Patient-specific Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Research Articles

Homogeneous and inhomogeneous material effect in gamma index evaluation of IMRT technique based on fan beam and Cone Beam CT patient images

Patient-specific Quality Assurance (QA) technique in lung case Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) is traditionally limited to homogeneous material, although the fact that the planning is carried out with inhomogeneous material present. Moreover, the chest area has many of inhomogeneous material, such as lung, soft tissue, and bone, which inhomogeneous material requires special attention to avoid inaccuracies in dose calculation in the Treatment Planning System (TPS). Recent preliminary studies shown that the role of Cone Beam CT (CBCT) can be used not only to position the patient at the time prior to irradiation but also to serve as planning modality. Our study presented the influence of a homogeneous and inhomogeneous materials using Fan Beam CT and Cone Beam CT modalities in IMRT technique on the Gamma Index (GI) value. We used a variation of the segment and Calculation Grid Resolution (CGR). The results showed the deviation of averaged GI value to be between CGR 0.2 cm and 0.4 cm with homogeneous material ranging from −0.44% to 1.46%. For inhomogeneous material, the value was range from −1.74% to 0.98%. In performing patient-specific IMRT QA techniques for lung cancer, homogeneous material can be implemented in evaluating the gamma index.

Quick, efficient and effective patient-specific intensity-modulated radiation therapy quality assurance using log file and electronic portal imaging device.

The aim of work is to explore a quick, efficient, and effective patient-specific intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA). Software tools were developed to extract and analyze the multi-leaf collimator (MLC) leaf positions (LPs) from electronic portal imaging device (EPID) images for Varian C-series machine and TrueBeam, to extract useful data from MLC log file of C-series linear accelerator (LINAC), to extract useful information from the trajectory log binary file of TrueBeam LINAC, to compare LPs derived from EPID images with log file/trajectory log data, and to analyze IMRT treatment files using the MATLAB programming language. The difference in LP determined from the trajectory log and EPID images was proposed for patient-specific QA. It was found that the differences in LP for regular radiation fields generated using stationary leaves are <0.5 mm for all the field sizes while for regular radiation fields generated using the moving leaves are more but <2 mm. The differences in LPs for IMRT field were also determined and found to be <2 mm. The methodology demonstrated can be used for establishing the accuracy of trajectory log data and for independent routine IMRT QA by generating single number like gamma index to indicate pass or fail of an IMRT treatment plan. The QA indices such as numbers of occurrences of ≥2 mm error in LPS are found more than 5% of total number of occurrences; the dosimetric review of planned treatment is advisable.

SU‐F‐T‐295: MLCs Performance and Patient‐Specific IMRT QA Using Log File Analysis

Purpose:To analyze the performance of the multi‐leaf collimators (MLCs) from the log files recorded during the intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment and to construct the relative fluence maps and do the gamma analysis to compare the planned and executed MLCs movement.Methods:We developed a program to extract and analyze the data from dynamic log files (dynalog files) generated from sliding window IMRT delivery treatments. The program extracts the planned and executed (actual or delivered) MLCs movement, calculates and compares the relative planned and executed fluences. The fluence maps were used to perform the gamma analysis (with 3% dose difference and 3 mm distance to agreement) for 3 IMR patients. We compared our gamma analysis results with those obtained from portal dose image prediction (PDIP) algorithm performed using the EPID.Results:For 3 different IMRT patient treatments, the maximum difference between the planned and the executed MCLs positions was 1.2 mm. The gamma analysis results of the planned and delivered fluences were in good agreement with the gamma analysis from portal dosimetry. The maximum difference for number of pixels passing the gamma criteria (3%/3mm) was 0.19% with respect to portal dosimetry results.Conclusion:MLC log files can be used to verify the performance of the MLCs. Patientspecific IMRT QA based on MLC movement log files gives similar results to EPID dosimetry results. This promising method for patient‐specific IMRT QA is fast, does not require dose measurements in a phantom, can be done before the treatment and for every fraction, and significantly reduces the IMRT workload.The author would like to thank King Fahd University of petroleum and Minerals for the support.

