Ezzell, Gary A.

AbstractImplementing tighter intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA) tolerances initially resulted in high numbers of marginal or failing QA results and motivated a number of improvements to our calculational processes. This work details those improvements and their effect on results. One hundred eighty IMRT plans analyzed previously were collected and new gamma criteria were applied and compared to the original results. The results were used to obtain an estimate for the number of plans that would require additional dose volume histogram (DVH)‐based analysis and therefore predicted workload increase. For 2 months and 133 plans, the established criteria were continued while the new criteria were applied and tracked in parallel. Because the number of marginal or failing plans far exceeded the predicted levels, a number of calculational elements were investigated: IMRT modeling parameters, calculation grid size, and couch top modeling. After improvements to these elements, the new criteria were clinically implemented and the frequency of passing, questionable, and failing plans measured for the subsequent 15 months and 674 plans. The retrospective analysis of selected IMRT QA results demonstrated that 75% of plans should pass, while 19% of IMRT QA plans would need DVH‐based analysis and an additional 6% would fail. However, after applying the tighter criteria for 2 months, the distribution of plans was significantly different from prediction with questionable or failing plans reaching 47%. After investigating and improving several elements of the IMRT calculation processes, the frequency of questionable plans was reduced to 11% and that of failing plans to less than 1%. Tighter IMRT QA tolerances revealed the need to improve several elements of our plan calculations. As a consequence, the accuracy of our plans have improved, and the frequency of finding marginal or failing IMRT QA results, remains within our practical ability to respond.

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to determine clinically relevant pass/question/fail criteria for gamma analysis of intensity‐modulated radiation therapy quality assurance (IMRT QA) plans, identify which plans should be further analyzed with dose–volume histogram (DVH) metrics, and create a workflow for performing that DVH‐based analysis.MethodsA total of 11 plans, 5 prostate and 6 head/neck, were selected to represent known good plans based on their high‐passing rate using conventional IMRT QA criteria. These were modified by moving the programmed MLC positions to underdose the target or overdose important structures by varying amounts. Commercially available hardware/software was used to measure and analyze all plans (76 total) using 4%/3 mm, 3%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm, and 2%/2 mm gamma criteria. Two receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves per criterion were created to assess effective passing rates. One ROC curve was to find a higher threshold that determined a clear pass and the second to find a lower threshold to determine a clear failure. Plans between these two thresholds need DVH‐based analysis to assess the clinical consequence of the dose difference. The modified plans were analyzed in the planning system and reconstructed in commercially available DVH‐based analysis software to access the accuracy and usefulness of the software.ResultsAnalysis of the ROC curves showed optimal pass and fail thresholds for plan error detection per criterion to achieve clinically relevant sensitivity and specificity. Based on measurement uncertainty and pass/fail ranges, 3%/2 mm gamma criteria with a pass threshold of 95% and a fail threshold of 90% were most optimal. DVH analysis showed good agreement with all reconstructed plans except where the changes to the MLC patterns caused the periphery of the target to be underdosed. For questionable plans, comparing the organ‐specific DVHs to the physician‐provided planning constraints proved to be an efficient and effective workflow since plans for which the target dose was slightly high or where organs at risk were underdosed could be released for the treatment without consulting the physician for a clinical decision.ConclusionThis work indicates the potential for appreciable improvement in error detection for IMRT QA. Using effective pass/fail thresholds to determine plans that need DVH‐based analysis minimizes the need for excessive, time‐consuming, analysis, and making use of the dosimetric constraints of the plan minimizes the burden on physicians. Overall, DVH‐based analysis is a powerful tool that can provide substantial insight over the traditional approach that does not provide structure‐specific data.

AbstractSingle‐isocenter, multitarget cranial stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is more efficient than using an isocenter for each target, but spatial positioning uncertainties can be magnified at locations away from the isocenter. This study reports on the spatial accuracy of two frameless, linac‐based SRS systems for multitarget, single‐isocenter SRS as a function of distance from the isocenter. One system uses the ExacTrac platform for image guidance and the other localizes with cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). For each platform, a phantom with 12 target BBs distributed up to 13.8 cm from the isocenter was aligned starting from five different initial offsets and then imaged with the treatment beam at seven different gantry and couch angles. The distribution of the resulting positioning errors demonstrated the value of adding a 1‐mm PTV margin for targets up to about 7–8 cm from the isocenter. For distances 10 cm or more, the CBCT‐based alignment remained within 1.1 mm while the ExacTrac‐based alignment differed by up to 2.2 mm.

