Using 4D dose accumulation to calculate organ-at-risk dose deviations from motion-synchronized liver and lung tomotherapy treatments.

Tracking systems such as Radixact Synchrony change the planned delivery of radiation during treatment to follow the target. This is typically achieved without considering the location changes of organs at risk (OARs). The goal of this work was to develop a novel 4D dose accumulation framework to quantify OAR dose deviations due to the motion and tracked treatment. The framework obtains deformation information and the target motion pattern from a four-dimensional computed tomography dataset. The helical tomotherapy treatment plan is split into 10 plans and motion correction is applied separately to the jaw pattern and multi-leaf collimator (MLC) sinogram for each phase based on the location of the target in each phase. Deformable image registration (DIR) is calculated from each phase to the references phase using a commercial algorithm, and doses are accumulated according to the DIR. The effect of motion synchronization on OAR dose was analyzed for five lung and five liver subjects by comparing planned versus synchrony-accumulated dose. The motion was compensated by an average of 1.6 cm of jaw sway and by an average of 5.7% of leaf openings modified, indicating that most of the motion compensation was from jaw sway and not MLC changes. OAR dose deviations as large as 19 Gy were observed, and for all 10 cases, dose deviations greater than 7 Gy were observed. Target dose remained relatively constant (D95% within 3 Gy), confirming that motion-synchronization achieved the goal of maintaining target dose. Dose deviations provided by the framework can be leveraged during the treatment planning process by identifying cases where OAR doses may change significantly from their planned values with respect to the critical constraints. The framework is specific to synchronized helical tomotherapy treatments, but the OAR dose deviations apply to any real-time tracking technique that does not consider location changes of OARs.

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.

Effects of variable-width jaw motion on beam characteristics for Radixact Synchrony®.

PURPOSE: Radixact Synchrony corrects for target motion during treatment by adjusting the jaw and MLC positions in real time. As the jaws move off axis, Synchrony attempts to adjust for a loss in output due to the un-flattened 6 MV beam by increasing the jaw aperture width. The purpose of this work was to assess the impact of the variable-width aperture on delivered dose using measurements and simulations. METHODS: Longitudinal beam profile measurements were acquired using an Edge diode with static gantry. Jaw-offset peak, width, and integral factors were calculated for profiles with the jaws in the extreme positions using both variable-width (Synchrony) and fixed-width apertures. Treatment plans with target motion and compensation were compared to planned doses to study the impact of the variable aperture on volumetric dose. RESULTS: The jaw offset peak factor (JOPF) for the Synchrony jaw settings were 0.964 and 0.983 for the 1.0- and 2.5-cm jaw settings, respectively. These values decreased to 0.925 and 0.982 for the fixed-width settings, indicating that the peak value of the profile would decrease by 7.5% compared to centered if the aperture width was held constant. The IMRT dose distributions reveal similar results, where gamma pass rates are above tolerance for the Synchrony jaw settings but fall significantly for the fixed-width 1-cm jaws. CONCLUSIONS: The variable-width behavior of Synchrony jaws provides a larger output correction for the 1-cm jaw setting. Without the variable-aperture correction, plans with the 1-cm jaw setting would underdose the target if the jaws spend a significant amount of time in the extreme positions. This work investigated the change in delivered dose with jaws in the extreme positions, therefore overall changes in dose due to offset jaws are expected to be less for composite treatment deliveries.

Evaluation of radixact motion synchrony for 3D respiratory motion: Modeling accuracy and dosimetric fidelity.

