IAEA‐AAPM TRS‐483‐based reference dosimetry of the new RefleXion biology‐guided radiotherapy (BgRT) machine

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to provide data for the calibration of the recent RefleXionTM biology‐guided radiotherapy (BgRT) machine (Hayward, CA, USA) following the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) TRS‐483 code of practice (COP) (Palmans et al. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 2017) and (Mirzakhanian et al. Med Phys, 2020). Methods In RefleXion BgRT machine, reference dosimetry was performed using two methodologies described in TRS‐483 and (Mirzakhanian et al. Med Phys, 2020) In the first approach (Approach 1), the generic beam quality correction factor kQA,Q0fA,fref was calculated using an accurate Monte Carlo (MC) model of the beam and of six ionization chamber types. The kQA,Q0fA,fref is a beam quality factor that corrects ND,w,Q0fnormalref (absorbed dose to water calibration coefficient in a calibration beam quality Q0) for the differences between the response of the chamber in the conventional reference calibration field fref with beam quality Q0 at the standards laboratory and the response of the chamber in the user’s A field fA with beam quality QA. Field A represents the reference calibration field that does not fulfill msr conditions. In the second approach (Approach 2), a square equivalent field size was determined for field A of 10×20em0em0.277778emcm2 and 10×30em0em0.277778em cm 2. Knowing the equivalent field size, the beam quality specifier for the hypothetical 10×10cm2 field size was derived. This was used to calculate the beam quality correction factor analytically for the six chamber types using the TRS‐398. (Andreo et al. Int Atom Energy Agency 420, 2001) Here, TRS‐398 was used instead of TRS‐483 since the beam quality correction values for the chambers used in this study are not tabulated in TRS‐483. The accuracy of Approach 2 is studied in comparison to Approach 1. Results Among the chambers, the PTW 31010 had the largest kQA,Q0fA,fref correction due to the volume averaging effect. The smallest‐volume chamber (IBA CC01) had the smallest correction followed by the other microchambers Exradin‐A14 and ‐A14SL. The equivalent square fields sizes were found to be 3.6 cm and 4.8 cm for the 10×2cm2 and 10×3cm2 field sizes, respectively. The beam quality correction factors calculated using the two approaches were within 0.27% for all chambers except IBA CC01. The latter chamber has an electrode made of steel and the differences between the correction calculated using the two approaches was the largest, that is, 0.5%. Conclusions In this study, we provided the kQA,Q0fA,fref values as a function of the beam quality specifier at the RefleXion BgRT setup (TPR20,10false(normalSfalse) and %dd(10,S)x) for six chamber types. We suggest using the first approach for calibration of the RefleXion BgRT machine. However, if the MC correction is not available for a user’s detector, the user can use the second approach for estimating the beam quality correction factor to sufficient accuracy (0.3%) provided the chamber electrode...

A comprehensive pre‐clinical treatment quality assurance program using unique spot patterns for proton pencil beam scanning FLASH radiotherapy

“…The absolute output was measured using an Advanced Markus chamber under 5 and 215 nA beam currents following the IAEA TRS-398 protocol. 41 The method employed for reconstructing the SICA detector's twodimensional (2D) dose distribution was based on the description provided by Yang et al 30 The absolute dose for the SICA detector was obtained in the uniform area of the central 5 × 5 cm 2 field. The ratio of output measured by the SICA detector and the Advanced Markus chamber was investigated.…”

“…The day‐to‐day output variation was determined by subtracting the minimum output from the maximum output during the observation period and dividing it by the baseline. The absolute output was measured using an Advanced Markus chamber under 5 and 215 nA beam currents following the IAEA TRS‐398 protocol 41 . The method employed for reconstructing the SICA detector's two‐dimensional (2D) dose distribution was based on the description provided by Yang et al 30 .…”

Treatment planning system commissioning of the first clinical biology‐guided radiotherapy machine

“…The data was acquired using a Sun Nuclear Edge™ diode detector (Sun Nuclear Corporation, Melbourne, FL) in an IBA Blue Phantom Helix water tank (IBA dosimetry, GmbH, Germany) for field sizes ranging from 1.25 × 1 cm 2 to 40 × 2 cm 2 . The X1 system was calibrated to deliver 1 cGy per one Monitor Unit (MU) for a 10 × 2 cm 2 field at 85 cm SSD and 1.5 cm water-equivalent depth following the methodology described by Mirzakhanian et al 11 In the current version of the TPS, the user does not have access to beam modeling workspace, thus, the vendor iterated the beam model based on the agreement between the calculated and measured verification data. The beam model optimization includes the following steps: open field fluence map modeling, MLC leaf modeling, energy spectrum fitting, absolute dose scale factor determination, validation data acquisition by the user, iteration of the steps above to minimize discrepancies between TPS and measurements.…”

Artificial intelligence in image-guided radiotherapy: a review of treatment target localization

“…In addition to the CT images, other imaging modalities including positron emission tomography (PET), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or singlephoton emission computed tomography (SPECT) which can provide complementary anatomical and/or functional information, especially information about the tumor target, are employed to enhance the tumor target definition. For example, PET image can show the heterogeneity of the tumor and thus define a biological target volume to improve the therapeutic ratio (49)(50)(51)(52)(53)(54)(55)(56).…”