Robertson, Daniel G

Abstract Background Quality assurance (QA) in radiation therapy is a critical component of ensuring accurate and consistent patient treatments, but many tasks are time consuming and rely on human visual acuity, which limits their accuracy. Purpose We aimed to automate monthly mechanical QA tests, improve measurement accuracy and precision, and decrease inter‐user variability using a computer vision‐based quality assurance (CVQA) system. Methods A custom marker board incorporating four ArUco markers was created along with a custom camera holder that mounted onto the gantry head. OpenCV was utilized to automate tests for couch translation, collimator and table angles, collimator and table walkout, optical distance indicator (ODI), and field size detection. A GUI was created to guide users through the tests, determine passing status of measurements based on MPPG8.b criteria, and display image captures to allow users to troubleshoot if needed. Reproducibility tests were taken across four days. The system was tested against manual measurements by graph paper or digital level for each test. Field sizes and ODI were read by 12 different physicists to determine human variability and comparisons for CVQA. Results The CVQA system took 5 min to set up and 7 min to perform all tests. All field sizes, collimator/table angles, collimator/table walkout, and table translations were reproducible within 0.5 mm and 0.5°. ODI measurements were reproducible within 1 mm. Table travel, ODI, and walkout measurements agreed with manual measurements within 0.5 mm and 0.4°, except for vertical table motions that agreed within 0.9 mm due to the lens focus being optimized for the 100 cm SSD plane. The standard deviation between physicists for almost all symmetric and asymmetric jaws was larger than the reproducibility of CVQA. CVQA has been utilized for five years and has demonstrated ability to identify mechanical machine issues. Conclusions CVQA successfully automates mechanical QA tasks, providing an efficient and precise system. CVQA is open source and freely available for academic institutions. Its adoption can improve workflow efficiency and consistency in clinical environments.

Abstract Introduction Linear accelerators require a large amount of data to be collected daily, monthly and annually to verify safe deliveries for patients. Different detectors have been utilized to improve the simplicity, efficiency and accuracy of the various experimental setups required to collect the necessary data resulting in reduced data collection and evaluation time. Plastic scintillators are stable and energy independent radiation detectors with high spatial resolution that emit light proportional to the amount of radiation incident on them. With an appropriate photodetector and technique to measure and analyze the light that is emitted, scintillators can be utilized to measure dosimetric parameters necessary for various monthly quality assurance requirements. Methods A uniform cylindrical plastic scintillator imaged by a complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) camera is designed to act as a radiation detector to measure 2D projections of linear accelerator beams. Beams were delivered to the detector to evaluate machine quality assurance (QA) parameters, including beam energy, output, profile consistency and reproducibility as described by TG‐198. These measurements were compared to calculations from the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS). Typical monthly quality assurance (QA) beams were delivered and 2D projections of the scintillation light were measured to validate the accuracy and reproducibility of this detector system for monthly QA. Results The plastic scintillator was able to accurately characterize the radiation beam. Energy and profile measurements were reproducible and within 2%/2mm of calculations in the TPS. Output measurements had maximum variations of up to 1.3% and average differences of 0.5%. Conclusion A simple cylindrical plastic scintillator and CMOS camera radiation detector setup was designed and tested for measuring monthly QA dosimetric parameters specified by TG‐198 with accurate and reproducible output, energy and profiles measurements. This method reduces the number of measurements required, allowing multiple parameters to be evaluated in a single beam delivery.

