Hazard testing to reduce risk in the development of automated planning tools.

PURPOSE: Hazard scenarios were created to assess and reduce the risk of planning errors in automated planning processes. This was accomplished through iterative testing and improvement of examined user interfaces. METHODS: Automated planning requires three user inputs: a computed tomography (CT), a prescription document, known as the service request, and contours. We investigated the ability of users to catch errors that were intentionally introduced into each of these three stages, according to an FMEA analysis. Five radiation therapists each reviewed 15 patient CTs, containing three errors: inappropriate field of view, incorrect superior border, and incorrect identification of isocenter. Four radiation oncology residents reviewed 10 service requests, containing two errors: incorrect prescription and treatment site. Four physicists reviewed 10 contour sets, containing two errors: missing contour slices and inaccurate target contour. Reviewers underwent video training prior to reviewing and providing feedback for various mock plans. RESULTS: Initially, 75% of hazard scenarios were detected in the service request approval. The visual display of prescription information was then updated to improve the detectability of errors based on user feedback. The change was then validated with five new radiation oncology residents who detected 100% of errors present. 83% of the hazard scenarios were detected in the CT approval portion of the workflow. For the contour approval portion of the workflow none of the errors were detected by physicists, indicating this step will not be used for quality assurance of contours. To mitigate the risk from errors that could occur at this step, radiation oncologists must perform a thorough review of contour quality prior to final plan approval. CONCLUSIONS: Hazard testing was used to pinpoint the weaknesses of an automated planning tool and as a result, subsequent improvements were made. This study identified that not all workflow steps should be used for quality assurance and demonstrated the importance of performing hazard testing to identify points of risk in automated planning tools.

AAPM MEDICAL PHYSICS PRACTICE GUIDELINE 5.b: Commissioning and QA of treatment planning dose calculations-Megavoltage photon and electron beams.

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education, and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States. The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for the purpose of revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner. Each medical physics practice guideline represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice guidelines and technical standards by those entities not providing these services is not authorized. The following terms are used in the AAPM practice guidelines: Must and Must Not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline. While must is the term to be used in the guidelines, if an entity that adopts the guideline has shall as the preferred term, the AAPM considers that must and shall have the same meaning. Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances.

Automatic contouring QA method using a deep learning-based autocontouring system.

PURPOSE: To determine the most accurate similarity metric when using an independent system to verify automatically generated contours. METHODS: A reference autocontouring system (primary system to create clinical contours) and a verification autocontouring system (secondary system to test the primary contours) were used to generate a pair of 6 female pelvic structures (UteroCervix [uterus + cervix], CTVn [nodal clinical target volume (CTV)], PAN [para-aortic lymph nodes], bladder, rectum, and kidneys) on 49 CT scans from our institution and 38 from other institutions. Additionally, clinically acceptable and unacceptable contours were manually generated using the 49 internal CT scans. Eleven similarity metrics (volumetric Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), Hausdorff distance, 95% Hausdorff distance, mean surface distance, and surface DSC with tolerances from 1 to 10 mm) were calculated between the reference and the verification autocontours, and between the manually generated and the verification autocontours. A support vector machine (SVM) was used to determine the threshold that separates clinically acceptable and unacceptable contours for each structure. The 11 metrics were investigated individually and in certain combinations. Linear, radial basis function, sigmoid, and polynomial kernels were tested using the combinations of metrics as inputs for the SVM. RESULTS: The highest contouring error detection accuracies were 0.91 for the UteroCervix, 0.90 for the CTVn, 0.89 for the PAN, 0.92 for the bladder, 0.95 for the rectum, and 0.97 for the kidneys and were achieved using surface DSCs with a thickness of 1, 2, or 3 mm. The linear kernel was the most accurate and consistent when a combination of metrics was used as an input for the SVM. However, the best model accuracy from the combinations of metrics was not better than the best model accuracy from a surface DSC as an input. CONCLUSIONS: We distinguished clinically acceptable contours from clinically unacceptable contours with an accuracy higher than 0.9 for the targets and critical structures in patients with cervical cancer; the most accurate similarity metric was surface DSC with a thickness of 1, 2, or 3 mm.

