Characterization of a novel pulse normalization technology for beam scanning of small fields without a reference chamber.

PURPOSE: A novel pulse normalization technology enabling the acquisition of low noise beam data without the use of a physical reference chamber has recently been commercially released. The purpose of this study was to characterize the use of this technology for beam scanning of small fields required in the commissioning of a stereotactic radiotherapy program. METHODS: Three detectors (Edge diode, microDiamond, PinPoint) were used to acquire beam data under three conditions: with a reference chamber, with pulse normalization and no reference chamber (PN), and without pulse normalization and no reference chamber (nPN). Percent depth dose (PDD) scans were acquired for 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 cm2 field sizes and profiles were acquired at 1.4, 10, and 30 cm depths using continuous scanning. The coefficient of variation (CoV) was calculated for all beam data to compare signal-to-noise and gamma comparisons (1%, 1 mm) were calculated of the PN and nPN scans compared to the reference data. RESULTS: Average 95th percentile CoV values were similar for all detectors across conditions, with PN data being comparable to reference data and minor increases observed for nPN data. Mean gamma pass rates for PN PDD scans exceeded 98% for all detectors. Profile gamma pass rates were 100% for all detectors at 1.4 and 10 cm depth. At 30 cm depth, profiles acquired with the PinPoint and microDiamond detectors had lower mean gamma pass rates than the Edge, at 95% and 95.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A novel pulse normalization technology was demonstrated to be effective for acquiring beam profiles and PDDs for small fields without the use of a physical reference chamber. Limitations in how the method is implemented led to some errors in data acquired using lower sensitivity detectors. When used with a diode, pulse normalization produced equivalent scans to those acquired with a reference chamber.

Technical note: Commissioning of a low-cost system for directly 3D printed flexible bolus.

PURPOSE: To present the commissioning process of a low-cost solution for directly 3D printed flexible patient specific bolus. METHODS: The 3D printing solution used in this study consisted of a resin stereolithography 3D printer and a flexible curing resin. To test the dimensional accuracy of the 3D printer, rectangular cuboids with varying dimensions were 3D printed and their measured dimensions were compared to the designed dimensions. Percent Depth Dose (PDD) profiles were measured by irradiating film embedded in a 3D printed phantom made of the flexible material. A CT of the phantom was acquired and used to replicate the irradiation setup in the treatment planning system. PDDs were calculated for both the native HU of the phantom, and with the phantom HU overridden to 300 HU to match its physical density. Dosimetric agreement was characterized by comparing calculated to measured depths of R90, R80, and R50. Upon completion of the commissioning process, a bolus was 3D printed for a clinical case study for treatment of the nose. RESULTS: Dimensional accuracy of the printer and material combination was found to be good, with all measured dimensions of test cuboids within 0.5 mm of designed. PDD measurements demonstrated the best dosimetric agreement when the material was overridden to 300 HU, corresponding to the measured physical density of the material of 1.18 g/cc. Calculated and measured depths of R90, R80, and R50 all agreed within 1 mm. The bolus printed for the clinical case was free from defects, highly conformal, and led to a clinically acceptable plan. CONCLUSION: The results of the commissioning measurements performed indicate that the 3D printer and material solution are suitable for clinical use. The 3D printer and material combination can provide a low-cost solution a clinic can implement in-house to directly 3D print flexible bolus.

A hybrid method to improve efficiency of patient specific SRS and SBRT QA using 3D secondary dose verification.

