CBCT image quality QA: Establishing a quantitative program.

PURPOSE: Routine quality assurance (QA) of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans used for image-guided radiotherapy is prescribed by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group (TG)-142 report. For CBCT image quality, TG-142 recommends using clinically established baseline values as QA tolerances. This work examined how image quality parameters vary both across machines of the same model and across different CBCT techniques. Additionally, this work investigated how image quality values are affected by imager recalibration and repeated exposures during routine QA. METHODS: Cone-beam computed tomography scans of the Catphan 604 phantom were taken on four TrueBeam® and one Edge™ linear accelerator using four manufacturer-provided techniques. TG-142 image quality parameters were calculated for each CBCT scan using SunCHECK Machine™. The variability of each parameter with machine and technique was evaluated using a two-way ANOVA test on a dataset consisting of 200 CBCT scans. The impact of imager calibration on image quality parameters was examined for a subset of three machines using an unpaired Student's t-test. The effect of artifacts appearing on CBCTs taken in rapid succession was characterized and an approach to reduce their appearance was evaluated. Additionally, a set of baselines and tolerances for all image quality metrics was presented. RESULTS: All imaging parameters except geometric distortion varied with technique (P < 0.05) and all imaging parameters except slice thickness varied with machine (P < 0.05). Imager calibration can change the expected value of all imaging parameters, though it does not consistently do so. While changes are statistically significant, they may not be clinically significant. Finally, rapid acquisition of CBCT scans can introduce image artifacts that degrade CBCT uniformity. CONCLUSIONS: This work characterized the variability of acquired CBCT data across machines and CBCT techniques along with the impact of imager calibration and rapid CBCT acquisition on image quality.

In vivo dosimetry with optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters for conformal and intensity-modulated radiation therapy: A 2-year multicenter cohort study.

PURPOSE: Optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters (OSLDs) are utilized for in vivo dosimetry (IVD) of modern radiation therapy techniques such as intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Dosimetric precision achieved with conventional techniques may not be attainable. In this work, we measured accuracy and precision for a large sample of clinical OSLD-based IVD measurements. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Weekly IVD measurements were collected from 4 linear accelerators for 2 years and were expressed as percent differences from planned doses. After outlier analysis, 10,224 measurements were grouped in the following way: overall, modality (photons, electrons), treatment technique (3-dimensional [3D] conformal, field-in-field intensity modulation, inverse-planned IMRT, and VMAT), placement location (gantry angle, cardinality, and central axis positioning), and anatomical site (prostate, breast, head and neck, pelvis, lung, rectum and anus, brain, abdomen, esophagus, and bladder). Distributions were modeled via a Gaussian function. Fitting was performed with least squares, and goodness-of-fit was assessed with the coefficient of determination. Model means (µ) and standard deviations (σ) were calculated. Sample means and variances were compared for statistical significance by analysis of variance and the Levene tests (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Overall, µ ± σ was 0.3 ± 10.3%. Precision for electron measurements (6.9%) was significantly better than for photons (10.5%). Precision varied significantly among treatment techniques (P < .0001) with field-in-field lowest (σ = 7.2%) and IMRT and VMAT highest (σ = 11.9% and 13.4%, respectively). Treatment site models with goodness-of-fit greater than 0.90 (6 of 10) yielded accuracy within ±3%, except for head and neck (µ = -3.7%). Precision varied with treatment site (range, 7.3%-13.0%), with breast and head and neck yielding the best and worst precision, respectively. Placement on the central axis of cardinal gantry angles yielded more precise results (σ = 8.5%) compared with other locations (range, 10.5%-11.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Accuracy of ±3% was achievable. Precision ranged from 6.9% to 13.4% depending on modality, technique, and treatment site. Simple, standardized locations may improve IVD precision. These findings may aid development of patient-specific tolerances for OSLD-based IVD.