Quality assurance in radiation oncology.

The Children's Oncology Group (COG) has a strong quality assurance (QA) program managed by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC). This program consists of credentialing centers and providing real-time management of each case for protocol compliant target definition and radiation delivery. In the International Society of Pediatric Oncology (SIOP), the lack of an available, reliable online data platform has been a challenge and the European Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOPE) quality and excellence in radiotherapy and imaging for children and adolescents with cancer across Europe in clinical trials (QUARTET) program currently provides QA review for prospective clinical trials. The COG and SIOP are fully committed to a QA program that ensures uniform execution of protocol treatments and provides validity of the clinical data used for analysis.

Insight gained from responses to surveys on reference dosimetry practices.

PURPOSE: To present the results and discuss potential insights gained through surveys on reference dosimetry practices. METHODS: Two surveys were sent to medical physicists to learn about the current state of reference dosimetry practices at radiation oncology clinics worldwide. A short survey designed to maximize response rate was made publicly available and distributed via the AAPM website and a medical physics list server. Another, much more involved survey, was sent to a smaller group of physicists to gain insight on detailed dosimetry practices. The questions were diverse, covering reference dosimetry practices on topics like measurements required for beam quality specification, the actual measurement of absorbed dose and ancillary equipment required like electrometers and environment monitoring measurements. RESULTS: There were 190 respondents to the short survey and seven respondents to the detailed survey. The diversity of responses indicates nonuniformity in reference dosimetry practices and differences in interpretation of reference dosimetry protocols. CONCLUSIONS: The results of these surveys offer insight on clinical reference dosimetry practices and will be useful in identifying current and future needs for reference dosimetry.

AAPM WGTG51 Report 385: Addendum to the AAPM's TG-51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of high-energy electron beams.

An Addendum to the AAPM's TG-51 protocol for the determination of absorbed dose to water is presented for electron beams with energies between 4 MeV and 22 MeV ( 1.70 cm ≤ R 50 ≤ 8.70 cm $1.70\nobreakspace {\rm cm} \le R_{\text{50}} \le 8.70\nobreakspace {\rm cm}$ ). This updated formalism allows simplified calibration procedures, including the use of calibrated cylindrical ionization chambers in all electron beams without the use of a gradient correction. New k Q $k_{Q}$ data are provided for electron beams based on Monte Carlo simulations. Implementation guidance is provided. Components of the uncertainty budget in determining absorbed dose to water at the reference depth are discussed. Specifications for a reference-class chamber in electron beams include chamber stability, settling, ion recombination behavior, and polarity dependence. Progress in electron beam reference dosimetry is reviewed. Although this report introduces some major changes (e.g., gradient corrections are implicitly included in the electron beam quality conversion factors), they serve to simplify the calibration procedure. Results for absorbed dose per linac monitor unit are expected to be up to approximately 2 % higher using this Addendum compared to using the original TG-51 protocol.

Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance Analysis of Alliance A021501: Preoperative mFOLFIRINOX or mFOLFIRINOX Plus Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Borderline Resectable Adenocarcinoma of the Pancreas.

PURPOSE: Alliance A021501 is the first randomized trial to evaluate stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In this post hoc study, we reviewed the quality of radiation therapy (RT) delivered. METHODS AND MATERIALS: SBRT (6.6 Gy × 5) was intended but hypofractionated RT (5 Gy × 5) was permitted if SBRT specifications could not be met. Institutional credentialing through the National Cancer Institute-funded Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) was required. Rigorous RT quality assurance (RT QA) was mandated, including pretreatment review by a radiation oncologist. Revisions were required for unacceptable deviations. Additionally, we performed a post hoc RT QA analysis in which contours and plans were reviewed by 3 radiation oncologists and assigned a score (1, 2, or 3) based on adequacy. A score of 1 indicated no deviation, 2 indicated minor deviation, and 3 indicated a major deviation that could be clinically significant. Clinical outcomes were compared by treatment modality and by case score. RESULTS: Forty patients were registered to receive RT (1 planned but not treated) at 27 centers (18 academic and 9 community). Twenty-three centers were appropriately credentialed for moving lung/liver targets and 4 for static head and neck only. Thirty-two of 39 patients (82.1%) were treated with SBRT and 7 (17.9%) with hypofractionated RT. Five cases (13%) required revision before treatment. On post hoc review, 23 patients (59.0%) were noted to have suboptimal contours or plan coverage, 12 (30.8%) were scored a 2, and 11 (28.2%) were scored a 3. There were no apparent differences in failure patterns or surgical outcomes based on treatment technique or post hoc case score. Details related to on-treatment imaging were not recorded. CONCLUSIONS: Despite rigorous QA, we encountered variability in simulation, contouring, plan coverage, and dose on trial. Although clinical outcomes did not appear to have been affected, findings from this analysis serve to inform subsequent PDAC SBRT trial designs and QA requirements.