PURPOSE: Patient Specific QA (PSQA) by direct phantom measurement for all intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) cases is labor intensive and an inefficient use of the Medical Physicist's time. The purpose of this work was to develop a hybrid quality assurance (QA) technique utilizing 3D dose verification as a screening tool to determine if a measurement is necessary. METHODS: This study utilized Sun Nuclear DoseCHECK (DC), a 3D secondary verification software, and Fraction 0, a trajectory log IMRT QA software. Twenty-two Lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and thirty single isocentre multi-lesion SRS (MLSRS) plans were retrospectively analysed in DC. Agreement of DC and the TPS dose for selected dosimetric criteria was recorded. Calculated 95% confidence limits (CL) were used to establish action limits. All cases were delivered and measured using the Sun Nuclear stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) MapCheck. Trajectory logs of the delivery were used to calculate Fraction 0 results for the same criteria calculated by DC. Correlation of DC and Fraction 0 results were calculated. Phantom measured QA was compared to Fraction 0 QA results for the cases which had DC criteria action limits exceeded. RESULTS: Correlation of DC and Fraction 0 results were excellent, demonstrating the same action limits could be used for both and DC can predict Fraction 0 results. Based on the calculated action limits, zero lung SBRT cases and six MLSRS cases were identified as requiring a measurement. All plans that passed the DC screening had a passing measurement based PSQA and agreed with Fraction 0 results. CONCLUSION: Using 95% CL action limits of dosimetric criteria, a 3D secondary dose verification can be used to determine if a measurement is required for PSQA. This method is efficient for it is part of the normal clinical workflow when verifying any clinical treatment. In addition, it can drastically reduce the number of measurements needed for PSQA.

Validation of spline modeling for calculation of electron insert factors for varian linear accelerators.

There are several methods available in the literature for predicting the insert factor for clinical electron beams. The purpose of this work was to build on a previously published technique that uses a bivariate spline model generated from elliptically parameterized empirical measurements. The technique has been previously validated for Elekta linear accelerators for limited clinical electron setups. The same model is applied to Varian machines to test its efficacy for use with these linear accelerators. Insert factors for specifically designed elliptical cutouts were measured to create spline models for 6, 9, 12, 16, and 20 MeV electron energies for four different cone sizes at source-to-surface distances (SSD) of 100, 105, and 110 cm. Insert factor validation measurements of patient cutouts and clinical standard cutouts were acquired to compare to model predictions. Agreement between predicted insert factors and validation measurements averaged 0.8% over all energies, cones, and clinical SSDs, with an uncertainty of 0.6% (1SD), and maximum deviation of 2.1%. The model demonstrated accurate predictions of insert factors using the minimum required amount of input data for small cones, with more input measurements required for larger cones. The results of this study provide expanded validation of this technique to predict insert factors for all energies, cones, and SSDs that would be used in most clinical situations. This level of accuracy and the ease of creating the model necessary for the insert factor predictions demonstrate its acceptability to use clinically for Varian machines.

Contralateral breast dose from partial breast brachytherapy.

The purpose of this study was to determine the dose to the contralateral breast during accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) and to compare it to external beam-published values. Thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) packets were used to measure the dose to the most medial aspect of the contralateral breast during APBI simulation, daily quality assurance (QA), and treatment. All patients in this study were treated with a single-entry, multicatheter device for 10 fractions to a total dose of 34 Gy. A mark was placed on the patient's skin on the medial aspect of the opposite breast. Three TLD packets were taped to this mark during the pretreatment simulation. Simulations consisted of an AP and Lateral scout and a limited axial scan encompassing the lumpectomy cavity (miniscan), if rotation was a concern. After the simulation the TLD packets were removed and the patients were moved to the high-dose-rate (HDR) vault where three new TLD packets were taped onto the patients at the skin mark. Treatment was administered with a Nucletron HDR afterloader using Iridium-192 as the treatment source. Post-treatment, TLDs were read (along with the simulation and QA TLD and a set of standards exposed to a known dose of 6 MV photons). Measurements indicate an average total dose to the contralateral breast of 70 cGy for outer quadrant implants and 181 cGy for inner quadrant implants. Compared to external beam breast tangents, these results point to less dose being delivered to the contralateral breast when using APBI.

Commissioning results of an automated treatment planning verification system.

