Detailed evaluation of Mobius3D dose calculation accuracy for volumetric-modulated arc therapy

PurposeTo perform a detailed evaluation of dose calculation accuracy and clinical feasibility of Mobius3D. Of particular importance, multileaf collimator (MLC) modeling accuracy in the Mobius3D dose calculation algorithm was investigated.MethodsMobius3D was fully commissioned by following the vendor-suggested procedures, including dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) optimization. The DLG optimization determined an optimal DLG correction factor which minimized the average difference between calculated and measured doses for 13 patient volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans. Two sets of step-and-shoot plans were created to examine MLC and off-axis open fields modeling accuracy of the Mobius3D dose calculation algorithm: MLC test set and off-axis open field test set. The test plans were delivered to MapCHECK for the MLC tests and an ionization chamber for the off-axis open field test, and these measured doses were compared to Mobius3D-calculated doses.ResultsThe mean difference between the calculated and measured doses across the 13 VMAT plans was 0.6% with an optimal DLG correction factor of 1.0. The mean percentage of pixels passing gamma from a 3%/1 mm gamma analysis for the MLC test set was 43.5% across the MLC tests. For the off-axis open field tests, the Mobius3D-calculated dose for 1.5 cm square field was −4.6% lower than the chamber-measured dose.ConclusionsIt was demonstrated that Mobius3D has dose calculation uncertainties for small fields and MLC tongue-and-groove design is not adequately taken into consideration in Mobius3D. Careful consideration of DLG correction factor, which affects the resulting dose distributions, is required when commissioning Mobius3D for patient-specific QA.     

Delivering RapidArc®: A comprehensive study on accuracy and long term stability

PurposeTo establish the reliability and accuracy of a UNIQUE Linac in delivering RapidArc treatments and assess its long term stability.Materials and methodsUNIQUE performance was monitored and analyzed for a period of nearly two years. 2280 Dynalog files, related to 179 clinical RapidArc treatments were collected. Different tumor sites and dose scheduling were included, covering the full range of our treatment plans. Statistical distributions of MLC motion error, gantry rotation error and MU delivery error were evaluated. The stochastic and systematic nature of each error was investigated together with their variation in time.ResultsAll the delivery errors are found to be small and more stringent tolerances than those proposed by TG142 are suggested. Unlike MLC positional errors, where a linear relationship with leaf speed holds, other Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) parameters reveal a random nature and, consequently, a reduced clinical relevance. MLC errors are linearly related only to leaf speed no matter the shape of the MLC apertures. Gantry rotation and MU delivery are as accurate as major competing Linacs. UNIQUE was found to be reliable and accurate throughout the investigation period, regardless of the specific tumor sites and fractionation schemes.ConclusionsThe accuracy of RapidArc treatments delivered with UNIQUE has been established. The stochastic nature of delivery errors is proven. Long term statistics of the delivery parameter errors do not show significant variations, confirming the reliability of the VMAT delivery system.     

Trajectory log file sensitivity: A critical analysis using DVH and EPID

Aim

The aim of this study was to investigate the sensitivity of the trajectory log file based quality assurance to detect potential errors such as MLC positioning and gantry positioning by comparing it with EPID measurement using the most commonly used criteria of 3%/3?mm.

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.     

Error detection during VMAT delivery using EPID-based 3D transit dosimetry

PurposeTo investigate the effectiveness of an EPID-based 3D transit dosimetry system in detecting deliberately introduced errors during VMAT delivery.MethodsAn Alderson phantom was irradiated using four VMAT treatment plans (one prostate, two head-and-neck and one lung case) in which delivery, thickness and setup errors were introduced. EPID measurements were performed to reconstruct 3D dose distributions of “error” plans, which were compared with “no-error” plans using the mean gamma (γ_mean), near-maximum gamma (γ_1%) and the difference in isocenter dose (ΔD_isoc) as metrics.ResultsOut of a total of 42 serious errors, the number of errors detected was 33 (79%), and 27 out of 30 (90%) if setup errors are not included. The system was able to pick up errors of 5 mm movement of a leaf bank, a wrong collimator rotation angle and a wrong photon beam energy. A change in phantom thickness of 1 cm was detected for all cases, while only for the head-and-neck plans a 2 cm horizontal and vertical shift of the phantom were alerted. A single leaf error of 5 mm could be detected for the lung plan only.ConclusionAlthough performed for a limited number of cases and error types, this study shows that EPID-based 3D transit dosimetry is able to detect a number of serious errors in dose delivery, leaf bank position and patient thickness during VMAT delivery. Errors in patient setup and single leaf position can only be detected in specific cases.     

