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.

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.

Examination of the properties of IMRT and VMAT beams and evaluation against pre-treatment quality assurance results

This study aimed to provide a detailed evaluation and comparison of a range of modulated beam evaluation metrics, in terms of their correlation with QA testing results and their variation between treatment sites, for a large number of treatments. Ten metrics including the modulation index (MI), fluence map complexity (FMC), modulation complexity score (MCS), mean aperture displacement (MAD) and small aperture score (SAS) were evaluated for 546 beams from 122 IMRT and VMAT treatment plans targeting the anus, rectum, endometrium, brain, head and neck and prostate. The calculated sets of metrics were evaluated in terms of their relationships to each other and their correlation with the results of electronic portal imaging based quality assurance (QA) evaluations of the treatment beams. Evaluation of the MI, MAD and SAS suggested that beams used in treatments of the anus, rectum, head and neck were more complex than the prostate and brain treatment beams. Seven of the ten beam complexity metrics were found to be strongly correlated with the results from QA testing of the IMRT beams (p < 0.00008). For example, Values of SAS (with MLC apertures narrower than 10 mm defined as “small”) less than 0.2 also identified QA passing IMRT beams with 100% specificity. However, few of the metrics are correlated with the results from QA testing of the VMAT beams, whether they were evaluated as whole 360◦ arcs or as 60◦ sub-arcs. Select evaluation of beam complexity metrics (at least MI, MCS and SAS) is therefore recommended, as an intermediate step in the IMRT QA chain. Such evaluation may also be useful as a means of periodically reviewing VMAT planning or optimiser performance.

Predicting the likelihood of QA failure using treatment plan accuracy metrics

This study used automated data processing techniques to calculate a set of novel treatment plan accuracy metrics, and investigate their usefulness as predictors of quality assurance (QA) success and failure. 151 beams from 23 prostate and cranial IMRT treatment plans were used in this study. These plans had been evaluated before treatment using measurements with a diode array system. The TADA software suite was adapted to allow automatic batch calculation of several proposed plan accuracy metrics, including mean field area, small-aperture, off-axis and closed-leaf factors. All of these results were compared the gamma pass rates from the QA measurements and correlations were investigated. The mean field area factor provided a threshold field size (5 cm2, equivalent to a 2.2 x 2.2 cm2 square field), below which all beams failed the QA tests. The small aperture score provided a useful predictor of plan failure, when averaged over all beams, despite being weakly correlated with gamma pass rates for individual beams. By contrast, the closed leaf and off-axis factors provided information about the geometric arrangement of the beam segments but were not useful for distinguishing between plans that passed and failed QA. This study has provided some simple tests for plan accuracy, which may help minimise time spent on QA assessments of treatments that are unlikely to pass.

Treatment plan complexity metrics for predicting IMRT pre-treatment quality assurance results

The planning of IMRT treatments requires a compromise between dose conformity (complexity) and deliverability. This study investigates established and novel treatment complexity metrics for 122 IMRT beams from prostate treatment plans. The Treatment and Dose Assessor software was used to extract the necessary data from exported treatment plan files and calculate the metrics. For most of the metrics, there was strong overlap between the calculated values for plans that passed and failed their quality assurance (QA) tests. However, statistically significant variation between plans that passed and failed QA measurements was found for the established modulation index and for a novel metric describing the proportion of small apertures in each beam. The ‘small aperture score’ provided threshold values which successfully distinguished deliverable treatment plans from plans that did not pass QA, with a low false negative rate.

