Radiological Physics Center Research Articles

Algorithms Used in Heterogeneous Dose Calculations Show Systematic Error as Measured With the Radiological Physics Center's Anthropomorphic Thorax Phantom Used for RTOG Credentialing

To determine the impact of treatment planning algorithm on the accuracy of heterogeneous dose calculations in the Radiological Physics Center (RPC) thorax phantom. We retrospectively analyzed the results of 304 irradiations of the RPC thorax phantom at 221 different institutions as part of credentialing for RTOG clinical trials; the irradiations were all done using 6-MV beams. Heterogeneous treatment plans were developed using Monte Carlo algorithms (MC), convolution/superposition (CS) algorithms and the anisotropic analytic algorithm (AAA), as well as pencil beam (PB) algorithms. For each plan and delivery, the absolute dose measured in the center of a lung target, as well as planar dose measurements throughout the target, were compared to the calculated dose. The difference between measured and calculated dose was examined as a function of planning algorithm, as well as use of IMRT versus 3D conformal therapy, use of a motion platform versus static irradiation, and date of irradiation. Only minor differences were observed in the planar agreement between different algorithms. Absolute dose agreement showed sizeable and significant variation between algorithms. PB algorithms overestimated the dose delivered to the center of the target by 4.9% on average. Surprisingly, CS algorithms and AAA also showed a systematic overestimation of the dose to the center of the target, by 3.7% on average. In contrast, the MC algorithm dose calculations agreed with measurement within 0.6% on average. There was no significant difference observed between IMRT and 3D CRT calculation accuracy, between moving or static irradiations, or as a function of time (i.e., agreement has not improved in recent years). Unexpectedly, advanced treatment planning systems (those using CS and AAA algorithms) overestimated the dose that was delivered to the lung target. This large dosimetric difference requires attention in terms of heterogeneity calculations and potentially in terms of clinical practice.Oral Scientific Abstract 319; TableMean ratio and standard deviation of measured to calculated doseAlgorithmMonte CarloAAAPinnacleXioTomotherapyPBMean0.9940.9590.9680.9550.9710.951Standard Deviation0.0300.0270.0240.0250.0240.027 Open table in a new tab

Comparison of Clinical Parameters for Proton Therapy in the United States

To present and compare proton therapy clinical parameters obtained by the Radiological Physics Center (RPC) during on-site dosimetry audits, with the aim that the proton community discuss and learn the merits of the proton therapy techniques in use.

The Radiological Physics Center's standard dataset for small field size output factors

Delivery of accurate intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or stereotactic radiotherapy depends on a multitude of steps in the treatment delivery process. These steps range from imaging of the patient to dose calculation to machine delivery of the treatment plan. Within the treatment planning system's (TPS) dose calculation algorithm, various unique small field dosimetry parameters are essential, such as multileaf collimator modeling and field size dependence of the output. One of the largest challenges in this process is determining accurate small field size output factors. The Radiological Physics Center (RPC), as part of its mission to ensure that institutions deliver comparable and consistent radiation doses to their patients, conducts on‐site dosimetry review visits to institutions. As a part of the on‐site audit, the RPC measures the small field size output factors as might be used in IMRT treatments, and compares the resulting field size dependent output factors to values calculated by the institution's treatment planning system (TPS). The RPC has gathered multiple small field size output factor datasets for X‐ray energies ranging from 6 to 18 MV from Varian, Siemens and Elekta linear accelerators. These datasets were measured at 10 cm depth and ranged from 10×10 cm2 to 2×2 cm2. The field sizes were defined by the MLC and for the Varian machines the secondary jaws were maintained at a 10×10 cm2. The RPC measurements were made with a micro‐ion chamber whose volume was small enough to gather a full ionization reading even for the 2×2 cm2 field size. The RPC measured output factors are tabulated and are reproducible with standard deviations (SD) ranging from 0.1% to 2.4%, while the institutions' calculated values had a much larger SD range, ranging up to 7.9%. The absolute average percent differences were greater for the 2×2 cm2 than for the other field sizes. The RPC's measured small field output factors provide institutions with a standard dataset against which to compare their TPS calculated values. Any discrepancies noted between the standard dataset and calculated values should be investigated with careful measurements and with attention to the specific beam model.PACS number: 87.53.Bn

SU-E-T-210: Surviving a Visit by the Radiological Physics Center.

