An extensive log-file analysis of step-and-shoot intensity modulated radiation therapy segment delivery errors

Is it still necessary to perform measured based pre-treatment patient-specific QA for SRS HyperArc treatments?

PURPOSE

The Mobius3D system was validated as a modern secondary check dosimetry system. In particular, our objective has been to assess the suitability of the M3D as pre-treatment patient-specific Quality Assurance (QA) tool for Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS) HyperArc (HA) treatments. We aimed to determine whether Mobius3D could safely replace the measurements-based patient-specific QA for this type of treatment.

METHODS

30 SRS HA treatment plans for brain were selected. The dose distributions, calculated by Mobius and our routinely used algorithm (AcurosXB v.15.6), were compared using gamma analysis index and DVH parameters based on the patient's CT dataset. All 30 plans were then delivered across the ionization chamber in a homogeneous phantom and the measured dose was compared with both M3D and TPS calculated one. The plans were delivered and verified in terms of PSQA using the electronic portal imaging device (EPID) with Portal Dosimetry (PD) and myQA SRS (IBA Dosimetry) detector. Plans that achieved a global gamma passing rate (GPR) ≥ 97% based on 2%/2 mm criteria, with both Mobius3D and the conventional methods were evaluated acceptable. Finally, we assessed the capability of the M3D system to detect errors related to the position of the Multi-Leaf Collimator (MLC) in comparison to the analyzed measurement-based systems.

RESULTS

No relevant differences were observed in the comparison between the dose calculated on the CT-dataset by M3D and the TPS. Observed discrepancies are imputable to different used algorithms, but no discrepancies related to goodness of plans have been found. Average differences between calculated (M3D and TPS) vs measured dose with ionization chamber were 2.5% (from 0.41% to 3.2%) and 1.81% (from 0.66% to 2.65%), for M3D and TPS, respectively. All plans passed with a gamma passing rate > 97% using conventional PSQA methods with a gamma criterion of 2% dose difference and 2 mm distance-to-agreement. The average gamma passing rate for the M3D system was determined to be 99.4% (from 97.3% to 100%). Results from this study also demonstrated Mobius has better error detectability than conventional measurement-based systems.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows Mobius3D could be a suitable alternative to conventional measured based QA methods for SRS HyperArc treatments.

Impact of log file source and data frequency on accuracy of log file-based patient specific quality assurance

Performing phantom measurements for patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) adds a significant amount of time to the adaptive radiotherapy procedure. Log file based PSQA can be used to increase the efficiency of this process. This study compared the dosimetric accuracy of high-frequency linear accelerator (Linac) log files and low-frequency log data stored in the oncology information system (OIS). Thirty patients were included, that were recently treated in the head and neck (HN), brain, and prostate region with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and an additional ten patients treated using stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) with 3D-conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) technique. Log data containing a single fraction were used to calculate the dose distributions. The dosimetric differences between Linac log files and OIS logs were evaluated with a gamma analysis with 2%/2 mm criterion and dose threshold of 30%. The original treatment plan was used as a reference. Moreover, DVH parameters of D_98%, D_50%, and D_2% of the planning-target volume (PTV) and dose to several organs at risk (OARs) were reported. Significant differences in dose distributions between the two log types and the original dose were observed for PTV D_98% and D_2% (r < 0.001) for HN cases, PTV D_98% (r = 0.005) for brain cases, and PTV D_50% (r = 0.015) for prostate cases. No significant differences were found between the two log types with respect to D_50%. The root mean square (RMS) error of the leaf positions of the OIS log was approximately twice the RMS error of the Linac log file for VMAT plans, but identical for 3D-CRT plans. The relationship between the gamma pass rate and the RMS error showed a moderate correlation for the Linac log files (r = -0.58, p < 0.001) and strong correlation for OIS logs (r = -0.71, p < 0.001). Furthermore, all doses calculated using Linac log files and OIS log data had a GPR >90% for an RMS error < 3.3 mm. Based on these findings, a tolerance limit of RMS error of 3.3 mm for considering OIS log based PSQA was established. Nevertheless, the OIS log data quality should be improved to achieve adequate PSQA.

Clinical implementation of a log file-based machine and patient QA system for IMRT and VMAT treatment plans

PURPOSE

To determine the error detection sensitivity of a commercial log file-based system (LINACWatch®, LW) for integration into clinical routine and to compare it with a measurement device (OCTAVIUS 4D, Oct4D) for IMRT and VMAT delivery QA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

76 VMAT/IMRT plans (H&N, prostate, rectum and breast) preliminarily classified according to their Modulation Complexity Score (MCS) calculated by LW, were considered. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curves were used to establish gamma criteria for LW. 12 plans (3 for each site) were intentionally modified in order to introduce delivery errors regarding MLC, jaws, collimator, gantry and MU (for a total set of 168 incorrect plans) and irradiated on Oct4D; the corresponding log files were analysed by LW. Each incorrect plan was compared to the error-free plan using γ-index analysis for MLC, jaws and MU errors investigation and Root-Mean-Square (RMS) values for gantry and collimator errors investigation.

