A convolution neural network for higher resolution dose prediction in prostate volumetric modulated arc therapy

PurposeThis study aims to investigate the feasibility of using convolutional neural networks to predict an accurate and high resolution dose distribution from an approximated and low resolution input dose.MethodsSixty-six patients were treated for prostate cancer with VMAT. We created the treatment plans using the Acuros XB algorithm with 2 mm grid size, followed by the dose calculated using the anisotropic analytical algorithm with 5 mm grid with the same plan parameters. U-net model was used to predict 2 mm grid dose from 5 mm grid dose. We investigated the two models differing for the training data used as input, one used just the low resolution dose (D model) and the other combined the low resolution dose with CT data (DC model). Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) was calculated to ascertain how well the shape of the dose-volume is matched. We conducted gamma analysis for the following: DVH from the two models and the reference DVH for all prostate structures.ResultsThe DSC values in the DC model were significantly higher than those in the D model (p < 0.01). For the CTV, PTV, and bladder, the gamma passing rates in the DC model were significantly higher than those in the D model (p < 0.002–0.02). The mean doses in the CTV and PTV for the DC model were significantly better matched to those in the reference dose (p < 0.0001).ConclusionsThe proposed U-net model with dose and CT image used as input predicted more accurate dose.     

Dosimetric accuracy of dual isocenter irradiation in low magnetic field resonance guided radiotherapy system for extended abdominal tumours

PurposeDue to limited field size of Magnetic Resonance Linear Accelerators (MR-Linac), some treatments could require a dual-isocenter planning approach to achieve a complete target coverage and thus exploit the benefits of the online adaptation. This study evaluates the dosimetric accuracy of the dual-isocenter intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) delivery technique for MR-Linac.Material and MethodsDual-isocenter multi leaf collimator (MLC) and couch accuracy tests have been performed to evaluate the delivery accuracy of the system. A mono-isocenter plan delivered in clinical practice has then been retrospectively re-planned with dual-isocenter technique. The dual-isocenter plan has been re-calculated and delivered on a 3-dimensional (3D) ArcCHECK phantom and 2-dimensional (2D) films to assess its dosimetric accuracy in terms of gamma analysis. Clinical and planning target volume (CTV and PTV respectively) coverage robustness was then investigated after the introduction of ± 2 mm and ± 5 mm positioning errors by shifting the couch.ResultsMLC and couch accuracy tests confirmed the system accuracy in delivering a dual-isocenter irradiation.2D/3D gamma analysis results occurred always to be above 95% if considered a gamma criteria 1%/2 mm and 1%/1 mm respectively for the 2D and 3D analysis.The mean variations for CTV D98% and PTV V95% were 0.2% and 1.1% respectively when positioning error was introduced separately in each direction, while the maximum observed variations were 0.9% (CTV) and 3.7% (PTV).ConclusionThe dosimetric accuracy of dual-isocenter irradiation has been verified for MR-Linac, achieving accurate and robust treatment strategy and improving dose conformality also in presence of targets whose extension exceeds the nominal maximum field size.     

Incorrect dosimetric leaf separation in IMRT and VMAT treatment planning: Clinical impact and correlation with pretreatment quality assurance

PurposeDynamic treatment planning algorithms use a dosimetric leaf separation (DLS) parameter to model the multi-leaf collimator (MLC) characteristics. Here, we quantify the dosimetric impact of an incorrect DLS parameter and investigate whether common pretreatment quality assurance (QA) methods can detect this effect.Methods16 treatment plans with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique for multiple treatment sites were calculated with a correct and incorrect setting of the DLS, corresponding to a MLC gap difference of 0.5 mm. Pretreatment verification QA was performed with a bi-planar diode array phantom and the electronic portal imaging device (EPID). Measurements were compared to the correct and incorrect planned doses using gamma evaluation with both global (G) and local (L) normalization. Correlation, specificity and sensitivity between the dose volume histogram (DVH) points for the planning target volume (PTV) and the gamma passing rates were calculated.ResultsThe change in PTV and organs at risk DVH parameters were 0.4–4.1%. Good correlation (>0.83) between the PTV_mean dose deviation and measured gamma passing rates was observed. Optimal gamma settings with 3%L/3 mm (per beam and composite plan) and 3%G/2 mm (composite plan) for the diode array phantom and 2%G/2 mm (composite plan) for the EPID system were found. Global normalization and per beam ROC analysis of the diode array phantom showed an area under the curve <0.6.ConclusionsA DLS error can worsen pretreatment QA using gamma analysis with reasonable credibility for the composite plan. A low detectability was demonstrated for a 3%G/3 mm per beam gamma setting.     

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.     

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 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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.

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.     

Patient-specific quality assurance and plan dose errors on breast intensity-modulated proton therapy

PurposeTo investigate, in proton therapy, whether the Gamma passing rate (GPR) is related to the patient dose error and whether MU scaling can improve dose accuracy.MethodsAmong 20 consecutively treated breast patients selected for analysis, two IMPT plans were retrospectively generated: (1) the pencil-beam (PB) plan and (2) the Monte Carlo (MC) plan. Patient-specific QA was performed. A 3%/3-mm Gamma analysis was conducted to compare the TPS-calculated PB algorithm dose distribution with the measured 2D dose. Dose errors were compared between the plans that passed the Gamma testing and those that failed. The MU was then scaled to obtain a better GPR. MU-scaled PB plan dose errors were compared to the original PB plan.ResultsOf the 20 PB plans, 8 were passed Gamma testing (G_pass_group) and 12 failed (G_fail_group). Surprisingly, the G_pass_group had a greater dose error than the G_fail_group. The median (range) of the PTV DVH RMSE and PTV ΔDmean were 1.36 (1.00–1.91) Gy vs 1.18 (1.02–1.80) Gy and 1.23 (0.92–1.71) Gy vs 1.10 (0.87–1.49) Gy for the G_pass_group and the G_fail_group, respectively. MU scaling reduced overall dose error. However, for PTV D99 and D95, MU scaling worsened some cases.ConclusionFor breast IMPT, the PB plans that passed the Gamma testing did not show smaller dose errors compared to the plans that failed. For individual plans, the MU scaling technique leads to overall smaller dose errors. However, we do not suggest use of the MU scaling technique to replace the MC plans when the MC algorithm is available.     

EGSnrc application for IMRT planning

The aim of this study was to describe a detailed instruction of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) planning simulation using BEAMnrc-DOSXYZnrc code system (EGSnrc package) and present a new graphical user interface based on MATLAB code (The MathWorks) to combine more than one. 3ddose file which were obtained from the IMRT plan.This study was performed in four phases: the commissioning of Varian Clinac iX6 MV, the simulation of IMRT planning in EGSnrc, the creation of in-house VDOSE GUI, and the analysis of the isodose contour and dose volume histogram (DVH) curve from several beam angles. The plan paramaters in sequence and control point files were extracted from the planning data in Tan Tock Seng Hospital Singapore (multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf positions – bank A and bank B, gantry angles, coordinate of isocenters, and MU indexes).VDOSE GUI which was created in this study can display the distribution dose curve in each slice and beam angle. Dose distributions from various MLC settings and beam angles yield different dose distributions even though they used the same number of simulated particles. This was due to the differences in the MLC leaf openings in every field. The value of the relative dose error between the two dose ditributions for “body” was 51.23 %. The Monte Carlo (MC) data was normalized with the maximum dose but the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) data was normalized by the dose in the isocenter.In this study, we have presented a Monte Carlo simulation framework for IMRT dose calculation using DOSXYZnrc source 21. Further studies are needed in conducting IMRT simulations using EGSnrc to minimize the different dose error and dose volume histogram deviation.     

Perturbation analysis of 4D dose distribution for scanned carbon-ion beam radiotherapy

PurposeTo evaluate the patients’ set-up error-induced perturbation effects on 4D dose distributions (4DDD) of range-adapted internal target volume-based (raITV) treatment plan using lung and liver 4DCT data sets.MethodsWe enrolled 20 patients with lung and liver cancer treated with respiratory-gated carbon-ion beam scanning therapy. PTVs were generated by adding a 2 mm range-adapted set-up margin on the raITVs. Set-up errors were simulated by shifting the beam isocenter in three translational directions of ±2 mm, ±4 mm, and ±6 mm. 4DDDs were calculated for both nominal and isocenter-shifted situations. Dose metrics of CTV dose coverage (D95) and normal tissue sparing were evaluated. Statistical significance with p < 0.01 was considered by Wilcoxon signed rank test.ResultsThe CTV dose coverage was more sensitive to set-up errors for lung cases than for liver cases, and more serious in superior-inferior direction. The sufficient CTV-D95 > 98% could be achieved with set-up errors less than ±2 mm in all shift directions both for lung and liver cases. With the increase of set-up error, the CTV dose coverage decreased gradually. The clinical criterial of CTV-D95 > 95% could not be fulfilled with set-up error reached to ±4 mm for lung cases, and ±6 mm for liver cases. OAR doses did not have a significant difference with each set-up error for both lung and liver cases.ConclusionsThe range-adapted set-up margin successfully prevented dose degradation of 4DDDs in the presence of the same magnitude of set-up error for raITV-based carbon-ion beam scanning therapy.     

Exit fluence analysis using portal dosimetry in volumetric modulated arc therapy

AimIn measuring exit fluences, there are several sources of deviations which include the changes in the entrance fluence, changes in the detector response and patient orientation or geometry. The purpose of this work is to quantify these sources of errors.BackgroundThe use of the volumetric modulated arc therapy treatment with the help of image guidance in radiotherapy results in high accuracy of delivering complex dose distributions while sparing critical organs. The transit dosimetry has the potential of Verifying dose delivery by the linac, Multileaf collimator positional accuracy and the calculation of dose to a patient or phantom.Materials and methodsThe quantification of errors caused by a machine delivery is done by comparing static and arc picket fence test for 30 days. A RapidArc plan, created for the pelvis site was delivered without and with Rando phantom and exit portal images were acquired. The day to day dose variation were analysed by comparing the daily exit dose images during the course of treatment. The gamma criterion used for analysis is 3% dose difference and 3 mm distance to agreement with a threshold of 10% of maximum dose.ResultsThe maximum standard deviation for the static and arc picket fence test fields were 0.19 CU and 1.3 CU, respectively. The delivery of the RapidArc plans without a phantom shows the maximum standard deviation of 1.85 CU and the maximum gamma value of 0.59. The maximum gamma value for the RapidArc plan delivered with the phantom was found to be 1.2. The largest observed fluence deviation during the delivery to patient was 5.7% and the maximum standard deviation was 4.1 CU.ConclusionIt is found from this study that the variation due to patient anatomy and interfraction organ motion is significant.     

