Search

Implementing tighter intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA) tolerances initially resulted in high numbers of marginal or failing QA results and motivated a number of improvements to our calculational processes. This work details those improvements and their effect on results. One hundred eighty IMRT plans analyzed previously were collected and new gamma criteria were applied and compared to the original results. The results were used to obtain an estimate for the number of plans that would require additional dose volume histogram (DVH)‐based analysis and therefore predicted workload increase. For 2 months and 133 plans, the established criteria were continued while the new criteria were applied and tracked in parallel. Because the number of marginal or failing plans far exceeded the predicted levels, a number of calculational elements were investigated: IMRT modeling parameters, calculation grid size, and couch top modeling. After improvements to these elements, the new criteria were clinically implemented and the frequency of passing, questionable, and failing plans measured for the subsequent 15 months and 674 plans. The retrospective analysis of selected IMRT QA results demonstrated that 75% of plans should pass, while 19% of IMRT QA plans would need DVH‐based analysis and an additional 6% would fail. However, after applying the tighter criteria for 2 months, the distribution of plans was significantly different from prediction with questionable or failing plans reaching 47%. After investigating and improving several elements of the IMRT calculation processes, the frequency of questionable plans was reduced to 11% and that of failing plans to less than 1%. Tighter IMRT QA tolerances revealed the need to improve several elements of our plan calculations. As a consequence, the accuracy of our plans have improved, and the frequency of finding marginal or failing IMRT QA results, remains within our practical ability to respond.

This work is to show which is more relevant to cause local failures (LFs) due to patient setup uncertainty between the planning target volume (PTV) underdosage and the potential target underdosage subject to patient setup uncertainties in head and neck (H&N) cancer treated with volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Thirteen LFs in 10 H&N patients treated by VMAT were analyzed. Measures have been taken to minimize the chances of insufficient target delineation for these patients and the patients were clinically determined to have LF based on the PET/CT scan results by an experienced radiologist and then reviewed by a second experienced radiation oncologist. Two methods were used to identify the possible locations of LF due to underdosage: (a) examining the standard VMAT plan, in which the underdosed volume in the nominal dose distribution (UVN) was generated by subtracting the volumes receiving the prescription doses from PTVs, and (b) plan robustness analysis, in which in addition to the nominal dose distribution, six perturbed dose distributions were created by translating the CT iso‐center in three cardinal directions by the PTV margin. The coldest dose distribution was represented by the minimum of the seven doses in each voxel. The underdosed volume in the coldest dose distribution (UVC) was generated by subtracting the volumes receiving the prescription doses in the coldest dose distribution from the volumes receiving the prescription doses in the nominal dose distribution. UVN and UVC were subsequently examined for spatial association with the locations of LF. The association was tested using the binominal distribution and the Fisher's exact test of independence. We found that of 13 LFs, 11 were associated with UVCs (P = 0.011), while three were associated with UVNs (P = 0.99). We concluded that the possible target underdosage due to patient setup uncertainties appeared to be a more relevant factor associated with LF in VMAT for H&N cancer than the compromised PTV coverage at least for the patients included in this study.

Single‐isocenter, multitarget cranial stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is more efficient than using an isocenter for each target, but spatial positioning uncertainties can be magnified at locations away from the isocenter. This study reports on the spatial accuracy of two frameless, linac‐based SRS systems for multitarget, single‐isocenter SRS as a function of distance from the isocenter. One system uses the ExacTrac platform for image guidance and the other localizes with cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). For each platform, a phantom with 12 target BBs distributed up to 13.8 cm from the isocenter was aligned starting from five different initial offsets and then imaged with the treatment beam at seven different gantry and couch angles. The distribution of the resulting positioning errors demonstrated the value of adding a 1‐mm PTV margin for targets up to about 7–8 cm from the isocenter. For distances 10 cm or more, the CBCT‐based alignment remained within 1.1 mm while the ExacTrac‐based alignment differed by up to 2.2 mm.

We have recently commissioned a temporary radiation therapy facility that is novel in two aspects: it was constructed using modular components, and the LINAC was installed in one of the modular sections before it was lifted into position. Additional steel and granular fill was added to the modular sections on‐site during construction. The building will be disassembled and removed when no longer needed. This paper describes the radiation shielding specifications and survey of the facility, as well as the ramifications for acceptance testing occasioned by the novel installation procedure. The LINAC is a Varian 21EX operating at 6 MV and 18 MV. The radiation levels outside the vault satisfied the design criteria, and no anomalous leakage was detected along the joints of the modular structure. At 18 MV and 600 monitor units (MU) per minute, the radiation level outside the primary barrier walls was 8.5μSv/h of photons; there were no detectable neutrons. Outside the direct‐shielded door, the levels were 0.4μSv/h of photons and 3.0μSv/h of neutrons. The isocentricity of the accelerator met the acceptance criteria and was not affected by its preinstallation into an integrated baseframe and subsequent transport to the building site. PACS numbers: 87.52.Df, 87.52.Ga

The control loop in the Varian DMLC system (V4.8) requires ~65 msec to monitor and halt the irradiation of a segment, causing an “overshoot” effect: the segment ends on a fractional monitor unit larger than that planned. As a result, the actual MU delivered may differ from that planned. In general, for step‐and‐shoot treatments, the first segment receives more, the last receives less, and intermediate segments vary. The overshoot for each segment (ΔMU) is small, approximately 0.6 MU at 600 MU/min Our IMRT planning system (Corvus) produces plans often having more than 20% of the segments with less than 1 MU/segment. Such segments may be skipped if the ΔMU exceeds the segments’ planned MU. Furthermore, QA filming often requires reducing the total MU by a factor of 4–6, increasing the potential for dosimetric error. This study measured ΔMU over a range of MU/min and MU/segment. At >5 MU/segment, the ΔMU was stable, corresponding to a delay of 62 msec. ΔMU became larger and more variable at

We have developed a treatment planning protocol for intensity‐modulated radiation therapy of the prostate using commercially available inverse planning software. Treatment plans were developed for ten patients using the Corvus version 3.8 planning system, testing various prescription options, including tissue types, dose volume histogram values for the target and normal structures, beam arrangements, and number of intensity levels. All plans were scaled so that 95% of the clinical target volume received 75.6 Gy; mean doses to the prostate were typically 79 Gy. The reproducibility of the inverse planning algorithm was tested by repeating a set of the plans five times. Plans were deemed acceptable if they satisfied predefined dose constraints for the targets and critical organs. Figures of merit for target coverage, target dose uniformity, and organ sparing were used to rank acceptable plans. Certain systematic behaviors of the optimizer were noted: the high dose regions for both targets and critical organs were 5–10 Gy more than prescribed; reducing bladder and rectum tolerance increased the range of doses within the target; increasing the number of fields incrementally improved plan quality. A set of planning parameters was found that usually satisfied the minimum requirements. Repeating the optimization with different beam order produced similar but slightly different dose distributions, which was sometimes useful for finding acceptable solutions for difficult cases. The standard set of parameters serves as a useful starting point for individualized planning. PACS number(s): 87.53.–j, 87.90.+y