RESULTS

MCS ranges values were: 0.10-0.20 for H&N, 0.21-0.40 for prostate and rectum, 0.41-1.00 for breast. From ROC curves, the Gamma Passing Rate (GPR) thresholds were: 87%, 92%, 99% for H&N, prostate and rectum, and breast, respectively. The 1.5%/1.5 mm/local criteria were adopted for the γ-analysis. LW sensitivity in detecting the introduced errors was higher when compared to Oct4D: 48.5% vs 30.4% respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

LW can be considered useful complement to phantom-based delivery QA of IMRT/VMAT plans. The MCS tool is effective in detecting over or under modulated plans prior to pre-treatment QA. However, rigorous and routinely machine QCs are recommended.

Prediction of portal dosimetry quality assurance results using log files-derived errors and machine learning techniques

Objective

This work aims to use machine learning models to predict gamma passing rate of portal dosimetry quality assurance with log file derived features. This allows daily treatment monitoring for patients and reduce wear and tear on EPID detectors to save cost and prevent downtime.

Methods

578 VMAT trajectory log files selected from prostate, lung and spine SBRT were used in this work. Four machine learning models were explored to identify the best performing regression model for predicting gamma passing rate within each sub-site and the entire unstratified data. Predictors used in these models comprised of hand-crafted log file-derived features as well as modulation complexity score. Cross validation was used to evaluate the model performance in terms of R² and RMSE.

Result

Using gamma passing rate of 1%/1mm criteria and entire dataset, LASSO regression has a R² of 0.121 ± 0.005 and RMSE of 4.794 ± 0.013%, SVM regression has a R² of 0.605 ± 0.036 and RMSE of 3.210 ± 0.145%, Random Forest regression has a R² of 0.940 ± 0.019 and RMSE of 1.233 ± 0.197%. XGBoost regression has the best performance with a R² and RMSE value of 0.981 ± 0.015 and 0.652 ± 0.276%, respectively.

Conclusion

Log file-derived features can predict gamma passing rate of portal dosimetry with an average error of less than 2% using the 1%/1mm criteria. This model can potentially be applied to predict the patient specific QA results for every treatment fraction.

Machine Log File and Calibration Errors-based Patient-specific Quality Assurance (QA) for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT)

INTRODUCTION

Dose reconstructed based on linear accelerator (linac) log-files is one of the widely used solutions to perform patient-specific quality assurance (QA). However, it has a drawback that the accuracy of log-file is highly dependent on the linac calibration. The objective of the current study is to represent a new practical approach for a patient-specific QA during Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using both log-file and calibration errors of linac.

METHODS

A total of six cases, including two head and neck neoplasms, two lung cancers, and two rectal carcinomas, were selected. The VMAT-based delivery was optimized by the TPS of Pinnacle^3 subsequently, using Elekta Synergy VMAT linac (Elekta Oncology Systems, Crawley, UK), which was equipped with 80 Multi-leaf collimators (MLCs) and the energy of the ray selected at 6 MV. Clinical mode log-file of this linac was used in this study. A series of test fields validate the accuracy of log-file. Then, six plans of test cases were delivered and log-file of each was obtained. The log-file errors were added to the corresponding plans through the house script and the first reconstructed plan was obtained. Later, a series of tests were performed to evaluate the major calibration errors of the linac (dose-rate, gantry angle, MLC leaf position) and the errors were added to the first reconstruction plan to generate the second reconstruction plan. At last, all plans were imported to Pinnacle and recalculated dose distribution on patient CT and ArcCheck phantom (SUN Nuclear). For the former, both target and OAR dose differences between them were compared. For the latter, γ was evaluated by ArcCheck, and subsequently, the surface dose differences between them were performed.

RESULTS

Accuracy of log-file was validated. If error recordings in the log file were only considered, there were four arcs whose proportion of control points with gantry angle errors more than ± 1°larger than 35%. Errors of leaves within ± 0.5 mm were 95% for all arcs. The distinctness of a single control point MU was bigger, but the distinctness of cumulative MU was smaller. The maximum, minimum, and mean doses for all targets were distributed between -6.79E-02-0.42%, -0.38-0.4%, 2.69E-02-8.54E-02% respectively, whereas for all OAR, the maximum and mean dose were distributed between -1.16-2.51%, -1.21-3.12% respectively. For the second reconstructed dose: the maximum, minimum, and mean dose for all targets was distributed between 0.0995~5.7145%, 0.6892~4.4727%, 0.5829~1.8931% separately. Due to OAR, maximum and mean dose distribution was observed between -3.1462~6.8920%, -6.9899~1.9316%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Patient-specific QA based on the log-file could reflect the accuracy of the linac execution plan, which usually has a small influence on dose delivery. When the linac calibration errors were considered, the reconstructed dose was closer to the actual delivery and the developed method was accurate and practical.

