Effect of lethal total body irradiation on bone marrow chimerism, acute graft-versus-host disease, and tumor engraftment in mouse models: impact of different radiation techniques using low- and high-energy X-rays.

PURPOSE: Effects of X­ray energy levels used for myeloablative lethal total body irradiation (TBI) delivery prior to bone marrow transplantation (BMT) in preclinical mouse models were examined. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In mouse models, single-fraction myeloablative TBI at a lethal dose was delivered using two different X­ray devices, either low (160 kV cabinet irradiator) or high energy (6 MV linear accelerator), before semi-allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) to ensure bone marrow (BM) chimerism, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), and tumor engraftment. Recipient mice were clinically followed for 80 days after bone marrow transplantation (BMT). Flow cytometry was performed to assess donor chimerism and tumor engraftment in recipient mice. RESULTS: Both X­ray irradiation techniques delivered a 10 Gy single fraction of TBI, presented a lethal effect, and could allow near-complete early donor chimerism on day 13. However, low-energy irradiation increased T cells' alloreactivity compared to high-energy irradiation, leading to clinical consequences for GVHD and tumor engraftment outcomes. The alloreactive effect differences might be attributed to the distinction in inflammatory status of irradiated recipients at donor cell infusion (D0). Delaying donor cell administration (D1 after lethal TBI) attenuated T cells' alloreactivity and clinical outcomes in GVHD mouse models. CONCLUSION: Different X­ray irradiation modalities condition T cell alloreactivity in experimental semi-allogeneic BMT. Low-energy X­ray irradiator induces a post-TBI inflammatory burst and exacerbates alloreactive reactions. This technical and biological information should be considered in interpreting GVHD/ graft-versus-leukemia effect results in mice experimental models of BMT.

Comparison of Dosimetry Protocols for Electron Beam Radiotherapy Calibrations and Measurement Uncertainties.

This paper presents guidelines for the calibration of radiation beams that were issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA TRS 398), the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM TG 51) and the German task group (DIN 6800-2). These protocols are based on the use of an ionization chamber calibrated in terms of absorbed dose to water in a standard laboratory's reference quality beam, where the previous protocols were based on air kerma standards. This study aims to determine uncertainties in dosimetry for electron beam radiotherapy using internationally established high-energy radiotherapy beam calibration standards. Methods: Dw was determined in 6-, 12- and 18 MeV electron energies under reference conditions using three cylindrical and two plane-parallel ion chambers in concert with the IAEA TRS 398, AAPM TG 51 and DIN 6800-2 absorbed dose protocols. From mean measured Dw values, the ratio TRS 398/TG 51 was found to vary between 0.988 and 1.004, while for the counterpart TRS 398/DIN 6800-2 and TG 51/DIN 6800-2, the variation ranges were 0.991-1.003 and 0.997-1.005, respectively. For the cylindrical chambers, the relative combined uncertainty (k = 1) in absorbed dose measurements was 1.44%, while for the plane-parallel chambers, it ranged from 1.53 to 1.88%. Conclusions: A high degree of consistency was demonstrated among the three protocols. It is suggested that in the use of the presently determined dose conversion factors across the three protocols, dose intercomparisons can be facilitated between radiotherapy centres.

Comparison between two different algorithms used for pretreatment QA via aSi portal images.

Several algorithms exist to perform quality assurance for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatments based on electronic portal imaging devices (EPID). These algorithms are used to compare doses (convert into water, GLAaS) and fluences (in amorphous silicon (aSi), Varian portal dosimetry). The aim of this study is to compare the two methods using clinical data. In this study, Varian portal dosimetry (VPD) and Epiqa solutions were compared. We used a same set of patient images data treated with 6 MV and 20 MV photon energies and different locations. The response of the portal imaging device was also investigated with different field sizes, monitor units, dose rates, sag effect, and linac daily output. All images were acquired on an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) positioned at source detector distance (SDD) of 100 cm. A virtual water phantom was used for Epiqa to calculate the dose matrices at the maximum depth doses dmax. The 2D gamma evaluation index (GAI) was performed to quantitatively compare the results given by the two solutions. The response of the EPID gave a good agreement with Epiqa (deviation less than 1%) for MU greater than 20 for both 6 MV and 20 MV photon energies. For VPD, the upward sloping trend showed a good agreement for MU higher than 50. Dose rate evaluations for both methods gave a deviation of, respectively, 0.4 and 0.5 % for 6 MV and 20 MV. The gamma criteria of 3 mm for distance to agreement and 3 % for dose difference was, as mean ± 1SD, 99.81% ± 1.48% and 99.42% ± 0.97% for VPD and Epiqa, respectively, for 6 MV photon energy. The mean values of the gamma criteria for the collected data using 20 MV photon energy were, respectively, 98.33% ± 2.41% and 98.12% ± 1.99% for VPD and Epiqa. The output constancy deviation correction (a 10 × 10cm² reference field plan to obtain absorbed dose despite the linac monitor daily variations) showed a mean deviation of, respectively, 0.07% ± 0.57% and 0.16% ± 1.38% for 6 MV and 20 MV photon energies. For sag effect, a slight improvement was noticed for realignment of the integrated image and was 0.25%± 0.69% for 6 MV and 0.40% ± 0.57% for 20 MV. The clinical data were used for pretreatment QA with the two systems, both VPD and Epiqa software, showed acceptable and similar results for low and high energies. Furthermore, Epiqa shows better linearity response for low MU.