Survey results of 3D-CRT and IMRT quality assurance practice.

PURPOSE: To create a snapshot of common practices for 3D-CRT and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) QA through a large-scale survey and compare to TG-218 recommendations. METHODS: A survey of 3D-CRT and IMRT QA was constructed at and distributed by the IROC-Houston QA center to all institutions monitored by IROC (n = 2,861). The first part of the survey asked about methods to check dose delivery for 3D-CRT. The bulk of the survey focused on IMRT QA, inquiring about treatment modalities, standard tools used to verify planned dose, how assessment of agreement is calculated and the comparison criteria used, and the strategies taken if QA fails. RESULTS: The most common tools for dose verification were a 2D diode array (52.8%), point(s) measurement (39.0%), EPID (27.4%), and 2D ion chamber array (23.9%). When IMRT QA failed, the highest average rank strategy utilized was to remeasure with the same setup, which had an average position ranking of 1.1 with 90.4% of facilities employing this strategy. The second highest average ranked strategy was to move to a new calculation point and remeasure (54.9%); this had an average ranking of 2.1. CONCLUSION: The survey provided a snapshot of the current state of dose verification for IMRT radiotherapy. The results showed variability in approaches and that work is still needed to unify and tighten criteria in the medical physics community, especially in reference to TG-218's recommendations.

Testing the methodology for a dosimetric end-to-end audit of IMRT/VMAT: results of IAEA multicentre and national studies.

Introduction: Within an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) co-ordinated research project (CRP), a remote end-to-end dosimetric quality audit for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)/ volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) was developed to verify the radiotherapy chain including imaging, treatment planning and dose delivery. The methodology as well as the results obtained in a multicentre pilot study and national trial runs conducted in close cooperation with dosimetry audit networks (DANs) of IAEA Member States are presented.Material and methods: A solid polystyrene phantom containing a dosimetry insert with an irregular solid water planning target volume (PTV) and organ at risk (OAR) was designed for this audit. The insert can be preloaded with radiochromic film and four thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). For the audit, radiotherapy centres were asked to scan the phantom, contour the structures, create an IMRT/VMAT treatment plan and irradiate the phantom. The dose prescription was to deliver 4 Gy to the PTV in two fractions and to limit the OAR dose to a maximum of 2.8 Gy. The TLD measured doses and film measured dose distributions were compared with the TPS calculations.Results: Sixteen hospitals from 13 countries and 64 hospitals from 6 countries participated in the multicenter pilot study and in the national runs, respectively. The TLD results for the PTV were all within ±5% acceptance limit for the multicentre pilot study, whereas for national runs, 17 participants failed to meet this criterion. All measured doses in the OAR were below the treatment planning constraint. The film analysis identified seven plans in national runs below the 90% passing rate gamma criteria.Conclusion: The results proved that the methodology of the IMRT/VMAT dosimetric end-to-end audit was feasible for its intended purpose, i.e., the phantom design and materials were suitable; the phantom was easy to use and it was robust enough for shipment. Most importantly the audit methodology was capable of identifying suboptimal IMRT/VMAT delivery.

Calibration strategies for use of the nanoDot OSLD in CT applications.