A dose calculation verification system (VS) was acquired and commissioned as a second check on the treatment planning system (TPS). This system reads DICOM CT datasets, RT plans, RT structures, and RT dose from the TPS and automatically, using its own collapsed cone superposition/convolution algorithm, computes dose on the same CT dataset. The system was commissioned by extracting basic beam parameters for simple field geometries and dose verification for complex treatments. Percent depth doses (PDD) and profiles were extracted for field sizes using jaw settings 3 × 3 cm2 - 40 × 40 cm2 and compared to measured data, as well as our TPS model. Smaller fields of 1 × 1 cm2 and 2 × 2 cm2 generated using the multileaf collimator (MLC) were analyzed in the same fashion as the open fields. In addition, 40 patient plans consisting of both IMRT and VMAT were computed and the following comparisons were made: 1) TPS to the VS, 2) VS to measured data, and 3) TPS to measured data where measured data is both ion chamber (IC) and film measurements. Our results indicated for all field sizes using jaw settings PDD errors for the VS on average were less than 0.87%, 1.38%, and 1.07% for 6x, 15x, and 18x, respectively, relative to measured data. PDD errors for MLC field sizes were less than 2.28%, 1.02%, and 2.23% for 6x, 15x, and 18x, respectively. The infield profile analysis yielded results less than 0.58% for 6x, 0.61% for 15x, and 0.77% for 18x for the VS relative to measured data. Analysis of the penumbra region yields results ranging from 66.5% points, meeting the DTA criteria to 100% of the points for smaller field sizes for all energies. Analysis of profile data for field sizes generated using the MLC saw agreement with infield DTA analysis ranging from 68.8%-100% points passing the 1.5%/1.5 mm criteria. Results from the dose verification for IMRT and VMAT beams indicated that, on average, the ratio of TPS to IC and VS to IC measurements was 100.5 ± 1.9% and 100.4 ± 1.3%, respectively, while our TPS to VS was 100.1 ± 1.0%. When comparing the TPS and VS to film measurements, the average percentage pixels passing a 3%/3mm criteria based gamma analysis were 96.6 ± 4.2% and 97 ± 5.6%, respectively. When the VS was compared to the TPS, on average 98.1 ± 5.3% of pixels passed the gamma analysis. Based upon these preliminary results, the VS system should be able to calculate dose adequately as a verification tool of our TPS.

A new paradigm for calculating skin dose.

PURPOSE: Most institutions model breast epidermis with a surface contour and record the maximum dose on the external surface of the patient. The objective of this study was to compare the external surface contour (ext) model of the skin with our current volumetric model for skin for radiation treatment planning in accelerated partial breast irradiation brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A literature search was conducted to identify studies measuring breast epidermal thickness. Clinical plans were performed with a 2-mm contraction of the external surface contour. This 2-mm contraction of the external surface contour was used to approximate breast epidermis thickness. Then, the external surface contour was expanded 5mm outside the external contour of the patient for the second skin model. Maximum doses from the two models were recorded and compared. RESULTS: The average breast epidermal thickness from five studies was 1.68mm. Mean percent difference between skin and ext+5mm for balloon plans, strut plans, and all plans was 10.1%, 14.5%, and 12.5%, respectively. Differences in doses between the two skin models were statistically significant (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The volumetric skin model was validated because the average breast epidermal thickness was 1.68mm. The surface model for skin may underestimate the dose delivered to the epidermis by as much as 23.8%. The external surface contour method does not accurately represent the dermatologic skin thickness of the breast as the skin is modeled as a surface rather than a volume. These discrepancies may skew correlations of dose to skin and toxicity determinations.