Abstract Background Incorporating image guidance into ion beam therapy is critical for minimizing beam range uncertainties and realizing the modality's potential. One promising avenue for image guidance is to capture transmission ion radiographs (iRads) before and/or during treatment. iRad image quality is typically maximized using a single‐event imaging system, which involves tracking individual ions, albeit the approach is generally not suited to clinical beam settings. An alternative faster and clinically compatible method is integrated mode imaging, where individual pencil beam data is acquired, rather than single ion data. To evaluate the usefulness of transmission ion imaging for image guidance, it is crucial to evaluate the image quality of integrated mode iRad systems. Purpose We report extensive image quality metrics of integrated mode carbon ion radiographs (cRads) and compare them with proton radiographs (pRads). Methods iRads were obtained at the Marburg Ion Beam Therapy Center using a plastic volumetric scintillator equipped with CCD cameras. The detector captures orthogonal views of the 3D energy deposition in the scintillator from individual pencil beams. Four phantoms were scanned using a field of view and a beam spacing of 1 mm. First, 9 tissue‐substitute inserts were used to evaluate water equivalent thickness (WET) accuracy. Radiographs of those inserts were reconstructed for beam spacings ranging from 1 to 7 mm to evaluate the impact of spacing on quantitative accuracy. For spatial resolution, custom 3D printed line pair (lp) modules ranging from 0.5 to 10 lp/cm were scanned. To evaluate low contrast detectability, a custom 3D printed low contrast module consisting of 20 holes with depths ranging from 1 to 8 mm and diameters from 1 to 10 mm was scanned. iRads of an anthropomorphic head phantom were also obtained. Results Spatial resolution and low contrast detection are systematically improved for cRads compared to pRads. Image resolution was 3.7 lp/cm for cRads and 1.7 lp/cm for pRads in the center of the field of view. Spatial resolution was found to vary with the object's location in the field of view. While pRads could mostly resolve low contrast holes of 10 mm in diameter, cRads could resolve holes of up in 4 mm diameter. WET accuracy is similar for both ion species, with a root mean squared error of approximately 1 mm. WET accuracy was stable (maximum of 0.1 mm increase) across beam spacings, although important under‐sampling artifacts were observed for iRads reconstructed using large beam spacings, especially for cRads. iRads of the anthropomorphic head phantom showed improved apparent contrast using cRads, especially to identify bony structures. Conclusions This work is the first investigation of image quality metrics such as spatial resolution and low contrast detectability for integrated mode cRads, with a full comparison with pRads. Enhanced image quality is obtained with cRads compared to pRads, although pRads still maintain high WET accuracy and deliver image quality within acceptable bounds.

AbstractBackgroundMotion of lung tumors during radiotherapy leads to decreased accuracy of the delivered dose distribution. This is especially true for proton radiotherapy due to the finite range of the proton beam. Methods for mitigating motion rely on knowing the position of the tumor during treatment.PurposeProton radiography uses the treatment beam, at an energy high enough to traverse the patient, to produce a radiograph. This work shows the first results of using an integrated‐mode proton radiography system to track the position of moving objects in an experimental phantom study; demonstrating the potential of using this method for measuring tumor motion.MethodsProton radiographs of an anthropomorphic lung phantom, with a motor‐driven tumor insert, were acquired approximately every 1 s, using tumor inserts of 10, 20, and 30 mm undergoing a known periodic motion. The proton radiography system used a monolithic scintillator block and digital cameras to capture the residual range of each pencil beam passing through the phantom. These ranges were then used to produce a water equivalent thickness map of the phantom. The centroid of the tumor insert in the radiographs was used to determine its position. This measured position was then compared to the known motion of the phantom to determine the accuracy.ResultsSubmillimeter accuracy on the measurement of the tumor insert was achieved when using a 30 mm tumor insert with a period of 24 s and was found to be improved for decreasing motion amplitudes with a mean absolute error (MAE) of 1.0, 0.9, and 0.7 mm for 20, 15, and 10 mm respectively. Using smaller tumor inserts reduced the accuracy with a MAE of 1.8 and 1.9 mm for a 20 and 10 mm insert respectively undergoing a periodic motion with an amplitude of 20 mm and a period of 24 s. Using a shorter period resulted in significant motion artifacts reducing the accuracy to a MAE of 2.2 mm for a 12 s period and 3.1 mm for a 6 s period for the 30 mm insert with an amplitude of 20 mm.ConclusionsThis work demonstrates that the position of a lung tumor insert in a realistic anthropomorphic phantom can be measured with high accuracy using proton radiographs. Results show that the accuracy of the position measurement is the highest for slower tumor motions due to a reduction in motion artifacts. This indicates that the primary obstacle to accurate measurement is the speed of the radiograph acquisition. Although the slower tumor motions used in this study are not clinically realistic, this work demonstrates the potential for using proton radiography for measuring tumor motion with an increased scanning speed that results in a decreased acquisition time.