Sensitivity of a helical diode array dosimeter to Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy delivery errors

PurposeTo study the sensitivity of an ArcCHECK dosimeter in detecting delivery errors during the delivery of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT).MethodsThree types of errors in Multi Leaf Collimator (MLC) position and dose delivery were simulated separately in the delivery of five prostate and five head and neck (H&N) VMAT plans: (i) Gantry independent: a systematic shift in MLC position and variation in output to the whole arc; (ii) Gantry dependent: sag in MLC position and output variation as a function of gantry angle; (iii) Control point specific MLC and output errors introduced to only a specific number of Control Points (CP). The difference in local and global gamma (γ) pass rate between the no-error and error-simulated measurements with 2%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm tolerances was calculated to assess the sensitivity of ArcCHECK. The clinical impact of these errors was also calculated.ResultsArcCHECK was able to detect a minimum 3 mm MLC error and 3% output error for Gantry independent errors using either local or global gamma with 2%/2 mm tolerance. For the Gantry dependent error scenario a minimum 3 mm MLC error and 3% dose error was identifiable by ArcCHECK using either global or local gamma with 2%/2 mm tolerance. In errors introduced to specific CPs a MLC error of 10 mm and dose error of 100% introduced to 4CPs were detected by ArcCHECK.ConclusionArcCHECK used with either local or global gamma analysis and 2%/2 mm criteria can be confidently used in the clinic to detect errors above the stated error values.     

Monte Carlo dose verification of VMAT treatment plans using Elekta Agility 160-leaf MLC

In this study, we verified volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans in an Elekta Synergy system with an integrated Agility 160-leaf multileaf collimator (MLC) by comparing them with Monte Carlo (MC)-calculated dose distributions using the AAPM TG-119 structure sets. The head configuration of the linear accelerator with the integrated MLC was simulated with the EGSnrc/BEAMnrc code. Firstly, the dosimetric properties of the MLC were evaluated with the MC technique and film measurements. Next, VMAT plans were created with the Pinnacle³ treatment planning system (TPS) for four regions in the AAPM TG-119 structures. They were then verified by comparing them with MC-calculated dose distributions using dose volume histograms (DVHs) and three-dimensional (3D) gamma analysis. The MC simulations for the Agility MLC dosimetric properties were in acceptable agreement with measurements. TPS-VMAT plans using TG-119 structure sets agreed with MC dose distributions within 2% in the comparison of D₉₅ in planning target volumes (PTVs) evaluated from DVHs. In contrast, higher dose regions such as D₂₀, D₁₀, and D₅ in PTVs for TPS tended to be smaller than MC values. This tendency was particularly noticeable for mock head and neck with complicated structures. In 3D gamma analysis, the passing rates with 3%/3mm criteria in PTVs were ≥99%, except for mock head and neck (89.5%). All passing rates for organs at risk (OARs) were in acceptable agreement of >96%. It is useful to verify dose distributions of PTVs and OARs in TPS-VMAT plans by using MC dose calculations and 3D gamma analysis.     

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.     

Gantry angle dependence in IMRT pre-treatment patient-specific quality controls

Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) is a complex treatment modality that requires pre-treatment patient-specific quality control (QC) in order to assess a correct treatment delivery. The aim of this work is to investigate pre-treatment patient-specific per-field QCs performed with an on-board EPID at the gantry angle of 0° and at the treatment ones, and to asses if measurements executed at 0° are able to guarantee a correct treatment.Ten patients with prostate cancer were evaluated. Two “verification” plans were created for each patient in order to calculate the dose at the EPID surface: one with all fields positioned at 0° and one with all fields at the actual treatment angles.EPID’s mechanical shifts due to gravity effects were always taken into account and corrected.0 and no-0 plans were compared using a gamma-index method (3%, 3 mm). The gamma index was found dependent on gantry angles but the difference between 0 and no-0 samples was small (?0.3% mean value) and the criteria of acceptability of the gamma method was always satisfied for every field delivered at angles different from 0.Therefore patient-specific pre-treatment QCs should be done at treatments angles, but, if periodical quality assurance is performed on dynamic MLC for different gantry angles, this requirement was shown not strictly mandatory and pre-treatment IMRTQC can be reasonably executed at 0° angles too.     

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.     

