放疗工作环境辐射对Exradin W1闪烁体探测器测量立体定向治疗计划的影响

目的 研究放疗工作环境辐射对塑料闪烁体探测器Exradin W1进行立体定向放射治疗（SRT）计划绝对剂量验证的影响。方法 将立体验证模体（SDVP）的电子计算机断层（CT）影像扫描后导入计划系统，利用自制档铅分别在屏蔽或不屏蔽光电组件的条件下进行3 cm×3 cm至20 cm×20 cm的方形梯度射野照射、虚拟靶体积（PTV）非共面弧照射以及10例容积调强弧形立体定向放射治疗（VMAT SRT）临床计划验证，记录各测量值并对比分析环境辐射在不同条件下对剂量测量的影响。结果 光电组件的噪声效应随开放射野面积增大而增大，随光电组件与等中心距离增大而减小；非共面弧对光电组件噪声效应贡献随射野增大而增大，最大可达4.16%；临床SRT计划验证测量时，屏蔽前与屏蔽后与治疗计划系统（TPS）相对误差分别为（1.39±1.05）%和（0.59±1.03）%，差异具有统计学意义（t=-5.343，P<0.05）；与A16小空气电离室实测结果相对误差分别为（1.22±1.56）%和（0.42±1.42）%，W1测量误差明显减少，差异具有统计学意义（t=-5.414，P<0.05）。结论 Exradin W1探测的测量结果与电离室及计划系统的计算结果一致度较好，但其准确度易受放疗工作环境辐射的影响。测量非共面照射时应将光电组件尽量摆放在远离辐射等中心位置，并予以适当遮挡或屏蔽，可有效提高测量准确性和稳定性，为临床精准放射治疗提供有力保障。     

呼吸幅度对旋转容积调强剂量分布的影响研究

目的 研究呼吸幅度对旋转容积调强放疗(VMAT)剂量分布的影响。方法 采用呼吸运动模拟模体(QUASAR)模拟人体头脚方向的一维呼吸运动,二维电离室矩阵采集不同呼吸幅度等中心层面的剂量分布。通过Verisoft软件及绝对剂量分析,分析采集数据与计划数据比较的剂量分布、等中心绝对剂量百分误差和射野通过率。结果 呼吸运动对靶区等中心点剂量影响小于剂量允许误差5%(t=-22.614~-10.756,P<0.05),使靶区边缘剂量偏高、靶区内热点少、冷点多,且随着呼吸幅度的增大,对靶区整体剂量分布影响越大。6、8、10 mm整个射野γ通过率与静态相比差异有统计学意义(t=3.095、8.685、14.096,P<0.05)。8、10 mm靶区内射野通过率与静态相比差异有统计学意义(t=6.081、9.841,P<0.05)。结论 呼吸运动可导致VMAT剂量传输误差,且误差随靶区运动幅度的增加而升高,且呼吸运动方向靶区边缘的正常组织实际治疗受照剂量高于计划评价。     

探讨靶区处方剂量50%生成区域的平均γ值在Compass三维剂量验证中的应用

目的 探讨Compass剂量验证系统在基于模型计算剂量和基于测量重建剂量的容积旋转调强放射治疗（VMAT）计划验证中，使用50%靶区处方剂量区平均γ值作为计划验证参考指标的应用价值。方法 基于Compass剂量系统用两种方法对70例患者的VMAT计划进行剂量验证，得到每例VMAT计划验证中50%靶区处方剂量区的平均γ值和γ通过率，评估50%靶区处方剂量区的平均γ值在剂量验证中的应用价值。先将计划系统（TPS）计算得到的计划信息导入到Compass系统中，进行基于加速器数据模型的独立核算剂量计算，得到基于模型独立核算的三维剂量。再将每例患者的治疗计划在加速器下实测得到的计划通量通过Compass系统进行剂量重建，得到基于测量重建的三维剂量。将两种方法得到的三维剂量分布结果与TPS计算得到的结果进行比较。结果 结合γ分析误差设定条件为3%/3mm标准的γ通过率结果，对50%靶区处方剂量区的平均γ值进行评估，γ≤0.4为通过，0.4<γ≤0.6为临床可接受结果，γ>0.6为不通过。70例VMAT计划验证结果显示，基于模型独立核算和TPS计算结果具有较好的一致性，γ值均<0.6，其中γ≤0.4的67例，0.4<γ≤0.6的3例，γ通过率均>92%；基于测量重建体内三维剂量的结果略差于基于模型的计划结果，γ值均<0.6，其中γ≤0.4的35例，0.4<γ≤0.6的35例，γ通过率均>88%，其中68例通过率>90%，2例<90%，但都符合临床剂量验证要求。基于模型的独立核算剂量分布结果优于基于测量重建剂量的结果，差异有统计学意义（t=15.20、10.71，P<0.05）。结论 50%靶区处方剂量区的平均γ值可作为临床计剂量验证参考指标判断临床计划的可执行性，平均γ值结合γ通过率的综合结果共同对剂量验证进行评估更有说服力；基于模型的剂量验证省时省力，但需要与基于测量的验证方式相结合进行综合考虑，作为一种可靠的剂量验证方法应用到临床。     

