Search

Beam scanning data collected on the tomotherapy linear accelerator using the TomoScanner water scanning system is primarily used to verify the golden beam profiles included in all Helical TomoTherapy treatment planning systems (TOMO TPSs). The user is not allowed to modify the beam profiles/parameters for beam modeling within the TOMO TPSs. The authors report the first feasibility study using the Blue Phantom Helix (BPH) as an alternative to the TomoScanner (TS) system. This work establishes a benchmark dataset using BPH for target commissioning and quality assurance (QA), and quantifies systematic uncertainties between TS and BPH. Reproducibility of scanning with BPH was tested by three experienced physicists taking five sets of measurements over a six-month period. BPH provides several enhancements over TS, including a 3D scanning arm, which is able to acquire necessary beam-data with one tank setup, a universal chamber mount, and the OmniPro software, which allows online data collection and analysis. Discrepancies between BPH and TS were estimated by acquiring datasets with each tank. In addition, data measured with BPH and TS was compared to the golden TOMO TPS beam data. The total systematic uncertainty, defined as the combination of scanning system and beam modeling uncertainties, was determined through numerical analysis and tabulated. OmniPro was used for all analysis to eliminate uncertainty due to different data processing algorithms. The setup reproducibility of BPH remained within 0.5 mm/0.5%. Comparing BPH, TS, and Golden TPS for PDDs beyond maximum depth, the total systematic uncertainties were within 1.4mm/2.1%. Between BPH and TPS golden data, maximum differences in the field width and penumbra of in-plane profiles were within 0.8 and 1.1 mm, respectively. Furthermore, in cross-plane profiles, the field width differences increased at depth greater than 10 cm up to 2.5 mm, and maximum penumbra uncertainties were 5.6mm and 4.6 mm from TS scanning system and TPS modeling, respectively. Use of BPH reduced measurement time by 1-2 hrs per session. The BPH has been assessed as an efficient, reproducible, and accurate scanning system capable of providing a reliable benchmark beam data. With this data, a physicist can utilize the BPH in a clinical setting with an understanding of the scan discrepancy that may be encountered while validating the TPS or during routine machine QA. Without the flexibility of modifying the TPS and without a golden beam dataset from the vendor or a TPS model generated from data collected with the BPH, this represents the best solution for current clinical use of the BPH.

Purpose To evaluate the Mobius second‐check dosimetry system by comparing it to ionization‐chamber dose measurements collected in the recently released Mobius Verification Phantom™ (MVP). For reference, a comparison of these measurements to dose calculated in the primary treatment planning system (TPS), Varian Eclipse with the AcurosXB dose algorithm, is also provided. Finally, patient dose calculated in Mobius is compared directly to Eclipse to demonstrate typical expected results during clinical use of the Mobius system. Methods Seventeen anonymized intensity‐modulated clinical treatment plans were selected for analysis. Dose was recalculated on the MVP in both Eclipse and Mobius. These calculated doses were compared to doses measured using an A1SL ionization‐chamber in the MVP. Dose was measured and analyzed at two different chamber positions for each treatment plan. Mobius calculated dose was then compared directly to Eclipse using the following metrics; target mean dose, target D95%, global 3D gamma pass rate, and target gamma pass rate. Finally, these same metrics were used to analyze the first 36 intensity modulated cases, following clinical implementation of the Mobius system. Results The average difference between Mobius and measurement was 0.3 ± 1.3%. Differences ranged from −3.3 to + 2.2%. The average difference between Eclipse and measurement was −1.2 ± 0.7%. Eclipse vs. measurement differences ranged from −3.0 to −0.1%. For the 17 anonymized pre‐clinical cases, the average target mean dose difference between Mobius and Eclipse was 1.0 ± 1.1%. Average target D95% difference was ‐0.9 ± 2.0%. Average global gamma pass rate, using a criteria of 3%, 2 mm, was 94.4 ± 3.3%, and average gamma pass rate for the target volume only was 80.2 ± 12.3%. Results of the first 36 intensity‐modulated cases, post‐clinical implementation of Mobius, were similar to those seen for the 17 pre‐clinical test cases. Conclusion Mobius correctly calculated dose for each tested intensity modulated treatment plan, agreeing with measurement to within 3.5% for all cases analyzed. The dose calculation accuracy and independence of the Mobius system is sufficient to provide a rigorous second‐check of a modern TPS.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of using a single QA device for comprehensive, efficient daily QA of a linear accelerator (Linac) and three image‐guided stereotactic positioning systems (IGSPSs). The Sun Nuclear Daily QA 3 (DQA3) device was used to perform daily dosimetry and mechanical accuracy tests for an Elekta Linac, as well as daily image geometric and isocenter coincidence accuracy tests for three IGSPSs: the AlignRT surface imaging system; the frameless SonArray optical tracking System (FSA) and the Elekta kV CBCT. The DQA3 can also be used for couch positioning, repositioning, and rotational tests during the monthly QA. Based on phantom imaging, the Linac coordinate system determined using AlignRT was within 0.7 mm/0.6° of that of the CBCT system. The difference is attributable to the different calibration methods that are utilized for these two systems. The laser alignment was within 0.5 mm of the isocenter location determined with the three IGSPSs. The ODI constancy was ± 0.5 mm. For gantry and table angles of 0°, the mean isocenter displacement vectors determined using the three systems were within 0.7 mm and 0.6° of one another. Isocenter rotational offsets measured with the systems were all ≤ 0.5°. For photon and electron beams tested over a period of eight months, the output was verified to remain within 2%, energy variations were within 2%, and the symmetry and flatness were within 1%. The field size and light‐radiation coincidence were within 1mm ± 1 mm. For dosimetry reproducibility, the standard deviation was within 0.2% for all tests and all energies, except for photon energy variation which was 0.6%. The total measurement time for all tasks took less than 15 minutes per QA session compared to 40 minutes with our previous procedure, which utilized an individual QA device for each IGSPS. The DQA3 can be used for accurate and efficient Linac and IGSPS daily QA. It shortens QA device setup time, eliminates errors introduced by changing phantoms to perform different tests, and streamlines the task of performing dosimetric checks. PACS number: 87.56.Fc

