Micro ionization chamber dosimetry in IMRT verification: clinical implications of dosimetric errors in the PTV.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Absolute dose measurements for Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) beamlets is difficult due to the lack of lateral electron equilibrium. Recently we found that the absolute dosimetry in the penumbra region of the IMRT beamlet, can suffer from significant errors (Capote et al., Med Phys 31 (2004) 2416-2422). This work has the goal to estimate the error made when measuring the Planning Target Volume's (PTV) absolute dose by a micro ion chamber (microIC) in typical IMRT treatment. The dose error comes from the assumption that the dosimetric parameters determining the absolute dose are the same as for the reference conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two IMRT treatment plans for common prostate carcinoma case, derived by forward and inverse optimisation, were considered. Detailed geometrical simulation of the microIC and the dose verification set-up was performed. The Monte Carlo (MC) simulation allows us to calculate the delivered dose to water and the dose delivered to the active volume of the ion chamber. However, the measured dose in water is usually derived from chamber readings assuming reference conditions. The MC simulation provides needed correction factors for ion chamber dosimetry in non reference conditions. RESULTS: Dose calculations were carried out for some representative beamlets, a combination of segments and for the delivered IMRT treatments. We observe that the largest dose errors (i.e. the largest correction factors) correspond to the smaller contribution of the corresponding IMRT beamlets to the total dose delivered in the ionization chamber within PTV. CONCLUSION: The clinical impact of the calculated dose error in PTV measured dose was found to be negligible for studied IMRT treatments.     

The effect of beam energy on the quality of IMRT plans for prostate conformal radiotherapy

Three dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) for prostate cancer is most commonly delivered with high-energy photons, typically in the range of 10-21 MV. With the advent of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT), an increase in the number of monitor units (MU) relative to 3DCRT has lead to a concern about secondary malignancies. This risk becomes more relevant at higher photon energies where there is a greater neutron contribution. Subsequently, the majority of IMRT prostate treatments being delivered today are with 6-10 MV photons where neutron production is negligible. However, the absolute risk is small [Hall, E. J. Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy, Protons, and the Risk of Second Cancers. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 65, 1-7 (2006); Kry, F. S., Salehpour, M., Followill, D. S., Stovall, M., Kuban, D. A., White, R. A., and Rosen, I. I. The Calculated Risk of Fatal Secondary Malignancies From Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Bio Phys 62, 1195-1203 (2005).] and therefore it has been suggested that the use of an 18MV IMRT may achieve better target coverage and normal tissue sparing such that this benefit outweighs the risks. This paper investigates whether 18MV IMRT offer better target coverage and normal tissue sparing. Computed Tomography (CT) image sets of ten prostate cancer patients were acquired and two separate IMRT plans were created for each patient. One plan used 6 MV beams, and the other used 18 MV, both in a coplanar, non-opposed beam geometry. Beam arrangements and optimization constraints were the same for all plans. This work includes a comparison and discussion of the total integral dose, neutron dose conformity index, and total number of MU for plans generated with both energies.     

Evaluation of a 2D diode array for IMRT quality assurance.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The QA of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) dosimetry is a laborious task. The goal of this work is to evaluate the dosimetric characteristics of a new 2D diode array (MapCheck from Sun Nuclear Corporation, Melbourne, Florida) and assess the role it can play in routine IMRT QA. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fundamental properties of the MapCheck such as reproducibility, linearity and temperature dependence are studied for high-energy photon beams. The accuracy of the correction for difference of diode sensitivity is also assessed. The diode array is benchmarked against film and ion chambers for conventional and IMRT treatments. The MapCheck sensitivity to multileaf collimator position errors is determined. RESULTS: The diode array response is linear with dose up to 295 cGy. All diodes are calibrated to within +/-1% of each other, and mostly within +/-0.5%. The MapCheck readings are reproducible to within a maximum SD of +/-0.15%. A temperature dependence of 0.57%/ degrees C was noted and should be taken into account for absolute dosimetric measurement. Clinical performance of the MapCheck for relative and absolute dosimetry is demonstrated with seven beam (6 MV) head and neck IMRT plans, and compares well with film and ion chamber measurements. Comparison to calculated dose maps demonstrates that the planning system model underestimates the dose gradients in the penumbra region. CONCLUSIONS: The MapCheck offers the dosimetric characteristics required for performing both relative and absolute dose measurements. Its use in the clinic can simplify and reduce the IMRT QA workload.     

