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.

Clinical Impact of Couch Top and Rails on IMRT and Arc Therapy

Purpose: To evaluate the clinical impact of the Varian Exact Couch on dose and volume coverage to targets and critical structures and tumor control probability (TCP) for 6-MV IMRT and Arc Therapy. Methods: Five clinical prostate patients were planned with both, 6-MV 8-field IMRT and 6-MV 2-field RapidArc using the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS). These plans neglected treatment couch attenuation, as is standard clinical practice. Dose distributions were then recalculated in Eclipse with the inclusion of the Varian Exact Couch (imaging couch top) and the rails in varying configurations. The changes in dose and coverage were evaluated using the DVHs from each plan iteration. We used a tumor control probability (TCP) model to calculate losses in tumor control resulting from not accounting for the couch top and rails. We also verified dose measurements in a phantom. Results: Failure to account for the treatment couch and rails resulted in clinically unacceptable dose and volume coverage losses to the target for both IMRT and RapidArc. The couch caused average dose losses (relative to plans that ignored the couch) to the prostate of 4.2% and 2.0% for IMRT with the rails out and in, respectively, and 3.2% and 2.9% for RapidArc with the rails out and in, respectively. On average, the percentage of the target covered by the prescribed dose dropped to 35% and 84% for IMRT (rails out and in, respectively) and to 18% and 17% for RapidArc (rails out and in, respectively). The TCP was also reduced by as much as 10.5% (6.3% on average). Dose and volume coverage losses for IMRT plans were primarily due to the rails, while the imaging couch top contributed most to losses for RapidArc. Both the couch top and rails contribute to dose and coverage losses that can render plans clinically unacceptable. A follow-up study we performed found that the less attenuating unipanel mesh couch top available with the Varian Exact couch does not cause a clinically impactful loss of dose or coverage for IMRT but still causes an unacceptable loss for RapidArc. Conclusions: Both the imaging couch top and rails contribute to dose and coverage loss to a degree that, if included, would prevent the plan from meeting clinical planning criteria. Therefore, the imaging and mesh couch tops and rails should be accounted for in Arc Therapy and the imaging couch and rails only in IMRT treatment planning.

Assessment of Collimator Jaw Optimization in Reducing Normal Tissue Irradiation with Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy

Purpose: To evaluate normal tissue dose reduction in step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) on the Varian 2100 platform by tracking the multileaf collimator (MLC) apertures with the accelerator jaws. Methods: Clinical radiation treatment plans for 10 thoracic, 3 pediatric and 3 head and neck patients were converted to plans with the jaws tracking each segment’s MLC apertures. Each segment was then renormalized to account for the change in collimator scatter to obtain target coverage within 1% of that in the original plan. The new plans were compared to the original plans in a commercial radiation treatment planning system (TPS). Reduction in normal tissue dose was evaluated in the new plan by using the parameters V5, V10, and V20 in the cumulative dose-volume histogram for the following structures: total lung minus GTV (gross target volume), heart, esophagus, spinal cord, liver, parotids, and brainstem. In order to validate the accuracy of our beam model, MLC transmission measurements were made and compared to those predicted by the TPS. Results: The greatest change between the original plan and new plan occurred at lower dose levels. The reduction in V20 was never more than 6.3% and was typically less than 1% for all patients. The reduction in V5 was 16.7% maximum and was typically less than 3% for all patients. The variation in normal tissue dose reduction was not predictable, and we found no clear parameters that indicated which patients would benefit most from jaw tracking. Our TPS model of MLC transmission agreed with measurements with absolute transmission differences of less than 0.1 % and thus uncertainties in the model did not contribute significantly to the uncertainty in the dose determination. Conclusion: The amount of dose reduction achieved by collimating the jaws around each MLC aperture in step-and-shoot IMRT does not appear to be clinically significant.

