This study investigates whether in-room computed tomography (CT)-based adaptive treatment planning (ATP) is robust against interfractional location variations, namely, interfractional organ motions and/or applicator displacements, in 3D intracavitary brachytherapy (ICBT) for uterine cervical cancer. In ATP, the radiation treatment plans, which have been designed based on planning CT images (and/or MR images) acquired just before the treatments, are adaptively applied for each fraction, taking into account the interfractional location variations. 2D and 3D plans with ATP for 14 patients were simulated for 56 fractions at a prescribed dose of 600 cGy per fraction. The standard deviations (SDs) of location displacements (interfractional location variations) of the target and organs at risk (OARs) with 3D ATP were significantly smaller than those with 2D ATP (P < 0.05). The homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI) and tumor control probability (TCP) in 3D ATP were significantly higher for high-risk clinical target volumes than those in 2D ATP. The SDs of the HI, CI, TCP, bladder and rectum D2cc, and the bladder and rectum normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) in 3D ATP were significantly smaller than those in 2D ATP. The results of this study suggest that the interfractional location variations give smaller impacts on the planning evaluation indices in 3D ATP than in 2D ATP. Therefore, the 3D plans with ATP are expected to be robust against interfractional location variations in each treatment fraction.

In this study, we proposed and evaluated position correction accuracy assessment method with a phantom for IGRT system with add-on six-degrees-of-freedom radiotherapy (6D) couches in couch rotation. Methods and Materials: A phantom was used in a self-build phantom. We were scanned with computed tomography (CT) for radiotherapy planning and planned treatment isocenter to fall in line with CT center by treatment planning system. At first, we examined data of CT slice thickness for digitally reconstructed radiograph of QA phantom. Next, we measured uncertainty for IGRT system. We performed position correction accuracy for IGRT system with QA phantom and digital angle meter. Results: Detection and correction errors for pitch and roll direction were within 0.3 degree in all verifications. Conclusions: We proposed a quality control method for position correction accuracy of 6D couch. The method was able to evaluate the accuracy of detection and correction of 6D couch and revealed the deviation of the origin of the couch rotation.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the impacts of tissue inhomogeneity on dose distributions using a three‐dimensional (3D) gamma analysis in cervical intracavitary brachytherapy using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. Methods: MC simulations for comparison of dose calculations were performed in a water phantom and a series of CT images of a cervical cancer patient (stage: Ib; age: 27) by employing a MC code, Particle and Heavy Ion Transport Code System (PHIT) version 2.73. The 192Ir source was set at fifteen dwell positions, according to clinical practice, in an applicator consisting of a tandem and two ovoids. Dosimetric comparisons were performed for the dose distributions in the water phantom and CT images by using gamma index image and gamma pass rate (%). The gamma index is the minimum Euclidean distance between two 3D spatial dose distributions of the water phantom and CT images in a same space. The gamma pass rates (%) indicate the percentage of agreement points, which mean that two dose distributions are similar, within an acceptance criteria (3 mm/3%). The volumes of physical and clinical interests for the gamma analysis were a whole calculated volume and a region larger than t% of a dose (close to a target), respectively. Results: The gamma pass rates were 77.1% for a whole calculated volume and 92.1% for a region within 1% dose region. The differences of 7.7% to 22.9 % between two dose distributions in the water phantom and CT images were found around the applicator region and near the target. Conclusion: This work revealed the large difference on the dose distributions near the target in the presence of the tissue inhomogeneity. Therefore, the tissue inhomogeneity should be corrected in the dose calculation for clinical treatment.

In this study, we evaluated the stability and reliability of absorbed dose-to-water for an HDR 192 Ir sandwich setup phantom method by comparing measurements with absorbed dose-to-water determination based on the AAPM TG-43 protocol. Methods: The sandwich setup phantom was designed with a dedicated device for two ion chamber measurements of absorbed dose-to-water for a mHDR-v2r 192 Ir brachytherapy source is presented. To test the reliability of sandwich setup phantom of measurements with absorbed dose-to-water, we were compared with values based on AAPM TG-43 protocol and evaluated temporal variations of the measurement, intra-rater reliability. Results: The measured doses at sandwich setup phantom agreed within 1.0% with AAPM TG-43 protocol. In all measurement fractions, the temporal variations of measurement value were less than 1.0%, and the intra-rater reliability were 0.94% or more. Conclusions: The measurement value obtained by the absorbed dose-towater had good reliability, and sandwich setup phantom is potentially useful and convenient for daily dose management of 192 Ir sources in clinics.

The purpose was to study comparative evaluation of calculated dose distribution by X-ray Voxel Monte Carlo (XVMC) for dose calculation in Acuros XB (AXB). The dose commissioning and head and neck volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) clinical cases were compared for AXB in Eclipse and XVMC in Monaco. Methods: For TrueBeam at 6 MV, we compared the dose commissioning for simple rectangle, heterogeneity correction, and multileaf collimator (MLC) characteristics. 15 clinical cases were compared for computation times, calculation accuracy, dose-volume histogram (DVH), and 3D-γ analysis (γ 3%/2 mm). Results: There was no difference between the calculated values of jaw field, the measurement errors of both were within± 1%, and the dose profiles of water, bone, and lung equivalent slab phantoms were in good agreement. There was no difference in transmission, tongue and groove effect, and there was a difference of less than 10% in leaf-end transmission. In clinical cases, the computation time of XVMC was a half time that of AXB, the average values of the dose difference between the two dose calculations were -1.17±2.14%, and there was no difference in measurement error (AXB: -0.73±0.79%, XVMC: -0.07±1.21%). In DVH, max doses of XVMC were about 3% higher in planning target volume (PTV) and gross tumor volume (GTV), but the pass rate of 3D-γ analysis was overall 95.11±2.59%, which was in good agreement. Conclusions: Both dose calculation algorithms were equivalent, suggesting that Monaco XVMC is a verification method with a high accuracy for comparative evaluation of calculated dose distribution.