Prediction of VMAT delivery accuracy using plan modulation complexity score and log-files analysis

The purpose of this study was to develop a predictive model based on plan complexity metrics and linac log-files analysis to classify the dosimetric accuracy of VMAT plans. A total of 612 VMAT plans, corresponding to 1224 arcs, were analyzed. All VMAT arcs underwent pre-treatment verification that was performed by means of the dynamic log-files generated by the linac. The comparison of predicted (by TPS) and measured (by log-files) integral fluences was performed using γ-analysis in terms of the percentage of points with γ-value smaller than one (γ%) and using a stringent 2%(local)/2mm criteria. This γ-analysis was performed by a commercial software LinacWatch. The action limits (AL) were derived from the mean values, standard deviations and the confidence limit (CL) of the γ% distribution. A plan complexity metric, the modulation complexity score (MCS), based on the aperture beam area variability and leaf sequence variability was used as input variable of the model. A binary logistic regression (LR) model was developed to classify QA results as "pass" (γ%≥AL) or "fail" (γ%<AL). Receiver operator characteristics (ROC) curves were used to determine the optimal MCS threshold to flag "failed" plans that need to be re-optimized. The model reliability was evaluated stratifying the plans in training, validation and testing groups. The confidence and action limits for γ% were found 20.1% and 79.9%, respectively. The accuracy of the model for the training and testing dataset was 97.4% and 98.0%, respectively. The optimal MCS threshold value for the identification of failed plans was 0.142, providing a true positive rate able to flag the plans failing QA of 91%. In clinical routine, the use of this MCS threshold may allow the prompt identification of overly modulated plans, then reducing the number of QA failures and improving the quality of VMAT plans used for treatment.

Comparison of MLC positioning deviations using log files and establishment of specific assessment parameters for different accelerators with IMRT and VMAT

Background and purpose

The study evaluated the differences in leaf positioning deviations by the log files of three advanced accelerators with two delivery techniques, and established specific assessment parameters of leaf positioning deviations for different types of accelerators.

Methods

A total of 420 treatment plans with 5 consecutive treatment log files were collected from the Trilogy, TrueBeam and Halcyon accelerators. Millennium MLC was equipped on the Trilogy and TrueBeam accelerators. A jawless design and dual-layer MLC were adopted on the Halcyon accelerator. 70 IMRT and 70 VMAT plans were selected randomly on each accelerator. The treatment sites of all plans included head and neck, chest, breast, pelvis and other sites. The parsing tasks for 2100 log files were proceeded by SunCheck software from Sun Nuclear Corporation. The maximum leaf root mean square (RMS) errors, 95th percentile errors and percentages of different leaf positioning errors were statistically analyzed. The correlations between these evaluation parameters and accelerator performance parameters (maximum leaf speed, mean leaf speed, gantry and arc angle) were analyzed.

Results

The average maximum leaf RMS errors of the Trilogy in the IMRT and VMAT plans were 0.44 ± 0.09 mm and 0.79 ± 0.07 mm, respectively, which were higher than the TrueBeam's 0.03 ± 0.01 mm, 0.03 ± 0.01 mm and the Halcyon's 0.05 ± 0.01 mm, 0.07 ± 0.01 mm. Similar data results were shown in the 95th percentile error. The maximum leaf RMS errors were strongly correlated with the 95th percentile errors (Pearson index > 0.5). The leaf positioning deviations in VMAT were higher than those in IMRT for all accelerators. In TrueBeam and Halcyon, leaf position errors above 1 mm were not found in IMRT and VMAT plans. The main influencing factor of leaf positioning deviation was the leaf speed, which has no strong correlation with gantry and arc angles.

Conclusions

Compared with the quality assurance guidelines, the MLC positioning deviations tolerances of the three accelerators should be tightened. For both IMRT and VMAT techniques, the 95th percentile error and the maximum RMS error are suggested to be tightened to 1.5 and 1 mm respectively for the Trilogy accelerator. In TrueBeam and Halcyon accelerators, the 95th percentile error and maximum RMS error of 1 and 0.5 mm, respectively, are considered appropriate.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13014-022-02097-0.

Isodoses-a set theory-based patient-specific QA measure to compare planned and delivered isodose distributions in photon radiotherapy

BACKGROUND

The gamma index and dose-volume histogram (DVH)-based patient-specific quality assurance (QA) measures commonly applied in radiotherapy planning are unable to simultaneously deliver detailed locations and magnitudes of discrepancy between isodoses of planned and delivered dose distributions. By exploiting statistical classification performance measures such as sensitivity or specificity, compliance between a planned and delivered isodose may be evaluated locally, both for organs-at-risk (OAR) and the planning target volume (PTV), at any specified isodose level. Thus, a patient-specific QA tool may be developed to supplement those presently available in clinical radiotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A method was developed to locally establish and report dose delivery errors in three-dimensional (3D) isodoses of planned (reference) and delivered (evaluated) dose distributions simultaneously as a function the dose level and of spatial location. At any given isodose level, the total volume of delivered dose containing the reference and the evaluated isodoses is locally decomposed into four subregions: true positive-subregions within both reference and evaluated isodoses, true negative-outside of both of these isodoses, false positive-inside the evaluated isodose but not the reference isodose, and false negatives-inside the reference isodose but not the evaluated isodose. Such subregions may be established over the whole volume of delivered dose. This decomposition allows the construction of a confusion matrix and calculation of various indices to quantify the discrepancies between the selected planned and delivered isodose distributions, over the complete range of values of dose delivered. The 3D projection and visualization of the spatial distribution of these discrepancies facilitates the application of the developed method in clinical practice.

