Search

The quality of radiotherapy delivery has been shown to significantly impact clinical outcomes including patient survival. To identify errors, institutions perform Patient Specific Quality Assurance (PSQA) assessing each individual radiotherapy plan prior to starting patient treatments. Externally administered Dosimetry Audits have found problems despite institutions passing their own PSQA. Hence a new audit concept which assesses the institution's ability to detect errors with their routine PSQA is needed.Purposefully introduced edits which simulated treatment delivery errors were embedded into radiation treatment plans of participating institutions. These were designed to produce clinically significant changes yet were mostly within treatment delivery specifications. Actual impact was centrally assessed for each plan. Institutions performed PSQA on each plan, without knowing which contained errors.Seventeen institutions using six radiation treatment planning systems and two delivery systems performed PSQA on twelve plans each. Seventeen erroneous plans (across seven institutions) passed PSQA despite causing5% increase in spinal cord dose relative to the original plans. Six plans (from four institutions) passed despite a10% increase.This novel audit concept evolves beyond testing an institution's ability to deliver a single test case, to increasing the number of errors caught by institutions themselves, thus increasing quality of radiation therapy and impacting every patient treated. Administered remotely this audit also provides advantages in cost, environmental impact, and logistics.

PurposeStereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy (SABR) has recently emerged as a favourable treatment option for prostate cancer patients. With higher doses delivered over fewer fractions, motion adaptation is a requirement for accurate delivery of SABR. This study compared the efficacy of multileaf collimator (MLC) tracking vs. gating as a real-time motion adaptation strategy for prostate SABR patients enrolled in a clinical trial.MethodsForty-four prostate cancer patients treated over five fractions in the TROG 15.01 SPARK trial were analysed in this study. Forty-nine fractions were treated using MLC tracking and 166 fractions were treated using beam gating and couch shifts. A time-resolved motion-encoded dose reconstruction method was used to evaluate the dose delivered using each motion adaptation strategy and compared to an estimation of what would have been delivered with no motion adaptation strategy implemented.ResultsMLC tracking and gating both delivered doses closer to the plan compared to when no motion adaptation strategy was used. Differences between MLC tracking and gating were small with differences in the mean discrepancy from the plan of -0.3% (CTV D98%), 1.4% (CTV D2%), 0.4% (PTV D95%), 0.2% (rectum V30Gy) and 0.0% (bladder V30Gy). On average, 0.5 couch shifts were required per gated fractions with a mean interruption duration of 1.8 ± 2.6 min per fraction treated using gating.ConclusionBoth MLC tracking and gating were effective strategies at improving the accuracy of the dose delivered to the target and organs at risk. While dosimetric performance was comparable, gating resulted in interruptions to treatment.Clinical trial registration numberNCT02397317.

Quality assurance (QA) for clinical trials is important. Lack of compliance can affect trial outcome. Clinical trial QA groups have different methods of dose distribution verification and analysis, all with the ultimate aim of ensuring trial compliance. The aim of this study was to gain a better understanding of different processes to inform future dosimetry audit reciprocity.Six clinical trial QA groups participated. Intensity modulated treatment plans were generated for three different cases. A range of 17 virtual 'measurements' were generated by introducing a variety of simulated perturbations (such as MLC position deviations, dose differences, gantry rotation errors, Gaussian noise) to three different treatment plan cases. Participants were blinded to the 'measured' data details. Each group analysed the datasets using their own gamma index (γ) technique and using standardised parameters for passing criteria, lower dose threshold, γ normalisation and global γ.For the same virtual 'measured' datasets, different results were observed using local techniques. For the standardised γ, differences in the percentage of points passing with γ 1 were also found, however these differences were less pronounced than for each clinical trial QA group's analysis. These variations may be due to different software implementations of γ.This virtual dosimetry audit has been an informative step in understanding differences in the verification of measured dose distributions between different clinical trial QA groups. This work lays the foundations for audit reciprocity between groups, particularly with more clinical trials being open to international recruitment.

