Results for “Delivery” — Page 93

DOE OSTI2016

SU-F-T-636: Comprehensive Approach to Motion Assessment for Liver and Pancreas SBRT Patients

Purpose: Our past practice for liver and pancreas SBRT consisted of free breathing (FB) with gated treatment delivery using a 30-70% phase window. We have recently adopted an assessment method leading to individualized motion management to minimize target motion. We present our results from 47 patients treated with this new approach. Methods: We perform an initial patient coaching and assessment session in our conventional simulator suite to observe the motion of the implanted fiducials with FB anterior and lateral 20-second cine acquisitions. The physician decides whether to attempt inhale or exhale breath-hold (BH). The patient is coached while observing with cine to ascertain their ability to achieve the desired BH mode for long periods as needed for treatment delivery. If the patient cannot comply, a FB approach is adopted using gating or simple ITV method (for patients without fiducials). After achieving a patient-specific motion management mode, we perform CT-simulation using the Varian RPM system to reproduce the chosen mode and record a reference session for treatment delivery. For pre-treatment imaging, the fiducials are observed under fluoro while coaching the patient. Results: Of 47 SBRT cases analyzed, 32 were liver and 15 were pancreas. The chosen techniques were: 32 exhale BH (12 with abdominal compression), 7 FB gated, 4 inhale BH, and 4 FB ITV. Maximum fiducial motion amplitude was 5 mm for the FB gated patients, and less than 5 mm for all BH patients with most able to achieve a maximum amplitude of 3 mm. Conclusion: This study showed that an individualized motion management approach can reduce the target volume and, therefore, the volume of irradiated healthy tissue from liver or pancreas SBRT. Effective coaching is essential in achieving consistent BH with 3 mm amplitude. The fluoro/cine session is helpful in establishing the right coaching approach for each patient.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

SU-G-BRC-16: Theory and Clinical Implications of the Constant Dosimetric Leaf Gap (DLG) Approximation

Purpose: Commercial dose calculation algorithms incorporate a single DLG value for a given beam energy that is applied across an entire treatment field. However, the physical processes associated with beam generation and dose delivery suggest that the DLG is not constant. The aim of this study is to evaluate the variation of DLG among all leaf pairs, to quantify how this variation impacts delivered dose, and to establish a novel method to correct dose distributions calculated using the approximation of constant DLG. Methods: A 2D diode array was used to measure the DLG for all 60 leaf pairs at several points along each leaf pair travel direction. This approach was validated by comparison to DLG values measured at select points using a 0.6 cc ion chamber with the standard formalism. In-house software was developed to enable incorporation of position dependent DLG values into dose distribution optimization and calculation. The accuracy of beam delivery of both the corrected and uncorrected treatment plans was studied through gamma pass rate evaluation. A comparison of DVH statistics in corrected and uncorrected treatment plans was made. Results: The outer 20 MLC leaf pairs (1.0 cm width) have DLG values that are 0.32 mm (mean) to 0.65 mm (maximum) lower than the central leaf-pair. VMAT plans using a large number of 1 cm wide leaves were more accurately delivered (gamma pass rate increased by 5%) and dose coverage was higher (D100 increased by 3%) when the 2D DLG was modeled. Conclusion: Using a constant DLG value for a given beam energy will result in dose optimization, dose calculation and treatment delivery inaccuracies that become significant for treatment plans with high modulation complexity scores delivered with 1 cm wide leaves.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

SU-G-BRB-05: Automation of the Photon Dosimetric Quality Assurance Program of a Linear Accelerator