RESULTS

Several clinical photon radiotherapy plans were analyzed using the developed method. In some plans at certain isodose levels, dose delivery errors were found at anatomically significant locations. These errors were not otherwise highlighted-neither by gamma analysis nor by DVH-based QA measures. A specially developed 3D projection tool to visualize the spatial distribution of such errors against anatomical features of the patient aids in the proposed analysis of therapy plans.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed method is able to spatially locate delivery errors at selected isodose levels and may supplement the presently applied gamma analysis and DVH-based QA measures in patient-specific radiotherapy planning.

Insensitivity of machine log files to MLC leaf backlash and effect of MLC backlash on clinical dynamic MLC motion: An experimental investigation

Purpose

Multi‐leaf‐collimator (MLC) leaf position accuracy is important for accurate dynamic radiotherapy treatment plan delivery. Machine log files have become widely utilized for quality assurance (QA) of such dynamic treatments. The primary aim is to test the sensitivity of machine log files in comparison to electronic portal imaging device (EPID)‐based measurements to MLC position errors caused by leaf backlash. The secondary aim is to investigate the effect of MLC leaf backlash on MLC leaf motion during clinical dynamic plan delivery.

Methods

The sensitivity of machine log files and two EPID‐based measurements were assessed via a controlled experiment, whereby the length of the “T” section of a series of 12 MLC leaf T‐nuts in a Varian Millennium MLC for a Trilogy C‐series type linac was reduced by sandpapering the top of the “T” to introduce backlash. The built‐in machine MLC leaf backlash test as well as measurements for two EPID‐based dynamic MLC positional tests along with log files were recorded pre‐ and post‐T‐nut modification. All methods were investigated for sensitivity to the T‐nut change by assessing the effect on measured MLC leaf positions. A reduced version of the experiment was repeated on a TrueBeam type linac with Millennium MLC.

Results

No significant differences before and after T‐nut modification were detected in any of the log file data. Both EPID methods demonstrated sensitivity to the introduced change at approximately the expected magnitude with a strong dependence observed with gantry angle. EPID‐based data showed MLC positional error in agreement with the micrometer measured T‐nut length change to 0.07 ± 0.05 mm (1 SD) using the departmental routine QA test. Backlash results were consistent between linac types.

Conclusion

Machine log files appear insensitive to MLC position errors caused by MLC leaf backlash introduced via the T‐nut. The effect of backlash on clinical MLC motions is heavily gantry angle dependent.

AAPM Task Group 198 Report: An implementation guide for TG 142 quality assurance of medical accelerators

The charges on this task group (TG) were as follows: (a) provide specific procedural guidelines for performing the tests recommended in TG 142; (b) provide estimate of the range of time, appropriate personnel, and qualifications necessary to complete the tests in TG 142; and (c) provide sample daily, weekly, monthly, or annual quality assurance (QA) forms. Many of the guidelines in this report are drawn from the literature and are included in the references. When literature was not available, specific test methods reflect the experiences of the TG members (e.g., a test method for door interlock is self-evident with no literature necessary). In other cases, the technology is so new that no literature for test methods was available. Given broad clinical adaptation of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), which is not a specific topic of TG 142, several tests and criteria specific to VMAT were added.

IMRT QA and gamma comparisons: The impact of detector geometry, spatial sampling, and delivery technique on gamma comparison sensitivity

PURPOSE

To separately quantify sensitivity differences in patient-specific quality assurance comparisons analyzed with the gamma comparison for different measurement geometries, spatial samplings, and delivery techniques [intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT)].

METHODS

Error-free calculations for 20 IMRT and 20 VMAT cases were compared to calculations with known induced errors of varying magnitudes, using gamma comparisons. Five error types (MU scaling, three different MLC errors, and collimator errors) were induced in plan calculations on three different detector geometries - ArcCHECK, MapCHECK, and Delta 4. To study detector geometry sensitivity effects alone, gamma comparisons were made with 1 mm error-free calculations compared to 1 mm error-induced calculations for each device. Effects of spatial sampling were studied by making the same gamma comparisons, but down-sampling the error-induced calculations to the real spatial sampling of each device. Additionally, 1 mm vs 1 mm comparisons between the IMRT and VMAT cases were compared to investigate sensitivity differences between IMRT and VMAT using IMRT and VMAT cohorts with similar ranges of plan complexity and average aperture size. For each case, induced error type, and device, five different gamma criteria were studied to ensure sensitivity differences between devices, spatial sampling scenarios, and delivery technique were not gamma criterion specific, resulting in over 36,000 gamma comparisons.