The purpose of this study is to apply the principles of statistical process control (SPC) in the context of patient specific intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) QA to set clinic‐specific action limits and evaluate the impact of changes to the multileaf collimator (MLC) calibrations on IMRT QA results. Ten months of IMRT QA data with 247 patient QAs collected on three beam‐matched linacs were retrospectively analyzed with a focus on the gamma pass rate (GPR) and the average ratio between the measured and planned doses. Initial control charts and action limits were calculated. Based on this data, changes were made to the leaf gap parameter for the MLCs to improve the consistency between linacs. This leaf gap parameter is tested monthly using a MLC sweep test. A follow‐up dataset with 424 unique QAs were used to evaluate the impact of the leaf gap parameter change. The initial data average GPR was 98.6% with an SPC action limit of 93.7%. The average ratio of doses was 1.003, with an upper action limit of 1.017 and a lower action limit of 0.989. The sweep test results for the linacs were , and from nominal. After the adjustment of the leaf gap parameter, all sweep test results were within 0.4% of nominal. Subsequently, the average GPR was 99.4% with an SPC action limit of 97.3%. The average ratio of doses was 0.997 with an upper action limit of 1.011 and a lower action limit of 0.981. Applying the principles of SPC to IMRT QA allowed small differences between closely matched linacs to be identified and reduced. Ongoing analysis will monitor the process and be used to refine the clinical action limits for IMRT QA.PACS number: 87.55.Qr

We have recently commissioned a temporary radiation therapy facility that is novel in two aspects: it was constructed using modular components, and the LINAC was installed in one of the modular sections before it was lifted into position. Additional steel and granular fill was added to the modular sections on‐site during construction. The building will be disassembled and removed when no longer needed. This paper describes the radiation shielding specifications and survey of the facility, as well as the ramifications for acceptance testing occasioned by the novel installation procedure. The LINAC is a Varian 21EX operating at 6 MV and 18 MV. The radiation levels outside the vault satisfied the design criteria, and no anomalous leakage was detected along the joints of the modular structure. At 18 MV and 600 monitor units (MU) per minute, the radiation level outside the primary barrier walls was of photons; there were no detectable neutrons. Outside the direct‐shielded door, the levels were of photons and of neutrons. The isocentricity of the accelerator met the acceptance criteria and was not affected by its preinstallation into an integrated baseframe and subsequent transport to the building site.PACS numbers: 87.52.Df, 87.52.Ga

The control loop in the Varian DMLC system (V4.8) requires msec to monitor and halt the irradiation of a segment, causing an “overshoot” effect: the segment ends on a fractional monitor unit larger than that planned. As a result, the actual MU delivered may differ from that planned. In general, for step‐and‐shoot treatments, the first segment receives more, the last receives less, and intermediate segments vary. The overshoot for each segment (ΔMU) is small, approximately 0.6 MU at 600 MU/min Our IMRT planning system (Corvus) produces plans often having more than 20% of the segments with less than 1 MU/segment. Such segments may be skipped if the ΔMU exceeds the segments’ planned MU. Furthermore, QA filming often requires reducing the total MU by a factor of 4–6, increasing the potential for dosimetric error. This study measured ΔMU over a range of MU/min and MU/segment. At MU/segment, the ΔMU was stable, corresponding to a delay of 62 msec. ΔMU became larger and more variable at MU/segment. The behavior was modeled in a computer program that predicted the change in delivered MU/segment and total change in delivered MU to each beamlet. Beams were analyzed for patients receiving 5 field prostate or 9 field head and neck treatments. At 400 MU/min, 28% and 16%, respectively, of the planned segments were skipped. For QA filming, up to 75% of the segments were skipped. The cumulative error averaged MU/beamlet, but individual beamlets had errors exceeding 200%. The effect is most significant for low dose regions. Recommendations are given for deciding when to treat or do QA studies with lower MU/min. In general, treatments are not significantly affected, but QA films taken at reduced MU may be improved if irradiated at lowered MU/min.PACS number(s): 87.53.–j, 87.90.+y

We have developed a treatment planning protocol for intensity‐modulated radiation therapy of the prostate using commercially available inverse planning software. Treatment plans were developed for ten patients using the Corvus version 3.8 planning system, testing various prescription options, including tissue types, dose volume histogram values for the target and normal structures, beam arrangements, and number of intensity levels. All plans were scaled so that 95% of the clinical target volume received 75.6 Gy; mean doses to the prostate were typically 79 Gy. The reproducibility of the inverse planning algorithm was tested by repeating a set of the plans five times. Plans were deemed acceptable if they satisfied predefined dose constraints for the targets and critical organs. Figures of merit for target coverage, target dose uniformity, and organ sparing were used to rank acceptable plans. Certain systematic behaviors of the optimizer were noted: the high dose regions for both targets and critical organs were 5–10 Gy more than prescribed; reducing bladder and rectum tolerance increased the range of doses within the target; increasing the number of fields incrementally improved plan quality. A set of planning parameters was found that usually satisfied the minimum requirements. Repeating the optimization with different beam order produced similar but slightly different dose distributions, which was sometimes useful for finding acceptable solutions for difficult cases. The standard set of parameters serves as a useful starting point for individualized planning.PACS number(s): 87.53.–j, 87.90.+y