Jennifer Smilowitz, PhD

Since the publication of AAPM Task Group (TG) 148 on quality assurance (QA) for helical tomotherapy, there have been many new developments on the tomotherapy platform involving treatment delivery, on-board imaging options, motion management, and treatment planning systems (TPSs). In response to a need for guidance on quality control (QC) and QA for these technologies, the AAPM Therapy Physics Committee commissioned TG 306 to review these changes and make recommendations related to these technology updates. The specific objectives of this TG were (1) to update, as needed, recommendations on tolerance limits, frequencies and QC/QA testing methodology in TG 148, (2) address the commissioning and necessary QA checks, as a supplement to Medical Physics Practice Guidelines (MPPG) with respect to tomotherapy TPS and (3) to provide risk-based recommendations on the new technology implemented clinically and treatment delivery workflow. Detailed recommendations on QA tests and their tolerance levels are provided for dynamic jaws, binary multileaf collimators, and Synchrony motion management. A subset of TPS commissioning and QA checks in MPPG 5.a. applicable to tomotherapy are recommended. In addition, failure mode and effects analysis has been conducted among TG members to obtain multi-institutional analysis on tomotherapy-related failure modes and their effect ranking.

PMID:36512742 | DOI:10.1002/mp.16150

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education, and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States. The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for the purpose of revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner. Each medical physics practice guideline represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice guidelines and technical standards by those entities not providing these services is not authorized. The following terms are used in the AAPM practice guidelines: Must and Must Not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline. While must is the term to be used in the guidelines, if an entity that adopts the guideline has shall as the preferred term, the AAPM considers that must and shall have the same meaning. Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances.

PMID:35950259 | PMC:PMC9512346 | DOI:10.1002/acm2.13641

Tracking systems such as Radixact Synchrony change the planned delivery of radiation during treatment to follow the target. This is typically achieved without considering the location changes of organs at risk (OARs). The goal of this work was to develop a novel 4D dose accumulation framework to quantify OAR dose deviations due to the motion and tracked treatment. The framework obtains deformation information and the target motion pattern from a four-dimensional computed tomography dataset. The helical tomotherapy treatment plan is split into 10 plans and motion correction is applied separately to the jaw pattern and multi-leaf collimator (MLC) sinogram for each phase based on the location of the target in each phase. Deformable image registration (DIR) is calculated from each phase to the references phase using a commercial algorithm, and doses are accumulated according to the DIR. The effect of motion synchronization on OAR dose was analyzed for five lung and five liver subjects by comparing planned versus synchrony-accumulated dose. The motion was compensated by an average of 1.6 cm of jaw sway and by an average of 5.7% of leaf openings modified, indicating that most of the motion compensation was from jaw sway and not MLC changes. OAR dose deviations as large as 19 Gy were observed, and for all 10 cases, dose deviations greater than 7 Gy were observed. Target dose remained relatively constant (D95% within 3 Gy), confirming that motion-synchronization achieved the goal of maintaining target dose. Dose deviations provided by the framework can be leveraged during the treatment planning process by identifying cases where OAR doses may change significantly from their planned values with respect to the critical constraints. The framework is specific to synchronized helical tomotherapy treatments, but the OAR dose deviations apply to any real-time tracking technique that does not consider location changes of OARs.

PMID:35486094 | PMC:PMC9278681 | DOI:10.1002/acm2.13627

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S): For patients with localized soft tissue sarcoma (STS) who cannot or choose not to undergo surgery, radiation alone can be used for local tumor control. Conventionally fractionated radiation has been reported to achieve local control in < 50% of STS patients. Recent retrospective studies suggest that hypofractionated radiation therapy (HXRT) may achieve greater local control of STS. However, clinical experience of definitive HXRT in STS remains limited, with no trials to date that examine the role of HXRT for inoperable STS. We hypothesized that HXRT could be used to safely deliver conformal high dose radiation to patients with inoperable STS and that this would afford local tumor control at higher rates than have been reported in historical studies using conventionally fractionated radiation therapy.

MATERIALS/METHODS: We are conducting an IRB-approved, single institution, prospective phase II clinical trial enrolling patients with STS that was unresectable or who opted against surgery. Patients underwent HXRT in 8 or fewer fractions using either CT- (11, 61%) or MRI-guided radiation treatments (7, 39%). Data on patient characteristics, radiation, local tumor control, acute and late toxicity, and overall survival was collected. Local control was defined as stable disease, partial response, or complete response on standard-of-care follow up imaging. Toxicity was graded on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAEv5.0) during treatment, at 1 month, and at standard-of-care follow-up visits.