To demonstrate an objective approach to determining if a negative report from the Radiological Physics Center (RPC) of greater than 10% error is valid or has clinical significance. The discrepancy involved the clinical activity (mgRaEq) of Cs-137 sources, some manufactured by 3M and some by Amersham. Measurements were made in the proprietary RPC Well Counter calibrated by the MD Anderson ADCL and our Well Counter (CNMC, Model 44D) calibrated by the same laboratory as well as the University of Wisconsin ADCL. In addition, we possess an Amersham Cs-137 Check Source that had been calibrated by the UW-ADCL in 2002. All clinical sources were checked in both Well Counters on the first visit. One clinical source and the Check Source were measured in a second visit that occurred 51 days later. On the initial RPC visit, 9 of 25 sources had a minimum of an 8% discrepancy between the RPC and the Institution, with a maximum of 11%. Contributing errors included using the incorrect straw position by us, an unexplained 2.3% error in the RPC data identified 73 days post-visit, a 2% variation in Chamber Factors for our Well Counter from the two ADCL's. When we use the 2004 value of Air Kerma Strength for the Check Source to determine a Calibration Factor of the Well Counter, all sources were within 0.5% of their decayed value established in 2002. This work emphasizes the value of having simple Constancy Check systems in a Quality Assurance program as 'Accuracy' has error bars. The disagreement in calibration data between the ADCL Laboratories, which was at the 2% maximum quoted in their Calibration Reports, is a reminder that there is uncertainty in measurements. Constancy Checks allow one to sort out discrepancies and to answer challenges to the validity of your program.

WE-G-BRB-08: TG-51 Calibration of First Commercial MRI-Guided IMRT System in the Presence of 0.35 Tesla Magnetic Field.

The first real-time-MRI-guided radiotherapy system has been installed in a clinic and it is being evaluated. Presence of magnetic field (MF) during radiation output calibration may have implications on ionization measurements and there is a possibility that standard calibration protocols may not be suitable for dose measurements for such devices. In this study, we evaluated whether a standard calibration protocol (AAPM- TG-51) is appropriate for absolute dose measurement in presence of MF. Treatment delivery of the ViewRay (VR) system is via three 15,000Ci Cobalt-60 heads positioned 120-degrees apart and all calibration measurements were done in the presence of 0.35T MF. Two ADCL- calibrated ionization-chambers (Exradin A12, A16) were used for TG-51 calibration. Chambers were positioned at 5-cm depth, (SSD=105cm: VR's isocenter), and the MLC leaves were shaped to a 10.5cm × 10.5 cm field size. Percent-depth-dose (PDD) measurements were performed for 5 and 10 cm depths. Individual output of each head was measured using the AAPM- TG51 protocol. Calibration accuracy for each head was subsequently verified by Radiological Physics Center (RPC) TLD measurements. Measured ion-recombination (Pion) and polarity (Ppol) correction factors were less-than 1.002 and 1.006, respectively. Measured PDDs agreed with BJR-25 within ±0.2%. Maximum dose rates for the reference field size at VR's isocenter for heads 1, 2 and 3 were 1.445±0.005, 1.446±0.107, 1.431±0.006 Gy/minute, respectively. Our calibrations agreed with RPC- TLD measurements within ±1.3%, ±2.6% and ±2.0% for treatment-heads 1, 2 and 3, respectively. At the time of calibration, mean activity of the Co-60 sources was 10,800Ci±0.1%. This study shows that the TG- 51 calibration is feasible in the presence of 0.35T MF and the measurement agreement is within the range of results obtainable for conventional treatment machines. Drs. Green, Goddu, and Mutic served as scientific consultants for ViewRay, Inc. Dr. Mutic is on the clinical focus group for ViewRay, Inc., and his spouse holds shares in ViewRay, Inc.

SU-E-T-447: Evaluation of the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) Heterogeneity Correction Dose Calculation in Flattened and Flattening- Filter-Free (FFF) Beams for High Energy X-Ray Beams Using the Radiological Physics Center (RPC) Lung Phantom.

