Search

In this study, qualities of 4D cone-beam CT (CBCT) images obtained using various gantry rotation speeds (GRSs) for liver stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) with fiducial markers were quantitatively evaluated. Abdominal phantom containing a fiducial marker was moved along a sinusoidal waveform, and 4D-CBCT images were acquired with GRSs of 50–200° min−1. We obtained the 4D-CBCT projection data from six patients who underwent liver SBRT and generated 4D-CBCT images at GRSs of 67–200° min−1, by varying the number of projection data points. The image quality was evaluated based on the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and structural similarity index (SSIM). The fiducial marker positions with different GRSs were compared with the setup values and a reference position in the phantom and clinical studies, respectively. The root mean square errors (RMSEs) were calculated relative to the reference positions. In the phantom study, the mean SNR, CNR, and SSIM decreased from 37.6 to 10.1, from 39.8 to 10.1, and from 0.9 to 0.7, respectively, as the GRS increased from 50 to 200° min−1. The fiducial marker positions were within 2.0 mm at all GRSs. Similarly, in the clinical study, the mean SNR, CNR, and SSIM decreased from 50.4 to 13.7, from 24.2 to 6.0, and from 0.92 to 0.73, respectively. The mean RMSEs were 2.0, 2.1, and 3.6 mm for the GRSs of 67, 100, and 200° min−1, respectively. We conclude that GRSs of 67 and 85° min−1 yield images of acceptable quality for 4D-CBCT in liver SBRT with fiducial markers.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) involves the delivery of substantially larger doses over fewer fractions than conventional therapy. Therefore, SBRT treatments will strongly benefit patients using vivo patient dose verification, because the impact of the fraction is large. For in vivo measurements, a commercially available quality assurance (QA) system is the COMPASS system (IBA Dosimetry, Germany). For measurements, the system uses a new transmission detector (Dolphin, IBA Dosimetry). In this study, we evaluated the method for in vivo 3D dose reconstruction for SBRT using this new transmission detector. We confirmed the accuracy of COMPASS with Dolphin for SBRT using multi leaf collimator (MLC) test patterns and clinical SBRT cases. We compared the results between the COMPASS, the treatment planning system, the Kodak EDR2 film, and the Monte Carlo (MC) calculations. MLC test patterns were set up to investigate various aspects of dose reconstruction for SBRT: (a) simple open fields (2 × 2–10 × 10 cm2), (b) a square wave chart pattern, and (c) the MLC position detectability test in which the MLCs were changed slightly. In clinical cases, we carried out 6 and 8 static IMRT beams for SBRT in the lung and liver. For MLC test patterns, the differences between COMPASS and MC were around 3%. The COMPASS with the dolphin system showed sufficient resolution in SBRT. For clinical cases, COMPASS can detect small changes for the dose profile and dose–volume histogram. COMPASS also showed good agreement with MC. We can confirm the feasibility of SBRT QA using the COMPASS system with Dolphin. This method was successfully operated using the new transmission detector and verified by measurements and MC.

Recently, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is used worldwide, highly accurate verification of the location using image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) has become critical. However, the use of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) to ascertain the location each time raises concerns about its influence on radiotherapy dosage and increased radiation exposure. The purpose of this study was to measure the absorbed dose using nine kilovoltage (kV) devices and two megavoltage (MV) devices (total 11 devices) at eight facilities, compare the absorbed dose among the devices, and assess the characteristics of the respective devices to ensure optimal clinical operation. For the measurement of the absorbed dose, a farmer-type ionization chamber dosimeter, calibrated using a 60Co and an IMRT dose verification phantom manufactured from water-equivalent material RW3, was used to measure the absorbed dose at nine points in the phantom for two regions, the pelvic and cephalic region. The average absorbed dose of the pelvic region was 3.09±0.21 cGy in kV-CBCT (OBI), 1.16±0.16 cGy in kV-CBCT (XVI), 5.64±1.48 cGy in MV-CBCT (4 MV), and 6.33±1.54 cGy in MV-CBCT (6 MV). The average absorbed dose of the cephalic region was 0.38±0.03 cGy in kV-CBCT (OBI), 0.23±0.06 cGy in kV-CBCT (XVI), 4.02±0.72 cGy in MV-CBCT (4 MV), and 4.46±0.77 cGy in MV-CBCT (6 MV). There was a difference in the absorbed dose at the measured points as well as in the dose distribution in the phantom cross section. No major difference was observed in the absorbed dose among identical devices, but a difference was identified among the devices installed at multiple facilities. Therefore, the angle of rotation should be paid attention to when CBCT is taken, and the image-taking conditions should be determined. In addition, it is important to handle the devices only after ascertaining the absorbed dose of each device.

We investigated the dynamic positioning accuracy of Agility (Elekta) for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). The accuracy of the multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf position during VMAT was evaluated using three different tests: (1) a dynamic multileaf collimator (DMLC) output test with various leaf speeds, and gantry angles; (2) a slit-fence test with and without gantry rotation; and (3) a complicated VMAT plans test with dose distributions compared with measurements using gamma analysis. The DMLC output was within 1.5 % under all test conditions. The agreement between the static and VMAT in the slit-fence test was within 0.5 mm. The pass rate of each complicated VMAT test plan was more than 93.9 % ± 0.36 for gamma analysis. We confirmed the dynamic positioning accuracy of Agility, which during VMAT delivery is within VMAT tolerances. The fastest MLC was found to have the potential to offer clinical advantages, such as high-quality rapid VMAT.

