Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The assessment of the clinical impact of using a single set of radiotherapy planning data for two kilovoltage therapy units

  • Scientific Paper
  • Published:
Physical and Engineering Sciences in Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Kilovoltage therapy units are used for superficial radiotherapy treatment delivery. Peer reviewed studies for MV linear accelerators describe tolerances to dosimetrically match multiple linear accelerators enabling patient treatment on any matched machine. There is an absence of literature on using a single planning data set for multiple kilovoltage units which have limited ability for beam adjustment. This study reviewed kilovoltage dosimetry and treatment planning scenarios to evaluate the feasibility of using ACPSEM annual QA tolerances to determine whether two units (of the same make and model) were dosimetrically matched. The dosimetric characteristics, such as measured half value layer (HVL), percentage depth dose (PDD), applicator factor and output variation with stand-off distance for each kV unit were compared to assess the agreement. Independent planning data based on the measured HVL for each beam energy from each kV unit was prepared. Monitor unit (MU) calculations were performed using both sets of planning data for approximately 200 clinical scenarios and compared with an overall agreement between units of < 2%. Additionally, a dosimetry measurement comparison was completed at each site for a subset of nine scenarios. All machine characterisation measurements were within the ACPSEM Annual QA tolerances, and dosimetric testing was within 2.5%. This work demonstrates that using a single set of planning data for two kilovoltage units is feasible, resulting in a clinical impact within published uncertainty.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, IP, upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Bridge P, Dempsey S, Giles E, Maresse S, Mccorkell G, Opie C, Wright C, Carmichael MA (2015) Practice patterns of radiation therapy technology in Australia: results of a national audit. J Med Radiat Sci 62:253–260. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.127

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Hill R, Eaton D, Baldock C (2021) Kilovoltage therapy is well and truly alive and needed in a modern radiotherapy centre. Phys Eng Sci Med 44:341–345

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Xstrahl (2020) Xstrahl 200 operator manual. https://xstrahl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/200-operator-manual.pdf. Accessed 4 Apr 2022

  4. Hill R, Healy B, Butler D, Odgers D, Gill S, Lye J, Gorjiara T, Pope D, Hill B (2018) Australasian recommendations for quality assurance in kilovoltage radiation therapy from the Kilovoltage Dosimetry Working Group of the Australasian College of Physical Scientists and Engineers in Medicine. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 41:781–808. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-018-0692-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ma CM, Coffey CW, DeWerd LA, Liu C, Nath R, Seltzer SM, Seuntjens JP (2001) AAPM protocol for 40–300 kV X-ray beam dosimetry in radiotherapy and radiobiology. Med Phys 28:868–893. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1374247

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rosser KE (1996) The IPEMB code of practice for the determination of absorbed dose for X-rays below 300 kV generating potential (0.035 mm Al-4 mm Cu HVL; 10–300 kV generating potential)

  7. International Atomic Energy Agency (2006) Absorbed dose determination in external beam radiotherapy, Technical Reports Series No. 398. Vienna

  8. Furstoss C (2018) COMP report: CPQR technical quality control guidelines for kilovoltage X ray radiotherapy machines. J Appl Clin Med Phys 19:18–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nikandrovs M, McClean B, Shields L, McCavana P, Vintró L (2023) Clinical treatment planning for kilovoltage radiotherapy using EGSnrc and Python. J Appl Clin Med Phys 24:e13832. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13832

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mayles P, Nahum A, Rosenwald JC (2007) Handbook of radiotherapy physics: theory and practice, 1st edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Attalla EM, Abou-Elenein H, Ammar H, Eldesoky I (2014) Dosimetric evaluation of a beam matching procedure. Chin-German J Clin Oncol 13:89–93

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ghazal M, Södergren L, Westermark M, Söderström J, Pommer T (2020) Dosimetric and mechanical equivalency of Varian TrueBeam linear accelerators. J Appl Clin Med Phys 21:43–53

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Gagneur JD, Ezzell GA (2014) An improvement in IMRT QA results and beam matching in linacs using statistical process control. J Appl Clin Med Phys 15:4927. https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v15i5.4927

