Search

In 2010, the NCS (Netherlands Commission on Radiation Dosimetry) installed a subcommittee to develop guidelines for quality assurance and control for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatments. The report (published in 2015) has been written by Dutch medical physicists and has therefore, inevitably, a Dutch focus. This paper is a condensed version of these guidelines, the full report in English is freely available from the NCS website www.radiationdosimetry.org. After describing the transition from IMRT to VMAT, the paper addresses machine quality assurance (QA) and treatment planning system (TPS) commissioning for VMAT. The final section discusses patient specific QA issues such as the use of class solutions, measurement devices and dose evaluation methods.

Purpose: The main focus of the current paper is the clinical implementation of a Monte Carlo based platform for treatment plan validation for Tomotherapy and Cyberknife, without adding additional tasks to the dosimetry department., Methods: The Monte Carlo platform consists of C++ classes for the actual functionality and a web based GUI that allows accessing the system using a web browser. Calculations are based on BEAMnrc/DOSXYZnrc and/or GATE and are performed automatically after exporting the dicom data from the treatment planning system. For Cyberknife treatments of moving targets, the log files saved during the treatment (position of robot, internal fiducials and external markers) can be used in combination with the 4D planning CT to reconstruct the actually delivered dose. The Monte Carlo platform is also used for calculation on MRI images, using pseudo-CT conversion., Results: For Tomotherapy treatments we obtain an excellent agreement (within 2%) for almost all cases. However, we have been able to detect a problem regarding the CT Hounsfield units definition of the Toshiba Large Bore CT when using a large reconstruction diameter. For Cyberknife treatments we obtain an excellent agreement with the Monte Carlo algorithm of the treatment planning system. For some extreme cases, when treating small lung lesions in low density lung tissue, small differences are obtained due to the different cut-off energy of the secondary electrons., Conclusions: A Monte Carlo based treatment plan validation tool has successfully been implemented in clinical routine and is used to systematically validate all Cyberknife and Tomotherapy plans., (Copyright © 2016 Associazione Italiana di Fisica Medica. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

A new megavoltage (MV) energy was recently introduced on Varian TrueBeam linear accelerators for imaging applications. This work describes the experimental characterization of a 2.5 MV inline portal imaging beam for commissioning, routine clinical use, and quality assurance purposes. The beam quality of the 2.5 MV beam was determined by measuring a percent depth dose, PDD, in water phantom for 10 × 10 cm2 field at source-to-surface distance 100 cm with a CC13 ion chamber, plane parallel Markus chamber, and GafChromic EBT3 film. Absolute dosimetric output calibration of the beam was performed using a traceable calibrated ionization chamber, following the AAPM Task Group 51 procedure. EBT3 film measurements were also performed to measure entrance dose. The output stability of the imaging beam was monitored for five months. Coincidence of 2.5 MV imaging beam with 6 MV therapy beam was verified with hidden-target cubic phantom. Image quality was studied using the Leeds and QC3 phantom. The depth of maximum dose, dmax, and percent dose at 10 cm depth were, respectively, 5.7 mm and 51.7% for CC13, 6.1 mm and 51.9% for Markus chamber, and 5.1 mm and 51.9% for EBT3 film. The 2.5 MV beam quality is slightly inferior to that of a 60Co teletherapy beam; however, an estimated kQ of 1.00 was used for output calibration purposes. The beam output was found to be stable to within 1% over a five-month period. The relative entrance dose as measured with EBT3 films was 63%, compared to 23% for a clinical 6 MV beam for a 10 × 10 cm2 field. Overall coincidence of the 2.5 MV imaging beam with the 6 MV clinical therapy beam was within 0.2 mm. Image quality results for two com-monly used imaging phantoms were superior for the 2.5 MV beam when compared to the conventional 6 MV beam. The results from measurements on two TrueBeam accelerators show that 2.5 MV imaging beam is slightly softer than a therapeutic 60Co beam, it provides superior image quality than a 6 MV therapy beam, and has excellent output stability. These 2.5 MV beam characterization results can serve as reference for clinics planning to commission and use this novel energy-image modality., (© 2016 The Authors.)

"Burst-mode" modulated arc therapy (hereafter referred to as "mARC") is a form of volumetric-modulated arc therapy characterized by variable gantry rotation speed, static MLCs while the radiation beam is on, and MLC repositioning while the beam is off. We present our clinical experience with the planning techniques and plan quality assurance measurements of mARC delivery. Clinical mARC plans for five representative cases (prostate, low-dose-rate brain, brain with partial-arc vertex fields, pancreas, and liver SBRT) were generated using a Monte Carlo-based treatment planning system. A conventional-dose-rate flat 6 MV and a high-dose-rate non-flat 7 MV beam are available for planning and delivery. mARC plans for intact-prostate cases can typically be created using one 360° arc, and treatment times per fraction seldom exceed 6 min using the flat beam; using the nonflat beam results in slightly higher MU per fraction, but also in delivery times less than 4 min and with reduced mean dose to distal organs at risk. mARC also has utility in low-dose-rate brain irradiation; mARC fields can be designed which deliver a uniform 20 cGy dose to the PTV in approximately 3-minute intervals, making it a viable alternative to conventional 3D CRT. For brain cases using noncoplanar arcs, delivery time is approximately six min using the nonflat beam. For pancreas cases using the nonflat beam, two overlapping 360° arcs are required, and delivery times are approximately 10 min. For liver SBRT, the time to deliver 800 cGy per frac-tion is at least 12 min. Plan QA measurements indicate that the mARC delivery is consistent with the plan calculation for all cases. mARC has been incorporated into routine practice within our clinic; currently, on average approximately 15 patients per day are treated using mARC; and with the exception of LDR brain cases, all are treated using the nonflat beam., (© 2016 The Authors.)

We proposed a simple visual method for evaluating the dynamic tumor tracking (DTT) accuracy of a gimbal mechanism using a light field. A single photon beam was set with a field size of 30 × 30 mm2 at a gantry angle of 90°. The center of a cube phantom was set up at the isocenter of a motion table, and 4D modeling was performed based on the tumor and infrared (IR) marker motion. After 4D modeling, the cube phantom was replaced with a sheet of paper, which was placed perpen-dicularly, and a light field was projected on the sheet of paper. The light field was recorded using a web camera in a treatment room that was as dark as possible. Calculated images from each image obtained using the camera were summed to compose a total summation image. Sinusoidal motion sequences were produced by moving the phantom with a fixed amplitude of 20 mm and different breathing periods of 2, 4, 6, and 8 s. The light field was projected on the sheet of paper under three conditions: with the moving phantom and DTT based on the motion of the phantom, with the moving phantom and non-DTT, and with a stationary phantom for comparison. The values of tracking errors using the light field were 1.12 ± 0.72, 0.31 ± 0.19, 0.27 ± 0.12, and 0.15 ± 0.09 mm for breathing periods of 2, 4, 6, and 8s, respectively. The tracking accuracy showed dependence on the breath-ing period. We proposed a simple quality assurance (QA) process for the tracking accuracy of a gimbal mechanism system using a light field and web camera. Our method can assess the tracking accuracy using a light field without irradiation and clearly visualize distributions like film dosimetry., (© 2016 The Authors.)

Multileaf collimator (MLC) positions should be precisely and independently mea-sured as a function of gantry angle as part of a comprehensive quality assurance (QA) program for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). It is also ideal that such a QA program has the ability to relate MLC positional accuracy to patient-specific dosimetry in order to determine the clinical significance of any detected MLC errors. In this work we propose a method to verify individual MLC trajectories during VMAT deliveries for use as a routine linear accelerator QA tool. We also extend this method to reconstruct the 3D patient dose in the treatment planning sys-tem based on the measured MLC trajectories and the original DICOM plan file. The method relies on extracting MLC positions from EPID images acquired at 8.41fps during clinical VMAT deliveries. A gantry angle is automatically tagged to each image in order to obtain the MLC trajectories as a function of gantry angle. This analysis was performed for six clinical VMAT plans acquired at monthly intervals for three months. The measured trajectories for each delivery were compared to the MLC positions from the DICOM plan file. The maximum mean error detected was 0.07 mm and a maximum root-mean-square error was 0.8 mm for any leaf of any delivery. The sensitivity of this system was characterized by introducing random and systematic MLC errors into the test plans. It was demonstrated that the system is capable of detecting random and systematic errors on the range of 1-2mm and single leaf calibration errors of 0.5 mm. The methodology developed in the work has potential to be used for efficient routine linear accelerator MLC QA and pretreatment patient-specific QA and has the ability to relate measured MLC positional errors to 3D dosimetric errors within a patient volume., (© 2016 The Authors.)