2 010例调强放疗患者计划剂量验证结果分析

目的 分析2 010例调强放疗计划剂量验证结果,为改进和完善调强放疗计划验证方法提供参考。方法 回顾性分析北京大学第三医院2012年2月—2016年2月美国瓦里安公司Trilogy加速器治疗的2 010例计划的剂量验证结果,其中调强放射治疗（IMRT）计划965例,容积旋转调强放疗（VMAT）计划1 045例。计划设计使用Eclipse计划系统,剂量验证采用MatriXX及Multicube模体。分析计划和测量等中心点剂量差异,3%/3 mm标准平面剂量分布的γ通过率。等中心点剂量差异<±3%定为通过,平面剂量分布γ通过率>90%定为通过。分析病变部位、治疗技术（IMRT和VMAT）对计划验证通过率的影响。结果 2 010例计划等中心点剂量平均差异为-0.3%±2.4%,γ通过率为97.9%±3.4%。88.2%和96.7%的计划能够通过点剂量验证和平面剂量验证标准。不同病变部位计划验证γ通过率不同（F=3.09,P<0.05）。不同病变计划点剂量和面剂量验证通过率不同（χ²=40.93、39.15,P<0.05）。IMRT和VMAT计划验证点剂量通过率和面剂量验证通过率差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）。结论 大部分调强放疗计划能够通过计划验证,不同病变部位计划验证通过率不同,IMRT和VMAT计划验证通过率无差异。     

调强放疗三维剂量验证系统精度测试及临床应用研究

目的 测试三维剂量验证系统Compass^R测量重建及独立计算剂量的精度,评估其临床应用可行性。方法 设计一系列宽度分别为2、1、0.5 cm的条纹状射野,并选取11例肺部调强放疗（IMRT）计划,使用胶片和电离室对被测系统的平面剂量分布和特定点绝对剂量进行验证测试;使用Compass^R对IMRT模体计划做基于解剖信息的三维剂量验证,验证体积γ通过率、平均剂量偏差等参数。结果 条纹状射野测试,与胶片测量相比,被测系统重建和计算剂量γ通过率大于90%（选用3%/3 mm、2%/2 mm标准）,宽度为0.5 cm射野在半影区内γ通过率略差,被测系统重建和计算剂量曲线与胶片测量的曲线最大偏离分别3.21%和2.70%;IMRT计划特定点绝对剂量偏差在3%以内,最大偏差发生在肺部,IMRT计划等中心平面测量重建与胶片测量的γ通过率平均为（94.65±1.93）% （选用3%/3 mm标准）;三维剂量验证结果,靶区及危及器官的体积γ通过率均大于90%,平均剂量的偏差<1%。结论 测试系统剂量精度可满足IMRT计划验证要求,并能给出与患者解剖结构相关的体积剂量误差与位置误差的信息,有利于评估其对临床的影响。     

