[en] The Radiological Physics Center (RPC) developed two heterogeneous anthropomorphic quality assurance phantoms for use in verifying the accuracy of radiation delivery: one for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to the pelvis and the other for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) to the thorax. The purpose of this study was to describe the design and development of these two phantoms and to demonstrate the reproducibility of measurements generated with them. The phantoms were built to simulate actual patient anatomy. They are lightweight and water-fillable, and they contain imageable targets and organs at risk of radiation exposure that are of similar densities to their human counterparts. Dosimetry inserts accommodate radiochromic film for relative dosimetry and thermoluminesent dosimetry capsules for absolute dosimetry. As a part of the commissioning process, each phantom was imaged, treatment plans were developed, and radiation was delivered at least three times. Under these controlled irradiation conditions, the reproducibility of dose delivery to the target TLD in the pelvis and thorax phantoms was 3% and 0.5%, respectively. The reproducibility of radiation-field localization was less than 2.5 mm for both phantoms. Using these anthropomorphic phantoms, pelvic IMRT and thoracic SBRT radiation treatments can be verified with a high level of precision. These phantoms can be used to effectively credential institutions for participation in specific NCI-sponsored clinical trials

[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: The novel deterministic radiation transport algorithm, Acuros XB (AXB), has shown great potential for accurate heterogeneous dose calculation. However, the clinical impact between AXB and other currently used algorithms still needs to be elucidated for translation between these algorithms. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of AXB for heterogeneous dose calculation in lung cancer for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Methods: The thorax phantom from the Radiological Physics Center (RPC) was used for this study. IMRT and VMAT plans were created for the phantom in the Eclipse 11.0 treatment planning system. Each plan was delivered to the phantom three times using a Varian Clinac iX linear accelerator to ensure reproducibility. Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and Gafchromic EBT2 film were placed inside the phantom to measure delivered doses. The measurements were compared with dose calculations from AXB 11.0.21 and the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) 11.0.21. Two dose reporting modes of AXB, dose-to-medium in medium (D_m,m) and dose-to-water in medium (D_w,m), were studied. Point doses, dose profiles, and gamma analysis were used to quantify the agreement between measurements and calculations from both AXB and AAA. The computation times for AAA and AXB were also evaluated. Results: For the RPC lung phantom, AAA and AXB dose predictions were found in good agreement to TLD and film measurements for both IMRT and VMAT plans. TLD dose predictions were within 0.4%–4.4% to AXB doses (both D_m,m and D_w,m); and within 2.5%–6.4% to AAA doses, respectively. For the film comparisons, the gamma indexes (±3%/3 mm criteria) were 94%, 97%, and 98% for AAA, AXB_Dm,m, and AXB_Dw,m, respectively. The differences between AXB and AAA in dose–volume histogram mean doses were within 2% in the planning target volume, lung, heart, and within 5% in the spinal cord. However, differences up to 8% between AXB and AAA were found at lung/soft tissue interface regions for individual IMRT fields. AAA was found to be 5–6 times faster than AXB for IMRT, while AXB was 4–5 times faster than AAA for VMAT plan. Conclusions: AXB is satisfactorily accurate for the dose calculation in lung cancer for both IMRT and VMAT plans. The differences between AXB and AAA are generally small except in heterogeneous interface regions. AXB D_w,m and D_m,m calculations are similar inside the soft tissue and lung regions. AXB can benefit lung VMAT plans by both improving accuracy and reducing computation time.

[en] Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) credentialing for a EORTC study was performed using an anthropomorphic head phantom from the Radiological Physics Center (RPC; RPC_P_H). Institutions were retrospectively requested to irradiate their institutional phantom (INST_P_H) using the same treatment plan in the framework of a Virtual Phantom Project (VPP) for IMRT credentialing. CT data set of the institutional phantom and measured 2D dose matrices were requested from centers and sent to a dedicated secure EORTC uploader. Data from the RPC_P_H and INST_P_H were thereafter centrally analyzed and inter-compared by the QA team using commercially available software (RIT; ver.5.2; Colorado Springs, USA). Eighteen institutions participated to the VPP. The measurements of 6 (33%) institutions could not be analyzed centrally. All other centers passed both the VPP and the RPC ±7%/4 mm credentialing criteria. At the 5%/5 mm gamma criteria (90% of pixels passing), 11(92%) as compared to 12 (100%) centers pass the credentialing process with RPC_P_H and INST_P_H (p = 0.29), respectively. The corresponding pass rate for the 3%/3 mm gamma criteria (90% of pixels passing) was 2 (17%) and 9 (75%; p = 0.01), respectively. IMRT dosimetry gamma evaluations in a single plane for a H&N prospective trial using the INST_P_H measurements showed agreement at the gamma index criteria of ±5%/5 mm (90% of pixels passing) for a small number of VPP measurements. Using more stringent, criteria, the RPC_P_H and INST_P_H comparison showed disagreement. More data is warranted and urgently required within the framework of prospective studies

[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: To design, construct, and evaluate an anthropomorphic phantom for evaluation of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) dose planning and delivery, for protocols developed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) and other cooperative groups. Methods and Materials: The phantom was constructed from a plastic head-shaped shell and water-equivalent plastics. Internal structures mimic planning target volumes and an organ at risk. Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and radiochromic film were used to measure the absolute dose and the dose distribution, respectively. The reproducibility of the phantom's dosimeters was verified for IMRT treatments, and the phantom was then imaged, planned, and irradiated by 10 RTOG institutions. Results: The TLD results from three identical irradiations showed a percent standard deviation of less than 1.6%, and the film-scanning system was reproducible to within 0.35 mm. Data collected from irradiations at 10 institutions showed that the TLD agreed with institutions' doses to within ±5% standard deviation in the planning target volumes and ±13% standard deviation in the organ at risk. Shifts as large as 8 mm between the treatment plan and delivery were detected with the film. Conclusions: An anthropomorphic phantom using TLD and radiochromic film can verify dose delivery and field placement for IMRT treatments

[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.

[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 determine whether in-house patient-specific intensity modulated radiation therapy quality assurance (IMRT QA) results predict Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC)-Houston phantom results. Methods and Materials: IROC Houston's IMRT head and neck phantoms have been irradiated by numerous institutions as part of clinical trial credentialing. We retrospectively compared these phantom results with those of in-house IMRT QA (following the institution's clinical process) for 855 irradiations performed between 2003 and 2013. The sensitivity and specificity of IMRT QA to detect unacceptable or acceptable plans were determined relative to the IROC Houston phantom results. Additional analyses evaluated specific IMRT QA dosimeters and analysis methods. Results: IMRT QA universally showed poor sensitivity relative to the head and neck phantom, that is, poor ability to predict a failing IROC Houston phantom result. Depending on how the IMRT QA results were interpreted, overall sensitivity ranged from 2% to 18%. For different IMRT QA methods, sensitivity ranged from 3% to 54%. Although the observed sensitivity was particularly poor at clinical thresholds (eg 3% dose difference or 90% of pixels passing gamma), receiver operator characteristic analysis indicated that no threshold showed good sensitivity and specificity for the devices evaluated. Conclusions: IMRT QA is not a reasonable replacement for a credentialing phantom. Moreover, the particularly poor agreement between IMRT QA and the IROC Houston phantoms highlights surprising inconsistency in the QA process