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 of automated image analysis tools for verification of radiotherapy field accuracy with an electronic portal imaging device

The successful management of cancer with radiation relies on the accurate deposition of a prescribed dose to a prescribed anatomical volume within the patient. Treatment set-up errors are inevitable because the alignment of field shaping devices with the patient must be repeated daily up to eighty times during the course of a fractionated radiotherapy treatment. With the invention of electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs), patient's portal images can be visualized daily in real-time after only a small fraction of the radiation dose has been delivered to each treatment field. However, the accuracy of human visual evaluation of low-contrast portal images has been found to be inadequate. The goal of this research is to develop automated image analysis tools to detect both treatment field shape errors and patient anatomy placement errors with an EPID. A moments method has been developed to align treatment field images to compensate for lack of repositioning precision of the image detector. A figure of merit has also been established to verify the shape and rotation of the treatment fields. Following proper alignment of treatment field boundaries, a cross-correlation method has been developed to detect shifts of the patient's anatomy relative to the treatment field boundary. Phantom studies showed that the moments method aligned the radiation fields to within 0.5mm of translation and 0.5$\sp\circ$ of rotation and that the cross-correlation method aligned anatomical structures inside the radiation field to within 1 mm of translation and 1$\sp\circ$ of rotation. A new procedure of generating and using digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) at megavoltage energies as reference images was also investigated. The procedure allowed a direct comparison between a designed treatment portal and the actual patient setup positions detected by an EPID. Phantom studies confirmed the feasibility of the methodology. Both the moments method and the cross-correlation technique were implemented within an experimental radiotherapy picture archival and communication system (RT-PACS) and were used clinically to evaluate the setup variability of two groups of cancer patients treated with and without an alpha-cradle immobilization aid. The tools developed in this project have proven to be very effective and have played an important role in detecting patient alignment errors and field-shape errors in treatment fields formed by a multileaf collimator (MLC). ^

Verification of intensity modulated stereotactic radiotherapy using Monte Carlo calculations and EPID dosimetry

The purpose of this work was to develop a comprehensive IMSRT QA procedure that examined, using EPID dosimetry and Monte Carlo (MC) calculations, each step in the treatment planning and delivery process. These steps included verification of the field shaping, treatment planning system (RTPS) dose calculations, and patient dose delivery. Verification of each step in the treatment process is assumed to result in correct dose delivery to the patient. ^ The accelerator MC model was verified against commissioning data for field sizes from 0.8 × 0.8 cm 2 to 10 × 10 cm 2. Depth doses were within 2% local percent difference (LPD) in low gradient regions and 1 mm distance to agreement (DTA) in high gradient regions. Lateral profiles were within 2% LPD in low gradient regions and 1 mm DTA in high gradient regions. Calculated output factors were within 1% of measurement for field sizes ≥1 × 1 cm2. ^ The measured and calculated pretreatment EPID dose patterns were compared using criteria of 5% LPD, 1 mm DTA, or 2% of central axis pixel value with ≥95% of compared points required to pass for successful verification. Pretreatment field verification resulted in 97% percent of the points passing. ^ The RTPS and Monte Carlo phantom dose calculations were compared using 5% LPD, 2 mm DTA, or 2% of the maximum dose with ≥95% of compared points required passing for successful verification. RTPS calculation verification resulted in 97% percent of the points passing. ^ The measured and calculated EPID exit dose patterns were compared using criteria of 5% LPD, 1 mm DTA, or 2% of central axis pixel value with ≥95% of compared points required to pass for successful verification. Exit dose verification resulted in 97% percent of the points passing. ^ Each of the processes above verified an individual step in the treatment planning and delivery process. The combination of these verification steps ensures accurate treatment delivery to the patient. This work shows that Monte Carlo calculations and EPID dosimetry can be used to quantitatively verify IMSRT treatments resulting in improved patient care and, potentially, improved clinical outcome. ^

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.