Purpose: To develop an automated method to calculate a linear accelerator (LINAC) photon radiation field size, flatness, symmetry, output and beam quality in a single delivery for flattened (FF) and flattening-filter-free (FFF) beams using an ionization chamber array. Methods: The proposed method consists of three control points that deliver 30×30, 10×10 and 5×5cm{sup 2} fields (FF or FFF) in a step-and-shoot sequence where the number of monitor units is weighted for each field size. The IC Profiler (Sun Nuclear Inc.) with 5mm detector spacing was used for this study. The corrected counts (CCs) were calculated and the locations of the maxima and minima values of the first-order gradient determined data of each sub field. Then, all CCs for each field size are summed in order to obtain the final profiles. For each profile, the radiation field size, symmetry, flatness, output factor and beam quality were calculated. For field size calculation, a parameterized gradient method was used. For method validation, profiles were collected in the detector array both, individually and as part of the step-and-shoot plan, with 9.9cm buildup for FF and FFF beams at 90cm source-to-surface distance. The same data were collected with the device (plus buildup) placed on a movable platform to achieve a 1mm resolution. Results: The differences between the dosimetric quantities calculated from both deliveries, individually and step-and-shoot, were within 0.31±0.20% and 0.04±0.02mm. The differences between the calculated field sizes with 5mm and 1mm resolution were ±0.1mm. Conclusion: The proposed single delivery method proved to be simple and efficient in automating the photon dosimetric monthly and annual quality assurance.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2016

SU-G-JeP3-06: Lower KV Image Dose Are Expected From a Limited-Angle Intra-Fractional Verification (LIVE) System for SBRT Treatments

Purpose: In order to track the tumor movement for patient positioning verification during arc treatment delivery or in between 3D/IMRT beams for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), the limited-angle kV projections acquisition simultaneously during arc treatment delivery or in-between static treatment beams as the gantry moves to the next beam angle was proposed. The purpose of this study is to estimate additional imaging dose resulting from multiple tomosynthesis acquisitions in-between static treatment beams and to compare with that of a conventional kV-CBCT acquisition. Methods: kV imaging system integrated into Varian TrueBeam accelerators was modeled using EGSnrc Monte Carlo user code, BEAMnrc and DOSXYZnrc code was used in dose calculations. The simulated realistic kV beams from the Varian TrueBeam OBI 1.5 system were used to calculate dose to patient based on CT images. Organ doses were analyzed using DVHs. The imaging dose to patient resulting from realistic multiple tomosynthesis acquisitions with each 25–30 degree kV source rotation between 6 treatment beam gantry angles was studied. Results: For a typical lung SBRT treatment delivery much lower (20–50%) kV imaging doses from the sum of realistic six tomosynthesis acquisitions with each 25–30 degree x-ray source rotation between six treatment beam gantry angles were observed compared to that from a single CBCT image acquisition. Conclusion: This work indicates that the kV imaging in this proposed Limited-angle Intra-fractional Verification (LIVE) System for SBRT Treatments has a negligible imaging dose increase. It is worth to note that the MV imaging dose caused by MV projection acquisition in-between static beams in LIVE can be minimized by restricting the imaging to the target region and reducing the number of projections acquired. For arc treatments, MV imaging acquisition in LIVE does not add additional imaging dose as the MV images are acquired from treatment beams directly during the treatment.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

SU-G-TeP4-11: Implementation of a Non-Measurement-Based Patient-Specific IMRT QA Program

Purpose: To implement a comprehensive non-measurement-based verification program for patient-specific IMRT QA Methods: Based on published guidelines, a robust IMRT QA program should assess the following components: 1) accuracy of dose calculation, 2) accuracy of data transfer from the treatment planning system (TPS) to the record-and-verify (RV) system, 3) treatment plan deliverability, and 4) accuracy of plan delivery. Results: We have implemented an IMRT QA program that consist of four components: 1) an independent re-calculation of the dose distribution in the patient anatomy with a commercial secondary dose calculation program: Mobius3D (Mobius Medical Systems, Houston, TX), with dose accuracy evaluation using gamma analysis, PTV mean dose, PTV coverage to 95%, and organ-at-risk mean dose; 2) an automated in-house-developed plan comparison system that compares all relevant plan parameters such as MU, MLC position, beam iso-center position, collimator, gantry, couch, field size settings, and bolus placement, etc. between the plan and the RV system; 3) use of the RV system to check the plan deliverability and further confirm using “mode-up” function on treatment console for plans receiving warning; and 4) implementation of a comprehensive weekly MLC QA, in addition to routine accelerator monthly and daily QA. Among 1200 verifications, there were 9 cases of suspicious calculations, 5 cases of delivery failure, no data transfer errors, and no failure of weekly MLC QA. These 9 suspicious cases were due to the PTV extending to the skin or to heterogeneity correction effects, which would not have been caught using phantom measurement-based QA. The delivery failure was due to the rounding variation of MLC position between the planning system and RV system. Conclusion: A very efficient, yet comprehensive, non-measurement-based patient-specific QA program has been implemented and used clinically for about 18 months with excellent results.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