Many devices designed for the purpose of performing patient-specific IMRT/VMAT QA are commercially available. In this work we report our experience and initial clinical results with the ArcCHECK. The ArcCHECK consists of a cylindrical array of diode detectors measuring entry and exit doses. The measured result is a cumulative dose displayed as a 2D matrix. The detector array requires both an absolute dose calibration, and a calibration of the detector response, relative to each other. In addition to the calibrations suggested by the manufacturer, various tests were performed in order to assess its stability and performance prior to clinical introduction. Tests of uniformity, linearity, and repetition rate dependence of the detector response were conducted and described in this work. Following initial test-ing, the ArcCHECK device was introduced in the clinic for routine patient-specific IMRT QA. The clinical results from one year of use were collected and analyzed. The gamma pass rates at the 3%/3 mm criterion were reported for 3,116 cases that included both IMRT and VMAT treatment plans delivered on 18 linear accelera-tors. The gamma pass rates were categorized based on the treatment site, treatment technique, type of MLCs, operator, ArcCHECK device, and LINAC model. We recorded the percent of failures at the clinically acceptable threshold of 90%. In addition, we calculated the threshold that encompasses two standard deviations (2 SD) (95%) of QAs (T95) for each category investigated. The commissioning measurements demonstrated that the device performed as expected. The uniformity of the detector response to a constant field arc delivery showed a 1% standard deviation from the mean. The variation in dose with changing repetition rate was within 1 cGy of the mean, while the measured dose showed a linear relation with delivered MUs. Our initial patient QA results showed that, at the clinically selected passing criterion, 4.5% of cases failed. On average T95 was 91%, rang-ing from 73% for gynecological sites to 96.5% for central nervous system sites. There are statistically significant differences in passing rates between IMRT and VMAT, high-definition (HD) and non-HD MLCs, and different LINAC models (p-values << 0.001). An additional investigation into the failing QAs and a com-parison with ion-chamber measurements reveals that the differences observed in the passing rates between the different studied factors can be largely explained by the field size dependence of the device. Based on our initial experience with the ArcCHECK, our passing rates are, on average, consistent with values reported in the AAPM TG-119. However, the significant variations between QAs that were observed based on the size of the treatment fields may need to be corrected to improve the specificity and sensitivity of the device., (© 2016 The Authors.)

The nasal cavity and parasinusal cancer are rare (10% of tumors of the head and neck) and are mainly represented by squamous cell carcinoma of the nasal cavity or the maxillary sinus and adenocarcinoma of the ethmoid sinus (occupational disease, wood dust). The most common clinical sign is nasal obstruction, but tumors can also manifest as rhinorrhea and/or epistaxis (usually unilateral signs). A magnetic resonance imaging of the facial structure is systematic for staging before treatment. The treatment consists of a first surgery if the patient is operable with a resectable tumor. If it is not the case, the treatment consists of radiotherapy (RT) associated with chemotherapy (CT) according to the initial data (T3/T4 or N+). After first surgery, RT is indicated (except T1N0 with complete resection) associated with a CT based on postoperative data (capsular effraction or incomplete resection). Lymph node irradiation is considered case by case, but is indicated in any nodal involvement. RT must be an intensity modulated RT (IMRT), static or dynamic, and must be imagery guided (IGRT). According to ICRU 83, doses to organs at risk and target volumes must be carried. Finally, after a post-treatment baseline imaging between 2 and 4 months, monitoring will be alternated with the ENT surgeon every 2 or 3 months for 2 years, then every 4 to 6 months for 5 years., (Copyright © 2016 Société française de radiothérapie oncologique (SFRO). Published by Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.)

Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and brachytherapy are standard techniques for the irradiation of oral cavity cancers. These techniques are detailed in terms of indication, preparation, delineation and selection of the volumes, dosimetry and patient positioning control., (Copyright © 2016 Société française de radiothérapie oncologique (SFRO). Published by Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The aim of this work was to determine whether a commercial knowledge-based treatment planning (KBP) module can efficiently produce IMRT and VMAT plans in the pelvic region (prostate & cervical cancer), and to assess sensitivity of plan quality to training data and model parameters., Methods: Initial benchmarking of KBP was performed using prostate cancer cases. Structures and dose distributions from 40 patients previously treated using a 5-field IMRT technique were used for model training. Two types of model were created: one excluded statistical outliers (as identified by RapidPlan guidelines) and the other had no exclusions. A separate model for cervix uteri cancer cases was subsequently developed using 37 clinical patients treated for cervical cancer using RapidArc™ VMAT, with no exclusions. The resulting models were then used to generate plans for ten patients from each patient group who had not been included in the modelling process. Comparisons of generated RapidPlans with the corresponding clinical plans were carried out to indicate the required modifications to the models. Model parameters were then iteratively adjusted until plan quality converged with that obtained by experienced planners without KBP., Results: Initial automated model generation settings led to poor conformity, coverage and efficiency compared to clinical plans. Therefore a number of changes to the initial KBP models were required. Before model optimisation, it was found that the PTV coverage was slightly reduced in the superior and inferior directions for RapidPlan compared with clinical plans and therefore PTV parameters were adjusted to improve coverage. OAR doses were similar for both RapidPlan and clinical plans (p>0.05). Excluding outliers had little effect on plan quality (p≫0.05). Manually fixing key optimisation objectives enabled production of clinically acceptable treatment plans without further planner intervention for 9 of 10 prostate test patients and all 10 cervix test patients., Conclusions: The Varian RapidPlan™ system was able to produce IMRT & VMAT treatment plans in the pelvis, in a single optimisation, that had comparable sparing and comparable or better conformity than the original clinically acceptable plans. The system allows for better consistency and efficiency in the treatment planning process and has therefore been adopted clinically within our institute with over 100 patients treated., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: For patients receiving radiotherapy for locally advance non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the probability of experiencing severe radiation pneumonitis (RP) appears to rise with an increase in radiation received by the lungs. Intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) provides the ability to reduce planned doses to healthy organs at risk (OAR) and can potentially reduce treatment-related side effects. This study reports toxicity outcomes and provides a dosimetric comparison with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT)., Methods: Thirty curative NSCLC patients received radiotherapy using four-dimensional computed tomography and five-field IMRT. All were assessed for early and late toxicity using common terminology criteria for adverse events. All plans were subsequently re-planned using 3DCRT to the same standard as the clinical plans. Dosimetric parameters for lungs, oesophagus, heart and conformity were recorded for comparison between the two techniques., Results: IMRT plans achieved improved high-dose conformity and reduced OAR doses including lung volumes irradiated to 5-20 Gy. One case each of oesophagitis and erythema (3%) were the only Grade 3 toxicities. Rates of Grade 2 oesophagitis were 40%. No cases of Grade 3 RP were recorded and Grade 2 RP rates were as low as 3%., Conclusion: IMRT provides a dosimetric benefit when compared to 3DCRT. While the clinical benefit appears to increase with increasing target size and increasing complexity, IMRT appears preferential to 3DCRT in the treatment of NSCLC.

The treatment of head and neck carcinoma by radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy or targeted agents requires a rigorous preparation, sometimes complex, frequently time consuming to guaranty to the patient to reduce as much as possible acute toxicity as well as late complications. These rules are valuable whatever the location of the primary with some anatomic variations. Intensity modulated radiotherapy and its rules are currently the standard of care for this disease. The follow-up of the patients during their treatment is similar., (Copyright © 2016 Société française de radiothérapie oncologique (SFRO). Published by Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.)

The intensity-modulated radiotherapy is the gold standard in the treatment of hypopharynx cancers. Early T1 and T2 tumours could be treated by exclusive radiotherapy or surgery. For tumours requiring total pharyngolaryngectomy (T2 or T3), induction chemotherapy followed by exclusive radiotherapy or concurrent chemoradiotherapy are possible. For T4 tumours, surgery must be proposed. The treatment of lymph nodes is based on the initial treatment of the primary tumour. In non-surgical procedure, in case of sequential radiotherapy, curative dose is 70Gy and prophylactic dose is 50Gy. An integrated simultaneous boost radiotherapy is allowed (70Gy in 2Gy per fraction and 56Gy in 1.8Gy per fraction or 70Gy in 2.12Gy per fraction). Postoperatively, radiotherapy is used for locally advanced cancers with dose levels based on pathologic criteria (66Gy for R1 resection, 50 to 54Gy for complete resection). Volume delineation is based on guidelines., (Copyright © 2016 Société française de radiothérapie oncologique (SFRO). Published by Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.)

