Beam Data Validation for Treatment Planning System Considering AAPM TG 119 Protocol as A Verification Tools for Low, Medium and High Energy Beam While Shifting from Flatten Beam to Unflatten Beam.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.69980/ajpr.v28i5.605Keywords:
Intensity-modulated Radiotherapy, RapidArc, Confidence limit, Task Group-119, Quality Assurance, High Definition Multi-Leaf Collimator, Flattening Filter-Free.Abstract
Purpose: Our research aimed to find out how the commissioning parameter of TG119 will change when we shift from a low-energy (6MV) to medium energy (10MV) to high energy (15MV) for RapidArc (RA) and Intensity-modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) plans.
Methods: We evaluate effect of dose rate, gantry speed, leaf speed, and intentional error by Picket Fence(PF) tests using Electronic Portal Imaging Device(EPID) and EBT 3 films. For comparison, RA and IMRT plans are made for all tests as per American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group-119 (AAPM TG-119). Confidence Limit (CL) was set to have 95 percent of the measured data within tolerance limit.
Results: Average absolute deviation (DiffAbs) for variable Dose Rate & Gantry Speed (DR_GS) has been within 1.5 %. For 6MV, 10MV, and 15MV energies. Their (DiffAbs) for variable leaf speed and dose rate (LS_DR) was also within 1.5%. TG 119 recommendations and methodology were evaluated effectively to check commissioning precision of flatten and unflatten beams for IMRT and RA modality to set reference values.
Conclusion: Understanding a system's limitations is better before using it in a clinical application. To guarantee accurate delivery of RapidArc and IMRT plans for 6MV, 10MV and 15MV beam modalities, measurements and accepted CL values can be utilized as baseline to evaluate quality of QA procedure.
References
1. Webb S. The physical basis of IMRT and inverse planning. Br J Radiol. 2003 Oct;76(910):678-89. doi: 10.1259/bjr/65676879. PMID: 14512327.
2. Yu CX. Intensity-modulated arc therapy with dynamic multileaf collimation: an alternative to tomotherapy. Phys Med Biol. 1995 Sep;40(9):1435-49. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/40/9/004. PMID: 8532757.
3. Goswami B, Jain RK, Yadav S, et al. Comparison of Treatment Planning Parameters of Different Radiotherapy Techniques for Craniospinal Irradiation. Iran J Med Phys 2021; 18: 164-170. doi: 10.22038/ijmp.2020.45574.1712.
4. Goswami B, Jain RK, Yadav S, et al. Dosimetric comparison of integral dose for different techniques of craniospinal irradiation. Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice. 2021;20(3):345–50. doi:10.1017/S1460396920000424
5. Verbakel WF, Cuijpers JP, Hoffmans D, et al. Volumetric intensity-modulated arc therapy vs. conventional IMRT in head-and-neck cancer: a comparative planning and dosimetric study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 May 1;74(1):252-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.12.033. PMID: 19362244.
6. Ong CL, Verbakel WF, Dahele M, et al. Fast arc delivery for stereotactic body radiotherapy of vertebral and lung tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 May 1;83(1):e137-43. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.12.014. Epub 2012 Feb 24. PMID: 22365628.
7. Matuszak MM, Yan D, Grills I, et al. Clinical applications of volumetric modulated arc therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Jan 25 1;77(2):608-16. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.08.032. Epub 25 Jan 2010. PMID: 20100639.
8. Wu QJ, Yoo S, Kirkpatrick JP, et al. Volumetric arc intensity-modulated therapy for spine body radiotherapy: comparison with static intensity-modulated treatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 Dec 1;75(5):1596-604. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.05.005. Epub 2009 Sep 3. PMID: 19733447.
9. Otto K. Volumetric modulated arc therapy: IMRT in a single gantry arc. Med Phys. 2008 Jan;35(1):310-7. doi: 10.1118/1.2818738. PMID: 18293586.
10. Chang Z, Wu Q, Adamson J, et al. Commissioning and dosimetric characteristics of TrueBeam system: composite data of three TrueBeam machines. Med Phys. 2012 Nov;39(11):6981-7018. doi: 10.1118/1.4762682. PMID: 23127092.
11. Glide-Hurst C, Bellon M, Foster R, et al. Commissioning of the Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator: a multi-institutional study. Med Phys. 2013 Mar;40(3):031719. doi: 10.1118/1.4790563. PMID: 23464314.
12. Beyer GP. Commissioning measurements for photon beam data on three TrueBeam linear accelerators, and comparison with Trilogy and Clinac 2100 linear accelerators. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2013 Jan 7;14(1):4077. doi: 10.1120/jacmp.v14i1.4077. PMID: 23318395; PMCID: PMC5714054.
