Verification of surface-guided radiation therapy (SGRT) alignment for proton breast and chest wall patients by comparison to CT-on-rails and kV-2D alignment.

BACKGROUND: Surface-guided radiation therapy (SGRT) systems have been widely installed and utilized on linear accelerators. However, the use of SGRT with proton therapy is still a newly developing field, and published reports are currently very limited. PURPOSE: To assess the clinical application and alignment agreement of SGRT with CT-on-rails (CTOR) and kV-2D image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) for breast treatment using proton therapy. METHODS: Four patients receiving breast or chest wall treatment with proton therapy were the subjects of this study. Patient #1's IGRT modalities were a combination of kV-2D and CTOR. CTOR was the only imaging modality for patients #2 and #3, and kV-2D was the only imaging modality for patient #4. The patients' respiratory motions were assessed using a 2-min surface position recorded by the SGRT system during treatment. SGRT offsets reported after IGRT shifts were recorded for each fraction of treatment. The agreement between SGRT and either kV-2D or CTOR was evaluated. RESULTS: The respiratory motion amplitude was <4 mm in translation and <2.0° in rotation for all patients. The mean and maximum amplitude of SGRT offsets after application of IGRT shifts were ≤(2.6 mm, 1.6° ) and (6.8 mm, 4.5° ) relative to kV-2D-based IGRT; ≤(3.0 mm, 2.6° ) and (5.0 mm, 4.7° ) relative to CTOR-based IGRT without breast tissue inflammation. For patient #3, breast inflammation was observed for the last three fractions of treatment, and the maximum SGRT offsets post CTOR shifts were up to (14.0 mm, 5.2° ). CONCLUSIONS: Due to the overall agreement between SGRT and IGRT within reasonable tolerance, SGRT has the potential to serve as a valuable auxiliary IGRT tool for proton breast treatment and may improve the efficiency of proton breast treatment.

An evaluation of the use of DirectSPR images for proton planning in the RayStation treatment planning software.

An important source of uncertainty in proton therapy treatment planning is the assignment of stopping-power ratio (SPR) from CT data. A commercial product is now available that creates an SPR map directly from dual-energy CT (DECT). This paper investigates the use of this new product in proton treatment planning and compares the results to the current method of assigning SPR based on a single-energy CT (SECT). Two tissue surrogate phantoms were CT scanned using both techniques. The SPRs derived from single-energy CT and by DirectSPR™ were compared to measured values. SECT-based values agreed with measurements within 4% except for low density lung and high density bone, which differed by 13% and 8%, respectively. DirectSPR™ values were within 2% of measured values for all tissues studied. Both methods were also applied to scanned containers of three types of animal tissue, and the expected range of protons of two different energies was calculated in the treatment planning system and compared to the range measured using a multi-layer ion chamber. The average difference between range measurements and calculations based on SPR maps from dual- and single-energy CT, respectively, was 0.1 mm (0.07%) versus 2.2 mm (1.5%). Finally, a phantom was created using a layer of various tissue surrogate plugs on top of a 2D ion chamber array. Dose measurements on this array were compared to predictions using both single- and dual-energy CTs and SPR maps. While standard gamma pass rates for predictions based on DECT-derived SPR maps were slightly higher than those based on single-energy CT, the differences were generally modest for this measurement setup. This study showed that SPR maps created by the commercial product from dual-energy CT can successfully be used in RayStation to generate proton dose distributions and that these predictions agree well with measurements.

Measurements of fetal dose with Mevion S250i proton therapy system with HYPERSCAN.