RESULTS

For IMRT cases, Delta4 and MapCHECK devices had similar error sensitivities for lagging leaf, bank shift, and MU errors, while the ArcCHECK had considerably lower sensitivity than the planar-type devices. For collimator errors and perturbational leaf errors the ArcCHECK had higher error sensitivity than planar-type devices. This behavior was independent of gamma parameters (percent dose difference, distance-to-agreement, and low dose threshold), though use of local normalization resulted in error sensitivites that were markedly similar between all three devices. Differences between detector geometries were less pronounced for VMAT deliveries. Error sensitivity for a given gamma criterion when comparing IMRT and VMAT deliveries on the same devices showed that VMAT plans were more sensitive to some specific error types and less sensitive to others, when compared to IMRT plans. For the ArcCHECK device, the sensitivity of IMRT and VMAT cases was quite similar, whereas this was not the case for the planar-type devices. When comparing error sensitivity between 1 mm vs 1 mm calculations and 1 mm vs the real spatial sampling for each device, results showed that increased spatial sampling did not systematically increase error sensitivity.

CONCLUSIONS

Noticeable differences in error sensitivity were observed for different detector geometries, but differences were dependent on induced error type, and a particular device geometry did not offer universal improvements in error sensitivity across studied error types. This study demonstrates that the sensitivity of the gamma comparison does not largely hinge on detector spatial sampling. VMAT deliveries were generally less sensitive to errors when compared to IMRT plans for the planar-type devices, while similar sensitivities were observed between delivery techniques for the ArcCHECK device. Results of this work suggest that a universal gamma criterion is inappropriate for IMRT QA and that the percent pixels passing is an insufficient metric for evaluating quality assurance checks in the clinic.

Commissioning and clinical implementation of the first commercial independent Monte Carlo 3D dose calculation to replace CyberKnife M6™ patient-specific QA measurements

PURPOSE

To report on the commissioning and clinical validation of the first commercially available independent Monte Carlo (MC) three-dimensional (3D) dose calculation for CyberKnife robotic radiosurgery system® (Accuray, Sunnyvale, CA).

METHODS

The independent dose calculation (IDC) by SciMoCa® (Scientific RT, Munich, Germany) was validated based on water measurements of output factors and dose profiles (unshielded diode, field-size dependent corrections). A set of 84 patient-specific quality assurance (QA) measurements for multi-leaf collimator (MLC) plans, using an Octavius two-dimensional SRS1000 array (PTW, Freiburg, Germany), was compared to results of respective calculations. Statistical process control (SPC) was used to detect plans outside action levels.

RESULTS

Of all output factors for the three collimator systems of the CyberKnife, 99% agreed within 2% and 81% within 1%, with a maximum deviation of 3.2% for a 5-mm fixed cone. The profiles were compared using a one-dimensional gamma evaluation with 2% dose difference and 0.5 mm distance-to-agreement (Γ(2,0.5)). The off-centre ratios showed an average pass rate >99% (92-100%). The agreement of the depth dose profiles depended on field size, with lowest pass rates for the smallest MLC field sizes. The average depth dose pass rate was 88% (35-99%). The IDCs showed a Γ(2,1) pass rate of 98%. Statistical process control detected six plans outside tolerance levels in the measurements, all of which could be attributed the measurement setup. Independent dose calculations showed problems in five plans, all due to differences in the algorithm between TPS and IDC. Based on these results changes were made in the class solution for treatment plans.

CONCLUSION

The first commercially available MC 3D dose IDC was successfully commissioned and validated for the CyberKnife and replaced all routine patient-specific QA measurements in our clinic.

Patient-specific quality assurance using machine log files analysis for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT)

An in‐house trajectory log analysis program (LOGQA) was developed to evaluate the delivery accuracy of volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Methods have been established in LOGQA to provide analysis on dose indices, gantry angles, and multi‐leaf collimator (MLC) positions. Between March 2019 and May 2020, 120 VMAT SBRT plans of various treatment sites using flattening filter‐free (FFF) mode were evaluated using both LOGQA and phantom measurements. Gantry angles, dose indices, and MLC positions were extracted from log and compared with each plan. Integrated transient fluence map (ITFM) was reconstructed from log to examine the deviation of delivered fluence against the planned one. Average correlation coefficient of dose index versus gantry angle and ITFM for all patients were 1.0000, indicating that the delivered beam parameters were in good agreement with planned values. Maximum deviation of gantry angles and monitor units (MU) of all patients were less than 0.2 degree and 0.03 % respectively. Regarding MLC positions, maximum and root‐mean‐square (RMS) deviations from planned values were less than 0.6 mm and 0.3 mm respectively, indicating that MLC positions during delivery followed planned values in precise manner. Results of LOGQA were consistent with measurement, where all gamma‐index passing rates were larger than 95 %, with 2 %/2 mm criteria. Three types of intentional errors were introduced to patient plan for software validation. LOGQA was found to recognize the introduced errors of MLC positions, gantry angles, and dose indices with magnitudes of 1 mm, 1 degree, and 5 %, respectively, which were masked in phantom measurement. LOGQA was demonstrated to have the potential to reduce or even replace patient‐specific QA measurements for SBRT plan delivery provided that the frequency and amount of measurement‐based machine‐specific QA can be increased to ensure the log files record real values of machine parameters.

