Commissioning and clinical implementation of Mobius3D and MobiusFX: Experience on multiple linear accelerators

PurposeTo provide practical guidelines for Mobius3D commissioning based on experiences of commissioning/clinical implementation of Mobius3D and MobiusFX as patient-specific quality assurance tools on multiple linear accelerators.MethodsThe vendor-suggested Mobius3D commissioning procedures, including beam model adjustment and dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) optimization, were performed for 6 MV X-ray beams of six Elekta linear accelerators. For the beam model adjustment, beam data, such as the percentage depth dose, off-axis ratio (OAR), and output factor (OF), were measured using a water phantom and compared to the vendor-provided reference values. DLG optimization was performed to determine an optimal DLG correction factor to minimize the mean difference between Mobius3D-calculated and measured doses for multiple volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans. Small-field VMAT plans, in which Mobius3D has dose calculate uncertainties, were initially included in the DLG optimization, but excluded later.ResultsThe measured beam data were consistent across the six linear accelerators. Relatively large differences between the reference and measured values were observed for the OAR at large off-axis distances (>5 cm) and for the OF for small fields (<3 × 3 cm²). The optimal DLG correction factor was 0.6 ± 0.3 (range: 0.3–1.0) with small-field plans and 0.2 ± 0.2 (0.0–0.5) without them.ConclusionsA reasonable agreement was found between the vendor-provided reference and measured beam models. DLG optimization results were dependent on the selection of the VMAT plans, requiring careful attention to the known dose calculation uncertainties of Mobius3D when determining a DLG correction factor.     

Comparison of multi-institutional pre-treatment verification for VMAT of nasopharynx with delivery errors

PurposeMeasurement-based pre-treatment verification with phantoms frequently uses gamma analysis to assess acceptable delivery accuracy. This study evaluates the sensitivity of a commercial system to simulated machine errors for three different institutions’ Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) planning approaches.MethodsVMAT plans were generated for ten patients at three institutions using each institution’s own protocol (manually-planned at institution 1; auto-planned at institutions 2 and 3). Errors in Multi-Leaf Collimator (MLC) field size (FS), MLC shift (S), and collimator angle (C) of −5, −2, −1, 1, 2 and 5 mm or degrees were introduced.Dose metric constraints discriminated which error magnitudes were considered unacceptable. The smallest magnitude error treatment plans deemed clinically unacceptable (typically for a 5% dose change) were delivered to the ArcCHECK for all institutions, and with a high-dose point ion chamber measurement in 2 institutions. Error detection for different gamma analysis criteria was compared.ResultsNot all deliberately introduced VMAT plan errors were detected using a typical 3D 3%/3 mm global gamma pass rate of 95%. Considering all institutions, gamma analysis was least sensitive to negative FS errors. The most sensitive was a 2%/2 mm global analysis for institution 1, whilst for institution 2 it was 3%/3 mm global analysis. The majority of errors (58/59 for institution 1, 54/60 for institution 3) were detected using ArcCHECK and ion chamber measurements combined.ConclusionsNot all clinically unacceptable errors are detected. Combining ion chamber measurements with gamma analysis improved sensitivity and is recommended. Optimum gamma settings varied across institutions.     

Gamma-index method sensitivity for gauging plan delivery accuracy of volumetric modulated arc therapy

PurposeThe aim of this study was to investigate the sensitivity of the gamma-index method according to various gamma criteria for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT).MethodsTwenty head and neck (HN) and twenty prostate VMAT plans were retrospectively selected for this study. Both global and local 2D gamma evaluations were performed with criteria of 3%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm, 1%/2 mm and 2%/1 mm. In this study, the global and local gamma-index calculated the differences in doses relative to the maximum dose and the dose at the current measurement point, respectively. Using log files acquired during delivery, the differences in parameters at every control point between the VMAT plans and the log files were acquired. The differences in dose–volumetric parameters between reconstructed VMAT plans using the log files and the original VMAT plans were calculated. The Spearman's rank correlation coefficients (r_s) were calculated between the passing rates and those differences.ResultsConsiderable correlations with statistical significances were observed between global 1%/2 mm, local 1%/2 mm and local 2%/1 mm and the MLC position differences (r_s = −0.712, −0.628 and −0.581). The numbers of r_s values with statistical significance between the passing rates and the changes in dose–volumetric parameters were largest in global 2%/2 mm (n = 16), global 2%/1 mm (n = 15) and local 2%/1 mm (n = 13) criteria.ConclusionLocal gamma-index method with 2%/1 mm generally showed higher sensitivity to detect deviations between a VMAT plan and the delivery of the VMAT plan.     

