Paulina Wesolowska1, Dietmar Georg2,3, Wolfgang Lechner2,3, Pavel Kazantsev1, Tomislav Bokulic1, Asa Carlsson Tedgren4,5, Emelie Adolfsson4, Anna Maria Campos6, Victor Gabriel Leandro Alves6, Luo Suming7, Wu Hao8, Daniela Ekendahl9, Irena Koniarova9, Wojciech Bulski10, Krzysztof Chelminski10, José Luis Alonso Samper11, Sumanth Panyam Vinatha12, Sougata Rakshit12, Srimanoroth Siri13, Milan Tomsejm14, Mikko Tenhunen15, Julie Povall16, Stephen F Kry17, David S Followill17, David I Thwaites16,18, Joanna Izewska1. 1. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 3. Christian Doppler Laboratory for Medical Radiation Research for Radiation Oncology, Vienna, Austria. 4. Medical Radiation Physics, Department of Medical Physics and Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linkoping University, Linköping, Sweden. 5. Department of Medical Radiation Physics and Nuclear Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. 6. Instituto Nacional De Câncer, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil. 7. Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China. 8. Beijing Cancer Hospital, Beijing, China. 9. National Radiation Protection Institute, Prague, Czech Republic. 10. Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Centre and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland. 11. National Institute of Oncology and Radiobiology, Havana, Cuba. 12. Radiation Standards Section, Radiation Safety Systems Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre Trombay, Mumbai, India. 13. SSDL, Bureau of Radiation and Medical Devices, Department of Medical Science, Nonthaburi, Thailand. 14. CHU Charleroi, Hopital Andre Vesale, Montigny-le-Tilleul, Belgium. 15. Cancer Centre, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland. 16. University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom. 17. Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Houston QA Centre, Anderson Cancer Centre, Houston, TX, USA. 18. Institute of Medical Physics, School of Physics, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
Introduction: Within an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) co-ordinated research project (CRP), a remote end-to-end dosimetric quality audit for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)/ volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) was developed to verify the radiotherapy chain including imaging, treatment planning and dose delivery. The methodology as well as the results obtained in a multicentre pilot study and national trial runs conducted in close cooperation with dosimetry audit networks (DANs) of IAEA Member States are presented.Material and methods: A solid polystyrene phantom containing a dosimetry insert with an irregular solid water planning target volume (PTV) and organ at risk (OAR) was designed for this audit. The insert can be preloaded with radiochromic film and four thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). For the audit, radiotherapy centres were asked to scan the phantom, contour the structures, create an IMRT/VMAT treatment plan and irradiate the phantom. The dose prescription was to deliver 4 Gy to the PTV in two fractions and to limit the OAR dose to a maximum of 2.8 Gy. The TLD measured doses and film measured dose distributions were compared with the TPS calculations. Results: Sixteen hospitals from 13 countries and 64 hospitals from 6 countries participated in the multicenter pilot study and in the national runs, respectively. The TLD results for the PTV were all within ±5% acceptance limit for the multicentre pilot study, whereas for national runs, 17 participants failed to meet this criterion. All measured doses in the OAR were below the treatment planning constraint. The film analysis identified seven plans in national runs below the 90% passing rate gamma criteria. Conclusion: The results proved that the methodology of the IMRT/VMAT dosimetric end-to-end audit was feasible for its intended purpose, i.e., the phantom design and materials were suitable; the phantom was easy to use and it was robust enough for shipment. Most importantly the audit methodology was capable of identifying suboptimal IMRT/VMAT delivery.
Introduction: Within an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) co-ordinated research project (CRP), a remote end-to-end dosimetric quality audit for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)/ volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) was developed to verify the radiotherapy chain including imaging, treatment planning and dose delivery. The methodology as well as the results obtained in a multicentre pilot study and national trial runs conducted in close cooperation with dosimetry audit networks (DANs) of IAEA Member States are presented.Material and methods: A solid polystyrene phantom containing a dosimetry insert with an irregular solid water planning target volume (PTV) and organ at risk (OAR) was designed for this audit. The insert can be preloaded with radiochromic film and four thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). For the audit, radiotherapy centres were asked to scan the phantom, contour the structures, create an IMRT/VMAT treatment plan and irradiate the phantom. The dose prescription was to deliver 4 Gy to the PTV in two fractions and to limit the OAR dose to a maximum of 2.8 Gy. The TLD measured doses and film measured dose distributions were compared with the TPS calculations. Results: Sixteen hospitals from 13 countries and 64 hospitals from 6 countries participated in the multicenter pilot study and in the national runs, respectively. The TLD results for the PTV were all within ±5% acceptance limit for the multicentre pilot study, whereas for national runs, 17 participants failed to meet this criterion. All measured doses in the OAR were below the treatment planning constraint. The film analysis identified seven plans in national runs below the 90% passing rate gamma criteria. Conclusion: The results proved that the methodology of the IMRT/VMAT dosimetric end-to-end audit was feasible for its intended purpose, i.e., the phantom design and materials were suitable; the phantom was easy to use and it was robust enough for shipment. Most importantly the audit methodology was capable of identifying suboptimal IMRT/VMAT delivery.
Authors: Wojciech Bulski; Krzysztof Chełmiński; Piotr Ulkowski; Wioletta Ślusarczyk-Kacprzyk; Iwona Grabska; Paweł Kukołowicz Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2020-08-16
Authors: Wolfgang Lechner; Rodolfo Alfonso; Mehenna Arib; M Saiful Huq; Anas Ismail; Rajesh Kinhikar; José M Lárraga-Gutiérrez; Karthick Raj Mani; Nkosingiphile Maphumulo; Otto A Sauer; Shaima Shoeir; Sivalee Suriyapee; Karen Christaki Journal: Med Phys Date: 2022-07-08 Impact factor: 4.506