Two-dimensional EPID dosimetry for an MR-linac: Proof of concept.

PURPOSE

At our institute, in vivo patient dose distributions are reconstructed for all treatments delivered using conventional linacs from electronic portal imaging device (EPID) transit images acquired during treatment using a simple back-projection model. Currently, the clinical implementation of MRI-guided radiotherapy systems, which aims for online and real-time adaptation of the treatment plan, is progressing. In our department, the MR-linac (Unity, Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden) is now in clinical use. The aim of this work is to demonstrate the feasibility of two-dimensional (2D) EPID dosimetric verification for the magnetic resonance (MR)-linac by comparing back-projected EPID doses to ionization chamber (IC) array dose distributions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Our conventional back-projection algorithm was adapted for the MR-linac. The most important changes involve modeling of the attenuation by and scatter from the cryostat. The commissioning process involved the acquisition of square field EPID measurements using various phantom setups (varying SSD, phantom thickness, and field size). Commissioning models were created for gantry 0°, 90°, and 180° and verified by comparing EPID-reconstructed 2D dose distributions to measurements made with the OCTAVIUS 1500 IC array (PTW, Freiburg, Germany) for two prostate and one rectum IMRT plans (25 beams total). The average of the γ parameters (y-mean and y-pass rate) and the dose difference at a reference point were reported. Due to their construction, the attenuation of couch, bridge, and cryostat shows a much stronger dependence on gantry angle in the MR-linac compared to conventional linacs. We present a method to correct for these effects. This method is validated by dose reconstruction of the 25 intensity-modulated radiation therapy beams recorded at a certain gantry angle using the model of another gantry angle, combined with the correction method.

RESULTS

For dose verification performed at a gantry angle identical to the commissioned model, the average y-mean and y-pass rate values (3% global dose, 2 mm, 10% isodose) were 0.37 ± 0.07 and 98.1, 95% CI [98.1 ± 2.4], respectively. The average dose difference at the reference point was -0.5% ± 1.8%. Verification at gantry angles different from the commissioned model (i.e., using the gantry angle dependent correction) reported 0.39 ± 0.08 and 97.6, 95% CI [96.9, 98.3] average y-mean and y-pass rate values. The average dose difference at the reference point was -0.1% ± 1.8%.

CONCLUSION

The EPID dosimetry back-projection model was successfully adapted for the MR-linac at gantry 0°, 90°, and 180°, accounting for the presence of the MRI housing between phantom (or patient) and the EPID. A method to account for the gantry angle dependence was also tested reporting similar results.