Development of a modified head and neck quality assurance phantom for use in stereotactic radiosurgery trials.

An anthropomorphic head phantom, constructed from a water-equivalent plastic shell with only a spherical target, was modified to include a nonspherical target (pituitary) and an adjacent organ at risk (OAR) (optic chiasm), within 2 mm, simulating the anatomy encountered when treating acromegaly. The target and OAR spatial proximity provided a more realistic treatment planning and dose delivery exercise. A separate dosimetry insert contained two TLD for absolute dosimetry and radiochromic film, in the sagittal and coronal planes, for relative dosimetry. The prescription was 25 Gy to 90% of the GTV, with ≤ 10% of the OAR volume receiving ≥ 8 Gy for the phantom trial. The modified phantom was used to test the rigor of the treatment planning process and phantom reproducibility using a Gamma Knife, CyberKnife, and linear accelerator (linac)-based radiosurgery system. Delivery reproducibility was tested by repeating each irradiation three times. TLD results from three irradiations on a CyberKnife and Gamma Knife agreed with the calculated target dose to within ± 4% with a maximum coefficient of variation of ± 2.1%. Gamma analysis in the coronal and sagittal film planes showed an average passing rate of 99.4% and 99.5% using ± 5%/3 mm criteria, respectively. Results from the linac irradiation were within ± 6.2% for TLD with a coefficient of variation of ± 0.1%. Distance to agreement was calculated to be 1.2 mm and 1.3mm along the inferior and superior edges of the target in the sagittal film plane, and 1.2 mm for both superior and inferior edges in the coronal film plane. A modified, anatomically realistic SRS phantom was developed that provided a realistic clinical planning and delivery challenge that can be used to credential institutions wanting to participate in NCI-funded clinical trials.

Technical note: Heterogeneity dose calculation accuracy in IMRT: study of five commercial treatment planning systems using an anthropomorphic thorax phantom.

The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of five commonly used intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment planning systems (TPSs), 3 using convolution superposition algorithms or the analytical anisotropic algorithm (CSA/AAAs) and 2 using pencil beam algorithms (PBAs), in calculating the absorbed dose within a low-density, heterogeneous region when compared with measurements made in an anthropomorphic thorax phantom. The dose predicted in the target center met the test criteria (5% of the dose normalization point or 3 mm distance to agreement) for all TPSs tested; however, at the tumor-lung interface and at the peripheral lung in the vicinity of the tumor, the CSA/AAAs performed better than the PBAs (85% and 50%, respectively, of pixels meeting the 5%/3-mm test criteria), and thus should be used to determine dose in heterogeneous regions.

Accuracy of two heterogeneity dose calculation algorithms for IMRT in treatment plans designed using an anthropomorphic thorax phantom.

With the advent of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), the inclusion of heterogeneity corrections is further complicated by the conformal delivery of many small beams forming steep dose gradients. Radiation treatment planning has evolved to take into account even small changes in tissue density so that the dose to tumor can be further optimized. However, different treatment planning systems incorporate different heterogeneity correction algorithms, and it is unclear whether any of these algorithms are superior to others in terms of accurately predicting delivered radiation doses relative to measurement in a clinical setting. The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of heterogeneity dose calculations from two widely used IMRT treatment planning systems (Pinnacle and Corvus) against measurement. These two systems handle heterogeneity dose corrections by means of a collapsed-cone convolution superposition algorithm and a finite-size pencil-beam algorithm with one-dimensional depth scaling correction, respectively. Treatment plans were generated by each system using an anthropomorphic thorax phantom, routine clinical lung tumor constraints, and a common prescribed dose. Dose measurements made by thermoluminescent detectors (TLDs) and radiochromic film positioned within the phantom's lung and offset tumor insert were then compared with the calculated values. The collapsed cone convolution superposition dose calculation algorithm provided clinically acceptable results (+/-5% of the normalization dose or 3 mm distance to agreement) in the designed treatment plan and delivery. The pencil-beam algorithm with an effective pathlength correction showed reasonable agreement within the gross tumor volume, overestimated dose within a majority of the planning target volume, and underestimated the extent of the penumbral broadening, yielding only about 60% accuracy when judged by the above criterion. Even judged by a more generous criterion (+/-7% /7 mm), the results were clinically unfavorable (at only about 80% accuracy). To ascertain the dose in heterogeneous regions such as the tumor-lung interface and the peripheral lung dose near the tumor, the superposition convolution algorithm that accounts for lateral scatter and electron transport should be used. The use of the pencil-beam algorithm with only an effective pathlength correction may result in the dose to the target being overestimated. As a result, a full understanding of any treatment planning system's heterogeneity algorithm is required prior to clinical implementation.

Development of a flattening filter free multiple source model for use as an independent, Monte Carlo, dose calculation, quality assurance tool for clinical trials.