Aluminum oxide based optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters (OSLD) have been recognized as a useful dosimeter for measuring CT dose, particularly for patient dose measurements. Despite the increasing use of this dosimeter, appropriate dosimeter calibration techniques have not been established in the literature; while the manufacturer offers a calibration procedure, it is known to have relatively large uncertainties. The purpose of this work was to evaluate two clinical approaches for calibrating these dosimeters for CT applications, and to determine the uncertainty associated with measurements using these techniques. Three unique calibration procedures were used to calculate dose for a range of CT conditions using a commercially available OSLD and reader. The three calibration procedures included calibration (a) using the vendor-provided method, (b) relative to a 120 kVp CT spectrum in air, and (c) relative to a megavoltage beam (implemented with 60 Co). The dose measured using each of these approaches was compared to dose measured using a calibrated farmer-type ion chamber. Finally, the uncertainty in the dose measured using each approach was determined. For the CT and megavoltage calibration methods, the dose measured using the OSLD nanoDot was within 5% of the dose measured using an ion chamber for a wide range of different CT scan parameters (80-140 kVp, and with measurements at a range of positions). When calibrated using the vendor-recommended protocol, the OSLD measured doses were on average 15.5% lower than ion chamber doses. Two clinical calibration techniques have been evaluated and are presented in this work as alternatives to the vendor-provided calibration approach. These techniques provide high precision for OSLD-based measurements in a CT environment.

Development and validation of a 3D-printed bolus cap for total scalp irradiation.

PURPOSE: The goal of total scalp irradiation (TSI) is to deliver a uniform dose to the scalp, which requires the use of a bolus cap. Most current methods for fabricating bolus caps are laborious, yet still result in nonconformity and low reproducibility, which can lead to nonuniform irradiation of the scalp. We developed and validated patient-specific bolus caps for TSI using three-dimensional (3D) printing. METHODS AND MATERIALS: 3D-printing materials were radiologically analyzed to identify a material with properties suitable for use as a bolus cap. A Python script was developed within a commercial treatment planning system to automate the creation of a ready-to-print, patient-specific 3D bolus cap model. A bolus cap was printed for an anthropomorphic head phantom using a commercial vendor and a computed tomography simulation of the anthropomorphic head phantom and bolus cap was used to create a volumetric-modulated arc therapy TSI treatment plan. The planned treatment was delivered to the head phantom and dosimetric validation was performed using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD). The developed procedure was used to create a bolus cap for a clinical TSI patient, and in vivo TLD measurements were acquired for several fractions. RESULTS: Agilus-60 was validated as a new 3D-printing material suitable for use as bolus. A 3D-printed Agilus-60 bolus cap had excellent conformality to the phantom scalp, with a maximum air gap of 4 mm. TLD measurements showed that the bolus cap generated a uniform dose to the scalp within a 2.7% standard deviation, and the delivered doses agreed with calculated doses to within 2.4% on average. The patient bolus was conformal and the average difference between TLD measured and planned doses was 5.3%. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a workflow to 3D-print highly conformal bolus caps for TSI and demonstrated these caps can reproducibly generate a uniform dose to the scalp.

Out-of-field doses and neutron dose equivalents for electron beams from modern Varian and Elekta linear accelerators.

Out-of-field doses from radiotherapy can cause harmful side effects or eventually lead to secondary cancers. Scattered doses outside the applicator field, neutron source strength values, and neutron dose equivalents have not been broadly investigated for high-energy electron beams. To better understand the extent of these exposures, we measured out-of-field dose characteristics of electron applicators for high-energy electron beams on two Varian 21iXs, a Varian TrueBeam, and an Elekta Versa HD operating at various energy levels. Out-of-field dose profiles and percent depth-dose curves were measured in a Wellhofer water phantom using a Farmer ion chamber. Neutron dose was assessed using a combination of moderator buckets and gold activation foils placed on the treatment couch at various locations in the patient plane on both the Varian 21iX and Elekta Versa HD linear accelerators. Our findings showed that out-of-field electron doses were highest for the highest electron energies. These doses typically decreased with increasing distance from the field edge but showed substantial increases over some distance ranges. The Elekta linear accelerator had higher electron out-of-field doses than the Varian units examined, and the Elekta dose profiles exhibited a second dose peak about 20 to 30 cm from central-axis, which was found to be higher than typical out-of-field doses from photon beams. Electron doses decreased sharply with depth before becoming nearly constant; the dose was found to decrease to a depth of approximately E(MeV)/4 in cm. With respect to neutron dosimetry, Q values and neutron dose equivalents increased with electron beam energy. Neutron contamination from electron beams was found to be much lower than that from photon beams. Even though the neutron dose equivalent for electron beams represented a small portion of neutron doses observed under photon beams, neutron doses from electron beams may need to be considered for special cases.

