BENCHMARKING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A NEW INDEPENDENT MONTE CARLO DOSE CALCULATION QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDIT TOOL FOR CLINICAL TRIALS

Introduction Commercial treatment planning systems employ a variety of dose calculation algorithms to plan and predict the dose distributions a patient receives during external beam radiation therapy. Traditionally, the Radiological Physics Center has relied on measurements to assure that institutions participating in the National Cancer Institute sponsored clinical trials administer radiation in doses that are clinically comparable to those of other participating institutions. To complement the effort of the RPC, an independent dose calculation tool needs to be developed that will enable a generic method to determine patient dose distributions in three dimensions and to perform retrospective analysis of radiation delivered to patients who enrolled in past clinical trials. Methods A multi-source model representing output for Varian 6 MV and 10 MV photon beams was developed and evaluated. The Monte Carlo algorithm, know as the Dose Planning Method (DPM), was used to perform the dose calculations. The dose calculations were compared to measurements made in a water phantom and in anthropomorphic phantoms. Intensity modulated radiation therapy and stereotactic body radiation therapy techniques were used with the anthropomorphic phantoms. Finally, past patient treatment plans were selected and recalculated using DPM and contrasted against a commercial dose calculation algorithm. Results The multi-source model was validated for the Varian 6 MV and 10 MV photon beams. The benchmark evaluations demonstrated the ability of the model to accurately calculate dose for the Varian 6 MV and the Varian 10 MV source models. The patient calculations proved that the model was reproducible in determining dose under similar conditions described by the benchmark tests. Conclusions The dose calculation tool that relied on a multi-source model approach and used the DPM code to calculate dose was developed, validated, and benchmarked for the Varian 6 MV and 10 MV photon beams. Several patient dose distributions were contrasted against a commercial algorithm to provide a proof of principal to use as an application in monitoring clinical trial activity.

COMPREHENSIVE CALCULATION-BASED IMRT QA USING R&V DATA, TREATMENT RECORDS, AND A SECOND TREATMENT PLANNING SYSTEM

Purpose: Traditional patient-specific IMRT QA measurements are labor intensive and consume machine time. Calculation-based IMRT QA methods typically are not comprehensive. We have developed a comprehensive calculation-based IMRT QA method to detect uncertainties introduced by the initial dose calculation, the data transfer through the Record-and-Verify (R&V) system, and various aspects of the physical delivery. Methods: We recomputed the treatment plans in the patient geometry for 48 cases using data from the R&V, and from the delivery unit to calculate the “as-transferred” and “as-delivered” doses respectively. These data were sent to the original TPS to verify transfer and delivery or to a second TPS to verify the original calculation. For each dataset we examined the dose computed from the R&V record (RV) and from the delivery records (Tx), and the dose computed with a second verification TPS (vTPS). Each verification dose was compared to the clinical dose distribution using 3D gamma analysis and by comparison of mean dose and ROI-specific dose levels to target volumes. Plans were also compared to IMRT QA absolute and relative dose measurements. Results: The average 3D gamma passing percentages using 3%-3mm, 2%-2mm, and 1%-1mm criteria for the RV plan were 100.0 (σ=0.0), 100.0 (σ=0.0), and 100.0 (σ=0.1); for the Tx plan they were 100.0 (σ=0.0), 100.0 (σ=0.0), and 99.0 (σ=1.4); and for the vTPS plan they were 99.3 (σ=0.6), 97.2 (σ=1.5), and 79.0 (σ=8.6). When comparing target volume doses in the RV, Tx, and vTPS plans to the clinical plans, the average ratios of ROI mean doses were 0.999 (σ=0.001), 1.001 (σ=0.002), and 0.990 (σ=0.009) and ROI-specific dose levels were 0.999 (σ=0.001), 1.001 (σ=0.002), and 0.980 (σ=0.043), respectively. Comparing the clinical, RV, TR, and vTPS calculated doses to the IMRT QA measurements for all 48 patients, the average ratios for absolute doses were 0.999 (σ=0.013), 0.998 (σ=0.013), 0.999 σ=0.015), and 0.990 (σ=0.012), respectively, and the average 2D gamma(5%-3mm) passing percentages for relative doses for 9 patients was were 99.36 (σ=0.68), 99.50 (σ=0.49), 99.13 (σ=0.84), and 98.76 (σ=1.66), respectively. Conclusions: Together with mechanical and dosimetric QA, our calculation-based IMRT QA method promises to minimize the need for patient-specific QA measurements by identifying outliers in need of further review.