MO-A-201-01: A Cliff’s Notes Version of Proton Therapy

Proton therapy is a rapidly growing modality in the fight against cancer. From a high-level perspective the process of proton therapy is identical to x-ray based external beam radiotherapy. However, this course is meant to illustrate for x-ray physicists the many differences between x-ray and proton based practices. Unlike in x-ray therapy, proton dose calculations use CT Hounsfield Units (HU) to determine proton stopping power and calculate the range of a beam in a patient. Errors in stopping power dominate the dosimetric uncertainty in the beam direction, while variations in patient position determine uncertainties orthogonal to the beam path. Mismatches between geometric and range errors lead to asymmetric uncertainties, and so while geometric uncertainties in x-ray therapy are mitigated through the use of a Planning Target Volume (PTV), this approach is not suitable for proton therapy. Robust treatment planning and evaluation are critical in proton therapy, and will be discussed in this course. Predicting the biological effect of a proton dose distribution within a patient is also a complex undertaking. The proton therapy community has generally regarded the Radiobiological Effectiveness (RBE) of a proton beam to be 1.1 everywhere in the patient, but there are increasing data to suggest that the RBE probably climbs higher than 1.1 near the end of a proton beam when the energy deposition density increases. This lecture will discuss the evidence for variable RBE in proton therapy and describe how this is incorporated into current proton treatment planning strategies. Finally, there are unique challenges presented by the delivery process of proton therapy. Many modern systems use a spot scanning technique which has several advantages over earlier scattered beam designs. However, the time dependence of the dose deposition leads to greater concern with organ motion than with scattered protons or x-rays. Image guidance techniques in proton therapy may also differ from standard x-ray approaches, due to equipment design or the desire to maximize efficiency within a high-cost proton therapy treatment room. Differences between x-ray and proton therapy delivery will be described. Learning Objectives: Understand how CT HU are calibrated to provide proton stopping power, and the sources of uncertainty in this process. Understand why a PTV is not suitable for proton therapy, and how robust treatment planning and evaluation are used to mitigate uncertainties. Understand the source and implications of variable RBE in proton therapy Learn about proton specific challenges and approaches in beam delivery and image guidance Jon Kruse has a research grant from Varian Medical Systems related to proton therapy treatment plannning.; J. Kruse, Jon Kruse has a research grant with Varian Medical Systems related to proton therapy planning.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TU-FG-BRB-06: A Prompt Gamma-Ray Spectroscopy System for Clinical Studies of in Vivo Proton Range Verification

Purpose: We present a new system to perform prompt gamma-ray spectroscopy during proton pencil-beam scanning treatments, which enables in vivo verification of the proton range. This system will be used for the first clinical studies of this technology. Methods: After successful pre-clinical testing of prompt gamma-ray spectroscopy, a full scale system for clinical studies is now being assembled. Prompt gamma-rays will be detected during patient treatment using an array of 8 detector modules arranged behind a tungsten collimator. Each detector module consists of a lanthanum(III) bromide scintillator, a photomultiplier tube, and custom electronics for stable high voltage supply and signal amplification. A new real-time data acquisition and control system samples the signals from the detectors with analog-to-digital converters, analyses events of interest, and communicates with the beam delivery systems. The timing of the detected events was synchronized to the cyclotron radiofrequency and the pencil-beam delivery. Range verification is performed by matching measured energy- and timeresolved gamma-ray spectra to nuclear reaction models based on the clinical treatment plan. Experiments in phantoms were performed using clinical beams in order to assess the performance of the systems. Results: The experiments showed reliable real-time analysis of more than 10 million detector events per second. The individual detector modules acquired accurate energy- and time-resolved gamma-ray measurements at a rate of 1 million events per second, which is typical for beams delivered with a clinical dose rate. The data acquisition system successfully tracked the delivery of the scanned pencil-beams to determine the location of range deviations within the treatment field. Conclusion: A clinical system for proton range verification using prompt gamma-ray spectroscopy has been designed and is being prepared for use during patient treatments. We anticipate to start a first clinical study in the near future. This work was supported by the Federal Share of program income earned by Massachusetts; General Hospital on C06-CA059267, Proton Therapy Research and Treatment Center.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