RESULTS: Eighteen patients were enrolled, 7 with an unresectable primary STS tumor only, 5 with oligometastatic STS, and 6 with widespread metastatic STS. Thirty-eight total lesions were treated - 2 in the neck, 25 in the chest, 1 in the abdomen, 3 in the retroperitoneum, 4 in the pelvis, and 3 in the extremities. Radiation dose ranged from 5-12 Gy per fraction in 3-8 fractions for a total of 18-60 Gy (median dose/fractionation was 50 Gy/5 fractions). Patients were followed for a median of 283 days (range 46 - 532 days). Local tumor control was achieved in all cases for which follow up imaging was obtained (15 patients): 8 patients (53%) had a stable response, 6 (40%) had a partial response, and 1 (7%) had a complete response. Three patients died prior to follow up imaging being obtained. Ten patients (56%) experienced any acute toxicity, with 1 having CTCAE grade 3 toxicity (pain) and 9 having grades 1-2 toxicity, most commonly grade 1-2 arthralgia or myositis (5 patients, 28%).

CONCLUSION: Interim analysis of this prospective clinical trial suggests that HXRT can be safely delivered to STS locations throughout the body and provides local tumor control. All evaluable patients exhibit local tumor control thus far, with only 1 acute toxicity of grade 3 or greater. Additional patient enrollment and follow up is needed to further evaluate these outcomes and to evaluate for potential late toxicities.

PMID:34701159 | DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.07.973

PURPOSE: Radixact Synchrony corrects for target motion during treatment by adjusting the jaw and MLC positions in real time. As the jaws move off axis, Synchrony attempts to adjust for a loss in output due to the un-flattened 6 MV beam by increasing the jaw aperture width. The purpose of this work was to assess the impact of the variable-width aperture on delivered dose using measurements and simulations.

METHODS: Longitudinal beam profile measurements were acquired using an Edge diode with static gantry. Jaw-offset peak, width, and integral factors were calculated for profiles with the jaws in the extreme positions using both variable-width (Synchrony) and fixed-width apertures. Treatment plans with target motion and compensation were compared to planned doses to study the impact of the variable aperture on volumetric dose.

RESULTS: The jaw offset peak factor (JOPF) for the Synchrony jaw settings were 0.964 and 0.983 for the 1.0- and 2.5-cm jaw settings, respectively. These values decreased to 0.925 and 0.982 for the fixed-width settings, indicating that the peak value of the profile would decrease by 7.5% compared to centered if the aperture width was held constant. The IMRT dose distributions reveal similar results, where gamma pass rates are above tolerance for the Synchrony jaw settings but fall significantly for the fixed-width 1-cm jaws.

CONCLUSIONS: The variable-width behavior of Synchrony jaws provides a larger output correction for the 1-cm jaw setting. Without the variable-aperture correction, plans with the 1-cm jaw setting would underdose the target if the jaws spend a significant amount of time in the extreme positions. This work investigated the change in delivered dose with jaws in the extreme positions, therefore overall changes in dose due to offset jaws are expected to be less for composite treatment deliveries.

PMID:33779041 | PMC:PMC8130229 | DOI:10.1002/acm2.13234

The Radixact® linear accelerator contains the motion Synchrony system, which tracks and compensates for intrafraction patient motion. For respiratory motion, the system models the motion of the target and synchronizes the delivery of radiation with this motion using the jaws and multi-leaf collimators (MLCs). It was the purpose of this work to determine the ability of the Synchrony system to track and compensate for different phantom motions using a delivery quality assurance (DQA) workflow. Thirteen helical plans were created on static datasets from liver, lung, and pancreas subjects. Dose distributions were measured using a Delta4® Phantom+ mounted on a Hexamotion® stage for the following three case scenarios for each plan: (a) no phantom motion and no Synchrony (M0S0), (b) phantom motion and no Synchrony (M1S0), and (c) phantom motion with Synchrony (M1S1). The LEDs were placed on the Phantom+ for the 13 patient cases and were placed on a separate one-dimensional surrogate stage for additional studies to investigate the effect of separate target and surrogate motion. The root-mean-square (RMS) error between the Synchrony-modeled positions and the programmed phantom positions was <1.5 mm for all Synchrony deliveries with the LEDs on the Phantom+. The tracking errors increased slightly when the LEDs were placed on the surrogate stage but were similar to tracking errors observed for other motion tracking systems such as CyberKnife Synchrony. One-dimensional profiles indicate the effects of motion interplay and dose blurring present in several of the M1S0 plans that are not present in the M1S1 plans. All 13 of the M1S1 measured doses had gamma pass rates (3%/2 mm/10%T) compared to the planned dose > 90%. Only two of the M1S0 measured doses had gamma pass rates > 90%. Motion Synchrony offers a potential alternative to the current, ITV-based motion management strategy for helical tomotherapy deliveries.