EVALUATION OF INTENSITY MODULATED RADIATION THERAPY (IMRT) DELIVERY ERROR DUE TO IMRT TREATMENT PLAN COMPLEXITY AND IMPROPERLY MATCHED DOSIMETRY DATA

Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is a technique that delivers a highly conformal dose distribution to a target volume while attempting to maximally spare the surrounding normal tissues. IMRT is a common treatment modality used for treating head and neck (H&N) cancers, and the presence of many critical structures in this region requires accurate treatment delivery. The Radiological Physics Center (RPC) acts as both a remote and on-site quality assurance agency that credentials institutions participating in clinical trials. To date, about 30% of all IMRT participants have failed the RPC’s remote audit using the IMRT H&N phantom. The purpose of this project is to evaluate possible causes of H&N IMRT delivery errors observed by the RPC, specifically IMRT treatment plan complexity and the use of improper dosimetry data from machines that were thought to be matched but in reality were not. Eight H&N IMRT plans with a range of complexity defined by total MU (1460-3466), number of segments (54-225), and modulation complexity scores (MCS) (0.181-0.609) were created in Pinnacle v.8m. These plans were delivered to the RPC’s H&N phantom on a single Varian Clinac. One of the IMRT plans (1851 MU, 88 segments, and MCS=0.469) was equivalent to the median H&N plan from 130 previous RPC H&N phantom irradiations. This average IMRT plan was also delivered on four matched Varian Clinac machines and the dose distribution calculated using a different 6MV beam model. Radiochromic film and TLD within the phantom were used to analyze the dose profiles and absolute doses, respectively. The measured and calculated were compared to evaluate the dosimetric accuracy. All deliveries met the RPC acceptance criteria of ±7% absolute dose difference and 4 mm distance-to-agreement (DTA). Additionally, gamma index analysis was performed for all deliveries using a ±7%/4mm and ±5%/3mm criteria. Increasing the treatment plan complexity by varying the MU, number of segments, or varying the MCS resulted in no clear trend toward an increase in dosimetric error determined by the absolute dose difference, DTA, or gamma index. Varying the delivery machines as well as the beam model (use of a Clinac 6EX 6MV beam model vs. Clinac 21EX 6MV model), also did not show any clear trend towards an increased dosimetric error using the same criteria indicated above.

The design and evaluation of a 2D dose verification system for intensity modulated radiotherapy

The usage of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatments necessitates a significant amount of patient-specific quality assurance (QA). This research has investigated the precision and accuracy of Kodak EDR2 film measurements for IMRT verifications, the use of comparisons between 2D dose calculations and measurements to improve treatment plan beam models, and the dosimetric impact of delivery errors. New measurement techniques and software were developed and used clinically at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center. The software implemented two new dose comparison parameters, the 2D normalized agreement test (NAT) and the scalar NAT index. A single-film calibration technique using multileaf collimator (MLC) delivery was developed. EDR2 film's optical density response was found to be sensitive to several factors: radiation time, length of time between exposure and processing, and phantom material. Precision of EDR2 film measurements was found to be better than 1%. For IMRT verification, EDR2 film measurements agreed with ion chamber results to 2%/2mm accuracy for single-beam fluence map verifications and to 5%/2mm for transverse plane measurements of complete plan dose distributions. The same system was used to quantitatively optimize the radiation field offset and MLC transmission beam modeling parameters for Varian MLCs. While scalar dose comparison metrics can work well for optimization purposes, the influence of external parameters on the dose discrepancies must be minimized. The ability of 2D verifications to detect delivery errors was tested with simulated data. The dosimetric characteristics of delivery errors were compared to patient-specific clinical IMRT verifications. For the clinical verifications, the NAT index and percent of pixels failing the gamma index were exponentially distributed and dependent upon the measurement phantom but not the treatment site. Delivery errors affecting all beams in the treatment plan were flagged by the NAT index, although delivery errors impacting only one beam could not be differentiated from routine clinical verification discrepancies. Clinical use of this system will flag outliers, allow physicists to examine their causes, and perhaps improve the level of agreement between radiation dose distribution measurements and calculations. The principles used to design and evaluate this system are extensible to future multidimensional dose measurements and comparisons. ^

DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A REMOTE AUDIT TOOL FOR HIGH DOSE RATE (HDR) 192IR BRACHYTHERAPY USING OPTICALLY STIMULATED LUMINESCENCE DOSIMETRY

This work aimed to create a mailable and OSLD-based phantom with accuracy suitable for RPC audits of HDR brachytherapy sources at institutions participating in NCI-funded cooperative clinical trials. An 8 × 8 × 10 cm3 prototype with two slots capable of holding nanoDot Al2O3:C OSL dosimeters (Landauer, Glenwood, IL) was designed and built. The phantom has a single channel capable of accepting all 192Ir HDR brachytherapy sources in current clinical use in the United States. Irradiations were performed with an 192Ir HDR source to determine correction factors for linearity with dose, dose rate, and the combined effect of irradiation energy and phantom construction. The uncertainties introduced by source positioning in the phantom and timer resolution limitations were also investigated. It was found that the linearity correction factor was where dose is in cGy, which differed from that determined by the RPC for the same batch of dosimeters under 60Co irradiation. There was no significant dose rate effect. Separate energy+block correction factors were determined for both models of 192Ir sources currently in clinical use and these vendor-specific correction factors differed by almost 2.6%. For Nucletron sources, this correction factor was 1.026±0.004 (99% Confidence Interval) and for Varian sources it was 1.000±0.007 (99% CI). Reasonable deviations in source positioning within the phantom and the limited resolution of the source timer had insignificant effects on the ability to measure dose. Overall measurement uncertainty of the system was estimated to be ±2.5% for both Nucletron and Varian source audits (95% CI). This uncertainty was sufficient to establish a ±5% acceptance criterion for source strength audits under a formal RPC audit program. Trial audits of eight participating institutions resulted in an average RPC-to-institution dose ratio of 1.000 with a standard deviation of 0.011.

Understanding the Influence of Photon Energy on 6MV Non Reference Dosimetry and CT Dosimetry using TLD and OSLD

Measurement of the absorbed dose from ionizing radiation in medical applications is an essential component to providing safe and reproducible patient care. There are a wide variety of tools available for measuring radiation dose; this work focuses on the characterization of two common, solid-state dosimeters in medical applications: thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) and optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters (OSLD). There were two main objectives to this work. The first objective was to evaluate the energy dependence of TLD and OSLD for non-reference measurement conditions in a radiotherapy environment. The second objective was to fully characterize the OSLD nanoDot in a CT environment, and to provide validated calibration procedures for CT dose measurement using OSLD. Current protocols for dose measurement using TLD and OSLD generally assume a constant photon energy spectrum within a nominal beam energy regardless of measurement location, tissue composition, or changes in beam parameters. Variations in the energy spectrum of therapeutic photon beams may impact the response of TLD and OSLD and could thereby result in an incorrect measure of dose unless these differences are accounted for. In this work, we used a Monte Carlo based model to simulate variations in the photon energy spectra of a Varian 6MV beam; then evaluated the impact of the perturbations in energy spectra on the response of both TLD and OSLD using Burlin Cavity Theory. Energy response correction factors were determined for a range of conditions and compared to measured correction factors with good agreement. When using OSLD for dose measurement in a diagnostic imaging environment, photon energy spectra are often referenced to a therapy-energy or orthovoltage photon beam – commonly 250kVp, Co-60, or even 6MV, where the spectra are substantially different. Appropriate calibration techniques specifically for the OSLD nanoDot in a CT environment have not been presented in the literature; furthermore the dependence of the energy response of the calibration energy has not been emphasized. The results of this work include detailed calibration procedures for CT dosimetry using OSLD, and a full characterization of this dosimetry system in a low-dose, low-energy setting.

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.