Commissioning data have been measured for an Elekta Precise linear accelerator running at 6 MV without a flattening filter with the aim of studying the effects of flattening filter removal on machine operation and beam characterization. Modern radiotherapy practice now routinely relies on the use of fluence modifying techniques such as IMRT, i.e. the active production of non-flat beams. For these techniques the flattening filter should not be necessary. It is also possible that the increased intensity around the central axis associated with unflattened beams may be useful for conventional treatment planning by acting as a field-in-field or integrated boost technique. For this reason open and wedged field data are presented. Whilst problems exist in running the machine filter free clinically, this paper shows that in many ways the beam is actually more stable, exhibiting almost half the variation in field symmetry for changes in steering and bending currents. Dosimetric benefits are reported here which include a reduction in head scatter by approx. 70%, decreased penumbra (0.5 mm), lower dose outside of the field edge (11%) and a doubling in dose rate (2.3 times for open and 1.9 times for wedged fields). Measurements also show that reduced scatter also reduces leakage radiation by approx. 60%, significantly lowering whole body doses. The greatest benefit of filter-free use is perceived to be for IMRT where increased dose rate combined with reduced head scatter and leakage radiation should lead to improved dose calculation, giving simpler, faster and more accurate dose delivery with reduced dose to normal tissues.

Flattening filter free (FFF) beams are now commonly available with new standard linear accelerators. These beams have recognised clinical advantages in certain circumstances, most notably the reduced beam-on times for high dose per fraction stereotactic treatments. Therefore FFF techniques are quickly being introduced into clinical use. The purpose of this report is to provide practical implementation advice and references for centres implementing FFF beams clinically. In particular UK-specific guidance is given for reference dosimetry and radiation protection.

No abstract

No abstract

The virtual source model for flattened beams was successfully adapted to a flattening filter free beam production. Water phantom and patient specific QA measurements show excellent results, and comparisons of IMRT plans generated in conventional and FFF mode are underway to assess dosimetric uncertainties and possible improvements in dose calculation and delivery.

Background & purpose: Multiple, short breath-holds are now used in single radiotherapy treatment sessions. Here we investigated the feasibility and safety of multiple prolonged breath-holds in a single session. We measured how long is a second breath-hold if we prematurely terminate a single, prolonged breath-hold of >5 min either by using a single breath of oxygen (O 2), or by reintroducing preoxygenation and hypocapnia. We also investigated the feasibility and safety of undertaking 9 prolonged breath-holds in a row. Materials & methods: 30 healthy volunteers with no previous breath-holding experience were trained to perform single prolonged breath-holds safely. Results: Their mean single, prolonged breath-hold duration was 6.1 ± 0.3 se minutes (n = 30). In 18/18 subjects, premature termination (at 5.1 ± 0.2 min) with a single breath of 60% O 2 , enabled a 2nd safe breath-hold lasting 3.3 ± 0.2 min. In 18/18 subjects, premature termination at 5.3 ± 0.2 min) by reintroducing preoxygenation and hypocapnia, enabled a 2nd safe breath-hold lasting 5.8 ± 0.3 min. 17/17 subjects could safely perform 9 successive prolonged breath-holds, each terminated (at 4.3 ± 0.2 min) by reintroducing preoxygenation and hypocapnia for 3.1 ± 0.2 min. The 9th unconstrained breath-hold (mean of 6.0 ± 0.3 min) lasted as long as their single breath-hold. Conclusions: Multiple prolonged breath-holds are possible and safe. In a $19 min treatment session, it would therefore be possible to have $13 min for radiotherapy treatment (3 breath-holds) and $6 min for setup and recovery. In a 65 min session, it would be possible to have 41 min for radiotherapy and 25 min for setup and recovery.

The schedule of 64 Gy in 25 fractions with concomitant chemotherapy is tolerable in patients with poor and intermediate prognosis OPSCC.

As the use of linear accelerators operating in flattening filter‐free (FFF) modes becomes more widespread, it is important to have an understanding of the surface doses delivered to patients with these beams. Flattening filter removal alters the beam quality and relative contributions of low‐energy X‐rays and contamination electrons in the beam. Having dosimetric data to describe the surface dose and buildup regions under a range of conditions for FFF beams is important if clinical decisions are to be made. An Elekta Synergy linac with standard MLCi head has been commissioned to run at 6 MV and 10 MV running with the flattening filter in or out. In this linac the 6 MV FFF beam has been energy‐matched to the clinical beam on the central axis (normalD10). The 10 MV beam energy has not been adjusted. The flattening filter in both cases is replaced by a thin (2 mm) stainless steel plate. A thin window parallel plate chamber has been used to measure a comprehensive set of surface dose data in these beams for variations in field size and SSD, and for the presence of attenuators (wedge, shadow tray, and treatment couch). Surface doses are generally higher in FFF beams for small field sizes and lower for large field sizes with a crossover at 10×10 cm2 at 6 MV and 25×25 cm2 at 10 MV. This trend is also seen in the presence of the wedge, shadow tray, and treatment couch. Only small differences (<0.5%) are seen between the beams on varying SSD. At both 6 and 10 MV the filter‐free beams show far less variation with field size than conventional beams. By removing the flattening filter, a source of contamination electrons is exchanged for a source of low‐energy photons (as these are no longer attenuated). In practice these two components almost balance out. No significant effects on surface dose are expected by the introduction of FFF delivery.PACS number(s): 87.53.Bn, 87.55.ne, 87.56.bd