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sjöström D, Bjelkengren U, Ottosson W, Behrens CF (2009) A beam-matching concept for medical linear accelerators. Acta Oncol 48:192–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/02841860802258794

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Krishnappan C, Radha CA, Balaji K, Mani PK, Subramani V, Thanigaimalai V, Gunasekaran MK, Ramasubramanian V (2018) Evaluation of beam matching accuracy among six linacs from the same vendor. Radiol Phys Technol 11:423–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-018-0480-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Van DJ (2013) The Modern Technology of Radiation Oncology, 3rd edn. Medical Physics Publishing, Madision

    Google Scholar 

  17. Aspradakis MM, Zucchetti P (2015) Acceptance, commissioning and clinical use of the WOmed T-200 kilovoltage X-ray therapy unit. Br J Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20150001

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Gräfe J, Poirier Y, Jacso F, Khan R, Liu HW, Villarreal-Barajas JE (2014) Assessing the deviation from the inverse square law for orthovoltage beams with closed-ended applicators. J Appl Clin Med Phys 15:356–366. https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v15i4.4893

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. I. Peters, A. Gray, V. Nelson (2021) Dosimetric impact of absorber purity in the measurement of half value layer (HVL) for kilovoltage radiotherapy. In: EPSM conference abstract and presentation 2021

  20. Khan F (2003) The Physics of Radiation Therapy, 4th edn. Lippincott Williams & Wikins, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hill R, Holloway L, Baldock C (2005) A dosimetric evaluation of water equivalent phantoms for kilovoltage X-ray beams. Phys Med Biol. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/50/21/N06

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Dowdell S, Tyler M, McNamara J, Sloan K, Ceylan A, Rinks A (2016) Potential errors in relative dose measurements in kilovoltage photon beams due to polarity effects in plane-parallel ionisation chambers. Phys Med Biol 61:8395–8407. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/61/23/8395

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Damodar J, Odgers D, Pope D, Hill R (2018) A study on the suitability of the PTW microDiamond detector for kilovoltage X-ray beam dosimetry. Appl Radiat Isot 135:104–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apradiso.2018.01.025

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. British Journal of Radiology (1996) Supplement 25—central axis depth dose data for use in radiotherapy. London

  25. Nelson VK, Hill RF (2011) Backscatter factor measurements for kilovoltage X-ray beams using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). Radiat Meas 46:2097–2099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radmeas.2011.08.019

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Mayles WPM, Lake R, McKenzie A, Macaulay EM, Morgan HM, Jordan TJ, Powley SK (1999) Physics aspects of quality control in radiotherapy, 2nd edn. Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, New York

    Google Scholar 

  27. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (1976) Determination of absorbed dose in a patient irradiated by beams of X or gamma rays in radiotherapy procedures, Report 24. Bethesda

  28. Palmer AL, Pearson M, Whittard P, McHugh KE, Eaton DJ (2016) Current status of kilovoltage (kV) radiotherapy in the UK: installed equipment, clinical workload, physics quality control and radiation dosimetry. Br J Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20160641

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We want to thank Kamlesh Gupta, who assisted with data collection, and Sarah Paine at Liverpool Cancer Therapy Centre for providing advice on clinical kilovoltage planning protocol.

Funding

The authors have not disclosed any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. South Western Sydney Local Health District, Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Iliana Peters, Vinod Nelson, Shrikant Deshpande, Amy Walker, Joshua Hiatt, Dale Roach, Tania Erven, Satya Rajapakse & Alison Gray

  2. Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, NSW, Australia

    Shrikant Deshpande, Amy Walker & Alison Gray

  3. South West Sydney Clinical School, School of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Shrikant Deshpande, Amy Walker & Alison Gray

  4. Centre for Medical Radiation Physics, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia

    Amy Walker

Authors
  1. Iliana Peters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vinod Nelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shrikant Deshpande
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Amy Walker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Joshua Hiatt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Dale Roach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Tania Erven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Satya Rajapakse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Alison Gray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Iliana Peters.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Research involving human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Peters, I., Nelson, V., Deshpande, S. et al. The assessment of the clinical impact of using a single set of radiotherapy planning data for two kilovoltage therapy units. Phys Eng Sci Med 47, 49–59 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-023-01339-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-023-01339-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation