The Monte Carlo (MC) method has been shown through many research studies to calculate accurate dose distributions for clinical radiotherapy, particularly in heterogeneous patient tissues where the effects of electron transport cannot be accurately handled with conventional, deterministic dose algorithms. Despite its proven accuracy and the potential for improved dose distributions to influence treatment outcomes, the long calculation times previously associated with MC simulation rendered this method impractical for routine clinical treatment planning. However, the development of faster codes optimized for radiotherapy calculations and improvements in computer processor technology have substantially reduced calculation times to, in some instances, within minutes on a single processor. These advances have motivated several major treatment planning system vendors to embark upon the path of MC techniques. Several commercial vendors have already released or are currently in the process of releasing MC algorithms for photon and/or electron beam treatment planning. Consequently, the accessibility and use of MC treatment planning algorithms may well become widespread in the radiotherapy community. With MC simulation, dose is computed stochastically using first principles; this method is therefore quite different from conventional dose algorithms. Issues such as statistical uncertainties, the use of variance reduction techniques, the ability to account for geometric details in the accelerator treatment head simulation, and other features, are all unique components of a MC treatment planning algorithm. Successful implementation by the clinical physicist of such a system will require an understanding of the basic principles of MC techniques. The purpose of this report, while providing education and review on the use of MC simulation in radiotherapy planning, is to set out, for both users and developers, the salient issues associated with clinical implementation and experimental verification of MC dose algorithms. As the MC method is an emerging technology, this report is not meant to be prescriptive. Rather, it is intended as a preliminary report to review the tenets of the MC method and to provide the framework upon which to build a comprehensive program for commissioning and routine quality assurance of MC-based treatment planning systems.

Purpose-The α/β ratio for prostate cancer is postulated to be between 1 and 3, giving rise to the hypothesis that there may be a therapeutic advantage to hypofractionation. The dosimetry and acute toxicity are described in the first 100 men enrolled in a randomized trial.Patients and Methods-The trial compares 76 Gy in 38 fractions (Arm I) to 70.2 Gy in 26 fractions (Arm II) using intensity modulated radiotherapy. The planning target volume (PTV) margins in Arms I and II were 5 mm and 3 mm posteriorly and 8 mm and 7 mm in all other dimensions. The PTV D95% was at least the prescription dose.Results-The mean PTV doses for Arms I and II were 81.1 and 73.8 Gy. There were no differences in overall maximum acute gastrointestinal (GI) or genitourinary (GU) toxicity acutely. However, there was a slight but significant increase in Arm II GI toxicity during Weeks 2, 3, and 4. In multivariate analyses, only the combined rectal DVH parameter of V65 Gy/V50 Gy was significant for GI toxicity and the bladder volume for GU toxicity.Conclusion-Hypofractionation at 2.7 Gy per fraction to 70.2 Gy was well tolerated acutely using the planning conditions described.

The concept of in-air output ratio (Sc) was introduced to characterize how the incident photon fluence per monitor unit (or unit time for a Co-60 unit) varies with collimator settings. However, there has been much confusion regarding the measurement technique to be used that has prevented the accurate and consistent determination of Sc. The main thrust of the report is to devise a theoretical and measurement formalism that ensures interinstitutional consistency of Sc. The in-air output ratio, Sc, is defined as the ratio of primary collision water kerma in free-space, Kp, per monitor unit between an arbitrary collimator setting and the reference collimator setting at the same location. Miniphantoms with sufficient lateral and longitudinal thicknesses to eliminate electron contamination and maintain transient electron equilibrium are recommended for the measurement of Sc. The authors present a correction formalism to extrapolate the correct Sc from the measured values using high-Z miniphantom. Miniphantoms made of high-Z material are used to measure Sc for small fields (e.g., IMRT or stereotactic radiosurgery). This report presents a review of the components of Sc, including headscatter, source-obscuring, and monitor-backscattering effects. A review of calculation methods (Monte Carlo and empirical) used to calculate Sc for arbitrary shaped fields is presented. The authors discussed the use of Sc in photon dose calculation algorithms, in particular, monitor unit calculation. Finally, a summary of Sc data (from RPC and other institutions) is included for QA purposes.

Independent verification of the dose per monitor unit (MU) to deliver the prescribed dose to a patient has been a mainstay of radiation oncology quality assurance (QA). We discuss the role of secondary dose/MU calculation programs as part of a comprehensive QA program. This report provides guidelines on calculationbased dose/MU verification for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) provided by various modalities. We provide a review of various algorithms for "independent/second check" of monitor unit calculations for IMRT/VMAT. The report makes recommendations on the clinical implementation of secondary dose/MU calculation programs; on commissioning and acceptance of various commercially available secondary dose/MU calculation programs; on benchmark QA and periodic QA; and on clinically reasonable action levels for agreement of secondary dose/MU calculation programs. | REPORT OF AAPM TASK GROUP 219 ON INDEPENDENT CALCULATION-BASED DOSE/ MU VERIFICATION FOR IMRT

No abstract