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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Evaluation of MLC performance in VMAT and dynamic IMRT by log file analysis

PurposeThis multi-institution study assessed the positioning accuracy of multileaf collimators (MLC) by analyzing log files. It determined the main machine parameters that affect MLC positioning errors for pre-TrueBeam (Clinac) and TrueBeam linacs.MethodsAround 30,000 dIMRT and VMAT log files belonging to 6 linacs from 4 different centers were analyzed. An in-house software was used to calculate 95th percentile and RMS error values and their correlation with certain parameters such as maximum leaf speed, mean leaf speed and gantry angle. The effect of MLC communication delay on error statistics was assessed in Clinac linacs. To that end MLC positioning error statistics were calculated with and without the delay effect.ResultsFor dIMRT treatments in Clinac linacs the mean leaf RMS error was 0.306 mm with and 0.030 mm without the delay effect. Leaf RMS error was closely linked to maximum and mean leaf speeds, but without the delay effect that link was weaker. No trend was observed between bank RMS error and gantry angle. Without the delay effect larger bank RMS errors were obtained for gantry angles with leaf movements against gravity. For VMAT treatments in TrueBeam linacs the mean leaf RMS error was 0.038 mm. A link was also observed between leaf RMS error and maximum and mean leaf speeds.ConclusionTrueBeam MLC positioning errors are substantially lower than those of Clinac linacs. In Clinac machines the analysis of dynalogs without the delay effect allows us to study the influence of factors that are masked by the delay effect.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Evaluation of the ability of three commercially available dosimeters to detect systematic delivery errors in step-and-shoot IMRT plans

BackgroundThere is limited data on error detectability for step-and-shoot intensity modulated radiotherapy (sIMRT) plans, despite significant work on dynamic methods. However, sIMRT treatments have an ongoing role in clinical practice. This study aimed to evaluate variations in the sensitivity of three patient-specific quality assurance (QA) devices to systematic delivery errors in sIMRT plans.Materials and methodsFour clinical sIMRT plans (prostate and head and neck) were edited to introduce errors in: Multi-Leaf Collimator (MLC) position (increasing field size, leaf pairs offset (1–3 mm) in opposite directions; and field shift, all leaves offset (1–3 mm) in one direction); collimator rotation (1–3 degrees) and gantry rotation (0.5–2 degrees). The total dose for each plan was measured using an ArcCHECK diode array. Each field, excluding those with gantry offsets, was also measured using an Electronic Portal Imager and a MatriXX Evolution 2D ionisation chamber array. 132 plans (858 fields) were delivered, producing 572 measured dose distributions. Measured doses were compared to calculated doses for the no-error plan using Gamma analysis with 3%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm, and 2%/2 mm criteria (1716 analyses).ResultsGenerally, pass rates decreased with increasing errors and/or stricter gamma criteria. Pass rate variations with detector and plan type were also observed. For a 3%/3 mm gamma criteria, none of the devices could reliably detect 1 mm MLC position errors or 1 degree collimator rotation errors.ConclusionsThis work has highlighted the need to adapt QA based on treatment plan type and the need for detector specific assessment criteria to detect clinically significant errors.     

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.     

Sensitivity of the IQM and MatriXX detectors in megavolt photon beams

AimThis study focused on evaluating the sensitivity of integral quality monitoring (IQM^®) system and MatriXX detectors. These two detectors are recommended for radiotherapy pre-treatment quality assurance (QA).BackgroundIQM is a large wedged-shaped ionisation chamber mounted to the linear accelerator (linac) head in practice. MatriXX consists of an array of ionisation chambers also attached to the linac head.Materials and methodsIn this study, the dosimetric performance and sensitivity of MatriXX and IQM detectors were evaluated using the following characteristics: reproducibility, linearity, error detection capability and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) plans of the head and neck, thorax and pelvic regions.ResultsThis study indicates that the signal responses of the large ionisation chamber device (IQM) and the small pixel array of ionisation chambers device (MatriXX) are reproducible, linear and sensitive to MLC positional errors, backup jaw positional errors and dose errors. The local percentage differences for dose errors of 1%, 2%, and 3% were, respectively, within 0.35–8.23%, 0.78–16.21%, and 1.10–24.41% for the IQM device. While for the MatriXX detector, the ranges were between 0.24–3.19, 0.57–6.43 and 0.81–12.95, respectively. Since IQM is essentially a double wedge-shaped large ionisation chamber, its reproducibility and detection capability are competitive to that of MatriXX. In addition, the sensitivity of the two QA systems increases with an increase in escalation percentage, and the signal responses are patient plan specific.ConclusionsThe two detectors response signals have good correlations and they are accurate for pre-treatment QA. Statistically, (P < 0.05) there is a significant difference between the IQM and MatriXX response to dose errors.     

