No abstract

No abstract

Mandatory in several countries, in vivo dosimetry has been recognized as one of the next milestones in radiation oncology. Our department has implemented clinically an EPID based in vivo dosimetry system, EPIgray, by DOSISOFT S.A., since 2006. An analysis of the measurements per linac and energy over a two‐year period was performed, which included a more detailed examination per technique and treatment site over a six‐month period. A comparison of the treatment planning system doses and the doses estimated by EPIgray shows a mean of the differences of 1.9% (±5.2%) for the two‐year period. The 3D conformal treatment plans had a mean dose difference of 2.0% (±4.9%), while for intensity‐modulated radiotherapy and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy treatments the mean dose difference was −3.0 (±5.3%) and −2.5 (±5.2%), respectively. In addition, root cause analyses were conducted on the in vivo dosimetry measurements of two breast cancer treatment techniques, as well as prostate treatments with intensity‐modulated radiotherapy and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy. During the breast study, the dose differences of breast treatments in supine position were correlated to patient setup and EPID positioning errors. Based on these observations, an automatic image shift correction algorithm is developed by DOSIsoft S.A. The prostate study revealed that beams and arcs with out‐of‐tolerance in vivo dosimetry results tend to have more complex modulation and a lower exposure of the points of interest. The statistical studies indicate that in vivo dosimetry with EPIgray has been successfully implemented for classical and complex techniques in clinical routine at our institution. The additional breast and prostate studies exhibit the prospects of EPIgray as an easy supplementary quality assurance tool. The validation, the automatization, and the reduction of false‐positive results represent an important step toward adaptive radiotherapy with EPIgray.PACS number(s): 87.53.Bn, 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc, 87.57.uq

No abstract

The reliable prediction of output factors for spread-out proton Bragg peak (SOBP) fields in clinical practice remained unrealized due to a lack of a consistent theoretical framework and the great number of variables introduced by the mechanical devices necessary for the production of such fields. These limitations necessitated an almost exclusive reliance on manual calibration for individual fields and empirical, ad hoc, models. We recently reported on a theoretical framework for the prediction of output factors for such fields. In this work, we describe the implementation of this framework in our clinical practice. In our practice, we use a treatment delivery nozzle that uses a limited, and constant, set of mechanical devices to produce SOBP fields over the full extent of clinical penetration depths, or ranges, and modulation widths. This use of a limited set of mechanical devices allows us to unfold the physical effects that affect the output factor. We describe these effects and their incorporation into the theoretical framework. We describe the calibration and protocol for SOBP fields, the effects of apertures and range-compensators and the use of output factors in the treatment planning process.

We present an experimental procedure for the determination and the verification under practical conditions of physical and computational parameters used in our proton pencil beam algorithm. The calculation of the dose delivered by a single pencil beam relies on a measured spread-out Bragg peak, and the description of its radial spread at depth features simple specific parameters accounting individually for the influence of the beam line as a whole, the beam energy modulation, the compensator, and the patient medium. For determining the experimental values of the physical parameters related to proton scattering, we utilized a simple relation between Gaussian radial spreads and the width of lateral penumbras. The contribution from the beam line has been extracted from lateral penumbra measurements in air: a linear variation with the distance collimator-point has been observed. Analytically predicted radial spreads within the patient were in good agreement with experimental values in water under various reference conditions. Results indicated no significant influence of the beam energy modulation. Using measurements in presence of Plexiglas slabs, a simple assumption on the effective source of scattering due to the compensator has been stated, leading to accurate radial spread calculations. Dose measurements in presence of complexly shaped compensators have been used to assess the performances of the algorithm supplied with the adequate physical parameters. One of these compensators has also been used, together with a reference configuration, for investigating a set of computational parameters decreasing the calculation time while maintaining a high level of accuracy. Faster dose computations have been performed for algorithm evaluation in the presence of geometrical and patient compensators, and have shown good agreement with the measured dose distributions.

After years of lethargy, studies on two non-conventional microstructures in time and space of the beams used in radiation therapy are enjoying a huge revival. The first effect called “FLASH” is based on very high dose-rate irradiation (pulse amplitude ≥106 Gy/s), short beam-on times (≤100 ms) and large single doses (≥10 Gy) as experimental parameters established so far to give biological and potential clinical effects. The second effect relies on the use of arrays of minibeams (e.g., 0.5–1 mm, spaced 1–3.5 mm). Both approaches have been shown to protect healthy tissues as an endpoint that must be clearly specified and could be combined with each other (e.g., minibeams under FLASH conditions). FLASH depends on the presence of oxygen and could proceed from the chemistry of peroxyradicals and a reduced incidence on DNA and membrane damage. Minibeams action could be based on abscopal effects, cell signalling and/or migration of cells between “valleys and hills” present in the non-uniform irradiation field as well as faster repair of vascular damage. Both effects are expected to maintain intact the tumour control probability and might even preserve antitumoural immunological reactions. FLASH in vivo experiments involving Zebrafish, mice, pig and cats have been done with electron beams, while minibeams are an intermediate approach between X-GRID and synchrotron X-ray microbeams radiation. Both have an excellent rationale to converge and be applied with proton beams, combining focusing properties and high dose rates in the beam path of pencil beams, and the inherent advantage of a controlled limited range. A first treatment with electron FLASH (cutaneous lymphoma) has recently been achieved, but clinical trials have neither been presented for FLASH with protons, nor under the minibeam conditions. Better understanding of physical, chemical and biological mechanisms of both effects is essential to optimize the technical developments and devise clinical trials.

For treatments with dynamic intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), the adjustment of multileaf collimator (MLC) parameters affecting both the optimization algorithm and dose distributions is crucial. The main parameters characterizing the MLC are the transmission (T) and the dosimetric leaf separation (DLS). The aim of this study is twofold: a methodology based on the 'sliding slit' test is proposed to determine (T, DLS) combinations inducing the best conformity between calculations and measurements. Secondly, the effects of the MLC adjustment on measured dose and on optimization are presented for different configurations as the chair test and for the patient dosimetric quality control (DQC). Tests were performed with a Varian 23EX linac operated at 20 MV and equipped with a 120 leaf Millenium dynamic collimator. The treatment planning system was CadPlan/Helios (version 6.3.6). Results demonstrated that the sliding width (SW) strongly depends on the (T, DLS) combinations, and the measured dose is a linear function of the SW. Different (T, DLS) combinations induced a good agreement between calculations and measurements. The influence of the MLC calibration was found to be particularly important on the 'sliding slit' test (11.8% for a gap change of 0.8 mm) but not so much on the chair test and on the DQC. To detect small variations in leaf adjustment and to ensure consistency between calculation and actual dose delivered to patients, a daily check called IMRT MU check is proposed.