Bolus is commonly used in MV photon radiotherapy to increase superficial dose and improve dose uniformity for treating shallow lesions. However, irregular patient body contours can cause unwanted air gaps between a bolus and patient skin. The resulting dosimetric errors could be exacerbated in MR-Linac treatments, as secondary electrons generated by photons are affected by the magnetic field. This study aimed to quantify the dosimetric effect of unwanted gaps between bolus and skin surface in an MR-Linac. A parallel-plate ionization chamber and EBT3 films were utilized to evaluate the surface dose under bolus with various gantry angles, field sizes, and different air gaps. The results of surface dose measurements were then compared to Monaco 5.40 Treatment Planning System (TPS) calculations. The suitability of using a parallel-plate chamber in MR-Linac measurement was validated by benchmarking the percentage depth dose and output factors with the microDiamond detector and air-filled ionization chamber measurements in water. A non-symmetric response of the parallel-plate chamber to oblique beams in the magnetic field was characterized. Unwanted air gaps significantly reduced the skin dose. For a frontal beam, skin dose was halved when there was a 5 mm gap, a much larger difference than in a conventional linac. Skin dose manifested a non-symmetric pattern in terms of gantry angle and gap size. The TPS overestimated skin dose in general, but shared the same trend with measurement when there was no air gap, or the gap size was larger than 5 mm. However, the calculated and measured results had a large discrepancy when the bolus-skin gap was below 5 mm. When treating superficial lesions, unwanted air gaps under the bolus will compromise the dosimetric goals. Our results highlight the importance of avoiding air gaps between bolus and skin when treating superficial lesions using an MR-Linac system.
Synchrony Respiratory Tracking system adapted from CyberKnife has been introduced in Radixact to compensate the tumor motion caused by respiration. This study aims to compare the modeling accuracy of the Synchrony system between Radixact and CyberKnife. Two Synchrony plans based on fiducial phantoms were created for CyberKnife and Radixact, respectively. Different respiratory motion traces were used to drive a motion platform to move along the superoinferior and left-right direction. The cycle time and the amplitude of target/surrogate motion of one selected motion trace were scaled to investigate the dependence of modeling accuracy on the motion characteristic. The predicted target position, the correlation error, potential difference (Radixact only) and standard error (CyberKnife only) were extracted from raw data or log files of the two systems. The modeling accuracy was evaluated by calculating the root-mean-square (RMS) error between the predicted target positions and the input motion trace. A threshold T95 within which 95% of the potential difference or the standard error lay was defined and evaluated. Except for the motion trace with a small amplitude and a good (linear) correlation between target and surrogate motion, Radixact showed smaller RMS errors than CyberKnife. The RMS error of both systems increased with the motion amplitude and showed a decreasing trend with the increasing cycle time. No correlation was found between the RMS error and the amplitude of surrogate motion. T95 could be a good estimator of modeling accuracy for CyberKnife rather than Radixact. The correlation error defined in Radixact were largely affected by the number of fiducial markers and the setup error. In general, the modeling accuracy of the Radixact Synchrony system is better than that of the CyberKnife Synchrony system under unfavorable conditions.
Purpose. This study aims to evaluate the performance of a commercial 1.5 T MR-Linac by analyzing its patient-specific quality assurance (QA) data collected during one full year of clinical operation. Methods and Materials. The patient-specific QA system consisted of offline delivery QA (DQA) and online calculation-based QA. Offline DQA was based on ArcCHECK-MR combined with an ionization chamber. Online QA was performed using RadCalc that calculated and compared the point dose calculation with the treatment planning system (TPS). A total of 24 patients with 189 treatment fractions were enrolled in this study. Gamma analysis was performed and the threshold that encompassed 95% of QA results (T95) was reported. The plan complexity metric was calculated for each plan and compared with the dose measurements to determine whether any correlation existed. Results. All point dose measurements were within 5% deviation. The mean gamma passing rates of the group data were found to be 96.8 ± 4.0% and 99.6 ± 0.7% with criteria of 2%/2mm and 3%/3mm, respectively. T95 of 87.4% and 98.2% was reported for the overall group with the two passing criteria, respectively. No statistically significant difference was found between adaptive treatments with adapt-to-position (ATP) and adapt-to-shape (ATS), whilst the category of pelvis data showed a better passing rate than other sites. Online QA gave a mean deviation of 0.2 ± 2.2%. The plan complexity metric was positively correlated with the mean dose difference whilst the complexity of the ATS cohort had larger variations than the ATP cohort. Conclusions. A patient-specific QA system based on ArcCHECK-MR, solid phantom and ionization chamber has been well established and implemented for validation of treatment delivery of a 1.5 T MR-Linac. Our QA data obtained over one year confirms that good agreement between TPS calculation and treatment delivery was achieved.
This study aims to quantify the relative contributions of phantom scatter, collimator scatter and head leakage to the out-of-field doses (OFDs) of both static fields and clinical intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatments in a 1.5 T MR-Linac. The OFDs of static fields were measured at increasing distances from the field edge in an MR-conditional water phantom. Inline scans at depths of dmax (14 mm), 50 and 100 mm were performed for static fields of 5 × 5, 10 × 10 and 15 × 15 cm2 under three different conditions: full scatter, with phantom scatter prevented, and head leakage only. Crossline scans at isocenter and offset positions were performed in full scatter condition. EBT3 radiochromic films were placed at 100 mm depth of solid water phantom to measure the OFD of clinical IMRT plans. All water tank data were normalized to Dmax of a 10 × 10 cm2 field and the film results were presented as a fraction of the target mean dose. The OFD in the inline direction varied from 3.5% (15 × 15 cm2, 100 mm depth, 50 mm distance) to 0.014% (5 × 5 cm2, dmax, 400 mm distance). For all static fields, the collimator scatter was higher than the phantom scatter and head leakage at a distance of 100–400 mm. Head leakage remained the smallest among the three components, except at long distances (>375 mm) with small field size. Compared to the inline scans, the crossline scans at the isocenter showed higher doses at distances longer than 80 mm. All crossline profiles at longitudinal offset positions showed a cone shape with laterally shifted maxima. The OFD of IMRT deliveries varied with different target size. For prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) treatment, the OFD decreased from 2% to 0.03% at a distance of 50–500 mm. The OFDs have been measured for a 1.5 T MR-Linac. The presented dosimetric data are valuable for radiation safety assessments on patients treated with the MR-Linac, such as evaluating carcinogenic risk and radiation exposure to cardiac implantable electronic devices.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.