PURPOSE: To characterize potential dose to the fetus for all modes of delivery (dynamic adaptive aperture, static adaptive aperture, and no adaptive aperture) for the Mevion S250i Proton Therapy System with HYPERSCAN and compare the findings with those of other available proton systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fetal dose measurements were performed for all three modes of dose delivery on the Mevion S250i Proton therapy system with HYPERSCAN (static aperture, dynamic aperture and uncollimated). Standard treatment plans were created in RayStation for a left-sided brain lesion treated with a vertex field, a left lateral field, and a posterior field. Measurements were performed using WENDI and the RANDO with the detector placed at representative locations to mimic the growth and movement of the fetus at different gestational stages. RESULTS: The fetal dose measurements varied with fetus position and the largest measured dose was 64.7 µSv per 2 Gy (RBE) fraction using the dynamic aperture. The smallest estimated fetal dose was 45.0 µSv per 2 Gy (RBE) at the base of the RANDO abdomen (47 cm from isocenter to the outer width of WENDI and 58.5 cm from the center of the WENDI detector) for the static aperture delivery. The vertex fields at all depths had larger contributions to the total dose than the other two and the dynamic aperture plans resulted in the highest dose measured for all depths. CONCLUSION: The reported doses are lower than reported doses using a double-scattering system. This work suggests that avoiding vertex fields and using the static aperture will help minimize dose to the fetus.

Seismic reinforcement of a linac installation.

The local building requirements to secure medical equipment in seismically active areas in the United States are based on recommendations of the American Society of Civil Engineers. In our institution we have recently acquired new linear accelerators, one of which had to be installed in an existing vault and one in a new vault. Since we are in a seismic active area, changes in the local code required us to start placing the new linacs seismically stable. Here, we describe the necessary steps taken to ensure a seismically sound installation of our linacs. For the linac installation to be seismically stable, the linac base frame has to be seismically fixed into the vault floor. The installation of a new linac into an existing vault requires verification of a structurally sound base frame. Knowledge of the previously applied fixation of such is needed and exploratory removal of grouted floor helped in the verification. Understanding the additional load requirements for the locality allows to account for the existing fixation and can potentially reduce the work needed to achieve seismic fixation requirements. For a prospective seismic installation the new linac base frame can be directly installed with the necessary strength. In addition the actual workflow is straight forward and vendor recommendations can be used. In both cases the vendor provided seismic calculations serve as baseline from which a facility should be work from. It is the facilities task to verify the correct installation of a linac in their specific location. An understanding of the seismic landscape can facilitate an appropriate installation at minimal additional cost.

FMEA occurrence values for four failure modes occurring using look-up tables for dose calculations.

PURPOSE: For a number of different treatment types [such as Total Body Irradiation (TBI), etc.] most institutions utilize tables from commissioned databooks to perform the dose calculations. Each time one manually looks up data from a large table and then copies the numbers for a manual calculation, there is potential for errors. While a second check effectively mitigates the potential error from such calculations, information regarding the frequency and nature of such mistakes is important to develop protocols and workflows that avoid related errors. METHODS: Five years' worth of TBI calculations were reviewed. Each calculation was re-performed and evaluated against the original calculation and original second check. Any discrepancies were noted and those discrepancies were checked to see if the number was the result of misreading from the look-up table, a typo, copying/skipping partially redundant steps, or rounding/avoiding interpolation. The number of calculations that contained these various types of discrepancies was tallied and percentages representing the frequency of said discrepancies were derived. RESULTS: All of the discrepancies only resulted in a monitor unit (MU) calculation difference of <1.7%. Typos, looking up wrong values from tables, rounding/avoiding interpolation, and skipping steps occurred in 10.4% ( ± 3.1%), 6.3% ( ± 2.5%), 53.1% ( ± 5.1%), and 4.2% ( ± 2.0%) of MU calculations, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: While all of the discrepancies only resulted in a monitor unit (MU) calculation difference of <1.7%, this review shows how frequently various discrepancies can occur. Typos and rounding/avoiding interpolation are the steps most likely to potentially cause a miscalculation of MU. To avoid direct human interaction on such a large repetitive scale, creating forms that calculate MU automatically from initial measurement data would reduce the incidences that numbers are written/transcribed and eliminate the need to look up data in a table, thus reducing the chance for error.

The Effect of Measured Radiotherapy Dose on Intrathecal Drug Delivery System Function.

