No abstract

Purpose The beam model in radiation treatment planning systems (RTPSs) plays a crucial role in determining the accuracy of calculated dose distributions. The purpose of this study was to ascertain differences in beam models and their dosimetric influences when a golden beam dataset (GBD) and multi‐institution measured beam datasets (MBDs) are used for beam modeling in RTPSs. Methods The MBDs collected from 15 institutions, and the MBDs' beam models, were compared with a GBD, and the GBD’s beam model, for Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator. The calculated dose distributions of the MBDs' beam models were compared with those of the GBD’s beam model for simple geometries in a water phantom. Calculated dose distributions were similarly evaluated in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for TG‐119 C‐shape and TG‐244 head and neck, at several dose constraints of the planning target volumes (PTVs), and organs at risk. Results The agreements of the MBDs with the GBD were almost all within ±1%. The calculated dose distributions for simple geometries in a water phantom also closely corresponded between the beam models of GBD and MBDs. Nevertheless, there were considerable differences between the beam models. The maximum differences between the mean energy of the energy spectra of GBD and MBDs were −0.12 MeV (−10.5%) in AcurosXB (AXB, Eclipse) and 0.11 MeV (7.7%) in collapsed cone convolution (CCC, RayStation). The differences in the VMAT calculated dose distributions varied for each dose region, plan, X‐ray energy, and dose calculation algorithm. The ranges of the differences in the dose constraints were −5.6% to 3.0% for AXB and −24.1% to 2.8% for CCC. In several VMAT plans, the calculated dose distributions of GBD's beam model tended to be lower in high‐dose regions and higher in low‐dose regions than those of the MBDs' beam models. Conclusions We found that small differences in beam data have large impacts on the beam models, and on calculated dose distributions in clinical VMAT plan, even if beam data correspond within ±1%. GBD’s beam model was not a representative beam model. The beam models of GBD and MBDs and their calculated dose distributions under clinical conditions were significantly different. These differences are most likely due to the extensive variation in the beam models, reflecting the characteristics of beam data. The energy spectrum and radial energy in the beam model varied in a wide range, even if the differences in the beam data were <±1%. To minimize the uncertainty of the calculated dose distributions in clinical plans, it was best to use the institutional MBD for beam modeling, or the beam model that ensures the accuracy of calculated dose distributions.

In this study, the optimum density scaling factors of phantom materials for a commercially available three‐dimensional (3D) dose verification system (Delta4) were investigated in order to improve the accuracy of the calculated dose distributions in the phantom materials. At field sizes of 10 × 10 and 5 × 5 cm2 with the same geometry, tissue‐phantom ratios (TPRs) in water, polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), and Plastic Water Diagnostic Therapy (PWDT) were measured, and TPRs in various density scaling factors of water were calculated by Monte Carlo simulation, Adaptive Convolve (AdC, Pinnacle3), Collapsed Cone Convolution (CCC, RayStation), and AcurosXB (AXB, Eclipse). Effective linear attenuation coefficients (μ eff) were obtained from the TPRs. The ratios of μ eff in phantom and water ((μ eff)pl,water) were compared between the measurements and calculations. For each phantom material, the density scaling factor proposed in this study (DSF) was set to be the value providing a match between the calculated and measured (μ eff)pl,water. The optimum density scaling factor was verified through the comparison of the dose distributions measured by Delta4 and calculated with three different density scaling factors: the nominal physical density (PD), nominal relative electron density (ED), and DSF. Three plans were used for the verifications: a static field of 10 × 10 cm2 and two intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment plans. DSF were determined to be 1.13 for PMMA and 0.98 for PWDT. DSF for PMMA showed good agreement for AdC and CCC with 6 MV x ray, and AdC for 10 MV x ray. DSF for PWDT showed good agreement regardless of the dose calculation algorithms and x‐ray energy. DSF can be considered one of the references for the density scaling factor of Delta4 phantom materials and may help improve the accuracy of the IMRT dose verification using Delta4.

When performing lung cancer treatments using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique, dose error related to respiratory motion of tumors and multi leaf collimator (MLC) movement may occur. The dose error causes daily dose variation in multiple fractionations irradiation. The purpose of this study is to verify the influence of the respiratory motion and the MLC movement on the daily dose variation, and to confirm the feasibility of deciding robust planning parameter against the dose variation. We prepared 5 VMAT plans for imitating lung tumor in thorax dynamic phantom. Dose calculations of these plans were done taking into account the respiratory motions. We examined the relation between dose variation and two parameters that were number of respiration in an arc and MLC gap width. We presented the relationship between the dose variation and each parameters using regression analysis, and we could derive the approximation formula for estimating the dose variation using these parameters. We could estimate dose variation in another VMAT plans using the approximation formula and another plans parameters. By confirming dose variation in planning procedure using this estimation method, we may decide planning parameter taking the dose variation into account. So, we could establish the estimation method to decide adequate planning parameters in VMAT.

It has been reported that the light scattering could worsen the accuracy of dose distribution measurement using a radiochromic film. The purpose of this study was to investigate the accuracy of two different films, EDR2 and EBT2, as film dosimetry tools. The effectiveness of a correction method for the non-uniformity caused from EBT2 film and the light scattering was also evaluated. In addition the efficacy of this correction method integrated with the red/blue correction method was assessed. EDR2 and EBT2 films were read using a flatbed charge-coupled device scanner (EPSON 10000G). Dose differences on the axis perpendicular to the scanner lamp movement axis were within 1% with EDR2, but exceeded 3% (Maximum: +8%) with EBT2. The non-uniformity correction method, after a single film exposure, was applied to the readout of the films. A corrected dose distribution data was subsequently created. The correction method showed more than 10%-better pass ratios in dose difference evaluation than when the correction method was not applied. The red/blue correction method resulted in 5%-improvement compared with the standard procedure that employed red color only. The correction method with EBT2 proved to be able to rapidly correct non-uniformity, and has potential for routine clinical IMRT dose verification if the accuracy of EBT2 is required to be similar to that of EDR2. The use of red/blue correction method may improve the accuracy, but we recommend we should use the red/blue correction method carefully and understand the characteristics of EBT2 for red color only and the red/blue correction method.