IMRT QA: Selecting gamma criteria based on error detection sensitivity.

The gamma comparison is widely used to evaluate the agreement between measurements and treatment planning system calculations in patient-specific intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA). However, recent publications have raised concerns about the lack of sensitivity when employing commonly used gamma criteria. Understanding the actual sensitivity of a wide range of different gamma criteria may allow the definition of more meaningful gamma criteria and tolerance limits in IMRT QA. We present a method that allows the quantitative determination of gamma criteria sensitivity to induced errors which can be applied to any unique combination of device, delivery technique, and software utilized in a specific clinic. A total of 21 DMLC IMRT QA measurements (ArcCHECK®, Sun Nuclear) were compared to QA plan calculations with induced errors. Three scenarios were studied: MU errors, multi-leaf collimator (MLC) errors, and the sensitivity of the gamma comparison to changes in penumbra width. Gamma comparisons were performed between measurements and error-induced calculations using a wide range of gamma criteria, resulting in a total of over 20 000 gamma comparisons. Gamma passing rates for each error class and case were graphed against error magnitude to create error curves in order to represent the range of missed errors in routine IMRT QA using 36 different gamma criteria. This study demonstrates that systematic errors and case-specific errors can be detected by the error curve analysis. Depending on the location of the error curve peak (e.g., not centered about zero), 3%/3 mm threshold = 10% at 90% pixels passing may miss errors as large as 15% MU errors and ±1 cm random MLC errors for some cases. As the dose threshold parameter was increased for a given %Diff/distance-to-agreement (DTA) setting, error sensitivity was increased by up to a factor of two for select cases. This increased sensitivity with increasing dose threshold was consistent across all studied combinations of %Diff/DTA. Criteria such as 2%/3 mm and 3%/2 mm with a 50% threshold at 90% pixels passing are shown to be more appropriately sensitive without being overly strict. However, a broadening of the penumbra by as much as 5 mm in the beam configuration was difficult to detect with commonly used criteria, as well as with the previously mentioned criteria utilizing a threshold of 50%. We have introduced the error curve method, an analysis technique which allows the quantitative determination of gamma criteria sensitivity to induced errors. The application of the error curve method using DMLC IMRT plans measured on the ArcCHECK® device demonstrated that large errors can potentially be missed in IMRT QA with commonly used gamma criteria (e.g., 3%/3 mm, threshold = 10%, 90% pixels passing). Additionally, increasing the dose threshold value can offer dramatic increases in error sensitivity. This approach may allow the selection of more meaningful gamma criteria for IMRT QA and is straightforward to apply to other combinations of devices and treatment techniques.

Evaluation of the incident directional dependence of radiochromic film by use of Monte Carlo simulation and measurement.

In high-precision radiotherapy, absolute and relative doses are evaluated for patient-specific intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA). In our institution, we use GAFCHROMIC EBT3 (EBT3) for relative dose evaluation in IMRT QA. We usually use two directional film configurations, which are in the axial and sagittal planes. The QA in our institution shows some differences between the gamma pass rates in the axial and sagittal directions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incident directional dependence of EBT3 by using the percent depth dose (PDD) and the off-center ratio (OCR) between EBT3 films positioned perpendicular to the beam axis and along the beam axis. Furthermore, we compared the PDD in EBT3 films positioned perpendicular to the beam axis and the PDD by using an ionization chamber. In addition, PDDs in water phantoms with and without EBT3 films were calculated by Monte Carlo simulation. The results showed that the PDD in EBT3 films positioned perpendicular to the beam axis increased with the depth from the phantom surface. Monte Carlo simulation showed the same trend as did the film measurements. The OCR results were slightly different at dose levels below 20%. The OCR in EBT3 films positioned along the beam axis was higher than that perpendicular to the beam axis. Thus, we conclude that EBT3 film has incident directional dependence. In IMRT QA, the gamma analysis results may be affected by the incident directional dependence of EBT3 film.