OBJECTIVES: Radiation therapy (RT) and intrathecal drug delivery systems (IDDS) are often used concurrently to optimize pain management in patients with cancer. Concern remains among clinicians regarding the potential for IDDS malfunction in the setting of RT. Here we assessed the frequency of IDDS malfunction in a large cohort of patients treated with RT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cancer patients with IDDS and subsequent RT at our institution from 2011 to 2019 were eligible for this study. Patients were excluded in the rare event that their IDDS was managed by an outside clinic and follow-up documentation was unavailable. Eighty-eight patients aged 22-88 years old (43% female, 57% male) representing 106 separate courses of RT were retrospectively identified. Patients received varying levels of radiation for treatment of cancer and cumulative dose to the IDDS was calculated. IDDS interrogation was subsequently performed by a pain specialist. Malfunction was recorded as deviation from the expected drug volume and/or device errors reported upon interrogation as defined by the manufacturer. RESULTS: Total measured RT dose to the IDDS ranged from 0 to 18.0 Gy (median = 0.2 Gy) with median dose of 0.04 Gy/fraction (range, 0-3.2 Gy/fraction). Ten pumps received a total dose >2 Gy and three received ≥5 Gy. Eighty-two percentage of patients had follow-up with a pain specialist for IDDS interrogation and all patients underwent follow-up with a healthcare provider following RT. There were zero incidences of IDDS malfunction related to RT. No patient had clinical evidence of radiation related pump malfunction at subsequent encounters. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that RT in patients with IDDS led to device failure or dysfunction. While radiation oncologists and pain specialists should coordinate patient care, it does not appear that RT dose impacts the function of the IDDS to warrant significant clinical concern.

Using failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) to generate an initial plan check checklist for improved safety in radiation treatment.

PURPOSE: To apply failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) to generate an effective and efficient initial physics plan checklist. METHODS: A team of physicists, dosimetrists, and therapists was setup to reconstruct the workflow processes involved in the generation of a treatment plan beginning from simulation. The team then identified possible failure modes in each of the processes. For each failure mode, the severity (S), frequency of occurrence (O), and the probability of detection (D) was assigned a value and the risk priority number (RPN) was calculated. The values assigned were based on TG 100. Prior to assigning a value, the team discussed the values in the scoring system to minimize randomness in scoring. A local database of errors was used to help guide the scoring of frequency. RESULTS: Twenty-seven process steps and 50 possible failure modes were identified starting from simulation to the final approved plan ready for treatment at the machine. Any failure mode that scored an average RPN value of 20 or greater was deemed "eligible" to be placed on the second checklist. In addition, any failure mode with a severity score value of 4 or greater was also considered for inclusion in the checklist. As a by-product of this procedure, safety improvement methods such as automation and standardization of certain processes (e.g., dose constraint checking, check tools), removal of manual transcription of treatment-related information as well as staff education were implemented, although this was not the team's original objective. Prior to the implementation of the new FMEA-based checklist, an in-service for all the second checkers was organized to ensure further standardization of the process. CONCLUSION: The FMEA proved to be a valuable tool for identifying vulnerabilities in our workflow and processes in generating a treatment plan and subsequently a new, more effective initial plan checklist was created.

Technical Note: The use of DirectDensityTM and dual-energy CT in the radiation oncology clinic.

PURPOSE: Two new tools available in Radiation Oncology clinics are Dual-energy CT (DECT) and Siemens' DirectDensity™ (DD) reconstruction algorithm, which allows scans of any kV setting to use the same calibration. This study demonstrates why DD scans should not be used in combination with DECT and quantifies the magnitude of potential errors in image quality and dose. METHODS: A CatPhan 504 phantom was scanned with a dual-pass DECT and reconstructed with many different kernels, including several DD kernels. The HU values of various inserts were measured. The RANDO® man phantom was also scanned. Bone was contoured and then histograms of the bone HU values were analyzed for Filtered-Backprojection (FBP) and DD reconstructions of the 80 and 140 kV scans, as well as several virtual, monoenergetic reconstructions generated from FBP and DD reconstructions. "Standard" dose distributions were calculated on several reconstructions of both phantoms for comparison. RESULTS: The DD kernel overcorrected the high-Z material inserts relative to bone, giving an excessively low relative electron density (RED). A unique artifact was observed in the high density inserts of the CatPhan in the monoenergetic scans when utilizing a DD kernel, due to the overcorrection in the DD scan of the material, especially at lower kV. CONCLUSIONS: While DD and DECT perform as expected when used independently, errors from their combined use were demonstrated. Dose errors from misuse of the DD kernel with DECT post-processing were as large as 2.5%. The DECT post-processing was without value because the HU differences between low and high energy were removed by the DD kernel. When using DD and DECT, we recommend the use of a DD reconstruction of the high energy scan for the dose calculation, and use of a FBP filter for the low and high energy scans for the DECT post-processing.