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.     

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.     

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.

Correlation between gamma passing rate and complexity of IMRT plan due to MLC position errors

PurposeThis study evaluates the correlation between the susceptibility of the γ passing rate of IMRT plans to the multi-leaf collimator (MLC) position errors and a quantitative plan complexity metric.MethodsTwenty patients were selected for this study. For each patient, two IMRT plans were generated using sliding window and step-&-shoot techniques, respectively. Modulation complexity score (MCS) was calculated for all IMRT plans, and symmetric MLC leaf bank errors, ranging from 0.3 mm to 1 mm, were introduced. Original and modified plans were delivered using Varian’s Clinac iX. The obtained dose distribution using ArcCHECK was then compared with the TPS calculated dose distribution of the original plans. 3D gamma analysis was performed for each verification with passing criteria of 2%/2 mm. The γ passing rate decreasing gradient were calculated to evaluate relationship between variation of γ passing rate due to MLC errors and complexity.ResultsA linear regression analysis was applied between γ gradient and complexity, and the results showed a linear correlation (R² = 0.81 and 0.82 for open and closed MLC error types, respectively) indicating the more complex plans are more susceptible to MLC leaf bank errors. Meanwhile, correlation of re-normalized γ passing rate and complexity for all errors scenarios also presented a strong correlation (r > 0.75).ConclusionThe statistics results revealed variation relationship of dosimetry robust of plans with various complexities to MLC errors. Our results also suggested that the observed susceptibility is independent of the delivery techniques.     

Comparison of three-dimensional patient-specific dosimetry systems with delivery errors: Toward a new synchronous measurement method

PurposeThis study proposed a synchronous measurement method for patient-specific dosimetry using two three-dimensional dose verification systems with delivery errors.MethodsTwenty hypofractionated radiotherapy treatment plans for patients with lung cancer were retrospectively reviewed. Monitor unit (MU) changes, leaf in-position errors, and angles of deviation of the collimator were intentionally introduced to investigate the detection sensitivity of the EDose + EPID (EE) and Dolphin + Compass (DC) systems.ResultsBoth systems accurately detected the MU modifications and had a similar ability to detect leaf in-position errors. The detection of multi-leaf collimator (MLC) errors was difficult for the whole body using different gamma criteria. When the introduced MLC error was 1.0 mm, the numbers of errors detected in the clinical target volume (CTV) by the EE system were 20, 20, and 20 and the numbers of errors detected by the DC system were 18, 19, and 20, at 3%/2 mm, 2%/2 mm, and 1%/1 mm, respectively. The average dose deviation of all DVH parameters exceeded 3%. The gamma and DVH evaluation results remained unchanged for the DC system when different collimator angle errors were introduced. The number of errors detected by the EE system was <11 for each anatomical structure for all gamma criteria. The mean dose deviation of the CTV was not distinguished.ConclusionsThis synchronous measurement approach can effectively eliminate the influence of random errors during treatment. The EE and DC systems reconstruct the three-dimensional dose distribution accurately and are convenient and reliable for dose verification.     