Quality Assurance in Clinical Trials Requiring Radiation Therapy in Sub-Saharan Africa.

PURPOSE: Given the increasing availability of radiation therapy in sub-Saharan Africa, clinical trials that include radiation therapy are likely to grow. Ensuring appropriate delivery of radiation therapy through rigorous quality assurance is an important component of clinical trial execution. We reviewed the process for credentialing radiation therapy sites and radiation therapy quality assurance through the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) Houston Quality Assurance Center for AIDS Malignancy Consortium (AMC)-081, a multicenter study of cisplatin and radiation therapy for women with locally advanced cervical cancer living with HIV, conducted by the AIDS Malignancy Consortium at 2 sites in South Africa and Zimbabwe. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Women living with HIV with newly diagnosed stage IB2, IIA (>4 cm), IIB-IVA cervical carcinoma (per the 2009 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics [FIGO] staging classifications) were enrolled in AMC-081. They received 3-dimensional conformal external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) to the pelvis (41.4-45 Gy) using a linear accelerator, high-dose-rate brachytherapy (6-9 Gy to point A with each fraction and up to 4 fractions), and concurrent weekly cisplatin (40 mg/m2). IROC reviewed EBRT and brachytherapy quality assurance records after treatment. RESULTS: All of the 38 women enrolled in AMC-081 received ±5% of the protocol-specified prescribed dose of EBRT. Geometry of brachytherapy applicator placement was scored as per protocol in all implants. Doses to points A and B, International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) bladder, or ICRU rectum required correction by IROC in >50% of the implants. In the final evaluation, 58% of participants (n = 22) were treated per protocol, 40% (n = 15) had minor protocol deviations, and 3% (n = 1) had major protocol deviations. No records were received within 60 days of treatment completion as requested in the protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Major radiation therapy deviations were low, but timely submission of radiation therapy data did not occur. Future studies, especially those that include specialized radiation therapy techniques such as stereotactic or intensity-modulated radiation therapy, will require pathways to ensure timely and adequate quality assurance.

AAPM WGDCAB Report 372: A joint AAPM, ESTRO, ABG, and ABS report on commissioning of model-based dose calculation algorithms in brachytherapy.

The introduction of model-based dose calculation algorithms (MBDCAs) in brachytherapy provides an opportunity for a more accurate dose calculation and opens the possibility for novel, innovative treatment modalities. The joint AAPM, ESTRO, and ABG Task Group 186 (TG-186) report provided guidance to early adopters. However, the commissioning aspect of these algorithms was described only in general terms with no quantitative goals. This report, from the Working Group on Model-Based Dose Calculation Algorithms in Brachytherapy, introduced a field-tested approach to MBDCA commissioning. It is based on a set of well-characterized test cases for which reference Monte Carlo (MC) and vendor-specific MBDCA dose distributions are available in a Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine-Radiotherapy (DICOM-RT) format to the clinical users. The key elements of the TG-186 commissioning workflow are now described in detail, and quantitative goals are provided. This approach leverages the well-known Brachytherapy Source Registry jointly managed by the AAPM and the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) Houston Quality Assurance Center (with associated links at ESTRO) to provide open access to test cases as well as step-by-step user guides. While the current report is limited to the two most widely commercially available MBDCAs and only for 192 Ir-based afterloading brachytherapy at this time, this report establishes a general framework that can easily be extended to other brachytherapy MBDCAs and brachytherapy sources. The AAPM, ESTRO, ABG, and ABS recommend that clinical medical physicists implement the workflow presented in this report to validate both the basic and the advanced dose calculation features of their commercial MBDCAs. Recommendations are also given to vendors to integrate advanced analysis tools into their brachytherapy treatment planning system to facilitate extensive dose comparisons. The use of the test cases for research and educational purposes is further encouraged.