Dynamic IMRT treatments of sinus region tumors: comparison of Monte Carlo calculations with treatment planning system calculations and ion chamber measurements

Results are presented comparing Monte Carlo (MC) calculations for dynamic IMRT treatments of tumors in the sinus region with Eclipse treatment planning system dose calculations, and ion chamber measurements. The EGS4nrc MC code, BEAMnrc, was commissioned to simulate a Varian 21Ex Linac for both open and IMRT fields. The accuracy of the simulation for IMRT plans was evaluated using a head phantom by comparing MC, Eclipse, TLD results, and ion chamber in solid water phantom measurements. The MC code was then used to simulate dose distributions for five patients who were treated using dynamic IMRT for tumors in the sinus region. The results were compared with absolute and relative dose distributions calculated using Eclipse (pencil beam, modified-Batho inhomogeneity correction). Absolute dose differences were also compared with ion chamber results. Comparison of the doses calculated on the head phantom using MC, compared with Eclipse, ion chamber, and TLD measurements showed differences of -3.9%, -1.4%, and -2.0%, respectively (MC is colder). Relative dose distributions for the patient plans calculated using MC agreed well with those calculated using Eclipse with respect to targets and critical organs, indicating the modified-Batho correction is adequate. Average agreement for mean absolute target doses between MC and Eclipse was -3.0 +/-; 2.3% (1 s.d.). Agreement between ion chamber and Eclipse for these patients was -2.2 +/- 1.9%, compared with 0.2 +/- 2.0% for all head and neck IMRT patients. When Eclipse doses were corrected based on ion chamber results, agreement between MC and Eclipse was -0.7 +/- 2.0%, indicating a small systematic uncertainty in the doses calculated using the treatment planning system for this subset of patients.     

Commissioning and quality assurance of RapidArc radiotherapy delivery system

PURPOSE: The Varian RapidArc is a system for intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment planning and delivery. RapidArc incorporates capabilities such as variable dose-rate, variable gantry speed, and accurate and fast dynamic multileaf collimators (DMLC), to optimize dose conformality, delivery efficiency, accuracy and reliability. We developed RapidArc system commissioning and quality assurance (QA) procedures. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Tests have been designed that evaluate RapidArc performance in a stepwise manner. First, the accuracy of DMLC position during gantry rotation is examined. Second, the ability to vary and control the dose-rate and gantry speed is evaluated. Third, the combined use of variable DMLC speed and dose-rate is studied. RESULTS: Adapting the picket fence test for RapidArc, we compared the patterns obtained with stationary gantry and in RapidArc mode, and showed that the effect of gantry rotation on leaf accuracy was minimal (相似文献   

Dosimetric pre-treatment verification of IMRT using an EPID; clinical experience.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In our clinic a QA program for IMRT verification, fully based on dosimetric measurements with electronic portal imaging devices (EPID), has been running for over 3 years. The program includes a pre-treatment dosimetric check of all IMRT fields. During a complete treatment simulation at the linac, a portal dose image (PDI) is acquired with the EPID for each patient field and compared with a predicted PDI. In this paper, the results of this pre-treatment procedure are analysed, and intercepted errors are reported. An automated image analysis procedure is proposed to limit the number of fields that need human intervention in PDI comparison. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Most of our analyses are performed using the gamma index with 3% local dose difference and 3mm distance to agreement as reference values. Scalar parameters are derived from the gamma values to summarize the agreement between measured and predicted 2D PDIs. Areas with all pixels having gamma values larger than one are evaluated, making decisions based on clinically relevant criteria more straightforward. RESULTS: In 270 patients, the pre-treatment checks revealed four clinically relevant errors. Calculation of statistics for a group of 75 patients showed that the patient-averaged mean gamma value inside the field was 0.43 +/- 0.13 (1SD) and only 6.1 +/- 6.8% of pixels had a gamma value larger than one. With the proposed automated image analysis scheme, visual inspection of images can be avoided in 2/3 of the cases. CONCLUSION: EPIDs may be used for high accuracy and high resolution routine verification of IMRT fields to intercept clinically relevant dosimetric errors prior to the start of treatment. For the majority of fields, PDI comparison can fully rely on an automated procedure, avoiding excessive workload.     

Use of a two-dimensional ionization chamber array for quality assurance in medical linear accelerators

Two-dimensional dosimetry measurements are an important tool of Quality Assurance in modern radiotherapy techniques, such as the Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT). Common procedures are usually based on the use of films or semiconductor arrays as dosimeters. This paper presents our experience with a two-dimensional ionization-chamber array. The methods presented here allow the daily use of the array for a constancy check of the accelerator. It is also shown that the position of the individual leafs of the multi-leaf collimator (MLC) can be verified to within +/- 1 mm of their calibration. A procedure for the measurements is described and discussed.     

