No abstract

Traditional quality assurance checks of a patient's radiation therapy plan involve printing out treatment parameters from the treatment planning system and the “record and verify” (R&V) system and visually checking the information for one‐to‐one correspondence. In a paperless environment, one can automate this process through independent software that can read the treatment planning data directly and compare it against the parameters in the R&V system's database. In addition to verifying the data integrity, it is necessary to check the logical consistency of the data and the accuracy of various calculations. The results are then imported into the patient's electronic medical record. Appropriate workflows must be developed to ensure that no steps of the QA process are missed. This paper describes our electronic QA system (EQS), consisting of in‐house software and workflows. The EQS covers 3D conformal and intensity modulated radiation therapy, electrons, stereotactic radiosurgery, total body irradiation, and clinical set ups with and without virtual simulation. The planning systems handled by our EQS are ADAC Pinnacle and Varian FASTPLAN, while the R&V systems are LANTIS and VARIS. The improvement in our plan check process over the paperless system is described in terms of the types of detected errors. The potential problems with the implementation and use of the EQS, as well as workarounds for data that are not easily accessible through electronic means, are described.PACS numbers: 87.55.Qr, 87.55.tg, 87.55.tm

No abstract

The objective of this work is to present commissioning procedures to clinically implement a three‐dimensional (3D), image‐based, treatment‐planning system (TPS) for high‐dose‐rate (HDR) brachytherapy (BT) for gynecological (GYN) cancer. The physical dimensions of the GYN applicators and their values in the virtual applicator library were varied by 0.4 mm of their nominal values. Reconstruction uncertainties of the titanium tandem and ovoids (T&O) were less than 0.4 mm on CT phantom studies and on average between 0.8‐1.0 mm on MRI when compared with X‐rays. In‐house software, HDRCalculator, was developed to check HDR plan parameters such as independently verifying active tandem or cylinder probe length and ovoid or cylinder size, source calibration and treatment date, and differences between average Point A dose and prescription dose. Dose‐volume histograms were validated using another independent TPS. Comprehensive procedures to commission volume optimization algorithms and process in 3D image‐based planning were presented. For the difference between line and volume optimizations, the average absolute differences as a percentage were 1.4% for total reference air KERMA (TRAK) and 1.1% for Point A dose. Volume optimization consistency tests between versions resulted in average absolute differences in 0.2% for TRAK and 0.9 s (0.2%) for total treatment time. The data revealed that the optimizer should run for at least 1 min in order to avoid more than 0.6% dwell time changes. For clinical GYN T&O cases, three different volume optimization techniques (graphical optimization, pure inverse planning, and hybrid inverse optimization) were investigated by comparing them against a conventional Point A technique. End‐to‐end testing was performed using a T&O phantom to ensure no errors or inconsistencies occurred from imaging through to planning and delivery. The proposed commissioning procedures provide a clinically safe implementation technique for 3D image‐based TPS for HDR BT for GYN cancer.PACS number(s): 87.55.D‐

Imaging dose from megavoltage cone beam computed tomography (MVCBCT) can be significantly reduced without loss of image quality by using an imaging beam line (IBL), with no flattening filter and a carbon, rather than tungsten, electron target. The IBL produces a greater keV-range x-ray fluence than the treatment beam line (TBL), which results in a more optimal detector response. The IBL imaging dose is not necessarily negligible, however. In this work an IBL was dosimetrically modeled with the Philips Pinnacle3 treatment planning system (TPS), verified experimentally, and applied to clinical cases. The IBL acquisition dose for a 200 degrees gantry rotation was verified in a customized acrylic cylindrical phantom at multiple imaging field sizes with 196 ion chamber measurements. Agreement between the measured and calculated IBL dose was quantified with the 3D gamma index. Representative IBL and TBL imaging dose distributions were calculated for head and neck and prostate patients and included in treatment plans using the imaging dose incorporation (IDI) method. Surface dose was measured for the TBL and IBL for four head and neck cancer patients with MOSFETs. The IBL model, when compared to the percentage depth dose and profile measurements, had 97% passing gamma indices for dosimetric and distance acceptance criteria of 3%, 3 mm, and 100% passed for 5.2%, 5.2 mm. For the ion chamber measurements of phantom image acquisition dose, the IBL model had 93% passing gamma indices for acceptance criteria of 3%, 3 mm, and 100% passed for 4%, 4 mm. Differences between the IBL- and TBL-based IMRT treatment plans created with the IDI method were dosimetrically insignificant for both the prostate and head and neck cases. For IBL and TBL beams with monitor unit values that would result in the delivery of the same dose to the depth of maximum dose under standard calibration conditions, the IBL imaging surface dose was higher than the TBL imaging surface dose by an average of 18%, with a standard deviation of 8% (p = 2 x 10(-6)). The IBL can be modeled with acceptable accuracy using a standard TPS, and accounting for IBL dose in treatment plans with the IDI method is straightforward. The resulting composite dose distributions, assuming similar imaging doses, are negligibly different from those of the TBL. The increased IBL surface dose relative to the TBL is likely clinically insignificant.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract