ABSTRACT
Objective.Adaptive radiotherapy techniques available on the MR-linac, such as daily plan adaptation, gating, and dynamic tracking, require versatile dosimetric detectors to validate end-to-end workflows. Plastic scintillator detectors (PSDs) offer great potential with features including: water equivalency, MRI-compatibility, and time-resolved dose measurements. Here, we characterize the performance of the HYPERSCINT RP-200 PSD (MedScint, Quebec, CA) in a 1.5 T MR-linac, and we demonstrate its suitability for dosimetry, including in a moving target.Approach.Standard techniques of detector testing were performed using a Beamscan water tank (PTW, Freiburg, DE) and compared to microDiamond (PTW, Freiburg, DE) readings. Orientation dependency was tested using the same phantom. An RW3 solid water phantom was used to evaluate detector consistency, dose linearity, and dose rate dependence. To determine the sensitivity to motion and to MRI scanning, the Quasar MRI4Dphantom (Modus, London, ON) was used statically or with sinusoidal motion (A= 10 mm,T= 4 s) to compare PSD and Semiflex ionization chamber (PTW, Freiburg, DE) readings. Conformal beams from gantry 0° and 90° were used as well as a 15-beam 8 × 7.5 Gy lung IMRT plan.Main results.Measured profiles, PDD curves and field-size dependence were consistent with the microDiamond readings with differences well within our clinical tolerances. The angular dependence gave variations up to 0.8% when not irradiating directly from behind the scintillation point. Experiments revealed excellent detector consistency between repeated measurements (SD = 0.06%), near-perfect dose linearity (R2= 1) and a dose rate dependence <0.3%. Dosimetric effects of MRI scanning (≤0.3%) and motion (≤1.3%) were minimal. Measurements were consistent with the Semiflex (differences ≤1%), and with the treatment planning system with differences of 0.8% and 0.4%, with and without motion.Significance.This study demonstrates the suitability of the HYPERSCINT PSD for accurate time-resolved dosimetry measurements in the 1.5 T MR-linac, including during MR scanning and target motion.
Subject(s)
Radiometry , Water , Radiometry/methods , Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods , Physical Phenomena , Phantoms, ImagingABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Local implementation of plan-specific quality assurance (QA) methods for intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment plans may vary because of dissimilarities in procedures, equipment and software. The purpose of this work is detecting possible differences between local QA findings and those of an audit, using the same set of treatment plans. METHODS: A pre-defined set of clinical plans was devised and imported in the participating institute's treatment planning system for dose computation. The dose distribution was measured using an ionisation chamber, radiochromic film and an ionisation chamber array. The centres performed their own QA, which was compared to the audit findings. The agreement/disagreement between the audit and the institute QA results were assessed along with the differences between the dose distributions measured by the audit team and computed by the institute. RESULTS: For the majority of the cases the results of the audit were in agreement with the institute QA findings: ionisation chamber: 92%, array: 88%, film: 76% of the total measurements. In only a few of these cases the evaluated measurements failed for both: ionisation chamber: 2%, array: 4%, film: 0% of the total measurements. CONCLUSION: Using predefined treatment plans, we found that in approximately 80% of the evaluated measurements the results of local QA of IMRT and VMAT plans were in line with the findings of the audit. However, the percentage of agreement/disagreement depended on the characteristics of the measurement equipment used and on the analysis metric.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A radiosurgical treatment approach for early-stage breast cancer has the potential to minimize the patient's treatment burden. The dosimetric feasibility for single fraction ablative radiotherapy was evaluated by comparing volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with an interstitial multicatheter brachytherapy (IMB) approach. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The tumors of 20 patients with early-stage breast cancer were delineated on a preoperative contrast-enhanced planning CT-scan, co-registered with a contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), both in radiotherapy supine position. A dose of 15 Gy was prescribed to the planned target volume of the clinical target volume (PTVCTV), and 20 Gy integrated boost to the PTV of the gross tumor volume (PTVGTV). Treatment plans for IMB and VMAT were optimized for adequate target volume coverage and minimal organs at risk (OAR) dose. RESULTS: The median PTVGTV/CTV receiving at least 95% of the prescribed dose was ⩾99% with both techniques. The median PTVCTV unintentionally receiving 95% of the prescribed PTVGTV dose was 65.4% and 4.3% with IMB and VMAT, respectively. OAR doses were comparable with both techniques. CONCLUSION: MRI-guided single fraction radiotherapy with an integrated ablative boost to the GTV is dosimetrically feasible with both techniques. We perceive IMB less suitable for clinical implementation due to PTVCTV overdosage. Future studies have to confirm the clinical feasibility of the single fraction ablative approach.