WE-H-209-00: Carson/Zagzebski Distinguished Lectureship: Image Guided Ultrasound Therapy

Focused ultrasound has been shown to be the only method that allows noninvasive thermal coagulation of tissues and recently this potential has been explored for image-guided drug delivery. In this presentation, the advances in ultrasound phased array technology for energy delivery, exposure monitoring and control will be discussed. Experimental results from novel multi-frequency transmit/receive arrays will be presented. In addition, the feasibility of fully electronically focused and steered high power arrays with many thousands of transducer elements will be discussed. Finally, some of the recent clinical and preclinical results for the treatment of brain disease will be reviewed. Learning Objectives: Introduce FUS therapy principles and modern techniques Discuss use of FUS for drug delivery Cover the technology required to deliver FUS and monitor therapy Present clinical examples of the uses of these techniques This research was supported by funding from The Canada Research Chair Program, Grants from CIHR and NIH (no. EB003268).; K. Hynynen, Canada Foundation for Innovation; Canadian Institutes of Health Research; Focused Ultrasound Surgery Foundation; Canada Research Chair Program; Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; Ontario Research Fund; National Institutes of Health; Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute; The Weston Brain Institute; Harmonic Medical; Focused Ultrasound Instruments.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-B-BRC-00: How to Identify and Resolve Potential Clinical Errors Before They Impact Patients Treatment: Lessons Learned

Radiation treatment consists of a chain of events influenced by the quality of machine operation, beam data commissioning, machine calibration, patient specific data, simulation, treatment planning, imaging and treatment delivery. There is always a chance that the clinical medical physicist may make or fail to detect an error in one of the events that may impact on the patient’s treatment. In the clinical scenario, errors may be systematic and, without peer review, may have a low detectability because they are not part of routine QA procedures. During treatment, there might be errors on machine that needs attention. External reviews of some of the treatment delivery components by independent reviewers, like IROC, can detect errors, but may not be timely. The goal of this session is to help junior clinical physicists identify potential errors as well as the approach of quality assurance to perform a root cause analysis to find and eliminate an error and to continually monitor for errors. A compilation of potential errors will be presented by examples of the thought process required to spot the error and determine the root cause. Examples may include unusual machine operation, erratic electrometer reading, consistent lower electron output, variation in photon output, body parts inadvertently left in beam, unusual treatment plan, poor normalization, hot spots etc. Awareness of the possibility and detection of error in any link of the treatment process chain will help improve the safe and accurate delivery of radiation to patients. Four experts will discuss how to identify errors in four areas of clinical treatment. D. Followill, NIH grant CA 180803.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-B-BRC-01: How to Identify and Resolve Potential Clinical Errors

Radiation treatment consists of a chain of events influenced by the quality of machine operation, beam data commissioning, machine calibration, patient specific data, simulation, treatment planning, imaging and treatment delivery. There is always a chance that the clinical medical physicist may make or fail to detect an error in one of the events that may impact on the patient’s treatment. In the clinical scenario, errors may be systematic and, without peer review, may have a low detectability because they are not part of routine QA procedures. During treatment, there might be errors on machine that needs attention. External reviews of some of the treatment delivery components by independent reviewers, like IROC, can detect errors, but may not be timely. The goal of this session is to help junior clinical physicists identify potential errors as well as the approach of quality assurance to perform a root cause analysis to find and eliminate an error and to continually monitor for errors. A compilation of potential errors will be presented by examples of the thought process required to spot the error and determine the root cause. Examples may include unusual machine operation, erratic electrometer reading, consistent lower electron output, variation in photon output, body parts inadvertently left in beam, unusual treatment plan, poor normalization, hot spots etc. Awareness of the possibility and detection of error in any link of the treatment process chain will help improve the safe and accurate delivery of radiation to patients. Four experts will discuss how to identify errors in four areas of clinical treatment. D. Followill, NIH grant CA 180803.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-B-BRC-02: Troubleshooting Issues with Linear Accelerator

Radiation treatment consists of a chain of events influenced by the quality of machine operation, beam data commissioning, machine calibration, patient specific data, simulation, treatment planning, imaging and treatment delivery. There is always a chance that the clinical medical physicist may make or fail to detect an error in one of the events that may impact on the patient’s treatment. In the clinical scenario, errors may be systematic and, without peer review, may have a low detectability because they are not part of routine QA procedures. During treatment, there might be errors on machine that needs attention. External reviews of some of the treatment delivery components by independent reviewers, like IROC, can detect errors, but may not be timely. The goal of this session is to help junior clinical physicists identify potential errors as well as the approach of quality assurance to perform a root cause analysis to find and eliminate an error and to continually monitor for errors. A compilation of potential errors will be presented by examples of the thought process required to spot the error and determine the root cause. Examples may include unusual machine operation, erratic electrometer reading, consistent lower electron output, variation in photon output, body parts inadvertently left in beam, unusual treatment plan, poor normalization, hot spots etc. Awareness of the possibility and detection of error in any link of the treatment process chain will help improve the safe and accurate delivery of radiation to patients. Four experts will discuss how to identify errors in four areas of clinical treatment. D. Followill, NIH grant CA 180803.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-B-BRC-03: Measurement and Calibration Discrepancy: Advanced Warning Guidance

Radiation treatment consists of a chain of events influenced by the quality of machine operation, beam data commissioning, machine calibration, patient specific data, simulation, treatment planning, imaging and treatment delivery. There is always a chance that the clinical medical physicist may make or fail to detect an error in one of the events that may impact on the patient’s treatment. In the clinical scenario, errors may be systematic and, without peer review, may have a low detectability because they are not part of routine QA procedures. During treatment, there might be errors on machine that needs attention. External reviews of some of the treatment delivery components by independent reviewers, like IROC, can detect errors, but may not be timely. The goal of this session is to help junior clinical physicists identify potential errors as well as the approach of quality assurance to perform a root cause analysis to find and eliminate an error and to continually monitor for errors. A compilation of potential errors will be presented by examples of the thought process required to spot the error and determine the root cause. Examples may include unusual machine operation, erratic electrometer reading, consistent lower electron output, variation in photon output, body parts inadvertently left in beam, unusual treatment plan, poor normalization, hot spots etc. Awareness of the possibility and detection of error in any link of the treatment process chain will help improve the safe and accurate delivery of radiation to patients. Four experts will discuss how to identify errors in four areas of clinical treatment. D. Followill, NIH grant CA 180803.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-CD-202-12: Online Inter-Beam Replanning Based On Real-Time Dose Reconstruction