Cross verification of independent dose recalculation, log files based, and phantom measurement-based pretreatment quality assurance for volumetric modulated arc therapy

Independent treatment planning system (TPS) check with Mobius3D software, log files based quality assurance (QA) with MobiusFX, and phantom measurement‐based QA with ArcCHECK were performed and cross verified for head‐and‐neck (17 patients), chest (16 patients), and abdominal (19 patients) cancer patients who underwent volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Dosimetric differences and percentage gamma passing rates (%GPs) were evaluated and compared for this cross verification. For the dosimetric differences in planning target volume (PTV) coverage, there was no significant difference among TPS vs. Mobius3D, TPS vs. MobiusFX, and TPS vs. ArcCHECK. For the dosimetric differences in organs at risks (OARs), the number of metrics with an average dosimetric differences higher than ±3% for TPS vs Mobius3D, TPS vs MobiusFX, and TPS vs ArcCHECK were 1, 1, 7; 2, 1, 4; 1, 1, 5 for the patients with head‐and‐neck, abdomen, and chest cancer, respectively. The %GPs of global gamma indices for Mobius3D and MobiousFX were above 97%, while it ranged from 92% to 96% for ArcCHECK. The %GPs of individual volume‐based gamma indices were around 98% for Mobius3D and MobiousFX, except for γPTV for chest and abdominal cancer (88.9% to 92%); while it ranged from 86% to 99% for ArcCHECK. In conclusion, some differences in dosimetric metrics and gamma passing rates were observed with ArcCHECK measurement‐based QA in comparison with independent dosecheck and log files based QA. Care must be taken when considering replacing phantom measurement‐based IMRT/VMAT QA.

Quality assurance of VMAT on flattened and flattening filter-free accelerators using a high spatial resolution detector

PURPOSE

This study investigated the use of high spatial resolution solid-state detectors (DUO and Octa) combined with an inclinometer for machine-based quality assurance (QA) of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) with flattened and flattening filter-free beams.

METHOD

The proposed system was inserted in the accessory tray of the gantry head of a Varian 21iX Clinac and a Truebeam linear accelerator. Mutual dependence of the dose rate (DR) and gantry speed (GS) was assessed using the standard Varian customer acceptance plan (CAP). The multi-leaf collimator (MLC) leaf speed was evaluated under static gantry conditions in directions parallel and orthogonal to gravity as well as under dynamic gantry conditions. Measurements were compared to machine log files.

RESULTS

DR and GS as a function of gantry angle were reconstructed using the DUO/inclinometer and in agreement to within 1% with the machine log files in the sectors of constant DR and GS. The MLC leaf speeds agreed with the nominal speeds and those extracted from the machine log files to within 0.03 cm s-1 . The effect of gravity on the leaf motion was only observed when the leaves traveled faster than the nominal maximum velocity stated by the vendor. Under dynamic gantry conditions, MLC leaf speeds ranging between 0.33 and 1.42 cm s-1 were evaluated. Comparing the average MLC leaf speeds with the machine log files found differences between 0.9% and 5.7%, with the largest discrepancy occurring under conditions of fastest leaf velocity, lowest DR and lowest detector signal.

CONCLUSIONS

The investigation on the use of solid-state detectors in combination with an inclinometer has demonstrated the capability to provide efficient and independent verification of DR, GS, and MLC leaf speed during dynamic VMAT delivery. Good agreement with machine log files suggests the detector/inclinometer system is a useful tool for machine-specific VMAT QA.

The Impact of Dose Rate on the Accuracy of Step-and-Shoot Intensity-modulated Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance Using Varian 2300CD

Introduction

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) delivery using "step-and-shoot" technique on Varian C-Series linear accelerator (linac) is influenced by the communication frequency between the multileaf collimator and linac controllers. Hence, the dose delivery accuracy is affected by the dose rate.

Aim

Our aim was to quantify the impact of using two dose rates on plan quality assurance (QA).

Materials and Methods

Twenty IMRT patients were selected for this study. The plan QA was measured at two different dose rates. A gamma analysis was performed, and the degree of plan modulation on the QA pass rate was also evaluated in terms of average monitor unit per segment (MU/segment) and the total number of segments.

Results

The mean percentage gamma pass rate of 94.9% and 93.5% for 300 MU/min and 600 MU/min dose rate, respectively, was observed. There was a significant (P = 0.001) decrease in percentage gamma pass rate when the dose rate was increased from 300 MU/min to 600 MU/min. There was a weak, but significant association between the percentage pass rate at both dose rate and total number of segments. The total number of MU was significantly correlated to the total number of segments (r = 0.59). We found a positive correlation between the percentage pass rate and mean MU/segment, r = 0.52 and r = 0.57 for 300 MU/min and 600 MU/min, respectively.

Conclusion

IMRT delivery using step-and-shoot technique on Varian 2300CD is impacted by the dose rate and the total amount of segments.