On the feasibility of treating to a 1.5 cm PTV with a commercial single-entry hybrid applicator in APBI breast brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate and determine whether 30 patients previously treated with the SAVI™ device could have been treated to a PTV_EVAL created with a 1.5 cm expansion. This determination was based upon dosimetric parameters derived from current recommendations and dose-response data. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty patients were retrospectively planned with PTV_EVALs generated with a 1.5 cm expansion (PTV_EVAL_1.5). Plans were evaluated based on PTV_EVAL_1.5 coverage (V90, V95, V100), skin and rib maximum doses (0.1 cc maximum dose as a percentage of prescription dose), as well as V150 and V200 for the PTV_EVAL_1.5. The treatment planning goal was to deliver ≥90% of the prescribed dose to ≥90% of the PTV_EVAL_1.5. Skin and rib maximum doses were to be ≤125% of the prescription dose and preferably ≤100% of the prescription dose. V150 and V200 were not allowed to exceed 52.5 cc and 21 cc, respectively. Plans not meeting the above criteria were recomputed with a 1.25 cm expanded PTV_EVAL and re-evaluated. RESULTS: Based on the above dose constraints, 30% (9/30) of the patients evaluated could have been treated with a 1.5 cm PTV_EVAL. The breakdown of cases successfully achieving the above dose constraints by applicator was: 0/4 (0%) 6-1, 6/15 (40%) 8-1, and 3/11 (27%) 10-1. For these PTV_EVAL_1.5 plans, median V90% was 90.3%, whereas the maximum skin and rib doses were all less than 115.2% and 117.6%, respectively. The median V150 and V200 volumes were 39.2 cc and 19.3, respectively. The treated PTV_EVAL_1.5 was greater in volume than the PTV_EVAL by 41.7 cc, and 60 cc for the 8-1, and 10-1 applicators, respectively. All remaining plans (17) successfully met the above dose constraints to be treated with a 1.25 cm PTV_EVAL (PTV_EVAL_1.25). For the PTV_EVAL_1.25 plans, V90% was 93.7%, and the maximum skin and rib doses were all less than 109.2% and 102.5%, respectively. The median V150 and V200 volumes were 41.2 cc and 19.3, respectively. The treated PTV_EVAL_1.25 was greater in volume than the PTV_EVAL by 16 cc, 24.9 cc, and 33.5 cc for the 6-1, 8-1 and 10-1 applicators, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: It is dosimetrically possible to treat beyond the currently advised 1.0 cm expanded PTV_EVAL. Most patients should be able to be treated with a 1.25 cm PTV_EVAL and a select group with a 1.5 cm PTV_EVAL. Applicator size appears to determine the ability to expand to a 1.5 cm PTV_EVAL, as smaller devices were not as propitious in this regard. Further studies may identify additional patient groups that would benefit from this approach.

Use of a matchline dosimetry analysis tool (MDAT) to quantify dose homogeneity in the region between abutting tangential and supraclavicular radiation fields.

In this work, we develop and test a matchline dosimetry analysis tool (MDAT) to examine the dose distribution within the abutment region of two or more adjoining radiotherapy fields that employ different blocking mechanisms and geometries in forming a match. This objective and quantitative tool uses calibrated radiographic film to measure the dose in the abutment region, and uses a frequency distribution of area versus dose (a dose-area histogram) to visualize the spatial dose distribution. We tested the MDAT's clinical applicability and parameters by evaluating the dose between adjacent photon fields incident on a flat phantom using field-matching techniques employing collimator-jaw and multileaf collimator (MLC) configurations. Additionally, we evaluated the dose in the abutment regions of four different clinical tangential-breast and supraclavicular matching techniques using various combinations of collimator and MLC matches. Using the MDAT tool, it was deter-mined that a 1 cm abutment region width (centered about the theoretical matchline between fields) is the most appropriate width to determine dose homogeneity in a field matching region. Using the MDAT, both subtle and large differences were seen between fields that used MLCs to form the match, compared to flat edge devices such as collimators and external cerrobend blocks. We conclude that the MDAT facilitates a more precise evaluation of the distribution of dose within the region of abutment of radiotherapy fields.

Multileaf field-in-field forward-planned intensity-modulated dose compensation for whole-breast irradiation is associated with reduced contralateral breast dose: a phantom model comparison.

PURPOSE: Static multileaf collimated field-in-field forward-planned intensity-modulated radiation treatment (FiF-IMRT) has been shown to improve dose homogeneity compared to conventional wedged fields. However, a direct comparison of the scattered dose to the contralateral breast resulting from wedged and FiF-IMRT plans remains to be documented. METHODS: The contralateral scattered breast dose was measured in a custom-designed anthropomorphic breast phantom in which 108 thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) were volumetrically placed every 1-2cm. The target phantom breast was treated to a dose of 50Gy using three dose compensation techniques: No medial wedge and a 30-degree lateral wedge (M0-L30), 15-degree lateral and medial wedges (M15-L15), and FiF-IMRT. TLD measurements were compared using analysis of variance. RESULTS: For FiF-IMRT, the mean doses to the medial and lateral quadrants of the contralateral breast were 112cGy (range 65-226cGy) and 40cGy (range 18-91 cGy), respectively. The contralateral breast doses with FiF-IMRT were on average 65% and 82% of the doses obtained with the M15-L15 and M0-L30 techniques, respectively (p<0.001). Compared to the M15-L15 technique, the maximum dose reduction obtained with FiF-IMRT was 115cGy (range 13-115cGy). CONCLUSIONS: The dose to the contralateral breast is significantly reduced with FiF-IMRT compared to wedge-compensated techniques. Although long-term follow-up is needed to establish the clinical relevance of this finding, these results, along with the previously reported improvement in ipsilateral dose homogeneity, support the use of FiF-IMRT if resources permit.