Purpose: This work provides a proof-of-concept study for online replanning during treatment delivery for step-and-shoot prostate SBRT, based on real-time dose reconstruction. Online replanning is expected to improve the trade-off between target coverage and organ-at-risk dose in the presence of intra-fractional motion. Methods: We have implemented an online replanning workflow on top of our previously reported real-time dose reconstruction software which connects to an Elekta research linac. The treatment planning system DynaPlan was extended to (1) re-optimize and sequence treatment plans (in clockwise beam order) before each beam, based on actual delivered dose, in a timeframe limited by the gantry rotation between subsequent beams, and (2) send the respective segments to the delivery control software DynaTrack which starts/continues treatment immediately.To investigate the impact of a reduced safety margin, we have created and delivered (on a linac emulator) a conventional CTV+5/3mm (I) and a reduced CTV+1mm margin (II) treatment plan for a prostate patient. We have assessed CTV coverage with and without inter-beam replanning, all exposed to a gradual target shift of 0–5mm in posterior and inferior direction from start until the end of delivery. Results: For the reconstructed conventional plan (I), D98 for CTV was 100% of D98 of the planned dose. For the reconstructed margin-reduced plan (II), D98 for CTV was 95% of the planned D98 without replanning, but could be recovered to 99% by replanning for each beam. Plan (II) with replanning resulted in a decrease for bladder V90% by 88% and an increase to rectum V90% by 9% compared to the conventional plan (I). Dose calculation/accumulation was performed in <15ms per MLC aperture, replanning in <15s per beam. Conclusion: We have shown that online inter-beam replanning is technically feasible and potentially allows for a margin reduction. Future investigation considering motion-robust replanning optimization parameters is in progress. We acknowledge support of the MLC research from Elekta AB. This work is supported by Cancer Research UK under Programme C33589/A19908. Research at ICR is also supported by Cancer Research UK under Programme C33589/A19727 and NHS funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at RMH and ICR.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-EF-204-00: AAPM-AMPR (Russia)-SEFM (Spain) Joint Course On Challenges and Advantages of Small Field Radiation Treatment Techniques

Joanna E. Cygler, Jan Seuntjens, J. Daniel Bourland, M. Saiful Huq, Josep Puxeu Vaque, Daniel Zucca Aparicio, Tatiana Krylova, Yuri Kirpichev, Eric Ford, Caridad Borras Stereotactic Radiation Therapy (SRT) utilizes small static and dynamic (IMRT) fields, to successfully treat malignant and benign diseases using techniques such as Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS) and Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT). SRT is characterized by sharp dose gradients for individual fields and their resultant dose distributions. For appropriate targets, small field radiotherapy offers improved treatment quality by allowing better sparing of organs at risk while delivering the prescribed target dose. Specialized small field treatment delivery systems, such as robotic-controlled linear accelerators, gamma radiosurgery units, and dynamic arc linear accelerators may utilize rigid fixation, image guidance, and tumor tracking, to insure precise dose delivery to static or moving targets. However, in addition to great advantages, small field delivery techniques present special technical challenges for dose calibration due to unique geometries and small field sizes not covered by existing reference dosimetry protocols such as AAPM TG-51 or IAEA TRS 398. In recent years extensive research has been performed to understand small field dosimetry and measurement instrumentation. AAPM, IAEA and ICRU task groups are expected to provide soon recommendations on the dosimetry of small radiation fields. In this symposium we will: 1] discuss the physics, instrumentation, methodologies and challenges for small field radiation dose measurements; 2] review IAEA and ICRU recommendations on prescribing, recording and reporting of small field radiation therapy; 3] discuss selected clinical applications and technical aspects for specialized image-guided, small field, linear accelerator based treatment techniques such as IMRT and SBRT. Learning Objectives: To learn the physics of small fields in contrast to dosimetry of conventional fields To learn about detectors suitable for small fields To learn about the role of Monte Carlo simulations in determination of small field output factors To provide an overview of the IAEA small field dosimetry recommendations To provide an overview of the content of the ICRU report on Prescribing, Reporting and Recording of Small Field Radiation Therapy. To learn about special technical considerations in delivering IMRT and SBRT treatments To appreciate specific challenges of IMRT implementation J. Seuntjens, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council; Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-EF-204-01: Introduction