An investigation of the IQM signal variation and error detection sensitivity for patient specific pre-treatment QA

PurposeTo evaluate the Integral Quality Monitor (IQM) as a clinical dosimetry device for detecting photon beam delivery errors in clinically relevant conditions.Materials and methodsThe IQM’s ability to detect delivery errors introduced into clinical VMAT plans for two different treatment sites was assessed. This included measuring 103 nasopharynx VMAT plans and 78 lung SBRT VMAT plans with introduced errors in gantry angle (1–5°) and in MLC-defined field size and field shift (1–5 mm). The IQM sensitivity was compared to ArcCheck detector performance. Signal dependence on field position for on-axis and asymmetrically offset square field sizes from 1 × 1 cm² to 30 × 30 cm² was also investigated.ResultsThe IQM detected almost all introduced clinically-significant MLC field size errors, but not some small gantry angle errors or most MLC field shift errors. The IQM sensitivity was comparable to the ArcCheck for lung SBRT, but worse for the nasopharynx plans. Differences between IQM calculated/predicted and measured signals were within ± 2% for all on-axis square fields, but up to 60% for the smallest asymmetrically offset fields at large offsets.Conclusion The IQM performance was consistent and reproducible. It showed highest sensitivity to the field size errors for these plans, but did not detect some clinically-significant introduced gantry angle errors or most MLC field shift errors. The IQM calculation model is still being developed, which should improve small offset-field performance. Care is required in IQM use for plan verification or online monitoring, especially for small fields that are off-axis in the detector gradient direction.     

Multi-institutional evaluation using the end-to-end test for implementation of dynamic techniques of radiation therapy in Thailand

AimIn this study, an accuracy survey of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric arc radiation therapy (VMAT) implementation in radiotherapy centers in Thailand was conducted.BackgroundIt is well recognized that there is a need for radiotherapy centers to evaluate the accuracy levels of their current practices, and use the related information to identify opportunities for future development.Materials and methodsAn end-to-end test using a CIRS thorax phantom was carried out at 8 participating centers. Based on each center's protocol for simulation and planning, linac-based IMRT or VMAT plans were generated following the IAEA (CRP E24017) guidelines. Point doses in the region of PTVs and OARs were obtained from 5 ionization chamber readings and the dose distribution from the radiochromic films. The global gamma indices of the measurement doses and the treatment planning system calculation doses were compared.ResultsThe large majority of the RT centers (6/8) fulfilled the dosimetric goals, with the measured and calculated doses at the specification points agreeing within ±3% for PTV and ±5% for OARS. At 2 centers, TPS underestimated the lung doses by about 6% and spinal cord doses by 8%. The mean percentage gamma pass rates for the 8 centers were 98.29 ± 0.67% (for the 3%/3 mm criterion) and 96.72 ± 0.84% (for the 2%/2 mm criterion).ConclusionsThe 8 participating RT centers achieved a satisfactory quality level of IMRT/VMAT clinical implementation.     

Multi-institutional comparison of simulated treatment delivery errors in ssIMRT,manually planned VMAT and autoplan-VMAT plans for nasopharyngeal radiotherapy

PurposeTo quantify the impact of simulated errors for nasopharynx radiotherapy across multiple institutions and planning techniques (auto-plan generated Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (ap-VMAT), manually planned VMAT (mp-VMAT) and manually planned step and shoot Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (mp-ssIMRT)).MethodsTen patients were retrospectively planned with VMAT according to three institution’s protocols. Within one institution two further treatment plans were generated using differing treatment planning techniques. This resulted in mp-ssIMRT, mp-VMAT, and ap-VMAT plans. Introduced treatment errors included Multi Leaf Collimator (MLC) shifts, MLC field size (MLCfs), gantry and collimator errors. A change of more than 5% in most selected dose metrics was considered to have potential clinical impact. The original patient plan total Monitor Units (MUs) were correlated to the total number of dose metrics exceeded.ResultsThe impact of different errors was consistent, with ap-VMAT plans (two institutions) showing larger dose deviations than mp-VMAT created plans (one institution). Across all institutions’ VMAT plans the significant errors included; ±5° for the collimator angle, ±5 mm for the MLC shift and +1, ±2 and ±5 mm for the MLC field size. The total number of dose metrics exceeding tolerance was positively correlated to the VMAT total plan MUs (r = 0.51, p < 0.001), across all institutions and techniques.ConclusionsDifferences in VMAT robustness to simulated errors across institutions occurred due to planning method differences. Whilst ap-VMAT was most sensitive to MLC errors, it also produced the best quality treatment plans. Mp-ssIMRT was most robust to errors. Higher VMAT treatment plan complexity led to less robust plans.     

