Normal tissue doses from MV image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) using orthogonal MV and MV-CBCT.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to measure and compare the mega-voltage imaging dose from the Halcyon medical linear accelerator (Varian Medical Systems) with measured imaging doses with the dose calculated by Eclipse treatment planning system.

METHODS: An anthropomorphic thorax phantom was imaged using all imaging techniques available with the Halcyon linac - MV cone-beam computed tomography (MV-CBCT) and orthogonal anterior-posterior/lateral pairs (MV-MV), both with high-quality and low-dose modes. In total, 54 imaging technique, isocenter position, and field size combinations were evaluated. The imaging doses delivered to 11 points in the phantom (in-target and extra-target) were measured using an ion chamber, and compared with the imaging doses calculated using Eclipse.

RESULTS: For high-quality MV-MV mode, the mean extra-target doses delivered to the heart, left lung, right lung and spine were 1.18, 1.64, 0.80, and 1.11 cGy per fraction, respectively. The corresponding mean in-target doses were 3.36, 3.72, 2.61, and 2.69 cGy per fraction, respectively. For MV-MV technique, the extra-target imaging dose had greater variation and dependency on imaging field size than did the in-target dose. Compared to MV-MV technique, the imaging dose from MV-CBCT was less sensitive to the location of the organ relative to the treatment field. For high-quality MV-CBCT mode, the mean imaging doses to the heart, left lung, right lung, and spine were 8.45, 7.16, 7.19, and 6.51 cGy per fraction, respectively. For both MV-MV and MV-CBCT techniques, the low-dose mode resulted in an imaging dose about half of that in high-quality mode.

CONCLUSION: The in-target doses due to MV imaging using the Halcyon ranged from 0.59 to 9.75 cGy, depending on the choice of imaging technique. Extra-target doses from MV-MV technique ranged from 0 to 2.54 cGy. The MV imaging dose was accurately calculated by Eclipse, with maximum differences less than 0.5% of a typical treatment dose (assuming a 60 Gy prescription). Therefore, the cumulative imaging and treatment plan dose distribution can be expected to accurately reflect the actual dose.