Calculation of delivered composite dose from Calypso tracking data for prostate cancer: And subsequent evaluation of reasonable treatment interruption tolerance limits.

PURPOSE: In this study we calculate composite dose delivered to the prostate by using the Calypso tracking -data- stream acquired during patient treatment in our clinic. We evaluate the composite distributions under multiple simulated Calypso tolerance level schemes and then recommend a tolerance level. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven Calypso-localized prostate cancer patients treated in our clinic were selected for retrospective analysis. Two different IMRT treatment plans, with prostate PTV margins of 5 and 3 mm respectively, were computed for each patient. A delivered composite dose distribution was computed from Calypso tracking data for each plan. Additionally, we explored the dosimetric implications for "worst case" scenarios by assuming that the prostate position was located at one of the eight extreme corners of a 3 or 5 mm "box." To characterize plan quality under each of the studied scenarios, we recorded the maximum, mean, and minimum doses and volumetric coverage for prostate, PTV, bladder, and rectum. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS: Calculated composite dose distributions were very similar to the original plan for all patients. The difference in maximum, mean, and minimum doses as well as volumetric coverage for the prostate, PTV, bladder, and rectum were all < 4.0% of prescription dose. Even for worst scenario cases, the results show acceptable isodose distribution, with the exception for the combination of a 3 mm PTV margin with a 5 mm position tolerance scheme. CONCLUSIONS: Calculated composite dose distributions show that the vast majority of dosimetric metrics agreed well with the planned dose (within 2%). With significant/detrimental deviations from the planned dose only occurring with the combination of a 3 mm PTV margin and 5 mm position tolerance, the 3 mm position tolerance strategy appears reasonable, confirming that further reducing prostate PTV margins to 3 mm is possible when using Calypso with a position tolerance of 3 mm.

A systematic evaluation of the error detection abilities of a new diode transmission detector.

Transmission detectors meant to measure every beam delivered on a linear accelerator are now becoming available for monitoring the quality of the dose distribution delivered to the patient daily. The purpose of this work is to present results from a systematic evaluation of the error detection capabilities of one such detector, the Delta4 Discover. Existing patient treatment plans were modified through in-house-developed software to mimic various delivery errors that have been observed in the past. Errors included shifts in multileaf collimator leaf positions, changing the beam energy from what was planned, and a simulation of what would happen if the secondary collimator jaws did not track with the leaves as they moved. The study was done for simple 3D plans, static gantry intensity modulated radiation therapy plans as well as dynamic arc and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans. Baseline plans were delivered with both the Discover device and the Delta4 Phantom+ to establish baseline gamma pass rates. Modified plans were then delivered using the Discover only and the predicted change in gamma pass rate, as well as the detected leaf positions were evaluated. Leaf deviations as small as 0.5 mm for a static three-dimensional field were detected, with this detection limit growing to 1 mm with more complex delivery modalities such as VMAT. The gamma pass rates dropped noticeably once the intentional leaf error introduced was greater than the distance-to-agreement criterion. The unit also demonstrated the desired drop in gamma pass rates of at least 20% when jaw tracking was intentionally disabled and when an incorrect energy was used for the delivery. With its ability to find errors intentionally introduced into delivered plans, the Discover shows promise of being a valuable, independent error detection tool that should serve to detect delivery errors that can occur during radiotherapy treatment.