半野分段弧照射技术对乳腺癌放疗危及器官的保护作用

目的 利用半野的剂量分布特性和容积调强（VMAT）技术的特点,探索一种可以更好保护肺和心脏的新技术。方法 采用三维水箱测量对称野及半野的射野边缘剂量分布,并比较分析各自特征。回顾性选取50例左侧乳腺癌术后放疗患者,保乳术和根治术各25例,处方剂量50 Gy/25次,基于RayStation计划系统,分别采用对称野连续弧VMAT技术和半野分段弧VMAT技术进行计划设计,比较和分析靶区的剂量适合度、治疗效率,以及心脏、肺等危及器官的各种剂量数据。结果 半野的辐射野大小在水模内不随深度增加而增加,对称野则因张角因素射野逐步变大,30 cm处增大到约2 cm,而且半野的射野外剂量低于对称野,差值愈近射野边缘愈明显。与对称野连续弧计划相比,半野段弧VMAT计划能显著改善肺和心脏的受照射剂量,差异有统计学意义（t=-4.11、-4.42,P=0.00）,其中心脏整体结构的V₅、V₃₀、D_mean均值减少为52.5%、65.5%、47%,与靶区关系紧密的左侧冠状动脉前降支降幅超过20%,患侧肺V₅、V₁₀、V₂₀、D_mean的均值分别减少21.6%、24.8%、25.0%、23.2%,其他正常器官剂量均值,半野段弧计划同样优于连续弧计划。结论 对于乳腺癌放疗,半野与VMAT结合可以充分发挥半野和VMAT的优势,显著改善心脏、患侧肺、健侧乳腺等危及器官的受照射剂量。     

基于电子射野影像系统建立医用直线加速器晨检工具的临床测试

目的 利用电子射野影像系统（EPID）建立加速器快速晨检工具,并进行评估。方法 用Synergy加速器EPID测得10 cm×10 cm开野及楔形野图像,由Matlab提取并分析图像参数,实现快速晨检。对EPID剂量-机械重复性、灰度值与MU值线性、输出量及射野大小测量准确性测试,用电离室、EPID分别测量Synergy输出量随MU变化情况,用DailyQA3及研究中所开发的工具对Synergy进行2个月的监测。结果 EPID剂量重复性测试稳定,射野大小和中心测试精度分别为0.5和1.0 mm,平坦度和对称性测试精度均为0.17%;机械精度测试结果与剂量重复性测试一致。EPID对加速器输出剂量响应线性相关（R²>0.999）。EPID对输出剂量和射野大小的探测灵敏度较高。EPID与DailyQA3所有临床测试结果均在允许限值内,且两种结果一致。结论 EPID剂量-机械稳定性及响应线性均良好,输出量及射野大小监测结果均准确,研究中建立的晨检工具准确可靠。     

电子射野影像装置位置误差对容积旋转调强放疗三维剂量验证的影响

目的 探讨电子射野影像装置（EPID）位置误差对容积旋转调强放疗（VMAT）三维剂量验证的影响。方法 5枚Suremark SL-20铅点固定于Elekta托盘上,通过采集机架在0~360°旋转中EPID图像,分析各角度下EPID相对于加速器机头的位置偏移,根据该偏移对进行三维剂量重建的EPID图像进行位置误差修正,分析EPID运动误差对剂量重建的影响。分别对16例鼻咽癌患者的VMAT计划的双弧、顺时针弧（弧1）、逆时针弧（弧2）的重建剂量与计划剂量做γ分析,并对修正前后的γ分析结果进行分析。结果 相对于0°,源到探测器距离（SID）在180°时误差最大,为1.20 cm。考虑SID变化后计算的EPID上下（y）方向误差最大为2.28 mm（等中心层面）,左右（x）方向误差在±0.5 mm以内。对16例鼻咽癌双弧VMAT治疗计划进行治疗前三维剂量验证,EPID y方向位置误差修正后3D γ通过率明显提高,5%/3 mm标准下的γ通过率提高分别为双弧（4.12±1.67）%（t=-9.86,P<0.05）,弧1（3.47±1.64）%（t=-8.46,P<0.05）,弧2（5.08±1.30）%（t=-15.63,P<0.05）;3%/3 mm标准下,γ通过率提高分别为双弧（7.63±2.24）%（t=-13.63,P<0.05）,弧1（6.03±2.07）%（t=-11.66,P<0.05）,弧2（9.17±2.23）%（t=-16.41,P<0.05）。y方向修正后,再进行x方向修正,5%/3 mm和3%/3 mm γ通过率的平均值分别提高0.23%和0.24%。结论 EPID沿加速器机架到治疗床方向运动误差明显,对三维剂量重建影响较大。在基于EPID的剂量重建中,应对其进行修正,以重建较准确的患者三维剂量分布。     