Evaluation of dosimetric effect caused by slowing with multi-leaf collimator (MLC) leaves for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT)

BackgroundThis study is to report 1) the sensitivity of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) QA method for clinical volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans with multi-leaf collimator (MLC) leaf errors that will not trigger MLC interlock during beam delivery; 2) the effect of non-beam-hold MLC leaf errors on the quality of VMAT plan dose delivery.Materials and methods.Eleven VMAT plans were selected and modified using an in-house developed software. For each control point of a VMAT arc, MLC leaves with the highest speed (1.87-1.95 cm/s) were set to move at the maximal allowable speed (2.3 cm/s), which resulted in a leaf position difference of less than 2 mm. The modified plans were considered as ‘standard’ plans, and the original plans were treated as the ‘slowing MLC’ plans for simulating ‘standard’ plans with leaves moving at relatively lower speed. The measurement of each ‘slowing MLC’ plan using MapCHECK®2 was compared with calculated planar dose of the ‘standard’ plan with respect to absolute dose Van Dyk distance-to-agreement (DTA) comparisons using 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm criteria.ResultsAll ‘slowing MLC’ plans passed the 90% pass rate threshold using 3%/3 mm criteria while one brain and three anal VMAT cases were below 90% with 2%/2 mm criteria. For ten out of eleven cases, DVH comparisons between ‘standard’ and ‘slowing MLC’ plans demonstrated minimal dosimetric changes in targets and organs-at-risk.ConclusionsFor highly modulated VMAT plans, pass rate threshold (90%) using 3%/3mm criteria is not sensitive in detecting MLC leaf errors that will not trigger the MLC leaf interlock. However, the consequential effects of non-beam hold MLC errors on target and OAR doses are negligible, which supports the reliability of current patient-specific IMRT quality assurance (QA) method for VMAT plans.

Gamma evaluation combined with isocenter optimal matching in intensity modulated radiation therapy quality assurance

Two-dimensional (2D) dose comparisons are widely performed by using a gamma evaluation with patient-specific intensity modulated radiation therapy quality assurance (IMRT QA) or dose delivery quality assurance (DQA). In this way, a pass/fail determination is made for a particular treatment plan. When gamma evaluation results are close to the failure criterion, the pass/fail decision may change applying a small shift to the center of the 2D dose distribution. In this study, we quantitatively evaluated the meaning of such a small relative shift in a 2D dose distribution comparison. In addition, we propose the use of a small shift for a pass/fail criterion in gamma analysis, where the concept of isocenter optimal matching (IOM) is applied to IMRT QA of 20 patients. Gamma evaluations were performed to compare two dose distributions, one with and the other without IOM. In-house software was developed in C++ in order to find IOM values including both translational and rotational shifts. Upon gamma evaluation failure, further investigation was initiated using IOM. In this way, three groups were categorized: group 1 for ‘pass’ on gamma evaluation, group 21 for ‘fail’ on the gamma evaluation and ‘pass’ on the gamma the evaluation with IOM, and group 22 for ‘fail’ on the both gamma evaluations and the IOM calculation. IOM results revealed that some failures could be considered as a ‘pass’. In group 21, 88.98% (fail) of the averaged gamma pass rate changed to 90.45% (pass) when IOM was applied. On average, a ratio of γ ≥ 1 was reduced by 11.06% in 20 patients. We propose that gamma evaluations that do not pass with a rate of 85% to 90% may be augmented with IOM to reveal a potential pass result.