Joanna E. Cygler, Jan Seuntjens, J. Daniel Bourland, M. Saiful Huq, Josep Puxeu Vaque, Daniel Zucca Aparicio, Tatiana Krylova, Yuri Kirpichev, Eric Ford, Caridad Borras Stereotactic Radiation Therapy (SRT) utilizes small static and dynamic (IMRT) fields, to successfully treat malignant and benign diseases using techniques such as Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS) and Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT). SRT is characterized by sharp dose gradients for individual fields and their resultant dose distributions. For appropriate targets, small field radiotherapy offers improved treatment quality by allowing better sparing of organs at risk while delivering the prescribed target dose. Specialized small field treatment delivery systems, such as robotic-controlled linear accelerators, gamma radiosurgery units, and dynamic arc linear accelerators may utilize rigid fixation, image guidance, and tumor tracking, to insure precise dose delivery to static or moving targets. However, in addition to great advantages, small field delivery techniques present special technical challenges for dose calibration due to unique geometries and small field sizes not covered by existing reference dosimetry protocols such as AAPM TG-51 or IAEA TRS 398. In recent years extensive research has been performed to understand small field dosimetry and measurement instrumentation. AAPM, IAEA and ICRU task groups are expected to provide soon recommendations on the dosimetry of small radiation fields. In this symposium we will: 1] discuss the physics, instrumentation, methodologies and challenges for small field radiation dose measurements; 2] review IAEA and ICRU recommendations on prescribing, recording and reporting of small field radiation therapy; 3] discuss selected clinical applications and technical aspects for specialized image-guided, small field, linear accelerator based treatment techniques such as IMRT and SBRT. Learning Objectives: To learn the physics of small fields in contrast to dosimetry of conventional fields To learn about detectors suitable for small fields To learn about the role of Monte Carlo simulations in determination of small field output factors To provide an overview of the IAEA small field dosimetry recommendations To provide an overview of the content of the ICRU report on Prescribing, Reporting and Recording of Small Field Radiation Therapy. To learn about special technical considerations in delivering IMRT and SBRT treatments To appreciate specific challenges of IMRT implementation J. Seuntjens, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council; Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-EF-204-02: Small Field Radiation Therapy: Physics and Recent Recommendations From IAEA and ICRU

Joanna E. Cygler, Jan Seuntjens, J. Daniel Bourland, M. Saiful Huq, Josep Puxeu Vaque, Daniel Zucca Aparicio, Tatiana Krylova, Yuri Kirpichev, Eric Ford, Caridad Borras Stereotactic Radiation Therapy (SRT) utilizes small static and dynamic (IMRT) fields, to successfully treat malignant and benign diseases using techniques such as Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS) and Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT). SRT is characterized by sharp dose gradients for individual fields and their resultant dose distributions. For appropriate targets, small field radiotherapy offers improved treatment quality by allowing better sparing of organs at risk while delivering the prescribed target dose. Specialized small field treatment delivery systems, such as robotic-controlled linear accelerators, gamma radiosurgery units, and dynamic arc linear accelerators may utilize rigid fixation, image guidance, and tumor tracking, to insure precise dose delivery to static or moving targets. However, in addition to great advantages, small field delivery techniques present special technical challenges for dose calibration due to unique geometries and small field sizes not covered by existing reference dosimetry protocols such as AAPM TG-51 or IAEA TRS 398. In recent years extensive research has been performed to understand small field dosimetry and measurement instrumentation. AAPM, IAEA and ICRU task groups are expected to provide soon recommendations on the dosimetry of small radiation fields. In this symposium we will: 1] discuss the physics, instrumentation, methodologies and challenges for small field radiation dose measurements; 2] review IAEA and ICRU recommendations on prescribing, recording and reporting of small field radiation therapy; 3] discuss selected clinical applications and technical aspects for specialized image-guided, small field, linear accelerator based treatment techniques such as IMRT and SBRT. Learning Objectives: To learn the physics of small fields in contrast to dosimetry of conventional fields To learn about detectors suitable for small fields To learn about the role of Monte Carlo simulations in determination of small field output factors To provide an overview of the IAEA small field dosimetry recommendations To provide an overview of the content of the ICRU report on Prescribing, Reporting and Recording of Small Field Radiation Therapy. To learn about special technical considerations in delivering IMRT and SBRT treatments To appreciate specific challenges of IMRT implementation J. Seuntjens, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council; Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-EF-204-03: Determination of Small Field Output Factors, Advantages and Limitations of Monte Carlo Simulation