Influence of multi-leaf collimator leaf width in radiosurgery via volumetric modulated arc therapy and 3D dynamic conformal arc therapy

PurposeTo study the influence of Multileaf Collimator (MLC) leaf width in radiosurgery treatment planning for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) and 3D Dynamic Conformal Arc Therapy (3D-DCA).Material and methods16 patients with solitary brain metastases treated with radiosurgery via the non-coplanar VMAT were replanned for the 3D-DCA. For each planning technique two MLC leaf width sizes were utilized, i.e. 5 mm and 2.5 mm. These treatment plans were compared using dosimetric indices (conformity, gradient and mean dose for brain tissue) and the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP).ResultsAn improvement in planning quality for VMAT was observed versus 3D-DCA for any MLC leaf width, mainly with regards to dose conformity and to a lesser extent regards dose gradient. No significant difference was observed for any of both techniques using smaller leaf width. However, dose gradient was improved in favor of the 2.5 mm MLC for either of both techniques (15% VMAT and 10% 3D-DCA); being noticeable for lesions smaller than 10 cm³. Nonetheless, the NTCP index was not significantly affected by variations in the dose gradient index.ConclusionsThis, our present study, suggests that the use of an MLC leaf width of 2.5 mm via the noncoplanar VMAT and 3D-DCA techniques provides improvement in terms of dose gradient for small volumes, over those results obtained with an MLC leaf width of 5 mm. The 3D-DCA does also benefit from MLC leaf widths of a smaller size, mainly in terms of conformity.     

Delta4 Discover transmission detector: A comprehensive characterization for in-vivo VMAT monitoring

ObjectiveTo investigate the dosimetric behaviour, influence on photon beam fluence and error detection capability of Delta⁴ Discover transmission detector.MethodsThe transmission detector (TRD) was characterized on a TrueBeam linear accelerator with 6 MV beams. Linearity, reproducibility and dose rate dependence were investigated. The effect on photon beam fluence was evaluated in terms of beam profiles, percentage depth dose, transmission factor and surface dose for different open field sizes. The transmission factor of the 10x10 cm² field was entered in the TPS’s configuration and its correct use in the dose calculation was verified recalculating 17 clinical IMRT/VMAT plans. Surface dose was measured for 20 IMRT fields. The capability to detect different delivery errors was investigated evaluating dose gamma index, MLC gamma index and leaf position of 15 manually modified VMAT plans.ResultsTRD showed a linear dependence on MU. No dose rate dependence was observed. Short-term and long-term reproducibility were within 0.1% and 0.5%. The presence of the TRD did not significantly affect PDDs and profiles. The transmission factor of the 10x10 cm² field size was 0.985 and 0.983, for FF and FFF beams respectively. The 17 recalculated plans met our clinical gamma-index passing rate, confirming the correct use of the transmission factor by the TPS. The surface dose differences for the open fields increase for shorter SSDs and greater field size. Differences in surface dose for the IMRT beams were less than 2%. Output variation ≥2%, collimator angle variations within 0.3°, gantry angle errors of 1°, jaw tracking and leaf position errors were detected.ConclusionsDelta⁴ Discover shows good linearity and reproducibility, is not dependent on dose rate and does not affect beam quality and dose profiles. It is also capable to detect dosimetric and geometric errors and therefore it is suitable for monitoring VMAT delivery.     

