PurposeWe calculated setup margins for whole breast radiotherapy during voluntary deep‐inspiration breath‐hold (vDIBH) using real‐time surface imaging (SI).Methods and MaterialsPatients (n = 58) with a 27‐to‐31 split between right‐ and left‐sided cancers were analyzed. Treatment beams were gated using AlignRT by registering the whole breast region‐of‐interest to the surface generated from the simulation CT scan. AlignRT recorded (three‐dimensional) 3D displacements and the beam‐on‐state every 0.3 s. Means and standard deviations of the displacements during vDIBH for each fraction were used to calculate setup margins. Intra‐DIBH stability and the intrafraction reproducibility were estimated from the medians of the 5th to 95th percentile range of the translations in each breath‐hold and fraction, respectively.ResultsA total of 7269 breath‐holds were detected over 1305 fractions in which a median dose of 200 cGy was delivered. Each fraction was monitored for 5.95 ± 2.44 min. Calculated setup margins were 4.8 mm (A/P), 4.9 mm (S/I), and 6.4 mm (L/R). The intra‐DIBH stability and the intrafraction reproducibility were ≤0.7 mm and ≤2.2 mm, respectively. The isotropic margin according to SI (9.2 mm) was comparable to other institutions’ calculations that relied on x‐ray imaging and/or spirometry for patients with left‐sided cancer (9.8–11.0 mm). Likewise, intra‐DIBH variability and intrafraction reproducibility of breast surface measured with SI agreed with spirometry‐based positioning to within 1.2 and 0.36 mm, respectively.ConclusionsWe demonstrated that intra‐DIBH variability, intrafraction reproducibility, and setup margins are similar to those reported by peer studies who utilized spirometry‐based positioning.

Introduction: Spine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) achieves favorable outcomes compared to conventional radiotherapy doses/fractionation. The spinal cord is the principal dose-limiting organ-at-risk (OAR), and safe treatment requires precise immobilization/localization. Therefore, image guidance is paramount to successful spine SBRT. Conventional X-ray imaging and alignment to surrogate bony anatomy may be inadequate, whereas magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) directly visualizes the dose-limiting cord. This work assessed the dosimetric capability of the ViewRay (ViewRay Inc. Oakwood Village, OH) magnetic resonance (MR) guided linac (MR-Linac) for spine SBRT. Methods: Eight spine SBRT patients without orthopedic hardware who were previously treated on a TrueBeam using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) were re-planned using MR-Linac fixed-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Phantom measurements using film, ionization chamber, and a commercial diode-array assessed feasibility. Plans included a variety of prescriptions (30-50 Gy in 3-10 fractions). Results: MR-Linac plans satisfied all clinical goals. Compared to VMAT plans, both entrance dose and heterogeneity increased (D max : 134±3% vs. 120±2%, p=0.0270), while conformality decreased (conformity index: 1.28±0.06 vs. 1.06±0.06, p=0.0005), and heterogeneity increased. However, while not statistically significant, MR-linac cord sparing improved (cord D max : 16.1±2.7Gy vs. 19.5±1.6Gy, p=0.2066; cord planning organ at risk volume (cord PRV) D max : 20.0±2.6Gy vs. 24.5±2.0Gy, p=0.0996). Delivery time increased but was acceptable (14.39±1.26min vs. 9.57±1.19min). Ionization chamber measurements agreed with planned dose to within 2.5%. Film and diode measurements demonstrated accurate/precise delivery of dose gradients between the target and the cord. Conclusion: Spine SBRT with the MR-Linac is feasible as verified via re-planning eight clinical cases followed by delivery verification in phantoms using film, diodes, and an ionization chamber. Real-time visualization of the dose-limiting cord during spine SBRT may enable cordbased gating, reduced margins, alternate dose schemas, and/or adaptive therapy. 1 2 3 4 3 3 5 5

