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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Technical note: A method for generating lesion-specific nonuniform rotational margins for targets remote from isocenter.

PURPOSE: To present a novel method for generating nonuniform lesion-specific rotational margins for targets remote from isocenter, as encountered in single isocenter multiple metastasis radiotherapy. METHODS: Target contours are rotated using a large series of 3D rotations, corresponding to a given range of rotational uncertainty, and combined to create a rotational envelope that encompasses potential motion. A set of artificial spherical targets ranging from 0.5 to 2.0 cm in diameter, and residing a distance of 1 - 15 cm from isocenter, is used to generate rotational envelopes assuming uncertainties of 0.5-3.0°. Computing time and number of samples are reported for simulated scenarios. Hausdorff distances (HD) between rotational envelopes and original target structures are calculated to represent the magnitude of uniform expansion required to encompass potential rotation. Volume differences between uniform expansions (based on HD) and rotational envelopes are reported to articulate potential advantages. RESULTS: Median time to generate rotational envelopes was 60 s (31-974 s). Median required samples was 86 (61-851). Maximum HD for all targets located 10 cm from isocenter was 1.5 mm, 3.0 mm, 5.8 mm, and 8.6 mm assuming 0.5°, 1.0°, 2.0°, and 3.0° of rotational uncertainty, respectively. At 5 cm from isocenter and assuming 0.5° of rotational uncertainty, volumes were decreased by 0.07 cc (60%), 0.24 cc (39%), and 1.08 cc (19%) for 5 mm, 10 mm, and 20 mm targets respectively. At 10 cm from isocenter and 1.0° of uncertainty, volumes decreased by 0.42 cc (58%), 2.0 cc (40%), and 2.5 cc (27%). On average target volumes decreased 45% (SD = 17%) when compared with uniform expansions based on HD. CONCLUSION: Rotational margins may be generated by sampling a set of 3D rotations. Resulting margins explicitly account for target shape, distance from isocenter, and magnitude of rotational uncertainty, while reducing treated volumes when compared with uniform expansions.

Surface-Guided Patient Setup Versus Traditional Tattoo Markers for Radiation Therapy: Is Tattoo-Less Setup Feasible for Thorax, Abdomen and Pelvis Treatment?

PURPOSE: In this study, patient setup accuracy was compared between surface guidance and tattoo markers for radiation therapy treatment sites of the thorax, abdomen and pelvis. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 608 setups performed on 59 patients using both surface-guided and tattoo-based patient setups were analyzed. During treatment setup, patients were aligned to room lasers using their tattoos, and then the six-degree-of-freedom (6DOF) surface-guided offsets were calculated and recorded using AlignRT system. While the patient remained in the same post-tattoo setup position, target localization imaging (radiographic or ultrasound) was performed and these image-guided shifts were recorded. Finally, surface-guided vs tattoo-based offsets were compared to the final treatment position (based on radiographic or ultrasound imaging) to evaluate the accuracy of the two setup methods. RESULTS: The overall average offsets of tattoo-based and surface-guidance-based patient setups were comparable within 3.2 mm in three principal directions, with offsets from tattoo-based setups being slightly less. The maximum offset for tattoo setups was 2.2 cm vs. 4.3 cm for surface-guidance setups. Larger offsets (ranging from 2.0 to 4.3 cm) were observed for surface-guided setups in 14/608 setups (2.3%). For these same cases, the maximum observed tattoo-based offset was 0.7 cm. Of the cases with larger surface-guided offsets, 13/14 were for abdominal/pelvic treatment sites. Additionally, larger rotations (>3°) were recorded in 18.6% of surface-guided setups. The majority of these larger rotations were observed for abdominal and pelvic sites (~84%). CONCLUSIONS: The small average differences observed between tattoo-based and surface-guidance-based patient setups confirm the general equivalence of the two potential methods, and the feasibility of tattoo-less patient setup. However, a significant number of larger surface-guided offsets (translational and rotational) were observed, especially in the abdominal and pelvic regions. These cases should be anticipated and contingency setup methods planned for.

An Investigation of Radiation Treatment Learning Opportunities in Relation to the Radiation Oncology Electronic Medical Record: A Single Institution Experience.