Gamma index comparison of three VMAT QA systems and evaluation of their sensitivity to delivery errors

PurposeTo compare detectors for dosimetric verification before VMAT treatments and evaluate their sensitivity to errors.Methods and materialsMeasurements using three detectors (ArcCheck, 2d array 729 and EPID) were used to validate the dosimetric accuracy of the VMAT delivery. Firstly, performance of the three devices was studied. Secondly, to assess the reliability of the detectors, 59 VMAT treatment plans from a variety of clinical sites were considered. Thirdly, systematic variations in collimator, couch and gantry angle plus MLC positioning were applied to four clinical treatments (two prostate, two head and neck cases) in order to establish the detection sensitivity of the three devices. Measurements were compared with TPS computed doses via gamma analysis (3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm) with an agreement of at least 95% and 90% respectively in all pixels. Effect of the errors on the dose distributions was analyzed.ResultsRepeatability and reproducibility were excellent for the three devices. The average pass rate for the 59 cases was superior to 98% for all devices with 3%/3 mm criteria. It was found that for the plans delivered with errors, the sensitivity was quite similar for all devices. Devices were able to detect a 2 mm opened or closed MLC error with 3%/3 mm tolerance level. An error of 3° in collimator, gantry or couch rotation was detected by the three devices using 2%/2 mm criteria.ConclusionsAll three devices have the potential to detect errors with more or less the same threshold. Nevertheless, there is no guarantee that pretreatment QA will catch delivery errors.     

Simplification of head and neck volumetric modulated arc therapy patient-specific quality assurance,using a Delta4 PT

Background/AimIn many facilities, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) use intensity-modulated beams, formed by a multi-leaf collimator (MLC). In IMRT and VMAT, MLC and linear accelerator errors (both geometric and dose), can significantly affect the doses administered to patients. Therefore, IMRT and VMAT treatment plans must include the use of patient-specific quality assurance (QA) before treatment to confirm dose accuracy.Materials and methodsIn this study, we compared and analyzed the results of dose verification using a multi-dimensional dose verification system Delta4 PT, an ionization chamber dosimeter, and gafchromic film, using data from 52 patients undergoing head and neck VMAT as the test material.ResultBased on the results of the absolute dose verification for the ionization chamber dosimeter and Delta4 PT, taking an axial view, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was 3.13%, and the lower limit was −3.67%, indicating good agreement. These results mean that as long as absolute dose verification for the axial view does not deviate from this range, Delta4 PT can be used as an alternative to an ionization chamber dosimeter for absolute dose verification. When we then reviewed dose distribution verification, the pass rate for Delta4 PT was acceptable, and was less varied than that of gafchromic film.ConclusionThis results in that provided the pass rate result for Delta4 PT does not fall below 96%, it can be used as a substitute for gafchromic film in dose distribution verification. These results indicate that patient-specific QA could be simplified.     

Study of 2D ion chamber array for angular response and QA of dynamic MLC and pretreatment IMRT plans

AimTo study of 2 Dimensional ion chamber array for angular response and its utility for quality assurance of dynamic multileaf collimator and pretreatment intensity modulated radiotherapy plans.Materials and MethodsThe MLC QA test patterns and IMRT plans were executed on 2D ion chamber array having 1020 vented pixel ionization chambers. The dynamic MLC QA test patterns were chair test, x–wedge, pyramid, open swipe field, garden fence and picket fence. Performance of Dynamic wedges was compared with physical wedges. For IMRT verification, five patients with localized prostate carcinoma were planned using dynamic IMRT technique. Angular response of MatriXX was measured by exposing the system from different gantry angles.ResultsDynamic MLC QA tests such as chair, x-wedge, pyramid, and open swipe field were successfully verified. MatriXX was not able to recognize the bar pattern of picket test and garden fence test. The response of MatriXX gradually decreases from 0° to 180° angles and it was 7.7% less at 180° angle. The dynamic wedge profiles were matching with corresponding physical wedge profiles. For pretreatment IMRT QA, the average dose difference between planned and measured dose was 1.26% with standard deviation of 1.06.ConclusionI'mRT MatriXX can be used for routine dynamic MLC and IMRT pretreatment QA but care should be taken while taking measurements in penumbra region because of its limited spatial resolution.     