Geometric and dosimetric quality assurance using logfiles and a 3D helical diode detector for Dynamic WaveArc

PurposeTo conduct patient-specific geometric and dosimetric quality assurance (QA) for the Dynamic WaveArc (DWA) using logfiles and ArcCHECK (Sun Nuclear Inc., Melbourne, FL, USA).MethodsTwenty DWA plans, 10 for pituitary adenoma and 10 for prostate cancer, were created using RayStation version 4.7 (RaySearch Laboratories, Stockholm, Sweden). Root mean square errors (RMSEs) between the actual and planned values in the logfiles were evaluated. Next, the dose distributions were reconstructed based on the logfiles. The differences between dose-volumetric parameters in the reconstructed plans and those in the original plans were calculated. Finally, dose distributions were assessed using ArcCHECK. In addition, the reconstructed dose distributions were compared with planned ones.ResultsThe means of RMSEs for the gantry, O-ring, MLC position, and MU for all plans were 0.2°, 0.1°, 0.1 mm, and 0.4 MU, respectively. Absolute means of the change in PTV D_99% were 0.4 ± 0.4% and 0.1 ± 0.1% points between the original and reconstructed plans for pituitary adenoma and prostate cancer, respectively. The mean of the gamma passing rate (3%/3 mm) between the measured and planned dose distributions was 97.7%. In addition, that between the reconstructed and planned dose distributions was 99.6%.ConclusionsWe have demonstrated that the geometric accuracy and gamma passing rates were within AAPM 119 and 142 criteria during DWA. Dose differences in the dose-volumetric parameters using the logfile-based dose reconstruction method were also clinically acceptable in DWA.     

Plan quality and robustness in field junction region for craniospinal irradiation with VMAT

PurposeTo propose a “staggered overlap” technique in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for craniospinal irradiation (CSI) and compare the dose distribution and plan robustness with “overlap” technique and “gradient optimization” approach.Methods and Materials6 patients previously treated in our clinic were retrospectively selected. 9 VMAT plans of each patient were optimized with “staggered overlap”, “overlap” and “gradient optimization” in overlapping region of 3 cm, 6 cm, and 9 cm separately. For the “staggered overlap” plan, adjacent field sets were intentionally overlapped by staggering field edges in an appropriate step size to avoid sharp dose gradient. Evaluation metrics including V_95%, D_2%, D_98%, conformity number (CN) and homogeneity index (HI) were employed to evaluate the dose distribution. Moreover, shifts of the upper spinal field isocenter in each direction were performed to simulate junction errors for robustness analysis.ResultsThe CN and HI of VMAT plans with “staggered overlap” were 0.82 (0.811–0.822) and 0.113 (0.112–0.114), while they were 0.778 (0.776–0.782) and 0.131 (0.130–0.131) for plans with “gradient optimization”. In the robustness study, <3% dose deviations were found for 5 mm shifts in lateral and vertical directions with all techniques. In cranial-caudal direction, “overlap” technique created hot spots (D_2% > 170%) and cold spots (D_98% < 44%) in the junction region with 10 mm shifts. The dose deviations were decreased to 22% for plans with “staggered overlap” and 9 cm overlapping region.Conclusion“Staggered overlap” technique provides better plan quality as compared to “gradient optimization” approach and makes the plan more robust against junction errors as compared to “overlap” technique.     

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.     

Comparison of patient-specific intensity modulated radiation therapy quality assurance for the prostate across multiple institutions

AimTo evaluate the success of a patient-specific intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA) practice for prostate cancer patients across multiple institutions using a questionnaire survey.BackgroundThe IMRT QA practice involves different methods of dose distribution verification and analysis at different institutions.Materials and MethodsTwo full-arc volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan and 7 fixed-gantry IMRT plan with DMLC were used for patient specific QA across 22 institutions. The same computed tomography image and structure set were used for all plans. Each institution recalculated the dose distribution with fixed monitor units and without any modification. Single-point dose measurement with a cylindrical ionization chamber and dose distribution verification with a multi-detector or radiochromic film were performed, according to the QA process at each institution.ResultsTwenty-two institutions performed the patient-specific IMRT QA verifications. With a single-point dose measurement at the isocenter, the average difference between the calculated and measured doses was 0.5 ± 1.9%. For the comparison of dose distributions, 18 institutions used a two or three-dimensional array detector, while the others used Gafchromic film. In the γ test with dose difference/distance-to-agreement criteria of 3%?3 mm and 2%?2 mm with a 30% dose threshold, the median gamma pass rates were 99.3% (range: 41.7%–100.0%) and 96.4% (range: 29.4%–100.0%), respectively.ConclusionThis survey was an informative trial to understand the verification status of patient-specific IMRT QA measurements for prostate cancer. In most institutions, the point dose measurement and dose distribution differences met the desired criteria.     