Flattening filter-free accelerators: a report from the AAPM Therapy Emerging Technology Assessment Work Group.

This report describes the current state of flattening filter-free (FFF) radiotherapy beams implemented on conventional linear accelerators, and is aimed primarily at practicing medical physicists. The Therapy Emerging Technology Assessment Work Group of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) formed a writing group to assess FFF technology. The published literature on FFF technology was reviewed, along with technical specifications provided by vendors. Based on this information, supplemented by the clinical experience of the group members, consensus guidelines and recommendations for implementation of FFF technology were developed. Areas in need of further investigation were identified. Removing the flattening filter increases beam intensity, especially near the central axis. Increased intensity reduces treatment time, especially for high-dose stereotactic radiotherapy/radiosurgery (SRT/SRS). Furthermore, removing the flattening filter reduces out-of-field dose and improves beam modeling accuracy. FFF beams are advantageous for small field (e.g., SRS) treatments and are appropriate for intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). For conventional 3D radiotherapy of large targets, FFF beams may be disadvantageous compared to flattened beams because of the heterogeneity of FFF beam across the target (unless modulation is employed). For any application, the nonflat beam characteristics and substantially higher dose rates require consideration during the commissioning and quality assurance processes relative to flattened beams, and the appropriate clinical use of the technology needs to be identified. Consideration also needs to be given to these unique characteristics when undertaking facility planning. Several areas still warrant further research and development. Recommendations pertinent to FFF technology, including acceptance testing, commissioning, quality assurance, radiation safety, and facility planning, are presented. Examples of clinical applications are provided. Several of the areas in which future research and development are needed are also indicated.

AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 5.a.: Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations - Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams.

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8,000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States. The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for the purpose of revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner. Each medical physics practice guideline represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice guidelines and technical standards by those entities not providing these services is not authorized. The following terms are used in the AAPM practice guidelines:• Must and Must Not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline.• Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances.

Effects of spatial resolution and noise on gamma analysis for IMRT QA.

We investigated the sensitivity of the gamma index to two factors: the spatial resolution and the noise level in the measured dose distribution. We also examined how the choice of reference distribution and analysis software affect the sensitivity of gamma analysis to these two factors for quality assurance (QA) of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment plans. For ten clinical IMRT plans, the dose delivered to a transverse dose plane was measured with EDR2 radiographic film. To evaluate the effects of spatial resolution, each irradiated film was digitized using three different resolutions (71, 142, and 285 dpi). To evaluate the effects of image noise, 1% and 2% local Gaussian noise was added to the film images. Gamma analysis was performed using 2%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm acceptance criteria and two commercial software packages, OmniPro I'mRT and DoseLab Pro. Dose comparisons were performed with the treatment planning system (TPS)-calculated dose as the reference, and then repeated with the film as the reference to evaluate how the choice of reference distribution affects the results of dose comparisons. When the TPS-calculated dose was designated as the reference distribution, the percentage of pixels with passing gamma values increased with both increasing resolution and noise. For 3%/3 mm acceptance criteria, increasing the film image resolution by a factor of two and by a factor of four caused a median increase of 0.9% and 2.6%, respectively, in the percentage of pixels passing. Increasing the noise level in the film image resulted in a median increase in percentage of pixels passing of 5.5% for 1% added local Gaussian noise and 5.8% for 2% added noise. In contrast, when the film was designated as the reference distribution, the percentage of pixels passing decreased with increased film noise, while increased resolution had no significant effect on passing rates. Furthermore, the sensitivity of gamma analysis to noise and resolution differed between OmniPro I'mRT and DoseLab Pro, with DoseLab Pro being less sensitive to the effects of noise and resolution. Noise and high scanning resolution can artificially increase the percentage of pixels with passing gamma values in IMRT QA. Thus, these factors, if not properly taken into account, can potentially affect the results of IMRT QA by causing a plan that should be classified as failing to be falsely classified as passing. In designing IMRT QA protocols, it is important to be aware that gamma analysis is sensitive to these parameters.