The influence of the IMRT QA set-up error on the 2D and 3D gamma evaluation method as obtained by using Monte Carlo simulations

The phantom-alignment error is one of the factors affecting delivery quality assurance (QA) accuracy in intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Accordingly, a possibility of inadequate use of spatial information in gamma evaluation may exist for patient-specific IMRT QA. The influence of the phantom-alignment error on gamma evaluation can be demonstrated experimentally by using the gamma passing rate and the gamma value. However, such experimental methods have a limitation regarding the intrinsic verification of the influence of the phantom set-up error because experimentally measuring the phantom-alignment error accurately is impossible. To overcome this limitation, we aimed to verify the effect of the phantom set-up error within the gamma evaluation formula by using a Monte Carlo simulation. Artificial phantom set-up errors were simulated, and the concept of the true point (TP) was used to represent the actual coordinates of the measurement point for the mathematical modeling of these effects on the gamma. Using dose distributions acquired from the Monte Carlo simulation, performed gamma evaluations in 2D and 3D. The results of the gamma evaluations and the dose difference at the TP were classified to verify the degrees of dose reflection at the TP. The 2D and the 3D gamma errors were defined by comparing gamma values between the case of the imposed phantom set-up error and the TP in order to investigate the effect of the set-up error on the gamma value. According to the results for gamma errors, the 3D gamma evaluation reflected the dose at the TP better than the 2D one. Moreover, the gamma passing rates were higher for 3D than for 2D, as is widely known. Thus, the 3D gamma evaluation can increase the precision of patient-specific IMRT QA by applying stringent acceptance criteria and setting a reasonable action level for the 3D gamma passing rate.

Toward optimizing patient-specific IMRT QA techniques in the accurate detection of dosimetrically acceptable and unacceptable patient plans.

The authors investigated the performance of several patient-specific intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA) dosimeters in terms of their ability to correctly identify dosimetrically acceptable and unacceptable IMRT patient plans, as determined by an in-house-designed multiple ion chamber phantom used as the gold standard. A further goal was to examine optimal threshold criteria that were consistent and based on the same criteria among the various dosimeters. The authors used receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to determine the sensitivity and specificity of (1) a 2D diode array undergoing anterior irradiation with field-by-field evaluation, (2) a 2D diode array undergoing anterior irradiation with composite evaluation, (3) a 2D diode array using planned irradiation angles with composite evaluation, (4) a helical diode array, (5) radiographic film, and (6) an ion chamber. This was done with a variety of evaluation criteria for a set of 15 dosimetrically unacceptable and 9 acceptable clinical IMRT patient plans, where acceptability was defined on the basis of multiple ion chamber measurements using independent ion chambers and a phantom. The area under the curve (AUC) on the ROC curves was used to compare dosimeter performance across all thresholds. Optimal threshold values were obtained from the ROC curves while incorporating considerations for cost and prevalence of unacceptable plans. Using common clinical acceptance thresholds, most devices performed very poorly in terms of identifying unacceptable plans. Grouping the detector performance based on AUC showed two significantly different groups. The ion chamber, radiographic film, helical diode array, and anterior-delivered composite 2D diode array were in the better-performing group, whereas the anterior-delivered field-by-field and planned gantry angle delivery using the 2D diode array performed less well. Additionally, based on the AUCs, there was no significant difference in the performance of any device between gamma criteria of 2%/2 mm, 3%/3 mm, and 5%/3 mm. Finally, optimal cutoffs (e.g., percent of pixels passing gamma) were determined for each device and while clinical practice commonly uses a threshold of 90% of pixels passing for most cases, these results showed variability in the optimal cutoff among devices. IMRT QA devices have differences in their ability to accurately detect dosimetrically acceptable and unacceptable plans. Field-by-field analysis with a MapCheck device and use of the MapCheck with a MapPhan phantom while delivering at planned rotational gantry angles resulted in a significantly poorer ability to accurately sort acceptable and unacceptable plans compared with the other techniques examined. Patient-specific IMRT QA techniques in general should be thoroughly evaluated for their ability to correctly differentiate acceptable and unacceptable plans. Additionally, optimal agreement thresholds should be identified and used as common clinical thresholds typically worked very poorly to identify unacceptable plans.

