Analyzing RPM and RGSC Infrared Camera Sensitivity: A Comparative Study of Breathing Cycle Replication Verifications and Limitations.

OBJECTIVE: This study addresses challenges in delivering high radiation doses and managing organ motion in Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) for thoracic and abdominal cancer. It evaluates Varian's Real Time Position Management (RPM) system's infrared camera sensitivity during crucial Four-Dimensional computed tomography (4D-CT) scans for planning and treatment. The analysis includes CT simulator, LINAC (Novalis Tx and TrueBeam STx). This research enhances SBRT precision by offering insights into RPM and RGSC system performance across machines, impacting treatment planning and delivery optimization. METHODS: The QUASAR™ Respiratory Motion Assembly phantom is aligned with precision using lasers. It is configured with either six-dot reflective or four-dot lens marker blocks featuring a retroreflective marker placed on the phantom's surface. Motion is induced by adjusting the amplitude, and the camera position is finely tuned to monitor the marker's movements. This investigation entails variations in seconds per breath (SPB) within the Quasar breath platform, specifically at intervals of 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, and 5.0 seconds while maintaining a 1cm amplitude camera setting. RESULT: For TrueBeam-STx: Ensure SPB values are kept above 1.8 seconds for accurate replication. For Novalis-Tx: Stay within an SPB range of up to 2.0 seconds for reliable reproducibility. For CT Simulator: Optimal replication up to an SPB of 2.2 seconds; avoid SPB values below 1.8 seconds for reliable detection. CONCLUSION: Data for TrueBeam-STx, Novalis-Tx, and the CT simulator shows discrepancies in replicating the breathing cycle as Seconds Per Breath (SPB) decreases. Effective Infrared (IR) sensitivity is observed until SPB thresholds: 1.8s (TrueBeam-STx), 2.2s (Novalis-Tx), and 2.2s (CT simulator). We should consider values equal to or greater than the mentioned breathing periods. Variations in replicating breathing cycles signal challenges in planning and delivering treatments, especially with lower SPB values. These insights guide clinicians to adapt treatments based on machine-specific capabilities for accurate and reproducible outcomes.

Improving the Feasibility of Mitigating Phase Errors in 4DCT caused by a Random Reference Breathing Pattern in the Quasar Phantom and the Role of Slice Thickness.

PURPOSE: The study aimed to validate a method for minimizing phase errors by combining full-length lung 4DCT (f4DCT) scans with shorter tumor-restricted 4DCT (s4DCT) scans. It assessed the feasibility of integrating two scans one covering the entire phantom length and the other focused on the tumor area. The study also evaluated the impact of Maximum Intensity Projection (MIP) volume and imaging dose for different slice thicknesses (2.5mm and 1.25mm) in both full-length and short target-restricted 4DCT scans. METHODS: The study utilized the Quasar Programmable Respiratory Motion Phantom, simulating tumor motion with a variable lung insert. The setup included a tumor replica and a six-dot IR reflector marker on the breathing platform. The objective was to analyze volume differences in fMIP_2.5mm compared to sMIP_1.25mm within their respective 4D_MIP CT series. This involved varying breathing periods (2.5s, 3.0s, 4.0s, and 5.0s) and longitudinal tumor sizes (6mm, 8mm, and 10mm). The study also assessed exposure time and expected CTDIvol of s4D_2.5mm and s4D_1.25mm for different breathing periods (5.0s to 2.0s) in the sinusoidal wave motion of the six-dot marker on the breathing platform. RESULTS: Conducting two consecutive 4DCT scans is viable for patients with challenging breathing patterns or when the initial lung tumor scan is in close proximity to the tumor location, eliminating the need for an additional full-length 4DCT. The analysis involves assessing MIP volume, imaging dose (CTDIvol), and exposure time. Longitudinal tumor shifts for 6mm are [16.6-17.2] in fMIP_2.5mm and [16.8-17.5] in sMIP_1.25mm, for 8mm [17.2-18.3] in fMIP_2.5mm and [17.8-18.4] in sMIP_1.25mm, and for 10mm [19-19.9] in fMIP_2.5mm and [19.4-20] in sMIP_1.25mm (p≥ 0.005), respectively. CONCLUSION: The Quasar Programmable Respiratory Motion Phantom accurately replicated varied breathing patterns and tumor motions. Comprehensive analysis was facilitated through detailed manual segmentation of Internal Target Volumes and Internal Gross Target Volumes.

Dosimetric Validation of Treatment Planning System for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Using AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 5.b.

