Monte Carlo evaluation of uncertainties in photon and electron TG-51 absorbed dose calibration.

PURPOSE: The accuracy of dose delivery to all patients treated with medical linacs depends on the accuracy of beam calibration. Dose delivery cannot be any more accurate than this. Given the importance of this, it seems worthwhile taking another look at the expected uncertainty in TG-51 photon dose calibration and a first look at electron calibration. This work builds on the 2014 addendum to TG-51 for photons and adds to it by also considering electrons. In that publication, estimates were made of the uncertainty in the dose calibration. In this paper, we take a deeper look at this important issue. METHODS: The methodology used here is more rigorous than previous determinations as it is based on Monte Carlo simulation of uncertainties. It is assumed that mechanical QA has been performed following TG-142 prior to beam calibration and that there are no uncertainties that exceed the tolerances specified by TG-142. RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: Despite the different methodology and assumptions, the estimated uncertainty in photon beam calibration is close to that in the addendum. The careful user should be able to easily reach a 95% confidence interval (CI) of ± 2.3% for photon beam calibration with standard instrumentation. For electron beams calibrated with a Farmer chamber, the estimated uncertainties are slightly larger, and the 95% CI is ±2.6% for 6 MeV and slightly smaller than this for 18 MeV. There is no clear energy dependence in these results. It is unlikely that the user will be able to improve on these uncertainties as the dominant factor in the uncertainty resides in the ion chamber dose calibration factor N D , w 60 Co $N_{D,w}^{{}^{60}{\mathrm{Co}}}$ . For both photons and electrons, reduction in the ion chamber depth uncertainty below about 0.5 mm and SSD uncertainty below 1 mm have almost no effect on the total dose uncertainty, as uncertainties beyond the user's control totally dominate under these circumstances.

Internal lead shielding for clinical electron treatments.

Electron beams are often used to treat superficial lesions of the lip, cheek, nose, and ear. Lead is frequently used to block distal structures. It is customary to place an internal bolus of low atomic number in between the tissue and the lead to reduce electron backscatter from the lead. Space for the lead and the internal bolus is quite limited. A previous method for estimating the thickness of the lead plus internal bolus is not self-consistent and leads to a larger than necessary thickness. A new method is described here to provide a quick, accurate, and self-consistent estimate of the minimum necessary thickness of the internal bolus and the lead for incident electron beam energies of 4, 6, 8, 9, and 10 MeV as a function of the thickness of the overlying tissue. This method limits the dose enhancement at the tissue/bolus interface due to the underlying lead to 10%. Measurements made with gafchromic film validate this methodology.

Linac primary barrier transmission: Flattening filter free and field size dependence.

There is widespread consensus in the literature that flattening filter free (FFF) beams have a lower primary barrier transmission than flattened beams. Measurements presented here, however, show that for energy compensated FFF beams, the barrier transmission can be as much as 70% higher than for flattened beams. The ratio of the FFF barrier transmission to the flattened beam barrier transmission increases with increasing barrier thickness. The use of published FFF TVL data for energy compensated FFF beams could lead to an order of magnitude underestimate of the air kerma rate. There are little data in the literature on the field size dependence of the barrier transmission for flattened beams. Barrier transmission depends on the field size at the barrier, not at isocenter Measurements are presented showing the relative dependence of barrier transmission on the field size, measured at the barrier, for 6 MV and 10 MV beams. An analytical fitting formula is provided for the field size dependence. For field sizes greater than about 150 cm in side length, the field size dependence is minimal. For field sizes less than about 100 cm, the transmission declines rapidly as the field size decreases.

Surface dose and acute skin reactions in external beam breast radiotherapy.