Comparison of surface matching and target matching for image-guided pelvic radiation therapy for both supine and prone patient positions.

We investigate the difference between surface matching and target matching for pelvic radiation image guidance. The uniqueness of our study is that all patients have multiple CT-on-rails (CTOR) scans to compare to corresponding AlignRT images. Ten patients receiving pelvic radiation were enrolled in this study. Two simulation CT scans were performed in supine and prone positions for each patient. Body surface contours were generated in treatment planning system and exported to AlignRT to serve as reference images. During treatment day, the patient was aligned to treatment isocenter with room lasers, and then scanned with both CTOR and AlignRT. Image-guidance shifts were calculated for both modalities by com-parison to the simulation CT and the differences between them were analyzed for both supine and prone positions, respectively. These procedures were performed for each patient once per week for five weeks. The difference of patient displace-ment between AlignRT and CTOR was analyzed. For supine position, five patients had an average difference of displacement between AlignRT and CTOR along any direction (vertical, longitudinal, and lateral) greater than 0.5 cm, and one patient greater than 1 cm. Four patients had a maximum difference greater than 1 cm. For prone position, seven patients had an average difference greater than 0.5 cm, and three patients greater than 1 cm. Nine patients had a maximum difference greater than 1 cm. The difference of displacement between AlignRT and CTOR was greater for the prone position than for the supine position. For the patients studied here, surface matching does not appear to be an advisable image-guidance approach for pelvic radiation therapy for patients with either supine or prone position. There appears to be a potential for large alignment discrepancies (up to 2.25 cm) between surface matching and target matching.

Percent depth-dose distribution discrepancies from very small volume ion chambers.

As very small ion chambers become commercially available, medical physicists may be inclined to use them during the linear accelerator commissioning process to better characterize the beam in steep dose gradient areas. For this work, a total of eight different ion chambers (volumes from 0.007 cc to 0.6 cc) and four different scanning systems were used to scan PDDs at both +300V and -300V biases. We observed a reproducible, significant difference (overresponse with depth) in PDDs acquired when using very small ion chambers, with specific bias/water tank combinations - up to 5% at a depth of 25 cm in water. This difference was not observed when the PDDs were sampled using the ion chamber in static positions in conjunction with an external electrometer. This suggests noise/signal interference produced by the controller box and cable system assemblies, which can become relatively significant for the very small current signals collected by very small ion chambers, especially at depth as the signal level is even further reduced. Based on the results observed here, the use of very small active volume chambers under specific scanning conditions may lead to collection of erroneous data, introducing systematic errors into the treatment planning system. In case the use of such a chamber is required, we recommend determining whether such erroneous effect exists by comparing the scans with those obtained with a larger chamber.

Planning for mARC treatments with the Eclipse treatment planning system.

While modulated arc (mARC) capabilities have been available on Siemens linear accelerators for almost two years now, there was, until recently, only one treatment planning system capable of planning these treatments. The Eclipse treatment planning system now offers a module that can plan for mARC treatments. The purpose of this work was to test the module to determine whether it is capable of creating clinically acceptable plans. A total of 23 plans were created for various clinical sites and all plans delivered without anomaly. The average 3%/3 mm gamma pass rate for the plans was 98.0%, with a standard deviation of 1.7%. For a total of 14 plans, an equivalent static gantry IMRT plan was also created to compare delivery time. In all but two cases, the mARC plans delivered significantly faster than the static gantry plan. We have confirmed the successful creation of mARC plans that are deliverable with high fidelity on an ARTISTE linear accelerator, thus demonstrating the successful implementation of the Eclipse mARC module.

Dosimetric impact of the 160 MLC on head and neck IMRT treatments.

