Unintended doses in radiotherapy-over, under and outside?

Radiotherapy is a safe treatment; nevertheless, national reporting of serious incidents allows investigation of potential harm to individuals and failing safety culture. UK guidance has previously been limited to overexposures, but underexposures will be included in the new legislation, and positioning errors have also been explicitly included in recent guidance. This commentary reviews current guidance and suggests practical approaches to the additional categories, including the definition of a local error margin.

Feasibility of portal dosimetry for flattening filter-free radiotherapy.

The feasibility of using portal dosimetry (PD) to verify 6 MV flattening filter-free (FFF) IMRT treatments was investigated. An Elekta Synergy linear accelerator with an Agility collimator capable of delivering FFF beams and a standard iViewGT amorphous silicon (aSi) EPID panel (RID 1640 AL5P) at a fixed SSD of 160 cm were used. Dose rates for FFF beams are up to four times higher than for conventional flattened beams, meaning images taken at maximum FFF dose rate can saturate the EPID. A dose rate of 800 MU/min was found not to saturate the EPID for open fields. This dose rate was subsequently used to characterize the EPID for FFF portal dosimetry. A range of open and phantom fields were measured with both an ion chamber and the EPID, to allow comparison between the two. The measured data were then used to create a model within The Nederlands Kanker Instituut's (NKI's) portal dosimetry software. The model was verified using simple square fields with a range of field sizes and phantom thicknesses. These were compared to calculations performed with the Monaco treatment planning system (TPS) and isocentric ion chamber measurements. It was found that the results for the FFF verification were similar to those for flattened beams with testing on square fields, indicating a difference in dose between the TPS and portal dosimetry of approximately 1%. Two FFF IMRT plans (prostate and lung SABR) were delivered to a homogeneous phantom and showed an overall dose difference at isocenter of ~0.5% and good agreement between the TPS and PD dose distributions. The feasibility of using the NKI software without any modifications for high-dose-rate FFF beams and using a standard EPID detector has been investigated and some initial limitations highlighted.

A simple model for predicting the signal for a head-mounted transmission chamber system, allowing IMRT in-vivo dosimetry without pretreatment linac time.

The DAVID is a transparent, multi-wire transmission-style detector that attaches to a linear accelerator (linac) collimator for use as an in vivo detector. Currently, the normal method for using the DAVID is to measure a signal at the time of phantom-based pretreatment verification and use that signal as a baseline to compare with in vivo measurements for subsequent treatment fractions. The device has previously been shown to be both stable and accurate.(1,2) This work presents the development of a predictive algorithm for the expected signal, eradicating the need to spend time on the linac prior to treatment, and thereby making the process more efficient. The DAVID response at each wire is a consequence of both primary radiation, from the leaf pair associated with the wire, and scatter radiation as a result of radiation incident on other parts of the detector scattering in the Perspex plate. The primary radiation was shown to be linearly proportional to both leaf separation and delivered monitor units (MU). The scatter signal dropped off exponentially with regard to distance. Both of these effects were modeled; the resulting algorithm was used to predict the response from ten five-field IMRT head and neck plans. The system predicted all DAVID signals to within 5%, and was able to detect artificially generated changes in linac output. Having shown that the algorithm works, a new working paradigm is suggested, and the errors that can be detected are outlined.

18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography-based radiotherapy target volume definition in non-small-cell lung cancer: delineation by radiation oncologists vs. joint outlining with a PET radiologist?