A six-year review of more than 13,000 patient-specific IMRT QA results from 13 different treatment sites.

Due to a lack of information regarding the current clinical experience of IMRT QA for a large and varied plan population, we reviewed our patient-specific IMRT quality assurance (QA) results for 13,003 treatment plans from 13 distinct treatment sites from a six-year period. QA records were reviewed for dose difference (single point with ion chamber measurement; ± 3% agreement criteria) and percentage of pixels passing relative dose gamma analysis (film measurement; 90% passing 5%(global)/3 mm agreement criteria) from 2005 through 2011. Plan records were analyzed for trends with measurement date and treatment site. Plans failing to meet QA tolerance criteria were evaluated for follow-up clinical action (i.e., if repeat measurements were performed). The mean difference (± SD) between ion chamber point measurements and calculated doses was -0.29% ± 1.64% (calculated values being slightly higher) and, regarding planar dose evaluations, the mean percentage of pixels passing the gamma criteria of 5%(global)/3 mm was 97.7% (lower 95th percentile: 92.2%). 97.7% and 99.3% of plans passed the point dose and planar dose verification, respectively. We observed statistically significant differences (p< 0.05) in both point dose and planar dose verification measurements as a function of treatment site (particularly for stereotactic spine and mesothelioma sites) and measurement date (average agreement improved with time). However, despite improved dosimetric agreement, the percentage of failing plans has remained nearly constant at 2.3%.

Reproducibility in patient-specific IMRT QA.

The purpose of this study was to determine the reproducibility of patient-specific, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA) results in a clinical setting. Six clinical patient plans were delivered to a variety of devices and analyses, including 1) radiographic film; 2) ion chamber; 3) 2D diode array delivered and analyzed in three different configurations (AP delivery with field-by-field analysis, AP delivery with composite analysis, and planned gantry angle delivery); 4) helical diode array; and 5) in-house-designed multiple ion chamber phantom. The six clinical plans were selected from a range of treatment sites and were of various levels of complexity. Of note, three of the plans had failed at least preliminary evaluation with our in-house IMRT QA; the other three plans had passed QA. These plans were delivered three times sequentially without changing the setup, and then delivered two more times after breaking down and rebuilding the setup between each. This allowed for an investigation of reproducibility (in terms of dose, dose difference or percent of pixels passing gamma) of both the delivery and the physical setup. This study showed that the variability introduced from the setup was generally higher than the variability from redelivering the plan. Radiographic film showed the poorest reproducibility of the dosimeters investigated. In conclusion, the various IMRT QA systems demonstrated varying abilities to reproduce QA results consistently. All dosimetric devices demonstrated a reproducibility (coefficient of variation) of less than 4% in their QA results for all plans, with an average reproducibility of less than 2%. This work provides some quantification for the variability that may be seen for IMRT QA dosimeters.

Optimized scoring of end-to-end dosimetry audits for passive motion management - A simulation study using the IROC thorax phantom.

Dosimetry audits for passive motion management require dynamically-acquired measurements in a moving phantom to be compared to statically calculated planned doses. This study aimed to characterise the relationship between planning and delivery errors, and the measured dose in the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) thorax phantom, to assess different audit scoring approaches. Treatment plans were created using a 4DCT scan of the IROC phantom, equipped with film and thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). Plans were created on the average intensity projection from all bins. Three levels of aperture complexity were explored: dynamic conformal arcs (DCAT), low-, and high-complexity volumetric modulated arcs (VMATLo, VMATHi). Simulated-measured doses were generated by modelling motion using isocenter shifts. Various errors were introduced including incorrect setup position and target delineation. Simulated-measured film doses were scored using gamma analysis and compared within specific regions of interest (ROIs) as well as the entire film plane. Positional offsets were estimated based on isodoses on the film planes, and point doses within TLD contours were compared. Motion-induced differences between planned and simulated-measured doses were evident even without introduced errors Gamma passing rates within target-centred ROIs correlated well with error-induced dose differences, while whole film passing rates did not. Isodose-based setup position measurements demonstrated high sensitivity to errors. Simulated point doses at TLD locations yielded erratic responses to introduced errors. ROI gamma analysis demonstrated enhanced sensitivity to simulated errors compared to whole film analysis. Gamma results may be further contextualized by other metrics such as setup position or maximum gamma.