The purpose of this work is to investigate if the change in plan quality with the finer leaf resolution and lower leakage of the 160 MLC would be dosimetrically significant for head and neck intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treat- ment plans. The 160 MLC consisting of 80 leaves of 0.5 cm on each bank, a leaf span of 20 cm, and leakage of less than 0.37% without additional backup jaws was compared against the 120 Millennium MLC with 60 leaves of 0.5 and 1.0 cm, a leaf span of 14.5 cm, and leakage of 2.0%. CT image sets of 16 patients previously treated for stage III and IV head and neck carcinomas were replanned on Prowess 5.0 and Eclipse 11.0 using the 160 MLC and the 120 MLC. IMRT constraints for both sets of 6 MV plans were identical and based on RTOG 0522. Dose-volume histograms (DVHs), minimum dose, mean dose, maximum dose, and dose to 1 cc to the organ at risks (OAR) and the planning target volume, as recommended by QUANTEC 2010, were compared. Both collimators were able to achieve the target dose to the PTVs. The dose to the organs at risk (brainstem, spinal cord, parotids, and larynx) were 1%-12% (i.e., 0.5-8 Gy for a 70 Gy prescription) lower with the 160 MLC compared to the 120 MLC, depending on the proximity of the organ to the target. The large field HN plans generated with the 160 MLC were dosimetrically advantageous for critical structures, especially those located further away from the central axis, without compromising the target volume. 

Automation framework for online review of daily dose distributions using CT on Rails in proton therapy.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate a framework for calculating daily dose distributions for proton therapy in a timeframe amenable to online evaluation using CT-on-Rails. METHODS: Tasks associated with calculation of daily dose are fully automated. A rigid registration between daily and planning images is used to propagate beams and targets for calculation of daily dose; additionally, risk structures are propagated using deformable registration to facilitate online evaluation. An end-to-end constancy test was carried out using a pelvis phantom containing a simulated target and bladder contour. 97 Daily fan-beam CT data sets associated with 10 clinical patients were processed to demonstrate feasibility and utility of online evaluation. Computing times and dosimetric differences are reported. RESULTS: The phantom constancy test took 62 s to complete with no notable discrepancies in the registrations or calculated dose. Max doses were identical for target and bladder contours on initial and repeat scans (359 and 310 cGy (RBE) respectively). Total processing time for 97 daily patient images averaged 154.6 s (73.0 - 222.0 s; SD = 31.8 s). On average, dose calculation accounted for 35 % of total processing time. Average differences in D95 for target contours was 1.5 % (SD = 1.6 %) with a max decrease of 5.9 % on a single daily image. CONCLUSION: Daily dose can be automatically calculated in a timeframe amenable to online evaluation using scanner utilities in conjunction with the scripting API of a commercial treatment planning system. Online evaluation of dose in proton therapy is useful to detect clinically relevant changes, guide setup, and facilitate treatment or replanning decisions.

Image-guided preplanning workflow for high-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy for gynecological malignancies.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate image-guided preplan workflows for high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy for advanced gynecological malignancies. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Two different preplanning scenarios are presented: (1) CT- or MRI-based preplan with partial applicator in place; (2) Preplans generated from prior fractions. The first scenario can be applied to Syed-Neblett template-based implants or hybrid brachytherapy applicators, while the second scenario applies to hybrid applicators. Both scenarios use MRI or CT images acquired with the applicator in place to demonstrate tumor and applicator relative locations and therefore, provide the ability to show optimized suggested needle positions including the implant depths before the actual insertion. RESULTS: The preplanning techniques have demonstrated feasibility and shown five areas of potential improvement: (1) shorter procedure time, (2) decreased number of total needles inserted, (3) shorter physician tumor contour time, (4) shorter planning time, and (5) evaluation of appropriateness for brachytherapy. CONCLUSIONS: The use of image-guided brachytherapy preplanning improves clinical efficiency and is recommended for consideration for adaptation into clinical workflows for HDR interstitial and hybrid brachytherapy.

Four-dimensional tissue deformation reconstruction (4D TDR) validation using a real tissue phantom.