A machine learning-based framework for delivery error prediction in proton pencil beam scanning using irradiation log-files

PurposeThis study aims to investigate the use of machine learning models for delivery error prediction in proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) delivery.MethodsA dataset of planned and delivered PBS spot parameters was generated from a set of 20 prostate patient treatments. Planned spot parameters (spot position, MU and energy) were extracted from the treatment planning system (TPS) for each beam. Delivered spot parameters were extracted from irradiation log-files for each beam delivery following treatment. The dataset was used as a training dataset for three machine learning models which were trained to predict delivered spot parameters based on planned parameters. K-fold cross validation was employed for hyper-parameter tuning and model selection where the mean absolute error (MAE) was used as the model evaluation metric. The model with lowest MAE was then selected to generate a predicted dose distribution for a test prostate patient within a commercial TPS.ResultsAnalysis of the spot position delivery error between planned and delivered values resulted in standard deviations of 0.39 mm and 0.44 mm for x and y spot positions respectively. Prediction error standard deviation values of spot positions using the selected model were 0.22 mm and 0.11 mm for x and y spot positions respectively. Finally, a three-way comparison of dose distributions and DVH values for select OARs indicates that the random-forest-predicted dose distribution within the test prostate patient was in closer agreement to the delivered dose distribution than the planned distribution.ConclusionsPBS delivery error can be accurately predicted using machine learning techniques.     

Clinically relevant quality assurance (QA) for prostate RapidArc plans: Gamma maps and DVH-based evaluation

The aim of this paper is to evaluate clinically relevant quality assurance (QA) tests for RapidArc prostate patients. 26 plans were verified by the COMPASS system that provides an independent angle response and a reconstruction of dose distribution in patient CT model. Plan data were imported from treatment planning system via DICOM. The fluencies, measured by a 2D detector, were used by COMPASS to forward calculate dose in CT patients and reconstruct dose-volume-histogram (DVH). The gamma analysis was performed, using both the criteria 3%-3-mm and 2%-2 mm, for the whole grid patient and the per-structure volume. A DVH-based analysis was accomplished for target and organs-at-risk (OAR). The correlation between gamma passing rates and DVH discrepancies was performed using Pearson's test. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of whole and per-structure gamma method were calculated.No significant DVH deviation was observed for target and OAR. Weak correlation between gamma passing rates and dosimetric deviations was observed, all significant r-values were negative. The whole gamma method shows lack of sensitivity to detect dosimetric deviations >5%. Instead, a better balance between sensitivity and specificity was obtained employing per structure gamma both with 3%-3 mm and 2%-2 mm criteria.Because of the poor correlation between DVH goals and gamma passing rates, we encourage the DVH-based gamma passing rates, when it is possible. At least, a gamma method specific for structure was strongly suggested.     

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.     

A novel method for dose distribution registration using fiducial marks made by a megavoltage beam in film dosimetry for intensity-modulated radiation therapy quality assurance

PurposePhotographic film is widely used for the dose distribution verification of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). However, analysis for verification of the results is subjective. We present a novel method for marking the isocenter using irradiation from a megavoltage (MV) beam transmitted through slits in a multi-leaf collimator (MLC).MethodsWe evaluated the effect of the marking irradiation at 500 monitor units (MU) on the total transmission through the MLC using an ionization chamber and Radiochromic Film. Film dosimetry was performed for quality assurance (QA) of IMRT plans. Three methods of registration were used for each film: marking by irradiating with an MV beam through slits in the MLC (MLC-IC); marking with a fabricated phantom (Phantom-IC); and a subjective method based on isodose lines (Manual). Each method was subjected to local γ-analysis.ResultsThe effect of the marking irradiation on the total transmission was 0.16%, as measured by a ionization chamber at a 10-cm depth in a solid phantom, while the inter-leaf transmission was 0.3%, determined from the film. The mean pass rates for each registration method agreed within ±1% when the criteria used were a distance-to-agreement (DTA) of 3 mm and a dose difference (DD) of 3%. For DTA/DD criteria of 2 mm/3%, the pass rates in the sagittal plane were 96.09 ± 0.631% (MLC-IC), 96.27 ± 0.399% (Phantom-IC), and 95.62 ± 0.988% (Manual).ConclusionThe present method is a versatile and useful method of improving the objectivity of film dosimetry for IMRT QA.