This study verified the dose calculation accuracy of the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA), Acuros XB version 10 (AXB10), and version 11 (AXB11) installed in an Eclipse treatment planning system, by comparing with Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. First, the algorithms were compared in terms of dose distributions using four types of virtual heterogeneous multi-layer phantom for 6 and 15 MV photons. Next, the clinical head and neck intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) dose distributions for 6 MV photons were evaluated using dose volume histograms (DVHs) and three-dimensional gamma analysis. In percentage depth doses (PDDs) for virtual heterogeneous phantoms, AAA overestimated absorbed doses in the air cavity, bone, and aluminum in comparison with MC, AXB10, and AXB11. The PDDs of AXB10 almost agreed with those of MC and AXB11, except for the air cavity. The dose in the air cavity was higher for AXB10 than for AXB11, because their electron cutoff energies are set at 500 and 200 keV, respectively. For head and neck IMRT dose distributions, the D95 in the clinical target volume (CTV) for AAA was almost the same as that for AXB10 and was approximately 7 % larger than that for MC. Comparing each approach with MC using a criterion of 3 %/3 mm, the pass rates for AXB10, AXB11, and AAA were 92.4, 94.7, and 90.4 % in the CTV, respectively. In conclusion, AAA produces dose errors in heterogeneous regions, while AXB11 provides calculation accuracy comparable to MC. AXB10 overestimates the dose in regions that include an air cavity.

In this study, we evaluated the performance of a three‐dimensional (3D) dose verification system, COMPASS version 3, which has a dedicated beam models and dose calculation engine. It was possible to reconstruct the 3D dose distributions in patient anatomy based on the measured fluence using the MatriXX 2D array. The COMPASS system was compared with Monte Carlo simulation (MC), glass rod dosimeter (GRD), and 3DVH, using an anthropomorphic phantom for intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) dose verification in clinical neck cases. The GRD measurements agreed with the MC within 5% at most measurement points. In addition, most points for COMPASS and 3DVH also agreed with the MC within 5%. The COMPASS system showed better results than 3DVH for dose profiles due to individual adjustments, such as beam modeling for each linac. Regarding the dose‐volume histograms, there were no large differences between MC, analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) in Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS), 3DVH, and the COMPASS system. However, AAA underestimated the dose to the clinical target volume and Rt‐Parotid slightly. This is because AAA has some problems with dose calculation accuracy. Our results indicated that the COMPASS system offers highly accurate 3D dose calculation for clinical IMRT quality assurance. Also, the COMPASS system will be useful as a commissioning tool in routine clinical practice for TPS. PACS number: 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc, 87.61.Bj

In this study, we evaluated the dosimetric performance of the three-dimensional (3D) dose verification system, COMPASS version 3 (IBA Dosimetry, GmbH, Germany). The COMPASS has the function of a dedicated beam modeling and dose calculation. It is able to reconstruct 3D dose distributions on patient CT images, using the incident fluence from a linear accelerator measured with the MatriXX 2D array (IBA Dosimetry). The dose profiles measured with various multi-leaf collimator (MLC) test patterns for the COMPASS were checked by comparison with those of EDR2 (Eastman Kodak, Rochester, NY) films and Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. The COMPASS was also used for dose verification in clinical intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans for head and neck cases. The dose distributions were compared with those measured by 3DVH (Sun Nuclear, Melbourne, FL) and MC. In addition, the quality assurance (QA) times among the COMPASS, 3DVH, and EDR2 were compared. For MLC test patterns, the COMPASS dose profiles agreed within 3 % with those of EDR2 films and MC simulations. The physical resolution of the COMPASS detectors was lower than that of film, but the dose resolution for MLC patterns was comparable to that of film. In clinical plans, the dose-volume-histograms were equal for all systems. The average QA times of the COMPASS, 3DVH, and EDR2 film were 40.1, 59.4, and 121.4 min, respectively. The COMPASS system provides fast and reliable 3D dose verification for clinical IMRT QA. The COMPASS QA process does not require phantom plans. Therefore, it allows a simple QA workflow.

Purpose We developed a quality assurance (QA) phantom to enable easy confirmation of radiation source output measurements of a high dose rate (192)Ir intracavitary brachytherapy unit in gynecology. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of daily checks using the QA phantom. Methods and materials The QA phantom was designed with tough water phantoms to hold a Farmer-type ionization chamber, with semiconductor detectors used as in vivo dosimeters to measure rectal dose, and three transfer tubes for gynecology. To test the reliability of our QA phantom for the detection of abnormalities in source output or semiconductor detectors, we applied different doses. Results Variations due to different settings of the QA phantom were within 2%. The temporal variations were less than 2% and 5% in the Farmer-type ionization chamber and semiconductor detectors, respectively. Interobserver variations were below 3%. Conclusions With tolerance levels of 2% and 5% for a Farmer-type ionization chamber and semiconductor detectors, respectively, a QA phantom is potentially useful for easily detecting abnormalities by applying daily checks of the brachytherapy unit.

Our purpose in this study was to evaluate the accuracy of a new multi-planar dose measurement method. The multi-planar dose distributions were reconstructed at each depth by convolution of EPID fluence and dose kernels with the use of EPIDose software (SunNuclear). The EPIDose was compared with EPID, MapCHECK (SunNuclear), EDR2 (Kodak), and Monte Carlo-calculated dose profiles. The EPIDose profiles were almost in agreement with Monte Carlo-calculated dose profiles and MapCHECK for test plans. The dose profiles were in good agreement with EDR2 at the penumbra region. For dose distributions, EPIDose, EDR2, and MapCHECK agreed with that of the treatment-planning system at each depth in the gamma analysis. In comparisons of clinical IMRT plans, EPIDose had almost the same accuracy as MapCHECK and EDR2. Because EPIDose has a wide dynamic range and high resolution, it is a useful tool for the complicated IMRT verification. Furthermore, EPIDose can also evaluate the absolute dose.

