Two‐dimensional EPID dosimetry for an MR‐linac: Proof of concept

Abstract

Purpose At our institute, in vivo patient dose distributions are reconstructed for all treatments delivered using conventional linacs from electronic portal imaging device (EPID) transit images acquired during treatment using a simple back‐projection model. Currently, the clinical implementation of MRI‐guided radiotherapy systems, which aims for online and real‐time adaptation of the treatment plan, is progressing. In our department, the MR‐linac (Unity, Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden) is now in clinical use. The aim of this work is to demonstrate the feasibility of two‐dimensional (2D) EPID dosimetric verification for the magnetic resonance (MR)‐linac by comparing back‐projected EPID doses to ionization chamber (IC) array dose distributions. Materials and methods Our conventional back‐projection algorithm was adapted for the MR‐linac. The most important changes involve modeling of the attenuation by and scatter from the cryostat. The commissioning process involved the acquisition of square field EPID measurements using various phantom setups (varying SSD, phantom thickness, and field size). Commissioning models were created for gantry 0°, 90°, and 180° and verified by comparing EPID‐reconstructed 2D dose distributions to measurements made with the OCTAVIUS 1500 IC array (PTW, Freiburg, Germany) for two prostate and one rectum IMRT plans (25 beams total). The average of the γ parameters (y‐mean and y‐pass rate) and the dose difference at a reference point were reported. Due to their construction, the attenuation of couch, bridge, and cryostat shows a much stronger dependence on gantry angle in the MR‐linac compared to conventional linacs. We present a method to correct for these effects. This method is validated by dose reconstruction of the 25 intensity‐modulated radiation therapy beams recorded at a certain gantry angle using the model of another gantry angle, combined with the correction method. Results For dose verification performed at a gantry angle identical to the commissioned model, the average y‐mean and y‐pass rate values (3% global dose, 2 mm, 10% isodose) were 0.37 ± 0.07 and 98.1, 95% CI [98.1 ± 2.4], respectively. The average dose difference at the reference point was −0.5% ± 1.8%. Verification at gantry angles different from the commissioned model (i.e., using the gantry angle dependent correction) reported 0.39 ± 0.08 and 97.6, 95% CI [96.9, 98.3] average y‐mean and y‐pass rate values. The average dose difference at the reference point was −0.1% ± 1.8%. Conclusion The EPID dosimetry back‐projection model was successfully adapted for the MR‐linac at gantry 0°, 90°, and 180°, accounting for the presence of the MRI housing between phantom (or patient) and the EPID. A method to account for the gantry angle dependence was also tested reporting similar results.

Medical physics challenges in clinical MR-guided radiotherapy

“…Acharya et al instead performed an offline log-file analysis for adapted plans and only relied on measurements for the baseline plan QA [162]. Also the feasibility of dose reconstruction from EPID measurements during treatment delivery has been shown and might be a future option for patient-specific offline QA of the adapted plans [185].…”

Machine QA for the Elekta Unity system: A Report from the Elekta MR‐linac consortium

“…Reference/adaptive plan QA and end-toend QA equipment are identified but the reader is referred to other publications for testing techniques. 4,29,34,[40][41][42][43] While many of the comments and recommendations will be applicable to other configurations of MR-linac devices, the authors are working with Elekta Unity systems, and thus the tests are designed around this system.…”

“…However, it is expected that many of the tests will be appropriate after a service operation and should be chosen based on the activity performed and based on manufacturer’s recommendations. Reference/adaptive plan QA and end‐to‐end QA equipment are identified but the reader is referred to other publications for testing techniques 4,29,34,40–43 …”

A clinical validation of the MR‐compatible Delta4 QA system in a 0.35 tesla MR linear accelerator

“…The presence of a magnetic field can impact the measurements from IMRT QA devices designed for use with conventional linear accelerators, 3,4 so MR-compatible radiation detectors are not as ubiquitous as conventional radiation detectors. In addition to ionization chamber specific studies, other groups have investigated the use of radiographic film, 4 cylindrical diode arrays 4,5 (i.e., ArcCHECK-MR), planar diode arrays, 6,7 GAFChromic™ EBT3 film, 8 gel dosimetry 9 for IMRT QA on MR linac systems. The ScandiDos Delta 4 , has been commercially available since 2015 and existing literature describe its characterization and commissioning 10 but an MR-compatible version of the detector was only recently made available in 2019.…”