Characterization of robust optimization for VMAT plan for liver cancer

PurposeWe investigated the feasibility of robust optimization for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for liver cancer in comparison with planning target volume (PTV)-based optimized plans. Treatment plan quality, robustness, complexity, and accuracy of dose delivery were assessed.MethodsTen liver cancer patients were selected for this study. PTV-based optimized plans with an 8-mm PTV margin and robust optimized plans with an 8-mm setup uncertainty were generated. Plan perturbed doses were evaluated using a setup error of 8 mm in all directions from the isocenter. The dosimetric comparison parameters were clinical target volume (CTV) doses (D_98%, D_50%, and D_2%), liver doses, and monitor unit (MU). Plan complexity was evaluated using the modulation complexity score for VMAT (MCSv).ResultsThere was no significant difference between the two optimizations with respect to CTV doses and MUs. Robust optimized plans had a higher liver dose than did PTV-based optimized plans. Plan perturbed dose evaluations showed that doses to the CTV for the robust optimized plans had small variations. Robust optimized plans were less complex than PTV-based optimized plans. Robust optimized plans had statistically significant fewer leaf position errors than did PTV-based optimized plans.ConclusionsComparison of treatment plan quality, robustness, and plan complexity of both optimizations showed that robust optimization could be feasibile for VMAT of liver cancer.     

Dosimetric comparison of dynamic conformal arc integrated with segment shape optimization and variable dose rate versus volumetric modulated arc therapy for liver SBRT

AimThe aim is a dosimetric comparison of dynamic conformal arc integrated with the segment shape optimization and variable dose rate (DCA_SSO_VDR) versus VMAT for liver SBRT and interaction of various treatment plan quality indices with PTV and degree of modulation (DoM) for both techniques.BackgroundThe DCA is the state-of-the-art technique but overall inferior to VMAT, and the DCA_SSO_VDR technique was not studied for liver SBRT.Materials and methodsTwenty-five patients of liver SBRT treated using the VMAT technique were selected. DCA_SSO_VDR treatment plans were also generated for all patients in Monaco TPS using the same objective constraint template and treatment planning parameters as used for the VMAT technique. For comparison purpose, organs at risk (OARs) doses and treatment plans quality indices, such as maximum dose of PTV (D_max%), mean dose of PTV (D_mean%), maximum dose at 2 cm in any direction from the PTV (D_2cm%), total monitor units (MU’s), gradient index R_50%, degree of modulation (DoM), conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), and healthy tissue mean dose (HTMD) were compared.ResultsSignificant dosimetric differences were observed in several OARs doses and lowered in VMAT plans. The D_2cm%, R_50%, CI, HI and HTMD are dosimetrically inferior in DCA_SSO_VDR plans. The higher DoM results in poor dose gradient and better dose gradient for DCA_SSO_VDR and VMAT treatment plans, respectively.ConclusionsFor liver SBRT, DCA_SSO_VDR treatment plans are neither dosimetrically superior nor better alternative to the VMAT delivery technique. A reduction of 69.75% MU was observed in DCA_SSO_VDR treatment plans. For the large size of PTV and high DoM, DCA_SSO_VDR treatment plans result in poorer quality.     

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.     

The robustness of dual isocenter VMAT radiation therapy for bilateral lymph node positive breast cancer

PurposeTo investigate the use of dual isocenters for VMAT planning in patients with lymph node positive synchronous bilateral breast cancer (BBC) compared to a single isocenter option.MethodsTreatment plans of 11 patients with lymph node positive BBC were retrospectively analyzed using two different VMAT planning techniques: dual-isocenter split-arc VMAT plans (Iso2) were compared with mono-isocenter VMAT plans (Iso1). For Iso2 plans, PTV dose was investigated after introducing ±2 and ±5 mm couch shift errors between the two isocenters in the lateral, longitudinal and vertical direction.ResultsFor both techniques the planning aims for PTV coverage and OARs were met. The mean dose for the bilateral lungs and heart was reduced from 11.3 Gy and 3.8 Gy to 10.9 Gy (p < .05) and 3.6 Gy (p < .05), respectively, for Iso2 plans when compared to Iso1 plans. Positive statistically significant correlation (rho = 0.76, p = .006) was found between PTV volume and D2cc_PTV for Iso1 plans. No clinically significant change was seen in the D98_CTV or D2cc_PTV after the 2 and 5 mm errors were introduced between isocenters for Iso2 plans.ConclusionsThe split arc method was shown to be a feasible treatment technique in the case of synchronous BBC for both mono and dual isocenter techniques. The dose parameters were slightly favoring dual-isocenter option instead of mono-isocenter. The dual-isocenter method was shown to be a robust treatment option in the presence of ≤5 mm errors in the shifts between the two isocenters.