Compare the accuracy of AAA heterogeneity corrected dose calculation algorithm for high energy x-ray beams (>10 MV) for flattened and FFF beams using RPC anthropomorphic thorax phantom. Six static beam SBRT treatment plans were created using the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) AAA v.8.9.08 heterogeneity correction algorithm. Two flattened beam plans (6 MV and 18 MV) and four other plans (6 MV, 6 MV FFF, 10 MV FFF and 15 MV) were delivered using a Clinac 21EX and TrueBeam STx, respectively. Prescription dose/coverage, 6 Gy to 95% PTV, and constraints were the same for all plans. The phantom contained radiochromic films in the 3 major planes and TLDs in the heart, spine, and tumor. Point doses and 2D dose distributions were exported from the Eclipse TPS and compared with the measured doses. The gamma index analysis evaluation criteria of ±5% dose to agreement and 3 mm distance to agreement was used. TLD to TPS tumor point dose ratios were 0.971±0.006(6MV) and 0.957±0.002(6MV), 0.995±0.005(15MV), 1.114±0.006(18MV), and 0.957±0.003(6MV FFF), 0.974±0.011(10MV FFF) for the six plans. Using ±5%/3mm gamma analysis criteria, the average passing rates for all three films were 96.3% and 95.5%, 97.4%, 66.1%, 93.7%, and 96.3% for the 6 MV, 6 MV, 15 MV, 18 MV, 6 MV FFF, and 10 MV FFF plans, respectively. Dose profiles were also evaluated. The current RPC credentialing criteria are: RPC/Inst. tumor dose ratio of 0.97±0.05 and 85% of the pixels in each film plane must pass a ±5%/5mm gamma index analysis. These data demonstrate that the AAA heterogeneity correction dose calculation algorithm is accurate for photon energies in 6-15 MV range for flattened and FFF beams. Heterogeneity corrected dose calculations for photon energies >15 MV were not accurate. Work supported by grants CA10953 and CA81647 (NCI, DHHS).

SU-E-T-95: Investigation of 3D Dosimetry for an Anthropomorphic Spine Phantom.

To evaluate 3D dosimetry for a spinal cord treatment plan delivery using the Radiological Physics Center's (RPC) anthropomorphic spine phantom. The RPC's spine phantom currently uses radiochromic film and thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) to evaluate spinal metastases treatments. A second dosimetry insert for the phantom was created to hold a PRESAGE® 3D dosimeter which matched the location of the TLD and film in the original insert. The phantom was CT imaged with each insert and an IMRT treatment plan was developed. The IMRT plan was delivered to the phantom twice; once with each insert. The film and PRESAGE® were scanned on a CCD microdensitometer and optical-CT system, reconstructed to a 2 mm slice width, respectively. The measured dose distributions were compared to the treatment plan calculated dose distribution using RPC in-house developed software or the Computational Environment for Radiotherapy Research (CERR). Film and PRESAGE® dose profiles were taken across several planes and compared for agreement. The distance to agreement (DTA) between the measured data and treatment plan, within the high dose gradient region, was quantified. The PRESAGE® and plan dose profiles agreed to within 2and 1 mm in the AP and SI directions, respectively. The film and plan also agreed to within 2 mm across all profiles. The PRESAGE® 3D dosimeter, based on these preliminary data, shows potential as a dosimeter for the RPC's phantom irradiation studies. Future work will add markers to the PRESAGE® insert to allow for a reproducible registration in CERR and a an optical-CT system, reconstructed to a 2 mm slice width dose calibration protocol will be created. CA 100835.

SU-E-T-291: Dosimetry of Double Scattered Proton Beam Fields Used for Cranio-Spinal Irradiation.

To investigate the effect of source to surface distance on treatment field lateral penumbra width and the consequence of setup error on the dose distribution in the junction between two spinal fields of double scattered proton beams. The CT images of the Spine Phantom from Radiological Physics Center was used to design a double scattered proton beam treatment plan using Varian Eclipse treatment planning system. PTV included spinal cord, vertebral body and part of spinous process. The PTV was divided into superior and inferior parts and two posterior fields were used to cover the targets with the prescribed dose. 2D dose was measured using IBA MatriXX and EBT2 film at a depth close to the center of SOBPs of both the fields located both at the nominal source to axis distance (SAD) of 270 cm and at an extended SAD. The field separation was changed by ±1 mm to study the effect of setup error. The measured and TPS calculated dose distributions in verification plans in a water phantom were compared. The measured 2-D doses agreed very well with planned ones for individual fields. 99% of pixels pass 3%/3 mm dose/distance agreement criteria. The CAX dose differences are within 2%. The 80% to 20% penumbra widths at nominal SAD are 7.4/7.7/7.8 mm for planned/MatriXX/EBT2 film respectively, and about 1 mm wider for the extended SAD. The measured maximum dose was about 10% higher than that from the plan, and decreased/increased about 7% when the fields were separated by ±1 mm. The penumbra width is modestly affected by the extended SSD often used for patient treatment. Dose in the junction of two fields is very sensitive to the setup error and the accuracy of the TPS dose calculation in this region may be limited.