Purpose We present the first clinical implementation of a real-time six-degree of freedom (6DoF) Kilovoltage Intrafraction Monitoring (KIM) system which tracks the cancer target translational and rotational motions during treatment. The method was applied to measure and correct for target motion during stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer. Methods Patient: A patient with prostate adenocarcinoma undergoing SBRT with 36.25 Gy, delivered in 5 fractions was enrolled in the study. 6DoF KIM technology: 2D positions of three implanted gold markers in each of the kV images (125 kV, 10 mA at 11 Hz) were acquired continuously during treatment. The 2D → 3D target position estimation was based on a probability distribution function. The 3D → 6DoF target rotation was calculated using an iterative closest point algorithm. The accuracy and precision of the KIM method was measured by comparing the real-time results with kV-MV triangulation. Results Of the five treatment fractions, KIM was utilised successfully in four fractions. The intrafraction prostate motion resulted in three couch shifts in two fractions when the prostate motion exceeded the pre-set action threshold of 2 mm for more than 5 s. KIM translational accuracy and precision were 0.3 ± 0.6 mm, −0.2 ± 0.3 mm and 0.2 ± 0.7 mm in the Left-Right (LR), Superior-Inferior (SI) and Anterior-Posterior (AP) directions, respectively. The KIM rotational accuracy and precision were 0.8° ± 2.0°, −0.5° ± 3.3° and 0.3° ± 1.6° in the roll, pitch and yaw directions, respectively. Conclusion This treatment represents, to the best of our knowledge, the first time a cancer patient’s tumour position and rotation have been monitored in real-time during treatment. The 6 DoF KIM system has sub-millimetre accuracy and precision in all three translational axes, and less than 1° accuracy and 4° precision in all three rotational axes.

Background and purpose Dose planning requires a CT scan which provides the electron density distribution for dose calculation. MR provides superior soft tissue contrast compared to CT and the use of MR-alone for prostate planning would provide further benefits such as lower cost to the patient. This study compares the accuracy of MR-alone based dose calculations with bulk electron density assignment to CT-based dose calculations for prostate radiotherapy. Materials and methods CT and whole pelvis MR images were contoured for 39 prostate patients. Plans with uniform density and plans with bulk density values assigned to bone and tissue were compared to the patient’s gold standard full density CT plan. The optimal bulk density for bone was calculated using effective depth measurements. The plans were evaluated using ICRU point doses, dose volume histograms, and Chi comparisons. Differences in spatial uniformity were investigated for the CT and MR scans. Results The calculated dose for CT bulk bone and tissue density plans was 0.1 ± 0.6% (mean ± 1 SD) higher than the corresponding full density CT plan. MR bulk bone and tissue density plans were 1.3 ± 0.8% lower than the full density CT plan. CT uniform density plans and MR uniform density plans were 1.4 ± 0.9% and 2.6 ± 0.9% lower, respectively. Paired t -tests performed on specific points on the DVH graphs showed that points on DVHs for all bulk electron density plans were equivalent with two exceptions. There was no significant difference between doses calculated on Pinnacle and Eclipse. The dose distributions of six patients produced Chi values outside the acceptable range of values when MR-based plans were compared to the full density plan. Conclusions MR-alone bulk density planning is feasible provided bone is assigned a density, however, manual segmentation of bone on MR images will have to be replaced with automatic methods. The major dose differences for MR bulk density plans are due to differences in patient external contours introduced by the MR couch-top and pelvic coil.

Purpose To assess the accuracy of the initial CT plan dose–volume histograms (DVH's) for prostate, rectum and bladder by comparison to delivered doses determined from cone beam CT (CBCT) scans acquired during image-guided treatment. Materials and methods Twelve prostate patients were treated using daily implanted fiducial guidance and following local protocol for bladder and rectal preparation. CBCT scans were acquired twice weekly and contoured for prostate, rectum and bladder. The planned beams were applied to all CBCT scans to determine the delivered doses. Prostate dose coverage was assessed by the proportion of the CTV fully encompassed by the 95% and 98% isodose lines. Rectal and bladder volumes receiving 40Gy, 60Gy and 70Gy at treatment were compared to the initial plan, with significance determined using the one-sample t -test. Results Four patients showed marginally compromised CTV coverage by the 95% isodose at all CBCT plans. For nine patients the initial plan rectal DVH was significantly outside the range of the treatment DVH's. Conclusions Dose coverage of the prostate was not achieved for all patients. Observed rectal and bladder doses were higher than predicted. The initial treatment plan cannot be assumed to represent accurate normal tissue doses.