Chromatic bleaching and fractionation effects on optically stimulated luminescent dosimeter reuse.

BACKGROUND: Optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters (OSLDs) can be bleached and reused, but questions remain about the effects of repeated bleaching and fractionation schedules on OSLD performance. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate how light sources with different wavelengths and different fractionation schemes affect the performance of reused OSLDs. METHODS: OSLDs (N = 240) were irradiated on a cobalt-60 beam in different step sizes until they reached an accumulated dose of 50 Gy. Between irradiations they were bleached using light sources of different wavelengths: the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) bleaching system (our control); monochromatic red, green, yellow, and blue lights; and a polychromatic white light. Sensitivity and linearity-based correction factors were determined as a function of dose step-size. The rate of signal removal from different light sources was characterized by sampling these OSLDs at various time points during their bleaching process. Relative doses were calculated according to the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group-191. Signal repopulation was investigated by irradiating OSLDs (N = 300) to various delivered doses of 2, 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 Gy in a single fraction, bleached with one of the colors, and read over time. Fractionation effects were evaluated by irradiating OSLDs up to 30 Gy in different size steps. After reading, the OSLDs were bleached following IROC protocol. OSLDs (N = 40) received irradiations in 5, 10, 15, 30 Gy fractions until they had an accumulated dose of 30 Gy; The sensitivity response of these OSLDs was compared with reference OSLDs that had no accumulated dose. RESULTS: Light sources with polychromatic spectrums (IROC and white) bleached OSLDs faster than did sources with monochromatic spectra. Polychromatic light sources (white light and IROC system) provided the greatest dose stability for OSLDs that had larger amounts of accumulated dose. Signal repopulation was related to the choice of bleaching light source, timing of bleaching, and amount of accumulated dose. Changes to relative dosimetry were more pronounced in OSLDs that received larger fractions. At 5-Gy fractions and above, all OSLDs had heightened sensitivity, with OSLDs exposed to 30-Gy fractions being 6.4% more sensitive than reference dosimeters. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of bleaching light plays a role in how fast an OSLD is bleached and how much accumulated dose an OSLD can be exposed to while maintaining stable signal sensitivity. We have expanded upon investigations into signal repopulation to show that bleaching light plays a role in the migration of deep traps to dosimetric traps after bleaching. Our research concludes that the bleaching light source and fractionation need to be considered when reusing OSLD.

Monitoring Variations in the Use of Automated Contouring Software.

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to identify variations in the clinical use of automatically generated contours that could be attributed to software error, off-label use, or automation bias. METHODS AND MATERIALS: For 500 head and neck patients who were contoured by an in-house automated contouring system, Dice similarity coefficient and added path length were calculated between the contours generated by the automated system and the final contours after editing for clinical use. Statistical process control was used and control charts were generated with control limits at 3 standard deviations. Contours that exceeded the thresholds were investigated to determine the cause. Moving mean control plots were then generated to identify dosimetrists who were editing less over time, which could be indicative of automation bias. RESULTS: Major contouring edits were flagged for: 1.0% brain, 3.1% brain stem, 3.5% left cochlea, 2.9% right cochlea, 4.8% esophagus, 4.1% left eye, 4.0% right eye, 2.2% left lens, 4.9% right lens, 2.5% mandible, 11% left optic nerve, 6.1% right optic nerve, 3.8% left parotid, 5.9% right parotid, and 3.0% of spinal cord contours. Identified causes of editing included unexpected patient positioning, deviation from standard clinical practice, and disagreement between dosimetrist preference and automated contouring style. A statistically significant (P < .05) difference was identified between the contour editing practice of dosimetrists, with 1 dosimetrist editing more across all organs at risk. Eighteen percent (27/150) of moving mean control plots created for 5 dosimetrists indicated the amount of contour editing was decreasing over time, possibly corresponding to automation bias. CONCLUSIONS: The developed system was used to detect statistically significant edits caused by software error, unexpected clinical use, and automation bias. The increased ability to detect systematic errors that occur when editing automatically generated contours will improve the safety of the automatic treatment planning workflow.