PMID:32691973 | PMC:PMC7497925 | DOI:10.1002/acm2.12978

The RayStation treatment planning system implements a Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm for electron dose calculations. For a TrueBeam accelerator, beam modeling was performed for four electron energies (6, 9, 12, and 15 MeV), and the dose calculation accuracy was tested for a range of geometries. The suite of validation tests included those tests recommended by AAPM's Medical Physics Practice Guideline 5.a, but extended beyond these tests in order to validate the MC algorithm in more challenging geometries. For MPPG 5.a testing, calculation accuracy was evaluated for square cutouts of various sizes, two custom cutout shapes, oblique incidence, and heterogenous media (cork). In general, agreement between ion chamber measurements and RayStation dose calculations was excellent and well within suggested tolerance limits. However, this testing did reveal calculation errors for the output of small cutouts. Of the 312 output factors evaluated for square cutouts, 20 (6.4%) were outside of 3% and 5 (1.6%) were outside of 5%, with these larger errors generally being for the smallest cutout sizes within a given applicator. Adjustment of beam modeling parameters did not fix these calculation errors, nor does the planning software allow the user to input correction factors as a function of field size. Additional validation tests included several complex phantom geometries (triangular nose phantom, lung phantom, curved breast phantom, and cortical bone phantom), designed to test the ability of the algorithm to handle high density heterogeneities and irregular surface contours. In comparison to measurements with radiochromic film, RayStation showed good agreement, with an average of 89.3% pixels passing for gamma analysis (3%/3mm) across four phantom geometries. The MC algorithm was able to accurately handle the presence of irregular surface contours (curved cylindrical phantom and a triangular nose phantom), as well as heterogeneities (cork and cortical bone).

PMID:31120615 | PMC:PMC6560228 | DOI:10.1002/acm2.12622

The dosimetric stability of six TomoTherapy units was analyzed to investigate changes in performance over time and with system upgrades. Energy and output were tracked using monitor chamber signal, onboard megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) detector profile, and external ion chamber measurements. The systems (and monitoring periods) include three Hi-Art (67, 61, and 65 mos.), two TomoHDA (31 and 26 mos.), and one Radixact unit (11 mos.), representing approximately 10 years of clinical use. The four newest systems use the Dose Control Stability (DCS) system and Fixed Target Linear Accelerator (linac) (FTL). The output stability is reported as deviation from reference monitor chamber signal for all systems and/or from an external chamber signal. The energy stability was monitored using relative (center versus off-axis) MVCT detector signal (beam profile) and/or the ratio of chamber measurements at 2 depths. The clinical TomoHDA data were used to benchmark the Radixact stability, which has the same FTL but runs at a higher dose rate. The output based on monitor chamber data of all systems is very stable. The standard deviation of daily output on the non-DCS systems was 0.94-1.52%. As expected, the DCS systems had improved standard deviation: 0.004-0.06%. The beam energy was also very stable for all units. The standard deviation in profile flatness was 0.23-0.62% for rotating target systems and 0.04-0.09% for FTL. Ion chamber output and PDD ratios supported these results. The output stability on the Radixact system during extended treatment delivery (20, 30, and 40 min) was comparable to a clinical TomoHDA system. For each system, results are consistent between different measurement tools and techniques, proving not only the dosimetric stability, but also these quality parameters can be confirmed with various metrics. The replacement history over extended time periods of the major dosimetric components of the different delivery systems (target, linac, and magnetron) is also reported.

PMID:28464517 | PMC:PMC5689853 | DOI:10.1002/acm2.12085

The AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) 5.a provides concise guidance on the commissioning and QA of beam modeling and dose calculation in radiotherapy treatment planning systems. This work discusses the implementation of the validation testing recommended in MPPG 5.a at two institutions. The two institutions worked collaboratively to create a common set of treatment fields and analysis tools to deliver and analyze the validation tests. This included the development of a novel, open-source software tool to compare scanning water tank measurements to 3D DICOM-RT Dose distributions. Dose calculation algorithms in both Pinnacle and Eclipse were tested with MPPG 5.a to validate the modeling of Varian TrueBeam linear accelerators. The validation process resulted in more than 200 water tank scans and more than 50 point measurements per institution, each of which was compared to a dose calculation from the institution's treatment planning system (TPS). Overall, the validation testing recommended in MPPG 5.a took approximately 79 person-hours for a machine with four photon and five electron energies for a single TPS. Of the 79 person-hours, 26 person-hours required time on the machine, and the remainder involved preparation and analysis. The basic photon, electron, and heterogeneity correction tests were evaluated with the tolerances in MPPG 5.a, and the tolerances were met for all tests. The MPPG 5.a evaluation criteria were used to assess the small field and IMRT/VMAT validation tests. Both institutions found the use of MPPG 5.a to be a valuable resource during the commissioning process. The validation testing in MPPG 5.a showed the strengths and limitations of the TPS models. In addition, the data collected during the validation testing is useful for routine QA of the TPS, validation of software upgrades, and commissioning of new algorithms.

