Room shielding for intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment facilities.

PURPOSE: The traditional assumptions used in room-shielding calculations are reassessed for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). IMRT makes relatively inefficient use of monitor units (MUs) when compared to conventional radiation therapy, affecting the assumptions used in room-shielding calculations. For the same single-fraction tumor dose delivered, the total number of MUs for IMRT is much greater than for a conventional treatment. Therefore, the exposure contribution from the linear accelerator head leakage will be significantly greater than with conventional treatments. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We propose a shielding calculation model that decouples the concepts of workload, MUs, and target dose when determining primary and secondary barrier thicknesses. The workload for primary barrier calculations for conventional multileaf collimator (MLC) IMRT treatments is determined according to patient tumor doses. The same calculation for accelerator-based serial tomotherapy IMRT requires scaling by the average number of treatment slices. However, rotational therapy yields a small use factor that compensates for this increase. We further define a series of efficiency factors to account for the small field sizes employed in IMRT. For secondary barrier calculations, the patient-scattered radiation is assumed to be the same for all IMRT modalities as for conventional therapy. The accelerator head leakage contribution is proportional to the number of MUs. Knowledge of the average number of MUs per patient is required to estimate the head leakage contribution. We used a 6-MV linear accelerator photon beam to guide the development of this technique and to evaluate the adequacy of conventional barriers for IMRT. Average weekly IMRT workload estimates were made based on our experience with 180 serial tomotherapy patients and published data for both "step and shoot" and dynamic MLC delivered treatments.
RESULTS: We found that conventional primary barriers are adequate for both dynamic MLC and serial tomotherapy IMRT. However, the excessive head leakage produced by these modalities requires an increase in secondary barrier shielding.
CONCLUSION: When designing shielding for an IMRT facility, increases in accelerator head leakage must be taken into account for secondary shielding. Adequacy of secondary shielding will depend on the IMRT patient load. For conventional facilities that are being assessed for IMRT therapy, existing primary barriers will typically prove adequate.