Three commercial metal artifact reduction methods were evaluated for use in computed tomography (CT) imaging in the presence of clinically realistic metal implants: Philips O-MAR, GE's monochromatic Gemstone Spectral Imaging (GSI) using dual-energy CT, and GSI monochromatic imaging with metal artifact reduction software applied (MARs). Each method was evaluated according to CT number accuracy, metal size accuracy, and streak artifact severity reduction by using several phantoms, including three anthropomorphic phantoms containing metal implants (hip prosthesis, dental fillings, and spinal fixation rods). All three methods showed varying degrees of success for the hip prosthesis and spinal fixation rod cases, while none were particularly beneficial for dental artifacts. Limitations of the methods were also observed. MARs underestimated the size of metal implants and introduced new artifacts in imaging planes beyond the metal implant when applied to dental artifacts, and both the O-MAR and MARs algorithms induced artifacts for spinal fixation rods in a thoracic phantom. Our findings suggest that all three artifact mitigation methods may benefit patients with metal implants, though they should be used with caution in certain scenarios.

Purpose To determine whether in-house patient-specific IMRT QA results predict the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC)-Houston phantom results. Methods and Materials IROC Houston’s IMRT head and neck phantoms have been irradiated by numerous institutions as part of clinical trial credentialing. We retrospectively compared these phantom results with those of in-house IMRT QA (following the institution’s clinical process) for 855 irradiations performed between 2003 and 2013. The sensitivity and specificity of IMRT QA to detect unacceptable or acceptable plans was determined relative to the IROC Houston phantom results. Additional analyses evaluated specific IMRT QA dosimeters and analysis methods. Results IMRT QA universally showed poor sensitivity relative to the head and neck phantom i.e., poor ability to predict a failing IROC Houston phantom result. Depending on how the IMRT QA results were interpreted, overall sensitivity ranged from 2% to 18%. For different IMRT QA methods, sensitivity ranged from 3% to 54%. Although the observed sensitivity was particularly poor at clinical thresholds (e.g., 3% dose difference or 90% of pixels passing gamma), receiver operator characteristic analysis indicated that no threshold showed good sensitivity and specificity for the devices evaluated. Conclusions IMRT QA is not a reasonable replacement for a credentialing phantom. Moreover, the particularly poor agreement between IMRT QA and the IROC Houston phantoms highlights surprising inconsistency in the QA process.

Purpose: Optically stimulated luminescent detectors (OSLDs) are quickly gaining popularity as passive dosimeters, with applications in medicine for linac output calibration verification, brachytherapy source verification, treatment plan quality assurance, and clinical dose measurements. With such wide applications, these dosimeters must be characterized for numerous factors affecting their response. The most abundant commercial OSLD is the InLight/OSL system from Landauer, Inc. The purpose of this study was to examine the angular dependence of the nanoDot dosimeter, which is part of the InLight system. Methods: Relative dosimeter response data were taken at several angles in 6 and 18 MV photon beams, as well as a clinical proton beam. These measurements were done within a phantom at a depth beyond the build-up region. To verify the observed angular dependence, additional measurements were conducted as well as Monte Carlo simulations in MCNPX. Results: When irradiated with the incident photon beams parallel to the plane of the dosimeter, the nanoDot response was 4% lower at 6 MV and 3% lower at 18 MV than the response when irradiated with the incident beam normal to the plane of the dosimeter. Monte Carlo simulations at 6 MV showed similar results to the experimental values. Examination of the results in Monte Carlo suggests the cause as partial volume irradiation. In a clinical proton beam, no angular dependence was found. Conclusions: A nontrivial angular response of this OSLD was observed in photon beams. This factor may need to be accounted for when evaluating doses from photon beams incident from a variety of directions.