Analyzing the performance of ArcCHECK diode array detector for VMAT plan

Aim

The aim of this study is to evaluate performance of ArcCHECK diode array detector for the volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) patient specific quality assurance (QA). VMAT patient specific QA results were correlated with ion chamber measurement. Dose response of the ArcCHECK detector was studied.

Background

VMAT delivery technique improves the dose distribution. It is complex in nature and requires proper QA before its clinical implementation. ArcCHECK is a novel three dimensional dosimetry system.

Materials and methods

Twelve retrospective VMAT plans were calculated on ArcCHECK phantom. Point dose and dose map were measured simultaneously with ion chamber (IC-15) and ArcCHECK diode array detector, respectively. These measurements were compared with their respective TPS calculated values.

Results

The ion chamber measurements are in good agreement with TPS calculated doses. Mean difference between them is 0.50% with standard deviation of 0.51%. Concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) obtained for ion chamber measurements is 0.9996. These results demonstrate a strong correlation between the absolute dose predicted by our TPS and the measured dose. The CCC between ArcCHECK doses and TPS predictions on the CAX was found to be 0.9978. In gamma analysis of dose map, the mean passing rate was 98.53% for 3% dose difference and 3 mm distance to agreement.

Conclusions

The VMAT patient specific QA with an ion chamber and ArcCHECK phantom are consistent with the TPS calculated dose. Statistically good agreement was observed between ArcCHECK measured and TPS calculated. Hence, it can be used for routine VMAT QA.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Report on Use of a Methodology for Commissioning and Quality Assurance of a VMAT System

Introduction

Results of use of methodology for VMAT commissioning and quality assurance, utilizing both control point tests and dosimetric measurements are presented.

Methods and Materials

A generalizable, phantom measurement approach is used to characterize the accuracy of the measurement system. Correction for angular response of the measurement system and inclusion of couch structures are used to characterize the full range gantry angles desirable for clinical plans. A dose based daily QA measurement approach is defined.

Results

Agreement in the static vs. VMAT picket fence control point test was better than 0.5 mm. Control point tests varying gantry rotation speed, leaf speed and dose rate, demonstrated agreement with predicted values better than 1%. Angular dependence of the MatriXX array, varied over a range of 0.94–1.06, with respect to the calibration condition. Phantom measurements demonstrated central axis dose accuracy for un-modulated four field box plans was ≥2.5% vs. 1% with and without angular correction respectively with better results for VMAT (0.4%) vs. IMRT (1.6%) plans. Daily QA results demonstrated average agreement all three chambers within 0.4% over 9 month period with no false positives at a 3% threshold.

Discussion

The methodology described is simple in design and characterizes both the inherit limitations of the measurement system as well at the dose based measurements that may be directly related to patient plan QA.     

Analysis of a volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) single phase prostate template as a class solution

AimTo assess a class solution template for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for prostate cancer using plan analysis software.BackgroundVMAT is a development of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with potential advantages for the delivery of radiotherapy (RT) in prostate cancer. Class solutions are increasingly used for facilitating RT planning. Plan analysis software provides an objective tool for evaluating class solutions.Materials and methodsThe class solution for VMAT was based on the current static field IMRT template. The plans of 77 prostate cancer patients were evaluated using a set of in-house plan quality metrics (scores) (PlanIQ™, Sun Nuclear Corporation). The metrics compared the class solution for VMAT planning with the IMRT template and the delivered clinical plan (CP). Eight metrics were associated with target coverage and ten with organs-at-risk (OAR). Individual metrics were summed and the combined scores were subjected to non-parametric analysis. The low-dose wash for both static IMRT and VMAT plans were evaluated using 40 Gy and 25 Gy isodose volumes.ResultsVMAT plans were of equal or better quality than the IMRT template and CP for target coverage (combined score) and OAR combined score. The 40 Gy isodose volume was marginally higher with VMAT than IMRT (4.9%) but lower than CP (−6.6%)(P = 0.0074). The 25 Gy volume was significantly lower with VMAT than both IMRT (−32.7%) and CP (−34.4%)(P < 0.00001).ConclusionsAutomated VMAT planning for prostate cancer is feasible and the plans are equal to or better than the current IMRT class solution and the delivered clinical plan.     