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy is the gold standard in the treatment of larynx cancers (except T1 glottic tumour). Early T1 and T2 tumours may be treated by exclusive radiation or surgery. For tumours requiring total laryngectomy (T2 or T3), induction chemotherapy followed by exclusive radiotherapy or concurrent chemoradiotherapy is possible. For T4 tumour, surgery must be proposed. The treatment of lymph nodes is based on the initial treatment of the primary tumour. In non-surgical procedure, in case of sequential radiotherapy, the curative dose is 70Gy and the prophylactic dose is 50Gy. An integrated simultaneous boost radiotherapy is allowed (70Gy in 2Gy per fraction and 56Gy in 1.8Gy per fraction or 70Gy in 2.12Gy per fraction). Postoperatively, radiotherapy is used in locally advanced cancer with dose levels based on pathologic criteria (66Gy for R1 resection, 50 to 54Gy for complete resection). Volume delineation was based on guidelines., (Copyright © 2016 Société française de radiothérapie oncologique (SFRO). Published by Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.)

Radical concurrent chemoradiotherapy with 5FU and Mitomycin C is the standard-of-care for squamous-cell carcinoma of the anus (SCCA). Phase III trials combined radiation doses of 50-60 Gy with concurrent Fluoropyrimidines, Mitomycin C and Cisplatin in various doses and schedules. CRT is highly successful for early T1/T2 cancers, but results in appreciable late morbidities and still fails to control larger and node-positive tumours. Compliance to chemotherapy is important for local control. Modern radiotherapy techniques such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), rotational IMRT, image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) have enabled smaller margins and highly conformal plans, resulting in decreased radiation doses to the organs at risk and ensuring a shorter overall treatment time. These advances offer the potential for integrating higher doses of radiation, escalation of the currently used drugs and the safe use of other more novel agents with acceptable toxicity. In this chapter potential novel approaches are discussed in the context of SCCA., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Between 2012 and 2014 the number of patients treated in the UK with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) techniques increased significantly. One reason for this was the radiotherapy innovation fund for the centres in England. Before the announcement of the fund, a survey of radiotherapy centres was carried out in 2012 which collected data on IMRT uptake, obstacles to implementation, equipment used, delivery techniques and verification methods. A repeat survey was carried out in 2014 to identify key changes to IMRT quality assurance and verification practices., Materials and Methods: An online questionnaire was sent out to all 65 UK radiotherapy centres in the summer of 2012 and again in the summer of 2014. Questions covered background and equipment, machine tolerance and quality assurance, machine-based verification, software-based verification and future plans., Results: There have been significant changes in the delivery techniques used for IMRT, with more than twice as many centres reporting the use of volumetric-modulated arc therapy techniques in 2014 compared with 2012. This has been combined with an increase in Monte Carlo-based algorithms in treatment planning systems. In 2012 all centres reported the need to carry out machine-based measurements for IMRT plan verification, dropping to 93% in 2014. Nineteen per cent of centres now report making only one measurement per month for prostate plans and 8% of breast plans never have physical measurements. Most centres use detector arrays for quality assurance measurement (86% in 2012 and 91% in 2014), but a significant number still use film and/or ionisation chambers (51% and 41%). In the analysis of these measurements there has been an increase in the use of tighter criteria. There has been a significant increase in the use of software for verification from 63% in 2012 to 95% in 2014. All centres reported that they needed further resources in order to efficiently achieve the quality assurance required for the number of patients planned to be treated in their centre., Conclusions: The increased numbers of patients being treated with IMRT has meant that there have been significant changes in the way that quality assurance is carried out. These have been mainly in the reduction of measurements and the increase in software-based verification. However, quality assurance is still a significant burden and still has an effect on the numbers of patients who can be treated with IMRT., (Crown Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: This study was undertaken to analyze the results of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) dosimetry credentialing using a phantom in the Japanese Clinical Oncology Group clinical trials., Methods: All measurements were performed on-site. The IMRT phantom consisted of a phantom shell and a module. Two types of structures, including a C-shaped planning target volume (PTV) around a column-shaped organ at risk (OAR), were included in the module. Each participating institution was asked to image, plan, and treat the phantom. A prescription dose of 2Gy should cover 95% of the PTV. The plan should limit the maximum doses to the PTV and OAR to less than 110% and 60%, respectively. The pass criteria were ±3% in terms of chamber dosimetry and a difference in profile position ⩽2mm in the high-dose gradient area of film dosimetry. The positional difference was defined as the largest distance between the measured and calculated positions at doses of 60% or 80%. These tolerances were based on the Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology IMRT guidelines., Results: Credentialing was performed on a total of 44 treatment machines in 32 institutions from 2009 to 2015. All differences between measured and planned doses at the measurement points of the PTV were within 3%. The means±standard deviations of the positional differences were 1.0±0.4mm and 0.9±0.3mm without and with the phantom shell, respectively., Conclusions: The dose differences and positional differences met the desired criteria in all institutions., (Copyright © 2016 Associazione Italiana di Fisica Medica. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Version 6.3 of the RITG148+ software package offers eight automated analysis routines for quality assurance of the TomoTherapy platform. A performance evaluation of each routine was performed in order to compare RITG148+ results with traditionally accepted analysis techniques and verify that simulated changes in machine parameters are correctly identified by the software. Reference films were exposed according to AAPM TG-148 methodology for each routine and the RITG148+ results were compared with either alternative software analysis techniques or manual analysis techniques in order to assess baseline agreement. Changes in machine performance were simulated through translational and rotational adjustments to subsequently irradiated films, and these films were analyzed to verify that the applied changes were accurately detected by each of the RITG148+ routines. For the Hounsfield unit routine, an assessment of the "Frame Averaging" functionality and the effects of phantom roll on the routine results are presented. All RITG148+ routines reported acceptable baseline results consistent with alternative analysis techniques, with 9 of the 11 baseline test results showing agreement of 0.1mm/0.1° or better. Simulated changes were correctly identified by the RITG148+ routines within approximately 0.2 mm/0.2° with the exception of the Field Centervs. Jaw Setting routine, which was found to have limited accuracy in cases where field centers were not aligned for all jaw settings due to inaccurate autorotation of the film during analysis. The performance of the RITG148+ software package was found to be acceptable for introduction into our clinical environment as an automated alternative to traditional analysis techniques for routine TomoTherapy quality assurance testing.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of an aperture complexity metric for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans to predict plan delivery accuracy. We developed a complexity analysis tool as a plug-in script to Varian's Eclipse treatment planning system. This script reports the modulation of plans, arcs, and individual control points for VMAT plans using a previously developed complexity metric. The calculated complexities are compared to that of 649 VMAT plans previously treated at our institution from 2013 to mid-2015. We used the VMAT quality assurance (QA) results from the 649 treated plans, plus 62 plans that failed pretreatment QA, to validate the ability of the complexity metric to predict plan deliverability. We used a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to determine an appropriate complexity threshold value above which a plan should be considered for reoptimization before it moves further through our planning workflow. The average complexity metric for the 649 treated plans analyzed with the script was 0.132 mm-1 with a standard deviation of 0.036 mm-1. We found that when using a threshold complexity value of 0.180 mm-1, the true positive rate for correctly identifying plans that failed QA was 44%, and the false-positive rate was 7%. Used clinically with this threshold, the script can identify overly modulated plans and thus prevent a significant portion of QA failures. Reducing VMAT plan complexity has a number of important clinical benefits, including improving plan deliverability and reducing treatment time. Use of the complexity metric during both the planning and QA processes can reduce the number of QA failures and improve the quality of VMAT plans used for treatment., (© 2016 The Authors)

Varian introduced (in 2010) the option of removing the flattening filter (FF) in their C-Arm linacs for intensity-modulated treatments. This mode, called flattening filter-free (FFF), offers the advantage of a greater dose rate. Varian's "Portal Dosimetry" is an electronic portal imager device (EPID)-based tool for IMRT verification. This tool lacks the capability of verifying flattening filter-free (FFF) modes due to saturation and lack of an image prediction algorithm. (Note: the latest versions of this software and EPID correct these issues.) The objective of the present study is to research the feasibility of said verifications (with the older versions of the software and EPID). By placing the EPID at a greater distance, the images can be acquired without saturation, yielding a linearity similar to the flattened mode. For the image prediction, a method was optimized based on the clinically used algorithm (analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA)) over a homogeneous phantom. The depth inside the phantom and its electronic density were tailored. An application was developed to allow the conversion of a dose plane (in DICOM format) to Varian's custom format for Portal Dosimetry. The proposed method was used for the verification of test and clinical fields for the three qualities used in our institution for IMRT: 6X, 6FFF and 10FFF. The method developed yielded a positive verification (more than 95% of the points pass a 2%/2 mm gamma) for both the clinical and test fields. This method was also capable of "predicting" static and wedged fields. A workflow for the verification of FFF fields was developed. This method relies on the clinical algorithm used for dose calculation and is able to verify the FFF modes, as well as being useful for machine quality assurance. The procedure described does not require new hardware. This method could be used as a verification of Varian's Portal Dose Image Prediction.