The dosimetric properties between various 2D array detectors were compared and were evaluated with regard to the accuracy in absolute dose and dose distributions for clinical treatment fields. We used to check the dose accuracy: 2D array detectors; MapCHECK (Sun Nuclear), EPID (Varian Medical Systems), EPID-based dosimetry (EPIDose, Sun Nuclear), COMPASS (IBA) and conventional system; EDR2 film (Eastman Kodak), Exradin A-14SL ion chamber (0.016 cc, Standard Imaging). First, we compared the dose linearity, dose rate dependence, and output factor between the 2D array detectors. Next, the accuracy of the absolute dose and dose distributions were evaluated for clinical fields. All detector responses for the dose linear were in agreement within 1%, and the dose rate dependence and output factor agreed within a standard deviation of ±1.2%, except for EPID. This is because EPID is fluence distributions. In all the 2D array detectors, the point dose agreed within 5% with treatment planning system (TPS). Pass rates of each detector for TPS were more than 97% in the gamma analysis (3 mm/3%). EPIDose was in a good agreement with TPS. All 2D array detectors used in this study showed almost the same accuracy for clinical fields. EPIDose has better resolution than other 2D array detectors and thus this is expected for dose distributions with a small field.

Objective: To evaluate longitudinal changes in parotid volumes and saliva production over 2 years after 30 Gy irradiation. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 15 assessable patients treated for advanced oral cancer. Eligibility criteria were a pathologic diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma, preoperative radiation therapy with a total dose of 30 Gy delivered in 15 fractions, and the availability of longitudinal data of morphological assessments by computed tomography and functional assessments with the Saxon test spanning 2 years after radiation therapy. In the Saxon test, saliva production was measured by weighing a folded sterile gauze pad before and after chewing; the low-normal value is 2 g/2 min. Repeated-measures analysis of variance with Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons was used to determine the longitudinal changes. Results: The normalized ipsilateral parotid volumes 2 weeks and 6-, 12- and 24 months after radiation therapy were found to be 72.5, 63.7, 66.9 and 78.1%, respectively; the normalized contralateral volumes were 69.8, 64.6, 72.2 and 82.0%, respectively. The bilateral parotid volumes were significantly decreased after radiation therapy (P , 0.01). The nadir appeared at 6 months post-radiation therapy and the volumes substantially recuperated 24 months after radiation therapy (P , 0.01). Mean saliva production before radiation therapy was 3.7 g; the longitudinal changes after radiation therapy were 31.3, 38.0, 43.3 and 69.6%, respectively. Substantial recuperation of saliva production was observed 24 months after radiation therapy (P ¼ 0.01). Conclusions: Although parotid volumes and saliva production were decreased after 30 Gy irradiation, we observed the recuperation of morphological and functional changes in the parotid glands 2 years after radiation therapy.

In this study, we develope a novel method to directly evaluate an absorbed dose-to-water for kilovoltage-cone beam computed tomography (kV-CBCT) in image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT). Absorbed doses for the kV-CBCT systems of the Varian On-Board Imager (OBI) and the Elekta X-ray Volumetric Imager (XVI) were measured by a Farmer ionization chamber with a (60)Co calibration factor. The chamber measurements were performed at the center and four peripheral points in body-type (30 cm diameter and 51 cm length) and head-type (16 cm diameter and 33 cm length) cylindrical water phantoms. The measured ionization was converted to the absorbed dose-to-water by using a (60)Co calibration factor and a Monte Carlo (MC)-calculated beam quality conversion factor, kQ, for (60)Co to kV-CBCT. The irradiation for OBI and XVI was performed with pelvis and head modes for the body- and the head-type phantoms, respectively. In addition, the dose distributions in the phantom for both kV-CBCT systems were calculated with MC method and were compared with measured values. The MC-calculated doses were calibrated at the center in the water phantom and compared with measured doses at four peripheral points. The measured absorbed doses at the center in the body-type phantom were 1.96 cGy for OBI and 0.83 cGy for XVI. The peripheral doses were 2.36-2.90 cGy for OBI and 0.83-1.06 cGy for XVI. The doses for XVI were lower up to approximately one-third of those for OBI. Similarly, the measured doses at the center in the head-type phantom were 0.48 cGy for OBI and 0.21 cGy for XVI. The peripheral doses were 0.26-0.66 cGy for OBI and 0.16-0.30 cGy for XVI. The calculated peripheral doses agreed within 3% in the pelvis mode and within 4% in the head mode with measured doses for both kV-CBCT systems. In addition, the absorbed dose determined in this study was approximately 4% lower than that in TG-61 but the absorbed dose by both methods was in agreement within their combined uncertainty. This method is more robust and accurate compared to the dosimetry based on a conventional air-kerma calibration factor. Therefore, it is possible to be used as a standard dosimetry protocol for kV-CBCT in IGRT.

Image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) is an increasingly commonly adopted technique. As a result, however, total patient dose is increasing rapidly, especially when kV-cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) is applied. This study investigated the dosimetry of kV-CBCT using a Farmer ionization chamber with a (60)Co absorbed-dose calibration factor. The absorbed-dose measurements were performed using an I'mRT phantom (RW3, IBA) which is employed for dose verification of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). The I'mRT phantom was used as a substitute for head and pelvis phantoms. The kV-CBCT absorbed dose was evaluated from a beam quality conversion factor of kV to (60)Co and the ionization ratio of the I'mRT phantom and water, calculated using the Monte Carlo method. The dose distribution in the I'mRT phantom was also measured using a radiophotoluminescent glass dosimeter (RGD). The absorbed doses for the pelvis phantom (full scan) ranged from 2.5-4 cGy for kV-CBCT and 4-8 cGy for MV-CBCT. TomoTherapy resulted in a lower dose of approximately 1.3 cGy due to fan-beam. For the head phantom (half scan), the doses ranged from 0.1-0.7 cGy for kV-CBCT and 3-5 cGy for MVCBCT. The results for RGD were similar to ion chamber measurements. It is necessary to decrease the absorbed dose of the organs at risk every time IGRT is applied.

In this study, we developed a correction method for coordinate transformation errors that are produced in combination with the ExacTrac X-ray system (BrainLAB) and HexaPOD (Elekta) in image guided radiation therapy (IGRT). The positional accuracy of the correction method was compared between the ExacTrac Robotics (BrainLAB) and no correction. We tried to correct iBeam evo couch top (Elekta) by operating two steps drive like ExacTrac Robotics. No correction for HexaPOD showed a maximal error of 4.52 mm, and the couch did not move to the correct position. However, our correction method for HexaPOD showed the positional accuracy within 1 mm. Our method has no significant difference with ExacTrac Robotics (paired t-test, P>0.1). But, when the correction values for the rotatory directions were large, the positional accuracy tended to be poor. The smallest setup errors for the rotatory directions are important for IGRT.

In this study, we investigated comprehensive quality assurance (QA) for respiratory-gated stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in the lungs using a real-time position management system (RPM). By using the phantom study, we evaluated dose liberality and reproducibility, and dose distributions for low monitor unite (MU), and also checked the absorbed dose at isocenter and dose profiles for the respiratory-gated exposure using RPM. Furthermore, we evaluated isocenter dose and dose distributions for respiratory-gated SBRT plans in the lungs using RPM. The maximum errors for the dose liberality were 4% for 2 MU, 1% for 4-10 MU, and 0.5% for 15 MU and 20 MU. The dose reproducibility was 2% for 1 MU and within 0.1% for 5 MU or greater. The accuracy for dose distributions was within 2% for 2 MU or greater. The dose error along a central axis for respiratory cycles of 2, 4, and 6 sec was within 1%. As for geometric accuracy, 90% and 50% isodose areas for the respiratory-gated exposure became almost 1 mm and 2 mm larger than without gating, respectively. For clinical lung-SBRT plans, the point dose at isocenter agreed within 2.1% with treatment planning system (TPS). And the pass rates of all plans for TPS were more than 96% in the gamma analysis (3 mm/3%). The geometrical accuracy and the dose accuracy of TPS calculation algorithm are more important for the dose evaluation at penumbra region for respiratory-gated SBRT in lung using RPM.

Purpose: Recently, there has been increased clinical use of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). SBRT treatments will strongly benefit from in vivo patient dose verification, as any errors in delivery can be more detrimental to the radiobiology of the patient as compared to conventional therapy. In vivo dose measurements, a commercially available quality assurance platform which is able to correlate the delivered dose to the patient's anatomy and take into account tissue inhomogeneity, is the COMPASS system (IBA Dosimetry, Germany) using a new transmission detector (Dolphin, IBA Dosimetry). In this work, we evaluate a method for in vivo 3D dose reconstruction for SBRT using a new transmission detector, which was developed for in vivo dose verification for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Methods: We evaluated the accuracy of measurement for SBRT using simple small fields (2×2−10×10 cm2), a multileaf collimator (MLC) test pattern, and clinical cases. The dose distributions from the COMPASS were compared with those of EDR2 films (Kodak, USA) and the Monte Carlo simulations (MC). For clinical cases, we compared MC using dose-volume-histograms (DVHs) and dose profiles. Results: The dose profiles from the COMPASS for small fields and the complicated MLC test pattern agreed with those of EDR2 films, and MC within 3%. This showed the COMPASS with Dolphin system showed good spatial resolution and can measure small fields which are required for SBRT. Those results also suggest that COMPASS with Dolphin is able to detect MLC leaf position errors for SBRT. In clinical cases, the COMPASS with Dolphin agreed well with MC. The Dolphin detector, which consists of ionization chambers, provided stable measurement. Conclusion: COMPASS with Dolphin detector showed a useful in vivo 3D dose reconstruction for SBRT. The accuracy of the results indicates that this approach is suitable for clinical implementation.