PURPOSE: The Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Houston (IROC-H) Quality Assurance Center (formerly the Radiological Physics Center) has reported varying levels of compliance from their anthropomorphic phantom auditing program. IROC-H studies have suggested that one source of disagreement between institution submitted calculated doses and measurement is the accuracy of the institution's treatment planning system dose calculations and heterogeneity corrections used. In order to audit this step of the radiation therapy treatment process, an independent dose calculation tool is needed. METHODS: Monte Carlo multiple source models for Varian flattening filter free (FFF) 6 MV and FFF 10 MV therapeutic x-ray beams were commissioned based on central axis depth dose data from a 10 × 10 cm2 field size and dose profiles for a 40 × 40 cm2 field size. The models were validated against open-field measurements in a water tank for field sizes ranging from 3 × 3 cm2 to 40 × 40 cm2 . The models were then benchmarked against IROC-H's anthropomorphic head and neck phantom and lung phantom measurements. RESULTS: Validation results, assessed with a ±2%/2 mm gamma criterion, showed average agreement of 99.9% and 99.0% for central axis depth dose data for FFF 6 MV and FFF 10 MV models, respectively. Dose profile agreement using the same evaluation technique averaged 97.8% and 97.9% for the respective models. Phantom benchmarking comparisons were evaluated with a ±3%/2 mm gamma criterion, and agreement averaged 90.1% and 90.8% for the respective models. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple source models for Varian FFF 6 MV and FFF 10 MV beams have been developed, validated, and benchmarked for inclusion in an independent dose calculation quality assurance tool for use in clinical trial audits.

Development of a Monte Carlo multiple source model for inclusion in a dose calculation auditing tool.

PURPOSE: The Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Houston (IROC-H) (formerly the Radiological Physics Center) has reported varying levels of agreement in their anthropomorphic phantom audits. There is reason to believe one source of error in this observed disagreement is the accuracy of the dose calculation algorithms and heterogeneity corrections used. To audit this component of the radiotherapy treatment process, an independent dose calculation tool is needed. METHODS: Monte Carlo multiple source models for Elekta 6 MV and 10 MV therapeutic x-ray beams were commissioned based on measurement of central axis depth dose data for a 10 × 10 cm2 field size and dose profiles for a 40 × 40 cm2 field size. The models were validated against open field measurements consisting of depth dose data and dose profiles for field sizes ranging from 3 × 3 cm2 to 30 × 30 cm2 . The models were then benchmarked against measurements in IROC-H's anthropomorphic head and neck and lung phantoms. RESULTS: Validation results showed 97.9% and 96.8% of depth dose data passed a ±2% Van Dyk criterion for 6 MV and 10 MV models respectively. Dose profile comparisons showed an average agreement using a ±2%/2 mm criterion of 98.0% and 99.0% for 6 MV and 10 MV models respectively. Phantom plan comparisons were evaluated using ±3%/2 mm gamma criterion, and averaged passing rates between Monte Carlo and measurements were 87.4% and 89.9% for 6 MV and 10 MV models respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Accurate multiple source models for Elekta 6 MV and 10 MV x-ray beams have been developed for inclusion in an independent dose calculation tool for use in clinical trial audits.

Modification and validation of an analytical source model for external beam radiotherapy Monte Carlo dose calculations.

PURPOSE: A dose calculation tool, which combines the accuracy of the dose planning method (DPM) Monte Carlo code and the versatility of a practical analytical multisource model, which was previously reported has been improved and validated for the Varian 6 and 10 MV linear accelerators (linacs). The calculation tool can be used to calculate doses in advanced clinical application studies. One shortcoming of current clinical trials that report dose from patient plans is the lack of a standardized dose calculation methodology. Because commercial treatment planning systems (TPSs) have their own dose calculation algorithms and the clinical trial participant who uses these systems is responsible for commissioning the beam model, variation exists in the reported calculated dose distributions. Today's modern linac is manufactured to tight specifications so that variability within a linac model is quite low. The expectation is that a single dose calculation tool for a specific linac model can be used to accurately recalculate dose from patient plans that have been submitted to the clinical trial community from any institution. The calculation tool would provide for a more meaningful outcome analysis. METHODS: The analytical source model was described by a primary point source, a secondary extra-focal source, and a contaminant electron source. Off-axis energy softening and fluence effects were also included. The additions of hyperbolic functions have been incorporated into the model to correct for the changes in output and in electron contamination with field size. A multileaf collimator (MLC) model is included to facilitate phantom and patient dose calculations. An offset to the MLC leaf positions was used to correct for the rudimentary assumed primary point source. RESULTS: Dose calculations of the depth dose and profiles for field sizes 4 × 4 to 40 × 40 cm agree with measurement within 2% of the maximum dose or 2 mm distance to agreement (DTA) for 95% of the data points tested. The model was capable of predicting the depth of the maximum dose within 1 mm. Anthropomorphic phantom benchmark testing of modulated and patterned MLCs treatment plans showed agreement to measurement within 3% in target regions using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD). Using radiochromic film normalized to TLD, a gamma criteria of 3% of maximum dose and 2 mm DTA was applied with a pass rate of least 85% in the high dose, high gradient, and low dose regions. Finally, recalculations of patient plans using DPM showed good agreement relative to a commercial TPS when comparing dose volume histograms and 2D dose distributions. CONCLUSIONS: A unique analytical source model coupled to the dose planning method Monte Carlo dose calculation code has been modified and validated using basic beam data and anthropomorphic phantom measurement. While this tool can be applied in general use for a particular linac model, specifically it was developed to provide a singular methodology to independently assess treatment plan dose distributions from those clinical institutions participating in National Cancer Institute trials.