Quantifying uncertainties associated with reference dosimetry in an MR‐Linac
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Magnetic resonance (MR)‐guided radiation therapy provides capabilities to utilize high‐resolution and real‐time MR imaging before and during treatment, which is critical for adaptive radiotherapy. This emerging modality has been promptly adopted in the clinic settings in advance of adaptations to reference dosimetry formalism that are needed to account for the presence of strong magnetic fields. In particular, the influence of magnetic field on the uncertainty of parameters in the reference dosimetry equation needs to be determined in order to fully characterize the uncertainty budget for reference dosimetry in MR‐guided radiation therapy systems. Purpose To identify and quantify key sources of uncertainty in the reference dosimetry of external high energy radiotherapy beams in the presence of a strong magnetic field. Methods In the absence of a formalized Task Group report for reference dosimetry in MR‐integrated linacs, the currently suggested formalism follows the TG‐51 protocol with the addition of a quality conversion factor k BQ accounting for the effects of the magnetic field on ionization chamber response. In this work, we quantify various sources of uncertainty that impact each of the parameters in the formalism, and evaluate their overall contribution to the final dose. Measurements are done in a 1.5 T MR‐Linac (Unity, Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden) which integrates a 1.5 T Philips MR scanner and a 7 MVFFF linac. The responses of several reference‐class small volume ionization chambers (Exradin:A1SL, IBA:CC13, PTW:Semiflex‐3D) and Farmer type ionization chambers (Exradin:A19, IBA:FC65‐G) were evaluated throughout this process. Long‐term reproducibility and stability of beam quality, , was also measured with an in‐house built phantom. Results Relative to the conventional external high energy linacs, the uncertainty on overall reference dose in MR‐linac is more significantly affected by the chamber setup: A translational displacement along y ‐axis of ± 3 mm results in dose variation of < |0.20| ± 0.02% (k = 1), while rotation of ± 5° in horizontal and vertical parallel planes relative to relative to the direction of magnetic field, did not exceed variation of < |0.44| ± 0.02% for all 5 ionization chambers. We measured a larger dose variation for xy ‐plane (horizontal) rotations (< |0.44| ± 0.02% (k = 1)) than for yz ‐plane (vertical) rotations (< ||0.28| ± 0.02% (k = 1)), which we associate with the gradient of k B,Q as a function of chamber orientation with respect to direction of the B 0 ‐field. Uncertainty in P ion (for two depths), P pol (with various sub‐studies including effects of cable length, cable looping in the MRgRT bore, connector type in magnetic environment), and P rp were determined. Combined conversion factor k Q × k B,Q was provided for two reference depths at four cardinal angle orientations. Over a two‐year period, beam quality was quite stable with being 0.669 ± 0.01%. The actual magnitude of was measured using identical equipment and compared between two different Elekta Unity MR‐Linacs with results agreeing to within 0.21%. Conclusion In this work, the uncertainty of a number of parameters influencing reference dosimetry was quantified. The results of this work can be used to identify best practice guidelines for reference dosimetry in the presence of magnetic fields, and to evaluate an uncertainty budget for future reference dosimetry protocols for MR‐linac.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".