The Use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Radiation Therapy Treatment Simulation and Planning.

Ever since its introduction as a diagnostic imaging tool the potential of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in radiation therapy (RT) treatment simulation and planning has been recognized. Recent technical advances have addressed many of the impediments to use of this technology and as a result have resulted in rapid and growing adoption of MRI in RT. The purpose of this article is to provide a broad review of the multiple uses of MR in the RT treatment simulation and planning process, identify several of the most used clinical scenarios in which MR is integral to the simulation and planning process, highlight existing limitations and provide multiple unmet needs thereby highlighting opportunities for the diagnostic MR imaging community to contribute and collaborate with our oncology colleagues. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 5 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 5.

Out of field scatter from electron applicator in modern linear accelerators.

BACKGROUND: Electron out-of-field scatter is generally not given importance mainly in electron fields. However, this is important when applicator down and boost treatments are given usually at an angle from the central axis. The electron scatter dose is found to be far away from the central axis which could be easily ignored. PURPOSE: This study aims to investigate the out-of-field radiation doses from electron applicators and their effects on clinical treatment. By identifying the parameters that contribute to out-of-field doses and to explore potential strategies for reducing these doses in order to improve patient outcomes from modern machines. METHODS: Measurements were performed in water phantom using electron diode for modern Elekta and Varian machines. Dose profiles were acquired at surface and dmax with 0° and 90° collimation angle. Various gantry angles were also studied for some data with IC Profiler. The profiles were normalized with respect to the central axis dose. RESULTS: The scatter dose peaks were found at a distance between 11 and 28 cm from the central axis on all machines. However, the peak shifts to 15 cm at 90° collimator when beam is tilted. The position and intensity of the dose varies with depth, collimator, and gantry angles for both Elekta and Varian machines. Due to clearance issues more gantry angles were studied for Elekta applicator compared to Varian. In general, Varian TrueBeam has a lower scatter that Elekta Infinity. The 90° collimator angle has a higher scatter compared to zero degree for both machines. CONCLUSIONS: There are clinically significant peripheral doses around 3% of the central axis dose from the electron applicator. Elekta has a slightly higher scatter (3%) than Varian (2%) that peaks at 25 cm which is clinically important but often overlooked.

Characteristics of a plastic scintillation detector in photon beam dosimetry.

BACKGROUND: Plastic scintillating detectors (PSD) have gained popularity due to small size and are ideally suited in small-field dosimetry due to no correction needed and hence detector reading can be compared to dose. Likewise, these detectors are active and water equivalent. A new PSD from Blue Physics is characterized in photon beam. PURPOSE: Innovation in small-field dosimetry detector has led us to examine Blue Physics PSD (BP-PSD) for use in photon beams from linear accelerator. METHODS: BP-PSD was acquired and its characteristics were evaluated in photon beams from a Varian TrueBeam. Data were collected in a 3D water tank. Standard parameters; dose, dose rate, energy, angular dependence and temperature dependence were studied. Depth dose, profiles and output in a reference condition as well as small fields were measured. RESULTS: BP-PSD is versatile and provides data very similar to an ion chamber when Cerenkov radiation is properly accounted. This device measures data pulse by pulse which very few detectors can perform. The differences between ion chamber data and PSD are < 2% in most cases. The angular dependence is a bit pronounces to 1.5% which is due to PSD housing. Depth dose and profiles are comparable within < 1% to an ion chamber. For small fields this detector provides suitable field output factor compared to other detectors and Monte Carlo (MC) simulated data without any added correction factor. CONCLUSIONS: The characteristics of Blue Physics PSD is uniquely suitable in photon beam and more so in small fields. The data are reproducible compared to ion chamber for most parameters and ideally suitable for small-field dosimetry without any correction factor.

Transferability of patients for radiation treatment between unmatched machines.