Abstract Integrated-mode proton radiography leading to water equivalent thickness (WET) maps is an avenue of interest for motion management, patient positioning, and in vivo range verification. Radiographs can be obtained using a pencil beam scanning setup with a large 3D monolithic scintillator coupled with optical cameras. Established reconstruction methods either (1) involve a camera at the distal end of the scintillator, or (2) use a lateral view camera as a range telescope. Both approaches lead to limited image quality. The purpose of this work is to propose a third, novel reconstruction framework that exploits the 2D information provided by two lateral view cameras, to improve image quality achievable using lateral views. The three methods are first compared in a simulated Geant4 Monte Carlo framework using an extended cardiac torso (XCAT) phantom and a slanted edge. The proposed method with 2D lateral views is also compared with the range telescope approach using experimental data acquired with a plastic volumetric scintillator. Scanned phantoms include a Las Vegas (contrast), 9 tissue-substitute inserts (WET accuracy), and a paediatric head phantom. Resolution increases from 0.24 (distal) to 0.33 lp mm −1 (proposed method) on the simulated slanted edge phantom, and the mean absolute error on WET maps of the XCAT phantom is reduced from 3.4 to 2.7 mm with the same methods. Experimental data from the proposed 2D lateral views indicate a 36% increase in contrast relative to the range telescope method. High WET accuracy is obtained, with a mean absolute error of 0.4 mm over 9 inserts. Results are presented for various pencil beam spacing ranging from 2 to 6 mm. This work illustrates that high quality proton radiographs can be obtained with clinical beam settings and the proposed reconstruction framework with 2D lateral views, with potential applications in adaptive proton therapy.

AbstractBackgroundMechanical accuracy should be verified before implementing a proton stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) program. Linear accelerator (Linac)‐based SRS systems often use electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs) to verify beam isocentricity. Because proton therapy systems do not have EPID, beam isocentricity tests of proton SRS may still rely on films, which are not efficient.PurposeTo validate that our proton SRS system meets mechanical precision requirements and to present an efficient method to evaluate the couch and gantry's rotational isocentricity for our proton SRS system.MethodsA dedicated applicator to hold brass aperture for proton SRS system was designed. The mechanical precision of the system was tested using a metal ball and film for 11 combinations of gantry and couch angles. A more efficient quality assurance (QA) procedure was developed, which used a scintillator device to replace the film. The couch rotational isocentricity tests were performed using orthogonal kV x‐rays with the couch rotated isocentrically to five positions (0°, 315°, 270°, 225°, and 180°). At each couch position, the distance between the metal ball in kV images and the imaging isocenter was measured. The gantry isocentricity tests were performed using a cone‐shaped scintillator and proton beams at five gantry angles (0°, 45°, 90°, 135°, and 180°), and the isocenter position and the distance of each beam path to the isocenter were obtained. Daily QA procedure was performed for 1 month to test the robustness and reproducibility of the procedure.ResultsThe gantry and couch rotational isocentricity exhibited sub‐mm precision, with most measurements within ±0.5 mm. The 1‐month QA results showed that the procedure was robust and highly reproducible to within ±0.2 mm. The gantry isocentricity test using the cone‐shaped scintillator was accurate and sensitive to variations of ±0.2 mm. The QA procedure was efficient enough to be completed within 30 min. The 1‐month isocentricity position variations were within 0.5 mm, which demonstrating that the overall proton SRS system was stable and precise.ConclusionThe proton SRS Winston–Lutz QA procedure using a cone‐shaped scintillator was efficient and robust. We were able to verify radiation delivery could be performed with sub‐mm mechanical precision.