MO-D-BRB-02: The Radiological Physics Center's Quality Audit Program: Where Can We Improve?

To analyze the findings of the Radiological Physics Center's (RPC) QA audits of institutions participating in NCI sponsored clinical trials. The RPC has developed an extensive Quality Assurance (QA) program over the past 44 years. This program includes on-site dosimetry reviews where measurements on therapy machines are made, records are reviewed and personnel are interviewed. The program's remote audit tools include mailed dosimeters (OSLD/TLD) to verify output calibration, comparison of dosimetry data with RPC 'standard' data, evaluation of benchmark and patient calculations to verify the treatment planning algorithms, review of institution's QA procedures and records, and use of anthropomorphic phantoms to verify tumor dose delivery. The RPC endeavors to assist institutions in finding the origins of any detected discrepancies, and to resolve them. Ninety percent of institutions receiving dosimetry recommendations has remained level for the past 5 years. The most frequent recommendations were for not performing TG-40 QA tests, wedge factors, small field size output factors and off-axis factors. Since TG-51 was published, the number of beam calibrations audited during visits with ion chambers, that met the RPC's ±3% criterion, decreased initially but has risen to pre-TG-51 levels. The OSLD/TLD program shows that only ∼3% of the beams are outside our ±5% criteria, but these discrepancies are distributed over 12-20% of the institutions. The percent of institutions with ï,3 l beam outside the RPC's criteria is approximately the same whether OSLD/TLD or ion chambers were used. The first time passing rate for the anthropomorphic phantoms is increasing with time. The prostate phantom has the highest pass rate while the spine phantom has the lowest. Numerous dosimetry errors continue to be discovered by the RPC's QA program and the RPC continues to play an important role in helping institutions resolve these errors. This work was supported by PHS grants CA10953 and CA081647 awarded by NCI.

SU-E-T-505: BrainLab Plan Comparisons: Brain Scan Pencil Beam versus IPlan Monte Carlo.

Monte Carlo (MC) dose modeling techniques are available in the newest version of Brain Lab's IPlan treatment planning system (TPS). Prior to the upgrade, at our facility, BrainLab's BrainScan was the treatment planning system available; pencil beam (PB) modeling is employed by BrainScan. As published in the literature, MC calculations, as compared to the PB algorithm, can generate differences in coverage as much as 20%. With the introduction of the new treatment planning system, treatment parameter comparisons were made with quantitative assessments. Differences due to changes in the dose calculation that could impact patient treatments and outcomes were investigated. Beam data was collected for the new BrainLab TPS IPLAN under the conditions as outlined in the manufacturer's Version 1.3 data collection, commissioning and acceptance guidelines. Utilizing BrainLab's treatment planning systems, treatment plan comparisons were made. First, PB modeling treatment plans were assessed for each treatment plan with pencil beam modeling in the BrainScan and IPlan TPS. Treatment plans with MC modeling were then compared to PB models. Differences in the dose distribution, DVH values, and monitor units were evaluated between the older version software (BrainScan) and the newer treatment planning system (IPlan). As predicted by the literature, the differences in the MC modeling versus PB modeling were significant depending upon the anatomy (tumor site). Modeling comparison for the treatment plans will be presented for SRS (Stereotactic Radiosurgery) and Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT). Clinical implementation of a new treatment planning system must be approached with caution and with adherence to AAPM recommendations and guidelines. Whenever a new TPS calculation model is introduced, thorough comparison between former and new models should be obtained. An additional recommended test would be to perform an independent, end-to-end check of the overall system utilizing the RPC (Radiological Physics Center) phantom.

SU-E-T-413: Dose Verification for Linac-Based SRS Commissioning and Patient Specific QA.

Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS) program commissioning is currently relied on Radiological Physics Center (RPC) Head Neck phantom with Thermo Luminescent Dosimeters (TLDs) for dose verification. However, due to the limited accessibility of RPC Head Neck phantom, ongoing QA or patient specific dose verification is not performed in most clinics. In this study, we proposed an SRS dose verification approach for both SRS commissioning and patient specific dose verification with widely available clinical instruments. SRS treatment plans were imposed onto a 14cm thick conventional solid water phantom (30cm × 30cm), with a PTW micro-chamber in the middle. Treatment couch angles were renormalized to 90 or 270 degrees for two reasons: 1) micro-chamber's axis was parallel to gantry rotation axis during all the arc beam delivery, which minimizes the angle dependence effect (axis tilt) of micro-chamber. 2) Any collision between the cone and conventional solid water phantom would be avoided and there would be minimum attenuation effect from the couch. The arc verification plan was then recalculated and compared to the measured absolute dose by PTW micro-chamber. An End-to-End test with a CyberKnife Head Neck phantom and GAFChromic EBT2 film was utilized as secondary dose delivery verification. Cones with all twelve different sizes in SRS commissioning were tested. For the cone size from 10mm to 30mm, the micro-chamber measurements agreed with the computer calculations within 3%. However, when the cone size was reduced to 5mm, micro-chamber measurement was 10% lower than planned dose, indicating underdose effect for small cone size. Additional measurements with Cyberknife head phantom confirmed the dose delivery accuracy was within 5%. A simple SRS dose verification method which only requires micro-chamber and conventional solid water phantom has been presented and verified. This approach will be valuable for SRS commissioning and ongoing SRS QA.

SU-E-T-180: The Radiological Physics Center's Anthropomorphic Quality Assurance Phantom Program.

To describe the phantoms, program logistics and current results for the Radiological Physics Center's (RPC) anthropomorphic QA phantom program for credentialing institutions for participation in NCI-sponsored advanced technology clinical trials. The RPC has developed an extensive phantom credentialing program consisting of four different phantoms designs: H&N, pelvis, lung and spine. These QA phantoms are water-filled plastic shells with imageable targets, avoidance structures, and heterogeneities that contain TLD and radiochromic film dosimeters. Institutions wishing to be credentialed request a phantom and are prioritized for delivery. At the institution, the phantom is imaged, a treatment plan is developed, the phantom is positioned on the treatment couch and the treatment is delivered. The phantom is returned and the measured dose distributions are compared to the institution's electronically submitted treatment plan dosimetry data. The RPC currently has an inventory of 31 H&N, 10 pelvis, 9 lung, and 8 spine phantoms that are mailed to institutions nationally and internationally. In 2011, 444 of these phantoms were mailed out for credentialing. Once the phantom is sent, it takes the institution an average of 26 days to return it to the RPC. On average the dosimeters are analyzed within 17 days and the report is sent 21 days after receipt of the phantom data. In 2011 the percent of phantoms meeting the acceptance criteria increased by 12, 13 and 6 percentage points for the H&N, spine and lung phantoms, respectively. It fell by 5 percentage points for the pelvis phantom. The RPC's QA phantom program has been an effective and responsive QA tool for assessing the use of advanced technologies in NCI sponsored clinical trials. The RPC has been efficient in its mailing of phantoms, and analyzing and reporting results. Work supported by PHS grant CA10953 and CA081647 (NCI, DHHS).

SU-E-T-519: Experimental Evaluation of Deterministic Acuros XB Radiation Transport Algorithm for Heterogeneity Dose Calculation Using the Radiological Physics Center's Lung Phantom.

To evaluate the heterogeneity corrected dose calculations from the Acuros XB (AXB), a novel deterministic dose calculation algorithm based on grid-based Boltzmann transport equation solver (GBBS), for IMRT and VMAT plans. The Radiological Physics Center's lung phantom was used to create clinically equivalent IMRT and VMAT plans (RapidArc) with the Eclipse planning system 10.0 that were delivered using a Varian 23 iX. Absolute doses and relative dose distributions were measured with thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and radiochromic film. The measured dose distributions were compared with calculated doses from both AXB (11.0.3) and AAA (10.0.24) dose calculation algorithms. The AXB calculated dose-to-water and dose-to-medium were both compared to measurements. Gamma analysis (±7%/4mm, ±5%/3mm, and ±3%/3mm) was used to quantify correspondence between AXB dose distributions and the film measurements. The computation time between AAA and AXB were also evaluated. For TLD point doses, both AAA and AXB heterogeneity corrected dose calculations are within 5% inside the PTV for both IMRT and VMAT plans. The agreements observed between the measured and calculated doses for both AXB dose reporting methods are better than those observed with the AAA algorithm. The gamma analysis showed that the differences between AAA, AXB and film measurement met the RPC ±7%/4 mm criteria. The percent of pixels passing rate for both the AXB dose to medium and AXB dose to water are higher than AAA. The computation time between AAA and AXB are comparable for IMRT plans but AXB is significantly faster (4 times) than AAA for VMAT plans. The AXB implemented in the Eclipse planning system calculates a more accurate heterogeneity corrected dose than the AAA algorithm as compared to measurement in lung and improve the calculation speed for VMAT radiotherapy. Work supported by grants CA10953, CA81647, 2R44CA105806-02, CA016672 (NCI, DHHS).