Calculation of four-dimensional (4D) dose distributions requires the remapping of dose calculated on each available binned phase of the 4D CT onto a reference phase for summation. Deformable image registration (DIR) is usually used for this task, but unfortunately almost always considers only endpoints rather than the whole motion path. A new algorithm, 4D tissue deformation reconstruction (4D TDR), that uses either CT projection data or all available 4D CT images to reconstruct 4D motion data, was developed. The purpose of this work is to verify the accuracy of the fit of this new algorithm using a realistic tissue phantom. A previously described fresh tissue phantom with implanted electromagnetic tracking (EMT) fiducials was used for this experiment. The phantom was animated using a sinusoidal and a real patient-breathing signal. Four-dimensional computer tomography (4D CT) and EMT tracking were performed. Deformation reconstruction was conducted using the 4D TDR and a modified 4D TDR which takes real tissue hysteresis (4D TDR(Hysteresis)) into account. Deformation estimation results were compared to the EMT and 4D CT coordinate measurements. To eliminate the possibility of the high contrast markers driving the 4D TDR, a comparison was made using the original 4D CT data and data in which the fiducials were electronically masked. For the sinusoidal animation, the average deviation of the 4D TDR compared to the manually determined coordinates from 4D CT data was 1.9 mm, albeit with as large as 4.5 mm deviation. The 4D TDR calculation traces matched 95% of the EMT trace within 2.8 mm. The motion hysteresis generated by real tissue is not properly projected other than at endpoints of motion. Sinusoidal animation resulted in 95% of EMT measured locations to be within less than 1.2 mm of the measured 4D CT motion path, enabling accurate motion characterization of the tissue hysteresis. The 4D TDR(Hysteresis) calculation traces accounted well for the hysteresis and matched 95% of the EMT trace within 1.6 mm. An irregular (in amplitude and frequency) recorded patient trace applied to the same tissue resulted in 95% of the EMT trace points within less than 4.5 mm when compared to both the 4D CT and 4D TDR(Hysteresis) motion paths. The average deviation of 4D TDR(Hysteresis) compared to 4D CT datasets was 0.9 mm under regular sinusoidal and 1.0 mm under irregular patient trace animation. The EMT trace data fit to the 4D TDR(Hysteresis) was within 1.6 mm for sinusoidal and 4.5 mm for patient trace animation. While various algorithms have been validated for end-to-end accuracy, one can only be fully confident in the performance of a predictive algorithm if one looks at data along the full motion path. The 4D TDR, calculating the whole motion path rather than only phase- or endpoints, allows us to fully characterize the accuracy of a predictive algorithm, minimizing assumptions. This algorithm went one step further by allowing for the inclusion of tissue hysteresis effects, a real-world effect that is neglected when endpoint-only validation is performed. Our results show that the 4D TDR(Hysteresis) correctly models the deformation at the endpoints and any intermediate points along the motion path.

Characterization of an Onboard Transmission Detector for Efficient Linear Accelerator Output Quality Assurance.

Purpose To investigate the potential to perform linear accelerator output quality assurance (QA) with the ScandiDos Delta4 Discover (Discover) onboard transmission detector. Materials and methods Using the ScandiDos Delta4 software (version 8), a conversion factor from raw signal to output was obtained via cross-calibration with an accredited dosimetry calibration laboratory (ADCL) calibrated ionization chamber for each photon energy, including flattening-filter-free (FFF) energies. With the calibration factor for 6 MV (6x) photon energy, output measurements were taken with both the Delta4 Discover and ion chamber and compared for output as a function of gantry angle and dose-rate dependence. Monitor unit (MU) linearity for 6x was measured and compared with ion chamber measurements. Additionally, the Discover was used to take output measurements, for 6x, approximately every hour throughout the course of a treatment day, and compared with ion chamber output measurements at the beginning and end of the treatment day. Results Output measurements for each photon energy were comparable with a maximum difference of -0.57% for flattened beams (6x) and 0.21% for FFF beams (10FFF). Output measurements using the Discover matched ion chamber output measurements at every dose rate within 2%, and within 1% for output as a function of gantry angle. MU linearity test agreed with ion chamber measurements with a maximum difference of 0.41%. Output measurements using the Discover showed a daily drift in output throughout the course of a treatment day of around 2% and correlated very well with ion chamber outputs measured at the beginning and end of the treatment day (within 0.2%). Conclusions The ScandiDos Delta4 Discover onboard transmission detector is able to accurately measure linear accelerator output comparable to ion chamber measurements.

