Measuring dose in lung identifies peripheral tumour dose inaccuracy in SBRT audit.

PURPOSE: Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) for lung tumours has become a mainstay of clinical practice worldwide. Measurements in anthropomorphic phantoms enable verification of patient dose in clinically realistic scenarios. Correction factors for reporting dose to the tissue equivalent materials in a lung phantom are presented in the context of a national dosimetry audit for SBRT. Analysis of dosimetry audit results is performed showing inaccuracies of common dose calculation algorithms in soft tissue lung target, inhale lung material and at tissue interfaces. METHODS: Monte Carlo based simulation of correction factors for detectors in non-water tissue was performed for the soft tissue lung target and inhale lung materials of a modified CIRS SBRT thorax phantom. The corrections were determined for Gafchromic EBT3 Film and PTW 60019 microDiamond detectors used for measurements of 168 SBRT lung plans in an end-to-end dosimetry audit. Corrections were derived for dose to medium (Dm,m) and dose to water (Dw,w) scenarios. RESULTS: Correction factors were up to -3.4% and 9.2% for in field and out of field lung respectively. Overall, application of the correction factors improved the measurement-to-plan dose discrepancy. For the soft tissue lung target, agreement between planned and measured dose was within average of 3% for both film and microDiamond measurements. CONCLUSIONS: The correction factors developed for this work are provided for clinical users to apply to commissioning measurements using a commercially available thorax phantom where inhomogeneity is present. The end-to-end dosimetry audit demonstrates dose calculation algorithms can underestimate dose at lung tumour/lung tissue interfaces by an average of 2-5%.

Prioritizing clinical trial quality assurance for photons and protons: A failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) comparison.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Global Clinical Trials RTQA Harmonization Group (GHG) set out to evaluate and prioritize clinical trial quality assurance. METHODS: The GHG compiled a list of radiotherapy quality assurance (QA) tests performed for proton and photon therapy clinical trials. These tests were compared between modalities to assess whether there was a need for different types of assessments per modality. A failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) was performed to assess the risk of each QA failure. RESULTS: The risk analysis showed that proton and photon therapy shared four out of five of their highest-risk failures (end-to-end anthropomorphic phantom test, phantom tests using respiratory motion, pre-treatment patient plan review of contouring/outlining, and on-treatment/post-treatment patient plan review of dosimetric coverage). While similar trends were observed, proton therapy had higher risk failures, driven by higher severity scores. A sub-analysis of occurrence × severity scores identified high-risk scores to prioritize for improvements in RTQA detectability. A novel severity scaler was introduced to account for the number of patients affected by each failure. This scaler did not substantially alter the ranking of tests, but it elevated the QA program evaluation to the top 20th percentile. This is the first FMEA performed for clinical trial quality assurance. CONCLUSION: The identification of high-risk errors associated with clinical trials is valuable to prioritize and reduce errors in radiotherapy and improve the quality of trial data and outcomes, and can be applied to optimize clinical radiotherapy QA.

SEAFARER - A new concept for validating radiotherapy patient specific QA for clinical trials and clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: The quality of radiotherapy delivery has been shown to significantly impact clinical outcomes including patient survival. To identify errors, institutions perform Patient Specific Quality Assurance (PSQA) assessing each individual radiotherapy plan prior to starting patient treatments. Externally administered Dosimetry Audits have found problems despite institutions passing their own PSQA. Hence a new audit concept which assesses the institution's ability to detect errors with their routine PSQA is needed. METHODS: Purposefully introduced edits which simulated treatment delivery errors were embedded into radiation treatment plans of participating institutions. These were designed to produce clinically significant changes yet were mostly within treatment delivery specifications. Actual impact was centrally assessed for each plan. Institutions performed PSQA on each plan, without knowing which contained errors. RESULTS: Seventeen institutions using six radiation treatment planning systems and two delivery systems performed PSQA on twelve plans each. Seventeen erroneous plans (across seven institutions) passed PSQA despite causing >5% increase in spinal cord dose relative to the original plans. Six plans (from four institutions) passed despite a >10% increase. CONCLUSIONS: This novel audit concept evolves beyond testing an institution's ability to deliver a single test case, to increasing the number of errors caught by institutions themselves, thus increasing quality of radiation therapy and impacting every patient treated. Administered remotely this audit also provides advantages in cost, environmental impact, and logistics.

Characterisation of a synthetic diamond detector for end-to-end dosimetry in stereotactic body radiotherapy and radiosurgery.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Synthetic diamond detectors offer real time measurement of dose in radiotherapy applications which require high spatial resolution. Additional considerations and corrections are required for measurements where the diamond detector is orientated at various angles to the incident beam. This study investigated diamond detectors for end-to-end testing of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) and Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS) in the context of dosimetry audits. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seven individual diamond detectors were investigated and compared with respect to warm up stability, dose-rate dependence, linearity, detector shadowing, energy response, cross-calibration, angular dependence and positional sensitivity in SBRT and SRS. RESULTS: Large variation in the cross calibration factors was found between the seven individual detectors. For each detector, the energy dependence in the cross calibration factor was on average <0.6% across the beam qualities investigated (Co-60 Gamma Knife, and MV beams with TPR20,10 0.684-0.733). The angular corrections for individual fields were up to 5%, and varied with field size. However, the average angular dependence for all fields in a typical SRS treatment delivery was <1%. The overall measurement uncertainty was 3.6% and 3.1% (2σ) for an SRS and SBRT treatment plan respectively. CONCLUSION: Synthetic diamond detectors were found to be reliable and robust for end-to-end dosimetry in SBRT and SRS applications. Orientation of the detector relative to the beam axis is an important consideration, as significant corrections are required for angular dependence.

