skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: SU-F-T-279: Impact of Beam Energy Drifts On IMRT Delivery Accuracy

Abstract

Purpose: According to TG-40 percent-depth-dose (PDD) tolerance is ±2% but TG-142 is ±1%. Now the question is, which one is relevant in IMRT era? The primary objective of this study is to evaluate dosimetric impact of beam-energy-drifts on IMRT-delivery. Methods: Beam-energy drifts were simulated by adjusting Linac’s bending-magnet-current (BMC) followed by tuning the pulse-forming network and adjusting gun-current. PDD change of −0.6% and +1.2% were tested. Planar-dosimetry measurements were performed using an ionization-chamber-array in solid-water phantoms. Study includes 10-head-and-neck and 3-breast cancer patients. en-face beam-deliveries were also tested at 1.3cm and 5.3cm depths. Composite and single-field dose-distributions were compared against the plans to determine %Gamma pass-rates (%GPRs). For plan dose comparisons, changes in %Gamma pass-rates (cPGPRs) were computed/reported to exclude the differences between dose-computation and delivery. Dose distributions of the drifted-energies were compared against their baseline measurements to determine the% GPRs. A Gamma criteria of 3%/3mm was considered for plan-dose comparisons while 3%/1mm used for measured dose intercomparisons. Results: For composite-dose delivery, average cPGPRs were 0.41%±2.48% and −2.54%±3.65% for low-energy (LE) and high-energy (HE) drifts, respectively. For measured dose inter-comparisons, the average%GPRs were 98.4%±2.2% (LE-drift) and 95.8%±4.0 (HE-drift). The average %GPR of 92.6%±4.3% was noted for the worst-case scenario comparingmore » LE-drift to HE-drift. All en-face beams at 5.3 cm depth have cPGPRs within ±4% of the baseline-energy measurements. However, greater variations were noted for 1.3cm depth. Average %GPRs for drifted energies were >99% at 5.3cm and >97% at 1.3cm depths. However, for the worst-case scenario (LE-drift to HE-drift) these numbers dropped to 95.2% at 5.3cm and 93.1% at 1.3cm depths. Conclusion: The dosimetric impact of beam-energy drifts was found to be within clinically acceptable tolerance. However, this study includes a single energy with limited range of PDD change. Further studies are on going and the results will be presented. Received funding from Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA.« less

Authors:
 [1]; ; ; ;  [2];  [3];  [4];  [5];  [6]
  1. Washington University, St. Louis, MO (United States)
  2. Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO (United States)
  3. Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO (United States)
  4. Baylor Scot & White, Temple, TX (United States)
  5. Baylor Scott & White Health, Temple, TX (United States)
  6. Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22648892
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; BEAMS; CALCULATION METHODS; DELIVERY; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY

Citation Formats

Goddu, S, Kamal, G, Herman, A, Edwards, S, Cai, B, Yaddanapudi, S, Oddiraju, S, Rangaraj, D, and Mutic, S. SU-F-T-279: Impact of Beam Energy Drifts On IMRT Delivery Accuracy. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956419.
Goddu, S, Kamal, G, Herman, A, Edwards, S, Cai, B, Yaddanapudi, S, Oddiraju, S, Rangaraj, D, & Mutic, S. SU-F-T-279: Impact of Beam Energy Drifts On IMRT Delivery Accuracy. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956419.
Goddu, S, Kamal, G, Herman, A, Edwards, S, Cai, B, Yaddanapudi, S, Oddiraju, S, Rangaraj, D, and Mutic, S. 2016. "SU-F-T-279: Impact of Beam Energy Drifts On IMRT Delivery Accuracy". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956419.
@article{osti_22648892,
title = {SU-F-T-279: Impact of Beam Energy Drifts On IMRT Delivery Accuracy},
author = {Goddu, S and Kamal, G and Herman, A and Edwards, S and Cai, B and Yaddanapudi, S and Oddiraju, S and Rangaraj, D and Mutic, S},
abstractNote = {Purpose: According to TG-40 percent-depth-dose (PDD) tolerance is ±2% but TG-142 is ±1%. Now the question is, which one is relevant in IMRT era? The primary objective of this study is to evaluate dosimetric impact of beam-energy-drifts on IMRT-delivery. Methods: Beam-energy drifts were simulated by adjusting Linac’s bending-magnet-current (BMC) followed by tuning the pulse-forming network and adjusting gun-current. PDD change of −0.6% and +1.2% were tested. Planar-dosimetry measurements were performed using an ionization-chamber-array in solid-water phantoms. Study includes 10-head-and-neck and 3-breast cancer patients. en-face beam-deliveries were also tested at 1.3cm and 5.3cm depths. Composite and single-field dose-distributions were compared against the plans to determine %Gamma pass-rates (%GPRs). For plan dose comparisons, changes in %Gamma pass-rates (cPGPRs) were computed/reported to exclude the differences between dose-computation and delivery. Dose distributions of the drifted-energies were compared against their baseline measurements to determine the% GPRs. A Gamma criteria of 3%/3mm was considered for plan-dose comparisons while 3%/1mm used for measured dose intercomparisons. Results: For composite-dose delivery, average cPGPRs were 0.41%±2.48% and −2.54%±3.65% for low-energy (LE) and high-energy (HE) drifts, respectively. For measured dose inter-comparisons, the average%GPRs were 98.4%±2.2% (LE-drift) and 95.8%±4.0 (HE-drift). The average %GPR of 92.6%±4.3% was noted for the worst-case scenario comparing LE-drift to HE-drift. All en-face beams at 5.3 cm depth have cPGPRs within ±4% of the baseline-energy measurements. However, greater variations were noted for 1.3cm depth. Average %GPRs for drifted energies were >99% at 5.3cm and >97% at 1.3cm depths. However, for the worst-case scenario (LE-drift to HE-drift) these numbers dropped to 95.2% at 5.3cm and 93.1% at 1.3cm depths. Conclusion: The dosimetric impact of beam-energy drifts was found to be within clinically acceptable tolerance. However, this study includes a single energy with limited range of PDD change. Further studies are on going and the results will be presented. Received funding from Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956419},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • This work reports an investigation on the reliability, accuracy, and efficiency of gated intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) delivery with a commercial linear accelerator. The dosimetry measurements of segmented multileaf collimated IMRT (SMLC-IMRT) were performed by using radiographic films and a two-dimensional diode array. Testing involved a series of IMRT fields from actual patients combined with some manually generated fields. To examine the delivery time, dosimetry plans of standard beamlet IMRT, direct-aperture-optimized (DAO) IMRT, compensator IMRT, and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy with wedges were delivered with and without gating. The results demonstrated that the gated SMLC-IMRT can be reliably and accuratelymore » delivered on this type of accelerators, as long as extremely high interruption frequencies and very low number of monitor units per segment are avoided. Beam flatness exceeded 5% and monitor linearity deviated more than 3% for the gated operation with 2.5 s breathing cycle and 20% duty cycle with segment sizes less than 10 MU. Gating does not change multi leaf collimator (MLC) positioning accuracy. The DAO IMRT is preferred for gated delivery because of its short delivery time.« less
  • Purpose: Helical tomotherapy (HT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) are arc-based approaches to IMRT delivery. The objective of this study is to compare VMAT to both HT and fixed field IMRT in terms of plan quality, delivery efficiency, and accuracy. Methods: Eighteen cases including six prostate, six head-and-neck, and six lung cases were selected for this study. IMRT plans were developed using direct machine parameter optimization in the Pinnacle{sup 3} treatment planning system. HT plans were developed using a Hi-Art II planning station. VMAT plans were generated using both the Pinnacle{sup 3} SmartArc IMRT module and a home-grown arcmore » sequencing algorithm. VMAT and HT plans were delivered using Elekta's PreciseBeam VMAT linac control system (Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden) and a TomoTherapy Hi-Art II system (TomoTherapy Inc., Madison, WI), respectively. Treatment plan quality assurance (QA) for VMAT was performed using the IBA MatriXX system while an ion chamber and films were used for HT plan QA. Results: The results demonstrate that both VMAT and HT are capable of providing more uniform target doses and improved normal tissue sparing as compared with fixed field IMRT. In terms of delivery efficiency, VMAT plan deliveries on average took 2.2 min for prostate and lung cases and 4.6 min for head-and-neck cases. These values increased to 4.7 and 7.0 min for HT plans. Conclusions: Both VMAT and HT plans can be delivered accurately based on their own QA standards. Overall, VMAT was able to provide approximately a 40% reduction in treatment time while maintaining comparable plan quality to that of HT.« less