Purpose: To investigate the Monte Carlo (MC)-based dose verification for VMAT plans by a treatment planning system (TPS). Methods: The AAPM TG-119 test structure set was used for VMAT plans by the Pinnacle3 (convolution/superposition), using a Synergy radiation head of a 6 MV beam with the Agility MLC. The Synergy was simulated with the EGSnrc/BEAMnrc code, and VMAT dose distributions were calculated with the EGSnrc/DOSXYZnrc code by the same irradiation conditions as TPS. VMAT dose distributions of TPS and MC were compared with those of EBT3 film, by 2-D gamma analysis of ±3%/3 mm criteria with a threshold of 30% of prescribed doses. VMAT dose distributions between TPS and MC were also compared by DVHs and 3-D gamma analysis of ±3%/3 mm criteria with a threshold of 10%, and 3-D passing rates for PTVs and OARs were analyzed. Results: TPS dose distributions differed from those of film, especially for Head & neck. The dose difference between TPS and film results from calculation accuracy for complex motion of MLCs like tongue and groove effect. In contrast, MC dose distributions were in good agreement with those of film. This is because MC can model fully the MLC configuration and accurately reproduce the MLC motion between control points in VMAT plans. D95 of PTV for Prostate, Head & neck, C-shaped, and Multi Target was 97.2%, 98.1%, 101.6%, and 99.7% for TPS and 95.7%, 96.0%, 100.6%, and 99.1% for MC, respectively. Similarly, 3-D gamma passing rates of each PTV for TPS vs. MC were 100%, 89.5%, 99.7%, and 100%, respectively. 3-D passing rates of TPS reduced for complex VMAT fields like Head & neck because MLCs are not modeled completely for TPS. Conclusion: MC-calculated VMAT dose distributions is useful for the 3-D dose verification of VMAT plans by TPS.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the interfractional and intrafractional motion of liver tumors in stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), based on four-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography using fiducial markers. (4D-CBCT). Methods: Seven patients with liver tumors were treated by SBRT with abdominal compression (AC) in five fractions with image guidance based on 4D-CBCT. The 4D-CBCT studies were performed to determine the individualized internal margin for the planning simulation. The interfractional and intrafractional changes of liver tumor motion for all patients was measured, based on the planning simulation 4D-CBCT, pre-SBRT 4D-CBCT, and post-SBRT 4D-CBCT. The interfractional motion change was calculated from the difference in liver tumor amplitude on pre-SBRT 4D-CBCT relative to that of the planning simulation 4D-CBCT for each fraction. The intrafractional motion change was calculated from the difference between the liver tumor amplitudes of the pre- and post-SBRT 4D-CBCT for each fraction. Significant interfractional and intrafractional changes in liver tumor motion were defined as a change ≥3 mm. Statistical analysis was performed using the Pearson correlation. Results: The values of the mean amplitude of liver tumor, as indicated by planning simulation 4D-CBCT, were 1.6 ± 0.8 mm, 1.6 ± 0.9 mm, and 4.9 ± 2.2 mm in the left-right (LR), anterior-posterior (AP), and superior-inferior (SI) directions, respectively. Pearson correlation coefficients between the liver tumor amplitudes, based on planning simulation 4D-CBCT, and pre-SBRT 4D-CBCT during fraction treatment in the LR, AP, and SI directions were 0.6, 0.7, and 0.8, respectively. Interfractional and intrafractional motion changes of ≥3 mm occurred in 23% and 3% of treatment fractions, respectively. Conclusion: The interfractional and intrafractional changes of liver tumor motion were small in most patients who received liver SBRT with AC. In addition, planning simulation 4D-CBCT was useful for representing liver tumor movement in patients undergoing SBRT. This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 26861004.

Positron emission tomography/Radiation therapy planning/Gross tumor volume/Threshold/Standardized uptake value. As there is continuing controversy over the role of F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET)/CT-fused imaging in radiation therapy (RT) planning, we performed a phantom s tudy to assess the feasibility of FDG-PET/CT-based gross tumor volume (GTV) contouring. The phantom set, consisting of an elliptical bowl and 6 spheres measuring from 10–37 mm in diameter, were filled with FDG to obtain 3 source-to-background ratios (SBRs) of 4, 8, and 16. The ratio to maximum intensity at 5% intervals was applied as the threshold for contouring. The ratio between contoured- and actual volumes (volume ratio) was calculated, and the threshold ratio was selected to provide a volume ratio close to 100%. To consider the clinical application, we applied the threshold value (maximum intensity × threshold ratio) for the largest 37-mm sphere to the 6 spheres. The threshold ratio and the volume ratio in 6 spheres with 3 SBRs were compared using the Friedman test. Threshold ratios ranged from 25–80%; they were higher for smaller spheres (p = 0.003) and lower SBRs (p < 0.001). The volume ratios with the threshold value for the largest 37-mm sphere were lower in smaller spheres (p = 0.010). These results suggest that smaller lesions and higher background activities require a higher threshold ratio and smaller lesions a lower threshold value. FDG-PET/CT-fused imaging should not be used as a single modality but rather to obtain supplemental information in RT planning. The contoured GTV should be adjusted based on clinical data including conventional images.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-derived adaptive radiotherapy. We evaluate planning computed tomography (pCT) and CBCT in 50 patients who had undergone image guided radiotherapy (IGRT) with CBCT. Irradiated sites included head, neck, chest, abdomen, and pelvis; there were 10 patients in each group. Treatment plans including 153 beam data were recalculated based on CBCT. To compare between pCT and CBCT, we estimated CT values of normal tissues, body contour, effective depth, and monitor units (MU) calculation. The maximum difference in CT values was observed in lung estimation. The 5 mm or more differences in depth were observed in 2 beams of 2 pelvic cases, but CBCT also demonstrated a shift of abdominal wall due to intestinal motility. There were downward trends for the effective depth and MU based on CBCT, especially in lung cases. However, the differences in prescribed dose due to MU calculation were less than 5% because all patients were treated with a multifield irradiation plan. CBCT provides not only precise daily setup but also accurate anatomical information on body contour. In addition, CBCT may be considered as a useful tool for dose calculation.

