A substantial barrier to the single- and multi-institutional aggregation of data to supporting clinical trials, practice quality improvement efforts, and development of big data analytics resource ...systems is the lack of standardized nomenclatures for expressing dosimetric data. To address this issue, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 263 was charged with providing nomenclature guidelines and values in radiation oncology for use in clinical trials, data-pooling initiatives, population-based studies, and routine clinical care by standardizing: (1) structure names across image processing and treatment planning system platforms; (2) nomenclature for dosimetric data (eg, dose–volume histogram DVH-based metrics); (3) templates for clinical trial groups and users of an initial subset of software platforms to facilitate adoption of the standards; (4) formalism for nomenclature schema, which can accommodate the addition of other structures defined in the future. A multisociety, multidisciplinary, multinational group of 57 members representing stake holders ranging from large academic centers to community clinics and vendors was assembled, including physicists, physicians, dosimetrists, and vendors. The stakeholder groups represented in the membership included the AAPM, American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), NRG Oncology, European Society for Radiation Oncology (ESTRO), Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG), Children's Oncology Group (COG), Integrating Healthcare Enterprise in Radiation Oncology (IHE-RO), and Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine working group (DICOM WG); A nomenclature system for target and organ at risk volumes and DVH nomenclature was developed and piloted to demonstrate viability across a range of clinics and within the framework of clinical trials. The final report was approved by AAPM in October 2017. The approval process included review by 8 AAPM committees, with additional review by ASTRO, European Society for Radiation Oncology (ESTRO), and American Association of Medical Dosimetrists (AAMD). This Executive Summary of the report highlights the key recommendations for clinical practice, research, and trials.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, NUK, OILJ, 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
AAPM Task Group 119 has produced quantitative confidence limits as baseline expectation values for IMRT commissioning. A set of test cases was developed to assess the overall accuracy of planning and ...delivery of IMRT treatments. Each test uses contours of targets and avoidance structures drawn within rectangular phantoms. These tests were planned, delivered, measured, and analyzed by nine facilities using a variety of IMRT planning and delivery systems. Each facility had passed the Radiological Physics Center credentialing tests for IMRT. The agreement between the planned and measured doses was determined using ion chamber dosimetry in high and low dose regions, film dosimetry on coronal planes in the phantom with all fields delivered, and planar dosimetry for each field measured perpendicular to the central axis. The planar dose distributions were assessed using gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm. The mean values and standard deviations were used to develop confidence limits for the test results using the concept
confidence
limit
=
|
mean
|
+
1.96
σ
. Other facilities can use the test protocol and results as a basis for comparison to this group. Locally derived confidence limits that substantially exceed these baseline values may indicate the need for improved IMRT commissioning.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
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
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.
...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.
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.
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.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, NUK, OILJ, UL, UM, UPUK
Purpose:
To analyze the most recent results of the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Houston Quality Assurance Center’s (IROC-H) anthropomorphic head and neck (H&N) phantom to determine the nature ...of failing irradiations and the feasibility of altering credentialing criteria.
Methods:
IROC-H’s H&N phantom, used for intensity-modulated radiation therapy credentialing for National Cancer Institute–sponsored clinical trials, requires that an institution’s treatment plan agrees within ±7% of measured thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) doses; it also requires that ≥85% of pixels pass ±4 mm distance to agreement (7%/4 mm gamma analysis for film). The authors re-evaluated 156 phantom irradiations (November 1, 2014–October 31, 2015) according to the following tighter criteria: (1) 5% TLD and 5%/4 mm, (2) 5% TLD and 5%/3 mm, (3) 4% TLD and 4%/4 mm, and (4) 3% TLD and 3%/3 mm. Failure rates were evaluated with respect to individual film and TLD performance by location in the phantom. Overall poor phantom results were characterized qualitatively as systematic errors (correct shape and position but wrong magnitude of dose), setup errors/positional shifts, global but nonsystematic errors, and errors affecting only a local region.
