Transferability of patients for radiation treatment between unmatched machines.

PURPOSE: The feasibility of transferring patients between unmatched machines for a limited number of treatment fractions was investigated for three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatments. METHODS: Eighty patient-plans were evaluated on two unmatched linacs: Elekta Versa HD and Elekta Infinity. Plans were equally divided into pelvis 3DCRT, prostate VMAT, brain VMAT, and lung VMAT plans. While maintaining the number of monitor units (MUs), plans were recalculated on the machine not originally used for treatment. Relative differences in dose were calculated between machines for the target volume and organs at risk (OARs). Differences in mean dose were assessed with paired t-tests (p < 0.05). The number of interchangeable fractions allowable before surpassing a cumulative ±5% difference in dose was determined. Additionally, patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) measurements using ArcCHECK for both machines were compared with distributions calculated on the machine originally used for treatment using gradient compensation (GC) with 2%/2-mm criteria. RESULTS: Interchanging the two machines for pelvic 3DCRT and VMAT (prostate, brain, and lung) plans resulted in an average change in target mean dose of 0.9%, -0.5%, 0.6%, 0.5%, respectively. Based on the differences in dose to the prescription point when changing machines, statistically, nearly one-fourth of the prescribed fractions could be transferred between linacs for 3DCRT plans. While all of the prescribed fractions could typically be transferred among prostate VMAT plans, a rather large number of treatment fractions, 31% and 38%, could be transferred among brain and lung VMAT plans, respectively, without exceeding a ±5% change in the prescribed dose for two Elekta machines. Additionally, the OAR dosage was not affected within the given criterion with change of machine. CONCLUSIONS: Despite small differences in calculated dose, transferring patients between two unmatched Elekta machines with similar multileaf collimator (MLC)-head for target coverage and minimum changes in OAR dose is possible for a limited number of fractions (≤3) to improve clinical flexibility and institutional throughput along with patient satisfaction. A similar study could be carried out for other machines for operational throughput.

Determination of thePrpand radial dose correction factor in reference dosimetry.

Objectives.In an addendum to AAPM TG-51 protocol, McEwenet al, (DOI:10.1118/1.4866223) introduced a new factorPrpto account for the radial dose distribution of the photon beam over the detector volume mainly in flattening filter free (FFF) beams.Prpand its extension to non-FFF beam reference dosimetry is investigated to see its impact in a clinical situation.Approches.ThePrpwas measured using simplified version of Sudhyadhomet al(DOI:10.1118/1.4941691) for Elekta and Varian FFF beams with two commonly used calibration detectors; PTW-30013 and Exradin-A12 ion chambers after acquiring high resolution profiles in detectors cardinal coordinates. For radial dose correction factor, the ion chambers were placed in a small water phantom and the central axis position was set to center of the sensitive volume on the treatment table and was studied by rotating the table by 15-degree interval from -90 to +90 degrees with respect to the initial (zero) position.Main results.The magnitude ofPrpvaries very little with machine, detector and beam energies to a value of 1.003 ± 0.0005 and 1.005 ± 0.0005 for 6FFF and 10FFF, respectively. The radial anisotropy for the Elekta machine with Exradin-A12 and PTW-30013 detector the magnitudes are in the range of (0.9995±0.0011 to 1.0015±0.0010) and (0.9998±0.0007 to 1.0015±0.0010), respectively. Similarly, for the Varian machine with Exradin-A12 and PTW-30013 ion chambers, the magnitudes are in the range of (1.0004±0.0010 to 1.0018±0.0018) and (1.0006±0.0009 to 1.0027±0.0007), respectively.Significance.ThePrpis ≤ 0.3% and 0.5% for 6FFF and 10FFF, respectively. The radial dose correction factor in regular beams also does not impact the dosimetry where the maximum magnitude is ±0.2% which is within experimental uncertainty.

Grid/lattice therapy: consideration of small field dosimetry.

