Influence of air mapping errors on the dosimetric accuracy of prostate CBCT-guided online adaptive radiation therapy.

PURPOSE: CBCT-guided online adaptive radiotherapy (oART) plans presently utilize daily synthetic CTs (sCT) that are automatically generated using deformable registration algorithms. These algorithms may have poor performance at reproducing variable volumes of gas present during treatment. Therefore, we have analyzed the air mapping error between the daily CBCTs and the corresponding sCT and explored its dosimetric effect on oART plan calculation. METHODS: Abdominopelvic air volume was contoured on both the daily CBCT images and the corresponding synthetic images for 207 online adaptive pelvic treatments. Air mapping errors were tracked over all fractions. For two case studies representing worst case scenarios, dosimetric effects of air mapping errors were corrected in the sCT images using the daily CBCT air contours, then recalculating dose. Dose volume histogram statistics and 3D gamma passing rates were used to compare the original and air-corrected sCT-based dose calculations. RESULTS: All analyzed patients showed observable air pocket contour differences between the sCT and the CBCT images. The largest air volume difference observed in daily CBCT images for a given patient was 276.3 cc, a difference of more than 386% compared to the sCT. For the two case studies, the largest observed change in DVH metrics was a 2.6% reduction in minimum PTV dose, with all other metrics varying by less than 1.5%. 3D gamma passing rates using 1%/1 mm criteria were above 90% when comparing the uncorrected and corrected dose distributions. CONCLUSION: Current CBCT-based oART workflow can lead to inaccuracies in the mapping of abdominopelvic air pockets from daily CBCT to the sCT images used for the optimization and calculation of the adaptive plan. Despite the large observed mapping errors, the dosimetric effects of such differences on the accuracy of the adapted plan dose calculation are unlikely to cause differences greater than 3% for prostate treatments.

ACR-ASTRO Practice Parameter for the Performance of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy.

AIM/OBJECTIVES/BACKGROUND: To standardize the practice of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), the American College of Radiology (ACR) and the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) cooperatively developed the practice parameter for SBRT. SBRT is a treatment technique that delivers radiation dose to a well-defined extracranial target in 5 fractions or less and usually employs a higher dose per fraction than used in conventional radiation. METHODS: The ACR-ASTRO Practice Parameter for the Performance of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy was revised according to the process described on the ACR website ("The Process for Developing ACR Practice Parameters and Technical Standards," www.acr.org/ClinicalResources/Practice-Parameters-and-Technical-Standards) by the Committee on Practice Parameters of the ACR Commission on Radiation Oncology in collaboration with the ASTRO. Both societies then reviewed and approved the document. RESULTS: Given the complexities of SBRT, a separate document was created to develop a technical standard for the medical physics of SBRT (ACR-AAPM Technical Standard for Medical Physics Performance Monitoring of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy). Workflow, qualifications and responsibilities of personnel, specifications, documentation, quality control/safety/improvement, simulation/treatment, and follow-up were addressed in this practice parameter. CONCLUSIONS: This practice parameter assists practitioners in providing safe and appropriate SBRT treatment and care for patients when clinically indicated. As technologies and techniques continue to evolve, this document will be reviewed, revised and renewed accordingly to a 5 year or sooner timeline specified by the ACR.

State of dose prescription and compliance to international standard (ICRU-83) in intensity modulated radiation therapy among academic institutions.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate dose prescription and recording compliance to international standard (International Commission on Radiation Units & Measurements [ICRU]-83) in patients treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) among academic institutions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ten institutions participated in this study to collect IMRT data to evaluate compliance to ICRU-83. Under institutional review board clearance, data from 5094 patients-including treatment site, technique, planner, physician, prescribed dose, target volume, monitor units, planning system, and dose calculation algorithm-were collected anonymously. The dose-volume histogram of each patient, as well as dose points, doses delivered to 100% (D100), 98% (D98), 95% (D95), 50% (D50), and 2% (D2), of sites was collected and sent to a central location for analysis. Homogeneity index (HI) as a measure of the steepness of target and is a measure of the shape of the dose-volume histogram was calculated for every patient and analyzed. RESULTS: In general, ICRU recommendations for naming the target, reporting dose prescription, and achieving desired levels of dose to target were relatively poor. The nomenclature for the target in the dose prescription had large variations, having every permutation of name and number contrary to ICRU recommendations. There was statistically significant variability in D95, D50, and HI among institutions, tumor site, and technique with P values < .01. Nearly 95% of patients had D50 higher than 100% (103.5 ± 6.9) of prescribed dose and varied among institutions. On the other hand, D95 was close to 100% (97.1 ± 9.4) of prescribed dose. Liver and lung sites had a higher D50 compared with other sites. Pelvic sites had a lower variability indicated by HI (0.13 ± 1.21). Variability in D50 is 101.2 ± 8.5, 103.4 ± 6.8, 103.4 ± 8.2, and 109.5 ± 11.5 for IMRT, tomotherapy, volume modulated arc therapy, and stereotactic body radiation therapy with IMRT, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 95% of patient treatments deviated from the ICRU-83 recommended D50 prescription dose delivery. This variability is significant (P < .01) in terms of treatment site, technique, and institution. To reduce dosimetric and associated radiation outcome variability, dose prescription in every clinical trial should be unified with international guidelines.