Four methodologies were evaluated for quantifying kilovoltage cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) dose: the Cone‐Beam Dose Index (CBDI), IAEA Report 5 recommended methodology (IAEA), the AAPM Task Group 111 methodology (TG111), and the current dose metric; the Computed Tomography Dose Index (CTDI) on two commercial Varian cone‐beam CT imaging systems; the Clinac iX On‐Board Imager (OBI); and the TrueBeam X‐ray Imaging system (XI). The TG111 methodology measured the highest overall dose (21.199 ± 0.035 mGy OBI and 22.420 ± 0.002 XI for pelvis imaging) due to the full scatter of the TG111 phantom and was within 5% of CTDI measurements taken using a full scatter TG111 phantom and 30‐cm film strips. CBDI measured the second highest overall dose, within 10% of the TG111, with IAEA measuring the third highest dose. For head CBCT protocols, CBDI measured the highest dose, followed by IAEA. The CTDI method measured lowest across all scan modes highlighting its limitations for CBCT dosimetry. The XI imaging system delivered lower doses for head and thorax scan modes and similar doses to the OBI system for pelvis scan modes due to additional beam hardening filtration in the XI system. The TG111 method measured the highest dose in the center of a CBCT scan during image guidance procedures; however, CBDI provided a good approximation to TG111 with existing CTDI equipment and may be more applicable clinically.

To report toxicity and early survival data for IDEAL-CRT, a trial of dose-escalated concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for non-small cell lung cancer. Patients received tumor doses of 63 to 73 Gy in 30 once-daily fractions over 6 weeks with 2 concurrent cycles of cisplatin and vinorelbine. They were assigned to 1 of 2 groups according to esophageal dose. In group 1, tumor doses were determined by an experimental constraint on maximum esophageal dose, which was escalated following a 6 + 6 design from 65 Gy through 68 Gy to 71 Gy, allowing an esophageal maximum tolerated dose to be determined from early and late toxicities. Tumor doses for group 2 patients were determined by other tissue constraints, often lung. Overall survival, progression-free survival, tumor response, and toxicity were evaluated for both groups combined. Eight centers recruited 84 patients: 13, 12, and 10, respectively, in the 65-Gy, 68-Gy, and 71-Gy cohorts of group 1; and 49 in group 2. The mean prescribed tumor dose was 67.7 Gy. Five grade 3 esophagitis and 3 grade 3 pneumonitis events were observed across both groups. After 1 fatal esophageal perforation in the 71-Gy cohort, 68 Gy was declared the esophageal maximum tolerated dose. With a median follow-up of 35 months, median overall survival was 36.9 months, and overall survival and progression-free survival were 87.8% and 72.0%, respectively, at 1 year and 68.0% and 48.5% at 2 years. IDEAL-CRT achieved significant treatment intensification with acceptable toxicity and promising survival. The isotoxic design allowed the esophageal maximum tolerated dose to be identified from relatively few patients.

Purpose: The PTW microDiamond has an enhanced spatial resolution when operated in an edge‐on orientation but is not typically utilized in this orientation due to the specifications of the IAEA TRS‐483 code of practice for small field dosimetry. In this work the suitability of an edge‐on orientation and advantages over the recommended face‐on orientation will be presented.Methods: The PTW microDiamond in both orientations was compared on a Varian TrueBeam linac for: machine output factor (OF), percentage depth dose (PDD), and beam profile measurements from 10 × 10 cm² to a 0.5 × 0.5 cm² field size for 6X and 6FFF beam energies in a water tank. A quantification of the stem effect was performed in edge‐on orientation along with tissue to phantom ratio (TPR) measurements. An extensive angular dependence study for the two orientations was also undertaken within two custom PMMA plastic cylindrical phantoms.Results: The OF of the PTW microDiamond in both orientations agrees within 1% down to the 2 × 2 cm² field size. The edge‐on orientation overresponds in the build‐up region but provides improved penumbra and has a maximum observed stem effect of 1%. In the edge‐on orientation there is an angular independent response with a maximum of 2% variation down to a 2 × 2 cm² field. The PTW microDiamond in edge‐on orientation for TPR measurements agreed to the CC01 ionization chamber within 1% for all field sizes.Conclusions: The microDiamond was shown to be suitable for small field dosimetry when operated in edge‐on orientation. When edge‐on, a significantly reduced angular dependence is observed with no significant stem effect, making it a more versatile QA instrument for rotational delivery techniques.