion:An anthropomorphic IMPT H&N phantom was designed that can assess the dose delivery of proton sites wishing to participate in clinical trials using a 5% TLD dose and 7%/4mm gamma analysis acceptance criteria.

SU‐F‐T‐292: Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) Houston QA Center's Anthropomorphic Phantom Program

Purpose:To describe the results of IROC Houston's international and domestic end‐to‐end QA phantom irradiations.Methods:IROC Houston has anthropomorphic lung, liver, head and neck, prostate, SRS and spine phantoms that are used for credentialing and quality assurance purposes. The phantoms include structures that closely mimic targets and organs at risk and are made from tissue equivalent materials: high impact polystyrene, solid water, cork and acrylic. Motion tables are used to mimic breathing motion for some lung and liver phantoms. Dose is measured with TLD and radiochromic film in various planes within the target of the phantoms.Results:The most common phantom requested is the head and neck followed by the lung phantom. The head and neck phantom was sent to 800 domestic and 148 international sites between 2011 and 2015, with average pass rates of 89% and 92%, respectively. During the past five years, a general upward trend exists regarding demand for the lung phantom for both international and domestic sites with international sites more than tripling from 5 (2011) to 16 (2015) and domestic sites doubling from 66 (2011) to 152 (2015). The pass rate for lung phantoms has been consistent from year to year despite this large increase in the number of phantoms irradiated with an average pass rate of 85% (domestic) and 95% (international) sites. The percentage of lung phantoms used in combination with motions tables increased from 38% to 79% over the 5 year time span.Conclusion:The number of domestic and international sites irradiating the head and neck and lung phantoms continues to increase and the pass rates remained constant. These end‐to‐end QA tests continue to be a crucial part of clinical trial credentialing and institution quality assurance.This investigation was supported by IROC grant CA180803 awarded by the NCI.

Technical Report: Reference photon dosimetry data for Varian accelerators based on IROC-Houston site visit data.

Accurate data regarding linear accelerator (Linac) radiation characteristics are important for treatment planning system modeling as well as regular quality assurance of the machine. The Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Houston (IROC-H) has measured the dosimetric characteristics of numerous machines through their on-site dosimetry review protocols. Photon data are presented and can be used as a secondary check of acquired values, as a means to verify commissioning a new machine, or in preparation for an IROC-H site visit. Photon data from IROC-H on-site reviews from 2000 to 2014 were compiled and analyzed. Specifically, data from approximately 500 Varian machines were analyzed. Each dataset consisted of point measurements of several dosimetric parameters at various locations in a water phantom to assess the percentage depth dose, jaw output factors, multileaf collimator small field output factors, off-axis factors, and wedge factors. The data were analyzed by energy and parameter, with similarly performing machine models being assimilated into classes. Common statistical metrics are presented for each machine class. Measurement data were compared against other reference data where applicable. Distributions of the parameter data were shown to be robust and derive from a student's t distribution. Based on statistical and clinical criteria, all machine models were able to be classified into two or three classes for each energy, except for 6 MV for which there were eight classes. Quantitative analysis of the measurements for 6, 10, 15, and 18 MV photon beams is presented for each parameter; supplementary material has also been made available which contains further statistical information. IROC-H has collected numerous data on Varian Linacs and the results of photon measurements from the past 15 years are presented. The data can be used as a comparison check of a physicist's acquired values. Acquired values that are well outside the expected distribution should be verified by the physicist to identify whether the measurements are valid. Comparison of values to this reference data provides a redundant check to help prevent gross dosimetric treatment errors.

TU-EF-304-06: A Comparison of CT Number to Relative Linear Stopping Power Conversion Curves Used by Proton Therapy Centers

