AAPM Task Group 119 has produced quantitative confidence limits as baseline expectation values for IMRT commissioning. A set of test cases was developed to assess the overall accuracy of planning and delivery of IMRT treatments. Each test uses contours of targets and avoidance structures drawn within rectangular phantoms. These tests were planned, delivered, measured, and analyzed by nine facilities using a variety of IMRT planning and delivery systems. Each facility had passed the Radiological Physics Center credentialing tests for IMRT. The agreement between the planned and measured doses was determined using ion chamber dosimetry in high and low dose regions, film dosimetry on coronal planes in the phantom with all fields delivered, and planar dosimetry for each field measured perpendicular to the central axis. The planar dose distributions were assessed using gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm. The mean values and standard deviations were used to develop confidence limits for the test results using the concept confidence limit = /mean/ + 1.96sigma. Other facilities can use the test protocol and results as a basis for comparison to this group. Locally derived confidence limits that substantially exceed these baseline values may indicate the need for improved IMRT commissioning.

No abstract

Objectives Radiomic features extracted from diverse MRI modalities have been investigated regarding their predictive and/or prognostic value in a variety of cancers. With the aid of a 3D realistic digital MRI phantom of the brain, the aim of this study was to examine the impact of pulse sequence parameter selection on MRI-based textural parameters of the brain. Methods MR images of the employed digital phantom were realized with SimuBloch, a simulation package made for fast generation of image sequences based on the Bloch equations. Pulse sequences being investigated consisted of spin echo (SE), gradient echo (GRE), spoiled gradient echo (SP-GRE), inversion recovery spin echo (IR-SE), and inversion recovery gradient echo (IR-GRE). Twenty-nine radiomic textural features related, respectively, to gray-level intensity histograms (GLIH), cooccurrence matrices (GLCOM), zone size matrices (GLZSM), and neighborhood difference matrices (GLNDM) were evaluated for the obtained MR realizations, and differences were identified. Results It was found that radiomic features vary considerably among images generated by the five different T1-weighted pulse sequences, and the deviations from those measured on the T1 map vary among features, from a few percent to over 100%. Radiomic features extracted from T1-weighted spin-echo images with TR varying from 360 ms to 620 ms and TE = 3.4 ms showed coefficients of variation (CV) up to 45%, while up to 70%, for T2-weighted spin-echo images with TE varying over the range 60–120 ms and TR = 6400 ms. Conclusion Variability of radiologic textural appearance on MR realizations with respect to the choice of pulse sequence and imaging parameters is feature-dependent and can be substantial. It calls for caution in employing MRI-derived radiomic features especially when pooling imaging data from multiple institutions with intention of correlating with clinical endpoints.

No abstract

BackgroundAdaptive Radiotherapy aims to identify anatomical deviations during a radiotherapy course and modify the treatment plan to maintain treatment objectives. This requires regions of interest (ROIs) to be defined using the most recent imaging data. This study investigates the clinical utility of using deformable image registration (DIR) to automatically propagate ROIs.MethodsTarget (GTV) and organ-at-risk (OAR) ROIs were non-rigidly propagated from a planning CT scan to a per-treatment CT scan for 22 patients. Propagated ROIs were quantitatively compared with expert physician-drawn ROIs on the per-treatment scan using Dice scores and mean slicewise Hausdorff distances, and center of mass distances for GTVs. The propagated ROIs were qualitatively examined by experts and scored based on their clinical utility.ResultsGood agreement between the DIR-propagated ROIs and expert-drawn ROIs was observed based on the metrics used. 94% of all ROIs generated using DIR were scored as being clinically useful, requiring minimal or no edits. However, 27% (12/44) of the GTVs required major edits.ConclusionDIR was successfully used on 22 patients to propagate target and OAR structures for ART with good anatomical agreement for OARs. It is recommended that propagated target structures be thoroughly reviewed by the treating physician.

No abstract

IMRT plans are usually verified by phantom measurements: dose distributions are measured using film and the absolute dose using an ionization chamber. The measured and calculated doses are compared and planned MUs are modified if necessary. To achieve a conformal dose distribution, IMRT fields are composed of small subfields, or "beamlets." The size of beamlets is on the order of 1 x 1 cm2. Therefore, small chambers with sensitive volumes < or = 0.1 cm3 are generally used for absolute dose verification. A dosimetry system consisting of an electrometer, an ion chamber, and connecting cables may exhibit charge leakage. Since chamber sensitivity is proportional to volume, the effect of leakage on the measured charge is relatively greater for small chambers. Furthermore, the charge contribution from beamlets located at significant distances from the point of measurement may be below the small chambers threshold and hence not detected. On the other hand, large (0.6 cm3) chambers used for the dosimetry of conventional external fields are quite sensitive. Since these chambers are long, the electron fluence through them may not be uniform ("temporal" uniformity may not exist in the chamber volume). However, the cumulative, or "spatial" fluence distribution (as indicated by calculated IMRT dose distribution) may become uniform at the chamber location when the delivery of all IMRT fields is completed. Under the condition of "spatial" fluence uniformity, the charge collected by the large chamber may accurately represent the absolute dose delivered by IMRT to the point of measurement. In this work, 0.6, 0.125, and 0.009 cm3 chambers were used for the absolute dose verification for tomographic and step-and-shoot IMRT plans. With the largest, 0.6 cm3 chamber, the measured dose was equal to calculated within 0.5%, when no leakage corrections were made. Without leakage corrections, the error of measurement with a 0.125 cm3 chamber was 2.6% (tomographic IMRT) and 1.5% (step-and-shoot IMRT). When doses measured by a 0.125 cm3 chamber were corrected for leakage, the difference between the calculated and measured doses reduced to 0.5%. Leakage corrected doses obtained with the 0.009 cm3 chamber were within 1.5%-1.7% of calculated doses. Without leakage corrections, the measurement error was 16% (tomographic IMRT) and 7% (step-and-shoot IMRT).

This study investigates the surface dose and build-up region dosimetry for oblique IMRT beams. The dependence of surface and build-up region doses of 0 degrees (perpendicular incidence) and 75 degrees (oblique incidence) IMRT fields on field size was measured and compared with open field dosimetry. Measurements were performed using a parallel-plate chamber and KODAK EDR2 films in a polystyrene phantom for a 6 cm x 6 cm and a 12 cm x 12 cm, 6 MV photon beam at depths of 0 mm (surface) through dmax. Data were normalized to the dmax value of each field. Four intensity modulated delivery patterns were created and delivered using step-and-shoot IMRT: (1) six static 1 cm x 6 cm strips (IMRTstrip), (2) 12 static 1 cm x 12 cm strips (IMRTstrip), (3) intensity modulated beam patterns created by using the inverse planning optimization software (IMRTopt) for 6 cm x 6 cm, and (4) IMRTopt for 12 cm x 12 cm field sizes. The percent depth doses (PDDs) of 0 degrees, 6 cm x 6 cm IMRTstrip beam at the surface and 5 mm were lower by 8.8% and 1.6%, respectively, compared to the open field. The PDDs of 75 degrees, 6 cm x 6 cm IMRTstrip beam at the surface and 5 mm were lower by 6.7% and 2.4%, respectively, compared to the open field. This study showed that IMRT itself is not contributing to greater skin doses.