The task group (TG) for quality assurance for robotic radiosurgery was formed by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine’s Science Council under the direction of the Radiation Therapy ...Committee and the Quality Assurance (QA) Subcommittee. The task group (TG-135) had three main charges: (1) To make recommendations on a code of practice for Robotic Radiosurgery QA; (2) To make recommendations on quality assurance and dosimetric verification techniques, especially in regard to real-time respiratory motion tracking software; (3) To make recommendations on issues which require further research and development. This report provides a general functional overview of the only clinically implemented robotic radiosurgery device, the CyberKnife®. This report includes sections on device components and their individual component QA recommendations, followed by a section on the QA requirements for integrated systems. Examples of checklists for daily, monthly, annual, and upgrade QA are given as guidance for medical physicists. Areas in which QA procedures are still under development are discussed.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
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.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, NUK, OILJ, UL, UM, UPUK
Practical guidelines that are not explicit in the TG‐51 protocol and its Addendum for photon beam dosimetry are presented for the implementation of the TG‐51 protocol for reference dosimetry of ...external high‐energy photon and electron beams. These guidelines pertain to: (i) measurement of depth‐ionization curves required to obtain beam quality specifiers for the selection of beam quality conversion factors, (ii) considerations for the dosimetry system and specifications of a reference‐class ionization chamber, (iii) commissioning a dosimetry system and frequency of measurements, (iv) positioning/aligning the water tank and ionization chamber for depth ionization and reference dose measurements, (v) requirements for ancillary equipment needed to measure charge (triaxial cables and electrometers) and to correct for environmental conditions, and (vi) translation from dose at the reference depth to that at the depth required by the treatment planning system. Procedures are identified to achieve the most accurate results (errors up to 8% have been observed) and, where applicable, a commonly used simplified procedure is described and the impact on reference dosimetry measurements is discussed so that the medical physicist can be informed on where to allocate resources.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
To test effects of positron emission tomography (PET)-based bone marrow-sparing (BMS) image-guided intensity modulated radiation therapy (IG-IMRT) on efficacy and toxicity for patients with ...locoregionally advanced cervical cancer.
In an international phase II/III trial, patients with stage IB-IVA cervical carcinoma were treated with either PET-based BMS-IG-IMRT (PET-BMS-IMRT group) or standard image-guided IMRT (IMRT group), with concurrent cisplatin (40 mg/m
weekly), followed by brachytherapy. The phase II component nonrandomly assigned patients to PET-BMS-IMRT or standard IMRT. The phase III trial randomized patients to PET-BMS-IMRT versus IMRT, with a primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) but was closed early for futility. Phase III patients were analyzed separately and in combination with phase II patients, comparing acute hematologic toxicity, cisplatin delivery, PFS, overall survival (OS), and patterns of failure. In a post-hoc exploratory analysis, we investigated the association between pretreatment absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) and OS.
In total, 101 patients were enrolled on the phase II/III trial, including 29 enrolled in phase III (PET-BMS-IMRT group: 16; IMRT group: 13) before early closure. Median follow-up was 33 months for phase III patients and 39 months for all patients. PFS and OS at 5 years for all patients were 73.6% (95% confidence interval CI, 64.9%-84.3%) and 84% (95% CI, 76%-92.9%), respectively. There were no differences in number of cisplatin cycles, OS, PFS, or patterns of failure between groups for the combined cohort. The incidence of acute grade ≥ 3 neutropenia was significantly lower in the PET-BMS-IMRT group compared with IMRT for randomized patients (19% vs 54%, χ
P = .048) and in the combined cohort (13% vs 35%, χ
P = .01). Patients with pretreatment ALC ≤ 1.5 k/µL had nonsignificantly worse OS on multivariable analysis (HR 2.85; 95% CI, 0.94-8.62; adjusted P = .216), compared with patients with ALC > 1.5 k/µL. There was no difference in posttreatment ALC by treatment group.
PET-BMS-IMRT significantly reduced acute grade ≥3 neutropenia, but not treatment-related lymphopenia, compared with standard IMRT. We found no evidence that PET-BMS-IMRT affected chemotherapy delivery or long-term outcomes, and weak evidence of an association between pretreatment ALC and OS.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, NUK, OILJ, UL, UM, UPUK
The NRG-BR001 trial is the first National Cancer Institute-sponsored trial to treat multiple (range 2-4) extracranial metastases with stereotactic body radiation therapy. Benchmark credentialing is ...required to ensure adherence to this complex protocol, in particular, for metastases in close proximity. The present report summarizes the dosimetric results and approval rates.