SU-E-T-86: Development and Implementation of the Use of Optically Stimulated Luminescent Detectors in the Radiological Physics Center Anthropomorphic Quality Assurance Phantoms.

To study the angular dependence of optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLD) in the Radiological Physics Center anthropomorphic quality assurance pelvic phantom to provide accurate dosimetric measurements as a replacement for TLD. A spherical phantom was constructed to investigate the angular response of the OSLD as oriented in the RPC pelvic phantom. Three OSLD per irradiation angle, placed at the center of the spherical phantom, were irradiated with 100 cGy from six different angles. The angular response at each angle was determined relative to the OSLD response when the beam was incident normally on the OSLD surface. A pelvic phantom dosimetry insert was modified to include both TLD and OSLD. Three treatment plans were developed in Pinnacle v9.0 and one in Accuray's Multiplan, each with increasing angular beam delivery (4 field, IMRT, SmartArc, CyberKnife) for the pelvic phantom using a common dose prescription and constraints. Each plan was delivered to the phantom three times, containing two TLD and two OSLD, oriented in the transverse plane, at the center of the PTV. The dose delivered to the TLD and OSLD was calculated for each treatment and then compared. The angular dependence correction factor for the spherical phantom was found to be uniformly 1.041 ± 0.003 from single beam edge-on irradiations. The angular dependence correction in the pelvic phantom from multiple beam orientation irradiations was 1.024 ± 0.002, such that the OSLD dose agreed with the TLD dose. Applying the OSLD pelvic phantom correction factor, the RPC measured dose to planning system calculated dose ratio was 0.995 ± 0.009. The established RPC phantom TLD dose to calculated dose ratio was 0.995 ± 0.010. An anthropomorphic phantom OSLD angular dependence correction factor was established such that the final OSLD dose measurements agreed with RPC's TLD dose measurements to within 1%. Work supported by grant CA 10953, awarded by NCI, DHHS.

SU-E-T-199: The Radiological Physics Center's Credentialing Dosimetry Reviews: Their Effect on Clinical Trial Deviation Rates.

To describe the Radiological Physics Center's (RPC) methods to evaluate an institution's ability to meet protocol guidelines in order to decrease NCI clinical trial deviation rate. The RPC's dosimetry group utilizes 3 methods of assessing an institutions ability to meet the protocol treatment specifications. These methods involve a clinical and dosimetric review of a treatment plan submitted by the institution prior to the first patient being treated on a protocol. The three evaluation methods include use of site/treatment modality specific benchmark cases, evaluation of a previous patient treated in a similar fashion and a rapid review of the first patient placed on a trial prior to start of treatment. The dosimetric review consists of an independent dose recalculation using RPC measured data or RPC standard dosimetry data. The clinical review assesses the patient's DVHs and contouring of the tumor volume and critical structures, typically in conjunction with a radiation oncologist. Over the past 5 years the RPC has performed these QA reviews for several of the clinical trial groups for several different disease sites and treatment modalities. We have reviewed 1366 treatment plans as a part of credentialing (97 gynecological, 223 prostate, 1046 breast) where 222 failed the first submission requiring the RPC to interact with the submitting institution to resolve the discrepancy. The review of the benchmarks has resulted in 18% of the institutions requiring intervention by the RPC. Performing these reviews has identified potential clinical and dosimetric problem areas that could possibly have resulted in 17% of the charts reviewed to receive a minor or major deviation. The RPC's clinical and dosimetry review of submitted treatment plans before or early in the treatment process has helped to reduce the deviation rates on protocols. Work supported by PHS grant CA 10953 awarded by NCI, DHHS.

SU-E-T-223: High-Energy Photon Standard Dosimetry Data: A Quality Assurance Tool.