The management of oropharyngeal carcinoma represents an increasing clinical challenge, because of its rising incidence, particularly in younger patients as a result of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, and because significant technological advances have occurred in radiotherapy and surgery over the last 10 years that have increased treatment options for patients, with little robust evidence yet of their relative merits. As a result, there is a lack of clinical consensus on the optimum treatment modality, reflected in wide variation in practice between different cancer networks across the UK. Here, we consider the evidence base for minimally invasive transoral surgery and for intensity-modulated radiotherapy-based primary treatment for oropharyngeal cancer, in terms of both oncological and functional outcomes. Management strategies for HPV-positive and HPV-negative disease, and for different stages of the disease, are considered. There is currently an unparalleled opportunity to shape the future management of oropharyngeal cancer, which is dependent on recruiting patients to ongoing clinical trials, in order to build an evidence base to support a clinical consensus on the optimal treatment strategies. It appears likely that future evidence-based decision-making will use both primary radiotherapy and primary surgical treatment modalities to maximise patient benefit., (Copyright © 2016 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The increasing complexity of modern radiation therapy planning and delivery challenges traditional prescriptive quality management (QM) methods, such as many of those included in guidelines published by organizations such as the AAPM, ASTRO, ACR, ESTRO, and IAEA. These prescriptive guidelines have traditionally focused on monitoring all aspects of the functional performance of radiotherapy (RT) equipment by comparing parameters against tolerances set at strict but achievable values. Many errors that occur in radiation oncology are not due to failures in devices and software; rather they are failures in workflow and process. A systematic understanding of the likelihood and clinical impact of possible failures throughout a course of radiotherapy is needed to direct limit QM resources efficiently to produce maximum safety and quality of patient care. Task Group 100 of the AAPM has taken a broad view of these issues and has developed a framework for designing QM activities, based on estimates of the probability of identified failures and their clinical outcome through the RT planning and delivery process. The Task Group has chosen a specific radiotherapy process required for "intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)" as a case study. The goal of this work is to apply modern risk-based analysis techniques to this complex RT process in order to demonstrate to the RT community that such techniques may help identify more effective and efficient ways to enhance the safety and quality of our treatment processes. The task group generated by consensus an example quality management program strategy for the IMRT process performed at the institution of one of the authors. This report describes the methodology and nomenclature developed, presents the process maps, FMEAs, fault trees, and QM programs developed, and makes suggestions on how this information could be used in the clinic. The development and implementation of risk-assessment techniques will make radiation therapy safer and more efficient.

Background: O-(2-18 F-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine-(FET)-PET may be helpful to improve the definition of radiation target volumes in glioblastomas compared with MRI. We analyzed the relapse patterns in FET-PET after a FET- and MRI-based integrated-boost intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) of glioblastomas to perform an optimized target volume definition., Methods: A relapse pattern analysis was performed in 13 glioblastoma patients treated with radiochemotherapy within a prospective phase-II-study between 2008 and 2009. Radiotherapy was performed as an integrated-boost intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IB-IMRT). The prescribed dose was 72 Gy for the boost target volume, based on baseline FET-PET (FET-1) and 60 Gy for the MRI-based (MRI-1) standard target volume. The single doses were 2.4 and 2.0 Gy, respectively. Location and volume of recurrent tumors in FET-2 and MRI-2 were analyzed related to initial tumor, detected in baseline FET-1. Variable target volumes were created theoretically based on FET-1 to optimally cover recurrent tumor., Results: The tumor volume overlap in FET and MRI was poor both at baseline (median 12 %; range 0-32) and at time of recurrence (13 %; 0-100). Recurrent tumor volume in FET-2 was localized to 39 % (12-91) in the initial tumor volume (FET-1). Over the time a shrinking (mean 12 (5-26) ml) and shifting (mean 6 (1-10 mm) of the resection cavity was seen. A simulated target volume based on active tumor in FET-1 with an additional safety margin of 7 mm around the FET-1 volume covered recurrent FET tumor volume (FET-2) significantly better than a corresponding target volume based on contrast enhancement in MRI-1 with a same safety margin of 7 mm (100 % (54-100) versus 85 % (0-100); p < 0.01). A simulated planning target volume (PTV), based on FET-1 and additional 7 mm margin plus 5 mm margin for setup-uncertainties was significantly smaller than the conventional, MR-based PTV applied in this study (median 160 (112-297) ml versus 231 (117-386) ml, p < 0.001)., Conclusions: In this small study recurrent tumor volume in FET-PET (FET-2) overlapped only to one third with the boost target volume, based on FET-1. The shrinking and shifting of the resection cavity may have an influence considering the limited overlap of initial and relapse tumor volume. A simulated target volume, based on FET-1 with 7 mm margin covered 100 % of relapse volume in median and led to a significantly reduced PTV, compared to MRI-based PTVs. This approach may achieve similar therapeutic efficacy but lower side effects offering a broader window to intensify concomitant systemic treatment focusing distant failures.

The highly conformal planned dose distribution achievable in intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) can severely be compromised by uncertainties in patient setup and proton range. While several robust optimization approaches have been presented to address this issue, appropriate methods to accurately estimate the robustness of treatment plans are still lacking. To fill this gap we present Polynomial Chaos Expansion (PCE) techniques which are easily applicable and create a meta-model of the dose engine by approximating the dose in every voxel with multidimensional polynomials. This Polynomial Chaos (PC) model can be built in an automated fashion relatively cheaply and subsequently it can be used to perform comprehensive robustness analysis. We adapted PC to provide among others the expected dose, the dose variance, accurate probability distribution of dose-volume histogram (DVH) metrics (e.g. minimum tumor or maximum organ dose), exact bandwidths of DVHs, and to separate the effects of random and systematic errors. We present the outcome of our verification experiments based on 6 head-and-neck (HN) patients, and exemplify the usefulness of PCE by comparing a robust and a non-robust treatment plan for a selected HN case. The results suggest that PCE is highly valuable for both research and clinical applications.

IMRT planning with commercial Treatment Planning Systems (TPSs) is a trial-and-error process. Consequently, the quality of treatment plans may not be consistent among patients, planners and institutions. Recently, different plan quality assurance (QA) models have been proposed, that could flag and guide improvement of suboptimal treatment plans. However, the performance of these models was validated using plans that were created using the conventional trail-and-error treatment planning process. Consequently, it is challenging to assess and compare quantitatively the accuracy of different treatment planning QA models. Therefore, we created a golden standard dataset of consistently planned Pareto-optimal IMRT plans for 115 prostate patients. Next, the dataset was used to assess the performance of a treatment planning QA model that uses the overlap volume histogram (OVH). 115 prostate IMRT plans were fully automatically planned using our in-house developed TPS Erasmus-iCycle. An existing OVH model was trained on the plans of 58 of the patients. Next it was applied to predict DVHs of the rectum, bladder and anus of the remaining 57 patients. The predictions were compared with the achieved values of the golden standard plans for the rectum D mean, V 65, and V 75, and D mean of the anus and the bladder. For the rectum, the prediction errors (predicted-achieved) were only  -0.2  ±  0.9 Gy (mean  ±  1 SD) for D mean,-1.0  ±  1.6% for V 65, and  -0.4  ±  1.1% for V 75. For D mean of the anus and the bladder, the prediction error was 0.1  ±  1.6 Gy and 4.8  ±  4.1 Gy, respectively. Increasing the training cohort to 114 patients only led to minor improvements. A dataset of consistently planned Pareto-optimal prostate IMRT plans was generated. This dataset can be used to train new, and validate and compare existing treatment planning QA models, and has been made publicly available. The OVH model was highly accurate in predicting rectum and anus DVHs. For the bladder, larger prediction errors were observed.