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 cm(2) to 2 × 2 cm(2). The field sizes were defined by the MLC and for the Varian machines the secondary jaws were maintained at a 10 × 10 cm(2). 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 cm(2) field size. The RPC-measured output factors are tabulated and are reproducible with standard deviations (SD) ranging from 0.1% to 1.5%, while the institutions' calculated values had a much larger SD range, ranging up to 7.9% [corrected].The absolute average percent differences were greater for the 2 × 2 cm(2) 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.

The Value of On-Site Proton Audits.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to highlight the value and key findings of on-site proton audits. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The authors performed 38 on-site measurement-based peer reviews of proton centers participating in National Cancer Institute-funded clinical trials. The reviews covered beam calibration, lateral and depth measurements, mechanical checks, treatment planning and clinical practice, and quality assurance (QA) practices. Program deficiencies were noted, and recommendations were made about ways institutions could improve their practices. RESULTS: Institutions received an average of 3 (range, 1-8) recommendations for practice improvements. The number of deficiencies did not decrease over time, highlighting the continued need for this type of peer review. The most common deficiencies were for Task Group-recommended QA compliance (97% of centers), computed tomography number (CTN) to relative linear stopping power conversion (59%), and QA procedures (53%). In addition, 32% of institutions assessed failed at least 1 lateral beam profile measurement (<90% of pixels passing 3% [global]/3 mm; 10% threshold), despite passing internal QA measurements. These failures occurred for several different plan configurations (large, small, shallow, and deep targets) and at different depths in the beam path (proximal to target, central, and distal). CTN to relative linear stopping power conversion curves showed deviations at low, mid, and high CTNs and highlighted areas of inconsistency between proton centers, with many centers falling outside of 2 sigma of the mean curve of their peers. All deficiencies from the peer review were discussed with the institutions, and many implemented dosimetric treatment planning and practice changes to improve the accuracy of their system and consistency with other institutions. CONCLUSIONS: This peer review program has been integral in confirming and promoting consistency and best practice across proton centers for clinical trials, minimizing deviations for outcomes data.

AAPM WGTG51 Report 374: Guidance for TG-51 reference dosimetry.

Practical guidelines that are not explicit in the TG-51 protocol and its Addendum for photon beam dosimetry are presented for the implementation of the TG-51 protocol for reference dosimetry of external high-energy photon and electron beams. These guidelines pertain to: (i) measurement of depth-ionization curves required to obtain beam quality specifiers for the selection of beam quality conversion factors, (ii) considerations for the dosimetry system and specifications of a reference-class ionization chamber, (iii) commissioning a dosimetry system and frequency of measurements, (iv) positioning/aligning the water tank and ionization chamber for depth ionization and reference dose measurements, (v) requirements for ancillary equipment needed to measure charge (triaxial cables and electrometers) and to correct for environmental conditions, and (vi) translation from dose at the reference depth to that at the depth required by the treatment planning system. Procedures are identified to achieve the most accurate results (errors up to 8% have been observed) and, where applicable, a commonly used simplified procedure is described and the impact on reference dosimetry measurements is discussed so that the medical physicist can be informed on where to allocate resources.

Positron Emission Tomography-Guided Bone Marrow-Sparing Radiation Therapy for Locoregionally Advanced Cervix Cancer: Final Results From the INTERTECC Phase II/III Trial.