A strategy to determine off-axis dosimetric leaf gap using OSLD and EPID

BackgroundThe aim of the study was to investigate the dosimetric feasibility of using optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLD) and an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) for central axis (CA X) and off-axis (OAX) dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) measurement.Materials and methodsThe Clinac 2100C/D linear accelerator equipped with Millennium-120 multileaf collimator (MLC) and EPID was utilized for this study. The DLG values at CA X and ± 1 cm OAX (1 cm superior and inferior to the CA X position, respectively along the plane perpendicular to MLC motion) were measured using OSLD (DLG_OSLD) and validated using ionization chamber dosimetry (DLG_ICD). The two-dimensional DLG map (2D DLG_EPID) was derived from the portal images of the DLG plan using a custom-developed software application that incorporated sliding aperture-specific correction factors.ResultsDLG_OSLD and DLG_ICD, though measured with diverse setup in different media, showed similar variation both at CA X and ± 1 cm OAX positions. The corresponding DLG_EPID values derived using aperture specific corrections were found to be in agreement with DLG_OSLD and DLG_ICD. The 2D DLG_EPID map provides insight into the varying patterns of the DLG with respect to each leaf pair at any position across the exposed field.ConclusionsCommensurate results of DLG_OSLD with DLG_ICD values have proven the efficacy of OSLD as an appropriate dosimeter for DLG measurement. The 2D DLG_{EP ID} map opens a potential pathway to accurately model the rounded-leaf end transmission with discrete leaf-specific DLG values for commissioning of a modern treatment planning system.     

Comparison of three commercial dosimetric systems in detecting clinically significant VMAT delivery errors

AimTo study the sensitivity of three commercial dosimetric systems, Delta4, Multicube and Octavius4D, in detecting Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) delivery errors.MethodsFourteen prostate and head and neck (H&N) VMAT plans were considered for this study. Three types of errors were introduced into the original plans: gantry angle independent and dependent MLC errors, and gantry angle dependent dose errors. The dose matrix measured by each detector system for the no-error and error introduced delivery were compared with the reference Treatment Planning System (TPS) calculated dose matrix for no-error plans using gamma (γ) analysis with 2%/2 mm tolerance criteria. The ability of the detector system in identifying the minimum error in each scenario was assessed by analysing the gamma pass rates of no error delivery and error delivery using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The relative sensitivity of the system was assessed by determining the slope of the gamma pass line for studied error magnitude in each error scenario.ResultsIn the gantry angle independent and dependent MLC error scenario the Delta4, Multicube and Octavius4D systems detected a minimum 2 mm error. In the gantry angle dependent dose error scenario all studied systems detected a minimum 3% and 2% error in prostate and H&N plans respectively. In the studied detector systems Multicube showed relatively less sensitivity to the errors in the majority of error scenarios.ConclusionThe studied systems identified the same magnitude of minimum errors in all considered error scenarios.     

Relations between doses cumulated in bone marrow and dose delivery techniques during radiation therapy of cervical and endometrial cancer

PurposeTo compare normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) and average doses in the bone marrow (BM), obtained for five different radiotherapy delivery and planning strategies of cervical and endometrial cancer.Material/methods50 patients were taken to analysis. For each case, 3 different dose delivery techniques were used: 4-field, X15MV, 3DCRT; 7-field, X6MV, IMRT; and 2-arc, X6MV, VMAT. Two optimization scenarios were used for the IMRT and VMAT plans generation: with (+) and without (−) the inclusion of the BM as an optimized structure. Average doses and dose-volume histogram parameters for the PTV, BM, bladder, rectum, bowels and femoral heads were compared. In addition, the BM doses were analyzed with respect to the PTV and/or volume of the BM, and NTCP for the BM were computed.ResultsThe dose in PTV for evaluated plans was similar. The worst doses in organs at risk were obtained for 3DCRT. Using the BM during the optimization of IMRT and VMAT reduces an average dose in BM without increasing the doses in the bladder, rectum and bowels. Differences between doses in BM for IMRT(+) and VMAT(+) plans were similar while NTCP was lower for VMAT(+). A correlation between average dose in BM and the volume ratio of BM and PTV was found for each technique.ConclusionUsing the BM during the optimization of the IMRT and VMAT plans effectively reduces the dose in BM without increasing the dose in the bladder, rectum and bowels. The VMAT(+) plans were characterized by the lowest NTCP.     