Varian加速器不同的射野形成方式对射野剂量学参数的影响

目的 探讨Varian加速器不同射野形成方式对射野剂量学参数的影响,为治疗计划系统（TPS）数据建模提供理论依据。方法 在准直器（JAW）、多叶光栅（MLC）和准直器跟随多叶光栅（JAW+MLC）3种射野的形成方式下,分别测量百分深度剂量（PDD）、射野离轴量（OAR）及射野总散射因子（Scp）,并对实测数据进行分析比较。结果 3种射野形成方式对中心轴的百分深度剂量影响很小;在加速器的左右方向和枪靶方向,MLC形成的射野均较JAW形成射野大,在左右方向最大可达2.9 mm。在枪靶方向,最大可达1.7 mm。在左右方向MLC形成的射野测量曲线的半影较在相同射野大小JAW形成射野的半影大。在枪靶方向MLC形成的射野测量曲线的半影较在相同射野大小JAW形成射野的半影小。在两个方向 JAW+MLC形成射野与JAW形成射野大小与半影均无明显差异。结论 射野的不同形成方式对射野大小、半影、总散射因子有影响,建议做调强放射治疗（IMRT）时,在TPS数据建模过程中,应对MLC射野的剂量参数进行关注。     

湖北省调强放疗多叶光栅野光子线束吸收剂量和二维剂量分布验证研究

目的 用热释光剂量计（TLD）和放射性免冲洗胶片测量调强放疗（IMRT）多叶光栅（MLC）野光子线束吸收剂量并验证二维剂量分布。方法 选择湖北省7家三级甲等医院的7台不同型号医用直线加速器,使用国际原子能机构（IAEA）提供的15 cm×15 cm×15 cm聚苯乙烯专用模体,TLD和放射性免冲洗胶片,在源皮距90 cm,照射深度10 cm,照射野5 cm×5 cm,6 MV X射线,6 Gy吸收剂量照射条件下制定IMRT计划并实施照射,比较TLD和胶片吸收剂量测量值与放疗计划系统（TPS）预估剂量之间的偏差。同时,使用医院配备的30 cm×30 cm均质固体模体,在模体表面下5 cm处放置25 cm×25 cm放射性免冲洗胶片,并将IMRT计划中单个射野移植到模体中胶片层面上并实施照射,通过胶片剂量分析系统验证二维剂量分布。结果 所检医用直线加速器中,1号加速器TLD吸收剂量相对偏差和胶片吸收剂量相对偏差分别为-8.5%和-1.9%;7号加速器TLD吸收剂量相对偏差和胶片吸收剂量相对偏差分别为5.4%和0.5%;其余加速器TLD和胶片吸收剂量相对偏差均在±5%范围以内。所有加速器的二维剂量分布通过率均在90%以上。结论 TLD和胶片核查调强放疗剂量质量方法,操作简单,科学性强,TLD和胶片便于邮件方式寄送,该方法可运用于对放疗机构调强放疗剂量大范围的质量核查。     

Clinical practice and evaluation of electronic portal imaging device for VMAT quality assurance

Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is a novel extension of the intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) technique, which has brought challenges to dose verification. To perform VMAT pretreatment quality assurance, an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) can be applied. This study's aim was to evaluate EPID performance for VMAT dose verification. First, dosimetric characteristics of EPID were investigated. Then 10 selected VMAT dose plans were measured by EPID with the rotational method. The overall variation of EPID dosimetric characteristics was within 1.4% for VMAT. The film system serving as a conventional tool for verification showed good agreement both with EPID measurements ([94.1 ± 1.5]% with 3 mm/3% criteria) and treatment planning system (TPS) calculations ([97.4 ± 2.8]% with 3 mm/3% criteria). In addition, EPID measurements for VMAT presented good agreement with TPS calculations ([99.1 ± 0.6]% with 3 mm/3% criteria). The EPID system performed the robustness of potential error findings in TPS calculations and the delivery system. This study demonstrated that an EPID system can be used as a reliable and efficient quality assurance tool for VMAT dose verification.     

A dual two dimensional electronic portal imaging device transit dosimetry model based on an empirical quadratic formalism

Objective:

This study describes a two dimensional electronic portal imaging device (EPID) transit dosimetry model that can predict either: (1) in-phantom exit dose, or (2) EPID transit dose, for treatment verification.