PURPOSE: To test effects of positron emission tomography (PET)-based bone marrow-sparing (BMS) image-guided intensity modulated radiation therapy (IG-IMRT) on efficacy and toxicity for patients with locoregionally advanced cervical cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In an international phase II/III trial, patients with stage IB-IVA cervical carcinoma were treated with either PET-based BMS-IG-IMRT (PET-BMS-IMRT group) or standard image-guided IMRT (IMRT group), with concurrent cisplatin (40 mg/m2 weekly), followed by brachytherapy. The phase II component nonrandomly assigned patients to PET-BMS-IMRT or standard IMRT. The phase III trial randomized patients to PET-BMS-IMRT versus IMRT, with a primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) but was closed early for futility. Phase III patients were analyzed separately and in combination with phase II patients, comparing acute hematologic toxicity, cisplatin delivery, PFS, overall survival (OS), and patterns of failure. In a post-hoc exploratory analysis, we investigated the association between pretreatment absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) and OS. RESULTS: In total, 101 patients were enrolled on the phase II/III trial, including 29 enrolled in phase III (PET-BMS-IMRT group: 16; IMRT group: 13) before early closure. Median follow-up was 33 months for phase III patients and 39 months for all patients. PFS and OS at 5 years for all patients were 73.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64.9%-84.3%) and 84% (95% CI, 76%-92.9%]), respectively. There were no differences in number of cisplatin cycles, OS, PFS, or patterns of failure between groups for the combined cohort. The incidence of acute grade ≥ 3 neutropenia was significantly lower in the PET-BMS-IMRT group compared with IMRT for randomized patients (19% vs 54%, χ2P = .048) and in the combined cohort (13% vs 35%, χ2P = .01). Patients with pretreatment ALC ≤ 1.5 k/µL had nonsignificantly worse OS on multivariable analysis (HR 2.85; 95% CI, 0.94-8.62; adjusted P = .216), compared with patients with ALC > 1.5 k/µL. There was no difference in posttreatment ALC by treatment group. CONCLUSIONS: PET-BMS-IMRT significantly reduced acute grade ≥3 neutropenia, but not treatment-related lymphopenia, compared with standard IMRT. We found no evidence that PET-BMS-IMRT affected chemotherapy delivery or long-term outcomes, and weak evidence of an association between pretreatment ALC and OS.

Report of AAPM TG 135: quality assurance for robotic radiosurgery.

The task group (TG) for quality assurance for robotic radiosurgery was formed by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine's Science Council under the direction of the Radiation Therapy Committee and the Quality Assurance (QA) Subcommittee. The task group (TG-135) had three main charges: (1) To make recommendations on a code of practice for Robotic Radiosurgery QA; (2) To make recommendations on quality assurance and dosimetric verification techniques, especially in regard to real-time respiratory motion tracking software; (3) To make recommendations on issues which require further research and development. This report provides a general functional overview of the only clinically implemented robotic radiosurgery device, the CyberKnife. This report includes sections on device components and their individual component QA recommendations, followed by a section on the QA requirements for integrated systems. Examples of checklists for daily, monthly, annual, and upgrade QA are given as guidance for medical physicists. Areas in which QA procedures are still under development are discussed.

Dose-rate considerations for the INTRABEAM electronic brachytherapy system: Report from the American association of physicists in medicine task group no. 292.

The purpose of this report is to provide detailed guidance on the dosimetry of the INTRABEAM® (Carl Zeiss Medical AG, Jena, Germany) electronic brachytherapy (eBT) system as it stands at the present time. This report has been developed by the members of American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 292 and endorsed by the AAPM. Members of AAPM Task Group 292 on Electronic-Brachytherapy Dosimetry have reviewed pertinent publications and user manuals regarding the INTRABEAM system dosimetry and manufacturer-supplied dose calculation protocols. Formal written correspondence with Zeiss has also provided further clarification. Dose-rate calculations for the INTRABEAM system are highly dependent on choice of dosimetry protocol. Even with careful protocol selection, large uncertainties remain due to the incomplete characterization of the ionization chambers used for verification with respect to their energy dependence as well as manufacturing variations. There are two distinct sets of dose-rate data provided by Zeiss for the INTRABEAM system. One dataset (Calibration V4.0) is representative of the physical dose surrounding the source and the other dataset (TARGIT) has been adjusted to be consistent with a clinical trial named TARGIT (TARGeted Intraoperative RadioTherapy). The adjusted TARGIT doses are quite dissimilar to the physical doses, with differences ranging from 14% to 30% at the surface of a spherical applicator, depending on its diameter, and up to a factor of two at closer distances with the smaller needle applicators. In addition, ion chamber selection and associated manufacturing tolerances contribute to significant additional uncertainties. With these substantial differences in dose rates and their associated uncertainties, it is important for users to be aware of how each value is calculated and whether it is appropriate to be used for the intended treatment. If users intend to deliver doses that are the same as they were in 1998 at the onset of the TARGIT trial, then the TARGIT dose-rate tables should be used. The Calibration V4.0 dose rates may be more appropriate to use for applications other than TARGIT trial treatments, since they more closely represent the physical doses being delivered. Users should also be aware of the substantial uncertainties associated with the provided dose rates, which are due to beam hardening, chamber geometry, and selection of the point-of-measurement for a given ionization chamber. This report serves to describe the details and implications of the manufacturer-recommended dosimetry formalism for users of the INTRABEAM system.