Dosimetric impact of statistical uncertainty on Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm in volumetric modulated arc therapy using Monaco TPS for three different clinical cases

AimTo study the dosimetric impact of statistical uncertainty (SU) per plan on Monte Carlo (MC) calculation in Monaco? treatment planning system (TPS) during volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for three different clinical cases.BackgroundDuring MC calculation SU is an important factor to decide dose calculation accuracy and calculation time. It is necessary to evaluate optimal acceptance of SU for quality plan with reduced calculation time.Materials and methodsThree different clinical cases as the lung, larynx, and prostate treated using VMAT technique were chosen. Plans were generated with Monaco? V5.11 TPS with 2% statistical uncertainty. By keeping all other parameters constant, plans were recalculated by varying SU, 0.5%, 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, and 5%. For plan evaluation, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), dose coverage to PTV, organ at risk (OAR) dose, normal tissue receiving dose ≥5 Gy and ≥10 Gy, integral dose (NTID), calculation time, gamma pass rate, calculation reproducibility and energy dependency were analyzed.ResultsCI and HI improve as SU increases from 0.5% to 5%. No significant dose difference was observed in dose coverage to PTV, OAR doses, normal tissue receiving dose ≥5 Gy and ≥10 Gy and NTID. Increase of SU showed decrease in calculation time, gamma pass rate and increase in PTV max dose. No dose difference was seen in calculation reproducibility and dependent on energy.ConclusionFor VMAT plans, SU can be accepted from 1% to 3% per plan with reduced calculation time without compromising plan quality and deliverability by accepting variations in point dose within the target.     

Hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy for chest wall irradiation: For a good plan,get the right mixture

PurposeTo find the optimal dose weighting for hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy (H-VMAT), a combination of conventional 3DCRT and VMAT plans for left sided chest wall and supraclavicular radiation therapy.Methods & materials20 left-sided breast cancer patients who received adjuvant radiotherapy were considered for this study. To find the optimal weighting, 5 H-VMAT plans were generated for each study case by combining different dose proportions of 3DCRT and VMAT plans including: 90% 3DCRT/10% VMAT, 80% 3DCRT/20% VMAT, 70% 3DCRT/30% VMAT, 60% 3DCRT/40% VMAT, 50% 3DCRT/50% VMAT. Further field-in-field, optimal H-VMAT and VMAT alone plans were compared.ResultsAll H-VMAT plans achieved the expected target coverage. A higher conformity index was achieved for 50% 3DCRT/50% VMAT plan, while better homogeneity index was achieved for 80% 3DCRT/20% VMAT plan. Mean and low doses were less in 90% 3DCRT/10% VMAT plan. Compared with other proportions, 80% 3DCRT/20% VMAT and 70% 3DCRT/30% VMAT weighted H-VMAT plans achieved balanced results for PTVs and OARs.ConclusionThe optimal dose mixture for H-VMAT technique is 70% to 80% for 3DCRT and 20% to 30% for VMAT. The optimal H-VMAT achieved balanced results for the PTVs and OARs compared with field-in-field and VMAT alone plans.     

The effect of beam interruption during VMAT delivery on the delivered dose distribution

PurposeThe aim of this study is to investigate the effect of beam interruptions during delivery of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) on delivered dose distributions.MethodsTen prostate and ten head and neck (H&N) VMAT plans were retrospectively selected. Each VMAT plan was delivered using Trilogy™ without beam interruption, and with 4 and 8 intentional beam interruptions per a single arc. Two-dimensional global and local gamma evaluations with a diode array were performed with gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm, 1%/2 mm and 2%/1 mm for each VMAT plan with and without beam interruptions. The VMAT plans were reconstructed with log files recorded during delivery and the dose-volumetric parameters were calculated for each reconstructed plan. The differences among dose-volumetric parameters due to the beam interruptions were calculated.ResultsThe changes in global gamma passing rates with various gamma criteria were less than 1.6% on average, while the changes in local gamma passing rates were less than 5.3% on average. The dose-volumetric parameter changes for the target volumes of prostate and H&N VMAT plans due to beam interruptions were less than 0.72% and 1.5% on average, respectively.ConclusionThe delivered dose distributions with up to 8 beam interruptions per an arc were clinically acceptable, showing minimal changes in both gamma passing rates and dose-volumetric parameters.     

