Purpose In previous work, we demonstrated that mixed electron‐photon radiation therapy (MBRT) produces treatment plans with improved normal tissue sparing and similar target coverage, when compared to photon‐only plans. The purpose of this work was to validate the MBRT delivery process on a Varian TrueBeam accelerator and laying the groundwork for a patient‐specific quality assurance (QA) protocol based on ion chamber point measurements and 2D film measurements. Methods MC beam models used to calculate the MBRT dose distributions of each modality (photons/electrons) were validated with a single‐angle beam MBRT treatment plan delivered on a slab of Solid Water phantom with a film positioned at a depth of 2 cm. The measured film absorbed dose was compared to the calculated dose. To validate clinical deliveries, a polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) cylinder was machined and holes were made to fit an ionization chamber. A complex MBRT plan involving a photon arc and three electron delivery angles was created with the aim of reproducing a clinically realistic dose distribution in typical soft tissue sarcoma tumours of the extremities. The treatment plan was delivered on the PMMA cylinder. Point measurements were taken with an Exradin A1SL chamber at two nominal depths: 1.4 cm and 2.1 cm. The plan was also delivered on a second identical phantom with an insert at 2 cm depth, where a film was placed. An existing EGSnrc user‐code, SPRRZnrc, was modified to calculate the stopping power ratios between any materials in the same voxelized geometry used for dose calculation purposes. This modified code, called SPRXYZnrc, was used to calculate a correction factor, kMBRT, accounting for the differences in electron fluence spectrum at the measurement point compared to that at reference conditions. The uncertainty associated with neglecting potential ionization chamber fluence perturbation correction factors using this approach was estimated. Results The film measurement from the Solid Water phantom treatment plan was in good agreement with the simulated dose distribution, with a gamma pass rate of 96.1% for a 3%/2 mm criteria. For the PMMA phantom delivery, for the same gamma criteria, the pass rate was 97.3%. The ion chamber measurements of the total delivered dose agreed with the MC‐simulated dose within 2.1%. The beam quality correction factors amounted to, at most, a 4% correction on the ion chamber measurement. However, individual contribution of low electron energies proved difficult to precisely measure due to their steep dose gradients, with disagreements of up to 28% ± 15% at 2.1 cm depth (6 MeV). Ion chamber measurement procedure of electron beams was achieved in less than 5 min, and the entire validation process including phantom setup was performed in less than 30 min. Conclusion The agreement between measured and simulated MBRT doses indicates that the dose distributions obtained from the MBRT treatment planning algorithm are realistically achievable. The SPRXYZnrc MC code allowed for convenient calculations of...

Introduction: Trajectory-based volumetric modulated arc therapy (tr-VMAT) treatment plans enable the option for noncoplanar delivery yielding steeper dose gradients and increased sparing of critical structures compared to conventional treatment plans. The addition of translational couch motion to shorten the effective source-to-axis distance (SAD) may result in improved delivery precision and an increased effective dose rate. In this work, tr-VMAT treatment plans using a noncoplanar "baseball stitch" trajectory were implemented, applied to patients presented with cranial targets, and compared to the clinical treatment plans. Methods: A treatment planning workflow was implemented: (a) beamlet doses were calculated for control points defined along a baseball stitch trajectory using a collapsed-cone convolution-superposition algorithm; (b) VMAT treatment plans were optimized using the column generation approach; (c) a final dose distribution was calculated in Varian Eclipse using the analytical anisotropic algorithm by importing the optimized treatment plan parameters. Tr-VMAT plans were optimized for ten patients presented with cranial targets at both standard and shortened SAD, and compared to the clinical treatment plans through isodose distributions, dose-volume histograms, and dosimetric indices. The control point specifications of the optimized tr-VMAT plans were used to estimate the delivery time.Results: The optimized tr-VMAT plans with both shortened and standard SAD delivery yielded a comparable plan quality to the clinical treatment plans. A statistically significant benefit was observed for dose gradient index and monitor unit efficiency for shortened SAD tr-VMAT plans, while improved target volume conformity was observed for the clinical treatment plan (P ≤ 0.05). A clear dosimetric benefit was not demonstrated between tr-VMAT delivery at shortened SAD compared to standard SAD, but shortened SAD delivery yielded a fraction size-dependent reduction in the estimated delivery time. Conclusion:The implementation of "baseball stitch" tr-VMAT treatment plans to patients presented with cranial targets demonstrated comparable plan quality to clinical treatment plans. The delivery at shortened SAD produced a fraction size-dependent decrease in estimated delivery time.

No abstract

The INTRABEAM system (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany) is an electronic brachytherapy (eBT) device designed for intraoperative radiotherapy applications. To date, the INTRABEAM x-ray source has not been characterized according to the AAPM TG-43 specifications for brachytherapy sources. This restricts its modelling in commercial treatment planning systems (TPSs), with the consequence that the doses to organs at risk are unknown. The aim of this work is to characterize the INTRABEAM source according to the TG-43 brachytherapy dosimetry protocol. The dose distribution in water around the source was determined with Monte Carlo (MC) calculations. For the validation of the MC model, depth dose calculations along the source longitudinal axis were compared with measurements using a soft x-ray ionization chamber (PTW 34013) and two synthetic diamond detectors (microDiamond PTW TN60019). In our results, the measurements in water agreed with the MC model calculations within uncertainties. The use of the microDiamond detector yielded better agreement with MC calculations, within estimated uncertainties, compared to the ionization chamber at points of steeper dose gradients. The radial dose function showed a steep fall-off close to the INTRABEAM source ( < 10 mm) with a gradient higher than that of commonly used brachytherapy radionuclides (192Ir, 125I and 103Pd), with values of 2.510, 1.645 and 1.232 at 4, 6 and 8 mm, respectively. The radial dose function partially flattens at larger distances with a fall-off comparable to that of the Xoft Axxent® (iCAD, Inc., Nashua, NH) eBT system. The simulated 2D polar anisotropy close to the bare probe walls showed deviations from unity of up to 55% at 10 mm and 155°. This work presents the MC calculated TG-43 parameters for the INTRABEAM, which constitute the necessary data for the characterization of the source as required by a TPS used in clinical dose calculations.

No abstract