Purpose: To compare the CT Number (CTN) to Relative Linear Stopping Power (RLSP) conversion curves used by 14 proton institutions in their dose calculations. Methods: The proton institution’s CTN to RLSP conversion curves were collected by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) Houston QA Center during its on-site dosimetry review audits. The CTN values were converted to scaled CT Numbers. The scaling assigns a CTN of 0 to air and 1000 to water to allow intercomparison. The conversion curves were compared and the mean curve was calculated based on institutions’ predicted RLSP values for air (CTN 0), lung (CTN 250), fat (CTN 950), water (1000), liver (CTN 1050), and bone (CTN 2000) points. Results: One institution’s curve was found to have a unique curve shape between the scaled CTN of 1025 to 1225. This institution modified its curve based on the findings. Another institution had higher RLSP values than expected for both low and high CTNs. This institution recalibrated their two CT scanners and the new data placed their curve closer to the mean of all institutions. After corrections were made to several conversion curves, four institutions still fall outside 2 standard deviations at very low CTNs (100–200), and two institutions fall outside between CTN 850–900. The largest percent difference in RLSP values between institutions for the specific tissues reviewed was 22% for the lung point. Conclusion: The review and comparison of CTN to RLSP conversion curves allows IROC Houston to identify any outliers and make recommendations for improvement. Several institutions improved their clinical dose calculation accuracy as a Result of this review. There is still area for improvement, particularly in the lung area of the curve. The IROC Houston QA Center is supported by NCI grant CA180803.

Institutional Patient-specific IMRT QA Does Not Predict Unacceptable Plan Delivery

To determine whether in-house patient-specific intensity modulated radiation therapy quality assurance (IMRT QA) results predict Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC)-Houston phantom results. IROC Houston's IMRT head and neck phantoms have been irradiated by numerous institutions as part of clinical trial credentialing. We retrospectively compared these phantom results with those of in-house IMRT QA (following the institution's clinical process) for 855 irradiations performed between 2003 and 2013. The sensitivity and specificity of IMRT QA to detect unacceptable or acceptable plans were determined relative to the IROC Houston phantom results. Additional analyses evaluated specific IMRT QA dosimeters and analysis methods. IMRT QA universally showed poor sensitivity relative to the head and neck phantom, that is, poor ability to predict a failing IROC Houston phantom result. Depending on how the IMRT QA results were interpreted, overall sensitivity ranged from 2% to 18%. For different IMRT QA methods, sensitivity ranged from 3% to 54%. Although the observed sensitivity was particularly poor at clinical thresholds (eg 3% dose difference or 90% of pixels passing gamma), receiver operator characteristic analysis indicated that no threshold showed good sensitivity and specificity for the devices evaluated. IMRT QA is not a reasonable replacement for a credentialing phantom. Moreover, the particularly poor agreement between IMRT QA and the IROC Houston phantoms highlights surprising inconsistency in the QA process.

SU‐E‐P‐02: Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) Houston QA Center (RPC) Credentialing

Purpose:To provide information pertaining to IROC Houston QA Center's (RPC) credentialing process for institutions participating in NCI‐sponsored clinical trials.Methods:IROC Houston issues credentials for NCI sponsored study groups. Requirements for credentialing might include any combination of questionnaires, knowledge assessment forms, benchmarks, or phantom irradiations. Credentialing requirements for specific protocols can be found on IROC Houston's website (irochouston.mdanderson.org). The website also houses the credentialing status inquiry (CSI) form. Once an institution has reviewed the protocol's credentialing requirements, a CSI form should be completed and submitted to IROC Houston. This form is used both to request whether requirements have been met as well as to notify IROC Houston that the institution requests credentialing for a specific protocol. IROC Houston will contact the institution to discuss any delinquent requirements. Once the institution has met all requirements IROC Houston issues a credentialing letter to the institution and will inform study groups and other IROC offices of the credentials. Institutions can all phone the IROC Houston office to initiate credentialing or ask any credentialing related questions.Results:Since 2010 IROC has received 1313 credentialing status inquiry forms. We received 317 in 2010, 266 in 2011, 324 in 2012, and 406 in 2013. On average we receive 35 phone calls per week with multiple types of credentialing questions. Decisions regarding credentialing status are based on the protocol specifications and previous completed credentialing by the institution. In some cases, such as for general IMRT credentialing, up to 5 sites may be credentialed based on the credentialing of one main center. Each of these situations is handled individually.Conclusion:IROC Houston will issue radiation therapy credentials for the NCI trials in the National Clinical Trials Network. Credentialing requirements and the CSI form can be found online at the IROC Houston's website.Work supported by PHS grant CA10953 and CA081647 (NCI, DHHS).