  • The objective determination of performance standards for radiation therapy equipment requires, ideally, establishing the quantitative relationship between performance deviations and clinical outcome or some acceptable surrogate. In this simulation study the authors analyzed the dosimetric impact of random (leaf by leaf) and systematic (entire leaf bank) errors in the position of the MLC leaves on seven clinical prostate and seven clinical head and neck IMRT plans delivered using a dynamic MLC. In-house software was developed to incorporate normally distributed errors of up to {+-}2 mm in individual leaf position or systematic errors ({+-}1 and {+-}0.5 mm in all leaves ofmore » both leaf banks or +1 mm in one bank only) into the 14 plans, thus simulating treatment delivery using a suboptimally performing MLC. The dosimetric consequences of suboptimal MLC performance were quantified using the equivalent uniform doses (EUDs) of the clinical target volumes and important organs at risk (OARs). The deviation of the EUDs of the selected structures as the performance of the MLC deteriorated was used as the objective surrogate of clinical outcome. Random errors of 2 mm resulted in negligible changes for all structures of interest in both sites. In contrast, systematic errors can lead to potentially significant dosimetric changes that may compromise clinical outcome. If a 2% change in EUD of the target and 2 Gy for the OARs were adopted as acceptable levels of deviation in dose due to MLC effects alone, then systematic errors in leaf position will need to be limited to 0.3 mm. This study provides guidance, based on a dosimetric surrogate of clinical outcome, for the development of one component, leaf position accuracy of performance standards for multileaf collimators.« less
  • Purpose: A method is established to improve the accuracy of the IMRT dose delivery for the treatment of breast and chest wall tumors when the higher dose gradient is delivered at the end of the leaf sequence. Methods: Dynamic MLC deliveries on Varian Linacs are achieved through the motion of the leaves from X1 to X2 direction. If the higher dose gradient is at the end of the leaf motion sequence, this can Result in an increased error in the overall dose delivery. Such errors have been observed in Lateral beams for Left-sided and Medial beams for Right-sided treatments. Tomore » evaluate and resolve this issue we adopted an approach where the fluence for such beams was geometrically flipped (mirrored) to treat the higher end of the dose gradient first. Results: Using this method, it was possible to deliver the optimized dose map to the area of interest still using only the X1–X2 direction of the leaf motion. The accuracy of this method was tested on different beam as part of our pre-treatment QA program on both Varian delivery systems. With this approach we found that there was significant improvement in delivery accuracy on both 21EX and TrueBeam systems. Beams of initial Gamma index (3% and 3mm) 89–93% were increased to 98–99%. We also observed superior delivery accuracy with TB compared to the 21EX Conclusion: This work demonstrate the need for a delivery sequence option from X2–X1 in situations where the MLC sequence indicates higher dose gradient component is being delivered at the end of the sequence. Results from this work can be considered in the IMRT beam optimization in the treatment planning systems. Further work will be required to establish the application of this approach in clinical setting.« less
  • Purpose: To assess if the TrueBeam HD120 collimator is delivering small IMRT fields accurately and consistently throughout the course of treatment using the SunNuclear PerFraction software. Methods: 7-field IMRT plans for 8 canine patients who passed IMRT QA using SunNuclear Mapcheck DQA were selected for this study. The animals were setup using CBCT image guidance. The EPID fluence maps were captured for each treatment field and each treatment fraction, with the first fraction EPID data serving as the baseline for comparison. The Sun Nuclear PerFraction Software was used to compare the EPID data for subsequent fractions using a Gamma (3%/3mm)more » pass rate of 90%. To simulate requirements for SRS, the data was reanalyzed using a Gamma (3%/1mm) pass rate of 90%. Low-dose, low- and high gradient thresholds were used to focus the analysis on clinically relevant parts of the dose distribution. Results: Not all fractions could be analyzed, because during some of the treatment courses the DICOM tags in the EPID images intermittently change from CU to US (unspecified), which would indicate a temporary loss of EPID calibration. This technical issue is still being investigated. For the remaining fractions, the vast majority (7/8 of patients, 95% of fractions, and 96.6% of fields) are passing the less stringent Gamma criteria. The more stringent Gamma criteria caused a drop in pass rate (90 % of fractions, 84% of fields). For the patient with the lowest pass rate, wet towel bolus was used. Another patient with low pass rates experienced masseter muscle wasting. Conclusion: EPID dosimetry using the PerFraction software demonstrated that the majority of fields passed a Gamma (3%/3mm) for IMRT treatments delivered with a TrueBeam HD120 MLC. Pass rates dropped for a DTA of 1mm to model SRS tolerances. PerFraction pass rates can flag missing bolus or internal shields. Sanjeev Saini is an employee of Sun Nuclear Corporation. For this study, a pre-release version of PerFRACTION 1.1 software from Sun Nuclear Corporation was used.« less