This study seeks to compare fixed‐field intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (FF IMRT), RapidArc (RA), and helical tomotherapy (HT) to discover the optimal treatment modality to deliver SBRT to the peripheral lung. Eight patients with peripheral primary lung cancer were reviewed. Plans were prescribed a dose of 48 Gy and optimized similarly with heterogeneity corrections. Plan quality was assessed using conformality index (CI100%), homogeneity index (HI), the ratio of the 50% isodose volume to PTV (R50%) to assess intermediate dose spillage, and normal tissue constraints. Delivery efficiency was evaluated using treatment time and MUs. Dosimetric accuracy was assessed using gamma index (3% dose difference, 3 mm DTA, 10% threshold), and measured with a PTW ARRAY seven29 and OCTAVIUS phantom. CI100%,HI, and R50% were lowest for HT compared to seven‐field coplanar IMRT and two‐arc coplanar RA (p<0.05). Normal tissue constraints were met for all modalities, except maximum rib dose due to close proximity to the PTV. RA reduced delivery time by 60% compared to HT, and 40% when compared to FF IMRT. RA also reduced the mean MUs by 77% when compared to HT, and by 22% compared to FF IMRT. All modalities can be delivered accurately, with mean QA pass rates over 97%. For peripheral lung SBRT treatments, HT performed better dosimetrically, reducing maximum rib dose, as well as improving dose conformity and uniformity. RA and FF IMRT plan quality was equivalent to HT for patients with minimal or no overlap of the PTV with the chest wall, but was reduced for patients with a larger overlap. RA and IMRT were equivalent, but the reduced treatment times of RA make it a more efficient modality.PACS numbers: 87.53.Ly87.55.N‐, 87.55.D‐, 87.56.bd

PurposeData errors caught late in treatment planning require time to correct, resulting in delays up to 1 week. In this work, we identify causes of data errors in treatment planning and develop a software tool that detects them early in the planning workflow.MethodsTwo categories of errors were studied: data transfer errors and TPS errors. Using root cause analysis, the causes of these errors were determined. This information was incorporated into a software tool which uses ODBC‐SQL service to access TPS's Postgres and Mosaiq MSSQL databases for our clinic. The tool then uses a read‐only FTP service to scan the TPS unix file system for errors. Detected errors are reviewed by a physicist. Once confirmed, clinicians are notified to correct the error and educated to prevent errors in the future. Time‐cost analysis was performed to estimate the time savings of implementing this software clinically.ResultsThe main errors identified were incorrect patient entry, missing image slice, and incorrect DICOM tag for data transfer errors and incorrect CT‐density table application, incorrect image as reference CT, and secondary image imported to incorrect patient for TPS errors. The software has been running automatically since 2015. In 2016, 84 errors were detected with the most frequent errors being incorrect patient entry (35), incorrect CT‐density table (17), and missing image slice (16). After clinical interventions to our planning workflow, the number of errors in 2017 decreased to 44. Time savings in 2016 with the software is estimated to be 795 h. This is attributed to catching errors early and eliminating the need to replan cases.ConclusionsNew QA software detects errors during planning, improving the accuracy and efficiency of the planning process. This important QA tool focused our efforts on the data communication processes in our planning workflow that need the most improvement.

Primary barrier design for linac shielding depends very sensitively on tenth value layer (TVL) data. Inaccuracies can lead to large discrepancies between measured and calculated values of the barrier transmission. Values of the TVL for concrete quoted in several widely used standard references are substantially different than those calculated more recently. The older standard TVL data predict significantly lower radiation levels outside primary barriers than the more recently calculated values under some circumstances. The difference increases with increasing barrier thickness and energy, and it can be as large as a factor of 4 for 18 MV and concrete thickness of 200 cm. This may be due to significant differences in the beam spectra between the earlier and the more recent calculations. Measured instantaneous air kerma rates sometimes show large variations for the same energy and thickness. This may be due to confounding factors such as extra material on, or inside the barrier, variable field size at the barrier, density of concrete, and distal distance from the barrier surface. In some cases, the older TVL data significantly underestimate measured instantaneous air kerma rates, by up to a factor of 3, even when confounding factors are taken into account. This could lead to the necessity for expensive remediation. The more recent TVL values tend to overestimate the measured instantaneous dose rates. Reference TVL data should be computed in a manner that is mathematically consistent with their use in the calculation of air kerma rate outside barriers directly from the linac “dose” rate in MU/min.

PurposeElekta XVI 5.0 allows for four‐dimensional cone beam computed tomography (4D CBCT) image acquisition during treatment delivery to monitor intrafraction motion. These images can have poorer image quality due to undersampling of kV projections and treatment beam MV scatter effects. We determine if a universal intrafraction preset can be used for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) lung patients and validate the accuracy of target motion characterized by XVI intrafraction 4D CBCT.MethodsThe most critical parameter within the intrafraction preset is the nominal AcquisitionInterval, which controls kV imaging acquisition frequency. An optimal value was determined by maximizing the kV frame number acquired up to 1000 frames, typical of pretreatment 4D CBCT. CIRS motion phantom intrafraction phase images for 16 SBRT beams were obtained. Mean target position, time‐weighted standard deviation, and amplitude for these images as well as target motion for three SBRT lung patients were compared to respective pretreatment 4D CBCTs. Evaluation of intrafraction 4D CBCT reconstruction revealed inclusion of MV only images acquired to remove MV scatter effects. A workaround to remove these images was developed.ResultsAcquisitionInterval of 0.1°/frame was optimal. The number of kV frames acquired was 567–1116 and showed strong linear correlation with beam monitor unit (MUs). Phantom target motion accuracy was excellent with average differences in target position, standard deviation and amplitude range of ≤0.5 mm. Target tracking for SBRT patients also showed good agreement. Evaluation of phase sorting wave forms showed that inclusion of MV only images significantly impacts intrafraction image reconstruction for patients and use of workaround is necessary.ConclusionsA universal intrafraction imaging preset can be used safely for SBRT lung patients. The number of kV projections with MV delivery parameters varies; however images with fewer kV projections still provided accurate target position information. Impact of the reconstruction workaround was significant and is mandated for all 4D CBCT intrafraction imaging performed at our institution.

No abstract