AIM: To assess the precision of dose calculations for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) using megavoltage (MV) photon beams, we validated the accuracy of two algorithms: AUROS XB and Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA). This validation will encompass both flattening filter (FF) and flattening filter-free beam (FFF) modes, using AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG 5b). MATERIALS AND METHODS: VMAT validation tests were generated for 6 MV FF and 6 MV FFF beams using the AAA and AXB algorithms in the Eclipse V.15.1 treatment planning system (TPS). Corresponding measurements were performed on a linear accelerator using a diode detector and a radiation field analyzer. Point dose (PD) and in-vivo measurements were conducted using an A1SL ion chamber and (TLD) from Thermofisher, respectively. The Rando Phantom was employed for end-to-end (E2E) tests. RESULTS: The mean difference (MD) between the TPS-calculated values and the measured values for the PDD and output factors were within 1% and 0.5%, respectively, for both 6 MV FF and 6 MV FFF. In the TG 119 sets, the MD for PD with both AAA and AXB was <0.9%. For the TG 244 sets, the minimum, maximum, and mean deviations in PD for both 6 MV FF and 6 MV FFF beams were 0.3%, 1.4% and 0.8% respectively. In the E2E test, using the Rando Phantom, the MD between the TLD dose and the TPS dose was within 0.08% for both 6 MV FF (p=1.0) and 6 MV FFF (0.018) beams. CONCLUSION: The accuracy of the TPS and its algorithms (AAA and AXB) has been successfully validated. The recommended tests included in the VMAT/IMRT validation section proved invaluable for verifying the PDD, output factors, and the feasibility of complex clinical cases. E2E tests were instrumental in validating the entire workflow from CT simulation to treatment delivery.

Dosimetric Comparison between Acuros XB (AXB) and Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) in Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy.

AIM: Dose calculation accuracy between Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB (AXB) for various megavoltage (MV) photon beams for both flattening filter (FF) and flattening filter free (FFF) beams and to validate the accuracy of these dose calculations using inhomogeneous phantom in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A Cheese Phantom having 20 holes that can be filled with all virtual water plugs or set of density calibration plugs  was used for VMAT planning using two different algorithms using either single or double arc. Further phantom was used  irradiate plan in linear accelerator and the point doses measured using a 0.053 cc A1SL ionization chamber along electrometer . Different plans, cylindrical shape, C-shaped and donut targets were planned 6MV, 10MV, 6FFF MV and 10FFF MV beam energy. RESULT: The minimum average mean dose difference was 1.2% for PTV structures between AAA and AXB (p=0.02). Apart from these structures, the following density plugs have a more than 2% difference in maximum dose with statistical significance. (i) Solid water (MD=6.1%, p=0.016), (ii) Bone 200 (2.3%, p=0.029), (iii) CB_30% (MD=2.4%, p=0.050) and (iv) Cortical bone (MD=4.3%, p=0.018). In 6MV FFF and 10 MV FFF plans, the difference between AAA and AXB was not statistically significant (Fig 3). The Conformity index for the AAA less than that of AXB, in all energies and for all the PTVs. The CI was better in AXB than AAA, but the CI was not having much variation due to changes in beam energies, particularly for Cylinder shaped PTV. CONCLUSION: All combinations of beam energy AAA showed higher values in the maximum dose than the Acuros XB, except for the lung insert. Nonetheless, AAA showed a higher mean dose than the Acuros XB. Differences between these two algorithms for most of the beam energies are minimal.

Studies on Fundamental Interaction Parameters for Stainless Steel and Titanium Biomaterials Using Flattened and Un-Flattened Megavoltage X-Ray Beams.

Purpose: This work presents the measure of fundamental interaction parameters like mass attenuation coefficient (µ/ρ), mean energy, total atomic (σa) and electronic (σe) cross section, effective atomic number (Zeff), electron density (Nel) and mean free path (mfp) using FF and UF megavoltage x-ray beam for high Z implants. Methods: Narrow beam geometry is used to find out mass attenuation coefficient (µ/ρ) (MAC) which is then used to calculate mean energy (using NIST data), total atomic (σa) and electronic cross section (σe) for different energies. The effective atomic number (Zeff), Electron density (Nel), mean free path (mfp) for both flattened and unflattened x-ray beams for high Z material stainless steel (SS316) and titanium alloy (Grade 5) are studied. Results: The mean energies calculated from NIST data against mass attenuation coefficient were in good agreement with Monte Carlo value. It shows that spectral weighted effective atomic number is independent of megavoltage energies in the Compton region. Effective electron density calculated using Zeff and MAC method is lesser compared to direct method for both high Z materials. The mean free path (mfp) is higher along the central axis than off-axis for flattened beam in comparison to unflattened beam for both of the high Z materials studied because of the variation in energy spectrum for both FF and UF x-ray beams. Conclusion: This study elaborated the fundamental interaction parameters of different energies of flattened and unflattened x-ray beam interactions with high Z materials such as Stainless Steel (SS316) and Titanium (Grade5) relevant in a clinical scenario.