Patient-Specific Quality Assurance for the Delivery of 60Co Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Subject to a 0.35-T Lateral Magnetic Field

This work describes a patient-specific dosimetry quality assurance (QA) program for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using ViewRay, the first commercial magnetic resonance imaging-guided RT device. The program consisted of: (1) a 1-dimensional multipoint ionization chamber measurement using a customized 15-cm(3) cube-shaped phantom; (2) 2-dimensional (2D) radiographic film measurement using a 30- × 30- × 20-cm(3) phantom with multiple inserted ionization chambers; (3) quasi-3D diode array (ArcCHECK) measurement with a centrally inserted ionization chamber; (4) 2D fluence verification using machine delivery log files; and (5) 3D Monte Carlo (MC) dose reconstruction with machine delivery files and phantom CT. Ionization chamber measurements agreed well with treatment planning system (TPS)-computed doses in all phantom geometries where the mean ± SD difference was 0.0% ± 1.3% (n=102; range, -3.0%-2.9%). Film measurements also showed excellent agreement with the TPS-computed 2D dose distributions where the mean passing rate using 3% relative/3 mm gamma criteria was 94.6% ± 3.4% (n=30; range, 87.4%-100%). For ArcCHECK measurements, the mean ± SD passing rate using 3% relative/3 mm gamma criteria was 98.9% ± 1.1% (n=34; range, 95.8%-100%). 2D fluence maps with a resolution of 1 × 1 mm(2) showed 100% passing rates for all plan deliveries (n=34). The MC reconstructed doses to the phantom agreed well with planned 3D doses where the mean passing rate using 3% absolute/3 mm gamma criteria was 99.0% ± 1.0% (n=18; range, 97.0%-100%), demonstrating the feasibility of evaluating the QA results in the patient geometry. We developed a dosimetry program for ViewRay's patient-specific IMRT QA. The methodology will be useful for other ViewRay users. The QA results presented here can assist the RT community to establish appropriate tolerance and action limits for ViewRay's IMRT QA.

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.

Patient Specific Pre-Treatment QA Verification Using an EPID Approach

A software program [MU-EPID], has been developed to perform patient specific pre-treatment quality assurance (QA) verification for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using fluence maps measured with an electronic portal imaging device (EPID). The software converts the EPID acquired images of each IMRT beam, to fluence maps that are equivalent to those calculated by the treatment planning system (TPS). The software has the capability to process Varian, Elekta and Siemens EPID DICOM images. In the present investigation, several IMRT plans for different treatment sites were used to validate the software using the Varian a-Si 1000 EPID with the Pinnacle TPS. A total of 20 IMRT plans of different treatment sites were analyzed. Isodose distributions, dose profiles, dose volume histograms (DVH's) and gamma analysis comparisons were performed to evaluate the accuracy of our method. A gamma index analysis of the isocenter coronal plane was done for each plan and showed an average of 97.44% of gamma passing rate using a 3% and 3 mm gamma criterion. Isodose, DVH and dose profile comparisons were conducted between the original calculated plan and the measured reconstructed plan from the EPID images processed through the MU-EPID software. The results suggest that MU-EPID can be used clinically for patient specific IMRT QA, providing a comprehensive 3D dosimetric evaluation through DVH comparison as well as an option for a 2D gamma analysis.

