Dose perturbations at tissue interfaces during parallel linac‐MR treatments: The “Lateral Scatter Electron Return Effect” (LS‐ERE)

Abstract Background Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging devices have been integrated with medical linear accelerators (linac) in radiation therapy. Both perpendicular linac‐MR (LMR‐B⊥) and parallel (LMR‐B∥) systems exist, where due to the MR's magnetic field dose can be perturbed in the patient. Dose perturbations from the electron return effect (ERE) and electron streaming effects (ESEs) are present in LMR‐B⊥ systems, where a dose collimating effect has been observed in LMR‐B∥ systems . Purpose To report on an asymmetric dose perturbation which is present at the interface between two different materials during treatment in parallel linac‐MR (LMR‐B∥) systems. To the best of our knowledge, these asymmetric dose effects, “Lateral Scattered Electron Return Effect” (LS‐ERE) have not been previously reported. Methods BEAMnrc and EGSnrc Monte Carlo (MC) radiation transport codes were used with the EEMF macro to emulate a 6 FFF beam from the 0.5‐T Alberta linac‐MR (LMR). Simulations were performed at 0.5 and 1.5 T in several different phantom material–interface combinations and field sizes including from modulated MLC‐like fields. MC simulations quantified LS‐ERE in patient CT datasets for the head, breast, and lung. LS‐ERE cancellation techniques were investigated. LS‐ERE asymmetries were quantified by subtracting an antiparallel dose from the parallel dose, dividing by two and normalizing to the global 0‐T maximum dose. GafChromic film measurements were made in the 0.5‐T Alberta LMR‐B∥ system using solid water at the water–air interface to validate MC simulations. ERE was simulated for an emulated LMR‐B⊥ system and compared to LMR‐B∥ dose perturbations. Results LS‐ERE is mostly independent of field size for fields >1 × 1 cm 2 . For 5 × 5‐cm 2 fields at 0.5T/1.5T, LS‐ERE asymmetries are ≤±6.9%/6.9% at bone–air and ≤±9.0%/7.0% at tissue–air for nonair doses, and ≤±4.1%/5.5% at tissue–lung interfaces. LS‐ERE increases as the density gradient increases, where the magnitude and extent of LS‐ERE are reduced as field strength increases. For a single 5 × 5‐cm 2 field at 0.5T/1.5T, the LS‐ERE asymmetry is ≤±10.2%/8.5% at the tissue–air sinus interface for head, ≤±4.2%/5.3% at the spine–lung interface for the lung, and ≤±5.7%/4.9% at the skin–air interface for a breast tangent plan at 0.5T/1.5T. POP fields mostly remove LS‐ERE asymmetries, with magnetic field reversal during treatment being the most effective method. Skin dose was investigated and compared to 0‐T treatments for 0.5T/1.5T LMR‐B∥ single field breast and head treatments. Including all dosimetric magnetic field perturbations, a 21%/24% and 22%/22% increase in skin dose to head and breast, respectively, was observed, of which LS‐ERE is responsible for approximately 30% of the total. Measured LS‐ERE asymmetries and dose enhancements at the water–air interface using GafChromic film were in excellent agreement with MC simulations. ERE in 1.5‐T LMR‐B⊥ systems are on average 5.5 times larger than total dose perturbations at 0.5 T in LMR‐B∥ systems. Conclusion LS‐ERE is present at the interface between materials and awareness of LS‐ERE is crucial for proper TPS evaluation for LMR‐B∥ treatments, especially in areas where large tissue density gradients exist.