The Radixact® linear accelerator contains the motion Synchrony system, which tracks and compensates for intrafraction patient motion. For respiratory motion, the system models the motion of the target and synchronizes the delivery of radiation with this motion using the jaws and multi-leaf collimators (MLCs). It was the purpose of this work to determine the ability of the Synchrony system to track and compensate for different phantom motions using a delivery quality assurance (DQA) workflow. Thirteen helical plans were created on static datasets from liver, lung, and pancreas subjects. Dose distributions were measured using a Delta4® Phantom+ mounted on a Hexamotion® stage for the following three case scenarios for each plan: (a) no phantom motion and no Synchrony (M0S0), (b) phantom motion and no Synchrony (M1S0), and (c) phantom motion with Synchrony (M1S1). The LEDs were placed on the Phantom+ for the 13 patient cases and were placed on a separate one-dimensional surrogate stage for additional studies to investigate the effect of separate target and surrogate motion. The root-mean-square (RMS) error between the Synchrony-modeled positions and the programmed phantom positions was <1.5 mm for all Synchrony deliveries with the LEDs on the Phantom+. The tracking errors increased slightly when the LEDs were placed on the surrogate stage but were similar to tracking errors observed for other motion tracking systems such as CyberKnife Synchrony. One-dimensional profiles indicate the effects of motion interplay and dose blurring present in several of the M1S0 plans that are not present in the M1S1 plans. All 13 of the M1S1 measured doses had gamma pass rates (3%/2 mm/10%T) compared to the planned dose > 90%. Only two of the M1S0 measured doses had gamma pass rates > 90%. Motion Synchrony offers a potential alternative to the current, ITV-based motion management strategy for helical tomotherapy deliveries.

Evaluation of a commercial Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm for electron treatment planning.

The RayStation treatment planning system implements a Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm for electron dose calculations. For a TrueBeam accelerator, beam modeling was performed for four electron energies (6, 9, 12, and 15 MeV), and the dose calculation accuracy was tested for a range of geometries. The suite of validation tests included those tests recommended by AAPM's Medical Physics Practice Guideline 5.a, but extended beyond these tests in order to validate the MC algorithm in more challenging geometries. For MPPG 5.a testing, calculation accuracy was evaluated for square cutouts of various sizes, two custom cutout shapes, oblique incidence, and heterogenous media (cork). In general, agreement between ion chamber measurements and RayStation dose calculations was excellent and well within suggested tolerance limits. However, this testing did reveal calculation errors for the output of small cutouts. Of the 312 output factors evaluated for square cutouts, 20 (6.4%) were outside of 3% and 5 (1.6%) were outside of 5%, with these larger errors generally being for the smallest cutout sizes within a given applicator. Adjustment of beam modeling parameters did not fix these calculation errors, nor does the planning software allow the user to input correction factors as a function of field size. Additional validation tests included several complex phantom geometries (triangular nose phantom, lung phantom, curved breast phantom, and cortical bone phantom), designed to test the ability of the algorithm to handle high density heterogeneities and irregular surface contours. In comparison to measurements with radiochromic film, RayStation showed good agreement, with an average of 89.3% pixels passing for gamma analysis (3%/3mm) across four phantom geometries. The MC algorithm was able to accurately handle the presence of irregular surface contours (curved cylindrical phantom and a triangular nose phantom), as well as heterogeneities (cork and cortical bone).

Long-term dosimetric stability of multiple TomoTherapy delivery systems.

The dosimetric stability of six TomoTherapy units was analyzed to investigate changes in performance over time and with system upgrades. Energy and output were tracked using monitor chamber signal, onboard megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) detector profile, and external ion chamber measurements. The systems (and monitoring periods) include three Hi-Art (67, 61, and 65 mos.), two TomoHDA (31 and 26 mos.), and one Radixact unit (11 mos.), representing approximately 10 years of clinical use. The four newest systems use the Dose Control Stability (DCS) system and Fixed Target Linear Accelerator (linac) (FTL). The output stability is reported as deviation from reference monitor chamber signal for all systems and/or from an external chamber signal. The energy stability was monitored using relative (center versus off-axis) MVCT detector signal (beam profile) and/or the ratio of chamber measurements at 2 depths. The clinical TomoHDA data were used to benchmark the Radixact stability, which has the same FTL but runs at a higher dose rate. The output based on monitor chamber data of all systems is very stable. The standard deviation of daily output on the non-DCS systems was 0.94-1.52%. As expected, the DCS systems had improved standard deviation: 0.004-0.06%. The beam energy was also very stable for all units. The standard deviation in profile flatness was 0.23-0.62% for rotating target systems and 0.04-0.09% for FTL. Ion chamber output and PDD ratios supported these results. The output stability on the Radixact system during extended treatment delivery (20, 30, and 40 min) was comparable to a clinical TomoHDA system. For each system, results are consistent between different measurement tools and techniques, proving not only the dosimetric stability, but also these quality parameters can be confirmed with various metrics. The replacement history over extended time periods of the major dosimetric components of the different delivery systems (target, linac, and magnetron) is also reported.