Calculation algorithms and penumbra: Underestimation of dose in organs at risk in dosimetry audits.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to investigate overdose to organs at risk (OARs) observed in dosimetry audits in Monte Carlo (MC) algorithms and Linear Boltzmann Transport Equation (LBTE) algorithms. The impact of penumbra modeling on OAR dose was assessed with the adjustment of MC modeling parameters and the clinical relevance of the audit cases was explored with a planning study of spine and head and neck (H&N) patient cases. METHODS: Dosimetric audits performed by the Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service (ACDS) of 43 anthropomorphic spine plans and 1318 C-shaped target plans compared the planned dose to doses measured with ion chamber, microdiamond, film, and ion chamber array. An MC EGSnrc model was created to simulate the C-shape target case. The electron cut-off energy Ecut(kinetic) was set at 500, 200, and 10 keV, and differences between 1 and 3 mm voxel were calculated. A planning study with 10 patient stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) spine plans and 10 patient H&N plans was calculated in both Acuros XB (AXB) v15.6.06 and Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) v15.6.06. The patient contour was overridden to water as only the penumbral differences between the two different algorithms were under investigation. RESULTS: The dosimetry audit results show that for the SBRT spine case, plans calculated in AXB are colder than what is measured in the spinal cord by 5%-10%. This was also observed for other audit cases where a C-shape target is wrapped around an OAR where the plans were colder by 3%-10%. Plans calculated with Monaco MC were colder than measurements by approximately 7% with the OAR surround by a C-shape target, but these differences were not noted in the SBRT spine case. Results from the clinical patient plans showed that the AXB was on average 7.4% colder than AAA when comparing the minimum dose in the spinal cord OAR. This average difference between AXB and AAA reduced to 4.5% when using the more clinically relevant metric of maximum dose in the spinal cord. For the H&N plans, AXB was cooler on average than AAA in the spinal cord OAR (1.1%), left parotid (1.7%), and right parotid (2.3%). The EGSnrc investigation also noted similar, but smaller differences. The beam penumbra modeled by Ecut(kinetic)  = 500 keV was steeper than the beam penumbra modeled by Ecut(kinetic)  = 10 keV as the full scatter is not accounted for, which resulted in less dose being calculated in a central OAR region where the penumbra contributes much of the dose. The dose difference when using 2.5 mm voxels of the center of the OAR between 500 and 10 keV was 3%, reducing to 1% between 200 and 10 keV. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of full penumbral modeling due to approximations in the algorithms in MC based or LBTE algorithms are a contributing factor as to why these algorithms under-predict the dose to OAR when the treatment volume is wrapped around the OAR. The penumbra modeling approximations also contribute to AXB plans predicting colder doses than AAA in areas that are in the vicinity of beam penumbra. This effect is magnified in regions where there are many beam penumbras, for example in the spinal cord for spine SBRT cases.

Measuring the dose in bone for spine stereotactic body radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: Current quality assurance of radiotherapy involving bony regions generally utilises homogeneous phantoms and dose calculations, ignoring the challenges of heterogeneities with dosimetry problems likely occurring around bone. Anthropomorphic phantoms with synthetic bony materials enable realistic end-to-end testing in clinical scenarios. This work reports on measurements and calculated corrections required to directly report dose in bony materials in the context of comprehensive end-to-end dosimetry audit measurements (63 plans, 6 planning systems). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiochromic film and microDiamond measurements were performed in an anthropomorphic spine phantom containing bone equivalent materials. Medium dependent correction factors, kmed, were established using 6 MV and 10 MV Linear Accelerator Monte Carlo simulations to account for the detectors being calibrated in water, but measuring in regions of bony material. Both cortical and trabecular bony material were investigated for verification of dose calculations in dose-to-medium (Dm,m) and dose-to-water (Dw,w) scenarios. RESULTS: For Dm,m calculations, modelled correction factors for cortical and trabecular bone in film measurements, and for trabecular bone in microDiamond measurements were 0.875(±0.1%), 0.953(±0.3%) and 0.962(±0.4%), respectively. For Dw,w calculations, the corrections were 0.920(±0.1%), 0.982(±0.3%) and 0.993(±0.4%), respectively. In the audit, application of the correction factors improves the mean agreement between treatment plans and measured microDiamond dose from -2.4%(±3.9%) to 0.4%(±3.7%). CONCLUSION: Monte Carlo simulations provide a method for correcting the dose measured in bony materials allowing more accurate comparison with treatment planning system doses. In verification measurements, algorithm specific correction factors should be applied to account for variations in bony material for calculations based on Dm,m and Dw,w.

