[en] 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.

[en] The Radiological Physics Center (RPC) has functioned continuously for 38 years to assure the National Cancer Institute and the cooperative groups that institutions participating in multi-institutional trials can be expected to deliver radiation treatments that are clinically comparable to those delivered by other institutions in the cooperative groups. To accomplish this, the RPC monitors the machine output, the dosimetry data used by the institutions, the calculation algorithms used for treatment planning, and the institutions' quality control procedures. The methods of monitoring include on-site dosimetry review by an RPC physicist and a variety of remote audit tools. The introduction of advanced technology clinical trials has prompted several study groups to require participating institutions and personnel to become credentialed, to ensure their familiarity and capability with techniques such as three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, stereotactic body radiotherapy, and brachytherapy. The RPC conducts a variety of credentialing activities, beginning with questionnaires to evaluate an institution's understanding of the protocol and their capabilities. Treatment-planning benchmarks are used to allow the institution to demonstrate their planning ability and to facilitate a review of the accuracy of treatment-planning systems under relevant conditions. The RPC also provides mailable anthropomorphic phantoms to verify tumor dose delivery for special treatment techniques. While conducting these reviews, the RPC has amassed a large amount of data describing the dosimetry at participating institutions. Representative data from the monitoring programs are discussed, and examples are presented of specific instances in which the RPC contributed to the discovery and resolution of dosimetry errors

[en] Tooth enamel, extracted from molars, was irradiated with 66 keV X-rays, with doses up to 1 Gy. The preparation of the powder samples is described, as well as the protocol for the acquisition and processing of the spectra. The radiation induced paramagnetism is measured, at room temperature, by ESR Spectroscopy. The ESR spectra is well described considering two paramagnetic species, with magnetic moments (in units of Bohr magneton) g=2,0041, and g₁=2,0018, g₂=1,9972. The ESR data (peak-to-peak amplitude per mg, hpp/mg, vs dose D), for doses 0 Gy< D<1,2 Gy, are well fitted (R² =0,996) with the linear expression: [hpp/mg] = -0,2(0,4)+14,9(0,5). D [Gy]. The result supports the growing confidence in the use of this material, and method, in Retrospective Dosimetry. (author)

[en] Purpose: The aim of this work was to create a mailable phantom with measurement accuracy suitable for Radiological Physics Center (RPC) audits of high dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy sources at institutions participating in National Cancer Institute-funded cooperative clinical trials. Optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLDs) were chosen as the dosimeter to be used with the phantom.Methods: The authors designed and built an 8 × 8 × 10 cm³ prototype phantom that had two slots capable of holding Al₂O₃:C OSLDs (nanoDots; Landauer, Glenwood, IL) and a single channel capable of accepting all ¹⁹²Ir HDR brachytherapy sources in current clinical use in the United States. The authors irradiated the phantom with Nucletron and Varian ¹⁹²Ir HDR sources in order to determine correction factors for linearity with dose and the combined effects of irradiation energy and phantom characteristics. The phantom was then sent to eight institutions which volunteered to perform trial remote audits.Results: The linearity correction factor was k_L= (−9.43 × 10⁻⁵× dose) + 1.009, where dose is in cGy, which differed from that determined by the RPC for the same batch of dosimeters using ⁶⁰Co irradiation. Separate block correction factors were determined for current versions of both Nucletron and Varian ¹⁹²Ir HDR sources and these vendor-specific correction factors differed by almost 2.6%. For the Nucletron source, the correction factor was 1.026 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.023–1.028], and for the Varian source, it was 1.000 (95% CI = 0.995–1.005). Variations in lateral source positioning up to 0.8 mm and distal/proximal source positioning up to 10 mm had minimal effect on dose measurement accuracy. The overall dose measurement uncertainty of the system was estimated to be 2.4% and 2.5% for the Nucletron and Varian sources, respectively (95% CI). This uncertainty was sufficient to establish a ±5% acceptance criterion for source strength audits under a formal RPC audit program. Trial audits of four Nucletron sources and four Varian sources revealed an average RPC-to-institution dose ratio of 1.000 (standard deviation = 0.011).Conclusions: The authors have created an OSLD-based ¹⁹²Ir HDR brachytherapy source remote audit tool which offers sufficient dose measurement accuracy to allow the RPC to establish a remote audit program with a ±5% acceptance criterion. The feasibility of the system has been demonstrated with eight trial audits to date