The impact of peak-kilovoltage settings on heterogeneity-corrected photon-beam treatment plans.

Differences were evaluated in external-beam treatment plan dose calculations that result from the use of different Hounsfield-unit to electron-density conversion curves with CT images acquired with various tube potentials. These differences were found to be clinically insignificant and it was concluded that the impact of CT tube potential on treatment planning is negligible.

Clinical implications of incorporating heterogeneity corrections in mantle field irradiation.

PURPOSE: Patient dose calculations for mantle-field irradiation have traditionally been performed using homogeneous, water phantom data. The advent of computed tomography (CT)-based treatment planning now permits dose calculations to be corrected for actual patient density. Incorporation of full heterogeneity corrections is desirable, because calculations performed in this fashion more closely represent the actual dose delivered to the patient. In preparation for full clinical implementation of heterogeneity corrections in mantle irradiation, an evaluation of possible changes in dosimetry when transitioning from treatment plans generated without heterogeneity corrections to treatment plans that incorporated full heterogeneity corrections is presented. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of treatment plans with and without heterogeneity corrections for 15 consecutive patients who had undergone full mantle-field irradiation. Comparisons were made of the absolute delivered doses (in cGy per monitor unit) and the absolute volume (in cubic centimeters) enclosed by the isodose surface of the 30.6 Gy prescription line and the surface representing 90% of the prescribed dose. Dose-volume histograms (DVHs) were generated and studied to evaluate differences in the doses received by the lungs, heart, and spinal cord between corrected and uncorrected plans. Comparisons were made of the volumes of lung receiving at least 20 Gy, the volumes of heart receiving at least 25.2 Gy, and the maximum cord dose. RESULTS: Dosimetric differences between heterogeneity-corrected and heterogeneity-uncorrected calculations were small. The mean total ratio of corrected-to-uncorrected dose per monitor unit was 1.01, with a standard deviation (SD) of 0.02. The mean corrected-to-uncorrected treated volume ratio (30.6 Gy) was 0.97, SD 0.14, and the mean corrected-to-uncorrected volume ratio of the 90% isodose surface was 0.99, SD 0.02. The ratio of the volume of lung receiving at least 20 Gy was 1.03, SD 0.02; the ratio of the volume of heart receiving at least 25.2 Gy was 1.01, SD 0.03; and the maximum spinal cord dose ratio was 1.02, SD 0.02. CONCLUSIONS: In all patient treatment plans evaluated, no significant dosimetric differences were observed between heterogeneity-corrected and heterogeneity-uncorrected treatment plans. However, unpredictable differences in the prescription isodose (30.6 Gy) were observed. The differences in coverage at the 90% isodose volume were negligible. The dose administered to lung in heterogeneity-corrected plans demonstrates a higher dose overall, with the greatest increase occurring at volumes receiving at least 20 Gy. In light of these small dosimetric differences, we believe that heterogeneity corrections can be incorporated into full mantle-field treatment planning.

Corrections to traditional methods of verifying tangential-breast 3D monitor-unit calculations: use of an equivalent triangle to estimate effective fields.

This paper describes an innovative method for correctly estimating the effective field size of tangential-breast fields. The method uses an "equivalent triangle" to verify intact breast tangential field monitor-unit settings calculated by a 3D planning system to within 2%. The effects on verification calculations of loss of full scatter due to beam oblique incidence, proximity to field boundaries, and reduced scattering volumes are handled properly. The methodology is validated by comparing calculations performed by the 3D planning system with the respective verification estimates. The accuracy of this technique is established for dose calculations both with and without heterogeneity corrections.