We investigated experimentally and clinically the influence of a six degree (6D) carbon fiber couch on conventional radiation therapy. We used 4, 6 and 10 MV X-rays and compared dose distributions based on correction methods, i.e. monitor unit (MU) addition, including computed tomography (CT) couch, and the couch modeling. Additionally, we evaluated the clinical value of dosimetric correction for the 6D couch in 30 patients treated with multi-field irradiation. In the phantom study, the maximum difference of isocenter doses attributable to the 6D couch was 5.1%; the difference was reduced with increasing X-ray energy. Although the isocenter dose based on each correction method was precise within ±1%, MU addition underestimated the surface dose. In the clinical study, the maximum difference of isocenter doses attributable to the 6D couch was 2.7%. The correction methods for the 6D couch provide for highly precise treatment planning. However, the clinical indication of complicated correction methods should be considered for each institution or each patient, because the influence of the 6D couch was reduced with multi-field irradiation.

Our purpose in this study was to evaluate the fundamental accuracy of reconstructed dose distributions from the COMPASS system using specific MLC test patterns and complicated IMRT neck plans. The COMPASS-reconstructed dose distributions were compared with those measured with EPID, MapCHECK, and EDR2 film and as well as Monte Carlo-calculated dose profiles with use of square-wave chart patterns of 20-, 10-, and 5-mm gaps and step and pyramid patterns. Additionally, the COMPASS dose distributions for clinical IMRT neck plans were tested. The COMPASS dose profiles were almost in agreement with the Monte Carlo-calculated dose profiles and point doses measured with MapCHECK for 20- and 10-mm gap patterns. The dose profile for a 5-mm gap pattern showed a narrow width due to the detector size in the penumbra region. For step and pyramid patterns, COMPASS agreed with MapCHECK and Monte Carlo calculation, except for EDR2 film. The COMPASS and MapCHECK dose distributions agreed with that of a treatment planning system by gamma analysis (criteria; 3 mm/3%). In comparisons of clinical IMRT neck dose distributions, COMPASS was measured with almost the same accuracy as MapCHECK, but slight deviations were found for large IMRT fields. These deviations could be minimized by improvement of the beam model of the COMPASS system. The COMPASS system can be expected to be used for traditional QA methods in clinical routine with the same accuracy as a MapCHECK diode detector.

The purpose of this study was to compare dose distributions from three different RTPS with those from Monte Carlo (MC) calculations and measurements, in heterogeneous phantoms for photon beams. This study used four algorithms for RTPS: AAA (analytical anisotropic algorithm) implemented in the Eclipse (Varian Medical Systems) treatment planning system, CC (collapsed cone) superposition from the Pinnacle (Philips), and MGS (multigrid superposition) and FFT (fast Fourier transform) convolution from XiO (CMS). The dose distributions from these algorithms were compared with those from MC and measurements in a set of heterogeneous phantoms. Eclipse/AAA underestimated the dose inside the lung region for low energies of 4 and 6 MV. This is because Eclipse/AAA do not adequately account for a scaling of the spread of the pencil (lateral electron transport) based on changes in the electron density at low photon energies. The dose distributions from Pinnacle/CC and XiO/MGS almost agree with those of MC and measurements at low photon energies, but increase errors at high energy of 15 MV, especially for a small field of 3x3 cm(2). The FFT convolution extremely overestimated the dose inside the lung slab compared to MC. The dose distributions from the superposition algorithms almost agree with those from MC as well as measured values at 4 and 6 MV. The dose errors for Eclipse/AAA are lager in lung model phantoms for 4 and 6 MV. It is necessary to use the algorithms comparable to superposition for accuracy of dose calculations in heterogeneous regions.

This study evaluated patient specific organ doses from kV-cone beam computed tomography (kV-CBCT) for the Varian on-board imager (OBI) and the Elekta x-ray volumetric imager (XVI) used in image-guided radiation therapy using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. The beam modeling for both kV-CBCT systems was performed with the EGSnrc/BEAMnrc user-code. The patient dose distributions were calculated from the modeled kV-CBCT beams by using planning CT data sets for five anatomical regions of head, 'head and neck', chest, abdomen, and pelvis. Two default acquisition modes, full scan mode for chest, abdomen, and pelvis, and half scan mode for head and 'head and neck', were used for both kV-CBCT systems. The MC-calculated dose distributions were converted into absorbed doses by Farmer chamber measurements in body- and head-type phantoms. A body-type phantom (30 cm diameter and 51 cm length) and a head-type phantom (16 cm diameter and 33 cm length) were irradiated with the full scan mode and the half scan mode, respectively. Finally, the patient specific organ doses were quantitatively evaluated from dose-volume histograms. The mean organ doses for soft tissue in chest, abdomen, and pelvis were 1.52-4.13 cGy, 1.30-2.56 cGy, and 2.32-3.81 cGy for OBI, and 0.82-1.60 cGy, 0.66-1.04 cGy, and 0.97-1.41 cGy for XVI, respectively. In the full scan mode, organ doses for XVI were one-half to one-third of those for OBI. The organs located at the anterior surfaces like heart and testes were higher doses than central regions. Meanwhile, the mean doses for soft tissue in the head and 'head and neck' were 0.09-0.43 cGy and 0.09-0.45 cGy for OBI, and 0.13-0.39 cGy and 0.09-0.31 cGy for XVI, respectively. In the half scan mode, the higher doses were observed at the posterior surface for OBI and at the anterior surface for XVI, depending on the scan direction.