The benchmark used anonymized data from a patient with bilateral adrenal metastases, separated by <5 cm of normal tissue. Because the planning target volume (PTV) overlaps with organs at risk (OARs), institutions must use the planning priority guidelines to balance PTV coverage (45 Gy in 3 fractions) against OAR sparing. Submitted plans were processed by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core and assessed by the protocol co-chairs by comparing the doses to targets, OARs, and conformity metrics using nonparametric tests.
Of 63 benchmarks submitted through October 2015, 94% were approved, with 51% approved at the first attempt. Most used volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) (78%), a single plan for both PTVs (90%), and prioritized the PTV over the stomach (75%). The median dose to 95% of the volume was 44.8 ± 1.0 Gy and 44.9 ± 1.0 Gy for the right and left PTV, respectively. The median dose to 0.03 cm
was 14.2 ± 2.2 Gy to the spinal cord and 46.5 ± 3.1 Gy to the stomach. Plans that spared the stomach significantly reduced the dose to the left PTV and stomach. Conformity metrics were significantly better for single plans that simultaneously treated both PTVs with VMAT, intensity modulated radiation therapy, or 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy compared with separate plans. No significant differences existed in the dose at 2 cm from the PTVs.
Although most plans used VMAT, the range of conformity and dose falloff was large. The decision to prioritize either OARs or PTV coverage varied considerably, suggesting that the toxicity outcomes in the trial could be affected. Several benchmarks met the dose-volume histogram metrics but produced unacceptable plans owing to low conformity. Dissemination of a frequently-asked-questions document improved the approval rate at the first attempt. Benchmark credentialing was found to be a valuable tool for educating institutions about the protocol requirements.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, NUK, OILJ, UL, UM, UPUK
The introduction of model‐based dose calculation algorithms (MBDCAs) in brachytherapy provides an opportunity for a more accurate dose calculation and opens the possibility for novel, innovative ...treatment modalities. The joint AAPM, ESTRO, and ABG Task Group 186 (TG‐186) report provided guidance to early adopters. However, the commissioning aspect of these algorithms was described only in general terms with no quantitative goals. This report, from the Working Group on Model‐Based Dose Calculation Algorithms in Brachytherapy, introduced a field‐tested approach to MBDCA commissioning. It is based on a set of well‐characterized test cases for which reference Monte Carlo (MC) and vendor‐specific MBDCA dose distributions are available in a Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine—Radiotherapy (DICOM‐RT) format to the clinical users. The key elements of the TG‐186 commissioning workflow are now described in detail, and quantitative goals are provided. This approach leverages the well‐known Brachytherapy Source Registry jointly managed by the AAPM and the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) Houston Quality Assurance Center (with associated links at ESTRO) to provide open access to test cases as well as step‐by‐step user guides. While the current report is limited to the two most widely commercially available MBDCAs and only for 192Ir‐based afterloading brachytherapy at this time, this report establishes a general framework that can easily be extended to other brachytherapy MBDCAs and brachytherapy sources. The AAPM, ESTRO, ABG, and ABS recommend that clinical medical physicists implement the workflow presented in this report to validate both the basic and the advanced dose calculation features of their commercial MBDCAs. Recommendations are also given to vendors to integrate advanced analysis tools into their brachytherapy treatment planning system to facilitate extensive dose comparisons. The use of the test cases for research and educational purposes is further encouraged.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
The purpose of this report is to provide detailed guidance on the dosimetry of the INTRABEAM® (Carl Zeiss Medical AG, Jena, Germany) electronic brachytherapy (eBT) system as it stands at the present ...time. This report has been developed by the members of American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 292 and endorsed by the AAPM. Members of AAPM Task Group 292 on Electronic‐Brachytherapy Dosimetry have reviewed pertinent publications and user manuals regarding the INTRABEAM system dosimetry and manufacturer‐supplied dose calculation protocols. Formal written correspondence with Zeiss has also provided further clarification. Dose‐rate calculations for the INTRABEAM system are highly dependent on choice of dosimetry protocol. Even with careful protocol selection, large uncertainties remain due to the incomplete characterization of the ionization chambers used for verification with respect to their energy dependence as well as manufacturing variations. There are two distinct sets of dose‐rate data provided by Zeiss for the INTRABEAM system. One dataset (Calibration V4.0) is representative of the physical dose surrounding the source and the other dataset (TARGIT) has been adjusted to be consistent with a clinical trial named TARGIT (TARGeted Intraoperative RadioTherapy). The