IMRT credentialing for prospective trials using institutional virtual phantoms: results of a joint European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer and Radiological Physics Center project.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) credentialing for a EORTC study was performed using an anthropomorphic head phantom from the Radiological Physics Center (RPC; RPC(PH)). Institutions were retrospectively requested to irradiate their institutional phantom (INST(PH)) using the same treatment plan in the framework of a Virtual Phantom Project (VPP) for IMRT credentialing. MATERIALS AND METHODS CT data set of the institutional phantom and measured 2D dose matrices were requested from centers and sent to a dedicated secure EORTC uploader. Data from the RPC(PH) and INST(PH) were thereafter centrally analyzed and inter-compared by the QA team using commercially available software (RIT; ver.5.2; Colorado Springs, USA). RESULTS Eighteen institutions participated to the VPP. The measurements of 6 (33%) institutions could not be analyzed centrally. All other centers passed both the VPP and the RPC ±7%/4 mm credentialing criteria. At the 5%/5 mm gamma criteria (90% of pixels passing), 11(92%) as compared to 12 (100%) centers pass the credentialing process with RPC(PH) and INST(PH) (p = 0.29), respectively. The corresponding pass rate for the 3%/3 mm gamma criteria (90% of pixels passing) was 2 (17%) and 9 (75%; p = 0.01), respectively. CONCLUSIONS IMRT dosimetry gamma evaluations in a single plane for a H&N prospective trial using the INST(PH) measurements showed agreement at the gamma index criteria of ±5%/5 mm (90% of pixels passing) for a small number of VPP measurements. Using more stringent, criteria, the RPC(PH) and INST(PH) comparison showed disagreement. More data is warranted and urgently required within the framework of prospective studies.

Desenvolvimento e avaliação de um sistema de cálculo de dose independente para controle de qualidade de IMRT do tipo jaws-only

Dissertação (mestrado)—Universidade de Brasília, Faculdade Gama, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Engenharia Biomédica, 2015.

Radiobiological model comparison of 3D conformal radiotherapy and IMRT plans for the treatment of prostate cancer

The main aim of radiotherapy is to deliver a dose of radiation that is high enough to destroy the tumour cells while at the same time minimising the damage to normal healthy tissues. Clinically, this has been achieved by assigning a prescription dose to the tumour volume and a set of dose constraints on critical structures. Once an optimal treatment plan has been achieved the dosimetry is assessed using the physical parameters of dose and volume. There has been an interest in using radiobiological parameters to evaluate and predict the outcome of a treatment plan in terms of both a tumour control probability (TCP) and a normal tissue complication probability (NTCP). In this study, simple radiobiological models that are available in a commercial treatment planning system were used to compare three dimensional conformal radiotherapy treatments (3D-CRT) and intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatments of the prostate. Initially both 3D-CRT and IMRT were planned for 2 Gy/fraction to a total dose of 60 Gy to the prostate. The sensitivity of the TCP and the NTCP to both conventional dose escalation and hypo-fractionation was investigated. The biological responses were calculated using the Källman S-model. The complication free tumour control probability (P+) is generated from the combined NTCP and TCP response values. It has been suggested that the alpha/beta ratio for prostate carcinoma cells may be lower than for most other tumour cell types. The effect of this on the modelled biological response for the different fractionation schedules was also investigated.

Commissioning of a Geant4 based treatment plan simulation tool : linac model and dicom-rt interface

A Geant4 based simulation tool has been developed to perform Monte Carlo modelling of a 6 MV VarianTM iX clinac. The computer aided design interface of Geant4 was used to accurately model the LINAC components, including the Millenium multi-leaf collimators (MLCs). The simulation tool was verified via simulation of standard commissioning dosimetry data acquired with an ionisation chamber in a water phantom. Verification of the MLC model was achieved by simulation of leaf leakage measurements performed using GafchromicTM film in a solid water phantom. An absolute dose calibration capability was added by including a virtual monitor chamber into the simulation. Furthermore, a DICOM-RT interface was integrated with the application to allow the simulation of treatment plans in radiotherapy. The ability of the simulation tool to accurately model leaf movements and doses at each control point was verified by simulation of a widely used intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA) technique, the chair test.