Describe the Radiological Physics Center's (RPC) extensive standard dosimetry data set determined from on-site audits measurements. Measurements were made during on-site audits to institutions participating in NCI funded cooperative clinical trials for 44 years using a 0.6cc cylindrical ionization chamber placed within the RPC's water tank. Measurements were made on Varian, Siemens, and Elekta/Philips accelerators for 11 different energies from 68 models of accelerators. We have measured percent depth dose, output factors, and off-axis factors for 123 different accelerator model/energy combinations for which we have 5 or more sets of measurements. The RPC analyzed these data and determined the 'standard data' for each model/energy combination. The RPC defines 'standard data' as the mean value of 5 or more sets of dosimetry data or agreement with published depth dose data (within 2%). The analysis of these standard data indicates that for modern accelerator models, the dosimetry data for a particular model/energy are within ï,±2%. The RPC has always found accelerators of the same make/model/energy combination have the same dosimetric properties in terms of depth dose, field size dependence and off-axis factors. Because of this consistency, the RPC can assign standard data for percent depth dose, average output factors and off-axis factors for a given combination of energy and accelerator make and model. The RPC standard data can be used as a redundant quality assurance tool to assist Medical Physicists to have confidence in their clinical data to within 2%. The next step is for the RPC to provide a way for institutions to submit data to the RPC to determine if their data agrees with the standard data as a redundant check. This work was supported by PHS grants CA10953 awarded by NCI, DHHS.

Experimental validation of deterministic Acuros XB algorithm for IMRT and VMAT dose calculations with the Radiological Physics Center's head and neck phantom.

The purpose of this study was to verify the dosimetric performance of Acuros XB (AXB), a grid-based Boltzmann solver, in intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). The Radiological Physics Center (RPC) head and neck (H&N) phantom was used for all calculations and measurements in this study. Clinically equivalent IMRT and VMAT plans were created on the RPC H&N phantom in the Eclipse treatment planning system (version 10.0) by using RPC dose prescription specifications. The dose distributions were calculated with two different algorithms, AXB 11.0.03 and anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) 10.0.24. Two dose report modes of AXB were recorded: dose-to-medium in medium (D(m,m)) and dose-to-water in medium (D(w,m)). Each treatment plan was delivered to the RPC phantom three times for reproducibility by using a Varian Clinac iX linear accelerator. Absolute point dose and planar dose were measured with thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and GafChromic® EBT2 film, respectively. Profile comparison and 2D gamma analysis were used to quantify the agreement between the film measurements and the calculated dose distributions from both AXB and AAA. The computation times for AAA and AXB were also evaluated. Good agreement was observed between measured doses and those calculated with AAA or AXB. Both AAA and AXB calculated doses within 5% of TLD measurements in both the IMRT and VMAT plans. Results of AXB_D(m,m) (0.1% to 3.6%) were slightly better than AAA (0.2% to 4.6%) or AXB_D(w,m) (0.3% to 5.1%). The gamma analysis for both AAA and AXB met the RPC 7%/4 mm criteria (over 90% passed), whereas AXB_D(m,m) met 5%/3 mm criteria in most cases. AAA was 2 to 3 times faster than AXB for IMRT, whereas AXB was 4-6 times faster than AAA for VMAT. AXB was found to be satisfactorily accurate when compared to measurements in the RPC H&N phantom. Compared with AAA, AXB results were equal to or better than those obtained with film measurements for IMRT and VMAT plans. The AXB_D(m,m) reporting mode was found to be closer to TLD and film measurements than was the AXB_D(w,m) mode. AXB calculation time was found to be significantly shorter (× 4) than AAA for VMAT.

Toward a better understanding of the gamma index: Investigation of parameters with a surface‐based distance methoda)