A Multi-atlas Approach for Active Bone Marrow Sparing Radiation Therapy: Implementation in the NRG-GY006 Trial.

PURPOSE: Sparing active bone marrow (ABM) can reduce acute hematologic toxicity in patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer, but ABM segmentation based on positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is costly. We sought to develop an atlas-based ABM segmentation method for implementation in a prospective clinical trial. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A multiatlas was built on a training set of 144 patients and validated in 32 patients from the NRG-GY006 clinical trial. ABM for individual patients was defined as the subvolume of pelvic bone greater than the individual mean standardized uptake value on registered 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT images. Atlas-based and custom ABM segmentations were compared using the Dice similarity coefficient and mean distance to agreement and used to generate ABM-sparing intensity modulated radiation therapy plans. Dose-volume metrics and normal tissue complication probabilities of the two approaches were compared using linear regression. RESULTS: Atlas-based ABM volumes (mean [standard deviation], 548.4 [88.3] cm3) were slightly larger than custom ABM volumes (535.1 [93.2] cm3), with a Dice similarity coefficient of 0.73. Total pelvic bone marrow V20 and Dmean were systematically higher and custom ABM V10 was systematically lower with custom-based plans (slope: 1.021 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.005-1.037], 1.014 [95% CI, 1.006-1.022], and 0.98 [95% CI, 0.97-0.99], respectively). We found no significant differences between atlas-based and custom-based plans in bowel, rectum, bladder, femoral heads, or target dose-volume metrics. CONCLUSIONS: Atlas-based ABM segmentation can reduce pelvic bone marrow dose while achieving comparable target and other normal tissue dosimetry. This approach may allow ABM sparing in settings where PET/CT is unavailable.

Challenges in credentialing institutions and participants in advanced technology multi-institutional clinical trials.

The Radiological Physics Center (RPC) has functioned continuously for 38 years to assure the National Cancer Institute and the cooperative groups that institutions participating in multi-institutional trials can be expected to deliver radiation treatments that are clinically comparable to those delivered by other institutions in the cooperative groups. To accomplish this, the RPC monitors the machine output, the dosimetry data used by the institutions, the calculation algorithms used for treatment planning, and the institutions' quality control procedures. The methods of monitoring include on-site dosimetry review by an RPC physicist and a variety of remote audit tools. The introduction of advanced technology clinical trials has prompted several study groups to require participating institutions and personnel to become credentialed, to ensure their familiarity and capability with techniques such as three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, stereotactic body radiotherapy, and brachytherapy. The RPC conducts a variety of credentialing activities, beginning with questionnaires to evaluate an institution's understanding of the protocol and their capabilities. Treatment-planning benchmarks are used to allow the institution to demonstrate their planning ability and to facilitate a review of the accuracy of treatment-planning systems under relevant conditions. The RPC also provides mailable anthropomorphic phantoms to verify tumor dose delivery for special treatment techniques. While conducting these reviews, the RPC has amassed a large amount of data describing the dosimetry at participating institutions. Representative data from the monitoring programs are discussed, and examples are presented of specific instances in which the RPC contributed to the discovery and resolution of dosimetry errors.

Accelerator beam data commissioning equipment and procedures: report of the TG-106 of the Therapy Physics Committee of the AAPM.

For commissioning a linear accelerator for clinical use, medical physicists are faced with many challenges including the need for precision, a variety of testing methods, data validation, the lack of standards, and time constraints. Since commissioning beam data are treated as a reference and ultimately used by treatment planning systems, it is vitally important that the collected data are of the highest quality to avoid dosimetric and patient treatment errors that may subsequently lead to a poor radiation outcome. Beam data commissioning should be performed with appropriate knowledge and proper tools and should be independent of the person collecting the data. To achieve this goal, Task Group 106 (TG-106) of the Therapy Physics Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine was formed to review the practical aspects as well as the physics of linear accelerator commissioning. The report provides guidelines and recommendations on the proper selection of phantoms and detectors, setting up of a phantom for data acquisition (both scanning and no-scanning data), procedures for acquiring specific photon and electron beam parameters and methods to reduce measurement errors (<1%), beam data processing and detector size convolution for accurate profiles. The TG-106 also provides a brief.discussion on the emerging trend in Monte Carlo simulation techniques in photon and electron beam commissioning. The procedures described in this report should assist a qualified medical physicist in either measuring a complete set of beam data, or in verifying a subset of data before initial use or for periodic quality assurance measurements. By combining practical experience with theoretical discussion, this document sets a new standard for beam data commissioning.