A comparison of IROC and ACDS on-site audits of reference and non-reference dosimetry.

PURPOSE: Consistency between different international quality assurance groups is important in the progress toward similar standards and expectations in radiotherapy dosimetry around the world, and in the context of consistent clinical trial data from international trial participants. This study compares the dosimetry audit methodology and results of two international quality assurance groups performing a side-by-side comparison at the same radiotherapy department, and interrogates the ability of the audits to detect deliberately introduced errors. METHODS: A comparison of the core dosimetry components of reference and non-reference audits was conducted by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC, Houston, USA) and the Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service (ACDS, Melbourne, Australia). A set of measurements were conducted over 2 days at an Australian radiation therapy facility in Melbourne. Each group evaluated the reference dosimetry, output factors, small field output factors, percentage depth dose (PDD), wedge, and off-axis factors according to their standard protocols. IROC additionally investigated the Electron PDD and the ACDS investigated the effect of heterogeneities. In order to evaluate and compare the performance of these audits under suboptimal conditions, artificial errors in percentage depth dose (PDD), EDW, and small field output factors were introduced into the 6 MV beam model to simulate potential commissioning/modeling errors and both audits were tested for their sensitivity in detecting these errors. RESULTS: With the plans from the clinical beam model, almost all results were within tolerance and at an optimal pass level. Good consistency was found between the two audits as almost all findings were consistent between them. Only two results were different between the results of IROC and the ACDS. The measurements of reference FFF photons showed a discrepancy of 0.7% between ACDS and IROC due to the inclusion of a 0.5% nonuniformity correction by the ACDS. The second difference between IROC and the ACDS was seen with the lung phantom. The asymmetric field behind lung measured by the ACDS was slightly (0.3%) above the ACDS's pass (optimal) level of 3.3%. IROC did not detect this issue because their measurements were all assessed in a homogeneous phantom. When errors were deliberately introduced neither audit was sensitive enough to pick up a 2% change to the small field output factors. The introduced PDD change was flagged by both audits. Similarly, the introduced error of using 25° wedge instead of 30° wedge was detectible in both audits as out of tolerance. CONCLUSIONS: Despite different equipment, approach, and scope of measurements in on-site audits, there were clear similarities between the results from the two groups. This finding is encouraging in the context of a global harmonized approach to radiotherapy quality assurance and dosimetry audit.

Dosimetric end-to-end tests in a national audit of 3D conformal radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Independent dosimetry audits improve quality and safety of radiation therapy. This work reports on design and findings of a comprehensive 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) Level III audit. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The audit was conducted as onsite audit using an anthropomorphic thorax phantom in an end-to-end test by the Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service (ACDS). Absolute dose point measurements were performed with Farmer-type ionization chambers. The audited treatment plans included open and half blocked fields, wedges and lung inhomogeneities. Audit results were determined as Pass Optimal Level (deviations within 3.3%), Pass Action Level (greater than 3.3% but within 5%) and Out of Tolerance (beyond 5%), as well as Reported Not Scored (RNS). The audit has been performed between July 2012 and January 2018 on 94 occasions, covering approximately 90% of all Australian facilities. RESULTS: The audit pass rate was 87% (53% optimal). Fifty recommendations were given, mainly related to planning system commissioning. Dose overestimation behind low density inhomogeneities by the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) was identified across facilities and found to extend to beam setups which resemble a typical breast cancer treatment beam placement. RNS measurements inside lung showed a variation in the opposite direction: AAA under-dosed a target beyond lung and over-dosed the lung upstream and downstream of the target. Results also highlighted shortcomings of some superposition and convolution algorithms in modelling large angle wedges. CONCLUSIONS: This audit showed that 3D-CRT dosimetry audits remain relevant and can identify fundamental global and local problems that also affect advanced treatments.

A randomised comparison of three different immobilisation devices for thoracic and abdominal cancers.

INTRODUCTION: Patient immobilisation is critically important for both highly conformal conventionally fractionated radiotherapy and for stereotactic body radiotherapy. Different immobilisation devices are available to maintain patient position for radiotherapy but the most suitable one remains unknown. METHODS: Forty-five patients were randomly allocated to one of three immobilisation devices; the Q fix arm shuttle, BodyFIX without wrap or BodyFIX with wrap. Patients were imaged before and after treatment to ascertain intra-fraction and inter-fraction motion. Bony anatomy was used for matching to determine the positional accuracy of each device. Treatments were timed using a standard method. Patient comfort and staff satisfaction questionnaires were also issued to determine comfort, ease of use and preferences for each device. RESULTS: The BodyFIX without wrap was the more accurate device; however, the differences between the devices were not statistically significant. The BodyFIX with wrap was found to take significantly longer to set up and set down compared to the arm shuttle and the BodyFIX without wrap (all P < 0.001). Patients (37%) marginally preferred the BodyFIX with wrap. Most (81%) staff preferred the BodyFIX without wrap. CONCLUSION: Immobilisation using the BodyFIX without wrap was deemed to be suitable for clinical use. It was a clinically accurate device, the more efficient in terms of set up and set down time, the most preferred by staff and was accepted by patients.