A pre-treatment verification tool for IMRT based on EPID measurements and a GEANT4 back projection application

The aim of this work is to develop software that is capable of back projecting primary fluence images obtained from EPID measurements through phantom and patient geometries in order to calculate 3D dose distributions. In the first instance, we aim to develop a tool for pretreatment verification in IMRT. In our approach, a Geant4 application is used to back project primary fluence values from each EPID pixel towards the source. Each beam is considered to be polyenergetic, with a spectrum obtained from Monte Carlo calculations for the LINAC in question. At each step of the ray tracing process, the energy differential fluence is corrected for attenuation and beam divergence. Subsequently, the TERMA is calculated and accumulated to an energy differential 3D TERMA distribution. This distribution is then convolved with monoenergetic point spread kernels, thus generating energy differential 3D dose distributions. The resulting dose distributions are accumulated to yield the total dose distribution, which can then be used for pre-treatment verification of IMRT plans. Preliminary results were obtained for a test EPID image comprised of 100 9 100 pixels of unity fluence. Back projection of this field into a 30 cm9 30 cm 9 30 cm water phantom was performed, with TERMA distributions obtained in approximately 10 min (running on a single core of a 3 GHz processor). Point spread kernels for monoenergetic photons in water were calculated using a separate Geant4 application. Following convolution and summation, the resulting 3D dose distribution produced familiar build-up and penumbral features. In order to validate the dose model we will use EPID images recorded without any attenuating material in the beam for a number of MLC defined square fields. The dose distributions in water will be calculated and compared to TPS predictions.

Verification of patient position and delivery of IMRT by electronic portal imaging

Background and purpose: The purpose of the work presented in this paper was to determine whether patient positioning and delivery errors could be detected using electronic portal images of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Patients and methods: We carried out a series of controlled experiments delivering an IMRT beam to a humanoid phantom using both the dynamic and multiple static field method of delivery. The beams were imaged, the images calibrated to remove the IMRT fluence variation and then compared with calibrated images of the reference beams without any delivery or position errors. The first set of experiments involved translating the position of the phantom both laterally and in a superior/inferior direction a distance of 1, 2, 5 and 10 mm. The phantom was also rotated 1 and 28. For the second set of measurements the phantom position was kept fixed and delivery errors were introduced to the beam. The delivery errors took the form of leaf position and segment intensity errors. Results: The method was able to detect shifts in the phantom position of 1 mm, leaf position errors of 2 mm, and dosimetry errors of 10% on a single segment of a 15 segment IMRT step and shoot delivery (significantly less than 1% of the total dose). Conclusions: The results of this work have shown that the method of imaging the IMRT beam and calibrating the images to remove the intensity modulations could be a useful tool in verifying both the patient position and the delivery of the beam.

Verification of patient position and delivery of IMRT by electronic Portal Imaging

We have taken a new method of calibrating portal images of IMRT beams and used this to measure patient set-up accuracy and delivery errors, such as leaf errors and segment intensity errors during treatment. A calibration technique was used to remove the intensity modulations from the images leaving equivalent open field images that show patient anatomy that can be used for verification of the patient position. The images of the treatment beam can also be used to verify the delivery of the beam in terms of multileaf collimator leaf position and dosimetric errors. A series of controlled experiments delivering an IMRT anterior beam to the head and neck of a humanoid phantom were undertaken. A 2mm translation in the position of the phantom could be detected. With intentional introduction of delivery errors into the beam this method allowed us to detect leaf positioning errors of 2mm and variation in monitor units of 1%. The method was then applied to the case of a patient who received IMRT treatment to the larynx and cervical nodes. The anterior IMRT beam was imaged during four fractions and the images calibrated and investigated for the characteristic signs of patient position error and delivery error that were shown in the control experiments. No significant errors were seen. The method of imaging the IMRT beam and calibrating the images to remove the intensity modulations can be a useful tool in verifying both the patient position and the delivery of the beam.