A patient-specific quality assurance (QA) test is conducted to verify the accuracy of dose delivery. It generally consists of three verification processes: the absolute point dose difference, the planar dose differences at each gantry angle, and the planar dose differences by 3D composite irradiation. However, this imposes a substantial workload on medical physicists. The objective of this study was to determine whether our novel method that predicts the 3D delivered dose allows certain patient-specific IMRT QAs to be curtailed. The object was IMRT QA for the pelvic region with regard to point dose and composite planar dose differences. We compared measured doses, doses calculated in the treatment planning system, and doses predicted by in-house software. The 3D predicted dose was reconstructed from the per-field measurement by incorporating the relative dose error distribution into the original dose grid of each beam. All point dose differences between the measured and the calculated dose were within ±3%, whereas 93.3% of them between the predicted and the calculated dose were within ±3%. As for planar dose differences, the gamma passing rates between the calculated and the predicted dose were higher than those between the calculated and the measured dose. Comparison and statistical analysis revealed a correlation between the predicted and the measured dose with regard to both point dose and planar dose differences. We concluded that the prediction-based approach is an accurate substitute for the conventional measurement-based approach in IMRT QA for the pelvic region. Our novel approach will help medical physicists save time on IMRT QA., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Japan Radiation Research Society and Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology.)

Objective: This work investigated the delivery accuracy of different Varian linear accelerator models using log file-derived multileaf collimator (MLC) root mean square (RMS) values., Methods: Seven centres independently created a plan on the same virtual phantom using their own planning system, and the log files were analyzed following delivery of the plan in each centre to assess MLC positioning accuracy. A single standard plan was also delivered by the seven centres to remove variations in complexity, and the log files were analyzed for Varian TrueBeams and Clinacs (2300IX or 2100CD models)., Results: Varian TrueBeam accelerators had better MLC positioning accuracy (<1.0 mm) than the 2300IX (<2.5 mm) following delivery of the plans created by each centre and also the standard plan. In one case, log files provided evidence that reduced delivery accuracy was not associated with the linear accelerator model but was due to planning issues., Conclusion: Log files are useful in identifying differences between linear accelerator models and isolate errors during end-to-end testing in volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) audits. Log file analysis can rapidly eliminate the machine delivery from the process and divert attention with confidence to other aspects., Advances in Knowledge: Log file evaluation was shown to be an effective method to rapidly verify satisfactory treatment delivery when a dosimetric evaluation fails during end-to-end dosimetry audits. MLC RMS values for Varian TrueBeams were shown to be much smaller than those for Varian Clinacs for VMAT deliveries.

This study investigated the impact of beam complexities on planar quality assur-ance and plan quality robustness by introducing MLC errors in intensity-modulate radiation therapy. Forty patients' planar quality assurance (QA) plans were enrolled in this study, including 20 dynamic MLC (DMLC) IMRT plans and 20 static MLC (SMLC) IMRT plans. The total beam numbers were 150 and 160 for DMLC and SMLC, respectively. Six different magnitudes of MLC errors were introduced to these beams. Gamma pass rates were calculated by comparing error-free fluence and error-induced fluence. The plan quality variation was acquired by comparing PTV coverage. Eight complexity scores were calculated based on the beam flu-ence and the MLC sequence. The complexity scores include fractal dimension, monitor unit, modulation index, fluence map complexity, weighted average of field area, weighted average of field perimeter, and small aperture ratio (< 5 cm2 and < 50cm2). The Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was calculated to analyze the correlation between these scores and gamma pass rate and plan quality varia-tion. For planar QA, the most significant complexity index was fractal dimension for DMLC (p = -0.40) and weighted segment area for SMLC (p = 0.27) at low magnitude MLC error. For plan quality, the most significant complexity index was weighted segment perimeter for DMLC (p = 0.56) and weighted segment area for SMLC (p= 0.497) at low magnitude MLC error. The sensitivity of planar QA was weakly associated with the field complexity with low magnitude MLC error, but the plan quality robustness was associated with beam complexity. Plans with simple beams were more robust to MLC error.

The purpose of this study was to propose and evaluate a method of creating a synthetic CT (S-CT) from MRI simulation for dose calculation and daily CBCT localization. A pair of MR and CT images was obtained in the same day from each of 10 prostate patients. The pair of MR and CT images was preregistered using the deformable image registration (DIR). Using the corresponding displacement vector field (atlas-DVF), the CT image was deformed to the MR image to create an atlas MR-CT pair. Regions of interest (ROI) on the atlas MR-CT pair were delineated and used to create atlas-ROI masks. 'Leave-one-out' test (one pair of MR and CT was used as subject-MR and subject-CT for evaluation, and the remaining 9 pairs were in the atlas library) was performed. For a subject-MR, autosegmentation and DVFs were generated using DIR between the subject-MR and the 9 atlas-MRs. An S-CT was then generated using the corresponding 9 paired atlas-CTs, the 9 atlas-DVFs and the corresponding atlas-ROI masks. The total 10 S-CTs were evaluated using the Hounsfield unit (HU), the calculated dose distribution, and the auto bony registration to daily CBCT images with respect to the 10 subject-CTs. HU differences (mean ± STD) were (2.4 ± 25.23), (1.18 ± 39.49), (32.46 ± 81.9), (0.23 ± 40.13), and (3.74 ± 144.76) for prostate, bladder, rectal wall, soft tissue outside all ROIs, and bone, respectively. The discrepancy of dose-volume param-eters calculated using the S-CT for treatment planning was small (≤ 0.22% with 95% confidence). Gamma pass rate (2% & 2 mm) was higher than 99.86% inside PTV and 98.45% inside normal structures. Using the 10 S-CTs as the reference CT for daily CBCT localization achieved the similar results compared to using the subject-CT. The translational vector differences were within 1.08 mm (0.37 ± 0.23 mm), and the rotational differences were within 1.1° in all three directions. S-CT created from a simulation MR image using the proposed approach with the preconstructed atlas library can replace the planning CT for dose calculation and daily CBCT image guidance.

The aims of this study were to develop a method for automatic and immediate verification of treatment delivery after each treatment fraction in order to detect and correct errors, and to develop a comprehensive daily report which includes delivery verification results, daily image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) review, and information for weekly physics reviews. After systematically analyzing the requirements for treatment delivery verification and understanding the available information from a commercial MRI-guided radiotherapy treatment machine, we designed a procedure to use 1) treatment plan files, 2) delivery log files, and 3) beam output information to verify the accuracy and completeness of each daily treatment delivery. The procedure verifies the correctness of delivered treatment plan parameters including beams, beam segments and, for each segment, the beam-on time and MLC leaf positions. For each beam, composite primary fluence maps are calculated from the MLC leaf positions and segment beam-on time. Error statistics are calculated on the fluence difference maps between the plan and the delivery. A daily treatment delivery report is designed to include all required information for IGRT and weekly physics reviews including the plan and treatment fraction information, daily beam output information, and the treatment delivery verification results. A computer program was developed to implement the proposed procedure of the automatic delivery verification and daily report generation for an MRI guided radiation therapy system. The program was clinically commissioned. Sensitivity was measured with simulated errors. The final version has been integrated into the com-mercial version of the treatment delivery system. The method automatically verifies the EBRT treatment deliveries and generates the daily treatment reports. Already in clinical use for over one year, it is useful to facilitate delivery error detection, and to expedite physician daily IGRT review and physicist weekly chart review.