[en] Purpose: Four-dimensional (4D) dose calculation algorithms, which explicitly incorporate respiratory motion in the calculation of doses, have the potential to improve the accuracy of dose calculations in thoracic treatment planning; however, they generally require greater computing power and resources than currently used for three-dimensional (3D) dose calculations. The purpose of this work was to quantify the increase in accuracy of 4D dose calculations versus 3D dose calculations. Methods: The accuracy of each dose calculation algorithm was assessed using measurements made with two phantoms. Specifically, the authors used a rigid moving anthropomorphic thoracic phantom and an anthropomorphic thoracic phantom with a deformable lung insert. To incorporate a clinically relevant range of scenarios, they programed the phantoms to move and deform with two motion patterns: A sinusoidal motion pattern and an irregular motion pattern that was extracted from an actual patient's breathing profile. For each combination of phantom and motion pattern, three plans were created: A single-beam plan, a multiple-beam plan, and an intensity-modulated radiation therapy plan. Doses were calculated using 4D dose calculation methods as well as conventional 3D dose calculation methods. The rigid moving and deforming phantoms were irradiated according to the three treatment plans and doses were measured using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and radiochromic film. The accuracy of each dose calculation algorithm was assessed using measured-to-calculated TLD doses and a γ analysis. Results: No significant differences were observed between the measured-to-calculated TLD ratios among 4D and 3D dose calculations. The γ results revealed that 4D dose calculations had significantly greater percentage of pixels passing the 5%/3 mm criteria than 3D dose calculations. Conclusions: These results indicate no significant differences in the accuracy between the 4D and the 3D dose calculation methods inside the gross tumor volume. On the other hand, the film results demonstrated that the 4D dose calculations provided greater accuracy than 3D dose calculations in heterogeneous dose regions. The increase in accuracy of the 4D dose calculations was evident throughout the planning target volume.

[en] Purpose: To determine the impact of treatment planning algorithm on the accuracy of heterogeneous dose calculations in the Radiological Physics Center (RPC) thorax phantom. Methods and Materials: We retrospectively analyzed the results of 304 irradiations of the RPC thorax phantom at 221 different institutions as part of credentialing for Radiation Therapy Oncology Group clinical trials; the irradiations were all done using 6-MV beams. Treatment plans included those for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) as well as 3-dimensional conformal therapy (3D-CRT). Heterogeneous plans were developed using Monte Carlo (MC), convolution/superposition (CS), and the anisotropic analytic algorithm (AAA), as well as pencil beam (PB) algorithms. For each plan and delivery, the absolute dose measured in the center of a lung target was compared to the calculated dose, as was the planar dose in 3 orthogonal planes. The difference between measured and calculated dose was examined as a function of planning algorithm as well as use of IMRT. Results: PB algorithms overestimated the dose delivered to the center of the target by 4.9% on average. Surprisingly, CS algorithms and AAA also showed a systematic overestimation of the dose to the center of the target, by 3.7% on average. In contrast, the MC algorithm dose calculations agreed with measurement within 0.6% on average. There was no difference observed between IMRT and 3D CRT calculation accuracy. Conclusion: Unexpectedly, advanced treatment planning systems (those using CS and AAA algorithms) overestimated the dose that was delivered to the lung target. This issue requires attention in terms of heterogeneity calculations and potentially in terms of clinical practice.

[en] Purpose: Accurate data regarding linear accelerator (Linac) radiation characteristics are important for treatment planning system modeling as well as regular quality assurance of the machine. The Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Houston (IROC-H) has measured the dosimetric characteristics of numerous machines through their on-site dosimetry review protocols. Photon data are presented and can be used as a secondary check of acquired values, as a means to verify commissioning a new machine, or in preparation for an IROC-H site visit. Methods: Photon data from IROC-H on-site reviews from 2000 to 2014 were compiled and analyzed. Specifically, data from approximately 500 Varian machines were analyzed. Each dataset consisted of point measurements of several dosimetric parameters at various locations in a water phantom to assess the percentage depth dose, jaw output factors, multileaf collimator small field output factors, off-axis factors, and wedge factors. The data were analyzed by energy and parameter, with similarly performing machine models being assimilated into classes. Common statistical metrics are presented for each machine class. Measurement data were compared against other reference data where applicable. Results: Distributions of the parameter data were shown to be robust and derive from a student’s t distribution. Based on statistical and clinical criteria, all machine models were able to be classified into two or three classes for each energy, except for 6 MV for which there were eight classes. Quantitative analysis of the measurements for 6, 10, 15, and 18 MV photon beams is presented for each parameter; supplementary material has also been made available which contains further statistical information. Conclusions: IROC-H has collected numerous data on Varian Linacs and the results of photon measurements from the past 15 years are presented. The data can be used as a comparison check of a physicist’s acquired values. Acquired values that are well outside the expected distribution should be verified by the physicist to identify whether the measurements are valid. Comparison of values to this reference data provides a redundant check to help prevent gross dosimetric treatment errors.