Technical note: Clinical evaluation of a newly released surface-guided radiation therapy system on DIBH for left breast radiation therapy.

BACKGROUND: It has been shown that a significant reduction of mean heart dose and left anterior descending artery (LAD) dose can be achieved through the use of DIBH for left breast radiation therapy. Surface-guided DIBH has been widely adopted during the last decade, and there are mainly three commercially available SGRT systems. The reports of the performance of a newly released SGRT system for DIBH application are currently very limited. PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical performance of a newly released SGRT system on DIBH for left breast radiation therapy. METHODS: Twenty-five left breast cancer patients treated with DIBH utilizing Varian's Identify system were included (total 493-fraction treatments). Four aspects of the clinical performance were evaluated: Identify offsets of free breathing post patient setup from tattoos, Identify offsets during DIBH, Identify agreement with radiographic ports during DIBH, and DIBH reference surface re-capture post patient shifts. The systematic and random errors of free breathing Identify offsets post patient setup were calculated for each patient, as well as for offsets during DIBH. Radiographic ports were taken when the patient's DIBH position was within the clinical tolerance of (± 0.3 cm, ± 30 ), and these were then compared with treatment field DRRs. If the ports showed that the patient alignment did not agree with the DRRs within 3 mm, a patient shift was performed. A new reference surface was captured and verification ports were taken. RESULTS: The all-patient average systematic and random errors of Identify offsets for free breathing were within (0.4 cm, 1.50 ) post tattoo setup. The maximum per-patient systematic and random errors were (1.1 cm, 6.20 ) and (0.9 cm, 20 ), and the maximum amplitude of Identify offsets were (2.59 cm, 90 ). All 493-fraction DIBH treatments were delivered and successfully guided by the Identify SGRT system. The systematic and random errors of Identify offsets for DIBH were within (0.2 cm, 2.30 ). Seven patients needed re-captured surface references due to surface variation or position shifts based on the ports. All patient DIBH verification ports guided by Identify were approved by attending physicians. CONCLUSION: This evaluation showed that the Identify system performed effectively for surface-guided patient setup and surface-guided DIBH imaging and treatment delivery. The feature of color-coded real-time patient surface matching feedback facilitated the evaluation of the patient alignment accuracy and the adjustment of the patient position to match the reference.

Initial clinical evaluation of a novel combined biometric, radio-frequency identification, and surface imaging system.

PURPOSE: To evaluate and characterize the overall clinical functionality and workflow of the newly released Varian Identify system (version 2.3). METHODS: Three technologies included in the Varian Identify system were evaluated: patient biometric authentication, treatment accessory device identification, and surface-guided radiation therapy (SGRT) function. Biometric authentication employs a palm vein reader. Treatment accessory device verification utilizes two technologies: device presence via Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) and position via optical markers. Surface-guidance was evaluated on both patient orthopedic setup at loading position and surface matching and tracking at treatment isocenter. A phantom evaluation of the consistency and accuracy for Identify SGRT function was performed, including a system consistency test, a translational shift and rotational accuracy test, a pitch and roll accuracy test, a continuous recording test, and an SGRT vs Cone-Beam CT (CBCT) agreement test. RESULTS: 201 patient authentications were verified successfully with palm reader. All patient treatment devices were successfully verified for their presences and positions (indexable devices). The patient real-time orthopedic pose was successfully adjusted to match the reference surface captured at simulation. SGRT-reported shift consistency against couch readout was within (0.1 mm, 0.030). The shift accuracy was within (0.3 mm, 0.10). In continuous recording mode, the maximum variation was 0.2 ± 0.12 mm, 0.030 ± 0.020. The difference between Identify SGRT offset and CBCT was within (1 mm, 10). CONCLUSIONS: This clinical evaluation confirms that Identify accurately functions for patient palm identification and patient treatment device presence and position verification. Overall SGRT consistency and accuracy was within (1 mm, 10), within the 2 mm criteria of AAPM TG302.