This is the official guideline endorsed by the specialty associations involved in the care of head and neck cancer patients in the UK. Although much commoner in the eastern hemisphere, with an age-standardised incidence rate of 0.39 per 100 000 population, cancers of the nasopharynx form one of the rarer subsites in the head and neck.1 This paper provides recommendations on the work up and management of nasopharyngeal cancer based on the existing evidence base for this condition. Recommendations • Patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) should be assessed with rigid and fibre-optic nasendoscopy. (R) • Nasopharyngeal biopsies should be preferably carried out endoscopically. (R) • Multislice computed tomographic (CT) scan of head, neck and chest should be carried out in all patients and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) where appropriate to optimise staging. (R) • Radiotherapy (RT) is the mainstay for the radical treatment for NPC. (R) • Concurrent chemoradiotherapy offers significant improvement in overall survival in stage III and IV diseases. (R) • Surgery should only be used to obtain tissue for diagnosis and to deal with otitis media with effusion. (R) • Radiation therapy is the treatment of choice for stage I and II disease. (R) • Intensity modulated radiation therapy techniques should be employed. (R) • Concurrent chemotherapy with radiation therapy is the treatment of choice for stage III and IV disease. (R) • Patients with NPC should be followed-up and assessed with rigid and/or fibre-optic nasendoscopy. (G) • Positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT), CT or MRI scan should be carried out at three months from completion of treatment to assess response. (R) • Multislice CT scan of head, neck and chest should be carried out in all patients and MRI scan whenever possible and specially in advanced cases with suspected recurrence. (R) • Surgery in form of nasopharyngectomy should be considered as a first line treatment of residual or recurrent disease at the primary site. (R) • Neck dissection remains the treatment of choice for residual or metastatic neck disease whenever possible. (R) • Re-irradiation should be considered as a second line of treatment in recurrent disease. (R).

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to summarize the findings of anthropomorphic proton phantom irradiations analyzed by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Houston QA Center (IROC Houston)., Methods and Materials: A total of 103 phantoms were irradiated by proton therapy centers participating in clinical trials. The anthropomorphic phantoms simulated heterogeneous anatomy of a head, liver, lung, prostate, and spine. Treatment plans included those for scattered, uniform scanning, and pencil beam scanning beam delivery modalities using 5 different treatment planning systems. For every phantom irradiation, point doses and planar doses were measured using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) and film, respectively. Differences between measured and planned doses were studied as a function of phantom, beam delivery modality, motion, repeat attempt, treatment planning system, and date of irradiation., Results: The phantom pass rate (overall, 79%) was high for simple phantoms and lower for phantoms that introduced higher levels of difficulty, such as motion, multiple targets, or increased heterogeneity. All treatment planning systems overestimated dose to the target, compared to TLD measurements. Errors in range calculation resulted in several failed phantoms. There was no correlation between treatment planning system and pass rate. The pass rates for each individual phantom are not improving over time, but when individual institutions received feedback about failed phantom irradiations, pass rates did improve., Conclusions: The proton phantom pass rates are not as high as desired and emphasize potential deficiencies in proton therapy planning and/or delivery. There are many areas for improvement with the proton phantom irradiations, such as treatment planning system dose agreement, range calculations, accounting for motion, and irradiation of multiple targets., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: The quality of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) highly depends on the choice of beam orientations and optimization algorithms used in the treatment planning. The present work reports dosimetric study of IMRT plans generated using preselected equiangular beam orientations (PSBO) and beam angle optimization (BAO) for the patients of prostate, head and neck, and esophagus carcinoma., Materials and Methods: The computed tomography (CT) datasets of 30 patients treated with IMRT for prostate, head and neck, and esophagus carcinoma were selected. Two IMRT plans were made for each patient. First plan was prepared for seven to nine fields PSBO in coplanar arrangement. The second plan was made using the BAO by a computerized algorithm compatible treatment planning system (TPS). The dose-volume histograms (DVHs) of PSBO and BAO plans were compared for all the patients. The treatment plans were compared using the parameters delivered monitor units (MUs), doses delivered to organs at risk (OARs), target coverage (conformity index (CI)), homogeneity index (HI), and quality index (QI)., Results: DVHs generated showed that OARs receive almost identical or slightly better doses in case of BAO as compared to PSBO. CI, HI, and QI values were almost same for two plans. However, we have noticed significant reduction in MUs for all the plans generated using BAO., Conclusions: It is concluded that BAO provides superior plan with respect to MUs and should be used whenever possible in IMRT planning.

Purpose: The gamma comparison is widely used to evaluate the agreement between measurements and treatment planning system calculations in patient-specific intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA). However, recent publications have raised concerns about the lack of sensitivity when employing commonly used gamma criteria. Understanding the actual sensitivity of a wide range of different gamma criteria may allow the definition of more meaningful gamma criteria and tolerance limits in IMRT QA. We present a method that allows the quantitative determination of gamma criteria sensitivity to induced errors which can be applied to any unique combination of device, delivery technique, and software utilized in a specific clinic., Methods: A total of 21 DMLC IMRT QA measurements (ArcCHECK®, Sun Nuclear) were compared to QA plan calculations with induced errors. Three scenarios were studied: MU errors, multi-leaf collimator (MLC) errors, and the sensitivity of the gamma comparison to changes in penumbra width. Gamma comparisons were performed between measurements and error-induced calculations using a wide range of gamma criteria, resulting in a total of over 20 000 gamma comparisons. Gamma passing rates for each error class and case were graphed against error magnitude to create error curves in order to represent the range of missed errors in routine IMRT QA using 36 different gamma criteria., Results: This study demonstrates that systematic errors and case-specific errors can be detected by the error curve analysis. Depending on the location of the error curve peak (e.g., not centered about zero), 3%/3 mm threshold = 10% at 90% pixels passing may miss errors as large as 15% MU errors and ±1 cm random MLC errors for some cases. As the dose threshold parameter was increased for a given %Diff/distance-to-agreement (DTA) setting, error sensitivity was increased by up to a factor of two for select cases. This increased sensitivity with increasing dose threshold was consistent across all studied combinations of %Diff/DTA. Criteria such as 2%/3 mm and 3%/2 mm with a 50% threshold at 90% pixels passing are shown to be more appropriately sensitive without being overly strict. However, a broadening of the penumbra by as much as 5 mm in the beam configuration was difficult to detect with commonly used criteria, as well as with the previously mentioned criteria utilizing a threshold of 50%., Conclusions: We have introduced the error curve method, an analysis technique which allows the quantitative determination of gamma criteria sensitivity to induced errors. The application of the error curve method using DMLC IMRT plans measured on the ArcCHECK® device demonstrated that large errors can potentially be missed in IMRT QA with commonly used gamma criteria (e.g., 3%/3 mm, threshold = 10%, 90% pixels passing). Additionally, increasing the dose threshold value can offer dramatic increases in error sensitivity. This approach may allow the selection of more meaningful gamma criteria for IMRT QA and is straightforward to apply to other combinations of devices and treatment techniques.

Purpose: Kilovoltage intrafraction monitoring (KIM) is a new real-time 3-dimensional image guidance method. Unlike previous real-time image guidance methods, KIM uses a standard linear accelerator without any additional equipment needed. The first prospective clinical trial of KIM is underway for prostate cancer radiation therapy. In this paper we report on the measured motion accuracy and precision using real-time KIM-guided gating., Methods and Materials: Imaging and motion information from the first 200 fractions from 6 patient prostate cancer radiation therapy volumetric modulated arc therapy treatments were analyzed. A 3-mm/5-second action threshold was used to trigger a gating event where the beam is paused and the couch position adjusted to realign the prostate to the treatment isocenter. To quantify the in vivo accuracy and precision, KIM was compared with simultaneously acquired kV/MV triangulation for 187 fractions., Results: KIM was successfully used in 197 of 200 fractions. Gating events occurred in 29 fractions (14.5%). In these 29 fractions, the percentage of beam-on time, the prostate displacement was >3 mm from the isocenter position, reduced from 73% without KIM to 24% with KIM-guided gating. Displacements >5 mm were reduced from 16% without KIM to 0% with KIM. The KIM accuracy was measured at <0.3 mm in all 3 dimensions. The KIM precision was <0.6 mm in all 3 dimensions., Conclusions: Clinical implementation of real-time KIM image guidance combined with gating for prostate cancer eliminates large prostate displacements during treatment delivery. Both in vivo KIM accuracy and precision are well below 1 mm., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: To dosimetrically compare the fixed gantry intensity modulated radiosurgery (IMRS) with dynamic conformal arc radiosurgery (DCARS) for cranial lesions. This study investigates whether IMRS can be an adequate dosimetric alternative to DCARS for cranial stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS)., Subjects and Methods: Forty-five SRS procedures for solitary brain metastasis (range: 0.44-29.18 cm 3) performed at our institution were selected for this study. Two plans were generated per patient: One IMRS plan using a multileaf collimation (MLC) of 5 mm, and one DCARS plan designed with a 3 mm micro-MLC. Dosimetric comparison metrics include the target coverage (Cov), conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), gradient index (GI), and volume of the normal brain tissue receiving ≥12 Gy (V12). In addition, maximum doses to organs at risk (OAR) (brainstem, optic apparatus and cochlea) were compared for both techniques., Results: Compared to DCARS, IMRS improved mean CI (IMRS: 0.81 vs., Dcars: 0.63, P < 0.001), with no significant difference in target Cov (IMRS: 0.99 vs., Dcars: 0.99, P > 0.05), HI (IMRS: 1.22 vs., Dcars: 1.24, P > 0.05), GI (IMRS: 5.44 vs., Dacrs: 5.44, P > 0.05). A weak significant difference in V12 (IMRS: 4.6 cm 3 vs. 5.2 cm 3, P = 0.033) was obtained. Subgroup analysis per target volume (small: <1 cm 3, intermediate: ≤1 cm 3 and <5 cm 3 and large: ≥5 cm 3) only revealed the statistically difference for CI metric (P < 0.001). No significant differences were found for maximum dose to the OAR., Conclusions: We have shown that IMRS provides the dosimetric advantages compared with DCARS. Based on the dosimetric findings in this study, fixed gantry IMRS technique can be adopted as a standard procedure for cranial SRS when micro-MLC technology is not available on the linear accelerator.

