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.

Characterization of Optically Stimulated Luminescent Detectors in Photon & Proton Beams for Use in Anthropomorphic Phantoms

This study investigated characteristics of optically stimulated luminescent detectors (OSLDs) in protons, allowing comparison to thermoluminescent detectors, and to be implemented into the Radiological Physics Center’s (RPC) remote audit quality assurance program for protons, and for remote anthropomorphic phantom irradiations. The OSLDs used were aluminum oxide (Al2O3:C) nanoDots from Landauer, Inc. (Glenwood, Ill.) measuring 10x10x2 mm3. A square, 20(L)x20(W)x0.5(H) cm3 piece of solid water was fabricated with pockets to allow OSLDs and TLDs to be irradiated simultaneously and perpendicular to the beam. Irradiations were performed at 5cm depth in photons, and in the center of a 10 cm SOBP in a 200MeV proton beam. Additionally, the Radiological Physics Center’s anthropomorphic pelvic phantom was used to test the angular dependence of OSLDs in photons and protons. A cylindrical insert in the phantom allows the dosimeters to be rotated to any angle with a fixed gantry angle. OSLDs were irradiated at 12 angles between 0 and 360 degrees. The OSLDs were read out with a MicroStar reader from Landauer, Inc. Dose response indicates that at angles where the dosimeter is near parallel with the radiation beam response is reduced slightly. Measurements in proton beams do not show significant angular dependence. Post-irradiation fading of OSLDs was studied in proton beams to determine if the fading was different than that of photons. The fading results showed no significant difference from results in photon beams. OSLDs and TLDs are comparable within 3% in photon beams and a correction factor can be posited for proton beams. With angular dependence characteristics defined, OSLDs can be implemented into multiple-field treatment plans in photons and protons and used in the RPC’s quality assurance program.

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.