The purpose of this work was to clarify the interactions between the parameters used in the γ index with the surface-based distance method, which itself can be viewed as a generalized version of the γ index. The examined parameters included the distance to agreement (DTA)/dose difference (DD) criteria, the percentage used as a passing criterion, and the passing percentage for given DTA/DD criteria. The specific aims of our work were (1) to understand the relationships between the parameters used in the γ index, (2) to determine the detection limit, or the minimum detectable error, of the γ index with a given set of parameters, and (3) to establish a procedure to determine parameters that are consistent with the capacity of an IMRT QA system. The surface-based distance technique with dose gradient factor was derived, and then the relationship between surface-based distance and γ index was established. The dose gradient factor for plans and measurements of 10 IMRT patients, 10 spine stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) patients, and 3 Radiological Physics Center (RPC) head and neck phantom were calculated and evaluated. The detection limits of the surface-based distance and γ index methods were examined by introducing known shifts to the 10 IMRT plans. The means of the dose gradient factors were 0.434 mm/% and 0.956 mm/% for the SRS and IMRT plans, respectively. Key quantities (including the mean and 90th and 99th percentiles of the distance distribution) of the surface-based distance distribution between two dose distributions were linearly proportional to the actual shifts. However, the passing percentage of the γ index for a given set of DTA/DD criteria was not associated with the actual shift. For IMRT, using the standard quality assurance criteria of 3 mm/3% DTA/DD and a 90% passing rate, we found that the detection limit of the γ index in terms of global shift was 4.07 mm/4.07 % without noise. Surface-based distance is a direct measure of the difference between two dose distributions and can be used to evaluate or determine parameters for use in calculating the γ index. The dose gradient factor represents the weighting between spatial and dose shift and should be determined before DTA/DD criteria are set. The authors also present a procedure to determine γ index parameters from measurements.

SU-E-T-86: Evaluation of the OSLD System for Remote Dosimetry Audits Implemented by the RPC

Purpose: Analysis of the performance of the optically stimulated luminescencedosimetry (OSLD) system implemented by the Radiological Physics Center (RPC) for external audits compare to the termoluminescent dosimetry(TLD) system.Methods: The RPC translated the TLD system for external audits to the OSLD system on June 2010. This last system is based on nanoDo dosimeters. The logistic of the system was designed and is managed by the RPC's data base (RADS). The calculation of dose, the storage of data and evaluation of results is also done by the same data base. The verification of output is based on irradiation of dosimeters in acrylic phantoms. The geometry for irradiation is the reference geometry for output calibration. The dose level change from 300cGy for TLD to 100cGy for OSLD. Both system are designed for X‐ray beam from 4 to 23 MV and electrons beams from 6 to 23 MeV. Results: The average ratio between RPC dose and institution dose at the point of dose verification is 1.000 ± 1.9% for TLD system for the last 5 years. While this average is 0.999 ± 1.7% for OSLD system since it was implemented. This average was analyzed based on the whole population of results, The average was also analyzed per type of beam and per energy without showing differences. The OSLD system allows the RPC to evaluate more beams during reading sessions. Evaluation of accumulated dose and history of dosimeter are valuable Conclusions: The average ratio between RPC dose and institution dose at the point of dose verification did not change from TLD system to OSLD system. The identification of dosimeters is important to keep track of irradiations especially when reuse of the dosimeter is one of the advantages of this system. This work was supported by PHS CA010953 awarded by NCI, DHHS

SU‐E‐T‐367: Cervix Brachytherapy Dosimetry: Inconsistencies in Defining Bladder and Rectal Points

Purpose: The Radiological Physics Center (RPC) reviews patient records on brachytherapy cervix trials for completeness, consistency with the protocol and dosimetric accuracy to minimize patient dose delivery and reporting uncertainty for NCI funded clinical trials. Within cervical protocols, bladder and rectum doses are specified to limit toxicity to these normal tissues. However, bladder and rectal doses reported by institutions often disagree with the RPCˈs calculated doses. The RPC has investigated the sources of these disagreements. Methods: The RPC reviewed 182 HDR brachytherapy (tandem and ovoids (T&O)/tandem and ring (T&R)) implants and compared the institutionˈs bladder and rectum point locations and doses to those determined by the RPC strictly adhering to protocol specifications (ICRU 38) for point location and using its independent dose calculation algorithm. The RPC also analyzed its own uncertainty in defining these two points. A dose agreement criterion of ±15% was used as agreed upon by the study group and RPC. Results: The RPC disagreed with the bladder and rectal doses in 25% and 45%, respectively, of the 182 implants. The RPCˈs own uncertainty in defining the bladder and rectal points was 1mm±0. 1(STDEV), respectively which in a worst case scenario might account for 7% of the dose disagreement. The majority of the dose disagreements were due to the institutionˈs incorrect localization of the bladder and rectal points, by greater than 5mm and 4mm, respectively, away from the ICRU 38 defined location. There were no differences noted whether the applicator used was a T&O or T&R. Conclusions: Most errors resulted from institutions incorrectly defining the bladder and rectum dose calculation points per ICRU 38. Additional education, timely reviews of implant data and communication with institutions are needed to reduce the number of discrepancies.Work supported by PHS grant CA 10953 awarded by NCI, DHHS