PURPOSE: The feasibility of transferring patients between unmatched machines for a limited number of treatment fractions was investigated for three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatments. METHODS: Eighty patient-plans were evaluated on two unmatched linacs: Elekta Versa HD and Elekta Infinity. Plans were equally divided into pelvis 3DCRT, prostate VMAT, brain VMAT, and lung VMAT plans. While maintaining the number of monitor units (MUs), plans were recalculated on the machine not originally used for treatment. Relative differences in dose were calculated between machines for the target volume and organs at risk (OARs). Differences in mean dose were assessed with paired t-tests (p < 0.05). The number of interchangeable fractions allowable before surpassing a cumulative ±5% difference in dose was determined. Additionally, patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) measurements using ArcCHECK for both machines were compared with distributions calculated on the machine originally used for treatment using gradient compensation (GC) with 2%/2-mm criteria. RESULTS: Interchanging the two machines for pelvic 3DCRT and VMAT (prostate, brain, and lung) plans resulted in an average change in target mean dose of 0.9%, -0.5%, 0.6%, 0.5%, respectively. Based on the differences in dose to the prescription point when changing machines, statistically, nearly one-fourth of the prescribed fractions could be transferred between linacs for 3DCRT plans. While all of the prescribed fractions could typically be transferred among prostate VMAT plans, a rather large number of treatment fractions, 31% and 38%, could be transferred among brain and lung VMAT plans, respectively, without exceeding a ±5% change in the prescribed dose for two Elekta machines. Additionally, the OAR dosage was not affected within the given criterion with change of machine. CONCLUSIONS: Despite small differences in calculated dose, transferring patients between two unmatched Elekta machines with similar multileaf collimator (MLC)-head for target coverage and minimum changes in OAR dose is possible for a limited number of fractions (≤3) to improve clinical flexibility and institutional throughput along with patient satisfaction. A similar study could be carried out for other machines for operational throughput.

Radiation effect on late cardiopulmonary toxicity: An analysis comparing supine DIBH versus prone techniques for breast treatment.

Two commonly used whole breast irradiation (WBI) techniques, deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) and prone positioning, are compared with regard to dosimetry and estimated late cardiac morbidity and secondary lung cancer mortality using published models. Forty patients with left-sided DCIS or breast cancer who underwent lumpectomy and required adjuvant WBI were enrolled on a prospective trial comparing supine DIBH (S-DIBH) with prone free breathing (P-FB) planning. Patients underwent CT simulation in both positions; two plans were generated for each patient. Comparative dosimetry was available for 34 patients. Mean cardiac and lung doses were calculated. Risk of death from ischemic heart disease (IHD), risk of at least one acute coronary event (ACE), and lung cancer mortality were estimated from published data. Difference between S-DIBH and P-FB plans was compared using paired two-tailed t test. Estimated mean risk of death from IHD by age 80 was 0.1% (range 0.0%-0.2%) for both plans (P = 1.0). Mean risk of at least one ACE was 0.3% (range 0.1%-0.6%) for both plans (P = .6). Mean lung cancer mortality risk was 1.4% (range 0.5%-15.4%) for S-DIBH and 1.0% (range 0.4%-9.8%) for P-FB (P = .008). Excess lung cancer mortality due to radiation was 0.5% (range 0.1%-6.0%) with S-DIBH and 0.0% (range 0.0%-0.4%) with P-FB (P = .008). Both S-DIBH and P-FB provide excellent cardiac sparing. Prone positioning results in lower lung dose than S-DIBH and leads to an absolute decrease of 0.5% in excess lung cancer mortality for patients receiving WBI.

An effective method to reduce the interplay effects between respiratory motion and a uniform scanning proton beam irradiation for liver tumors: A case study.

