Time filter

Source Type

Kairn T.,Premion Cancer Care | Kairn T.,Queensland University of Technology | Crowe S.B.,Queensland University of Technology | Kenny J.,Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service | And 2 more authors.
Journal of Physics: Conference Series | Year: 2014

This study used automated data processing techniques to calculate a set of novel treatment plan accuracy metrics, and investigate their usefulness as predictors of quality assurance (QA) success and failure. A small sample of 151 beams from 23 prostate and cranial IMRT treatment plans were used in this study. These plans had been evaluated before treatment using measurements with a diode array system. The TADA software suite was adapted to allow automatic batch calculation of several proposed plan accuracy metrics, including mean field area, small-aperture, off-axis and closed-leaf factors. All of these results were compared to the gamma pass rates from the QA measurements and correlations were investigated. The mean field area factor provided a threshold field size (5 cm2, equivalent to a 2.2 × 2.2 cm2 square field), below which all beams failed the QA tests. The small aperture score provided a useful predictor of plan failure, when averaged over all beams, despite being weakly correlated with gamma pass rates for individual beams. By contrast, the closed leaf and off-axis factors provided information about the geometric arrangement of the beam segments but were not useful for distinguishing between plans that passed and failed QA. This study has provided some simple tests for plan accuracy, which may help minimise time spent on QA assessments of treatments that are unlikely to pass. © Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd.

Lehmann J.,Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service | Lehmann J.,University of Sydney | Lehmann J.,RMIT University | Dunn L.,Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service | And 10 more authors.
Medical Physics | Year: 2014

Purpose: The purpose of this investigation was to assess the angular dependence of a commercial optically stimulated luminescence dosimeter (OSLD) dosimetry system in MV x-ray beams at depths beyonddmax and to find ways to mitigate this dependence for measurements in phantoms. Methods: Two special holders were designed which allow a dosimeter to be rotated around the center of its sensitive volume. The dosimeter's sensitive volume is a disk, 5 mm in diameter and 0.2 mm thick. The first holder rotates the disk in the traditional way. It positions the disk perpendicular to the beam (gantry pointing to the floor) in the initial position (0°). When the holder is rotated the angle of the disk towards the beam increases until the disk is parallel with the beam ("edge on," 90°). This is referred to as Setup 1. The second holder offers a new, alternative measurement position. It positions the disk parallel to the beam for all angles while rotating around its center (Setup 2). Measurements with five to ten dosimeters per point were carried out for 6 MV at 3 and 10 cm depth. Monte Carlo simulations using GEANT4 were performed to simulate the response of the active detector material for several angles. Detector and housing were simulated in detail based on microCT data and communications with the manufacturer. Various material compositions and an all-water geometry were considered. Results: For the traditional Setup 1 the response of the OSLD dropped on average by 1.4% ± 0.7% (measurement) and 2.1% ± 0.3% (Monte Carlo simulation) for the 90° orientation compared to 0°. Monte Carlo simulations also showed a strong dependence of the effect on the composition of the sensitive layer. Assuming the layer to completely consist of the active material (Al2O3) results in a 7% drop in response for 90°compared to 0°. Assuming the layer to be completely water, results in a flat response within the simulation uncertainty of about 1%. For the new Setup 2, measurements and Monte Carlo simulations found the angular dependence of the dosimeter to be below 1% and within the measurement uncertainty. Conclusions: The dosimeter system exhibits a small angular dependence of approximately 2% which needs to be considered for measurements involving other than normal incident beams angles. This applies in particular to clinicalin vivo measurements where the orientation of the dosimeter is dictated by clinical circumstances and cannot be optimized as otherwise suggested here. When measuring in a phantom, the proposed new setup should be considered. It changes the orientation of the dosimeter so that a coplanar beam arrangement always hits the disk shaped detector material from the thin side and thereby reduces the angular dependence of the response to within the measurement uncertainty of about 1%. This improvement makes the dosimeter more attractive for clinical measurements with multiple coplanar beams in phantoms, as the overall measurement uncertainty is reduced. Similarly, phantom based postal audits can transition from the traditional TLD to the more accurate and convenient OSLD. © 2014 Author(s).

Dunn L.,Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service | Lehmann J.,Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service | Lehmann J.,University of Sydney | Lehmann J.,RMIT University | And 10 more authors.
Physica Medica | Year: 2015

This work presents the Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service's (ACDS) findings of an investigation of systematic discrepancies between treatment planning system (TPS) calculated and measured audit doses. Specifically, a comparison between the Anisotropic Analytic Algorithm (AAA) and other common dose-calculation algorithms in regions downstream (≥2. cm) from low-density material in anthropomorphic and slab phantom geometries is presented. Two measurement setups involving rectilinear slab-phantoms (ACDS Level II audit) and anthropomorphic geometries (ACDS Level III audit) were used in conjunction with ion chamber (planar 2D array and Farmer-type) measurements. Measured doses were compared to calculated doses for a variety of cases, with and without the presence of inhomogeneities and beam-modifiers in 71 audits. Results demonstrate a systematic AAA underdose with an average discrepancy of 2.9 ± 1.2% when the AAA algorithm is implemented in regions distal from lung-tissue interfaces, when lateral beams are used with anthropomorphic phantoms. This systemic discrepancy was found for all Level III audits of facilities using the AAA algorithm. This discrepancy is not seen when identical measurements are compared for other common dose-calculation algorithms (average discrepancy -0.4 ± 1.7%), including the Acuros XB algorithm also available with the Eclipse TPS. For slab phantom geometries (Level II audits), with similar measurement points downstream from inhomogeneities this discrepancy is also not seen. © 2015.