PURPOSE: A modern radiation oncology electronic medical record (RO-EMR) system represents a sophisticated human-computer interface with the potential to reduce human driven errors and improve patient safety. As the RO-EMR becomes an integral part of clinical processes, it may be advantageous to analyze learning opportunities (LO) based on their relationship with the RO-EMR. This work reviews one institution's documented LO to: (1) study their relationship with the RO-EMR workflow, (2) identify best opportunities to improve RO-EMR workflow design, and (3) identify current RO-EMR workflow challenges. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Internal LO reports for an 11-year contiguous period were categorized by their relationship to the RO-EMR. We also identify the specific components of the RO-EMR used or involved in each LO. Additionally, contributing factor categories from the ASTRO/AAPM sponsored Radiation Oncology Incident Learning System's (RO-ILS) nomenclature was used to characterize LO directly linked to the RO-EMR. RESULTS: A total of 163 LO from the 11-year period were reviewed and analyzed. Most (77.2%) LO involved the RO-EMR in some way. The majority of the LO were the results of human/manual operations. The most common RO-EMR components involved in the studied LO were documentation related to patient setup, treatment session schedule functionality, RO-EMR used as a communication/note-delivery tool, and issues with treatment accessories. Most of the LO had staff lack of attention and policy not followed as 2 of the highest occurring contributing factors. CONCLUSIONS: We found that the majority of LO were related to RO-EMR workflow processes. The high-risk areas were related to manual data entry or manual treatment execution. An evaluation of LO as a function of their relationship with the RO-EMR allowed for opportunities for improvement. In addition to regular radiation oncology quality improvement review and policy update, automated functions in RO-EMR remain highly desirable.

Evaluation of the dosimetric impact of changes in shoulder position on target coverage for spine SBRT to metastases in the lower cervical spine region.

For patients treated with SBRT for spinal metastases in the cervical area, a thermoplastic mask is the usual immobilization technique. This project investigates the impact of shoulder position variability on target coverage for such cases. Eight HN patients treated in a suite equipped with a CT-on-rails system (CTOR) were randomly chosen. Of these, three were treated with shoulder depressors. For each patient, their planning CT was used to contour spine targets at the C5, C6 and C7 levels for which two VMAT plans were developed to deliver 18 Gy to each target per the RTOG 0631 protocol. One plan used full arcs while the other used avoidance sectors around the lateral positions. For each patient, IGRT CTOR images were used to recalculate doses that would have been delivered from these plans. Target coverage and dose to the spinal cord were compared for four scenarios: full and partial arcs, with or without depressors. A Dunn test showed significant differences between groups with and without shoulder depressors, but not between those with full versus partial arcs. For most of the investigated cases, the coverage ended up being higher than planned due to the shoulder position being inferior at treatment compared to simulation. In some cases, this led to higher spinal cord doses than allowed per protocol. The results of this study confirm that, when treating lower cervical spine lesions with SBRT, special care should be taken to ensure that the shoulders are positioned as they were during planning CT acquisition.

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.

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.

Prevention of Radiation Therapy Treatment Deviations by a Novel Combined Biometric, Radiofrequency Identification, and Surface Imaging System.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of Varian Identify, a novel combined radiofrequency identification, biometric and surface-matching technology, on its potential for patient safety and prevention of radiation therapy treatment deviations. METHODS AND MATERIALS: One hundred eight radiation therapy treatment deviation reports at our facility over the past 8 years were analyzed. Three major categories were defined based on the time point of occurrence: physician order deviations (19.4%), treatment-planning deviations (24.1%), and machine treatment deviations (56.5%). The impact of Identify on potential prevention of machine treatment deviations was analyzed. A failure mode and effects analysis was performed on the 5 most frequently occurring errors preventable with Identify. Safety analysis of the Identify system was reported based on 3.5 years of clinical data post-Identify system installation on 3 treatment vaults. RESULTS: Of the 61 machine treatment deviations, 47 (77%) were interpreted as being preventable by using Identify. Our failure mode and effects analysis showed reductions in all risk priority numbers post-Identify application. Safety analysis of the Identify system from our direct observation that for approximately 7 cumulative years of Identify use in 3 different treatment vaults, where 9 deviations would have been expected to occur over this combined period, zero machine treatment events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of Identify biometric, radiofrequency identification, and surface-matching technologies was observed to enable an effective process for enhancing safety and efficiency of radiation therapy treatment. A significant reduction in machine-related deviations was observed.