AbstractPurposeTo develop an online graphic processing unit (GPU)‐accelerated Monte Carlo‐based adaptive radiation therapy (ART) workflow for pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy to address interfraction anatomical changes in patients treated with PBS.Methods and MaterialsA four‐step workflow was developed using our in‐house developed GPU‐accelerated Monte Carlo‐based treatment planning system to implement online Monte Carlo‐based ART for PBS. The first step conducts diffeomorphic demon‐based deformable image registration (DIR) to propagate contours on the initial planning CT (pCT) to the verification CT (vCT) to form a new structure set. The second step performs forward dose calculation of the initial plan on the vCT with the propagated contours after manual approval (possible modifications involved). The third step triggers a reoptimization of the plan depending on whether the verification dose meets the clinical requirements or not. A robust evaluation will be done for both the verification plan in the second step and the reopotimized plan in the third step. The fourth step involves a two‐stage (before and after delivery) patient‐specific quality assurance (PSQA) of the reoptimized plan. The before‐delivery PSQA is to compare the plan dose to the dose calculated using an independent fast open‐source Monte Carlo code, MCsquare. The after‐delivery PSQA is to compare the plan dose to the dose recalculated using the log file (spot MU, spot position, and spot energy) collected during the delivery. Jaccard index (JI), dice similarity coefficients (DSCs), and Hausdorff distance (HD) were used to assess the quality of the propagated contours in the first step. A commercial plan evaluation software, ClearCheck™, was integrated into the workflow to carry out efficient plan evaluation. 3D Gamma analysis was used during the fourth step to ensure the accuracy of the plan dose from reoptimization. Three patients with three different disease sites were chosen to evaluate the feasibility of the online ART workflow for PBS.ResultsFor all three patients, the propagated contours were found to have good volume conformance [JI (lowest‐highest: 0.833–0.983) and DSC (0.909–0.992)] but suboptimal boundary coincidence [HD (2.37–20.76 mm)] for organs‐at‐risk. The verification dose evaluated by ClearCheck™ showed significant degradation of the target coverage due to the interfractional anatomical changes. Reoptimization on the vCT resulted in great improvement of the plan quality to a clinically acceptable level. 3D Gamma analyses of PSQA confirmed the accuracy of the plan dose before delivery (mean Gamma index = 98.74% with a threshold of 2%/2 mm/10%), and after delivery based on the log files (mean Gamma index = 99.05% with a threshold of 2%/2 mm/10%). The average time cost for the complete execution of the workflow was around 858 s, excluding the time for manual intervention.ConclusionThe proposed online ART workflow for PBS was demonstrated to be efficient and effective by generating a reoptimized plan that significantly improved the plan quality.

AbstractPurposeTo measure diode sensitivity degradation (DSD) induced by cumulative proton dose delivered to a commercial daily quality assurance (QA) device.MethodsAt our institution, six Daily QA 3 (DQA3, Sun Nuclear Corporation, Melbourne, FL, USA) devices have been used for daily proton pencil beam scanning QA in four proton gantry rooms over a span of 4 years. DQA3 diode counts were cross‐calibrated using a homogenous field with a known dose of 1 Gy. The DSD rate (ΔR%/100 Gy) was calculated using linear regression on time‐series plots of diode counts and an estimate of cumulative dose per year based on the cross‐calibration. The effect of DSD on daily QA spot position measurements was quantified by converting DSD to baseline spot position shift.ResultsThe average dose delivered to the four inner DQA3 diodes was 104 ± 5 Gy/year, and the rate of DSD was ‐5.1% ± 1.0/100 Gy with the exception of one DQA3 device that had a significantly higher rate of DSD (–12%/100 Gy). The R2s of the linear fit to time‐series plots were between 0.92 and 0.98. The DSD rates were not constant but decreases with accumulated doses. The four center diodes, which received 40% of the cumulative dose received by inner diodes, had a DSD rate of –7.2% ± 0.9/100 Gy. For our daily QA program, 1 year of DSD was equivalent to a 0.2 mm shift in spot position.ConclusionsThe DSD rate of DQA3 diodes determined by long‐term proton daily QA data was about –5%/100 Gy, which is more than 10 times greater than the reported DSD rate from photon irradiation. DQA3 diodes may be used for daily proton QA programs, provided that they are recalibrated at an appropriate frequency that should be determined specifically for different daily QA programs.