The purpose was to determine dose‐delivery errors resulting from systematic rotational setup errors for fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy using direct simulation in a treatment planning system. Ten patients with brain tumors who received intensity‐modulated radiotherapy had dose distributions re‐evaluated to assess the impact of systematic rotational setup errors. The dosimetric effect of rotational setup errors was simulated by rotating images and contours using a 3 by 3 rotational matrix. Combined rotational errors of ± 1°,± 3°,± 5° and ± 7° and residual translation errors of 1 mm along each axis were simulated. Dosimetric effects of the rotated images were evaluated by recomputing dose distributions and compared with the original plan. The mean volume of CTV that received the prescription dose decreased from 99.3%± 0.5% (original) to 98.6%± 1.6% (± 1°), 97.0%± 2.0% (± 3°), 93.1%± 4.6% (± 5°), and 87.8%± 14.2% (± 7°). Minimal changes in the cold and hot spots were seen in the CTV. In general, the increase in the volumes of the organs at risk (OARs) receiving the tolerance doses was small and did not exceed the tolerance, except for cases where the OARs were in close proximity to the PTV. For intracranial tumors treated with IMRT with a CTV‐to‐PTV margin of 3 mm, rotational setup errors of 3° or less didn't decrease the CTV coverage to less than 95% in most cases. However, for large targets with irregular or elliptical shapes, the target coverage decreased significantly as rotational errors of 5° or more were present. Our results indicate that setup margins are warranted even in the absence of translational setup errors to account for rotational setup errors. Rotational setup errors should be evaluated carefully for clinical cases involving large tumor sizes and for targets with elliptical or irregular shape, as well as when isocenter is away from the center of the PTV or OARs are in close proximity to the target volumes. PACS number: 87.53.Bn