Methods:

The model was based on a quadratic equation that relates the reduction in intensity to the equivalent path length (EPL) of the attenuator. In this study, two sets of quadratic equation coefficients were derived from calibration dose planes measured with EPID and ionization chamber in water under reference conditions. With two sets of coefficients, EPL can be calculated from either EPID or treatment planning system (TPS) dose planes. Consequently, either the in-phantom exit dose or the EPID transit dose can be predicted from the EPL. The model was tested with two open, five wedge and seven sliding window prostate and head and neck intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) fields on phantoms. Results were analysed using absolute gamma analysis (3%/3 mm).

Results:

The open fields gamma pass rates were >96.8% for all comparisons. For wedge and IMRT fields, comparisons between predicted and TPS-computed in-phantom exit dose resulted in mean gamma pass rate of 97.4% (range, 92.3–100%). As for the comparisons between predicted and measured EPID transit dose, the mean gamma pass rate was 97.5% (range, 92.6–100%).

Conclusion:

An EPID transit dosimetry model that can predict in-phantom exit dose and EPID transit dose was described and proven to be valid.

Advances in knowledge:

The described model is practical, generic and flexible to encourage widespread implementation of EPID dosimetry for the improvement of patients'' safety in radiotherapy.There is much interest in using an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) for dose measurements.^1–3 One of the major challenges with amorphous silicon (a-Si) EPID dosimetry is the presence of high Z material in the detector components that results in different response and scatter characteristics compared with a water-equivalent dosimeter.^4–6 Various EPID dosimetry models have been proposed in the literature to work around the non-water-equivalent properties of EPID. These models can be broadly categorized into non-transit and transit models. Non-transit models are based on measurements without any object in the beam and are, therefore, limited to only pre-treatment quality assurance (QA). Ideally, patient QA should also allow actual treatment verification to complete the dose verification process and to detect errors that would otherwise be missed by pre-treatment QA.⁷Transit models are desirable because they allow both pre-treatment and actual treatment verifications. Currently, there are only two commercially available EPID transit dosimetry solutions, EPIgray^® (Dosisoft, Cachan, France) and Dosimetry Check (Math Resolutions, Columbia, MD). The major drawback of EPIgray is that it only allows point comparison,^8,9 which is unreliable for modulated fields with steep dose gradient. Dosimetry Check has the advantage of offering two dimensional (2D) and three dimensional (3D) dose verification. The model deconvolves the EPID image with a scatter kernel to retrieve the incidence fluence and uses this fluence as an input into an independent dose calculation algorithm for dose computation.^10,11 An EPID transit dosimetry model using the convolution approach was also widely published by researchers at the Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI-AVL) where the model is now in clinical use.^12–18Instead of using the convolution approach, an empirical method is more practical for the majority of clinical centres with limited resources for computationally intensive simulations or mathematical modelling. 2D transit dosimetry using an empirical method was first described by Evans et al¹⁹ and Symonds-Tayler et al²⁰ for an in-house imaging panel and later by Evans et al²¹ for a commercial scanning liquid-filled ionization chamber (SLIC) EPID. The technique used a quadratic equation established by Swindell²² and was based on a calibration method described by Morton et al²³ to derive coefficients for the conversion of EPID pixel value to equivalent path length (EPL). Although the technique was used for older model EPIDs with the purpose of designing compensators for breast irradiation, Kairn et al²⁴ proved that this method was also valid for a-Si EPID and suggested that the derived EPL matrix can be used as a form of treatment verification. Since dose, and not EPL, is the preferred metric for treatment verification, Kavuma et al^25,26 extended the model by converting the 2D EPL matrix to entrance and exit doses for comparisons with the treatment planning system (TPS). However, the model by Kavuma et al²⁵ was partially dependent on the TPS for the conversion of EPL to dose. Tissue phantom ratios and envelope and boundary profiles from the pencil beam convolution algorithm, Eclipse™ TPS (Varian^® Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA), were used to calculate on-axis and off-axis doses. Furthermore, the model was tested only for conventional and wedge fields, and discrepancies were seen at the penumbra region.In this study, we present a 2D EPID transit dosimetry model based on the empirical quadratic calibration method,²³ but without relying on any specific TPS for the conversion of EPL to dose. Different from previous studies,^{19–21,23–25} in addition to deriving quadratic equation coefficients from EPID-measured dose planes, coefficients were also derived from ionization chamber (IC) dose planes measured in water. Therefore, in the current model, EPL can be calculated using input from both EPID as well as TPS, which is conventionally modelled based on water measurements. The EPL, which is a property of the attenuating object, provided a link to the two different dosimetry systems and allowed a two-way relationship for the:

