Comparison of two different EPID-based solutions performing pretreatment quality assurance: 2D portal dosimetry versus 3D forward projection method.

PURPOSE: The aim of this paper is to characterize two different EPID-based solutions for pre-treatment VMAT quality assurance, the 2D portal dosimetry and the 3D projection technique. Their ability to catch the main critical delivery errors was studied. METHODS: Measurements were performed with a linac accelerator equipped with EPID aSi1000, Portal Dose Image Prediction (PDIP), and PerFRACTION softwares. Their performances were studied simulating perturbations of a reference plan through systematic variations in dose values and micromultileaf collimator position. The performance of PDIP, based on 2D forward method, was evaluated calculating gamma passing rate (%GP) between no-error and error-simulated measurements. The impact of errors with PerFRACTION, based on 3D projection technique, was analyzed by calculating the difference between reference and perturbed DVH (%ΔD). Subsequently pre-treatment verification with PerFRACTION was done for 27 patients of different pathologies. RESULTS: The sensitivity of PerFRACTION was slightly higher than sensitivity of PDIP, reaching a maximum of 0.9. Specificity was 1 for PerFRACTION and 0.6 for PDIP. The analysis of patients' DVHs indicated that the mean %ΔD was (1.2 ±â€¯1.9)% for D2%, (0.6 ±â€¯1.7)% for D95% and (-0.0 ±â€¯1.2)% for Dmean of PTV. Regarding OARs, we observed important discrepancies on DVH but that the higher dose variations were in low dose area (<10 Gy). CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the introduction of the new 3D forward projection method for pretreatment QA raising the claim that the visualization of the delivered dose distribution on patient anatomy has major advantages over traditional portal dosimetry QA systems.

A pre-treatment quality assurance survey on 384 patients treated with helical intensity-modulated radiotherapy.

The gamma index pass rate (%GP) of 384 helical Tomotherapy pre-patient quality assurance, acquired with ArcCHECK, is presented, analyzed, and correlated to plan characteristics. Average %GP was higher than 90% and correlated strongly with gamma method, irradiated length, pitch, maximum dose to diodes, and dose per fraction.

Tomotherapy PET-guided dose escalation: A dosimetric feasibility study for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma.

AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate whether a safe escalation of the dose to the pleural cavity and PET/CT-positive areas in patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is possible using helical tomotherapy (HT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We selected 12 patients with MPM. Three planning strategies were investigated. In the first strategy (standard treatment), treated comprised a prescribed median dose to the planning target volume (PTV) boost (PTV1) of 64.5 Gy (range: 56 Gy/28 fractions to 66 Gy/30 fractions) and 51 Gy (range: 50.4 Gy/28 fractions to 54 Gy/30 fractions) to the pleura PTV (PTV2). Thereafter, for each patient, two dose escalation plans were generated prescribing 62.5 and 70 Gy (2.5 and 2.8 Gy/fraction, respectively) to the PTV1 and 56 Gy (2.24 Gy/fraction) to the PTV2, in 25 fractions. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) constraints and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) calculations were used to evaluate the differences between the plans. RESULTS: For all plans, the 95 % PTVs received at least 95 % of the prescribed dose. For all patients, it was possible to perform the dose escalation in accordance with the Quantitative Analysis of Normal Tissue Effects in the Clinic (QUANTEC) constraints for organs at risk (OARs). The average contralateral lung dose was < 8 Gy. NTCP values for OARs did not increase significantly compared with the standard treatment (p > 0.05), except for the ipsilateral lung. For all plans, the lung volume ratio was strongly correlated with the V20, V30, and V40 DVHs of the lung (p < 0.0003) and with the lung mean dose (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that by using HT it is possible to safely escalate the dose delivery to at least 62.5 Gy in PET-positive areas while treating the pleural cavity to 56 Gy in 25 fractions without significantly increasing the dose to the surrounding normal organs.

Erratum to: Tomotherapy PET-guided dose escalation--A dosimetric feasibility study for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma.

