External beam patient dose verification based on the integral quality monitor (IQM®) output signals.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The Integral Quality Monitor (IQM®) can essentially measure the integral fluence through a segment and provide real-time information about the accuracy of radiation delivery based on comparisons of measured segment signals and pre-calculated reference values. However, the present IQM chamber cannot calculate the dose in the patient. AIM: This study aims to make use of IQM field output signals to calculate the number of monitor units (MUs) delivered through an arbitrary treatment field in order to convert Monte Carlo (MC)-generated dose distributions in a patient model into absolute dose. METHODS: XiO and Monaco treatment planning systems (TPSs) were used to define treatment beam portals for cervix and esophagus conformal radiotherapy as well as prostate intensity-modulated radiotherapy for the translation of patient and beam setup information from DICOM to DOSXYZnrc. The planned beams were simulated in a patient model built from actual patient CT images and each simulated integral field/segment was weighted with its MUs before summation to get the total dose in the plan. The segment beam weights (MUs) were calculated as the ratio of the open-field IQM measured signal and the calculated signal per MU extracted from chamber sensitivity maps. These are the actual MUs delivered not just MUs set. The beam weighting method was evaluated by comparing weighted MC doses with original planned doses using profile and isodose comparisons, dose difference maps, γ analysis and dose-volume histogram (DVH) data. RESULTS: γ pass rates of up to 98% were found, except for the esophagus plan where the γ pass rate was below 45%. DVH comparisons showed good agreement for most organs, with the largest differences observed in low-density lung. However, these discrepancies can result from differences in dose calculation algorithms or differences in MUs used for dose weighting planned by the TPS and MUs calculated using IQM field output signals. To test this, a 4-field box DOSXYZnrc MC simulation weighted with planned (XiO) MUs was compared with the same simulation weighted with IQM-based MUs. Dose differences of up to 5% were found on the isocentre slice. For XiO versus MC, up to 7% dose differences were found, indicating additional error due to limitations of XiO's superposition algorithm. Dose differences between MC Monaco and MC EGSnrc were less than 3%. CONCLUSIONS: The most valuable comparison was MC versus MC as it eliminated algorithm discrepancies and evaluated dose differences precisely according to beam weighting. For XiO TPS, care must be taken as dose differences may also arise due to limitations in XiO's planning software, not merely due to differences in MUs. Overall, the IQM was successfully used to compute beam dose weights to accurately reconstruct the patient dose using unweighted MC beams. Our technique can be used for pre-treatment QA provided each segment output is known and an accurate linac source model is available.