Ion chamber and film-based quality assurance of mixed electron-photon radiation therapy

Abstract

Purpose: In previous work, we demonstrated that mixed electron-photon radiation therapy (MBRT) produces treatment plans with improved normal tissue sparing and similar target coverage, when compared to photon-only plans. The purpose of this work was to validate the MBRT delivery process on a Varian TrueBeam accelerator and laying the groundwork for a patient-specific quality assurance (QA) protocol based on ion chamber point measurements and 2D film measurements.

Methods: MC beam models used to calculate the MBRT dose distributions of each modality (photons/electrons) were validated with a single-angle beam MBRT treatment plan delivered on a slab of Solid Water phantom with a film positioned at a depth of 2 cm. The measured film absorbed dose was compared to the calculated dose. To validate clinical deliveries, a polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) cylinder was machined and holes were made to fit an ionization chamber. A complex MBRT plan involving a photon arc and three electron delivery angles was created with the aim of reproducing a clinically realistic dose distribution in typical soft tissue sarcoma tumours of the extremities. The treatment plan was delivered on the PMMA cylinder. Point measurements were taken with an Exradin A1SL chamber at two nominal depths: 1.4 cm and 2.1 cm. The plan was also delivered on a second identical phantom with an insert at 2 cm depth, where a film was placed. An existing EGSnrc user-code, SPRRZnrc, was modified to calculate the stopping power ratios between any materials in the same voxelized geometry used for dose calculation purposes. This modified code, called SPRXYZnrc, was used to calculate a correction factor, $k_{\mathrm{MBRT}}$ , accounting for the differences in electron fluence spectrum at the measurement point compared to that at reference conditions. The uncertainty associated with neglecting potential ionization chamber fluence perturbation correction factors using this approach was estimated.

Results: The film measurement from the Solid Water phantom treatment plan was in good agreement with the simulated dose distribution, with a gamma pass rate of 96.1% for a 3%/2 mm criteria. For the PMMA phantom delivery, for the same gamma criteria, the pass rate was 97.3%. The ion chamber measurements of the total delivered dose agreed with the MC-simulated dose within 2.1%. The beam quality correction factors amounted to, at most, a 4% correction on the ion chamber measurement. However, individual contribution of low electron energies proved difficult to precisely measure due to their steep dose gradients, with disagreements of up to 28% ± 15% at 2.1 cm depth (6 MeV). Ion chamber measurement procedure of electron beams was achieved in less than 5 min, and the entire validation process including phantom setup was performed in less than 30 min.

Conclusion: The agreement between measured and simulated MBRT doses indicates that the dose distributions obtained from the MBRT treatment planning algorithm are realistically achievable. The SPRXYZnrc MC code allowed for convenient calculations of $k_{\mathrm{MBRT}}$ simultaneously with the dose distributions, laying the groundwork for patient-specific QA protocol practical for clinical use. Further investigation is needed to establish the accuracy of our ionization chamber correction factors $k_{\mathrm{MBRT}}$ calculations at low electron energies.