adjusted TARGIT doses are quite dissimilar to the physical doses, with differences ranging from 14% to 30% at the surface of a spherical applicator, depending on its diameter, and up to a factor of two at closer distances with the smaller needle applicators. In addition, ion chamber selection and associated manufacturing tolerances contribute to significant additional uncertainties. With these substantial differences in dose rates and their associated uncertainties, it is important for users to be aware of how each value is calculated and whether it is appropriate to be used for the intended treatment. If users intend to deliver doses that are the same as they were in 1998 at the onset of the TARGIT trial, then the TARGIT dose‐rate tables should be used. The Calibration V4.0 dose rates may be more appropriate to use for applications other than TARGIT trial treatments, since they more closely represent the physical doses being delivered. Users should also be aware of the substantial uncertainties associated with the provided dose rates, which are due to beam hardening, chamber geometry, and selection of the point‐of‐measurement for a given ionization chamber. This report serves to describe the details and implications of the manufacturer‐recommended dosimetry formalism for users of the INTRABEAM system.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
In 2014, the NRG Oncology Group initiated the first National Cancer Institute-sponsored, phase 1 clinical trial of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for the treatment of multiple metastases ...in multiple organ sites (BR001; NCT02206334). The primary endpoint is to test the safety of SBRT for the treatment of 2 to 4 multiple lesions in several anatomic sites in a multi-institutional setting. Because of the technical challenges inherent to treating multiple lesions as their spatial separation decreases, we present the technical requirements for NRG-BR001 and the rationale for their selection.
Patients with controlled primary tumors of breast, non-small cell lung, or prostate are eligible if they have 2 to 4 metastases distributed among 7 extracranial anatomic locations throughout the body. Prescription and organ-at-risk doses were determined by expert consensus. Credentialing requirements include (1) irradiation of the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core phantom with SBRT, (2) submitting image guided radiation therapy case studies, and (3) planning the benchmark. Guidelines for navigating challenging planning cases including assessing composite dose are discussed.
Dosimetric planning to multiple lesions receiving differing doses (45-50 Gy) and fractionation (3-5) while irradiating the same organs at risk is discussed, particularly for metastases in close proximity (≤5 cm). The benchmark case was selected to demonstrate the planning tradeoffs required to satisfy protocol requirements for 2 nearby lesions. Examples of passing benchmark plans exhibited a large variability in plan conformity.
NRG-BR001 was developed using expert consensus on multiple issues from the dose fractionation regimen to the minimum image guided radiation therapy guidelines. Credentialing was tied to the task rather than the anatomic site to reduce its burden. Every effort was made to include a variety of delivery methods to reflect current SBRT technology. Although some simplifications were adopted, the successful completion of this trial will inform future designs of both national and institutional trials and would allow immediate clinical adoption of SBRT trials for oligometastases.
For commissioning a linear accelerator for clinical use, medical physicists are faced with many challenges including the need for precision, a variety of testing methods, data validation, the lack of ...standards, and time constraints. Since commissioning beam data are treated as a reference and ultimately used by treatment planning systems, it is vitally important that the collected data are of the highest quality to avoid dosimetric and patient treatment errors that may subsequently lead to a poor radiation outcome. Beam data commissioning should be performed with appropriate knowledge and proper tools and should be independent of the person collecting the data. To achieve this goal, Task Group 106 (TG-106) of the Therapy Physics Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine was formed to review the practical aspects as well as the physics of linear accelerator commissioning. The report provides guidelines and recommendations on the proper selection of phantoms and detectors, setting up of a phantom for data acquisition (both scanning and no-scanning data), procedures for acquiring specific photon and electron beam parameters and methods to reduce measurement errors
(
<
1
%
)
, beam data processing and detector size convolution for accurate profiles. The TG-106 also provides a brief discussion on the emerging trend in Monte Carlo simulation techniques in photon and electron beam commissioning. The procedures described in this report should assist a qualified medical physicist in either measuring a complete set of beam data, or in verifying a subset of data before initial use or for periodic quality assurance measurements. By combining practical experience with theoretical discussion, this document sets a new standard for beam data commissioning.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
PDF