AbstractPurposePatient‐Specific Quality Assurance (PSQA) measurement analysis depends on generating metrics representative of calculation and measurement agreement. Considering the heightened capability of discrete spot scanning protons to modulate individual dose voxels, a dose plane comparison approach that maintained all of the capabilities of the well‐established γ test, but that also provided a more intuitive error parameterization, was desired.MethodsAnalysis was performed for 300 dose planes compared by searching all calculated points within a fixed radius around each measured pixel to determine the dose deviation. Dose plane agreement is reported as the dose difference minimum (DDM) within an empirically established search radius: ΔDmin(r). This per‐pixel metric is aggregated into a histogram binned by dose deviation. Search‐radius criteria were based on a weighted‐beamlet 3σ spatial deviation from imaging isocenter. Equipment setup error was mitigated during analysis using tracked image registration, ensuring beamlet deviations to be the dominant source of spatial error. The percentage of comparison points with <3% dose difference determined pass rate.ResultsThe mean beamlet radial deviation was 0.38mm from x‐ray isocenter, with a standard deviation of 0.19mm, such that 99.9% of relevant pencil beams were within 1 mm of nominal. The dose‐plane comparison data showed no change in passing rate between a 3%/1mm ΔDmin(r) analysis (97.6 +/‐ 3.6%) and a 3%/2mm γ test (97.7 +/‐ 3.2%).ConclusionsPSQA dose‐comparison agreements corresponding to a search radius outside of machine performance limits are likely false positives. However, the elliptical shape of the γ test is too dose‐restrictive with a spatial‐error threshold set at 1 mm. This work introduces a cylindrical search shape, proposed herein as more relevant to plan quality, as part of the new DDM planar‐dose comparison algorithm. DDM accepts all pixels within a given dose threshold inside the search radius, and carries forward plan‐quality metrics in a straightforward manner for evaluation.

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to develop a fast method for proton range quality assurance (QA) using a dual step wedge and two‐dimensional (2D) scintillator and to evaluate the robustness, sensitivity, and long‐term reproducibility of this method.MethodsAn in‐house customized dual step wedge and a 2D scintillator were developed to measure proton ranges. Proton beams with homogenous fluence were delivered through wedge, and the images captured by the scintillator were used to calculate the proton ranges by a simple trigonometric method. The range measurements of 97 energies, comprising all clinically available synchrotron energies at our facility (ranges varying from 4 to 32 cm) were repeated ten times in all four gantry rooms for range baseline values. They were then used for evaluating room‐to‐room range consistencies. The robustness to setup uncertainty was evaluated by measuring ranges with ±2 mm setup deviations in the x, y, and z directions. The long‐term reproducibility was evaluated by 1 month of daily range measurements by this method.ResultsRanges of all 97 energies were measured in less than 10 minutes including setup time. The reproducibility in a single day and daily over 1 month is within 0.1 and 0.15 mm, respectively. The method was very robust to setup uncertainty, with measured range consistencies within 0.15 mm for ±2 mm couch shifts. The method was also sensitive enough for validating range consistencies among gantry rooms and for detecting small range variations.ConclusionsThe new method of using a dual step wedge and scintillator for proton range QA was efficient, highly reproducible, and robust. This method of proton range QA was highly feasible and appealing from a workflow point of view.