Automated radiation therapy treatment plan workflow using a commercial application programming interface

PurposeThe objective of this study was to create a workflow for the automation and standardization of treatment plan generation and evaluation using an application programming interface (API) to access data from a commercial treatment planning system (Varian Medical Systems, Inc, Palo Alto, CA). Methods and materialsThe automation workflow begins with converting electronic patient-specific physician treatment planning orders that specify demographics, simulation instructions, and dosimetric objectives for targets and organs at risk into XML files. These XML files are used to generate standard contour names, beam, and patient-specific intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) optimization templates to be executed in a commercial treatment planning system (TPS) by the user. A set of computer programs have been developed to provide quality control (QC) reports that verify demographic information in the TPS against the treatment planning orders, ensure the existence and proper naming of organs at risk, and generate patient-specific plan evaluation reports that provide real-time feedback on the concordance of an active treatment plan to the physician-specified treatment planning goals. ResultsA workflow for lung IMRT was chosen as a test scenario. Contour, beam, and patient-specific IMRT optimization templates were automatically generated from the physician treatment planning orders and loaded into the planning system. The QC reports were developed for lung IMRT, including the option of patient-specific modifications to the standard templates. The API QC reporting includes a dynamic program that runs in parallel to the TPS during the planning process, providing real-time feedback as to whether physician-specified treatment plan parameters have improved or worsened from previous iterations. ConclusionsUser-created computer programs to access information in the TPS database by means of a commercial TPS API enable automation and standardization of treatment plan generation and evaluation.

SU‐E‐T‐201: Dosimetric Comparison of Patient Specific IMRT QA Using Varian DynaLog Files and TPS Calculations in a Phantom Geometry

Purpose: To evaluate significance of gamma index between the planned 2D doses by Eclipse treatment planning system and the calculated 2D doses based on DMLC Dynalog information for patient specific IMRT QA. Methods: DMLC (Dynamic Multi‐Leaf Collimator) of IMRT (Intensity Modulated Radio Therapy) delivery information recorded in log files during delivery. The Dynalog file includes amongst other, the beam on and off status, segment dose index, and individual leaf positions. In this study, previous treated IMRT patient plans are selected and delivered using a Varian CLINAC 600 C/D linear accelerator equipped with Millennium 120 MLC. IMRT verification plans were generated on PTW OCTAVIUS phantom using Eclipse TPS. Dynalog file data were recorded during delivery and were converted to fluence maps using an in‐house Matlab code. The fluence maps were imported to Elipse TPS and dose distributions on the OCTAVIUS phantom. PTW VeriSoft was used to compare the planned and recalculated IMRT plans. Gamma index, profiles and isodose distributions were used to evaluate the dosimetric difference. Results: The comparison of the planned and the recalculated dose distribution showed that the gamma index passing rate was 90% or greater for all plans using a 3%/3mm criteria. The analysis of the results based on the complete 3D dose distributions is under investigation. Conclusion: Our preliminary results show that the dynalog files can be an alternative method for patient specific IMRT QA. Good agreement between measurements and calculations was achieved in all cases tested and further investigation for calculations using patient geometry and for VMAT is in progress.

A calibration method for patient specific IMRT QA using a single therapy verification film

AimThe aim of the present study is to develop and verify the single film calibration procedure used in intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance. BackgroundRadiographic films have been regularly used in routine commissioning of treatment modalities and verification of treatment planning system (TPS). The radiation dosimetery based on radiographic films has ability to give absolute two-dimension dose distribution and prefer for the IMRT quality assurance. However, the single therapy verification film gives a quick and significant reliable method for IMRT verification. Materials and methodsA single extended dose rate (EDR 2) film was used to generate the sensitometric curve of film optical density and radiation dose. EDR 2 film was exposed with nine 6cm×6cm fields of 6MV photon beam obtained from a medical linear accelerator at 5-cm depth in solid water phantom. The nine regions of single film were exposed with radiation doses raging from 10 to 362cGy. The actual dose measurements inside the field regions were performed using 0.6cm3 ionization chamber. The exposed film was processed after irradiation using a VIDAR film scanner and the value of optical density was noted for each region. Ten IMRT plans of head and neck carcinoma were used for verification using a dynamic IMRT technique, and evaluated using the gamma index method with TPS calculated dose distribution. ResultsSensitometric curve has been generated using a single film exposed at nine field region to check quantitative dose verifications of IMRT treatments. The radiation scattered factor was observed to decrease exponentially with the increase in the distance from the centre of each field region. The IMRT plans based on calibration curve were verified using the gamma index method and found to be within acceptable criteria. ConclusionThe single film method proved to be superior to the traditional calibration method and produce fast daily film calibration for highly accurate IMRT verification.

