BackgroundIndependent verification of the dose delivered by complex radiotherapy can be performed by electronic portal imaging device (EPID) dosimetry. This paper presents 5‐yr EPID in vivo dosimetry (IVD) data obtained using the Dosimetry Check (DC) software on a large cohort including breast, lung, prostate, and head and neck (H&N) cancer patients.Material and MethodsThe difference between in vivo dose measurements obtained by DC and point doses calculated by the Eclipse treatment planning system was obtained on 3795 radiotherapy patients treated with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) (n = 842) and three‐dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) (n = 2953) at 6, 10, and 15 MV. In cases where the dose difference exceeded ±10% further inspection and additional phantom measurements were performed.ResultsThe mean and standard deviation (normalμ±normalσ) of the percentage difference in dose obtained by DC and calculated by Eclipse in VMAT was: 0.19±3.89% in brain, 1.54±4.87% in H&N, and 1.23±4.61% in prostate cancer. In 3DCRT, this was 1.79±3.51% in brain, −2.95±5.67% in breast, −1.43±4.38% in bladder, 1.66±4.77% in H&N, 2.60 ± 5.35% in lung and −3.62±4.00% in prostate cancer. A total of 153 plans exceeded the ±10% alert criteria, which included: 88 breast plans accounting for 7.9% of all breast treatments; 28 H&N plans accounting for 4.4% of all H&N treatments; and 12 prostate plans accounting for 3.5% of all prostate treatments. All deviations were found to be as a result of patient‐related anatomical deviations and not from procedural errors.ConclusionsThis preliminary data shows that EPID‐based IVD with DC may not only be useful in detecting errors but has the potential to be used to establish site‐specific dose action levels. The approach is straightforward and has been implemented as a radiographer‐led service with no disruption to the patient and no impact on treatment time.

The TrueBeam FFF modality, analyzed with a variety of verification devices and planned with Eclipse planning system is dosimetrically accurate (within the specified limits 3 mm/3%) for both X6FFF and X10FFF beam energy.

We have investigated two cases of acute hepatitis C that occurred in patients who underwent digestive endoscopy and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scanning at two different centers. Investigations to identify the sources of infection included an on-site review of diagnostic procedures, interview of the involved healthcare staff, serological testing of the patients who underwent the procedures before and after the index cases and a molecular analysis of viral isolates from the patients and from potential viremic sources. In both cases, the epidemiological investigation identified a chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) carrier who had been subjected to CT-scanning immediately before the index patient. Genetic distance and molecular phylogenetic analyzes of HCV sequences showed a close relationship between the isolates from these carriers and those from the acute-hepatitis patients, strongly suggesting that patient-to-patient transmission had occurred during CT. This is the first report describing two well documented cases of HCV nosocomial patient-to-patient transmission during contrast-enhanced CT scanning.

The implementation of Grid Therapy in an FFF photon beam from medical Linac might lead to an improvement of the therapeutic index. Among the cases evaluated, a grid size of 0.5 × 0.5 cm (1-cm-ctc) is the most advantageous configuration from the physics point of view. Radiobiological experiments are needed to fully explore this new avenue and to confirm our results.

This study confirms the need to introduce correction factors when using a PTW-31016 chamber and the hypothesis of their low energy dependence. MC simulation has been shown to be a useful methodology to determine detector correction factors for small fields and to analyze the main sources of uncertainty. However, due to the influence of the LINAC jaw setup for field sizes below or equal to 1 cm, MC methods are not recommended in this range for field output factor calculations.