Purpose: We have investigated the dynamic accuracy and long-term stability of an Agility (Elekta, Stockholm, Sweden) multi-leaf collimator (MLC) for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Methods: The MLC leaf position accuracy during VMAT delivery was evaluated with the use of three different quality assurance tests for several months: (1) a leaf gap-width test between opposing leaves by measurement of the isocenter dose during constant-gap sliding-window delivery with varied dose rates, MLC leaf speeds, and gantry angles; (2) a leaf position test by picket-fence delivery with and without gantry rotation; and (3) the complicated VMAT test plans were evaluated by measurement using gamma analysis with criteria of 3 mm distance-to-agreement (DTA) and 3% percent dose difference (DD). Results: The leaf gap-width deviation once a week for five months was within 0.15 mm under all the test fractions. There were not clear differences of the accuracy depending on the dose rates, the leaf speeds, and gantry angles. Agreement in the static vs. rotation picket fence test was better than 0.5 mm. This difference is near to the limit of the measurement and is not the difference between static and rotation. The pass rates of each complicated VAMT test plans once a day for a month were more than 90% in the gamma analysis. These pass rates are accuracy enough for VMAT because the test plans included strict test plans. Conclusion: MLC leaf position accuracy and long-term stability were confirmed by the proposed procedures. The Agility MLC showed enough MLC leaf position accuracy and long-term stability for VMAT.

Purpose: To calculate patient dose distributions from kV‐cone beam CT (CBCT) for image‐guided radiation therapy (IGRT) with the Monte Carlo (MC) method and to evaluate quantitatively organ doses from dose‐volume histograms (DVHs). Methods: The Varian On‐Board Imager (OBI) and the Elekta X‐ray Volumetric Imager (XVI) systems were modeled using the EGSnrc/BEAMnrc cord system. MC‐calculated doses for both kV‐CBCT were calibrated by converting ion chamber readings measured using a CT water phantom into absolute doses. The chamber measurements were performed by a Farmer chamber with 60Co absorbed dose‐to‐water calibration factor. Then MC‐dose distributions for kV‐CBCT were calculated using patient CT images. In this study, the organ doses of pelvis and head were evaluated from DVHs obtained by the MC‐dose distributions. The beam setting for the pelvis with full scan of 360o was 125 kV and 680 mAs with a half‐bowtie filter for OBI, and 120 kV and 1056 mAs with a full‐bowtie filter for XVI. For the head with half scan of 200o, the beam setting was 100 kV and 145 mAs with a full‐bowtie filter for OBI, and 100 kV and 73.2 mAs without the bowtie filter for XVI. Results: The calculated mean doses for prostate, rectum, and bladder for OBI and XVI were 2.6 and 0.9 cGy, 2.6 and 0.9 cGy, 3.1 and 1.0 cGy, respectively. The absorbed dose in pelvis for OBI was three times higher than XVI. Similarly, mean doses for eye lens, brain stem, and spinal code for OBI and XVI were 0.08 and 0.02 cGy, 0.34 and 0.12 cGy, 0.19 and 0.15 cGy, respectively. The dose for bone increased up to three or four times compared to that of soft tissue. Conclusion: Monte Carlo‐calculated dose distributions are useful to evaluate quantitatively patient doses from kV‐CBCT for IGRT.

Purpose: A new concept design of an Elekta radiation head (agilityTM) has an integrated 160‐leaf multi‐leaf collimator (MLC). The agilityTM consists of 160‐leaves with 90 mm height and 5 mm width at isocenter. The MLCs are located at a stair head in a linear accelerator head and works as X‐jaws. The purpose of this study is to conduct a measurement and treatment planning study on the dosimetric properties and delivery advantages of agilityTM. Methods: The dosimetric characterizations including dose leakage, leaf position accuracy, tongue‐and‐groove (T&G) effect, and field penumbra were evaluated using 4, 6 and 10 MV photon beams. Furthermore, clinical plans such as intensity modulated radiation therapy were tested using a Monaco (Elekta) treatment planning system (TPS). Results: The leakage was remarkably low with 0.44% (average) and 0.47% (maximum) for 10 MV due to a new design principle of tilted leaves. However, the T&G effect occurred due to the tilt and it was approximately 20.8% (average) and 22.3% (maximum) for 6 MV. The leaf position accuracy was within 0.5 mm for all gantry angles and each MLC. The penumbra width was greater with a wider field size and the maximum width of 8.5 mm for 4 MV. As for clinical plans, dose distributions for all plans with TPS were in good agreement with measurements. The absolute dose at isocenter agreed with TPS in less than 2%. The comparison of gamma analysis was more than 95% pass rate with criteria of 3 mm/3%. High position designed MLCs made wider penumbra but instead, it can gain a large head clearance. Conclusion: The experimental results in this study indicate that the dosimetric characteristics of agilityTM are capable of improving the quality of dose delivery. The agilityTM provides a large head clearance, the flexible and safe radiotherapy.