Statistical process control analysis for patient-specific IMRT and VMAT QA

This work applied statistical process control to establish the control limits of the % gamma pass of patient-specific intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) quality assurance (QA), and to evaluate the efficiency of the QA process by using the process capability index (Cpml). A total of 278 IMRT QA plans in nasopharyngeal carcinoma were measured with MapCHECK, while 159 VMAT QA plans were undertaken with ArcCHECK. Six megavolts with nine fields were used for the IMRT plan and 2.5 arcs were used to generate the VMAT plans. The gamma (3%/3 mm) criteria were used to evaluate the QA plans. The % gamma passes were plotted on a control chart. The first 50 data points were employed to calculate the control limits. The Cpml was calculated to evaluate the capability of the IMRT/VMAT QA process. The results showed higher systematic errors in IMRT QA than VMAT QA due to the more complicated setup used in IMRT QA. The variation of random errors was also larger in IMRT QA than VMAT QA because the VMAT plan has more continuity of dose distribution. The average % gamma pass was 93.7% ± 3.7% for IMRT and 96.7% ± 2.2% for VMAT. The Cpml value of IMRT QA was 1.60 and VMAT QA was 1.99, which implied that the VMAT QA process was more accurate than the IMRT QA process. Our lower control limit for % gamma pass of IMRT is 85.0%, while the limit for VMAT is 90%. Both the IMRT and VMAT QA processes are good quality because Cpml values are higher than 1.0.

An efficient protocol for radiochromic film dosimetry combining calibration and measurement in a single scan

Radiochromic film provides dose measurement at high spatial resolution, but often is not preferred for routine evaluation of patient-specific intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans owing to ease-of-use factors. The authors have established an efficient protocol that combines calibration and measurement in a single scan and enables measurement results to be obtained in less than 30 min. This avoids complications due to postexposure changes in radiochromic film that delay the completion of a measurement, often for up to 24 h, in commonly used methods. In addition, the protocol addresses the accuracy and integrity of the measurement by eliminating environmental and interscan variability issues. The authors collected dose-response data from six production lots of Gafchromic EBT3 film and three production lots of EBT2 film at doses up to 480 cGy. In this work, the authors used seven different scanners of two different models-Epson 10000XL and V700; postexposure times before scanning from 30 min to 9 days; ambient temperatures for scanning spanning 11 °C; and two film orientations. Scanning was in 48-bit RGB format at 72 dpi resolution. Dose evaluation was conducted using a triple-channel dosimetry method. To evaluate the measurement protocol, patient specific IMRT and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were exposed onto EBT3 films on a Varian Trilogy Linac. Film scanning was done following the protocol under a number of different conditions and the dose maps were analyzed to demonstrate the equivalence of results. The results indicated that the dose-response data could be fit by a set of related rational functions leading to the description of a generic calibration curve. A simplified dosimetry protocol was established where dose-response data for a specific film lot, scanner, and scanning conditions could be derived from two films exposed to known doses. In most cases only one calibrated exposure was required since the dose for one of the films could be zero. Using the Gamma test criterion of 2%∕2 mm to evaluate the measurements, similar passing rates ranging between about 95% and 99% for the fields studied were obtained from application films digitized under a variety of conditions all of them different than the conditions under which the calibration films were scanned. The authors have developed a simplified and efficient protocol to measure doses delivered by an IMRT or VMAT plan using only the patient film, one calibration film, one unexposed film, and applying a single scan to acquire a digital image for calculation and analysis. The simplification and timesaving offer a potential practical solution for using radiochromic film for routine treatment plan quality assurance without sacrificing spatial resolution for convenience.

