Quantifying the performance of two different types of commercial software programs for 3D patient dose reconstruction for prostate cancer patients: Machine log files vs. machine log files with EPID images

We clarified the reconstructed 3D dose difference between two different commercial software programs (Mobius3D v2.0 and PerFRACTION v1.6.4).Five prostate cancer patients treated with IMRT (74 Gy/37 Fr) were studied. Log files and cine EPID images were acquired for each fraction. 3D patient dose was reconstructed using log files (Mobius3D) or log files with EPID imaging (PerFRACTION). The treatment planning dose was re-calculated on homogeneous and heterogeneous phantoms, and log files and cine EPID images were acquired. Measured doses were compared with the reconstructed point doses in the phantom. Next, we compared dosimetric metrics (mean dose for PTV, rectum, and bladder) calculated by Mobius3D and PerFRACTION for all fractions from five patients.Dose difference at isocenter between measurement and reconstructed dose for two software programs was within 3.0% in both homogeneous and heterogeneous phantoms. Moreover, the dose difference was larger using skip arc plan than that using full arc plan, especially for PerFRACTION (e.g., dose difference at isocenter for PerFRACTION: 0.34% for full arc plan vs. ?4.50% for skip arc plan in patient 1).For patients, differences in dosimetric parameters were within 1% for almost all fractions. PerFRACTION had wider range of dose difference between first fraction and the other fractions than Mobius3D (e.g., maximum difference: 0.50% for Mobius3D vs. 1.85% for PerFRACTION), possibly because EPID may detect some types of MLC positioning errors such as miscalibration errors or mechanical backlash which cannot be detected by log files, or that EPID data might include image acquisition failure and image noise.