The biologically relevant depth for acute skin reactions in radiotherapy is 70 µm. The dose at this depth is difficult to measure or calculate and can be quite different than the dose at a depth of as little as 1 mm. For breast radiotherapy with medial and lateral tangential beams, the skin dose depends on both the contribution from the entrance beam and the exit beam. The skin dose has been estimated in a breast model hemi-ellipse accounting for field size, beam energy, obliquity, lack of backscatter, fractionation, size and shape of the hemi-ellipse. The dose has been held constant along the axis of symmetry of the hemi-ellipse by introducing modulation as in clinical IMRT practice. Dose distributions have been computed as a function of the polar angle from the center of the hemi-ellipse. The exit dose always dominates the entrance dose for all realistic parameters. As a result, the surface dose is higher for 18 MV than 6 MV over the entire surface for all reasonable sizes and shapes of the hemi-ellipse. The results of these calculations suggest that substituting an 18 MV beam for a 6 MV beam to achieve greater skin sparing may have just the opposite effect. The ratio of the surface dose to the mid-depth dose ranges from about 35% at polar angle 0o to up to 70% at polar angle 80o. The dose rises sharply at angles above 30o. The surface dose rises moderately at all angles as the size of the hemi-ellipse increases. The effect of shape is somewhat complex: as the breast becomes flatter, doses at intermediate angles increase, but doses at small and large angles decrease. The biologically effective dose for erythema and moist desquamation is about 2 to 3 Gy higher at all polar angles for conventional fractionation (2.00 Gy × 25 fractions) than for hypofractionation (2.66 Gy × 16).

Radiation shielding for gamma stereotactic radiosurgery units.

Shielding calculations for gamma stereotactic radiosurgery units are complicated by the fact that the radiation is highly anisotropic. Shielding design for these devices is unique. Although manufacturers will answer questions about the data that they provide for shielding evaluation, they will not perform calculations for customers. More than 237 such units are now installed in centers worldwide. Centers installing a gamma radiosurgery unit find themselves in the position of having to either invent or reinvent a method for performing shielding design. This paper introduces a rigorous and conservative method for barrier design for gamma stereotactic radiosurgery treatment rooms. This method should be useful to centers planning either to install a new unit or to replace an existing unit. The method described here is consistent with the principles outlined in Report No. 151 from the U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. In as little as 1 hour, a simple electronic spreadsheet can be set up, which will provide radiation levels on planes parallel to the barriers and 0.3 m outside the barriers.

Effect of MLC leaf width on the planning and delivery of SMLC IMRT using the CORVUS inverse treatment planning system.

This study investigates the influence of multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf width on intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans delivered via the segmented multileaf collimator (SMLC) technique. IMRT plans were calculated using the Corvus treatment planning system for three brain, three prostate, and three pancreas cases using leaf widths of 0.5 and 1 cm. Resulting differences in plan quality and complexity are presented here. Plans calculated using a 1 cm leaf width were chosen over the 0.5 cm leaf width plans in seven out of nine cases based on clinical judgment. Conversely, optimization results revealed a superior objective function result for the 0.5 cm leaf width plans in seven out of the nine comparisons. The 1 cm leaf width objective function result was superior only for very large target volumes, indicating that expanding the solution space for plan optimization by using narrower leaves may result in a decreased probability of finding the global minimum. In the remaining cases, we can conclude that we are often not utilizing the objective function as proficiently as possible to meet our clinical goals. There was often no apparent clinically significant difference between the two plans, and in such cases the issue becomes one of plan complexity. A comparison of plan complexity revealed that the average 1 cm leaf width plan required roughly 60% fewer segments and over 40% fewer monitor units than required by 0.5 cm leaf width plans. This allows a significant decrease in whole body dose and total treatment time. For very complex IMRT plans, the treatment delivery time may affect the biologically effective dose. A clinically significant improvement in plan quality from using narrower leaves was evident only in cases with very small target volumes or those with concavities that are small with respect to the MLC leaf width. For the remaining cases investigated in this study, there was no clinical advantage to reducing the MLC leaf width from 1 to 0.5 cm. In such cases, there is no justification for the increased treatment time and whole body dose associated with the narrower MLC leaf width.

Dose calculation accuracy of lung planning with a commercial IMRT treatment planning system.

The dose calculation accuracy of a commercial pencil beam IMRT planning system is evaluated by comparison with Monte Carlo calculations and measurements in an anthropomorphic phantom. The target volume is in the right lung and mediastinum and thus significant tissue inhomogeneities are present. The Monte Carlo code is an adaptation of the MCNP code and the measurements were made with TLD and film. Both the Monte Carlo code and the measurements show very good agreement with the treatment planning system except in regions where the dose is high and the electron density is low. In these regions the commercial system shows doses up to 10% higher than Monte Carlo and film. The average calculated dose for the CTV is 5% higher with the commercial system as compared to Monte Carlo.