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.     

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.     

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

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

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.     

Quality assurance-based optimization (QAO): Towards improving patient-specific quality assurance in volumetric modulated arc therapy plans using machine learning

IntroductionPrevious literature has shown general trade-offs between plan complexity and resulting quality assurance (QA) outcomes. However, existing solutions for controlling this trade-off do not guarantee corresponding improvements in deliverability. Therefore, this work explored the feasibility of an optimization framework for directly maximizing predicted QA outcomes of plans without compromising the dosimetric quality of plans designed with an established knowledge-based planning (KBP) technique.Materials and MethodsA support vector machine (SVM) was developed – using a database of 500 previous VMAT plans – to predict gamma passing rates (GPRs; 3%/3mm percent dose-difference/distance-to-agreement with local normalization) based on selected complexity features. A heuristic, QA-based optimization (QAO) framework was devised by utilizing the SVM model to iteratively modify mechanical treatment features most commonly associated with suboptimal GPRs. Specifically, leaf gaps (LGs) <50 mm were widened by random amounts, which impacts all aperture-based complexity features. 13 prostate KBP-guided VMAT plans were optimized via QAO using user-specified maximum LG displacements before corresponding changes in predicted GPRs and dose were assessed.ResultsPredicted GPRs increased by an average of 1.14 ± 1.25% (p = 0.006) with QAO using a 3 mm maximum random LG displacement. There were small differences in dose, resulting in similarly small changes in tumor control probability (maximum increase = 0.05%) and normal tissue complication probabilities in the bladder, rectum, and femoral heads (maximum decrease = 0.2% in the rectum).ConclusionThis study explored the feasibility of QAO and warrants future investigations of further incorporating QA endpoints into plan optimization.     

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.     

Dosimetric study of a hybrid plan technique for external beam radiotherapy in patients with cervical cancer

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of a hybrid technique which results from combining intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for the treatment of cervical cancer patients. Plans made with the hybrid technique and pure IMRT and VMAT were retrospectively compared in 20 patients with cervical cancer at different stages. All plans were made using the same contours based on the original computed tomography (CT) scans. Conformity (CI) and homogeneity (HI) indices of the planning target volumes (PTVs) were calculated for each technique in order to evaluate plan quality. All techniques were compared in terms of dose to organs at risk (OARs), number of monitor units (MUs) and treatment time. It turned out that plans made with the hybrid technique had improved dose conformity and homogeneity compared to plans made only with IMRT and VMAT (p < 0.001). Regarding the OARs, the maximum dose (D_max) delivered to the bladder, rectum and femoral heads was lower for the hybrid plans compared to the IMRT and VMAT plans (p < 0.001). The volumes irradiated to doses of 50 Gy (V_50Gy) for rectum, bladder and bowel were lower for the hybrid plans (p < 0.001, p = 0.002). Furthermore, the treatment time and MU values for the hybrid plans were found to be between of the values for the IMRT and VMAT plans. It is concluded that, as compared to IMRT and VMAT plans, the hybrid plan technique allowed a better conformity and homogeneity for the dose distribution in the PTV and a dose reduction to the OARs.