PURPOSE: For scanning particle beam therapy, interference between scanning patterns and interfield organ motion may result in suboptimal dose within target volume. In this study, we developed a simple offline correction technique for uniform scanning proton beam (USPB) delivery to compensate for the interplay between scanning patterns and respiratory motion and demonstrate the effectiveness of our technique in treating liver cancer. METHODS: The computed tomography (CT) and respiration data of two patients who had received stereotactic body radiotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma were used. In the simulation, the relative beam weight delivered to each respiratory phase is calculated for each beam layer after treatment of each fraction. Respiratory phases with beam weights higher than 50% of the largest weight are considered "skipped phases" for the next fraction. For the following fraction, the beam trigger is regulated to prevent beam layers from starting irradiation in skipped phases by extending the interval between each layer. To calculate dose-volume histogram (DVH), the dose of the target volume at end-exhale (50% phase) was calculated as the sum of each energy layer, with consideration of displacement due to respiratory motion and relative beam weight delivered per respiratory phase. RESULTS: For a single fraction, D1% , D99% , and V100% were 114%, 88%, and 32%, respectively, when 8 Gy/min of dose rate was simulated. Although these parameters were improved with multiple fractions, dosimetric inhomogeneity without motion management remained even at 30 fractions, with V100% 86.9% at 30 fractions. In contrast, the V100% values with adaptation were 96% and 98% at 20 and 30 fractions, respectively. We developed an offline correction technique for USPB therapy to compensate for the interplay effects between respiratory organ motion and USPB beam delivery. CONCLUSIONS: For liver tumor, this adaptive therapy technique showed significant improvement in dose uniformity even with fewer treatment fractions than normal USPB therapy.

Emerging role of MRI in radiation therapy.

Advances in multimodality imaging, providing accurate information of the irradiated target volume and the adjacent critical structures or organs at risk (OAR), has made significant improvements in delivery of the external beam radiation dose. Radiation therapy conventionally has used computed tomography (CT) imaging for treatment planning and dose delivery. However, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provides unique advantages: added contrast information that can improve segmentation of the areas of interest, motion information that can help to better target and deliver radiation therapy, and posttreatment outcome analysis to better understand the biologic effect of radiation. To take advantage of these and other potential advantages of MRI in radiation therapy, radiologists and MRI physicists will need to understand the current radiation therapy workflow and speak the same language as our radiation therapy colleagues. This review article highlights the emerging role of MRI in radiation dose planning and delivery, but more so for MR-only treatment planning and delivery. Some of the areas of interest and challenges in implementing MRI in radiation therapy workflow are also briefly discussed. Level of Evidence: 5 Technical Efficacy: Stage 5 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;48:1468-1478.

Evaluation of sparing organs at risk (OARs) in left-breast irradiation in the supine and prone positions and with deep inspiration breath-hold.

PURPOSE: To compare doses to organs at risk (OARs) for left-sided whole-breast radiation therapy with comparable planning target volume (PTV) coverage using three techniques: free breathing in a supine position (SFB), deep inspirational breath-hold in a supine position (SDIBH), and free breathing in prone position (PFB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-three patients with left-sided early-stage breast cancer underwent CT simulation following SFB, SDIBH, and PFB protocols for whole-breast radiation therapy. One radiation oncologist contoured the breast PTV, heart, left ventricle (LV), and left anterior descending artery (LAD). Treatment plans were optimized using field-in-field technique with the AAA algorithm. Each plan was optimized to provide identical coverage to the PTV such that a reasonable comparison for OAR dosimetry could be evaluated. All plans were prescribed 42.56 Gy in 16 fractions to the left-breast PTV. RESULTS: The mean dose in SFB for the heart, LV, and LAD was 1.92, 3.19, and 21.73 Gy, respectively, which were significantly higher than the mean dose in SDIBH for the heart (1.08 Gy, P ≤ 0.0001), LV (1.50 Gy, P ≤ 0.0001), and LAD (6.3 Gy, P ≤ 0.0001) and in PFB for the heart (0.98 Gy, P ≤ 0.0001), LV (1.34 Gy, P ≤ 0.0001), and LAD (6.57 Gy, P ≤ 0.0001). Similar findings were noted for the cardiac components in SFB for V2.5, V5, V10, V20, and V30 compared with values in SDIBH and PFB. The mean dose for the left lung in PFB was 0.61 Gy that was significantly lower than in SFB (5.63 Gy, P ≤ 0.0001) and SDIBH (5.54 Gy, P ≤ 0.0001). Mean dose and dosimetric values for each OAR increased in SFB and SDIBH for patients with a large breast volume compared with values for patients with a small breast volume. CONCLUSIONS: SFB results in higher heart, LAD, and LV doses than the other techniques. Both PFB and SDIBH are more advantageous for these OARs irrespective of breast volume. PFB results in significantly lower lung doses than SFB and SDIBH. PFB always provided better results than SFB for the heart, LV, LAD, and lung. This conclusion contrasts with some published studies concluding that the prone position has no benefit for heart sparing.