Results:
The pass rate for these phantoms using current criteria was 90%. Substituting criteria 1–4 reduced the overall pass rate to 77%, 70%, 63%, and 37%, respectively. Statistical analyses indicated that the probability of noise-induced TLD failure, even at the 5% criterion, was <0.5%. Phantom failures were generally identified by TLD (≥66% failed TLD, whereas ≥55% failed film), with most failures occurring in the primary planning target volume (≥77% of cases). Results failing current criteria or criteria 1 were primarily diagnosed as systematic >58% of the time (11/16 and 21/36 cases, respectively), with a greater extent due to underdosing. Setup/positioning errors were seen in 11%–13% of all failing cases (2/16 and 4/36 cases, respectively). Local errors (8/36 cases) could only be demonstrated at criteria 1. Only three cases of global errors were identified in these analyses. For current criteria and criteria 1, irradiations that failed from film only were overwhelmingly associated with phantom shifts/setup errors (≥80% of cases).
Conclusions:
This study highlighted that the majority of phantom failures are the result of systematic dosimetric discrepancies between the treatment planning system and the delivered dose. Further work is necessary to diagnose and resolve such dosimetric inaccuracy. In addition, the authors found that 5% TLD and 5%/4 mm gamma criteria may be both practically and theoretically achievable as an alternative to current criteria.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
To determine the impact of treatment planning algorithm on the accuracy of heterogeneous dose calculations in the Radiological Physics Center (RPC) thorax phantom.
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.
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.
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.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, NUK, OILJ, UL, UM, UPUK
Purpose
Reference dosimetry data can provide an independent second check of acquired values when commissioning or validating a treatment planning system (TPS). The Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core ...at Houston (IROC‐Houston) has measured numerous linear accelerators throughout its existence. The results of those measurements are given here, comparing accelerators and the agreement of measurement versus institutional TPS calculations.
Methods
Data from IROC‐Houston on‐site reviews from 2000 through 2014 were analyzed for all Elekta accelerators, approximately 50. For each, consistent point dose measurements were conducted for several basic parameters in a water phantom, including percentage depth dose, output factors, small‐field output factors, off‐axis factors, and wedge factors. The results were compared by accelerator type independently for 6, 10, 15, and 18 MV. Distributions of the measurements for each parameter are given, providing the mean and standard deviation. Each accelerator's measurements were also compared to its corresponding TPS calculation from the institution to determine the level of agreement, as well as determining which dosimetric parameters were most often in error.
Results
Accelerators were grouped by head type and reference dosimetric values were compiled. No class of linac had better overall agreement with its TPS, but percentage depth dose and output factors commonly agreed well, while small‐field output factors, off‐axis factors, and wedge factors often disagreed substantially from their TPS calculations.
Conclusion
Reference data has been collected and analyzed for numerous Elekta linacs, which provide an independent way for a physicist to double‐check their own measurements to prevent gross treatment errors. In addition, treatment planning parameters more often in error have been highlighted, providing practical caution for physicists commissioning treatment planning systems for Elekta linacs.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
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 (bothD
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_D
m,m, and AXB_D
w,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. AXBD
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.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
The requirement of an independent verification of the monitor units (MU) or time calculated to deliver the prescribed dose to a patient has been a mainstay of radiation oncology quality assurance. ...The need for and value of such a verification was obvious when calculations were performed by hand using look-up tables, and the verification was achieved by a second person independently repeating the calculation. However, in a modern clinic using CT/MR/PET simulation, computerized 3D treatment planning, heterogeneity corrections, and complex calculation algorithms such as convolution/superposition and Monte Carlo, the purpose of and methodology for the MU verification have come into question. In addition, since the verification is often performed using a simpler geometrical model and calculation algorithm than the primary calculation, exact or almost exact agreement between the two can no longer be expected. Guidelines are needed to help the physicist set clinically reasonable action levels for agreement. This report addresses the following charges of the task group: (1) To re-evaluate the purpose and methods of the “independent second check” for monitor unit calculations for non-IMRT radiation treatment in light of the complexities of modern-day treatment planning. (2) To present recommendations on how to perform verification of monitor unit calculations in a modern clinic. (3) To provide recommendations on establishing action levels for agreement between primary calculations and verification, and to provide guidance in addressing discrepancies outside the action levels. These recommendations are to be used as guidelines only and shall not be interpreted as requirements.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
PDF