• (1) prediction of in-phantom exit dose from EPID-measured dose planes, for comparison with TPS-planned dose. (The in-phantom exit dose in this study was defined as dose at 1.5 cm upstream from the beam exit surface of the phantom.) and
• (2) prediction of EPID transit dose from TPS-computed dose planes, for comparison with EPID measurement during treatment.

This model was systematically tested with open, wedge and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) fields on homogeneous and heterogeneous slab phantoms. Comparisons were made using 2D absolute global gamma analysis, and results were further validated against measurements with a commercial 2D array device.     

IMRT Quality Assurance Using a Second Treatment Planning System

We used a second treatment planning system (TPS) for independent verification of the dose calculated by our primary TPS in the context of patient-specific quality assurance (QA) for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). QA plans for 24 patients treated with inverse planned dynamic IMRT were generated using the Nomos Corvus TPS. The plans were calculated on a computed tomography scan of our QA phantom that consists of three Solid Water slabs sandwiching radiochromic films, and an ion chamber that is inserted into the center slab of the phantom. For the independent verification, the dose was recalculated using the Varian Eclipse TPS using the multileaf collimator files and beam geometry from the original plan. The data was then compared in terms of absolute dose to the ion chamber volume as well as relative dose on isodoses calculated at the film plane. The calculation results were also compared with measurements performed for each case. When comparing ion chamber doses, the mean ratio was 0.999 (SD 0.010) for Eclipse vs. Corvus, 0.988 (SD 0.020) for the ionization chamber measurements vs. Corvus, and 0.989 (SD 0.017) for the ionization chamber measurements vs. Eclipse. For 2D doses with gamma histogram, the mean value of the percentage of pixels passing the criteria of 3%, 3 mm was 94.4 (SD 5.3) for Eclipse vs. Corvus, 85.1 (SD 10.6) for Corvus vs. film, and 93.7 (SD 4.1) for Eclipse vs. film; and for the criteria of 5%, 3 mm, 98.7 (SD 1.5) for Eclipse vs. Corvus, 93.0 (SD 7.8) for Corvus vs. film, and 98.0 (SD 1.9) for Eclipse vs. film. We feel that the use of the Eclipse TPS as an independent, accurate, robust, and time-efficient method for patient-specific IMRT QA is feasible in clinic.     

Establishing an optimized patient-specific verification program for volumetric modulated arc therapy

Quality assurance (QA) of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) increases the workload significantly. We compared the results from 4 verification methods to establish an efficient VMAT QA. Planning for VMAT treatments was carried out for 40 consecutive patients. Pretreatment verifications were carried out with ion chamber array Physikalish-Technische Werkstätten (PTW729), electronic portal dosimetry (EPID), ion chamber measurements, and independent dose calculation with Diamond program. 2D analyses were made using the gamma analysis (3 mm distance to agreement and 3% dose difference relative to maximum, 10% dose threshold). Average point dose difference calculated by Eclipse relative to ion chamber measurements and Diamond were 0.1%±0.9% and 0.6%±2.2%, respectively. Average pass rate for PTW729 was 99.2%±1.9% and 98.3%±1.3% for EPID. The total required time (linac occupancy time given in parentheses) for each QA method was: PTW729 43.5 minutes (26.5 minutes), EPID 14.5 minutes (2.5 minutes), ion chamber 34.5 minutes (26.5 minutes), and Diamond 12.0 minutes (0 minute). The results were consistent and allowed us to establish an optimized protocol, considering safety and accuracy as well as workload, consisting of 2 verification methods: EPID 2D analysis and independent dose calculation.     