Treatment planning comparison of electron arc therapy and photon intensity modulated radiotherapy for Askin's tumor of chest wall.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A dosimetric study to quantitatively compare radiotherapy treatment plans for Askin's tumor using Electron Arc (EA) vs. photon Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five patients treated with EA were included in this study. Treatment plans were generated for each patient using EA and IMRT. Plans were compared using dose volume histograms (DVH) of the Planning Target Volume (PTV) and Organs at Risk (OAR). RESULTS: IMRT resulted in superior PTV coverage, and homogeneous dose distribution compared to EA. For EA, 92% of the PTV was covered to 85% of the dose compared to IMRT in which 96% was covered to 95% of the dose. V(107) that represents the hot spot within the PTV was more in IMRT compared to EA: 7.4(+/-2)% vs. 3(+/-0.5)%, respectively. With PTVs located close to the spinal cord (SC), the dose to SC was more with EA, whereas for PTVs located away from the SC, the dose to SC was more with IMRT. The cardiac dose profile was similar to that of SC. Ipsilateral lung received lower doses with IMRT while contralateral lung received higher dose with IMRT compared to EA. For non-OAR normal tissues, IMRT resulted in large volumes of low dose regions. CONCLUSIONS: IMRT resulted in superior PTV coverage and sparing of OAR compared to EA plans. Although IMRT seems to be superior to EA, one needs to keep in mind the volume of low dose regions associated with IMRT, especially while treating young children.     

Clinical evaluation of monitor unit software and the application of action levels.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was the clinical evaluation of an independent dose and monitor unit verification (MUV) software which is based on sophisticated semi-analytical modelling. The software was developed within the framework of an ESTRO project. Finally, consistent handling of dose calculation deviations applying individual action levels is discussed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Matlab-based software ("MUV") was distributed to five well-established treatment centres in Europe (Vienna, Graz, Basel, Copenhagen, and Ume?) and evaluated as a quality assurance (QA) tool in clinical routine. Results were acquired for 226 individual treatment plans including a total of 815 radiation fields. About 150 beam verification measurements were performed for a portion of the individual treatment plans, mainly with time variable fluence patterns. The deviations between dose calculations performed with a treatment planning system (TPS) and the MUV software were scored with respect to treatment area, treatment technique, geometrical depth, radiological depth, etc. RESULTS: In general good agreement was found between calculations performed with the different TPSs and MUV, with a mean deviation per field of 0.2+/-3.5% (1 SD) and mean deviations of 0.2+/-2.2% for composite treatment plans. For pelvic treatments less than 10% of all fields showed deviations larger than 3%. In general, when using the radiological depth for verification calculations the results and the spread in the results improved significantly, especially for head-and-neck and for thorax treatments. For IMRT head-and-neck beams, mean deviations between MUV and the local TPS were -1.0+/-7.3% for dynamic, and -1.3+/-3.2% for step-and-shoot IMRT delivery. For dynamic IMRT beams in the pelvis good agreement was obtained between MUV and the local TPS (mean: -1.6+/-1.5%). Treatment site and treatment technique dependent action levels between +/-3% and +/-5% seem to be clinically realistic if a radiological depth correction is performed, even for dynamic wedges and IMRT. CONCLUSION: The software MUV is well suited for patient specific treatment plan QA applications and can handle all currently available treatment techniques that can be applied with standard linear accelerators. The highly sophisticated dose calculation model implemented in MUV allows investigation of systematic TPS deviations by performing calculations in homogeneous conditions.     

Monte Carlo simulations to replace film dosimetry in IMRT verification

Patient-specific verification of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans can be done by dosimetric measurements or by independent dose or monitor unit calculations. The aim of this study was the clinical evaluation of IMRT verification based on a fast Monte Carlo (MC) program with regard to possible benefits compared to commonly used film dosimetry.25 head-and-neck IMRT plans were recalculated by a pencil beam based treatment planning system (TPS) using an appropriate quality assurance (QA) phantom. All plans were verified both by film and diode dosimetry and compared to MC simulations. The irradiated films, the results of diode measurements and the computed dose distributions were evaluated, and the data were compared on the basis of gamma maps and dose-difference histograms.Average deviations in the high-dose region between diode measurements and point dose calculations performed with the TPS and MC program were 0.7 ± 2.7% and 1.2 ± 3.1%, respectively. For film measurements, the mean gamma values with 3% dose difference and 3 mm distance-to-agreement were 0.74 ± 0.28 (TPS as reference) with dose deviations up to 10%. Corresponding values were significantly reduced to 0.34 ± 0.09 for MC dose calculation. The total time needed for both verification procedures is comparable, however, by far less labor intensive in the case of MC simulations.The presented study showed that independent dose calculation verification of IMRT plans with a fast MC program has the potential to eclipse film dosimetry more and more in the near future. Thus, the linac-specific QA part will necessarily become more important. In combination with MC simulations and due to the simple set-up, point-dose measurements for dosimetric plausibility checks are recommended at least in the IMRT introduction phase.     