[en] Purpose: The extensive use of computed tomography (CT) in diagnostic procedures is accompanied by a growing need for more accurate and patient-specific dosimetry techniques. Optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters (OSLDs) offer a potential solution for patient-specific CT point-based surface dosimetry by measuring air kerma. The purpose of this work was to characterize the OSLD nanoDot for CT dosimetry, quantifying necessary correction factors, and evaluating the uncertainty of these factors. Methods: A characterization of the Landauer OSL nanoDot (Landauer, Inc., Greenwood, IL) was conducted using both measurements and theoretical approaches in a CT environment. The effects of signal depletion, signal fading, dose linearity, and angular dependence were characterized through direct measurement for CT energies (80–140 kV) and delivered doses ranging from ∼5 to >1000 mGy. Energy dependence as a function of scan parameters was evaluated using two independent approaches: direct measurement and a theoretical approach based on Burlin cavity theory and Monte Carlo simulated spectra. This beam-quality dependence was evaluated for a range of CT scanning parameters. Results: Correction factors for the dosimeter response in terms of signal fading, dose linearity, and angular dependence were found to be small for most measurement conditions (<3%). The relative uncertainty was determined for each factor and reported at the two-sigma level. Differences in irradiation geometry (rotational versus static) resulted in a difference in dosimeter signal of 3% on average. Beam quality varied with scan parameters and necessitated the largest correction factor, ranging from 0.80 to 1.15 relative to a calibration performed in air using a 120 kV beam. Good agreement was found between the theoretical and measurement approaches. Conclusions: Correction factors for the measurement of air kerma were generally small for CT dosimetry, although angular effects, and particularly effects due to changes in beam quality, could be more substantial. In particular, it would likely be necessary to account for variations in CT scan parameters and measurement location when performing CT dosimetry using OSLD

[en] To review the dosimetric, mechanical, and programmatic deficiencies most frequently observed during on-site visits of radiation therapy facilities by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Quality Assurance Center in Houston (IROC Houston).

[en] Purpose: To compare radiation machine measurement data collected by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core at Houston (IROC-H) with institutional treatment planning system (TPS) values, to identify parameters with large differences in agreement; the findings will help institutions focus their efforts to improve the accuracy of their TPS models. Methods and Materials: Between 2000 and 2014, IROC-H visited more than 250 institutions and conducted independent measurements of machine dosimetric data points, including percentage depth dose, output factors, off-axis factors, multileaf collimator small fields, and wedge data. We compared these data with the institutional TPS values for the same points by energy, class, and parameter to identify differences and similarities using criteria involving both the medians and standard deviations for Varian linear accelerators. Distributions of differences between machine measurements and institutional TPS values were generated for basic dosimetric parameters. Results: On average, intensity modulated radiation therapy–style and stereotactic body radiation therapy–style output factors and upper physical wedge output factors were the most problematic. Percentage depth dose, jaw output factors, and enhanced dynamic wedge output factors agreed best between the IROC-H measurements and the TPS values. Although small differences were shown between 2 common TPS systems, neither was superior to the other. Parameter agreement was constant over time from 2000 to 2014. Conclusions: Differences in basic dosimetric parameters between machine measurements and TPS values vary widely depending on the parameter, although agreement does not seem to vary by TPS and has not changed over time. Intensity modulated radiation therapy–style output factors, stereotactic body radiation therapy–style output factors, and upper physical wedge output factors had the largest disagreement and should be carefully modeled to ensure accuracy.