No abstract

The requirement of an independent verification of the monitor units ͑MU͒ or time calculated to deliver the prescribed dose to a patient has been a mainstay of radiation oncology quality assurance. The need for and value of such a verification was obvious when calculations were performed by hand using look-up tables, and the verification was achieved by a second person independently repeating the calculation. However, in a modern clinic using CT/MR/PET simulation, computerized 3D treatment planning, heterogeneity corrections, and complex calculation algorithms such as convolution/superposition and Monte Carlo, the purpose of and methodology for the MU verification have come into question. In addition, since the verification is often performed using a simpler geometrical model and calculation algorithm than the primary calculation, exact or almost exact agreement between the two can no longer be expected. Guidelines are needed to help the physicist set clinically reasonable action levels for agreement. This report addresses the following charges of the task group: ͑1͒ To re-evaluate the purpose and methods of the "independent second check" for monitor unit calculations for non-IMRT radiation treatment in light of the complexities of modernday treatment planning. ͑2͒ To present recommendations on how to perform verification of monitor unit calculations in a modern clinic. ͑3͒ To provide recommendations on establishing action levels for agreement between primary calculations and verification, and to provide guidance in addressing discrepancies outside the action levels. These recommendations are to be used as guidelines only and shall not be interpreted as requirements.

The prototype IQM system can validate the accuracy of beam delivery in real time by comparing precalculated and measured AIMS signals. The system is capable of capturing errors in MLC leaf calibration or malfunctions in the positioning of an individual leaf. The AIMS does not significantly alter the beam quality and therefore could be implemented without requiring recommissioning measurements.

No abstract

High‐precision radiotherapy planning and quality assurance require accurate dosimetric and geometric phantom measurements. Phantom design requires materials with mechanical strength and resilience, and dosimetric properties close to those of water over diagnostic and therapeutic ranges. Plastic Water Diagnostic Therapy (PWDT: CIRS, Norfolk, VA) is a phantom material designed for water equivalence in photon beams from 0.04 MeV to 100 MeV; the material has also good mechanical properties. The present article reports the results of computed tomography (CT) imaging and dosimetric studies of PWDT to evaluate the suitability of the material in CT and therapy energy ranges.We characterized the water equivalence of PWDT in a series of experiments in which the basic dosimetric properties of the material were determined for photon energies of 80 kVp, 100 kVp, 250 kVp, 4 MV, 6 MV, 10 MV, and 18 MV. Measured properties included the buildup and percentage depth dose curves for several field sizes, and relative dose factors as a function of field size. In addition, the PWDT phantom underwent CT imaging at beam qualities ranging from 80 kVp to 140 kVp to determine the water equivalence of the phantom in the diagnostic energy range. The dosimetric quantities measured with PWDT agreed within 1.5% of those determined in water and Solid Water (Gammex rmi, Middleton, WI). Computed tomography imaging of the phantom was found to generate Hounsfield numbers within 0.8% of those generated using water. The results suggest that PWDT material is suitable both for regular radiotherapy quality assurance measurements and for intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) verification work. Sample IMRT verification results are presented.PACS number: 87.53Dq

Programs for the computerized analysis and interpretation of neuropsychological test data have been designed and tested in recent years. Three major approaches have governed these attempts: a taxonomic key model, a brain-referenced geometric conception, and two algorithms reflecting the interpretive methods of experienced clinicians. None of the programs to date has produced results that are either satisfactory or equal in accuracy to those achieved by human clinicians. This article identifies ways in which future programs can improve their accuracy and produce time-saving analyses that aid the clinician's ultimate decision-making and reporting tasks.

The dosimetry of very small electron fields can be challenging due to relative shifts in percent depth‐dose curves, including the location of dmax, and lack of lateral electronic equilibrium in an ion chamber when placed in the beam. Conventionally a small parallel plate chamber or film is utilized to perform small field electron beam dosimetry. Since modern radiotherapy departments are becoming filmless in favor of electronic imaging, an alternate and readily available clinical dosimeter needs to be explored. We have studied the performance of MOSFET as a relative dosimeter in small field electron beams. The reproducibility, linearity and sensitivity of a high‐sensitivity microMOSFET were investigated for clinical electron beams. In addition, the percent depth doses, output factors and profiles have been measured in a water tank with MOSFET and compared with those measured by an ion chamber for a range of field sizes from 1 cm diameter to 10 cm× 10 cm for 6, 12, 16 and 20 MeV beams. Similar comparative measurements were also performed with MOSFET and films in solid water phantom. The MOSFET sensitivity was found to be practically constant over the range of field sizes investigated. The dose response was found to be linear and reproducible (within ±1% for 100 cGy). An excellent agreement was observed among the central axis depth dose curves measured using MOSFET, film and ion chamber. The output factors measured with MOSFET for small fields agreed to within 3% with those measured by film dosimetry. Overall results indicate that MOSFET can be utilized to perform dosimetry for small field electron beam.PACS number: 87.55.Qr

The impact of the treatment couch on a radiotherapy plan is rarely fully assessed during the treatment planning process. Incorporating a couch model into the treatment planning system (TPS) enables the planner to avoid or dosimetrically evaluate beam‐couch intersections. In this work, we demonstrate how existing TPS tools can be used to establish this capability and assess the accuracy and effectiveness of the system through dose measurements and planning studies. Such capabilities may be particularly relevant for the planning of arc therapies.Treatment couch top models were introduced into a TPS by fusing their CT image sets with the patient CT dataset. Regions of interest characterizing couch elements were then imported and assigned appropriate densities in the TPS. Measurements in phantom agreed with TPS calculations to within 2% dose and 1° gantry rotation. To clinically validate the model, a retrospective study was performed on patient plans that posed difficulties in beam‐couch intersection during setup. Beam‐couch intersection caused up to a 3% reduction in PTV coverage, defined by the 95% of the prescribed dose, and up to a 1% reduction in mean CTV coverage. Dose compensation strategies for IMRT treatments with beams passing through couch elements were investigated using a four‐field IMRT plan with three beams passing through couch elements. In this study, ignoring couch effects resulted in point dose reductions of 8±3%.A methodology for incorporating detailed couch characteristics into a TPS has been established and explored. The method can be used to predict beam‐couch intersections during planning, potentially eliminating the need for pretreatment appointments. Alternatively, if a beam‐couch intersection problem arises, the impact of the couch can be assessed on a case‐by‐case basis and a clinical decision made based on full dosimetric information.PACS numbers: 87.53.Bn;87.55.Gh;87.55.de;87.56.nk