The purpose of this work is to establish an automated approach for a multiple isocenter volumetric arc therapy (VMAT)-based TBI treatment planning approach. Five anonymized full-body CT imaging sets were used. A script was developed to automate and standardize the treatment planning process using the Varian Eclipse v15.6 Scripting API. The script generates two treatment plans: a headfirst VMAT-based plan for upper body coverage using four isocenters and a total of eight full arcs; and a feet-first AP/PA plan with three isocenters that covers the lower extremities of the patient. PTV was the entire body cropped 5 mm from the patient surface and extended 3 mm into the lungs and kidneys. Two plans were generated for each case: one to a total dose of 1200 cGy in 8 fractions and a second one to a total dose of 1320 cGy in 8 fractions. Plans were calculated using the AAA algorithm and 6 MV photon energy. One plan was created and delivered to an anthropomorphic phantom containing 12 OSLDs for in-vivo dose verification. For the plans prescribed to 1200 cGy total dose the following dosimetric results were achieved: median PTV V100% = 94.5%; median PTV D98% = 89.9%; median lungs Dmean = 763 cGy; median left kidney Dmean = 1058 cGy; and median right kidney Dmean = 1051 cGy. For the plans prescribed to 1320 cGy total dose the following dosimetric results were achieved: median PTV V100% = 95.0%; median PTV D98% = 88.7%; median lungs Dmean = 798 cGy; median left kidney Dmean = 1059 cGy; and median right kidney Dmean = 1064 cGy. Maximum dose objective was met for all cases. The dose deviation between the treatment planning dose and the dose measured by the OSLDs was within AE4%. In summary, we have demonstrated that scripting can produce high-quality plans based on predefined dose objectives and can decrease planning time by automatic target and optimization contours generation, plan creation, field and isocenter placement, and optimization objectives setup.

Purpose Routine quality assurance (QA) of cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans used for image‐guided radiotherapy is prescribed by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group (TG)‐142 report. For CBCT image quality, TG‐142 recommends using clinically established baseline values as QA tolerances. This work examined how image quality parameters vary both across machines of the same model and across different CBCT techniques. Additionally, this work investigated how image quality values are affected by imager recalibration and repeated exposures during routine QA. Methods Cone‐beam computed tomography scans of the Catphan 604 phantom were taken on four TrueBeam® and one Edge™ linear accelerator using four manufacturer‐provided techniques. TG‐142 image quality parameters were calculated for each CBCT scan using SunCHECK Machine™. The variability of each parameter with machine and technique was evaluated using a two‐way ANOVA test on a dataset consisting of 200 CBCT scans. The impact of imager calibration on image quality parameters was examined for a subset of three machines using an unpaired Student’s t‐test. The effect of artifacts appearing on CBCTs taken in rapid succession was characterized and an approach to reduce their appearance was evaluated. Additionally, a set of baselines and tolerances for all image quality metrics was presented. Results All imaging parameters except geometric distortion varied with technique (P < 0.05) and all imaging parameters except slice thickness varied with machine (P < 0.05). Imager calibration can change the expected value of all imaging parameters, though it does not consistently do so. While changes are statistically significant, they may not be clinically significant. Finally, rapid acquisition of CBCT scans can introduce image artifacts that degrade CBCT uniformity. Conclusions This work characterized the variability of acquired CBCT data across machines and CBCT techniques along with the impact of imager calibration and rapid CBCT acquisition on image quality.

