The improvement in conformal radiotherapy techniques enables us to achieve steep dose gradients around the target which allows the delivery of higher doses to a tumor volume while maintaining the sparing of surrounding normal tissue. One of the reasons for this improvement was the implementation of intensity-modulated radio therapy (IMRT) by using linear accelerators fitted with multi-leaf collimator (MLC), Tomo therapy and Rapid arc. In this situation, verification of patient set-up and evaluation of internal organ motion just prior to radiation delivery become important. To this end, several volumetric image-guided techniques have been developed for patient localization, such as Siemens OPTIVUE/MVCB and MVision megavoltage cone beam CT (MV-CBCT) system. Quality assurance for MV-CBCT is important to insure that the performance of the Electronic portal image device (EPID) and MV-CBCT is suitable for the required treatment accuracy. In this work, the commissioning and clinical implementation of the OPTIVUE/MVCB system was presented. The geometry and gain calibration procedures for the system were described. The image quality characteristics of the OPTIVUE/MVCB system were measured and assessed qualitatively and quantitatively, including the image noise and uniformity, low-contrast resolution, and spatial resolution. The image reconstruction and registration software were evaluated. Dose at isocenter from CBCT and the EPID were evaluated using ionization chamber and thermo-luminescent dosimeters; then compared with that calculated by the treatment planning system (TPS- XiO 4.4). The results showed that there are no offsets greater than 1 mm in the flat panel alignment in the lateral and longitudinal direction over 18 months of the study. The image quality tests showed that the image noise and uniformity were within the acceptable range, and that a 2 cm large object with 1% electron density contrast can be detected with the OPTIVUE/MVCB system with 5 monitor units (MU) protocol. The registration software was accurate within 2 mm in the anterior-posterior, left-right, and superior-inferior directions. The additional dose to the patient from MV-CBCT study set with 5 MU at the isocenter of the treatment plan was 5 cGy. For Electronic portal image device (EPID) verification using two orthogonal images with 2 MU per image the additional dose to the patient was 3.8 cGy. These measured dose values were matched with that calculated by the TPS-XiO, where the calculated doses were 5.2 cGy and 3.9 cGy for MVCT and EPID respectively.

The ranges of set-up errors are site specific and depends on many factors.

This work aimed at evaluating the performance of three different intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment planning systems (TPSs) — KonRad, XiO and Prowess — for selected pediatric cases. For this study, 11 pediatric patients with different types of brain, orbit, head and neck cancer were selected. Clinical step‐and‐shoot IMRT treatment plans were designed for delivery on a Siemens ONCOR accelerator with 82‐leaf multileaf collimators (MLCs). Plans were optimized to achieve the same clinical objectives by applying the same beam energy and the same number and direction of beams. The analysis of performance was based on isodose distributions, dose‐volume histograms (DVHs) for planning target volume (PTV), the relevant organs at risk (OARs), as well as mean dose false(Dmeanfalse), maximum dose false(Dmaxfalse), 95% dose false(D95false), volume of patient receiving 2 and 5 Gy, total number of segments, monitor units per segment (MU/Segment), and the number of MU/cGy. Treatment delivery time and conformation number were two other evaluation parameters that were considered in this study. Collectively, the Prowess and KonRad plans showed a significant reduction in the number of MUs that varied between 1.8% and 61.5% false(normalp−value=0.001) for the different cases, compared to XiO. This was reflected in shorter treatment delivery times. The percentage volumes of each patient receiving 2 Gy and 5 Gy were compared for the three TPSs. The general trend was that KonRad had the highest percentage volume, Prowess showed the lowest false(normalp−value=0.0001). The KonRad achieved better conformality than both of XiO and Prowess. Based on the present results, the three treatment planning systems were efficient in IMRT, yet XiO showed the lowest performance. The three TPSs achieved the treatment goals according to the internationally approved standards.

This work aimed at evaluating the effect of 6-and 10-MV photon energies on intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment plan outcome in different selected diagnostic cases. For such purpose, 19 patients, with different types of non CNS solid tumers, were selected. Clinical step-and-shoot IMRT treatment plans were designed for delivery on a Siemens Oncor accelerator with 82 leafs; multi-leaf collimators (MLCs). To ensure that the similarity or difference among the plans is due to energy alone, the same optimization constraints were applied for both energy plans. All the parameters like beam angles, number of beams, were kept constant to achieve the same clinical objectives. The Comparative evaluation was based on dose-volumetric analysis of both energy IMRT plans. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used. Several physical indices for Planning Target Volume (PTV), the relevant Organs at Risk (OARs) as mean dose (Dmean), maximum dose (Dmax), 95% dose (D95), integral dose, total number of segments, and the number of MU were applied. Homogeneity index and conformation number were two other evaluation parameters that were considered in this study. Collectively, the use of 6 MV photons was dosimetrically comparable with 10 MV photons in terms of target coverage, homogeneity, conformity, and OAR savings. While 10-MV plans showed a significant reduction in the number of MUs that varied between 4.2% and 16.6% (P-value = 0.0001) for the different cases compared to 6-MV. The percentage volumes of each patient receiving 2 Gy and 5 Gy were compared for the two energies. The general trend was that 6-MV plans had the highest percentage volume, (P-value = 0.0001, P-value = 0.006) respectively. 10-MV beams actually decreased the integral dose (from average 183.27 ± 152.38 Gy-Kg to 178.08 ± 147.71 Gy-Kg, P-value = 0.004) compared with 6-MV. In general, comparison of the above parameters showed statistically significant differences between 6-MV and 10-MV groups. Based on the present results, the 10-MV is the optimal energy for IMRT, regardless of the concerns about a potential risk of radiation-induced malignancies. It is recommended that the choice to treat at 10 MV be taken as a risk vs. benefit as the clinical significance remains to be determined on case by case basis.

Dosimetric properties of virtual wedge (VW) and physical wedge (PW) in 6- and 10-MV photon beams from a Siemens ONCOR linear accelerator, including wedge factors, depth doses, dose profiles, peripheral doses, are compared. While there is a great difference in absolute values of wedge factors, VW factors (VWFs) and PW factors (PWFs) have a similar trend as a function of field size. PWFs have stronger depth dependence than VWF due to beam hardening in PW fields. VW dose profiles in the wedge direction, in general, match very well with those of PW, except in the toe area of large wedge angles with large field sizes. Dose profiles in the nonwedge direction show a significant reduction in PW fields due to off-axis beam softening and oblique filtration. PW fields have significantly higher peripheral doses than open and VW fields. VW fields have similar surface doses as the open fields, while PW fields have lower surface doses. Surface doses for both VW and PW increase with field size and slightly with wedge angle. For VW fields with wedge angles 45° and less, the initial gap up to 3 cm is dosimetrically acceptable when compared to dose profiles of PW. VW fields in general use less monitor units than PW fields.