儿科患者调强放射治疗的治疗前鉴定:有关耐受范围的适当评估

Objective

The objective of this work was to establish adequate tolerance limits based on a certain defined institutional indices and generate published data presenting our results to the radiotherapy community.

Methods

One hundred paediatric patients were treated using 6-MV X-ray beams produced by Siemens ONCOR Expression linear accelerator. The clinical step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment plans were designed using KonRad release 2.2.23. For two treatment sites (abdomen, head and neck), the fluence maps generated by the treatment planning system were all delivered for the quality assurance (QA) which included absolute dose verification for all treatment fields, relative dose verification for each treatment field.

Results

The 724 fluence maps were analyzed at three different criteria using the gamma index tool. The 3% dose difference of local prescribed dose /3 mm was considered adequate. The passing rate for all fields of all plans always exceeded 70%. The dose differences between the measured and calculated doses ranged from ?2.2% to +4% [mean and standard deviation (s): 1.4 ± 1.5] for the abdominal case, and from -3.3% to +5.6% (1.3 ± 1.6) for head and neck case with total confidence limit 0.046 (4.6%). The 14/100 (14%) of the absolute point dose measurements were out of ±3% from the dose predicted by the treatment planning system. Only two cases were below ?3%, while 12 cases over +3%.

Conclusion

At 3% dose difference of local prescribed dose /3 mm criteria, a 75% passing a gamma criterion and 3% for absolute point dose can be achieved for abdomen and head and neck treatments site. We considered the tolerance limits based on these indices for IMRT QA adequate.     

Toward automated quality assurance for intensity- modulated radiation therapy

PURPOSE: To investigate whether high-quality, relatively inexpensive, document and transparency scanners used as densitometers are sufficiently quantitative for routine quality assurance (QA). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The scanner we investigated used a linear amplifier, digitizing gray-scale images to 12-bit resolution with a user-selected spatial resolution of 0.170 mm(2) pixels. To reduce Newton's rings artifacts, the standard glass platen was replaced by glass with an antireflective coating. Conversion of reading to transmission was conducted by permanently placing a calibrated photographic step tablet on the scanner platen. After conversion to light transmission, a zero-phase two-dimensional Wiener filter was used to reduce pixel-to-pixel signal variation. Light-scatter artifacts were removed by deconvolution of a measured light-spread kernel. The light-spread kernel artifacts were significant along the scanner's detector axis, but were insignificant along the scanning axis. RESULTS: Pixel-to-pixel noise was better than 2% for optical densities, ranging from 0.4 to 2.0 and 0 to 2.7 for the unfiltered and filtered images, respectively. The document scanning system response was compared against a confocal scanning laser densitometer. A series of IMRT dose distribution and dose calibration film sets were scanned using the two scanners, and the measured dose was compared. The maximum mean and standard deviation of the measured dose difference between the document scanner and confocal scanner was 1.48% and 1.06%, respectively. CONCLUSION: While the document scanners are not as flexible as dedicated film densitometers, these results indicate that, using the intensity and scatter corrections, the system provides accurate and precise measurements up to an optical density of 2.0, sufficient for routine IMRT film QA. For some film types, this requires the reduction in monitor units to limit the dose delivered to the film. The user must be cautious that the delivered IMRT dose is scaled appropriately. This inexpensive and accurate system is being integrated into an automated QA program.     

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for gynecologic cancers: pitfalls, hazards, and cautions to be considered

Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) is considered a major advance in radiaton therapy (RT) capability. Therefore, it has been rapidly accepted and implemented in the treatment of multiple cancers in which RT plays a major role. Early reports of IMRT in gynecologic cancers have been largely favorable, particularly in terms of decreased acute morbidity. However, IMRT has not been prospectively shown to be superior to conventional 3-dimensional RT techniques when judged against criteria established in advance. Furthermore, there are many reasons to consider the possibility that outcomes might be compromised by IMRT techniques used to treat gynecologic cancers. This article reviews the potential pitfalls and hazards of IMRT techniques on patient safety and treatment efficacy. In addition, the article describes multiple technical issues with IMRT implementation, arguing for caution in IMRT use.     

Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) in head and neck cancers - An overview

Radiotherapy (RT) is effective in head and neck cancers. Following RT, dryness and dysphagia are the 2 major sequelae which alter the quality of life (QOL) significantly in these patients. There is randomized evidence that Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) effectively spares the parotid glands. IMRT has been attempted in all head and neck subsites with encouraging results (discussed below). Role of IMRT in swallowing structure (constrictor muscles) sparing is less clear.Further improvement in results may be possible by using functional imaging at the time of RT planning and by image guidance/verification at the time of treatment delivery. The following text discusses these issues in detail. Keywords: Head and neck cancer, IMRT.     

Clinical implementation of dynamic and step-and-shoot IMRT to treat prostate cancer with high risk of pelvic lymph node involvement.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Two systems have been developed for treating patients with locally advanced prostate cancer using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT): one using dynamic multi-leaf collimator delivery and the other using step-and-shoot. This paper describes the clinical implementation of these two techniques, and presents results from the first 14 patients treated in a clinical setting (nine dynamic, five step-and-shoot). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Dynamic treatments were planned using Corvus, and step-and-shoot using Helax-TMS; all were delivered using Elekta accelerators. Prior to the first clinical treatments, validation measurements were carried out for each system, including measurements for a complete IMRT treatment. The reproducibility of dynamic delivery and the characteristics of the accelerator for low-monitor-unit (MU) deliveries were also assessed. An extensive quality assurance (QA) program was performed for each of the patients. Additionally, timing measurements were carried out to assess the practicalities of the technique. RESULTS: The planning objectives were met in most cases. Absolute doses for complete IMRT treatments were within 2%, on average, with dose distributions generally showing agreement within 3% or 3 mm. Beam modulation measurements made throughout each patient's treatment indicated that both delivery methods were reproducible. The dynamic plans required an average of 765 MU per beam, with a treatment delivery time of 14 min; corresponding results for step-and-shoot plans were 105 MU and 10 min. CONCLUSIONS: Two IMRT techniques for this group of patients have been successfully implemented in the clinic. The more complex dynamic treatments showed no advantages over the step-and-shoot approach. QA results have shown accurate and reproducible delivery for both techniques, giving increased confidence in the techniques and allowing a reduction in the QA program.     

Differential dosing of prostate and seminal vesicles using dynamic multileaf collimation

Purpose: We have investigated the potential of applying different doses to the prostate (PTV2) and prostate/seminal vesicles (PTV1) using multileaf collimation (MLC) for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Current dose-escalation studies call for treatment of the PTV1 to 54 Gy in 27 fractions followed by 20 Gy minimum to the PTV2. A daily minimum PTV dose of 2 Gy using a 7-field technique (4 obliques, opposed laterals, and an ant-post field) is delivered. This requires monitor unit calculations, paper and electronic chart entry, and quality assurance for a total of 14 fields. The goal of MLC IMRT is to improve efficiency and deliver superior dose distributions. Acceptance testing and commissioning of the dynamic MLC (DMLC) option on a dual-energy accelerator was accomplished. Most of the testing was performed using segmental MLC (SMLC) IMRT with stop-and-shoot sequences built within the dynamic mode of the DMLC.

Methods and Materials: The MLC IMRT fields were forward planned using a three-dimensional treatment planning system. The 14 fields were condensed to 7 SMLC IMRT fields with two segments each. In this process, steps were created by moving the leaves to the reduced field positions. No dose (<0.01%) was delivered during this motion. The monitor units were proportioned according to the planned treatment weights. Film and ionization chamber dosimetry were used to analyze leaf positional accuracy and speed, output, and depth-dose characteristics. A geometric phantom was used for absolute and relative measurements. We obtained a volumetric computerized tomography (CT) scan of the phantom, performed 3D planning, and then delivered a single treatment fraction.

Results: The acceptance testing and commissioning demonstrated that the leaves move to programmed positions accurately and in a timely manner. We did find an 1 mm offset of the set leaf position and radiation edge (50%) due to the curved-end nature and calibration limitations. The 7-field SMLC IMRT treatment duplicated the 14-field static plan dose distribution with variations no greater than 1.5%.

Conclusions: The MLC IMRT approach will improve efficiency because the number of electronic and chart entries has decreased by a factor of 2. Portal images are able to capture the initial and final MLC segments. The question of differential daily dose to the prostate and seminal vesicles remains.