MR compatible detectors assessment for a 0.35 T MR-linac commissioning.

PURPOSE: To assess a large panel of MR compatible detectors on the full range of measurements required for a 0.35 T MR-linac commissioning by using a specific statistical method represented as a continuum of comparison with the Monte Carlo (MC) TPS calculations. This study also describes the commissioning tests and the secondary MC dose calculation validation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Plans were created on the Viewray TPS to generate MC reference data. Absolute dose points, PDD, profiles and output factors were extracted and compared to measurements performed with ten different detectors: PTW 31010, 31021, 31022, Markus 34045 and Exradin A28 MR ionization chambers, SN Edge shielded diode, PTW 60019 microdiamond, PTW 60023 unshielded diode, EBT3 radiochromic films and LiF µcubes. Three commissioning steps consisted in comparison between calculated and measured dose: the beam model validation, the output calibration verification in four different phantoms and the commissioning tests recommended by the IAEA-TECDOC-1583. MAIN RESULTS: The symmetry for the high resolution detectors was higher than the TPS data of about 1%. The angular responses of the PTW 60023 and the SN Edge were - 6.6 and - 11.9% compared to the PTW 31010 at 60°. The X/Y-left and the Y-right penumbras measured by the high resolution detectors were in good agreement with the TPS values except for the PTW 60023 for large field sizes. For the 0.84 × 0.83 cm2 field size, the mean deviation to the TPS of the uncorrected OF was - 1.7 ± 1.6% against - 4.0 ± 0.6% for the corrected OF whereas we found - 4.8 ± 0.8% for passive dosimeters. The mean absolute dose deviations to the TPS in different phantoms were 0 ± 0.4%, - 1.2 ± 0.6% and 0.5 ± 1.1% for the PTW 31010, PTW 31021 and Exradin A28 MR respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The magnetic field effects on the measurements are considerably reduced at low magnetic field. The PTW 31010 ionization chamber can be used with confidence in different phantoms for commissioning and QA tests requiring absolute dose verifications. For relative measurements, the PTW 60019 presented the best agreement for the full range of field size. For the profile assessment, shielded diodes had a behaviour similar to the PTW 60019 and 60023 while the ionization chambers were the most suitable detectors for the symmetry. The output correction factors published by the IAEA TRS 483 seem to be applicable at low magnetic field pending the publication of new MR specific values.

Dosimetric study between a single isocenter dynamic conformal arc therapy technique and Gamma Knife radiosurgery for multiple brain metastases treatment: impact of target volume geometrical characteristics.

PURPOSE: To compare linac-based mono-isocentric radiosurgery with Brainlab Elements Multiple Brain Mets (MBM) SRS and the Gamma Knife using a specific statistical method and to analyze the dosimetric impact of the target volume geometric characteristics. A dose fall-off analysis allowed to evaluate the Gradient Index relevancy for the dose spillage characterization. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Treatments were planned on twenty patients with three to nine brain metastases with MBM 2.0 and GammaPlan 11.0. Ninety-five metastases ranging from 0.02 to 9.61 cc were included. Paddick Index (PI), Gradient Index (GI), dose fall-off, volume of healthy brain receiving more than 12 Gy (V12Gy) and DVH were used for the plan comparison according to target volume, major axis diameter and Sphericity Index (SI). The multivariate regression approach allowed to analyze the impact of each geometric characteristic keeping all the others unchanged. A parallel study was led to evaluate the impact of the isodose line (IDL) prescription on the MBM plan quality. RESULTS: For mono-isocentric linac-based radiosurgery, the IDL around 70-75% was the best compromise found. For both techniques, the GI and the dose fall-off decreased with the target volume. In comparison, PI was slightly improved with MBM for targets < 1 cc or SI > 0.78. GI was improved with GP for targets < 2.5 cc. The V12Gy was higher with MBM for lesions > 0.4 cc or SI < 0.84 and exceeded 10 cc for targets > 5 cc against 6.5 cc with GP. The presence of OAR close to the PTV had no impact on the dose fall off values. The dose fall-off was higher for volumes < 3.8 cc with GP which had the sharpest dose fall-off in the infero-superior direction up to 30%/mm. The mean beam-on time was 94 min with GP against 13 min with MBM. CONCLUSIONS: The dose fall-off and the V12Gy were more relevant indicators than the GI for the low dose spillage assessment. Both evaluated techniques have comparable plan qualities with a slightly improved selectivity with MBM for smaller lesions but with a healthy tissues sparing slightly favorable to GP at the expense of a considerably longer irradiation time. However, a higher healthy tissue exposure must be considered for large volumes in MBM plans.