EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ANISOTROPIC ANALYTICAL ALGORITHM IN FLATTENED AND FLATTENING-FILTER-FREE BEAMS FOR HIGH ENERGY LUNG DOSE DELIVERY USING THE RADIOLOGICAL PHYSICS CENTER LUNG PHANTOM

The effectiveness of the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) implemented in the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) was evaluated using theRadiologicalPhysicsCenteranthropomorphic lung phantom using both flattened and flattening-filter-free high energy beams. Radiation treatment plans were developed following the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group and theRadiologicalPhysicsCenterguidelines for lung treatment using Stereotactic Radiation Body Therapy. The tumor was covered such that at least 95% of Planning Target Volume (PTV) received 100% of the prescribed dose while ensuring that normal tissue constraints were followed as well. Calculated doses were exported from the Eclipse TPS and compared with the experimental data as measured using thermoluminescence detectors (TLD) and radiochromic films that were placed inside the phantom. The results demonstrate that the AAA superposition-convolution algorithm is able to calculate SBRT treatment plans with all clinically used photon beams in the range from 6 MV to 18 MV. The measured dose distribution showed a good agreement with the calculated distribution using clinically acceptable criteria of ±5% dose or 3mm distance to agreement. These results show that in a heterogeneous environment a 3D pencil beam superposition-convolution algorithms with Monte Carlo pre-calculated scatter kernels, such as AAA, are able to reliably calculate dose, accounting for increased lateral scattering due to the loss of electronic equilibrium in low density medium. The data for high energy plans (15 MV and 18 MV) showed very good tumor coverage in contrast to findings by other investigators for less sophisticated dose calculation algorithms, which demonstrated less than expected tumor doses and generally worse tumor coverage for high energy plans compared to 6MV plans. This demonstrates that the modern superposition-convolution AAA algorithm is a significant improvement over previous algorithms and is able to calculate doses accurately for SBRT treatment plans in the highly heterogeneous environment of the thorax for both lower (≤12 MV) and higher (greater than 12 MV) beam energies.

AN EVALUATION OF THE CONSISTENCY OF IMRT PATIENT-SPECIFIC QA TECHNIQUES

To ensure the integrity of an intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment, each plan must be validated through a measurement-based quality assurance (QA) procedure, known as patient specific IMRT QA. Many methods of measurement and analysis have evolved for this QA. There is not a standard among clinical institutions, and many devices and action levels are used. Since the acceptance criteria determines if the dosimetric tools’ output passes the patient plan, it is important to see how these parameters influence the performance of the QA device. While analyzing the results of IMRT QA, it is important to understand the variability in the measurements. Due to the different form factors of the many QA methods, this reproducibility can be device dependent. These questions of patient-specific IMRT QA reproducibility and performance were investigated across five dosimeter systems: a helical diode array, radiographic film, ion chamber, diode array (AP field-by-field, AP composite, and rotational composite), and an in-house designed multiple ion chamber phantom. The reproducibility was gauged for each device by comparing the coefficients of variation (CV) across six patient plans. The performance of each device was determined by comparing each one’s ability to accurately label a plan as acceptable or unacceptable compared to a gold standard. All methods demonstrated a CV of less than 4%. Film proved to have the highest variability in QA measurement, likely due to the high level of user involvement in the readout and analysis. This is further shown by how the setup contributed more variation than the readout and analysis for all of the methods, except film. When evaluated for ability to correctly label acceptable and unacceptable plans, two distinct performance groups emerged with the helical diode array, AP composite diode array, film, and ion chamber in the better group; and the rotational composite and AP field-by-field diode array in the poorer group. Additionally, optimal threshold cutoffs were determined for each of the dosimetry systems. These findings, combined with practical considerations for factors such as labor and cost, can aid a clinic in its choice of an effective and safe patient-specific IMRT QA implementation.

Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Evaluation with the Radiological Physics Center Head and Neck Phantom

Validation of treatment plan quality and dose calculation accuracy is essential for new radiotherapy techniques, including volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). VMAT delivers intensity modulated radiotherapy treatments while simultaneously rotating the gantry, adding an additional level of complexity to both the dose calculation and delivery of VMAT treatments compared to static gantry IMRT. The purpose of this project was to compare two VMAT systems, Elekta VMAT and Varian RapidArc, to the current standard of care, IMRT, in terms of both treatment plan quality and dosimetric delivery accuracy using the Radiological Physics Center (RPC) head and neck (H&N) phantom. Clinically relevant treatment plans were created for the phantom using typical prescription and dose constraints for Elekta VMAT (planned with Pinnacle3 Smart Arc) and RapidArc and IMRT (both planned with Eclipse). The treatment plans were evaluated to determine if they were clinically comparable using several dosimetric criteria, including ability to meet dose objectives, hot spots, conformity index, and homogeneity index. The planned treatments were delivered to the phantom and absolute doses and relative dose distributions were measured with thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and radiochromic film, respectively. The measured and calculated doses of each treatment were compared to determine if they were clinically acceptable based upon RPC criteria of ±7% dose difference and 4 mm distance-to-agreement. Gamma analysis was used to assess dosimetric accuracy, as well. All treatment plans were able to meet the dosimetric objectives set by the RPC and had similar hot spots in the normal tissue. The Elekta VMAT plan was more homogenous but less conformal than the RapidArc and IMRT plans. When comparing the measured and calculated doses, all plans met the RPC ±7%/4 mm criteria. The percent of points passing the gamma analysis for each treatment delivery was acceptable. Treatment plan quality of the Elekta VMAT, RapidArc and IMRT treatments were comparable for consistent dose prescriptions and constraints. Additionally, the dosimetric accuracy of the Elekta VMAT and RapidArc treatments was verified to be within acceptable tolerances.