Effects of small field output factors on IMRT optimisation and dose calculation

Introduction Given the known challenges of obtaining accurate measurements of small radiation fields, and the increasing use of small field segments in IMRT beams, this study examined the possible effects of referencing inaccurate field output factors in the planning of IMRT treatments. Methods This study used the Brainlab iPlan treatment planning system to devise IMRT treatment plans for delivery using the Brainlab m3 microMLC (Brainlab, Feldkirchen, Germany). Four pairs of sample IMRT treatments were planned using volumes, beams and prescriptions that were based on a set of test plans described in AAPM TG 119’s recommendations for the commissioning of IMRT treatment planning systems [1]: • C1, a set of three 4 cm volumes with different prescription doses, was modified to reduce the size of the PTV to 2 cm across and to include an OAR dose constraint for one of the other volumes. • C2, a prostate treatment, was planned as described by the TG 119 report [1]. • C3, a head-and-neck treatment with a PTV larger than 10 cm across, was excluded from the study. • C4, an 8 cm long C-shaped PTV surrounding a cylindrical OAR, was planned as described in the TG 119 report [1] and then replanned with the length of the PTV reduced to 4 cm. Both plans in each pair used the same beam angles, collimator angles, dose reference points, prescriptions and constraints. However, one of each pair of plans had its beam modulation optimisation and dose calculation completed with reference to existing iPlan beam data and the other had its beam modulation optimisation and dose calculation completed with reference to revised beam data. The beam data revisions consisted of increasing the field output factor for a 0.6 9 0.6 cm2 field by 17 % and increasing the field output factor for a 1.2 9 1.2 cm2 field by 3 %. Results The use of different beam data resulted in different optimisation results with different microMLC apertures and segment weightings between the two plans for each treatment, which led to large differences (up to 30 % with an average of 5 %) between reference point doses in each pair of plans. These point dose differences are more indicative of the modulation of the plans than of any clinically relevant changes to the overall PTV or OAR doses. By contrast, the maximum, minimum and mean doses to the PTVs and OARs were smaller (less than 1 %, for all beams in three out of four pairs of treatment plans) but are more clinically important. Of the four test cases, only the shortened (4 cm) version of TG 119’s C4 plan showed substantial differences between the overall doses calculated in the volumes of interest using the different sets of beam data and thereby suggested that treatment doses could be affected by changes to small field output factors. An analysis of the complexity of this pair of plans, using Crowe et al.’s TADA code [2], indicated that iPlan’s optimiser had produced IMRT segments comprised of larger numbers of small microMLC leaf separations than in the other three test cases. Conclusion: The use of altered small field output factors can result in substantially altered doses when large numbers of small leaf apertures are used to modulate the beams, even when treating relatively large volumes.

Sensitivity of an Elekta iView GT a-Si EPID model to delivery errors for pre-treatment verification of IMRT fields

A Monte Carlo model of an Elekta iViewGT amorphous silicon electronic portal imaging device (a-Si EPID) has been validated for pre-treatment verification of clinical IMRT treatment plans. The simulations involved the use of the BEAMnrc and DOSXYZnrc Monte Carlo codes to predict the response of the iViewGT a-Si EPID model. The predicted EPID images were compared to the measured images obtained from the experiment. The measured EPID images were obtained by delivering a photon beam from an Elekta Synergy linac to the Elekta iViewGT a-Si EPID. The a-Si EPID was used with no additional build-up material. Frame averaged EPID images were acquired and processed using in-house software. The agreement between the predicted and measured images was analyzed using the gamma analysis technique with acceptance criteria of 3% / 3 mm. The results show that the predicted EPID images for four clinical IMRT treatment plans have a good agreement with the measured EPID signal. Three prostate IMRT plans were found to have an average gamma pass rate of more than 95.0 % and a spinal IMRT plan has the average gamma pass rate of 94.3 %. During the period of performing this work a routine MLC calibration was performed and one of the IMRT treatments re-measured with the EPID. A change in the gamma pass rate for one field was observed. This was the motivation for a series of experiments to investigate the sensitivity of the method by introducing delivery errors, MLC position and dosimetric overshoot, into the simulated EPID images. The method was found to be sensitive to 1 mm leaf position errors and 10% overshoot errors.