The purpose of this feasibility study is to develop a fully automated procedure capable of generating treatment plans with multiple fractionation schemes to improve speed, robustness, and standardization of plan quality. A fully automated script was implemented for spinal stereotactic radiosurgery/stereotactic body radiation therapy (SRS/SBRT) plan generation using Eclipse v15.6 API. The script interface allows multiple dose/fractionation plan requests, planning target volume (PTV) expansions, as well as information regarding distance/overlap between spinal cord and targets to drive decision‐making. For each requested plan, the script creates the course, plans, field arrangements, and automatically optimizes and calculates dose. The script was retrospectively applied to ten computed tomography (CT) scans of previous cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine SBRT patients. Three plans were generated for each patient — simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) 1800/1600 cGy to gross tumor volume (GTV)/PTV in one fraction; SIB 2700/2100 cGy to GTV/PTV in three fractions; and 3000 cGy to PTV in five fractions. Plan complexity and deliverability patient‐specific quality assurance (QA) was performed using ArcCHECK with an Exradin A16 chamber inserted. Dose objectives were met for all organs at risk (OARs) for each treatment plan. Median target coverage was GTV V100% = 87.3%, clinical target volume (CTV) V100% = 95.7% and PTV V100% = 88.0% for single fraction plans; GTV V100% = 95.6, CTV V100% = 99.6% and PTV V100% = 97.2% for three fraction plans; and GTV V100% = 99.6%, CTV V100% = 99.1% and PTV V100% = 97.2% for five fraction plans. All plans (n = 30) passed patient‐specific QA (>90%) at 2%/2 mm global gamma. A16 chamber dose measured at isocenter agreed with planned dose within 3% for all cases. Automatic planning for spine SRS/SBRT through scripting increases efficiency, standardizes plan quality and approach, and provides a tool for target coverage comparison of different fractionation schemes without the need for additional resources.

Purpose MRI is the gold‐standard imaging modality for brain tumor diagnosis and delineation. The purpose of this work was to investigate the feasibility of performing brain stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) with a 0.35 T MRI‐guided linear accelerator (MRL) equipped with a double‐focused multileaf collimator (MLC). Dosimetric comparisons were made vs a conventional C‐arm‐mounted linac with a high‐definition MLC. Methods The quality of MRL single‐isocenter brain SRS treatment plans was evaluated as a function of target size for a series of spherical targets with diameters from 0.6 cm to 2.5 cm in an anthropomorphic head phantom and six brain metastases (max linear dimension = 0.7‐1.9 cm) previously treated at our clinic on a conventional linac. Each target was prescribed 20 Gy to 99% of the target volume. Step‐and‐shoot IMRT plans were generated for the MRL using 11 static coplanar beams equally spaced over 360° about an isocenter placed at the center of the target. Couch and collimator angles are fixed for the MRL. Two MRL planning strategies (VR1 and VR2) were investigated. VR1 minimized the 12 Gy isodose volume while constraining the maximum point dose to be within ±1 Gy of 25 Gy which corresponded to normalization to an 80% isodose volume. VR2 minimized the 12 Gy isodose volume without the maximum dose constraint. For the conventional linac, the TB1 method followed the same strategy as VR1 while TB2 used five noncoplanar dynamic conformal arcs. Plan quality was evaluated in terms of conformity index (CI), conformity/gradient index (CGI), homogeneity index (HI), and volume of normal brain receiving ≥12 Gy (V12Gy). Quality assurance measurements were performed with Gafchromic EBT‐XD film following an absolute dose calibration protocol. Results For the phantom study, the CI of MRL plans was not significantly different compared to a conventional linac (P > 0.05). The use of dynamic conformal arcs and noncoplanar beams with a conventional linac spared significantly more normal brain (P = 0.027) and maximized the CGI, as expected. The mean CGI was 95.9 ± 4.5 for TB2 vs 86.6 ± 3.7 (VR1), 88.2 ± 4.8 (VR2), and 88.5 ± 5.9 (TB1). Each method satisfied a normal brain V12Gy ≤ 10.0 cm3 planning goal for targets with diameter ≤2.25 cm. The mean V12Gy was 3.1 cm3 for TB2 vs 5.5 cm3, 5.0 cm3 and 4.3 cm3, for VR1, VR2, and TB1, respectively. For a 2.5‐cm diameter target, only TB2 met the V12Gy planning objective. The MRL clinical brain plans were deemed acceptable for patient treatment. The normal brain V12Gy was ≤6.0 cm3 for all clinical targets (maximum target volume = 3.51 cm3). CI and CGI ranged from 1.12–1.65 and 81.2–88.3, respectively. Gamma analysis pass rates (3%/1mm criteria) exceeded 97.6% for six clinical targets planned and delivered on the MRL. The mean measured vs computed absolute dose difference was −0.1%. Conclusions The MRL system can produce clinically acceptable brain SRS plans for spherical lesions with diameter ≤2.25 cm. Large lesions (>2.25 cm) should be treated with a linac capable of delivering noncoplan...