PMID:28291929 | PMC:PMC5689890 | DOI:10.1002/acm2.12015

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8,000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States. The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for the purpose of revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner. Each medical physics practice guideline represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice guidelines and technical standards by those entities not providing these services is not authorized. The following terms are used in the AAPM practice guidelines:• Must and Must Not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline.• Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances.

PMID:26699330 | PMC:PMC5690154 | DOI:10.1120/jacmp.v16i5.5768

PURPOSE: Several groups are exploring the integration of magnetic resonance (MR) image guidance with radiotherapy to reduce tumor position uncertainty during photon radiotherapy. The therapeutic gain from reducing tumor position uncertainty using intrafraction MR imaging during radiotherapy could be partially offset if the negative effects of magnetic field-induced dose perturbations are not appreciated or accounted for. The authors hypothesize that a more rotationally symmetric modality such as helical tomotherapy will permit a systematic mediation of these dose perturbations. This investigation offers a unique look at the dose perturbations due to homogeneous transverse magnetic field during the delivery of Tomotherapy(®) Treatment System plans under varying degrees of rotational beamlet symmetry.

METHODS: The authors accurately reproduced treatment plan beamlet and patient configurations using the Monte Carlo code geant4. This code has a thoroughly benchmarked electromagnetic particle transport physics package well-suited for the radiotherapy energy regime. The three approved clinical treatment plans for this study were for a prostate, head and neck, and lung treatment. The dose heterogeneity index metric was used to quantify the effect of the dose perturbations to the target volumes.

RESULTS: The authors demonstrate the ability to reproduce the clinical dose-volume histograms (DVH) to within 4% dose agreement at each DVH point for the target volumes and most planning structures, and therefore, are able to confidently examine the effects of transverse magnetic fields on the plans. The authors investigated field strengths of 0.35, 0.7, 1, 1.5, and 3 T. Changes to the dose heterogeneity index of 0.1% were seen in the prostate and head and neck case, reflecting negligible dose perturbations to the target volumes, a change from 5.5% to 20.1% was observed with the lung case.

CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the effect of external magnetic fields can be mitigated by exploiting a more rotationally symmetric treatment modality.

PMID:25652485 | PMC:PMC4297282 | DOI:10.1118/1.4905168

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education, and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8,000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States.

The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for the purpose of revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner.

Each medical physics practice guideline represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice guidelines and technical standards by those entities not providing these services is not authorized.

PMID:24423852 | PMC:PMC5711227 | DOI:10.1120/jacmp.v15i1.4528

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) sponsors two summer undergraduate research programs to attract top performing undergraduate students into graduate studies in medical physics: the Summer Undergraduate Fellowship Program (SUFP) and the Minority Undergraduate Summer Experience (MUSE). Undergraduate research experience (URE) is an effective tool to encourage students to pursue graduate degrees. The SUFP and MUSE are the only medical physics URE programs. From 2001 to 2012, 148 fellowships have been awarded and a total of $608,000 has been dispersed to fellows. This paper reports on the history, participation, and status of the programs. A review of surveys of past fellows is presented. Overall, the fellows and mentors are very satisfied with the program. The efficacy of the programs is assessed by four metrics: entry into a medical physics graduate program, board certification, publications, and AAPM involvement. Sixty-five percent of past fellow respondents decided to pursue a graduate degree in medical physics as a result of their participation in the program. Seventy percent of respondents are currently involved in some educational or professional aspect of medical physics. Suggestions for future enhancements to better track and maintain contact with past fellows, expand funding sources, and potentially combine the programs are presented.

PMID:23318397 | PMC:PMC5714055 | DOI:10.1120/jacmp.v14i1.4159

Delivery verification is the process in which the energy fluence delivered during a treatment is verified. This verified energy fluence can be used in conjunction with an image in the treatment position to reconstruct the full three-dimensional dose deposited. A method for delivery verification that utilizes a measured database of detector signal is described in this work. This database is a function of two parameters, radiological path-length and detector-to-phantom distance, both of which are computed from a CT image taken at the time of delivery. Such a database was generated and used to perform delivery verification and dose reconstruction. Two experiments were conducted: a simulated prostate delivery on an inhomogeneous abdominal phantom, and a nasopharyngeal delivery on a dog cadaver. For both cases, it was found that the verified fluence and dose results using the database approach agreed very well with those using previously developed and proven techniques. Delivery verification with a measured database and CT image at the time of treatment is an accurate procedure for tomotherapy. The database eliminates the need for any patient-specific, pre- or post-treatment measurements. Moreover, such an approach creates an opportunity for accurate, real-time delivery verification and dose reconstruction given fast image reconstruction and dose computation tools.

PMID:11339750 | DOI:10.1118/1.1352579