Validation of a modern second-check dosimetry system using a novel verification phantom

Purpose

To evaluate the Mobius second‐check dosimetry system by comparing it to ionization‐chamber dose measurements collected in the recently released Mobius Verification Phantom™ (MVP). For reference, a comparison of these measurements to dose calculated in the primary treatment planning system (TPS), Varian Eclipse with the AcurosXB dose algorithm, is also provided. Finally, patient dose calculated in Mobius is compared directly to Eclipse to demonstrate typical expected results during clinical use of the Mobius system.

Methods

Seventeen anonymized intensity‐modulated clinical treatment plans were selected for analysis. Dose was recalculated on the MVP in both Eclipse and Mobius. These calculated doses were compared to doses measured using an A1SL ionization‐chamber in the MVP. Dose was measured and analyzed at two different chamber positions for each treatment plan. Mobius calculated dose was then compared directly to Eclipse using the following metrics; target mean dose, target D95%, global 3D gamma pass rate, and target gamma pass rate. Finally, these same metrics were used to analyze the first 36 intensity modulated cases, following clinical implementation of the Mobius system.

Results

The average difference between Mobius and measurement was 0.3 ± 1.3%. Differences ranged from −3.3 to + 2.2%. The average difference between Eclipse and measurement was −1.2 ± 0.7%. Eclipse vs. measurement differences ranged from −3.0 to −0.1%. For the 17 anonymized pre‐clinical cases, the average target mean dose difference between Mobius and Eclipse was 1.0 ± 1.1%. Average target D95% difference was ‐0.9 ± 2.0%. Average global gamma pass rate, using a criteria of 3%, 2 mm, was 94.4 ± 3.3%, and average gamma pass rate for the target volume only was 80.2 ± 12.3%. Results of the first 36 intensity‐modulated cases, post‐clinical implementation of Mobius, were similar to those seen for the 17 pre‐clinical test cases.

Conclusion

Mobius correctly calculated dose for each tested intensity modulated treatment plan, agreeing with measurement to within 3.5% for all cases analyzed. The dose calculation accuracy and independence of the Mobius system is sufficient to provide a rigorous second‐check of a modern TPS.

Commissioning and quality assurance for VMAT delivery systems: An efficient time-resolved system using real-time EPID imaging

PURPOSE

An ideal commissioning and quality assurance (QA) program for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) delivery systems should assess the performance of each individual dynamic component as a function of gantry angle. Procedures within such a program should also be time-efficient, independent of the delivery system and be sensitive to all types of errors. The purpose of this work is to develop a system for automated time-resolved commissioning and QA of VMAT control systems which meets these criteria.

METHODS

The procedures developed within this work rely solely on images obtained, using an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) without the presence of a phantom. During the delivery of specially designed VMAT test plans, EPID frames were acquired at 9.5 Hz, using a frame grabber. The set of test plans was developed to individually assess the performance of the dose delivery and multileaf collimator (MLC) control systems under varying levels of delivery complexities. An in-house software tool was developed to automatically extract features from the EPID images and evaluate the following characteristics as a function of gantry angle: dose delivery accuracy, dose rate constancy, beam profile constancy, gantry speed constancy, dynamic MLC positioning accuracy, MLC speed and acceleration constancy, and synchronization between gantry angle, MLC positioning and dose rate. Machine log files were also acquired during each delivery and subsequently compared to information extracted from EPID image frames.

RESULTS

The largest difference between measured and planned dose at any gantry angle was 0.8% which correlated with rapid changes in dose rate and gantry speed. For all other test plans, the dose delivered was within 0.25% of the planned dose for all gantry angles. Profile constancy was not found to vary with gantry angle for tests where gantry speed and dose rate were constant, however, for tests with varying dose rate and gantry speed, segments with lower dose rate and higher gantry speed exhibited less profile stability. MLC positional accuracy was not observed to be dependent on the degree of interdigitation. MLC speed was measured for each individual leaf and slower leaf speeds were shown to be compensated for by lower dose rates. The test procedures were found to be sensitive to 1 mm systematic MLC errors, 1 mm random MLC errors, 0.4 mm MLC gap errors and synchronization errors between the MLC, dose rate and gantry angle controls systems of 1°. In general, parameters measured by both EPID and log files agreed with the plan, however, a greater average departure from the plan was evidenced by the EPID measurements.

CONCLUSION

QA test plans and analysis methods have been developed to assess the performance of each dynamic component of VMAT deliveries individually and as a function of gantry angle. This methodology relies solely on time-resolved EPID imaging without the presence of a phantom and has been shown to be sensitive to a range of delivery errors. The procedures developed in this work are both comprehensive and time-efficient and can be used for streamlined commissioning and QA of VMAT delivery systems.