Purpose: In recent years, many 2D‐arrays have been developed as dose verification. Therefore, the comparison in the dose accuracy between the 2D‐arrays is important especially for complex intensity modulated radiation therapy(IMRT). In this study, we compared dosimetric properties between various 2D‐arrays and also evaluated the accuracy of absolute dose and dose profile measurements for clinical IMRT fields. Methods: In this study, the following detectors were used to check the dose accuracy: MapCHECK (Sun Nuclear, Melbourne, FL), EPID (Varian MedicalSystems, Palo Alto, CA), EPID‐based dosimetry (EPIDose, Sun Nuclear, Melbourne, FL), COMPASS (IBA Dosimetry, Germany) and EDR2 film (Eastman Kodak, Rochester, NY), Exradin A‐14SL ion chamber (0.016 cc, Standard Imaging, Middleton, WI). First the dosimetric properties of the 2D‐arrays were compared with dose linearity, dose rate, and output factor for 6 and 15 MV photon beams. Next the accuracy of the absolute dose and dose profile was evaluated for 21 clinical IMRT fields. Results: All detector responses for the dose linear were within 1%, and for the dose rates agreed within a standard deviation of ±1.2%. Except for EPID, the output factors were insignificant deviation. This is because EPID is the fluence measurement. In almost 2D‐arrays, the point dose agreed with treatment planningsystem (TPS) in less than 3% in the clinical fields. As for EPID, the accuracy that is equal to other detectors is obtained by some correction factors. Pass rates of each detector for TPS were more than 95% in the gamma analysis (criteria: 3 mm/3%). EPIDose is in a good agreement with TPS. This is because EPIDose has high resolution. Conclusions: All 2D arrays used in this study showed almost the same accuracy for clinical IMRT fields. EPIDose has better resolution than other 2D arrays and thus is expected for dose distributions with a small field.

Purpose: To compare dose distributions from three different radiotherapytreatment planning systems (RTPS) with those from Monte Carlo (MC) calculations and measurements, in heterogeneous phantoms for photon beams. Methods and Materials: This study used four algorithms for RTPS: AAA (analytical anisotropic algorithm) implemented in the Eclipse (Varian Medical Systems) treatment planning system, CC (collapsed cone) superposition from the Pinnacle (Philips), and MGS (multigrid superposition) and FFT (fast Fourier transform) convolution from XiO (CMS). The dose distributions from these algorithms were compared with those from MC and measurements in a set of heterogeneous phantoms. The phantom inhomogeneities mimic relevant clinical treatment sites, which include lung slab, lung‐bone slab, bone‐lung slab, mediastinum, and tumor geometries. The benchmark comparisons were performed in lung densities of 0.30 g/cm3 and a bone density 1.819 g/cm3 for 3×3, 5×5, and 10×10 cm2 field sizes, 4, 6, 10, and 15 MV photon beams. Results:MCdose distributions agreed much better with measured data than the superposition algorithm in a set of heterogeneous phantoms. The difference in dose distributions between Eclipse‐AAA and MC were up to 15%. Eclipse‐AAA underestimated the dose inside the lung region for low energies of 4 and 6 MV, and in constant, overestimated in the tissue region. The dose distributions from Pinnacle‐CC and XiO‐MGS almost agree with those of MC and measurements but increase errors at15 MV, especially for a small field of 3×3 cm2. The FFT convolution extremely overestimated the dose inside the lung slab compared to MC.Conclusions: The dose distributions from the superposition algorithms almost agree with those from MC as well as measured values at 4 and 6 MV. The dose errors for Eclipse‐AAA are lager in lung model phantoms for 4 and 6 MV. The FFT convolution should not use for dose calculations in heterogeneous regions.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of setup error and anatomical change on dose distribution during conventional radiation therapy. We performed regional irradiation (Plan1) using opposing pair fields, and then we planned local irradiation (Plan2) with a computed tomography (CT) acquired at that time in 10 patients with advanced oral cancer. To consider the setup error, a minimum dose of gross tumor volume (GTV) and a maximum dose for the spinal cord were re-calculated with isocenter shifts of ±5 mm. We also evaluated an alteration of reference dose due to anatomical changes during radiation therapy. A minimum dose of GTV was decreased with isocenter shifts; the trend was stronger in Plan2 than Plan1 (-5.7% vs. -1.2%, p=0.02). Similarly, a maximum dose of spinal cord was increased with isocenter shifts, especially in Plan2 (12.2% vs. 0.5%, p

Background For stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) of liver tumors, tumor motion induced by respiration must be taken into account in planning and treatment. We evaluated whether liver tumor motion at the planning simulation represents liver tumor motion during SBRT, and estimated inter- and intrafractional tumor motion changes in patients undergoing liver SBRT. Methods Ten patients underwent four-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography (4D-CBCT) image-guided liver SBRT with abdominal compression (AC) and fiducial markers. 4D-CBCT was performed to evaluate liver tumor motion at the planning simulation, pre-, and post-SBRT. The translational distances at the center position of the fiducial markers from all 10 phases on the 4D-CBCT images were measured as the extent of the liver tumor motion in the left-right (LR), anterior-posterior (AP), and superior-inferior (SI) directions. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate the correlation between liver tumor motion of the planning simulation and the mean liver tumor motion of the pre-SBRT. Inter- and intrafractional liver tumor motion changes were measured based on the 4D-CBCT of planning simulation, pre-, and post-SBRT. Significant inter- and intrafractional changes in liver tumor motion were defined as a change of >3 mm. Results The mean (± SD) liver tumor motion of the planning simulation 4D-CBCT was 1.7 ± 0.8 mm, 2.4 ± 2.2 mm, and 5.3 ± 3.3 mm, in the LR, AP, and SI directions, respectively. Those of the pre-SBRT 4D-CBCT were 1.2 ± 0.7 mm, 2.3 ± 2.3 mm, and 4.5 ± 3.8 mm, in the LR, AP, and SI directions, respectively. There was a strong significant correlation between liver tumor motion of the planning simulation and pre-SBRT in the LR (R = 0.7, P