Reference dosimetry data and modeling challenges for Elekta accelerators based on IROC-Houston site visit data.

PURPOSE: Reference dosimetry data can provide an independent second check of acquired values when commissioning or validating a treatment planning system (TPS). The Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core at Houston (IROC-Houston) has measured numerous linear accelerators throughout its existence. The results of those measurements are given here, comparing accelerators and the agreement of measurement versus institutional TPS calculations. METHODS: Data from IROC-Houston on-site reviews from 2000 through 2014 were analyzed for all Elekta accelerators, approximately 50. For each, consistent point dose measurements were conducted for several basic parameters in a water phantom, including percentage depth dose, output factors, small-field output factors, off-axis factors, and wedge factors. The results were compared by accelerator type independently for 6, 10, 15, and 18 MV. Distributions of the measurements for each parameter are given, providing the mean and standard deviation. Each accelerator's measurements were also compared to its corresponding TPS calculation from the institution to determine the level of agreement, as well as determining which dosimetric parameters were most often in error. RESULTS: Accelerators were grouped by head type and reference dosimetric values were compiled. No class of linac had better overall agreement with its TPS, but percentage depth dose and output factors commonly agreed well, while small-field output factors, off-axis factors, and wedge factors often disagreed substantially from their TPS calculations. CONCLUSION: Reference data has been collected and analyzed for numerous Elekta linacs, which provide an independent way for a physicist to double-check their own measurements to prevent gross treatment errors. In addition, treatment planning parameters more often in error have been highlighted, providing practical caution for physicists commissioning treatment planning systems for Elekta linacs.

Remote beam output audits: a global assessment of results out of tolerance.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Remote beam output audits, which independently measure an institution's machine calibration, are a common component of independent radiotherapy peer review. This work reviews the results and trends of these audit results across several organisations and geographical regions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Beam output audit results from the Australian Clinical Dosimetry Services, International Atomic Energy Agency, Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, and Radiation Dosimetry Services were evaluated from 2010 to the present. The rate of audit results outside a +/-5% tolerance was evaluated for photon and electron beams as a function of the year of irradiation and nominal beam energy. Additionally, examples of confirmed calibration errors were examined to provide guidance to clinical physicists and auditing bodies. RESULTS: Of the 210,167 audit results, 1323 (0.63%) were outside of tolerance. There was a clear trend of improved audit performance for more recent dates, and while all photon energies generally showed uniform rates of results out of tolerance, low (6 MeV) and high (≥18 MeV) energy electron beams showed significantly elevated rates. Twenty nine confirmed calibration errors were explored and attributed to a range of issues, such as equipment failures, errors in setup, and errors in performing the clinical reference calibration. Forty-two percent of these confirmed errors were detected during ongoing periodic monitoring, and not at the time of the first audit of the machine. CONCLUSIONS: Remote beam output audits have identified, and continue to identify, numerous and often substantial beam calibration errors.

Benchmark Credentialing Results for NRG-BR001: The First National Cancer Institute-Sponsored Trial of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Multiple Metastases.

PURPOSE: The NRG-BR001 trial is the first National Cancer Institute-sponsored trial to treat multiple (range 2-4) extracranial metastases with stereotactic body radiation therapy. Benchmark credentialing is required to ensure adherence to this complex protocol, in particular, for metastases in close proximity. The present report summarizes the dosimetric results and approval rates. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The benchmark used anonymized data from a patient with bilateral adrenal metastases, separated by <5 cm of normal tissue. Because the planning target volume (PTV) overlaps with organs at risk (OARs), institutions must use the planning priority guidelines to balance PTV coverage (45 Gy in 3 fractions) against OAR sparing. Submitted plans were processed by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core and assessed by the protocol co-chairs by comparing the doses to targets, OARs, and conformity metrics using nonparametric tests. RESULTS: Of 63 benchmarks submitted through October 2015, 94% were approved, with 51% approved at the first attempt. Most used volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) (78%), a single plan for both PTVs (90%), and prioritized the PTV over the stomach (75%). The median dose to 95% of the volume was 44.8 ± 1.0 Gy and 44.9 ± 1.0 Gy for the right and left PTV, respectively. The median dose to 0.03 cm3 was 14.2 ± 2.2 Gy to the spinal cord and 46.5 ± 3.1 Gy to the stomach. Plans that spared the stomach significantly reduced the dose to the left PTV and stomach. Conformity metrics were significantly better for single plans that simultaneously treated both PTVs with VMAT, intensity modulated radiation therapy, or 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy compared with separate plans. No significant differences existed in the dose at 2 cm from the PTVs. CONCLUSIONS: Although most plans used VMAT, the range of conformity and dose falloff was large. The decision to prioritize either OARs or PTV coverage varied considerably, suggesting that the toxicity outcomes in the trial could be affected. Several benchmarks met the dose-volume histogram metrics but produced unacceptable plans owing to low conformity. Dissemination of a frequently-asked-questions document improved the approval rate at the first attempt. Benchmark credentialing was found to be a valuable tool for educating institutions about the protocol requirements.