The objective of this work is to present commissioning procedures to clinically implement a three-dimensional (3D), image-based, treatment-planning system (TPS) for high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy (BT) for gynecological (GYN) cancer. The physical dimensions of the GYN applicators and their values in the virtual applicator library were varied by 0.4 mm of their nominal values. Reconstruction uncertainties of the titanium tandem and ovoids (T&O) were less than 0.4 mm on CT phantom studies and on average between 0.8-1.0 mm on MRI when compared with X-rays. In-house software, HDRCalculator, was developed to check HDR plan parameters such as independently verifying active tandem or cylinder probe length and ovoid or cylinder size, source calibration and treatment date, and differences between average Point A dose and prescription dose. Dose-volume histograms were validated using another independent TPS. Comprehensive procedures to commission volume optimization algorithms and process in 3D image-based planning were presented. For the difference between line and volume optimizations, the average absolute differences as a percentage were 1.4% for total reference air KERMA (TRAK) and 1.1% for Point A dose. Volume optimization consistency tests between versions resulted in average absolute differences in 0.2% for TRAK and 0.9 s (0.2%) for total treatment time. The data revealed that the optimizer should run for at least 1 min in order to avoid more than 0.6% dwell time changes. For clinical GYN T&O cases, three different volume optimization techniques (graphical optimization, pure inverse planning, and hybrid inverse optimization) were investigated by comparing them against a conventional Point A technique. End-to-end testing was performed using a T&O phantom to ensure no errors or inconsistencies occurred from imaging through to planning and delivery. The proposed commissioning procedures provide a clinically safe implementation technique for 3D image-based TPS for HDR BT for GYN cancer.

Our study aimed to quantify the effect of the Measurement Uncertainty function on planar dosimetry pass rates, as measured and analyzed with the Sun Nuclear Corporation MapCHECK 2 array and its associated software. This optional function is toggled in the program preferences of the software (though turned on by default upon installation), and automatically increases the dose difference tolerance defined by the user for each planar dose comparison. Dose planes from 109 static-gantry IMRT fields and 40 VMAT arcs, of varying modulation complexity, were measured at 5 cm water-equivalent depth in the MapCHECK 2 diode array, and respective calculated dose planes were exported from a commercial treatment planning system. Planar dose comparison pass rates were calculated within the Sun Nuclear Corporation analytic software using a number of calculation parameters, including Measurement Uncertainty on and off. By varying the percent difference (%Diff) criterion for similar analyses performed with Measurement Uncertainty turned off, an effective %Diff criterion was defined for each field/arc corresponding to the pass rate achieved with Measurement Uncertainty turned on. On average, the Measurement Uncertainty function increases the user-defined %Diff criterion by 0.8%-1.1% for 3%/3 mm analysis, depending on plan type and calculation technique (corresponding to an average change in pass rate of 1.0%-3.5%, and a maximum change of 8.7%). At the 2%/2 mm level, the Measurement Uncertainty function increases the user-defined %Diff criterion by 0.7%-1.2% on average, again depending on plan type and calculation technique (corresponding to an average change in pass rate of 3.5%-8.1%, and a maximum change of 14.2%). The largest increases in pass rate due to the Measurement Uncertainty function are generally seen with poorly matched planar dose comparisons, while the function has a notably smaller effect as pass rates approach 100%. The Measurement Uncertainty function, then, may substantially increase the pass rates for planar dose comparisons. Meanwhile, the types of uncertainties incorporated into the function (and their associated quantitative estimates, as described in the software user's manual) may not be an accurate estimation of actual measurement uncertainty, depending on the user's measurement conditions. Pass rates listed in published reports, comparisons between institutions or simply separate workstations, or comparisons with the calculation methods of other vendors, should clearly indicate whether or not the Measurement Uncertainty function is used, since it has the potential to substantially inflate pass rates for typical IMRT and VMAT dose planes.

If a prostate intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan has protocol violations, it is often a challenge knowing whether this is due to unfavorable anatomy or suboptimal planning. This study aimed to create a model to predict protocol violations based on patient anatomical variables and their potential relationship to target and organ at risk (OAR) end points in the setting of definitive, dose-escalated IMRT/VMAT prostate planning. Radiotherapy plans from 200 consecutive patients treated with definitive radiation for prostate cancer using IMRT or VMAT were analyzed. The first 100 patient plans (hypothesis-generating cohort) were examined to identify anatomical variables that predict for dosimetric outcome, in particular OAR end points. Variables that scored significance were further assessed for their ability to predict protocol violations using a Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis. These results were then validated in a second group of 100 patients (validation cohort). In the initial analysis of the hypothesis-generating cohort, percentage of rectum overlap in the planning target volume (PTV) (%OR) and percentage of bladder overlap in the PTV (%OB) were highlighted as significant predictors of rectal and bladder dosimetry. Lymph node treatment was also significant for bladder outcomes. For the validation cohort, CART analysis showed that %OR of < 6%, 6% to 9% and > 9% predicted a 13%, 63%, and 100% rate of rectal protocol violations respectively. For the bladder, %OB of < 9% vs > 9% is associated with 13% vs 88% rate of bladder constraint violations when lymph nodes were not treated. If nodal irradiation was delivered, plans with a %OB of < 9% had a 59% risk of violations. Percentage of rectum and bladder within the PTV can be used to identify individual plan potential to achieve dose-volume histogram (DVH) constraints. A model based on these factors could be used to reduce planning time, improve work flow, and strengthen plan quality and consistency., (Copyright © 2016 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The gamma index pass rate (%GP) of 384 helical Tomotherapy pre-patient quality assurance, acquired with ArcCHECK, is presented, analyzed, and correlated to plan characteristics. Average %GP was higher than 90% and correlated strongly with gamma method, irradiated length, pitch, maximum dose to diodes, and dose per fraction., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The aim of this work was to use a multicenter audit of modulated radiotherapy quality assurance (QA) data to provide a practical examination of gamma evaluation criteria and action level selection. The use of the gamma evaluation method for patient-specific pretreatment QA is widespread, with most commercial solutions implementing the method., Methods: Gamma agreement indices were calculated using the criteria 1%/1 mm, 2%/2 mm, 2%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm, 3%/3 mm, and 5%/3 mm for 1265 pretreatment QA measurements, planned at seven treatment centers, using four different treatment planning systems, delivered using three different delivery systems (intensity-modulated radiation therapy, volumetric-modulated arc therapy, and helical tomotherapy) and measured using three different dose measurement systems. The sensitivity of each pair of gamma criteria was evaluated relative to the gamma agreement indices calculated using 3%/3 mm., Results: A linear relationship was observed for 2%/2 mm, 2%/3 mm, and 3%/2 mm. This result implies that most beams failing at 3%/3 mm would also fail for those criteria, if the action level was adjusted appropriately. Some borderline plans might be passed or failed depending on the relative priority (tighter tolerance) used for dose difference or distance to agreement evaluation. Dosimeter resolution and treatment modality were found to have a smaller effect on the results of QA measurements than the number of dimensions (2D or 3D) over which the gamma evaluation was calculated., Conclusions: This work provides a method (and a large sample of results) for calculating equivalent action levels for different gamma evaluation criteria. This work constitutes a valuable guide for clinical decision making and a means to compare published gamma evaluation results from studies using different evaluation criteria. More generally, the data provided by this work support the recommendation that gamma criteria that specifically prioritize the property of greatest clinical importance for each treatment modality of anatomical site should be selected when using gamma evaluations for modulated radiotherapy QA. It is therefore suggested that departments using the gamma evaluation as a QA analysis tool should consider the relative importance of dose difference and distance to agreement, when selecting gamma evaluation criteria.