An Assessment of Dosimetric Characteristics of Inline 2.5 Mega Voltage Unflattened Imaging X-Ray Beam.

Purpose: The aim of this work is to study the dosimetric parameters of newly introduced 2.5 MV imaging x-ray beam used as inline imaging to do setup verification of the patient undergoing radiation therapy. As this x-ray beam is in megavoltage range but comprises of a lower energy spectrum. It is essential to study the pros and cons of 2.5 MV imaging x-ray beam for clinical use.Methods: The mean energy was calculated using the NIST XCOM table through MAC. Profile analysis was done using RFA to understand the percentage depth dose, degree of unflatteness, symmetry, penumbra and out of field dose. Dose to skin for the 2.5 MV x-ray beam was analysed for field sizes 10x10 cm2, 20x20 cm2, 30x30 cm2. Leakage measurements for treatment head and at the patient plane were done using IEC 819/98 protocol. Finally, the spatial resolution and contrast were analyzed with and without patient scatter medium. Results: The MAC at 15 cm off-axis was found to be lower than that at the CAX. Similarly, there was a decrease in mean energy from 0.47 MV to 0.37 MV at 15 cm off-axis. The reduction of mean energy towards off-axis is lower than the other high energy MV x-ray beams. The tuned absolute dose of 1 cGy/MU is consistent and within < ±1 %. The relative output factors were found to be in correlation with Co-60. The beam quality of 2.5 MV x-ray beam was found to be 0.4771. The profile parameters like the degree of unflatness of the 2.5 x-ray beam were studied at 85 %, 90 %, 95 % lateral distances, and the penumbra at different depth and field sizes are higher than the 6 MV treatment beam. In addition, out of field dose also drastically increases to a maximum of up to 30 % laterally at 5cm at deeper depths. The skin dose increases from 48.51 % to 88.15 % from 6 MV to 2.5 MV x-ray beam for the field size 10x10 cm2. Also, the skin dose increases from 88.15 % to 91.78 % from the field size 10x10 cm2 to 30x30 cm2. Although the measured leakage radiation for 2.5 MV x-ray beam at the patient plane and other than patient planes are with the tolerance limit, an increase in exposure towards gantry side compared to other areas around treatment head and the patient plane may lead to more skin dose to head and chest while imaging pelvis region. The MLC transmission of 2.5 MV x-ray beam such as inter, intra and edge effect are 0.40 %, 0.37 % and 11% respectively. The spatial resolution of 2.0, 1.25 and 0.9 LP/mm was observed for KV, 2.5MV, and 6 MV x-ray beams. The spatial resolution and contrast of 2.5 MV x-ray beam are superior to 6 MV x-ray beam and inferior to KV x-rays. Conclusions: The 2.5 MV x-ray imaging beam is analysed in view of beam characteristics and radiation safety to understand the above-studied concepts while using this imaging beam in a clinical situation. In future, if 2.5MV x-ray beam is used for treatment purpose with increased dose rate, the above-studied notions can be incorporated prior to implementation.

Study of dosimetric properties of flattened and unflattened megavoltage x ray beam on high Z implant materials.

PURPOSE: Addition of high Z implants in the treatment vicinity or beam path is unavoidable in certain clinical situation. In this work, we study the properties of radiation interaction parameters such as mass attenuation coefficient (MAC), x ray beam transmission factor (indirect beam attenuation), interface effects like backscatter dose perturbation factor (BSDF) and forward dose perturbation factor (FDPF) for flattened (FF) and unflattened (UF) x ray beams. METHODS: MAC for stainless steel and titanium alloy was measured using CC13 chamber with appropriate buildup in narrow beam geometry. The x ray beam transmission factors were measured for stainless steel and titanium alloy for different field size, off-axis, and depths. Profile analysis was performed using a radiation field analyzer (RFA) as a function of field size and depth to study the influence of phantom scattering and spectral variation in the beam. In addition, interface effects such as BSDF and FDPF were measured with gafchromic films at maximum BSDF peak position calculated using Acuros XB algorithm and with PPC40 chamber measured at exit side of high Z material, respectively. RESULTS: The MAC in both cases decreases with increase in energy for stainless steel (SS) and titanium (Ti) alloy. The MAC increases with the change in x ray beam type from flattened to UF beam because of relatively lower mean energy. The x ray beam transmission factor increases with the increase in energy, field size, and depth owing to increase in penetration power phantom scatter, respectively. The measured BSDF and FDPF were found to be in good agreement with AXB algorithm. CONCLUSION: The dosimetric properties of x ray photon beam were studied comprehensively in the presence of high Z material like stainless steel and titanium alloy using both flattened and UF beams to understand and incorporate the findings of various parameters in clinical condition due to the variation in energy spectrum from FF to UF x ray beam.