Technical note: Radiological clinical equivalence for phantom materials in carbon ion therapy.

PURPOSE: As carbon ion radiotherapy increases in use, there are limited phantom materials for heterogeneous or anthropomorphic phantom measurements. This work characterized the radiological clinical equivalence of several phantom materials in a therapeutic carbon ion beam. METHODS: Eight materials were tested for radiological material-equivalence in a carbon ion beam. The materials were computed tomography (CT)-scanned to obtain Hounsfield unit (HU) values, then irradiated in a monoenergetic carbon ion beam to determine relative linear stopping power (RLSP). The corresponding HU and RLSP for each phantom material were compared to clinical carbon ion calibration curves. For absorbed dose comparison, ion chamber measurements were made in the center of a carbon ion spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP) in water and in the phantom material, evaluating whether the material perturbed the absorbed dose measurement beyond what was predicted by the HU-RLSP relationship. RESULTS: Polyethylene, solid water (Gammex and Sun Nuclear), Blue Water (Standard Imaging), and Techtron HPV had measured RLSP values that agreed within ±4.2% of RLSP values predicted by the clinical calibration curve. Measured RLSP for acrylic was 7.2% different from predicted. The agreement for balsa wood and cork varied between samples. Ion chamber measurements in the phantom materials were within 0.1% of ion chamber measurements in water for most materials (solid water, Blue Water, polyethylene, and acrylic), and within 1.9% for the rest of the materials (balsa wood, cork, and Techtron HPV). CONCLUSIONS: Several phantom materials (Blue Water, polyethylene, solid water [Gammex and Sun Nuclear], and Techtron HPV) are suitable for heterogeneous phantom measurements for carbon ion therapy. Low density materials should be carefully characterized due to inconsistencies between samples.

OSLD nanoDot characterization for carbon radiotherapy dosimetry.

Objective. This study characterized optically-stimulated luminescent dosimeter (OSLD) nanoDots for use in a therapeutic carbon beam using the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) framework for remote output verification.Approach. The absorbed dose correction factors for OSLD (fading, linearity, beam quality, angularity, and depletion), as defined by AAPM TG 191, were characterized for carbon beams. For the various correction factors, the effect of linear energy transfer (LET) was examined by characterizing in both a low and high LET setting.Main results. Fading was not statistically different between reference photons and carbon, nor between low and high LET beams; thus, the standard IROC-defined exponential function could be used to characterize fading. Dose linearity was characterized with a linear fit; while low and high LET carbon linearity was different, these differences were small and could be rolled into the uncertainty budget if using a single linearity correction. A linear fit between beam quality and dose-averaged LET was determined. The OSLD response at various angles of incidence was not statistically different, thus a correction factor need not be applied. There was a difference in depletion between low and high LET irradiations in a primary carbon beam, but this difference was small over the standard five readings. The largest uncertainty associated with the use of OSLDs in carbon was because of thekQcorrection factor, with an uncertainty of 6.0%. The overall uncertainty budget was 6.3% for standard irradiation conditions.Significance. OSLD nanoDot response was characterized in a therapeutic carbon beam. The uncertainty was larger than for traditional photon applications. These findings enable the use of OSLDs for carbon absorbed dose measurements, but with less accuracy than conventional OSLD audit programs.