13. Ling CC, Zhang P, Archambault Y, et al. Commissioning and quality assurance of RapidArc radiotherapy delivery system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Oct 1;72(2):575-81. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.05.060. PMID: 18793960.
14. Kielar KN, Mok E, Hsu A, et al. Verification of dosimetric accuracy on the TrueBeam STx: rounded leaf effect of the high definition MLC. Med Phys. 2012 Oct;39(10):6360-71. doi: 10.1118/1.4752444. PMID: 23039672.
15. Fu W, Dai J, Hu Y, et al. Delivery time comparison for intensity-modulated radiation therapy with/without flattening filter: a planning study. Phys Med Biol. 2004 Apr 21;49(8):1535-47. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/49/8/011.PMID: 15152690.
16. Cashmore J. The characterization of unflattened photon beams from a 6 MV linear accelerator. Phys Med Biol. 2008 Apr 7;53(7):1933-46. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/53/7/009. Epub 2008 Mar 11. PMID: 18364548.
17. Hrbacek J, Lang S, Klöck S. Commissioning of photon beams of a flattening filter-free linear accelerator and the accuracy of beam modeling using an anisotropic analytical algorithm. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Jul 15;80(4):1228-37. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.09.050. Epub 2010 Dec 2. PMID: 21129855.
18. Ibbott GS, Followill DS, Molineu HA, et al. Challenges in credentialing institutions and participants in advanced technology multi-institutional clinical trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71(1 Suppl):S71-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.08.083. PMID: 18406942; PMCID: PMC2409281.
19. Ezzell GA, Burmeister JW, Dogan N, et al. IMRT commissioning: multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119. Med Phys. 2009 Nov;36(11):5359-73. doi: 10.1118/1.3238104. PMID: 19994544.
20. Xing L, Curran B, Hill R, et al. Dosimetric verification of a commercial inverse treatment planning system. Phys Med Biol. 1999 Feb;44(2):463-78. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/44/2/013. PMID: 10070795.
21. Ezzell GA, Burmeister JW, Dogan N, et al. IMRT commissioning: multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119. Med Phys. 2009 Nov;36(11):5359-73. doi: 10.1118/1.3238104. PMID: 19994544.
22. Pönisch F, Titt U, Vassiliev ON, et al. Properties of unflattened photon beams shaped by a multileaf collimator. Med Phys. 2006 Jun;33(6):1738-46. doi: 10.1118/1.2201149. PMID: 16872081.
23. Miri N, Baltes C, Keller P, et al. SU-E-T-265: Development of Dose-To-Water Conversion Models for Pre-Treatment Verification with the New AS1200 Imager. Med Phys. 2015: 42(6): 3393-3394. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4924627
24. Casanova Borca V, Pasquino M, Russo G, et al. Dosimetric characterization and use of GAFCHROMIC EBT3 film for IMRT dose verification. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2013 Mar 4;14(2):4111. doi: 10.1120/jacmp.v14i2.4111. PMID: 23470940; PMCID: PMC5714357.
25. Martisíková M, Ackermann B, Jäkel O. Analysis of uncertainties in Gafchromic EBT film dosimetry of photon beams. Phys Med Biol. 2008 Dec 21;53(24):7013-27. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/53/24/001. Epub 2008 Nov 18. PMID: 19015581.
26. A N, S A P. Dosimetric Evaluation of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) and Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) Using AAPM TG 119 Protocol. J Biomed Phys Eng. 2019 Aug 1;9(4):395-408. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.839. PMID: 31531292; PMCID: PMC6709355.
27. Goswami B, Yadav S, Jain RK, et al. Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Head and Neck Cancer: A Dosimetric and Treatment Planning Comparison with Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy Techniques. J Clin of Diagn Res. 2021; 15(3): XC05-XC09. https://www.doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2021/47503/14661.
28. Goswami B, Jain RK, Yadav S, et al. A Dosimetric Study of Volumetric Arc Modulation with RapidArc Versus Intensity-modulated Radiotherapy in Cervical Cancer Patients. J Clin of Diagn Res.2021; 15(5): XC01-XC05. https://www.doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2021/48635/14863.
29. Pan L, Zhang N, Wang EM, et al. Gamma knife radiosurgery as a primary treatment for prolactinomas. J Neurosurg. 2000 Dec;93 Suppl 3:10-3. doi: 10.3171/jns. 2000.93. supplement. PMID: 11143223.
30. Ahmad M, Liu W, Lund M, et al. Clinical evaluation of inverse planning models and IMRT delivery systems in the framework of AAPM TG-119 protocol. Med. Phys. 2011; 38(6): 3600-3600.https://doi.org/10.1118 /1.3612438
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 American Journal of Psychiatric Rehabilitation
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License permitting all use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited.