Purpose: Breast cancer radiotherapy delivered using voluntary deep inspiration breath‐hold (DIBH) requires reproducible breath holds, particularly when matching supraclavicular fields to tangential fields. We studied the impact of variation in DIBHs on CTV and OAR dose metrics by comparing the dose distribution computed on two DIBH CT scans taken at the time of simulation. Methods: Ten patients receiving 50Gy in 25 fractions to the left chestwall and regional lymph nodes were studied. Two simulation CT scans were taken during separate DIBHs along with a free‐breathing (FB) scan. The treatment was planned using one DIBH CT. The dose was recomputed on the other two scans using adaptive planning (Pinnacle 9.10) in which the scans are registered using a cross‐correlation algorithm. The chestwall, lymph nodes and OARs were contoured on the scans following the RTOG consensus guidelines. The overall translational and rotational variation between the DIBH scans was used to estimate positional variation between breath‐holds. Dose metrics between plans were compared using paired t‐tests (p < 0.05) and means and standard deviations were reported. Results: The registration parameters were sub‐millimeter and sub‐degree. Although DIBH significantly reduced mean heart dose by 2.4Gy compared to FB (p < 0.01), no significant changes in dose were observed for targets or OARs between the two DIBH scans. Nodal coverage as assessed by V90% was 90%±8% and 89%±8% for supraclavicular and 99%±2% and 97%±22% for IM nodes. Though a significant decrease (10.5%±12.4%) in lung volume in the second DIBH CT was observed, the lung V20Gy was unchanged (14±2% and 14±3%) between the two DIBH scans. Conclusion: While the lung volume often varied between DIBHs, the CTV and OAR dose metrics were largely unchanged. This indicates that manual DIBH has the potential to provide consistent dose delivery to the chestwall and regional nodes targets when using matched fields.

Purpose: Energy-based source strength metrics may find use with model-based dose calculation algorithms, but no instruments exist that can measure the energy emitted from low-dose rate (LDR) sources. This work developed a calorimetric technique for measuring the power emitted from encapsulated low-dose rate, photon-emitting brachytherapy sources. This quantity is called emitted power (EP). The measurement methodology, instrument design and performance, and EP measurements made with the calorimeter are presented in this work. Methods: A calorimeter operating with a liquid helium thermal sink was developed to measure EP from LDR brachytherapy sources. The calorimeter employed an electrical substitution technique to determine the power emitted from the source. The calorimeter's performance and thermal system were characterized. EP measurements were made using four 125 I sources with air-kerma strengths ranging from 2.3 to 5.6 U and corresponding EPs of 0.39-0.79 µW, respectively. Three Best Medical 2301 sources and one Oncura 6711 source were measured. EP was also computed by converting measured air-kerma strengths to EPs through Monte Carlo-derived conversion factors. The measured EP and derived EPs were compared to determine the accuracy of the calorimeter measurement technique. Results: The calorimeter had a noise floor of 1-3 nW and a repeatability of 30-60 nW. The calorimeter was stable to within 5 nW over a 12 h measurement window. All measured values agreed with derived EPs to within 10%, with three of the four sources agreeing to within 4%. Calorimeter measurements had uncertainties ranging from 2.6% to 4.5% at the k = 1 level. The values of the derived EPs had uncertainties ranging from 2.9% to 3.6% at the k = 1 level.