Evaluation of initial setup errors of two immobilization devices for lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT).

The aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy and efficacy of two commonly used commercial immobilization systems for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in lung cancer. This retrospective study assessed the efficacy and setup accuracy of two immobilization systems: the Elekta Body Frame (EBF) and the Civco Body Pro-Lok (CBP) in 80 patients evenly divided for each system. A cone beam CT (CBCT) was used before each treatment fraction for setup correction in both devices. Analyzed shifts were applied for setup correction and CBCT was repeated. If a large shift (>5 mm) occurred in any direction, an additional CBCT was employed for verification after localization. The efficacy of patient setup was analyzed for 105 sessions (48 with the EBF, 57 with the CBP). Result indicates that the CBCT was repeated at the 1st treatment session in 22.5% and 47.5% of the EBF and CBP cases, respectively. The systematic errors {left-right (LR), anterior-posterior (AP), cranio-caudal (CC), and 3D vector shift: (LR2 + AP2 + CC2 )1/2 (mm)}, were {0.5 ± 3.7, 2.3 ± 2.5, 0.7 ± 3.5, 7.1 ± 3.1} mm and {0.4 ± 3.6, 0.7 ± 4.0, 0.0 ± 5.5, 9.2 ± 4.2} mm, and the random setup errors were {5.1, 3.0, 3.5, 3.9} mm and {4.6, 4.8, 5.4, 5.3} mm for the EBF and the CBP, respectively. The 3D vector shift was significantly larger for the CBP (P < 0.01). The setup time was slightly longer for the EBF (EBF: 15.1 min, CBP: 13.7 min), but the difference was not statistically significant. It is concluded that adequate accuracy in SBRT can be achieved with either system if image guidance is used. However, patient comfort could dictate the use of CBP system with slightly reduced accuracy.

AAPM-RSS Medical Physics Practice Guideline 9.a. for SRS-SBRT.

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education, and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8,000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States. The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner. Each medical physics practice guideline represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice guidelines and technical standards by those entities not providing these services is not authorized. The following terms are used in the AAPM practice guidelines: Must and Must Not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline. Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances. Approved by AAPM Professional Council 3-31-2017 and Executive Committee 4-4-2017.

On correlations in IMRT planning aims.

The purpose was to study correlations amongst IMRT DVH evaluation points and how their relaxation impacts the overall plan. 100 head-and-neck cancer cases, using the Eclipse treatment planning system with the same protocol, are statisti-cally analyzed for PTV, brainstem, and spinal cord. To measure variations amongst the plans, we use (i) interquartile range (IQR) of volume as a function of dose, (ii) interquartile range of dose as a function of volume, and (iii) dose falloff. To determine correlations for institutional and ICRU goals, conditional probabilities and medians are computed. We observe that most plans exceed the median PTV dose (average D50 = 104% prescribed dose). Furthermore, satisfying D50 reduced the probability of also satisfying D98, constituting a negative correlation of these goals. On the other hand, satisfying D50 increased the probability of satisfying D2, suggesting a positive correlation. A positive correlation is also observed between the PTV V105 and V110. Similarly, a positive correlation between the brainstem V45 and V50 is measured by an increase in the conditional median of V45, when V50 is violated. Despite the imposed institutional and international recommenda-tions, significant variations amongst DVH points can occur. Even though DVH aims are evaluated independently, sizable correlations amongst them are possible, indicating that some goals cannot be satisfied concurrently, calling for unbiased plan criteria.

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy dose verification using fluence and portal imaging device.

