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.

Substantial variation in the prescribed and delivered doses exists among medical institutions, raising concerns about the validity of comparing clinical outcomes for IMRT. The isocenter dose in IMRT is simply a point dose and often does not reflect the prescription dose that is specified by a selected isodose line encompassing the target volume. This study suggests the need for national and/or international guidelines for dose prescription, planning, and reporting for a meaningful clinical trial in IMRT.

Between May 1986 and August 1989, we treated 18 patients with 21 recurrent or persistent brain metastases with stereotactic radiosurgery using a modified linear accelerator. To be eligible for radiosurgery, patients had to have a performance status of greater than or equal to 70% and have no evidence of (or stable) systemic disease. All but one patient had received prior radiotherapy, and were treated with stereotactic radiosurgery at the time of recurrence. Polar lesions were treated only if the patient had undergone and failed previous complete surgical resection (10 patients). Single doses of radiation (900 to 2,500 cGy) were delivered to limited volumes (less than 27 cm3) using a modified 6MV linear accelerator. The most common histology of the metastatic lesion was carcinoma of the lung (seven patients), followed by carcinoma of the breast (four patients), and melanoma (four patients). With median follow-up of 9 months (range, 1 to 39), all tumors have been controlled in the radiosurgery field. Two patients failed in the immediate margin of the treated volume and were subsequently treated with surgery and implantation of 125I to control the disease. Radiographic response was dramatic and rapid in the patients with adenocarcinoma, while slight reduction and stabilization occurred in those patients with melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, and sarcoma. The majority of patients improved neurologically following treatment, and were able to be withdrawn from corticosteroid therapy. Complications were limited and transient in nature and no cases of symptomatic radiation necrosis occurred in any patient despite previous exposure to radiotherapy. Stereotactic radiosurgery is an effective and relatively safe treatment for recurrent solitary metastases and is an appealing technique for the initial management of deep-seated lesions as a boost to whole brain radiotherapy.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Modern treatment planning systems provide accurate dosimetry in heterogeneous media (such as a patient' body) with the help of tissue characterization based on computed tomography (CT) number. However, CT number depends on the type of scanner, tube voltage, field of view (FOV), reconstruction algorithm including artifact reduction and processing filters. The impact of these parameters on CT to electron density (ED) conversion had been subject of investigation for treatment planning in various clinical situations. This is usually performed with a tissue characterization phantom with various density plugs acquired with different tube voltages (kilovoltage peak), FOV reconstruction and different scanners to generate CT number to ED tables. This article provides an overview of inhomogeneity correction in the context of CT scanning and a new evaluation tool, difference volume dose-volume histogram (DVH), dV-DVH. It has been concluded that scanner and CT parameters are important for tissue characterizations, but changes in ED are minimal and only pronounced for higher density materials. For lungs, changes in CT number are minimal among scanners and CT parameters. Dosimetric differences for lung and prostate cases are usually insignificant (<2%) in three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy and < 5% for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with CT parameters. It could be concluded that CT number variability is dependent on acquisition parameters, but its dosimetric impact is pronounced only in high-density media and possibly in IMRT. In view of such small dosimetric changes in low-density medium, the acquisition of additional CT data for financially difficult clinics and countries may not be warranted.