Purpose: The AlignRT 3 C system is an image-guided stereotactic positioning system (IGSPS) that provides real-time target localization. This study involves the first use of this system with three camera pods. The authors have evaluated its localization accuracy and tracking ability using a cone-beam computed tomography(CBCT) system and an optical tracking system in a clinical setting. Methods: A modified Rando head-and-neck phantom and five patients receiving intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) were used to evaluate the calibration, registration, and position-tracking accuracies of the AlignRT 3 C system and to study surface reconstruction uncertainties, including the effects due to interfractional and intrafractional motion, skin tone, room light level, camera temperature, and image registration region of interest selection. System accuracy was validated through comparison with the Elekta kV CBCT system (XVI) and the Varian frameless SonArray (FSA) optical tracking system. Surface-image data sets were acquired with the AlignRT 3 C daily for the evaluation of pretreatment and interfractional and intrafractional motion for each patient. Results for two different reference image sets, planning CT surface contours (CT_S) and previously recorded AlignRT 3 C optical surface images (ART_S), are reported. Results: The system origin displacements for the AlignRT 3 C and XVI systems agreed to within 1.3 mm and 0.7°. Similar results were seen for AlignRT 3 C vs FSA. For the phantom displacements having couch angles of 0°, those that utilized ART_S references resulted in a mean difference of 0.9 mm/0.4° with respect to XVI and 0.3 mm/0.2° with respect to FSA. For phantom displacements of more than ±10 mm and ±3°, the maximum discrepancies between AlignRT and the XVI and FSA systems were 3.0 and 0.4 mm, respectively. For couch angles up to ±90°, the mean (max.) difference between the AlignRT 3 C and FSA was 1.2 (2.3) mm/0.7° (1.2°). For all tests, the mean registration errors obtained using the CT_S references were approximately 1.3 mm/1.0° larger than those obtained using the ART_S references. For the patient study, the mean differences in the pretreatment displacements were 0.3 mm/0.2° between the AlignRT 3 C and XVI systems and 1.3 mm/1° between the FSA and XVI systems. For noncoplanar treatments, interfractional motion displacements obtained using the ART_S and CT_S references resulted in 90th percentile differences within 2.1 mm/0.8° and 3.3 mm/0.3°, respectively, compared to the FSA system. Intrafractional displacements that were tracked for a maximum of 14 min were within 1 mm/1° of those obtained with the FSA system. Uncertainties introduced by the bite-tray were as high as 3 mm/2° for one patient. The combination of gantry, aSi detector panel, and x-ray tube blockage effects during the CBCT acquisition resulted in a registration error of approximately 3 mm. No skin-tone or surface deformation effects were seen with the limited patient sample. Conclusions: AlignRT 3 C can be used as a nonionizing IGSPS with accuracy comparable to current image/marker-based systems. IGSPS and CBCT can be combined for high-precision positioning without the need for patient-attached localization devices.

The AlignRT3C system is an image-guided stereotactic positioning system (IGSPS) that provides real-time target localization. This study involves the first use of this system with three camera pods. The authors have evaluated its localization accuracy and tracking ability using a cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) system and an optical tracking system in a clinical setting.A modified Rando head-and-neck phantom and five patients receiving intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) were used to evaluate the calibration, registration, and position-tracking accuracies of the AlignRT3C system and to study surface reconstruction uncertainties, including the effects due to interfractional and intrafractional motion, skin tone, room light level, camera temperature, and image registration region of interest selection. System accuracy was validated through comparison with the Elekta kV CBCT system (XVI) and the Varian frameless SonArray (FSA) optical tracking system. Surface-image data sets were acquired with the AlignRT3C daily for the evaluation of pretreatment and interfractional and intrafractional motion for each patient. Results for two different reference image sets, planning CT surface contours (CTS) and previously recorded AlignRT3C optical surface images (ARTS), are reported.The system origin displacements for the AlignRT3C and XVI systems agreed to within 1.3 mm and 0.7 degrees. Similar results were seen for AlignRT3C vs FSA. For the phantom displacements having couch angles of 0 degrees, those that utilized ART_S references resulted in a mean difference of 0.9 mm/0.4 degrees with respect to XVI and 0.3 mm/0.2 degrees with respect to FSA. For phantom displacements of more than +/- 10 mm and +/- 3 degrees, the maximum discrepancies between AlignRT and the XVI and FSA systems were 3.0 and 0.4 mm, respectively. For couch angles up to +/- 90 degrees, the mean (max.) difference between the AlignRT3C and FSA was 1.2 (2.3) mm/0.7 degrees (1.2 degrees). For all tests, the mean registration errors obtained using the CT_S references were approximately 1.3 mm/1.0 degrees larger than those obtained using the ART_S references. For the patient study, the mean differences in the pretreatment displacements were 0.3 mm/0.2 degrees between the AlignRT3C and XVI systems and 1.3 mm/1 degrees between the FSA and XVI systems. For noncoplanar treatments, interfractional motion displacements obtained using the ART_S and CT_S references resulted in 90th percentile differences within 2.1 mm/0.8 degrees and 3.3 mm/0.3 degrees, respectively, compared to the FSA system. Intrafractional displacements that were tracked for a maximum of 14 min were within 1 mm/1 degrees of those obtained with the FSA system. Uncertainties introduced by the bite-tray were as high as 3 mm/2 degrees for one patient. The combination of gantry, aSi detector panel, and x-ray tube blockage effects during the CBCT acquisition resulted in a registration error of approximately 3 mm. No skin-tone or surface deformation effects were seen with the limited patient sample.AlignRT3C can be used as a nonionizing IGSPS with accuracy comparable to current image/marker-based systems. IGSPS and CBCT can be combined for high-precision positioning without the need for patient-attached localization devices.