Is the Imaging Radiation Oncology Core Head and Neck Credentialing Phantom an Effective Surrogate for Different Anatomic Sites?

PURPOSE: The Imaging Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) head and neck (H&N) phantom is used to credential institutions for intensity modulated radiation therapy delivery for all anatomic sites where delivery of modulated therapy is a primary challenge. This study evaluated how appropriate the use of this phantom is for varied clinical anatomy by evaluating how closely the IROC H&N phantom described clinical dose errors from beam modeling compared with various anatomic sites. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The multileaf collimator (MLC) offset, transmission, percent depth dose, and 7 additional beam modeling parameters for a Varian accelerator were modified in RayStation to match community data at the 2.5th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 97.5th percentile levels. Modifications were evaluated on 25 H&N phantom cases and 25 clinical cases (H&N, prostate, lung, mesothelioma, and brain), generating 2000 plan perturbations. Differences in mean dose delivered to clinical target volumes and maximum dose to organs at risk were compared between phantom and clinical plans to assess the relationship between dose deviations in phantom versus clinical target volumes and as a function of 18 different complexity metrics. RESULTS: Perturbations to MLC offset and transmission parameters demonstrated the greatest impact on dose accuracy for phantom and clinical plans (for all anatomic sites). The phantom demonstrated equivalent or greater sensitivity to these parameter perturbations compared with clinical sites, largely aligning with treatment complexity. The mean MLC gap best described the impact of errors in treatment planning system beam modeling parameters in phantom plans and clinical plans from various anatomic sites. CONCLUSIONS: When compared across various anatomic sites, the IROC H&N credentialing phantom exhibited similar or greater sensitivity to errors in the treatment planning system. As such, it is a suitable surrogate device for assessing institutional performance across various anatomic sites. If an institution successfully irradiates the phantom, that result confers confidence that intensity modulated radiation therapy to a wide range of anatomic sites can be successfully delivered by the institution.

Multi-Institutional Audit of FLASH and Conventional Dosimetry With a 3D Printed Anatomically Realistic Mouse Phantom.

PURPOSE: We conducted a multi-institutional dosimetric audit between FLASH and conventional dose rate (CONV) electron irradiations by using an anatomically realistic 3-dimensional (3D) printed mouse phantom. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A computed tomography (CT) scan of a live mouse was used to create a 3D model of bony anatomy, lungs, and soft tissue. A dual-nozzle 3D printer was used to print the mouse phantom using acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (∼1.02 g/cm3) and polylactic acid (∼1.24 g/cm3) simultaneously to simulate soft tissue and bone densities, respectively. The lungs were printed separately using lightweight polylactic acid (∼0.64 g/cm3). Hounsfield units (HU), densities, and print-to-print stability of the phantoms were assessed. Three institutions were each provided a phantom and each institution performed 2 replicates of irradiations at selected anatomic regions. The average dose difference between FLASH and CONV dose distributions and deviation from the prescribed dose were measured with radiochromic film. RESULTS: Compared with the reference CT scan, CT scans of the phantom demonstrated mass density differences of 0.10 g/cm3 for bone, 0.12 g/cm3 for lung, and 0.03 g/cm3 for soft tissue regions. Differences in HU between phantoms were <10 HU for soft tissue and bone, with lung showing the most variation (54 HU), but with minimal effect on dose distribution (<0.5%). Mean differences between FLASH and CONV decreased from the first to the second replicate (4.3%-1.2%), and differences from the prescribed dose decreased for both CONV (3.6%-2.5%) and FLASH (6.4%-2.7%). Total dose accuracy suggests consistent pulse dose and pulse number, although these were not specifically assessed. Positioning variability was observed, likely due to the absence of robust positioning aids or image guidance. CONCLUSIONS: This study marks the first dosimetric audit for FLASH using a nonhomogeneous phantom, challenging conventional calibration practices reliant on homogeneous phantoms. The comparison protocol offers a framework for credentialing multi-institutional studies in FLASH preclinical research to enhance reproducibility of biologic findings.