Unfortunately, erroneous author affiliations were published in the article "Tomotherapy PET-guided dose escalation ­ A dosimetric feasibility study for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma". The correct list of author affiliations reads as follows: Angelo Maggio 1, Claudia Cutaia 1, Amalia Di Dia 1, Sara Bresciani 1, Anna Miranti 1, Matteo Poli 1, Elena Delmastro 2, Elisabetta Garibaldi 2, Pietro Gabriele 2 and Michele Stasi 1. 1: Medical Physics Department, Candiolo Cancer Institute ­ FPO, IRCCS, Turin, Italy. 2: Radiotherapy Department, Candiolo Cancer Institute ­ FPO, IRCCS, Turin, Italy. We apologize for any inconveniences caused.

A simple and accurate dosimetry protocol to estimate activity for hyperthyroidism treatment.

BACKGROUND: Aim of the study was to evaluate accuracy of different dosimetry protocols in estimating the required 131I activity to treat hyperthyroid patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty consecutive patients were analysed: twenty-eight Graves' disease; twelve autonomous thyroid nodule (ATN). Maximum-uptake, effective half-time and residence-time were estimated from Radioiodine Uptake Test. Residence-time was estimated using a bi-compartmental model. For 131I activity calculation, algorithms laid down in European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) guidelines, ICRP 53 approach and a mono-exponential formula (ME), were compared with OLINDA/EXM results. RESULTS: Based on EANM guidelines, activities to be administered were 3% higher in Graves' disease (p = 0.001) and 3% higher in ATN (p = 0.046). Calculated activities using ICRP 53 approach were significantly lower compared to OLINDA/EXM: 33% in Graves' disease; 17% in ATN. Activities recommended by ME, were significantly higher: in Graves' disease 20%; 42% in ATN. CONCLUSIONS: Only EANM algorithm predict quite well, compared to OLINDA/EXM, the required activity to treat hyperthyroid patients.

Tomotherapy treatment plan quality assurance: the impact of applied criteria on passing rate in gamma index method.

PURPOSE: Pretreatment patient plan verification with gamma index (GI) metric analysis is standard procedure for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the variability of the local and global gamma index obtained during standard pretreatment quality assurance (QA) measurements for plans performed with Tomotherapy unit. The QA measurements were performed with a 3D diode array, using variable passing criteria: 3%∕3 mm, 2%∕2 mm, 1%∕1 mm, each with both local and global normalization. METHODS: The authors analyzed the pretreatment QA results for 73 verifications; 37 were prostate cancer plans, 16 were head and neck plans, and 20 were other clinical sites. All plans were treated using the Tomotherapy Hi-Art System. Pretreatment QA plans were performed with the commercially available 3D diode array ArcCHECK™. This device has 1386 diodes arranged in a helical geometry spaced 1 cm apart. The dose measurements were acquired on the ArcCHECK™ and then compared with the calculated dose using the standard gamma analysis method. The gamma passing rate (%GP), defined as the percentage of points satisfying the condition GI < 1, was calculated for different criteria (3%∕3 mm, 2%∕2 mm, 1%∕1 mm) and for both global and local normalization. In the case of local normalization method, the authors set three dose difference threshold (DDT) values of 2, 3, and 5 cGy. Dose difference threshold is defined as the minimum absolute dose error considered in the analysis when using local normalization. Low-dose thresholds (TH) of 5% and 10% were also applied and analyzed. RESULTS: Performing a paired-t-test, the authors determined that the gamma passing rate is independent of the threshold values for all of the adopted criteria (5%TH vs 10%TH, p > 0.1). Our findings showed that mean %GPs for local (or global) normalization for the entire study group were 93% (98%), 84% (92%), and 66% (61%) for 3%∕3 mm, 2%∕2 mm, and 1%∕1 mm criteria, respectively. DDT was equal to 2 cGy for the local normalization analysis cases. The authors observed great variability in the resulting %GP. With 3%∕3 mm gamma criteria, the overall passing rate with local normalization was 4.6% less on the average than with global one, as expected. The wide difference between %GP calculated with global or local approach is also confirmed by an unpaired t-test statistical analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The variability of %GP obtained confirmed the necessity to establish defined agreement criteria that could be universal and comparable between institutions. In particular, while the gamma passing rate does not depend on the choice of threshold, the choice of DDT strongly influences the gamma passing rate for local calculations. The difference between global and local %GP was statistically significant for prostate and other treatment sites when DDT was changed from 2 to 3 cGy.