Purpose: Over the past decade, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has replaced conventional radiation techniques in the management of head-and-neck cancers (HNCs). We conducted this population-based study to evaluate the influence of radiation oncologist experience on outcomes in patients with HNC treated with IMRT compared with patients with HNC treated with conventional radiation therapy., Methods: We identified radiation providers from Medicare claims of 6,212 Medicare beneficiaries with HNC treated between 2000 and 2009. We analyzed the impact of provider volume on all-cause mortality, HNC mortality, and toxicity end points after treatment with either conventional radiation therapy or IMRT. All analyses were performed by using either multivariable Cox proportional hazards or Fine-Gray regression models controlling for potential confounding variables., Results: Among patients treated with conventional radiation, we found no significant relationship between provider volume and patient survival or any toxicity end point. Among patients receiving IMRT, those treated by higher-volume radiation oncologists had improved survival compared with those treated by low-volume providers. The risk of all-cause mortality decreased by 21% for every additional five patients treated per provider per year (hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.94). Patients treated with IMRT by higher-volume providers had decreased HNC-specific mortality (subdistribution HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.91) and decreased risk of aspiration pneumonia (subdistribution HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.99)., Conclusion: Patients receiving IMRT for HNC had improved outcomes when treated by higher-volume providers. These findings will better inform patients and providers when making decisions about treatment, and emphasize the critical importance of high-quality radiation therapy for optimal treatment of HNC., (© 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

The purpose of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the results from a Helical TomoTherapy Hi-Art treatment system relating to quality controls based on daily static and dynamic output checks using statistical process control methods. Individual value X-charts, exponentially weighted moving average charts, and process capability and acceptability indices were used to monitor the treatment system performance. Daily output values measured from January 2014 to January 2015 were considered. The results obtained showed that, although the process was in control, there was an out-of-control situation in the principal maintenance intervention for the treatment system. In particular, process capability indices showed a decreasing percentage of points in control which was, however, acceptable according to AAPM TG148 guidelines. Our findings underline the importance of restricting the acceptable range of daily output checks and suggest a future line of investigation for a detailed process control of daily output checks for the Helical TomoTherapy Hi-Art treatment system.

Radiochromic films are dosimeters with more favorable characteristics than other two-dimensional (2D) radiation detectors. Transmission film scanners using a linear charge-coupled device (CCD) array have a drawback of variation in response along the detector array, which may result in a nonuniform transmission of signal over the scanned image. This study uses 2D gamma index analysis to compare two methods for correcting the nonuniform response of EBT2: the first method was based on the new red:blue method proposed by the manufacturer (to compensate for small nonuniformities in the film coating) and the second method, proposed by Menegotti et al. (2008), was based on dose-dependent matrix correction factors. The gamma index analysis shows that both the methods are comparably accurate for all the criteria values used for evaluation (1 mm/1%, 2 mm/2%, 3 mm/3%). Centers around the world use both the methods to correct EBT2 local heterogeneities, but it is important to note that the former method has several advantages such as less time consumption and easy implementation., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine a method of dose prescription that minimizes normal tissue irradiation outside the planning target volume (PTV) during stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for patients with non-small cell lung cancer., Methods: Previous research and patients with typical T1 lung tumors with peripheral lesions in the lung were selected for analysis. A PTV and several organs at risk (OARs) were constructed for the dose calculated; six treatment plans employing intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) were produced, in which the dose was prescribed to encompass the PTV, with the prescription isodose level (PIL) set at 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 or 95% of the isocenter dose. Additionally, four OARs around the PTV were constructed to evaluate the dose received in adjacent tissues., Results: The use of higher PILs for SBRT resulted in improved sparing of OARs, with the exception of the volume of lung treated with a lower dose., Conclusions: The use of lower PILs is likely to create significant inhomogeneity of the dose delivered to the target, which may be beneficial for the control of tumors with poor conformity indices.

Purpose: To systematically evaluate machine specific quality assurance (QA) for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) based on log files by applying a dynamic benchmark plan., Methods and Materials: A VMAT benchmark plan was created and tested on 18 Elekta linacs (13 MLCi or MLCi2, 5 Agility) at 4 different institutions. Linac log files were analyzed and a delivery robustness index was introduced. For dosimetric measurements an ionization chamber array was used. Relative dose deviations were assessed by mean gamma for each control point and compared to the log file evaluation., Results: Fourteen linacs delivered the VMAT benchmark plan, while 4 linacs failed by consistently terminating the delivery. The mean leaf error (±1SD) was 0.3±0.2 mm for all linacs. Large MLC maximum errors up to 6.5 mm were observed at reversal positions. Delivery robustness index accounting for MLC position correction (0.8-1.0) correlated with delivery time (80-128 s) and depended on dose rate performance. Dosimetric evaluation indicated in general accurate plan reproducibility with γ(mean)(±1 SD)=0.4±0.2 for 1 mm/1%. However single control point analysis revealed larger deviations and attributed well to log file analysis., Conclusion: The designed benchmark plan helped identify linac related malfunctions in dynamic mode for VMAT. Log files serve as an important additional QA measure to understand and visualize dynamic linac parameters., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 119 instructed institutions to use a low-dose threshold of 10% or a region of interest determined by the jaw setting when they collected gamma analysis quality assurance (QA) data for the planar dose distribution. However, there are no clinical data to quantitatively demonstrate the impact of the low-dose threshold on the gamma index. Therefore, we performed a gamma analysis with various low-dose thresholds in the range of 0% to 15% according to both global and local normalization and different acceptance criteria (3%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm, and 1%/1 mm). A total of 30 treatment plans--10 head and neck, 10 brain, and 10 prostate cancer cases--were randomly selected from the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS). For the gamma analysis, a calculated portal image was acquired through a portal dose calculation algorithm in the Eclipse TPS, and a measured portal image was obtained using an electronic portal-imaging device. Then, the gamma analysis was performed using the Portal Dosimetry software (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA). The gamma passing rate (%GP) for the global normalization decreased as the low-dose threshold increased, and all low-dose thresholds led to %GP values above 95% for both the 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm criteria. However, for the local normalization, %GP for a low-dose threshold of 10% was 7.47%, 10.23%, and 6.71% greater than the low-dose threshold of 0% for head and neck, brain, and prostate for the 3%/3 mm criteria, respectively. The results indicate that applying the low-dose threshold to global normalization does not have a critical impact on patient-specific QA results. However, in the local normalization, the low-dose threshold level should be carefully selected because the excluded low-dose points could cause the average %GP to increase rapidly.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the dosimetric profiles and delivery accuracy of running-start-stop (RSS) delivery in tomotherapy and to present initial quality assurance (QA) results on the accuracy of the dynamic jaw motion, dosimetric penumbrae of the RSS dynamic jaw and the static jaw were measured by radiographic films. Delivery accuracy of the RSS was evaluated by gamma analysis on film measurements of 12 phantom plans. Consistency in the performance of RSS was evaluated by QA procedures over the first nine months after the installation of the feature. These QA were devised to check: 1) positional accuracy of moving jaws; 2) consistency of relative radiation output collimated by discrete and continuously sweeping jaws; 3) consistency of field widths and profiles. In the longitudinal direction, the dose penumbra in RSS delivery was reduced from 17.3mm to 10.2 mm for 2.5 cm jaw, and from 33.2 mm to 9.6 mm for 5 cm jaw. Gamma analysis on the twelve plans revealed that over 90% of the voxels in the proximity of the penumbra region satisfied the gamma criteria of 2% dose difference and 2 mm distance-to-agreement. The initial QA results during the first nine months after installation of the RSS are presented. Jaw motion was shown to be accurate with maximum encoder error less than 0.42 mm. The consistency of relative output for discrete and continuously sweeping jaws was within 1.2%. Longitudinal radiation profiles agreed to the reference profile with maximum gamma < 1 and field width error < 1.8%. With the same jaw width, RSS showed better dose penumbrae compared to those from static jaw delivery. The initial QA results on the accuracy of moving jaws, reproducibility of dosimetric output and profiles were satisfactory.