Joanna E. Cygler, Jan Seuntjens, J. Daniel Bourland, M. Saiful Huq, Josep Puxeu Vaque, Daniel Zucca Aparicio, Tatiana Krylova, Yuri Kirpichev, Eric Ford, Caridad Borras Stereotactic Radiation Therapy (SRT) utilizes small static and dynamic (IMRT) fields, to successfully treat malignant and benign diseases using techniques such as Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS) and Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT). SRT is characterized by sharp dose gradients for individual fields and their resultant dose distributions. For appropriate targets, small field radiotherapy offers improved treatment quality by allowing better sparing of organs at risk while delivering the prescribed target dose. Specialized small field treatment delivery systems, such as robotic-controlled linear accelerators, gamma radiosurgery units, and dynamic arc linear accelerators may utilize rigid fixation, image guidance, and tumor tracking, to insure precise dose delivery to static or moving targets. However, in addition to great advantages, small field delivery techniques present special technical challenges for dose calibration due to unique geometries and small field sizes not covered by existing reference dosimetry protocols such as AAPM TG-51 or IAEA TRS 398. In recent years extensive research has been performed to understand small field dosimetry and measurement instrumentation. AAPM, IAEA and ICRU task groups are expected to provide soon recommendations on the dosimetry of small radiation fields. In this symposium we will: 1] discuss the physics, instrumentation, methodologies and challenges for small field radiation dose measurements; 2] review IAEA and ICRU recommendations on prescribing, recording and reporting of small field radiation therapy; 3] discuss selected clinical applications and technical aspects for specialized image-guided, small field, linear accelerator based treatment techniques such as IMRT and SBRT. Learning Objectives: To learn the physics of small fields in contrast to dosimetry of conventional fields To learn about detectors suitable for small fields To learn about the role of Monte Carlo simulations in determination of small field output factors To provide an overview of the IAEA small field dosimetry recommendations To provide an overview of the content of the ICRU report on Prescribing, Reporting and Recording of Small Field Radiation Therapy. To learn about special technical considerations in delivering IMRT and SBRT treatments To appreciate specific challenges of IMRT implementation J. Seuntjens, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council; Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-EF-204-04: Experience of IMRT and Other Conformal Techniques in Russia

Joanna E. Cygler, Jan Seuntjens, J. Daniel Bourland, M. Saiful Huq, Josep Puxeu Vaque, Daniel Zucca Aparicio, Tatiana Krylova, Yuri Kirpichev, Eric Ford, Caridad Borras Stereotactic Radiation Therapy (SRT) utilizes small static and dynamic (IMRT) fields, to successfully treat malignant and benign diseases using techniques such as Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS) and Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT). SRT is characterized by sharp dose gradients for individual fields and their resultant dose distributions. For appropriate targets, small field radiotherapy offers improved treatment quality by allowing better sparing of organs at risk while delivering the prescribed target dose. Specialized small field treatment delivery systems, such as robotic-controlled linear accelerators, gamma radiosurgery units, and dynamic arc linear accelerators may utilize rigid fixation, image guidance, and tumor tracking, to insure precise dose delivery to static or moving targets. However, in addition to great advantages, small field delivery techniques present special technical challenges for dose calibration due to unique geometries and small field sizes not covered by existing reference dosimetry protocols such as AAPM TG-51 or IAEA TRS 398. In recent years extensive research has been performed to understand small field dosimetry and measurement instrumentation. AAPM, IAEA and ICRU task groups are expected to provide soon recommendations on the dosimetry of small radiation fields. In this symposium we will: 1] discuss the physics, instrumentation, methodologies and challenges for small field radiation dose measurements; 2] review IAEA and ICRU recommendations on prescribing, recording and reporting of small field radiation therapy; 3] discuss selected clinical applications and technical aspects for specialized image-guided, small field, linear accelerator based treatment techniques such as IMRT and SBRT. Learning Objectives: To learn the physics of small fields in contrast to dosimetry of conventional fields To learn about detectors suitable for small fields To learn about the role of Monte Carlo simulations in determination of small field output factors To provide an overview of the IAEA small field dosimetry recommendations To provide an overview of the content of the ICRU report on Prescribing, Reporting and Recording of Small Field Radiation Therapy. To learn about special technical considerations in delivering IMRT and SBRT treatments To appreciate specific challenges of IMRT implementation J. Seuntjens, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council; Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