Patient-specific quality assurance for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) dose verification is essential. The aim of this study is to provide a new method based on the relative error distribution by comparing the fluence map from the treatment planning system (TPS) and the incident fluence deconvolved from the electronic portal imaging device (EPID) images. This method is validated for 10 head and neck IMRT cases. The fluence map of each beam was exported from the TPS and EPID images of the treatment beams were acquired. Measured EPID images were deconvolved to the incident fluence with proper corrections. The relative error distribution between the TPS fluence map and the incident fluence from the EPID was created. This was also created for a 2D diode array detector. The absolute point dose was measured with an ionization chamber, and the dose distribution was measured by a radiochromic film. In three cases, MLC leaf positions were intentionally changed to create the dose error as much as 5% against the planned dose and our fluence-based method was tested using gamma index. Absolute errors between the predicted dose of 2D diode detector and of our method and measurements were 1.26% ± 0.65% and 0.78% ± 0.81% respectively. The gamma passing rate (3% global / 3 mm) of the TPS was higher than that of the 2D diode detector (p< 0.02), and lower than that of the EPID (p < 0.04). The gamma passing rate (2% global / 2 mm) of the TPS was higher than that of the 2D diode detector, while the gamma passing rate of the TPS was lower than that of EPID (p < 0.02). For three modified plans, the predicted dose errors against the measured dose were 1.10%, 2.14%, and -0.87%. The predicted dose distributions from the EPID were well matched to the measurements. Our fluence-based method provides very accurate dosimetry for IMRT patients. The method is simple and can be adapted to any clinic for complex cases.

Dose perturbation effect of metallic spinal implants in proton beam therapy.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of dose perturbations for two metallic spinal screw implants in proton beam therapy in the perpendicular and parallel beam geometry. A 5.5 mm (diameter) by 45 mm (length) stainless steel (SS) screw and a 5.5 mm by 35 mm titanium (Ti) screw commonly used for spinal fixation were CT-scanned in a hybrid phantom of water and solid water. The CT data were processed with an orthopedic metal artifact reduction (O-MAR) algorithm. Treatment plans were generated for each metal screw with a proton beam oriented, first parallel and then perpendicular, to the longitudinal axis of the screw. The calculated dose profiles were compared with measured results from a plane-parallel ion chamber and Gafchromic EBT2 films. For the perpendicular setup, the measured dose immediately downstream from the screw exhibited dose enhancement up to 12% for SS and 8% for Ti, respectively, but such dose perturbation was not observed outside the lateral edges of the screws. The TPS showed 5% and 2% dose reductions immediately at the interface for the SS nd Ti screws, respectively, and up to 9% dose enhancements within 1 cm outside of the lateral edges of the screws. The measured dose enhancement was only observed within 5 mm from the interface along the beam path. At deeper depths, the lateral dose profiles appeared to be similar between the measurement and TPS, with dose reduction in the screw shadow region and dose enhancement within 1-2 cm outside of the lateral edges of the metals. For the parallel setup, no significant dose perturbation was detected at lateral distance beyond 3 mm away from both screws. Significant dose discrepancies exist between TPS calculations and ion chamber and film measurements in close proximity of high-Z inhomogeneities. The observed dose enhancement effect with proton therapy is not correctly modeled by TPS. An extra measure of caution should be taken when evaluating dosimetry with spinal metallic implants.

AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 5.a.: Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations - Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams.

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8,000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States. The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for the purpose of revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner. Each medical physics practice guideline represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice guidelines and technical standards by those entities not providing these services is not authorized. The following terms are used in the AAPM practice guidelines:• Must and Must Not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline.• Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances.

Intra- and intervariability in beam data commissioning among water phantom scanning systems.

Accurate beam data acquisition during commissioning is essential for modeling the treatment planning system and dose calculation in radiotherapy. Although currently several commercial scanning systems are available, there is no report that compared the differences among the systems because most institutions do not acquire several scanning systems due to the high cost, storage space, and infrequent usage. In this report, we demonstrate the intra- and intervariability of beam profiles measured with four commercial scanning systems. During a recent educational and training workshop, four different vendors of beam scanning water phantoms were invited to demonstrate the operation and data collection of their systems. Systems were set up utilizing vendor-recommended protocols and were operated with a senior physicist, who was assigned as an instructor along with vendor. During the training sessions, each group was asked to measure beam parameters, and the intravariability in percent depth dose (PDD). At the end of the day, the profile of one linear accelerator was measured with each system to evaluate intervariability. Relatively very small (SD < 0.12%) intervariability in PDD was observed among four systems at a region deeper than peak (1.5 cm). All systems showed almost identical profiles. At the area within 80% of radiation field, the average, and maximum differences were within ± 0.35% and 0.80%, respectively, compared to arbitrarily chosen IBA system as reference. In the penumbrae region, the distance to agreement (DTA) of the region where dose difference exceed ± 1% was less than 1 mm. Repeated PDD measurement showed small intravariability with SD < 0.5%, although large SD was observed in the buildup region. All four water phantom scanning systems demonstrated adequate accuracy for beam data collection (i.e., within 1% of dose difference or 1 mm of DTA among each other). It is concluded that every system is capable of acquiring accurate beam. Thus the selection of a water scanning system should be based on institutional comfort, personal preference of software and hardware, and financial consideration.

Investigation of triaxial cables and microdetectors in small field dosimetry.

Background. Small field dosimetry presents unique challenges with source occlusion, lateral charged particle equilibrium and detector size. As detector volume decreases, signal strength declines while noise increases, deteriorating the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). This issue may be compounded by triaxial cables connecting detectors to electrometers. However, effects of cables, critical for precision dosimetry, are often overlooked. There is a need to evaluate triaxial cable and detector impacts on SNR in small fields. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the influence of triaxial cables and microdetectors on signal-to-noise ratios in small-field dosimetry. This study also aims to establish the importance of cable quality assurance for measurement accuracy.Methods. Six 9.1 m length triaxial cables from different manufacturers were tested with six microdetectors (microDiamond, PinPoint, EDGE, Plastic scintillator, microSilicon, SRS-Diode). A 6 MV photon beam (TrueBeam) was used, with a water phantom at 5 cm depth with 0.5 × 0.5 cm2to 10 × 10 cm2fields at 600 MU min-1. Readings were acquired using cable-detector permutations with a dedicated electrometer (except the scintillator which has its own). Cables had differing connector types, conductor materials, insulation, and diameters. Detectors had various sensitive volumes, materials, typical signals, and bias voltages.Results. Normalized field output correction factors (FOFs) relative differences of 13.4% and 4.6% between the highest and lowest values across triaxial cables for 0.5 × 0.5 cm2and 1 × 1 cm2fields, respectively. The maximum difference in FOF between any cable-detector combinations was 0.2% for the smallest field size. No consistent FOF trend was observed across all detectors when increasing cable diameter. Additionally, the non-normalized FOF differences of 0.9% and 0.3% were observed between cables for 0.5 × 0.5 cm2and 1 × 1 cm2fields, respectively.Conclusions. Regular triaxial cable quality assurance is critical for precision small field dosimetry. A national protocol is needed to standardize cable evaluations/calibrations, particularly for small signals (

Dependence of surface dose on atomic number in megavoltage photon beams.

BACKGROUND: Surface dose in megavoltage photon radiotherapy has a significant clinical impact on the skin-sparing effect. In previously published works, it was established that the presence of medium atomic number (Z) absorbers, such as tin, decreases the surface dose. It was concluded that high-Z absorbers, such as lead, increase the surface dose, relative to medium-Z absorbers, due to the increased contributions from photoelectrons and electron-positron pairs. PURPOSE: The purpose of this investigation is to revisit these conclusions in the context of photon beams from modern linacs. METHODS: A metric estimating the relative intensity of charged particles emitted in the forward direction, I f ${I}_f$ , was proposed using cross-sections for the photon interactions. The I f ${I}_f$ values were calculated for various absorbers using energy spectra of 6 and 10 MV photon beams from a Varian TrueBeam linac. Monte Carlo (MC) simulations were performed using TOPAS MC code to calculate the surface dose for various absorbers. Surface dose measurements were performed with 6 and 10 MV photon beams with tin and lead absorbers. RESULTS: The I f ${I}_f$ values were found to decrease as a function of Z for both 6 and 10 MV photon beams indicating that the surface dose from electrons emitted in the forward direction consistently decreases with increasing Z. With the increasing Z of the absorbers, both experimental and MC-calculated surface dose decreased without exhibiting a minimum at medium-Z absorbers. The surface dose for lead and tin was determined to be within 1% of each other for both 6 and 10 MV photon beams using MC simulations and experimental measurements. Therefore, no statistically significant difference in surface dose was found between the tin and lead absorbers disproving the presence of any minima in the surface dose versus the Z curve as has been reported in the literature. CONCLUSIONS: Surface dose for modern photon beams can be reduced using both medium and high Z absorbers since a consistent decrease in surface dose was found with increasing absorber Z.