IMRT Quality Assurance Using a Second Treatment Planning System

We used a second treatment planning system (TPS) for independent verification of the dose calculated by our primary TPS in the context of patient-specific quality assurance (QA) for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). QA plans for 24 patients treated with inverse planned dynamic IMRT were generated using the Nomos Corvus TPS. The plans were calculated on a computed tomography scan of our QA phantom that consists of three Solid Water slabs sandwiching radiochromic films, and an ion chamber that is inserted into the center slab of the phantom. For the independent verification, the dose was recalculated using the Varian Eclipse TPS using the multileaf collimator files and beam geometry from the original plan. The data was then compared in terms of absolute dose to the ion chamber volume as well as relative dose on isodoses calculated at the film plane. The calculation results were also compared with measurements performed for each case. When comparing ion chamber doses, the mean ratio was 0.999 (SD 0.010) for Eclipse vs. Corvus, 0.988 (SD 0.020) for the ionization chamber measurements vs. Corvus, and 0.989 (SD 0.017) for the ionization chamber measurements vs. Eclipse. For 2D doses with gamma histogram, the mean value of the percentage of pixels passing the criteria of 3%, 3 mm was 94.4 (SD 5.3) for Eclipse vs. Corvus, 85.1 (SD 10.6) for Corvus vs. film, and 93.7 (SD 4.1) for Eclipse vs. film; and for the criteria of 5%, 3 mm, 98.7 (SD 1.5) for Eclipse vs. Corvus, 93.0 (SD 7.8) for Corvus vs. film, and 98.0 (SD 1.9) for Eclipse vs. film. We feel that the use of the Eclipse TPS as an independent, accurate, robust, and time-efficient method for patient-specific IMRT QA is feasible in clinic.     

Feasibility of using glass-bead thermoluminescent dosimeters for radiotherapy treatment plan verification

Objective:

To investigate the feasibility of using glass beads as novel thermoluminescent dosemeters (TLDs) for radiotherapy treatment plan verification.

Methods:

Commercially available glass beads with a size of 1-mm thickness and 2-mm diameter were characterized as TLDs. Five clinical treatment plans including a conventional larynx, a conformal prostate, an intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) prostate and two stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) lung plans were transferred onto a CT scan of a water-equivalent phantom (Solid Water^®, Gammex, Middleton, WI) and the dose distribution recalculated. The number of monitor units was maintained from the clinical plan and delivered accordingly. The doses determined by the glass beads were compared with those measured by a graphite-walled ionization chamber, and the respective expected doses were determined by the treatment-planning system (TPS) calculation.

Results:

The mean percentage difference between measured dose with the glass beads and TPS was found to be 0.3%, −0.1%, 0.4%, 1.8% and 1.7% for the conventional larynx, conformal prostate, IMRT prostate and each of the SBRT delivery techniques, respectively. The percentage difference between measured dose with the ionization chamber and glass bead was found to be −1.2%, −1.4%, −0.1%, −0.9% and 2.4% for the above-mentioned plans, respectively. The results of measured doses with the glass beads and ionization chamber in comparison with expected doses from the TPS were analysed using a two-sided paired t-test, and there was no significant difference at p < 0.05.

Conclusion:

It is feasible to use glass-bead TLDs as dosemeters in a range of clinical plan verifications.

Advances in knowledge:

Commercial glass beads are utilized as low-cost novel TLDs for treatment-plan verification.     

兆伏级锥形束CT图像引导放疗所致鼻咽癌患者剂量的探讨

目的 评价和估算兆伏级锥形束CT(MV CBCT)成像系统在图像引导放疗中所致鼻咽癌患者的辐射剂量。方法 选择MV CBCT系统头颈部8 MU扫描预案,利用0.65 cm³指型电离室和CT头部剂量体模测量出体模不同位置的吸收剂量。并利用XiO治疗计划系统模拟MV CBCT扫描过程,计算体模电离室测量点的吸收剂量和鼻咽癌患者肿瘤靶区及危及器官的吸收剂量。结果 体模不同位置吸收剂量的测量值和计算值具有很好的一致性,相对误差均小于3.5%。MV CBCT图像引导放疗所致鼻咽癌患者肿瘤靶区平均剂量为6.43 cGy,脑干、脊髓和视交叉的平均剂量分别为6.36 、6.83和6.90 cGy,左、右视神经平均剂量分别为7.70和7.53 cGy,左、右腮腺平均剂量分别为6.86和6.43 cGy。结论 使用治疗计划系统模拟MV CBCT图像采集过程估算剂量准确、可靠。在设计患者治疗计划时,要充分考虑MV CBCT图像采集过程所致患者剂量。     

A retrospective analysis for patient-specific quality assurance of volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans

Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is now widely used clinically, as it is capable of delivering a highly conformal dose distribution in a short time interval. We retrospectively analyzed patient-specific quality assurance (QA) of VMAT and examined the relationships between the planning parameters and the QA results. A total of 118 clinical VMAT cases underwent pretreatment QA. All plans had 3-dimensional diode array measurements, and 69 also had ion chamber measurements. Dose distribution and isocenter point dose were evaluated by comparing the measurements and the treatment planning system (TPS) calculations. In addition, the relationship between QA results and several planning parameters, such as dose level, control points (CPs), monitor units (MUs), average field width, and average leaf travel, were also analyzed. For delivered dose distribution, a gamma analysis passing rate greater than 90% was obtained for all plans and greater than 95% for 100 of 118 plans with the 3%/3-mm criteria. The difference (mean ± standard deviation) between the point doses measured by the ion chamber and those calculated by TPS was 0.9% ± 2.0% for all plans. For all cancer sites, nasopharyngeal carcinoma and gastric cancer have the lowest and highest average passing rates, respectively. From multivariate linear regression analysis, the dose level (p = 0.001) and the average leaf travel (p < 0.001) showed negative correlations with the passing rate, and the average field width (p = 0.003) showed a positive correlation with the passing rate, all indicating a correlation between the passing rate and the plan complexity. No statistically significant correlation was found between MU or CP and the passing rate. Analysis of the results of dosimetric pretreatment measurements as a function of VMAT plan parameters can provide important information to guide the plan parameter setting and optimization in TPS.     

Dosimetric comparison of analytical anisotropic algorithm and the two dose reporting modes of Acuros XB dose calculation algorithm in volumetric modulated arc therapy of carcinoma lung and carcinoma prostate

Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) is an important modality for radical radiotherapy of all major treatment sites. This study aims to compare Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA) and the two dose-reporting modes of Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm -the dose to medium option (D_m) and the dose to water option (D_w) in Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) of carcinoma lung and carcinoma prostate. We also compared the measured dose with Treatment Planning System calculated dose for AAA and the two dose reporting options of Acuros XB using Electronic Portal Imaging Device (EPID) and ArcCHECK phantom. Treatment plans of twenty patients each who have already undergone radiotherapy for cancer of lung and cancer of prostate were selected for the study. Three sets of VMAT plans were generated in Eclipse Treatment Planning System (TPS), one with AAA and two plans with Acuros-D_m and Acuros-D_w options. The Dose Volume Histograms (DVHs) were compared and analyzed for Planning Target Volume (PTV) and critical structures for all the plans. Verification plans were created for each plan and measured doses were compared with TPS calculated doses using EPID and ArcCHECK phantom for all the three algorithms. For lung plans, the mean dose to PTV in the AXB-D_w plans was higher by 1.7% and in the AXB-D_m plans by 0.66% when compared to AAA plans. For prostate plans, the mean dose to PTV in the AXB-D_w plans was higher by 3.0% and in the AXB-D_m plans by 1.6% when compared to AAA plans. There was no difference in the Conformity Index (CI) between AAA and AXB-D_m and between AAA and AXB-D_w plans for both sites. But the homogeneity worsened in AXB-D_w and AXB-D_m plans when compared to AAA plans for both sites. AXB-D_w calculated higher dose values for PTV and all the critical structures with significant differences with one or two exceptions. Point dose measurements in ArcCHECK phantom showed that AXB-D_m and AXB-D_w options showed very small deviations with measured dose distributions than AAA for both sites. Results of EPID QA also showed better pass rates for AXB-D_w and AXB-D_m than AAA for both sites when gamma analysis was done for 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm criteria. With reference to the results, it is always better to choose Acuros algorithm for dose calculations if it is available in the TPS. AXB-D_w plans showed very high dose values in the PTV when compared to AAA and AXB-D_m in both sites studied. Also, the volume of PTV receiving 107% dose was significantly high in AXB-D_w plans compared to AXB-D_m plans in sites involving high density bones. Considering the results of dosimetric comparison and QA measurements, it is always better to choose AXB-D_m algorithm for dose calculations for all treatment sites especially when high density bony structures and complex treatment techniques are involved. For patient specific QA purposes, choosing AXB-D_m or AXB-D_w does not make any significant difference between calculated and measured dose distributions.