Bone Marrow-sparing Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy With Concurrent Cisplatin For Stage IB-IVA Cervical Cancer: An International Multicenter Phase II Clinical Trial (INTERTECC-2).

PURPOSE: To test the hypothesis that intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) reduces acute hematologic and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity for patients with locoregionally advanced cervical cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We enrolled patients with stage IB-IVA cervical carcinoma in a single-arm phase II trial involving 8 centers internationally. All patients received weekly cisplatin concurrently with once-daily IMRT, followed by intracavitary brachytherapy, as indicated. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of either acute grade ≥3 neutropenia or clinically significant GI toxicity within 30 days of completing chemoradiation therapy. A preplanned subgroup analysis tested the hypothesis that positron emission tomography-based image-guided IMRT (IG-IMRT) would lower the risk of acute neutropenia. We also longitudinally assessed patients' changes in quality of life. RESULTS: From October 2011 to April 2015, 83 patients met the eligibility criteria and initiated protocol therapy. The median follow-up was 26.0 months. The incidence of any primary event was 26.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 18.2%-36.9%), significantly lower than the 40% incidence hypothesized a priori from historical data (P=.012). The incidence of grade ≥3 neutropenia and clinically significant GI toxicity was 19.3% (95% CI 12.2%-29.0%) and 12.0% (95% CI 6.7%-20.8%), respectively. Compared with patients treated without IG-IMRT (n=48), those treated with IG-IMRT (n=35) had a significantly lower incidence of grade ≥3 neutropenia (8.6% vs 27.1%; 2-sided χ2P=.035) and nonsignificantly lower incidence of grade ≥3 leukopenia (25.7% vs 41.7%; P=.13) and any grade ≥3 hematologic toxicity (31.4% vs 43.8%; P=.25). CONCLUSIONS: IMRT reduces acute hematologic and GI toxicity compared with standard treatment, with promising therapeutic outcomes. Positron emission tomography IG-IMRT reduces the incidence of acute neutropenia.

Agreement Between Institutional Measurements and Treatment Planning System Calculations for Basic Dosimetric Parameters as Measured by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Houston.

PURPOSE: To compare radiation machine measurement data collected by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core at Houston (IROC-H) with institutional treatment planning system (TPS) values, to identify parameters with large differences in agreement; the findings will help institutions focus their efforts to improve the accuracy of their TPS models. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 2000 and 2014, IROC-H visited more than 250 institutions and conducted independent measurements of machine dosimetric data points, including percentage depth dose, output factors, off-axis factors, multileaf collimator small fields, and wedge data. We compared these data with the institutional TPS values for the same points by energy, class, and parameter to identify differences and similarities using criteria involving both the medians and standard deviations for Varian linear accelerators. Distributions of differences between machine measurements and institutional TPS values were generated for basic dosimetric parameters. RESULTS: On average, intensity modulated radiation therapy-style and stereotactic body radiation therapy-style output factors and upper physical wedge output factors were the most problematic. Percentage depth dose, jaw output factors, and enhanced dynamic wedge output factors agreed best between the IROC-H measurements and the TPS values. Although small differences were shown between 2 common TPS systems, neither was superior to the other. Parameter agreement was constant over time from 2000 to 2014. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in basic dosimetric parameters between machine measurements and TPS values vary widely depending on the parameter, although agreement does not seem to vary by TPS and has not changed over time. Intensity modulated radiation therapy-style output factors, stereotactic body radiation therapy-style output factors, and upper physical wedge output factors had the largest disagreement and should be carefully modeled to ensure accuracy.