PURPOSE: (18)F-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) has benefits in target volume (TV) definition in radiotherapy treatment planning (RTP) for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, an optimal protocol for TV delineation has not been determined. We investigate volumetric and positional variation in gross tumor volume (GTV) delineation using a planning PET/CT among three radiation oncologists and a PET radiologist. METHODS AND MATERIALS: RTP PET/CT scans were performed on 28 NSCLC patients (Stage IA-IIIB) of which 14 patients received prior induction chemotherapy. Three radiation oncologists and one PET radiologist working with a fourth radiation oncologist independently delineated the GTV on CT alone (GTV(CT)) and on fused PET/CT images (GTV(PETCT)). The mean percentage volume change (PVC) between GTV(CT) and GTV(PETCT) for the radiation oncologists and the PVC between GTV(CT) and GTV(PETCT) for the PET radiologist were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Concordance index (CI) was used to assess both positional and volume change between GTV(CT) and GTV(PETCT) in a single measurement. RESULTS: For all patients, a significant difference in PVC from GTV(CT) to GTV(PETCT) exists between the radiation oncologist (median, 5.9%), and the PET radiologist (median, -0.4%, p = 0.001). However, no significant difference in median concordance index (comparing GTV(CT) and GTV(FUSED) for individual cases) was observed (PET radiologist = 0.73; radiation oncologists = 0.66; p = 0.088). CONCLUSIONS: Percentage volume changes from GTV(CT) to GTV(PETCT) were lower for the PET radiologist than for the radiation oncologists, suggesting a lower impact of PET/CT in TV delineation for the PET radiologist than for the oncologists. Guidelines are needed to standardize the use of PET/CT for TV delineation in RTP.

(18)F-FDG PET-CT simulation for non-small-cell lung cancer: effect in patients already staged by PET-CT.

PURPOSE: Positron emission tomography (PET), in addition to computed tomography (CT), has an effect in target volume definition for radical radiotherapy (RT) for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In previously PET-CT staged patients with NSCLC, we assessed the effect of using an additional planning PET-CT scan for gross tumor volume (GTV) definition. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 28 patients with Stage IA-IIIB NSCLC were enrolled. All patients had undergone staging PET-CT to ensure suitability for radical RT. Of the 28 patients, 14 received induction chemotherapy. In place of a RT planning CT scan, patients underwent scanning on a PET-CT scanner. In a virtual planning study, four oncologists independently delineated the GTV on the CT scan alone and then on the PET-CT scan. Intraobserver and interobserver variability were assessed using the concordance index (CI), and the results were compared using the Wilcoxon signed ranks test. RESULTS: PET-CT improved the CI between observers when defining the GTV using the PET-CT images compared with using CT alone for matched cases (median CI, 0.57 for CT and 0.64 for PET-CT, p = .032). The median of the mean percentage of volume change from GTV(CT) to GTV(FUSED) was -5.21% for the induction chemotherapy group and 18.88% for the RT-alone group. Using the Mann-Whitney U test, this was significantly different (p = .001). CONCLUSION: PET-CT RT planning scan, in addition to a staging PET-CT scan, reduces interobserver variability in GTV definition for NSCLC. The GTV size with PET-CT compared with CT in the RT-alone group increased and was reduced in the induction chemotherapy group.

Clinical implementation of dynamic and step-and-shoot IMRT to treat prostate cancer with high risk of pelvic lymph node involvement.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Two systems have been developed for treating patients with locally advanced prostate cancer using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT): one using dynamic multi-leaf collimator delivery and the other using step-and-shoot. This paper describes the clinical implementation of these two techniques, and presents results from the first 14 patients treated in a clinical setting (nine dynamic, five step-and-shoot). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Dynamic treatments were planned using Corvus, and step-and-shoot using Helax-TMS; all were delivered using Elekta accelerators. Prior to the first clinical treatments, validation measurements were carried out for each system, including measurements for a complete IMRT treatment. The reproducibility of dynamic delivery and the characteristics of the accelerator for low-monitor-unit (MU) deliveries were also assessed. An extensive quality assurance (QA) program was performed for each of the patients. Additionally, timing measurements were carried out to assess the practicalities of the technique. RESULTS: The planning objectives were met in most cases. Absolute doses for complete IMRT treatments were within 2%, on average, with dose distributions generally showing agreement within 3% or 3 mm. Beam modulation measurements made throughout each patient's treatment indicated that both delivery methods were reproducible. The dynamic plans required an average of 765 MU per beam, with a treatment delivery time of 14 min; corresponding results for step-and-shoot plans were 105 MU and 10 min. CONCLUSIONS: Two IMRT techniques for this group of patients have been successfully implemented in the clinic. The more complex dynamic treatments showed no advantages over the step-and-shoot approach. QA results have shown accurate and reproducible delivery for both techniques, giving increased confidence in the techniques and allowing a reduction in the QA program.