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.     

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.     

In-house spread sheet based monitor unit verification program for volumetric modulated arc therapy

Independent monitor unit verification calculation (MUVC) has been recommended by several authors for intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) as a patient specific quality assurance tool. Aim of the present work is to develop an in-house excel spread sheet based MUVC program for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using Clarkson's integration technique. Total scatter factor (S_c,p) and tissue maximum ratio (TMR) for circular fields obtained from Treatment planning system (TPS) were used for the calculation. Multileaf collimator (MLC) interleaf leakage, MLC round edge transmission and tongue and groove effect were accounted. MUVC calculation was performed for 58 patients both for patient anatomy and for homogenous cylindrical phantom. Radiological path lengths were used as water equivalent depths (WED) for calculations using patient anatomy. Monitor unit (MU) discrepancies between −2.60% and 0.28% with mean deviation of −0.92% ± 0.75% were obtained for homogenous cylindrical phantom calculations. MUVC for patient anatomy resulted in large variations between −19.02% and 0.67% for 14 plans where isocenter was at a region below −350 HU. But For 44 plans where the isocenter was at a region above −350 HU, variations between −3.44% and 0.48% were obtained with mean deviation of −1.73% ± 1.12%. For VMAT patient specific quality assurance, the independent MUVC algorithm can be used as an easy and quick auxiliary to measurement based verification for plans with isocenter at a region above −350 HU.     

Comparison between two treatment planning systems for volumetric modulated arc therapy optimization for prostate cancer

PurposeTo investigate the performances of two commercial treatment planning systems (TPS) for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) optimization regarding prostate cancer. The TPS were compared in terms of dose distributions, treatment delivery parameters and quality control results.Materials and methodsFor ten patients, two VMAT plans were generated: one with Monaco TPS (Elekta) and one with Pinnacle TPS (Philips Medical Systems). The total prescribed dose was 78 Gy delivered in one 360° arc with a Synergy^® linear accelerator equipped with a MLCi2^®.ResultsVMAT with Monaco provided better homogeneity and conformity indexes but lower mean dose to PTVs than Pinnacle. For the bladder wall (p = 0.019), the femoral heads (p = 0.017), and healthy tissues (p = 0.005), significantly lower mean doses were found using Monaco. For the rectal wall, VMAT with Pinnacle provided a significantly (p = 0.047) lower mean dose, and lower dose into 50% of the volume (p = 0.047) compared to Monaco. Despite a greater number of monitor units (factor 1.5) for Monaco TPS, the total treatment time was equivalent to that of Pinnacle. The treatment delivery parameter analysis showed larger mean MLC area for Pinnacle and lower mean dose rate compared to Monaco. The quality control results gave a high passing rate (>97.4%) for the gamma index for both TPS but Monaco provided slightly better results.ConclusionFor prostate cancer patients, VMAT treatment plans obtained with Monaco and Pinnacle offered clinically acceptable dose distributions. Further investigations are in progress to confirm the performances of the two TPS for irradiating more complex volumes.     

Quantification of residual dose estimation error on log file-based patient dose calculation

PurposeThe log file-based patient dose estimation includes a residual dose estimation error caused by leaf miscalibration, which cannot be reflected on the estimated dose. The purpose of this study is to determine this residual dose estimation error.Methods and materialsModified log files for seven head-and-neck and prostate volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans simulating leaf miscalibration were generated by shifting both leaf banks (systematic leaf gap errors: ±2.0, ±1.0, and ±0.5 mm in opposite directions and systematic leaf shifts: ±1.0 mm in the same direction) using MATLAB-based (MathWorks, Natick, MA) in-house software. The generated modified and non-modified log files were imported back into the treatment planning system and recalculated. Subsequently, the generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD) was quantified for the definition of the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risks.ResultsFor MLC leaves calibrated within ±0.5 mm, the quantified residual dose estimation errors that obtained from the slope of the linear regression of gEUD changes between non- and modified log file doses per leaf gap are in head-and-neck plans 1.32 ± 0.27% and 0.82 ± 0.17 Gy for PTV and spinal cord, respectively, and in prostate plans 1.22 ± 0.36%, 0.95 ± 0.14 Gy, and 0.45 ± 0.08 Gy for PTV, rectum, and bladder, respectively.ConclusionsIn this work, we determine the residual dose estimation errors for VMAT delivery using the log file-based patient dose calculation according to the MLC calibration accuracy.