The aim of this study was to develop a phantom and analysis software that could be used to quickly and accurately determine the location of radiation isocenter to an accuracy of less than 1 mm using the EPID (Electronic Portal Imaging Device). The proposed solution uses a collimator setting of 10×10cm2 to acquire EPID images of a new phantom constructed from LEGO blocks. Images from a number of gantry and collimator angles are analyzed by automated analysis software to determine the position of the jaws and center of the phantom in each image. The distance between a chosen jaw and the phantom center is then compared to the same distance measured after a 180° collimator rotation to determine if the phantom is centered in the dimension being investigated. Repeated tests show that the system is reproducibly independent of the imaging session, and calculated offsets of the phantom from radiation isocenter are a function of phantom setup only. Accuracy of the algorithm's calculated offsets were verified by imaging the LEGO phantom before and after applying the calculated offset. These measurements show that the offsets are predicted with an accuracy of approximately 0.3 mm, which is on the order of the detector's pitch. Comparison with a star‐shot analysis yielded agreement of isocenter location within 0.5 mm. Additionally, the phantom and software are completely independent of linac vendor, and this study presents results from two linac manufacturers. A Varian Optical Guidance Platform (OGP) calibration array was also integrated into the phantom to allow calibration of the OGP while the phantom is positioned at radiation isocenter to reduce setup uncertainty in the calibration. This solution offers a quick, objective method to perform isocenter localization as well as laser alignment and OGP calibration on a monthly basis.PACS number: 87.55.Qr

CATERS offers an effective tool to detect and report treatment events. Automation and rapid processing enables electronic record interrogation daily, alerting the medical physicist of deviations potentially days prior to performing weekly check. The output of CATERS could also be utilized as an important input to failure mode and effects analysis.

PurposeTo evaluate the Mobius second‐check dosimetry system by comparing it to ionization‐chamber dose measurements collected in the recently released Mobius Verification Phantom™ (MVP). For reference, a comparison of these measurements to dose calculated in the primary treatment planning system (TPS), Varian Eclipse with the AcurosXB dose algorithm, is also provided. Finally, patient dose calculated in Mobius is compared directly to Eclipse to demonstrate typical expected results during clinical use of the Mobius system.MethodsSeventeen anonymized intensity‐modulated clinical treatment plans were selected for analysis. Dose was recalculated on the MVP in both Eclipse and Mobius. These calculated doses were compared to doses measured using an A1SL ionization‐chamber in the MVP. Dose was measured and analyzed at two different chamber positions for each treatment plan. Mobius calculated dose was then compared directly to Eclipse using the following metrics; target mean dose, target D95%, global 3D gamma pass rate, and target gamma pass rate. Finally, these same metrics were used to analyze the first 36 intensity modulated cases, following clinical implementation of the Mobius system.ResultsThe average difference between Mobius and measurement was 0.3 ± 1.3%. Differences ranged from −3.3 to + 2.2%. The average difference between Eclipse and measurement was −1.2 ± 0.7%. Eclipse vs. measurement differences ranged from −3.0 to −0.1%. For the 17 anonymized pre‐clinical cases, the average target mean dose difference between Mobius and Eclipse was 1.0 ± 1.1%. Average target D95% difference was ‐0.9 ± 2.0%. Average global gamma pass rate, using a criteria of 3%, 2 mm, was 94.4 ± 3.3%, and average gamma pass rate for the target volume only was 80.2 ± 12.3%. Results of the first 36 intensity‐modulated cases, post‐clinical implementation of Mobius, were similar to those seen for the 17 pre‐clinical test cases.ConclusionMobius correctly calculated dose for each tested intensity modulated treatment plan, agreeing with measurement to within 3.5% for all cases analyzed. The dose calculation accuracy and independence of the Mobius system is sufficient to provide a rigorous second‐check of a modern TPS.

Some of the lowest voltages used in radiotherapy are termed Grenz and superficial X‐rays of ~ 20 and ~ 100 kVp, respectively. Dosimetrically, the surface doses from these beams are calculated with the use of a free in‐air air kerma measurement combined with a backscatter factor and the appropriate ratio of mass energy absorption coefficients from the measurement material to water. Alternative tools to the standard ion chamber for measuring the BSF are GAFCHROMIC EBT2 film and optically stimulated luminescent dosimeter (OSLD) crystals made from Al2normalO3. The scope of this project included making three different backscatter measurements with an Xstrahl‐D3100 X‐ray unit on the Grenz ray and superficial settings. These measurements were with OSLDs, GAFCHROMIC EBT2 film, and a PTW ionization chamber. The varied measurement methods allowed for intercomparison to determine the accuracy of the results. The ion chamber measurement was the least accurate, as expected from previous experimental findings. GAFCHROMIC EBT2 film proved to be a useful tool which gave reasonable results, and Landauer OSLDs showed good results for smaller field sizes and an increasing overresponse with larger fields. The specific backscatter factors for this machine demonstrated values about 5% higher than the universal values suggested by the AAPM and IPEMB codes of practice for the 100 kVp setting. The 20 kvp measured data from both techniques showed general agreement with those found in the BJR Supplement No. 10, indicating that this unit's Grenz ray spectrum is similar to those used in previous experimental work.PACS number: 87.53.Bn

The objective of this study was to assess the recommended DVH parameter (e.g., D2 cc) addition method used for combining EBRT and HDR plans, against a reference dataset generated from an EQD2‐based DVH addition method. A revised DVH parameter addition method using EBRT DVH parameters derived from each patient's plan was proposed and also compared with the reference dataset. Thirty‐one biopsy‐proven cervical cancer patients who received EBRT and HDR brachytherapy were retrospectively analyzed. A parametrial and/or paraaortic EBRT boost were clinically performed on 13 patients. Ten IMRT and 21 3DCRT plans were determined. Two different HDR techniques for each HDR plan were analyzed. Overall D2 cc and D0.1 cc OAR doses in EQD2 were statistically analyzed for three different DVH parameter addition methods: a currently recommended method, a proposed revised method, and a reference DVH addition method. The overall D2 ccEQD 2 values for all rectum, bladder, and sigmoid for a conformal, volume optimization HDR plan generated using the current DVH parameter addition method were significantly underestimated on average −5 to −8% when compared to the values obtained from the reference DVH addition technique (P < 0.01). The revised DVH parameter addition method did not present statistical differences with the reference technique (P > 0.099). When PM boosts were considered, there was an even greater average underestimation of −8~−10% for overall OAR doses of conformal HDR plans when using the current DVH parameter addition technique as compared to the revised DVH parameter addition. No statistically significant differences were found between the 3DCRT and IMRT techniques (P > 0.3148). It is recommended that the overall D2 cc EBRT doses are obtained from each patient's EBRT plan.