Small-field dosimetry used in special procedures such as gamma knife, Cyberknife, Tomotherapy, IMRT, and VMAT has been in evolution after several radiation incidences with very significant (70%) errors due to poor understanding of the dosimetry. IAEA-TRS-483 and AAPM-TG-155 have provided comprehensive information on small-fields dosimetry in terms of code of practice and relative dosimetry. Data for various detectors and conditions have been elaborated. It turns out that with a suitable detectors dose measurement accuracy can be reasonably (±3%) achieved for 6 MV beams for fields >1×1 cm2. For grid therapy, even though the treatment is performed with small fields created by either customized blocks, multileaf collimator (MLC), or specialized devices, it is multiple small fields that creates combined treatment. Hence understanding the dosimetry in collection of holes of small field is a separate challenge that needs to be addressed. It is more critical to understand the scattering conditions from multiple holes that form the treatment grid fields. Scattering changes the beam energy (softer) and hence dosimetry protocol needs to be properly examined for having suitable dosimetric parameters. In lieu of beam parameter unavailability in physical grid devices, MLC-based forward and inverse planning is an alternative path for bulky tumours. Selection of detectors in small field measurement is critical and it is more critical in mixed beams created by scattering condition. Ramification of small field concept used in grid therapy along with major consideration of scattering condition is explored. Even though this review article is focussed mainly for dosimetry for low-energy megavoltage photon beam (6 MV) but similar procedures could be adopted for high energy beams. To eliminate small field issues, lattice therapy with the help of MLC is a preferrable choice.

Validity of equivalent square field concept in small field dosimetry.

PURPOSE: The equivalent square (ES) concept has been used for traditional radiation fields defined by the machine collimating system. For small fields, the concept Sclin was introduced based on measuring dosimetric field width (full-width half maximum, FWHM) of the cardinal axis of the beam profiles. The pros and cons of this concept are evaluated in small fields and compared with the traditional ES using area and perimeter (4A/P) method based on geometric field size settings, for example, light field settings. METHODS: One hundred thirty-seven square and rectangular fields from 5-50 mm with every possible permutation (keeping one jaw fixed and varying other jaw from 5 to 50 mm) were utilized to measure FWHM for the validation of Sclin . Using a microSilicon detector and a scanning water tank, measurements were performed on an Elekta (Versa) machine with Agility head and a Varian TrueBeam with different MLC/Jaw design to evaluate the Sclin concept and to understand the effect of exchange factor in small fields. Field output factors were also measured for all 137 fields. RESULTS: The data fitting for fields ranging from 5-50 mm between the traditional 4A/P method and Sclin shows differences and indicates a linear relationship with distinct separation of slope for Elekta and Varian machines. For Elekta Agility machine ES based on 4A/P < Sclin and for the VarianTrueBeam  4A/P > Sclin for square fields. Our measured data show that both methods are equally valid but does vary by the machine design. The field output factor is dependent on the elongation factor as well as machine design. For fields with sides ≥10 mm, the exchange factor is nearly identical in both machines with magnitude up to 4%, which is close to measurement uncertainty (±3%), but for small fields (< 10 mm), the Elekta machine has higher exchange factors compared to the Varian machine. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate that the two concepts for defining equivalent field (Sclin and 4A/P) are equivalent and can be directly related through an empirical equation. This study confirms that 4A/P is still valid for small fields except for very small fields (≤10 mm) where source occlusion is a dominating factor. The Sclin method is potentially sensitive to measurement uncertainty due to measurement of FWHM which is machine-, detector- and user-dependent, while the 4A/P method relies mainly on geometry of the machine and has less dependency on type of machine, detector, and user. The exchange factors are comparable for both types of machines. The conclusion is based on data from an Elekta with Agility head and a Varian TrueBeam machine that may have potential for bias due to light field/collimator set up and alignment. Care should be taken in extrapolating these data to any other machine.