Implementation of the validation testing in MPPG 5.a "Commissioning and QA of treatment planning dose calculations-megavoltage photon and electron beams".

The AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) 5.a provides concise guidance on the commissioning and QA of beam modeling and dose calculation in radiotherapy treatment planning systems. This work discusses the implementation of the validation testing recommended in MPPG 5.a at two institutions. The two institutions worked collaboratively to create a common set of treatment fields and analysis tools to deliver and analyze the validation tests. This included the development of a novel, open-source software tool to compare scanning water tank measurements to 3D DICOM-RT Dose distributions. Dose calculation algorithms in both Pinnacle and Eclipse were tested with MPPG 5.a to validate the modeling of Varian TrueBeam linear accelerators. The validation process resulted in more than 200 water tank scans and more than 50 point measurements per institution, each of which was compared to a dose calculation from the institution's treatment planning system (TPS). Overall, the validation testing recommended in MPPG 5.a took approximately 79 person-hours for a machine with four photon and five electron energies for a single TPS. Of the 79 person-hours, 26 person-hours required time on the machine, and the remainder involved preparation and analysis. The basic photon, electron, and heterogeneity correction tests were evaluated with the tolerances in MPPG 5.a, and the tolerances were met for all tests. The MPPG 5.a evaluation criteria were used to assess the small field and IMRT/VMAT validation tests. Both institutions found the use of MPPG 5.a to be a valuable resource during the commissioning process. The validation testing in MPPG 5.a showed the strengths and limitations of the TPS models. In addition, the data collected during the validation testing is useful for routine QA of the TPS, validation of software upgrades, and commissioning of new algorithms.

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.

Report on the American Association of Medical Physics Undergraduate Fellowship Programs.

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) sponsors two summer undergraduate research programs to attract top performing undergraduate students into graduate studies in medical physics: the Summer Undergraduate Fellowship Program (SUFP) and the Minority Undergraduate Summer Experience (MUSE). Undergraduate research experience (URE) is an effective tool to encourage students to pursue graduate degrees. The SUFP and MUSE are the only medical physics URE programs. From 2001 to 2012, 148 fellowships have been awarded and a total of $608,000 has been dispersed to fellows. This paper reports on the history, participation, and status of the programs. A review of surveys of past fellows is presented. Overall, the fellows and mentors are very satisfied with the program. The efficacy of the programs is assessed by four metrics: entry into a medical physics graduate program, board certification, publications, and AAPM involvement. Sixty-five percent of past fellow respondents decided to pursue a graduate degree in medical physics as a result of their participation in the program. Seventy percent of respondents are currently involved in some educational or professional aspect of medical physics. Suggestions for future enhancements to better track and maintain contact with past fellows, expand funding sources, and potentially combine the programs are presented.

AAPM Task Group Report 306: Quality control and assurance for tomotherapy: An update to Task Group Report 148.

Since the publication of AAPM Task Group (TG) 148 on quality assurance (QA) for helical tomotherapy, there have been many new developments on the tomotherapy platform involving treatment delivery, on-board imaging options, motion management, and treatment planning systems (TPSs). In response to a need for guidance on quality control (QC) and QA for these technologies, the AAPM Therapy Physics Committee commissioned TG 306 to review these changes and make recommendations related to these technology updates. The specific objectives of this TG were (1) to update, as needed, recommendations on tolerance limits, frequencies and QC/QA testing methodology in TG 148, (2) address the commissioning and necessary QA checks, as a supplement to Medical Physics Practice Guidelines (MPPG) with respect to tomotherapy TPS and (3) to provide risk-based recommendations on the new technology implemented clinically and treatment delivery workflow. Detailed recommendations on QA tests and their tolerance levels are provided for dynamic jaws, binary multileaf collimators, and Synchrony motion management. A subset of TPS commissioning and QA checks in MPPG 5.a. applicable to tomotherapy are recommended. In addition, failure mode and effects analysis has been conducted among TG members to obtain multi-institutional analysis on tomotherapy-related failure modes and their effect ranking.