     

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

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

Accuracy of dose calculation algorithms for static and rotational IMRT of lung cancer: A phantom study

PurposeTo evaluate the dosimetric accuracy of Pencil beam (PB), Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) and Collapsed Cone Convolution Superposition (CCCS) in thoracic tumours for various IMRT techniques.MethodsStep-and-shoot Linac IMRT (IMRT), arc volumetric RapidArc (RA) and Helical Tomotherapy (HT) lung treatments for different clinical situations (mediastinum tumour, single metastasis and multiple metastases) were simulated and calculated with PB/AAA, AAA, CCCS, respectively. Delivery quality assurance plans were first verified in homogeneous media (Cheese phantom and ArcCHECK); then several low-density inhomogeneous phantoms were used: the Multiplug ArcCHECK, the commercial ArcCHECK slightly modified with a low density lung–shape insert and a custom-made slab heterogeneous phantom simulating the thorax region. Absolute doses and planar dose maps were checked to assess the agreement between measured and calculated dose distributions.ResultsIn total, data referred to 195 point dose measurements and 189 planar measurements were considered. Average point absolute deviations <3% were found for all the delivery techniques/dose algorithms. In small targets completely embedded in very low density media, deviations up to 7–10% and 4–5% were found for PB and AAA/CCCS respectively. Excellent results were found for planar measurements in ArcCHECK configurations, where ≥95% of points satisfy the 3%/3 mm acceptance criteria for all the algorithms.ConclusionsA satisfactory agreement (<2%) between planned and measured doses was generally found for CCCS and AAA, excepting the very critical situation of a small tumour completely embedded in air. A significant dose overestimation (from few to 5–7%) was confirmed for PB in complex inhomogeneous arrangements.     

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.     

In-vivo EPID dosimetry for IMRT and VMAT based on through-air predicted portal dose algorithm

We have adapted the methodology of Berry et al. (2012) for Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) treatments at a fixed source to imager distance (SID) based on the manufacturer’s through-air portal dose image prediction algorithm. In order to fix the SID a correction factor was introduced to account for the change in air gap between patient and imager. Commissioning data, collected with multiple field sizes, solid water thicknesses and air gaps, were acquired at 150 cm SID on the Varian aS1200 EPID. The method was verified using six IMRT and seven VMAT plans on up to three different phantoms. The method’s sensitivity and accuracy were investigated by introducing errors. A global 3%/3 mm gamma was used to assess the differences between the predicted and measured portal dose images. The effect of a varying air gap on EPID signal was found to be significant – varying by up to 30% with field size, phantom thickness, and air gap. All IMRT plans passed the 3%/3 mm gamma criteria by more than 95% on the three phantoms. 23 of 24 arcs from the VMAT plans passed the 3%/3 mm gamma criteria by more than 95%. This method was found to be sensitive to a range of potential errors. The presented approach provides fast and accurate in-vivo EPID dosimetry for IMRT and VMAT treatments and can potentially replace many pre-treatment verifications.     

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.     

Dosimetric validation of a redundant independent calculation software for VMAT fields

A redundant independent dosimetric calculation (RIDC) prior to treatment has become a basic part of the QA process for 3D conventional radiotherapy, and is strongly recommended in several international publications. On the other hand, the rapid growth in the number of intensity modulated treatments has led to a significant increase in the workflow associated with QA treatments. Diamond (“K&S Associates”) is RIDC software which is capable of calculating VMAT (Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy) fields. Modeling, validation and commissioning are necessary steps thereby making it a useful tool for VMAT QA. In this paper, a procedure for the validation of the calculation algorithm is demonstrated. A set 3D conventional field was verified in two ways: firstly, a comparison was made between Diamond calculations and experimental measures obtaining an average deviation of ?0.1 ± 0.7%(1SD), and secondly, a comparison made between Diamond and the treatment planning system (TPS) Eclipse, obtaining an average deviation of 0.4 ± 0.8%(1SD). For both steps, a plastic slab phantom was used. VMAT validation was carried out by analyzing 59 VMAT plans in two ways: first, Diamond calculation versus experimental measurement with an average deviation of ?0.2 ± 1.7%(1SD), and second, Diamond calculation versus TPS calculation with an average deviation of 0.0 ± 1.6%(1SD). In this phase a homogeneous cylindrical phantom was used. These results led us to consider this calculation algorithm validated for use in VMAT verifications.