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.

Evaluation of the effects of implementing a diode transmission device into the clinical workflow.

PURPOSE: This work investigated effects of implementing the Delta4 Discover diode transmission detector into the clinical workflow. METHODS: PDD and profile scans were completed with and without the Discover for a number of photon beam energies. Transmission factors were determined for all beam energies and included in Eclipse TPS to account for the attenuation of the Discover. A variety of IMRT plans were delivered to a Delta4 Phantom+ with and without the Discover to evaluate the Discover's effects on IMRT QA. An imaging QA phantom was used to assess the detector's effects on MV image quality. OSLDs placed on the Phantom+ were used to determine the detector's effects on superficial dose. RESULTS: The largest effect on PDDs after dmax was 0.5%. The largest change in beam profile symmetry and flatness was 0.2% and 0.1%, respectively. An average difference in gamma passing rates (2%/2 mm) of 0.2% was observed between plans that did not include the Discover in the measurement and calculation to plans that did include the Discover in the measurement and calculation. The Discover did not significantly change the MV image quality, and the largest observed increase in the relative superficial dose when the Discover was present was 1%. CONCLUSIONS: The effects the Discover has on the linac beam were found to be minimal. The device can be implemented into the clinic without the need to alter the TPS beam modeling, other than accounting for the device's attenuation. However, a careful workflow review to implement the Discover should be completed.

Comparison of transperineal ultrasound image guidance technique to transabdominal technique for prostate radiation therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Ultrasound (US) guidance of the prostate has long been conducted using a transabdominal (TA) approach. More recently, a transperineal (TP) approach has been made available for image guidance. Our aim was to determine if both methods produced similar alignments within the same patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We utilized two clinical US image guidance (IG) systems (Elekta Clarity and Best BAT). The B-mode Acquisition and Targeting USIG system is a bi-planar, so-called 2.5D USIG system, that is acquired TA. Clarity is a 3D US system that generates a volumetric 3D US data set and US-derived IG contours that are coregistered to the planning CT images. The probe is oriented in the sagittal plane against the perineum (TP). After positioning the patient for treatment using the TP USIG, we maintained the position defined by Clarity tracking and then acquired a TA-based USIG. The two US-based methods of localizing the prostate (TA vs TP) were compared via Bland-Altman (BA) statistical analysis to determine if there was alignment agreement between methods. RESULTS: The BA test for all 101 patients, 2093 fractions resulted in 95% confidence intervals (upper and lower limits of the BA test) of 0.6 mm in LR, 0.9 mm in AP and 1.0 mm in SI. The bias between the two systems was calculated as 0.03, 0.02, and 0.03 mm in LR, AP, and SI. CONCLUSIONS: Both systems resulted in statistically equivalent targeting positions for the prostate. Because of the unique intrafraction, real-time motion tracking capability of the TP system, this solution represents a unique extension to the previously reported clinical benefits of a TA approach by providing assurance of the prostate remaining in the treatment field during beam-on.

Evaluation of dose distribution differences from five algorithms implemented in three commercial treatment planning systems for lung SBRT.

Early stage lung cancer is increasingly being treated using stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Several advanced treatment planning algorithms are now available in various commercial treatment planning systems. This work compares the dose distributions calculated for the same treatment plan using, five algorithms, in three different treatment planning systems. All plans were normalized to ensure the prescription dose covers 95% of the planning target volume (PTV). Dose to the planning target volume (PTV) was compared using near-minimum dose (D98%), near-maximum dose (D2%) and dose homogeneity, while dose fall-off was compared using D2cm and R50. Dose to the lung was compared using V5Gy, V20Gy and mean lung dose. Statistical analysis shows that dose distributions calculated using Eclipse's Acuros XB and RayStation's Monte Carlo were significantly different from the other dose distributions for the PTV dose parameters investigated. For lung dosimetric parameters, this difference persisted for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans but not for conformal arc plans. While normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) differences were significant for some of the algorithms for VMAT delivery approaches, they were not significantly different for any algorithm for conformal arc plans. All parameters investigated here were within 5% between all algorithms. The results show that, while some small dosimetric differences can be expected around the PTV, the dose distribution to the rest of the treatment area, especially the lungs, should not be clinically-relevant when switching between one of the five algorithms investigated.

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.