TU-F-BRCD-01: Tolerance Levels and Methodologies for IMRT Verification QA.

1. To discuss commonly employed IMRT measurement methods and discuss the pros and cons of each method. 2. To review methodologies for absolute dose verification (single small-volume, 1D, 2D methods), and review dose-difference, DTA, and Gamma analysis techniques including the variability of vendors implementation 3. To review IMRT QA passing rates for given tolerances and action levels, and discuss the clinical relevance of failed IMRT QA.

SU-E-J-14: Evaluation of Mechanical Accuracy of Electronic Portal Imaging Devise on Its Use in Patient Specific IMRT QA.

Electronic portal imaging devices (EPID) have been used for both in vivo dosimetry and in vitro dose verification in intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). This study is to investigate the effect of EPID mechanical precision on the accuracy of measured dose distribution. EPID energy fluences (dicom images) of H&N IMRT fields were collected daily on two Varian LINACs (Clinac-iX & Trilogy) over 4-week period. The energy fluences were converted to doses using EPIDoseTM (Sun Nuclear Corp). Mechanical deviations of EPIDs could be divided into two components: one with inherent detector center misalignment from the beam central axis, another caused by the 'sagging effect' from gantry rotation. The first component was detected by 'best matching' of the measured and calculated dose at zero gantry angle (G=0). The second component was computed by 'best matching' the 10×10cm field defined by MLC at G=0, 90,180, and 270, separately. A 'shift' was generated by the combination of these two components and then applied to correct the measured dose at the corresponding gantry angle for the IMRT field. Inherent misalignment of the detector's center and the 'sagging' deviation were found to be 1-2 mm and 1-5 mm, respectively for both LINACs. Each component was found very stable (change < 1mm) over the 4-week observational period. Using a Gamma index of 2%/2mm (DD/DTA), the 'shift' increased the average passing rate from 59% to more than 92%. On the other hand, blindly applying 'auto-shift' from commercially available software to obtain the best match would compound true QA issues with units' misalignments. A false 'mismatch' between measured and calculated dose distribution caused by mechanical inaccuracies of EPID could be avoided by measuring the two components identified in this study. One should examine the mechanical precision of equipment prior to clinical use of EPID dosimetry.

SU-E-T-387: Validation of a New System for Patient Specific IMRT QA and Comparison with Other Commerical Systems.

The focus of this project is to compare the Octavius 4D with current commercial available dose validation systems: MatriXX MultiCube and Delta4. Many challenges are faced with properly measuring Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT). It has become common practice for clinics to use film, arrays, or multiple detectors to validate dose measurements pretreatment for static and dynamic treatments. IMRT QAs for various treatment sites were measured for patients using three different dose validation systems. All measurements were taken on a Varian CLinac 2100 C/D, SN-757, 80 MLC with 6MV. The treatment plans evaluated were Step-N-Shoot. Data analysis was performed using the software provided with each dose validation system. Detailed information was gathered from each system with their perspective advantages. The latest system, Octavius 4D, allows one to calculate the Gamma Index for Coronal, Sagittal, and Transversal views for every slice included in the measurement along with the traditional data analysis provided; histograms, horizontal and vertical profiles, DTA. The Gamma Index values were observed using the MatriXX Multicube, Delta4, and Octavius 4D. The treatment plan included five fields at various gantry angles. Also the gamma index and profiles were calculated for various treatment sites. Delta 4 and the Octavius 4D appears to be quite comparable. Each device has the ability to allow one to verify segmented and composite fields, measure dose profiles and analysis using the Gamma Method. ConclusionsSimilar IMRT QA measurements will be made for more Step-N-Shoot cases with the addition of SmartArcs. The limitations of each system will be determined for each system using the Gamma Index as a reference while varying the Region of Interest, Threshold, and Gamma Method (local, normalization, and maximum dose), as well as the 2D- profiles for these cases.