Machine log file-based dose verification using novel iterative CBCT reconstruction algorithm in commercial software during volumetric modulated arc therapy for prostate cancer patients

PurposeTo evaluate the utility of the use of iterative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) for machine log file-based dose verification during volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for prostate cancer patients.MethodsAll CBCT acquisition data were used to reconstruct images with the Feldkamp-Davis-Kress algorithm (FDK-CBCT) and the novel iterative algorithm (iCBCT). The Hounsfield unit (HU)-electron density curves for CBCT images were created using the Advanced Electron Density Phantom. The I’mRT and anthropomorphic phantoms were irradiated with VMAT after CBCT registration. Subsequently, fourteen prostate cancer patients received VMAT after CBCT registration. Machine log files and both CBCT images were exported to the PerFRACTION software, and a 3D patient dose was reconstructed. Mean dose for planning target volume (PTV), the bladder, and rectum and the 3D gamma analysis were evaluated.ResultsFor the phantom studies, the variation of HU values was observed at the central position surrounding the bones in FDK-CBCT. There were almost no changes in the difference of doses at the isocenter between measurement and reconstructed dose for planning CT (pCT), FDK-CBCT, and iCBCT. Mean dose differences of PTV, rectum, and bladder between iCBCT and pCT were approximately 2% lower than those between FDK-CBCT and pCT. For the clinical study, average gamma analysis for 2%/2 mm was 98.22% ± 1.07 and 98.81% ± 1.25% in FDK-CBCT and iCBCT, respectively.ConclusionsA similar machine log file-based dose verification accuracy is obtained for FDK-CBCT and iCBCT during VMAT for prostate cancer patients.     

A comparative analysis of Acuros XB and the analytical anisotropic algorithm for volumetric modulation arc therapy

BackgroundThis study aimed to verify the dosimetric impact of Acuros XB (AXB) (AXB, Varian Medical Systems Palo Alto CA, USA), a two model-based algorithm, in comparison with Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA ) calculations for prostate, head and neck and lung cancer treatment by volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT ), without primary modification to AA. At present, the well-known and validated AA algorithm is clinically used in our department for VMAT treatments of different pathologies. AXB could replace it without extra measurements. The treatment result and accuracy of the dose delivered depend on the dose calculation algorithm.Materials and methodNinety-five complex VMAT plans for different pathologies were generated using the Eclipse version 15.0.4 treatment planning system (TPS). The dose distributions were calculated using AA and AXB (dose-to-water, AXB_w and dose-to-medium, AXB_m), with the same plan parameters for all VMAT plans. The dosimetric parameters were calculated for each planning target volume (PTV) and involved organs at risk (OA R). The patient specific quality assurance of all VMAT plans has been verified by Octavius^®-4D phantom for different algorithms.ResultsThe relative differences among AA, AXB_w and AXB_m, with respect to prostate, head and neck were less than 1% for PTV D_95%. However, PTV D_95% calculated by AA tended to be overestimated, with a relative dose difference of 3.23% in the case of lung treatment. The absolute mean values of the relative differences were 1.1 ± 1.2% and 2.0 ± 1.2%, when comparing between AXB_w and AA, AXB_m and AA, respectively. The gamma pass rate was observed to exceed 97.4% and 99.4% for the measured and calculated doses in most cases of the volumetric 3D analysis for AA and AXB_m, respectively.ConclusionThis study suggests that the dose calculated to medium using AXB_m algorithm is better than AAA and it could be used clinically. Switching the dose calculation algorithm from AA to AXB does not require extra measurements.     

Dose distribution comparison in volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans for head and neck cancers with and without an external body contour extended technique

AimThis study compared volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for head and neck cancers with and without an external body contour extended technique (EBCT).BackgroundDose calculation algorisms for VMAT have limitations in the buildup region.Materials and methodsThree VMAT plans were enrolled, with one case having a metal artifact from an artificial tooth. The proper dose was calculated using Eclipse version 11.0. The body contours were extended 2 cm outward from the skin surface in three-dimensional space, and the dose was recalculated with an anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB (AXB). Monitor units (MUs) were set, and the dose distributions in the planning target volume (PTV), clinical target volume, and organ at risk (OAR) and conformity index (CI) with and without an EBCT were compared. The influence of a metal artifact outside of the thermoplastic head mask was also compared.ResultsThe coverage of PTV by the 95% dose line near the patient’s skin was increased drastically by using an EBCT. Plan renormalization had a negligible impact on MUs and doses delivered to OARs. CI of PTV with a 6-MV photon beam was closer to 1 than that with a 10-MV photon beam when both AAA and AXB were used in all cases. Metal artifacts outside the head mask had no effect on dose distribution.ConclusionsAn EBCT is needed to estimate the proper dose at object volumes near the patient’s skin and can improve the accuracy of the calculated dose at target volumes.