Dose intercomparison at Italian hadrontherapy centers.

PURPOSE: To perform the first dosimetric intercomparison for proton beams in Italy using ionization chambers, according to the IAEA TRS-398 code of practice. METHODS: Measurement sites included: National Center for Oncological Hadron Therapy (CNAO, Pavia), Center for Proton Therapy (CTP, Trento) and Center for Hadron Therapy and for advanced Nuclear Applications (CATANA, Catania). For comparison we also included a 6 MV photon beam produced at Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri (ICSM, Pavia). For proton beams, both single pseudo-monoenergetic layers (in order to obtain a planned dose of 2 Gy at the reference depth of 2 cm in a water phantom) and Spread-out Bragg peaks (SOBP) have been delivered. Measurements were performed with a PTW Farmer 30010-1 and a PTW Advanced Markus type 34,045 ionization chamber. RESULTS: Data obtained at CATANA, CNAO and CPT in terms of absorbed dose to water depth show good consistency within the experimental uncertainties, with a weighted mean of 1.99 ± 0.01 Gy and a standard error of 0.003 Gy, with reference to a nominal dose of 2 Gy as designed by the treatment planning system. CONCLUSIONS: The results showed a standard deviation of less than 1% for single layer and SOBP beams, for all chambers and a percent deviation less than 1.5% for single layer measurements. The weighted means of the absorbed doses for clinical proton beams (118.19 MeV and 173.61 MeV) are consistent within less than 1%. These results agree within the 1.5% difference considered acceptable for national dose intercomparison.

Technical note: TROG 15.01 SPARK trial multi-institutional imaging dose measurement.

PURPOSE: The Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG) 15.01 Stereotactic Prostate Adaptive Radiotherapy utilizing Kilovoltage intrafraction monitoring (SPARK) trial is a multicenter trial using Kilovoltage Intrafraction Monitoring (KIM) to monitor prostate position during the delivery of prostate radiation therapy. KIM increases the accuracy of prostate radiation therapy treatments and allows for hypofractionation. However, an additional imaging dose is delivered to the patient. A standardized procedure to determine the imaging dose per frame delivered using KIM was developed and applied at four radiation therapy centers on three different types of linear accelerator. METHODS: Dose per frame for kilovoltage imaging in fluoroscopy mode was measured in air at isocenter using an ion chamber. Beam quality and dose were determined for a Varian Clinac iX linear accelerator, a Varian Trilogy, four Varian Truebeams and one Elekta Synergy at four different radiation therapy centers. The imaging parameters used on the Varian machines were 125 kV, 80 mA, and 13 ms. The Elekta machine was measured at 120 kV, 80 mA, and 12 ms. Absorbed doses to the skin and the prostate for a typical SBRT prostate treatment length were estimated according to the IPEMB protocol. RESULTS: The average dose per kV frame to the skin was 0.24 ± 0.03 mGy. The average estimated absorbed dose to the prostate for all five treatment fractions across all machines measured was 39.9 ± 2.6 mGy for 1 Hz imaging, 199.7 ± 13.2 mGy for 5 Hz imaging and 439.3 ± 29.0 mGy for 11 Hz imaging. CONCLUSIONS: All machines measured agreed to within 20%. Additional dose to the prostate from using KIM is at most 1.3% of the prescribed dose of 36.25 Gy in five fractions delivered during the trial.

Design and implementation of a "cheese" phantom-based Tomotherapy TLD dose intercomparison.

BACKGROUND: The unique beam-delivery technique of Tomotherapy machines (Accuray Inc., Sunnyvale, Calif.) necessitates tailored quality assurance. This requirement also applies to external dose intercomparisons. Therefore, the aim of the 2014 SSRMP (Swiss Society of Radiobiology and Medical Physics) dosimetry intercomparison was to compare two set-ups with different phantoms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A small cylindrical Perspex phantom, which is similar to the IROC phantom (Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, Houston, Tex.), and the "cheese" phantom, which is provided by the Tomotherapy manufacturer to all institutions, were used. The standard calibration plans for the TomoHelical and TomoDirect irradiation techniques were applied. These plans are routinely used for dose output calibration in Tomotherapy institutions. We tested 20 Tomotherapy machines in Germany and Switzerland. The ratio of the measured (Dm) to the calculated (Dc) dose was assessed for both phantoms and irradiation techniques. The Dm/Dc distributions were determined to compare the suitability of the measurement set-ups investigated. RESULTS: The standard deviations of the TLD-measured (thermoluminescent dosimetry) Dm/Dc ratios for the "cheese" phantom were 1.9 % for the TomoHelical (19 measurements) and 1.2 % (11 measurements) for the TomoDirect irradiation techniques. The corresponding ratios for the Perspex phantom were 2.8 % (18 measurements) and 1.8 % (11 measurements). CONCLUSION: Compared with the Perspex phantom-based set-up, the "cheese" phantom-based set-up without individual planning was demonstrated to be more suitable for Tomotherapy dose checks. Future SSRMP dosimetry intercomparisons for Tomotherapy machines will therefore be based on the "cheese" phantom set-up.