Computational and experimental small field dosimetry using a commercial plastic scintillator detector for the 0.35 T MR-linac.

PURPOSE: Although plastic scintillator detectors (PSDs) are considered ideal dosimeters for small field dosimetry in conventional linear accelerators (linacs), the impact of the magnetic field strength on the response of the PSD must be investigated. METHODS: A linac Monte Carlo (MC) head model for a low-field MR-linac was validated for small field dosimetry and utilized to calculate field output factors (OFs). The MC-calculated OFs were compared with the treatment planning system (TPS)-calculated OFs and measured OFs using a Blue Physics (BP) Model 10 commercial PSD and a synthetic diamond detector. The field-specific correction factors, [Formula: see text] , were calculated for the PSD in the presence of a 0.35 T and magnetic field. The impact of the source focal spot size and initial electron energy on the MC-calculated OFs was investigated. RESULTS: Good agreement to within 2 % was found between the MC-calculated OFs and BP PSD OFs except for the 0.415 × 0.415 cm2 field size. The BP PSD [Formula: see text] correction factors were calculated to be within 1 % of unity. For field sizes ≥1.66 × 1.66 cm2, the MC-calculated OFs were relatively insensitive to the focal spot size and initial electron energy to within 2.5 %. However, for smaller field sizes, the MC-calculated OFs were found to differ up to 9.50 % and 7.00 % when the focal spot size and initial electron energy was varied, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The BP PSD was deemed suitable for small field dosimetry in MR-linacs without requiring any [Formula: see text] correction factors.

Determination of thePrpand radial dose correction factor in reference dosimetry.

Objectives.In an addendum to AAPM TG-51 protocol, McEwenet al, (DOI:10.1118/1.4866223) introduced a new factorPrpto account for the radial dose distribution of the photon beam over the detector volume mainly in flattening filter free (FFF) beams.Prpand its extension to non-FFF beam reference dosimetry is investigated to see its impact in a clinical situation.Approches.ThePrpwas measured using simplified version of Sudhyadhomet al(DOI:10.1118/1.4941691) for Elekta and Varian FFF beams with two commonly used calibration detectors; PTW-30013 and Exradin-A12 ion chambers after acquiring high resolution profiles in detectors cardinal coordinates. For radial dose correction factor, the ion chambers were placed in a small water phantom and the central axis position was set to center of the sensitive volume on the treatment table and was studied by rotating the table by 15-degree interval from -90 to +90 degrees with respect to the initial (zero) position.Main results.The magnitude ofPrpvaries very little with machine, detector and beam energies to a value of 1.003 ± 0.0005 and 1.005 ± 0.0005 for 6FFF and 10FFF, respectively. The radial anisotropy for the Elekta machine with Exradin-A12 and PTW-30013 detector the magnitudes are in the range of (0.9995±0.0011 to 1.0015±0.0010) and (0.9998±0.0007 to 1.0015±0.0010), respectively. Similarly, for the Varian machine with Exradin-A12 and PTW-30013 ion chambers, the magnitudes are in the range of (1.0004±0.0010 to 1.0018±0.0018) and (1.0006±0.0009 to 1.0027±0.0007), respectively.Significance.ThePrpis ≤ 0.3% and 0.5% for 6FFF and 10FFF, respectively. The radial dose correction factor in regular beams also does not impact the dosimetry where the maximum magnitude is ±0.2% which is within experimental uncertainty.