Lye J.,Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service | Dunn L.,Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service | Kenny J.,Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service | Lehmann J.,Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service | And 10 more authors.
Medical Physics | Year: 2014

Purpose: On 1 July 2012, the Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service (ACDS) released its Optically Stimulated Luminescent Dosimeter (OSLD) Level I audit, replacing the previous TLD based audit. The aim of this work is to present the results from this new service and the complete uncertainty analysis on which the audit tolerances are based. Methods: The audit release was preceded by a rigorous evaluation of the InLight® nanoDot OSLD system from Landauer (Landauer, Inc., Glenwood, IL). Energy dependence, signal fading from multiple irradiations, batch variation, reader variation, and dose response factors were identified and quantified for each individual OSLD. The detectors are mailed to the facility in small PMMA blocks, based on the design of the existing Radiological Physics Centre audit. Modeling and measurement were used to determine a factor that could convert the dose measured in the PMMA block, to dose in water for the facility's reference conditions. This factor is dependent on the beam spectrum. The TPR20,10 was used as the beam quality index to determine the specific block factor for a beam being audited. The audit tolerance was defined using a rigorous uncertainty calculation. The audit outcome is then determined using a scientifically based two tiered action level approach. Audit outcomes within two standard deviations were defined as Pass (Optimal Level), within three standard deviations as Pass (Action Level), and outside of three standard deviations the outcome is Fail (Out of Tolerance). Results: To-date the ACDS has audited 108 photon beams with TLD and 162 photon beams with OSLD. The TLD audit results had an average deviation from ACDS of 0.0% and a standard deviation of 1.8%. The OSLD audit results had an average deviation of -0.2% and a standard deviation of 1.4%. The relative combined standard uncertainty was calculated to be 1.3% (1σ). Pass (Optimal Level) was reduced to ≤2.6% (2σ), and Fail (Out of Tolerance) was reduced to >3.9% (3σ) for the new OSLD audit. Previously with the TLD audit the Pass (Optimal Level) and Fail (Out of Tolerance) were set at ≤4.0% (2σ) and >6.0% (3σ). Conclusions: The calculated standard uncertainty of 1.3% at one standard deviation is consistent with the measured standard deviation of 1.4% from the audits and confirming the suitability of the uncertainty budget derived audit tolerances. The OSLD audit shows greater accuracy than the previous TLD audit, justifying the reduction in audit tolerances. In the TLD audit, all outcomes were Pass (Optimal Level) suggesting that the tolerances were too conservative. In the OSLD audit 94% of the audits have resulted in Pass (Optimal level) and 6% of the audits have resulted in Pass (Action Level). All Pass (Action level) results have been resolved with a repeat OSLD audit, or an on-site ion chamber measurement. © 2014 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Lye J.,Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service | Kenny J.,Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service | Lehmann J.,Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service | Lehmann J.,RMIT University | And 8 more authors.
Medical Physics | Year: 2014

Purpose: The Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service (ACDS) has implemented a new method of a nonreference condition Level II type dosimetric audit of radiotherapy services to increase measurement accuracy and patient safety within Australia. The aim of this work is to describe the methodology, tolerances, and outcomes from the new audit.Methods: The ACDS Level II audit measures the dose delivered in 2D planes using an ionization chamber based array positioned at multiple depths. Measurements are made in rectilinear homogeneous and inhomogeneous phantoms composed of slabs of solid water and lung. Computer generated computed tomography data sets of the rectilinear phantoms are supplied to the facility prior to audit for planning of a range of cases including reference fields, asymmetric fields, and wedged fields. The audit assesses 3D planning with 6 MV photons with a static (zero degree) gantry. Scoring is performed using local dose differences between the planned and measured dose within 80% of the field width. The overall audit result is determined by the maximum dose difference over all scoring points, cases, and planes. Pass (Optimal Level) is defined as maximum dose difference .3.3%, Pass (Action Level) is ≤5.0%, and Fail (Out of Tolerance) is 5.0%.Results: At close of 2013, the ACDS had performed 24 Level II audits. 63% of the audits passed, 33% failed, and the remaining audit was not assessable. Of the 15 audits that passed, 3 were at Pass (Action Level). The high fail rate is largely due to a systemic issue with modeling asymmetric 60. wedges which caused a delivered overdose of 5%.8%.Conclusions: The ACDS has implemented a nonreference condition Level II type audit, based on ion chamber 2D array measurements in an inhomogeneous slab phantom. The powerful diagnostic ability of this audit has allowed the ACDS to rigorously test the treatment planning systems implemented in Australian radiotherapy facilities. Recommendations from audits have led to facilities modifying clinical practice and changing planning protocols. C 2014 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Discover hidden collaborations