[Consideration of Dose Error in Dynamic MLC IMRT Using MLC Speed Control with Dose Rate Change]

In dynamic multi-leaf collimator (MLC) intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), the accuracy of delivered dose is influenced by the positional accuracy of the moving MLC. In order to assess the accuracy of the delivered dose during dynamic MLC IMRT, the delivered dose error in dynamic MLC IMRT using the MLC speed control with dose rate change was investigated. Sweeping gap sequence irradiation was performed with constant MLC leaf speed at 0.6 to 5 cm/s or changed MLC speed (4 steps). The positional accuracy of the moving MLC was evaluated from the trajectory log file. Absorbed dose measurements with sweeping field (Field size: 10 cm×10 cm, MLC leaf speed: 0.6 to 2.7 cm/s, MLC leaf gap width: 0.2 to 2.0 cm) were performed. The delivered dose error at each gap width was evaluated according to MLC leaf speed change. MLC positional errors and changes in delivered dose according to MLC leaf speed were within 0.07 mm and 0.6%, respectively, for all measurements. Beam hold-off did not occur under any conditions. We confirmed that TrueBeam can regulate MLC leaf speed below the maximum limit (2.5 cm/s) by changing the dose rate in real-time during irradiation in dynamic MLC IMRT. MLC gap error during irradiation was estimated within 0.2 mm at the maximum dose rate from the results of absolute dose measurements using dynamic MLC irradiation. In conclusion, TrueBeam can use the maximum dose rate for the treatment planning of dynamic MLC IMRT, which has an advantage of shorter treatment time.

Automatic detection of MLC relative position errors for VMAT using the EPID-based picket fence test

Multi-leaf collimators (MLCs) ensure the accurate delivery of treatments requiring complex beam fluences like intensity modulated radiotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy. The purpose of this work is to automate the detection of MLC relative position errors  ⩾0.5 mm using electronic portal imaging device-based picket fence tests and compare the results to the qualitative assessment currently in use. Picket fence tests with and without intentional MLC errors were measured weekly on three Varian linacs. The picket fence images analysed covered a time period ranging between 14-20 months depending on the linac. An algorithm was developed that calculated the MLC error for each leaf-pair present in the picket fence images. The baseline error distributions of each linac were characterised for an initial period of 6 months and compared with the intentional MLC errors using statistical metrics. The distributions of median and one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test p-value exhibited no overlap between baseline and intentional errors and were used retrospectively to automatically detect MLC errors in routine clinical practice. Agreement was found between the MLC errors detected by the automatic method and the fault reports during clinical use, as well as interventions for MLC repair and calibration. In conclusion the method presented provides for full automation of MLC quality assurance, based on individual linac performance characteristics. The use of the automatic method has been shown to provide early warning for MLC errors that resulted in clinical downtime.

An EPID-based system for gantry-resolved MLC quality assurance for VMAT

Multileaf collimator (MLC) positions should be precisely and independently mea-sured as a function of gantry angle as part of a comprehensive quality assurance (QA) program for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). It is also ideal that such a QA program has the ability to relate MLC positional accuracy to patient-specific dosimetry in order to determine the clinical significance of any detected MLC errors. In this work we propose a method to verify individual MLC trajectories during VMAT deliveries for use as a routine linear accelerator QA tool. We also extend this method to reconstruct the 3D patient dose in the treatment planning sys-tem based on the measured MLC trajectories and the original DICOM plan file. The method relies on extracting MLC positions from EPID images acquired at 8.41fps during clinical VMAT deliveries. A gantry angle is automatically tagged to each image in order to obtain the MLC trajectories as a function of gantry angle. This analysis was performed for six clinical VMAT plans acquired at monthly intervals for three months. The measured trajectories for each delivery were compared to the MLC positions from the DICOM plan file. The maximum mean error detected was 0.07 mm and a maximum root-mean-square error was 0.8 mm for any leaf of any delivery. The sensitivity of this system was characterized by introducing random and systematic MLC errors into the test plans. It was demonstrated that the system is capable of detecting random and systematic errors on the range of 1-2mm and single leaf calibration errors of 0.5 mm. The methodology developed in the work has potential to be used for efficient routine linear accelerator MLC QA and pretreatment patient-specific QA and has the ability to relate measured MLC positional errors to 3D dosimetric errors within a patient volume.

Clinical implications of the overshoot effect for treatment plan delivery and patient-specific quality assurance for step-and-shoot IMRT

In this work, overshoot and undershoot effects associated with step‐and‐shoot IMRT (SSIMRT) delivery on a Varian Clinac 21iX are investigated, and their impact on patient‐specific QA point dose measurements and treatment plan delivery are evaluated. Pinnacle³ SSIMRT plans consisting of 5, 10, and 15 identical 5×5 cm2 MLC defined segments and MU/segment values of 5 MU, 10 MU, and 20 MU were utilized and delivered at 600/300 MU/min. Independent of the number of segments the overshoot and undershoot at 600 MU/min were approximately ±10%,±5%, and ±2.5% for 5 MU/segment, 10 MU/segment, and 20 MU/segment, respectively. At 300 MU/min, each of these values is approximately halved. Interfractional variation of these effects (10 fractions), as well as dosimetric variations for intermediate segments, are reduced at the lower dose rate. QA point‐dose measurements for a sample (n=29) of head and neck SSIMRT beams were on average 2.9% (600 MU/min) and 1.7% (300 MU/min) higher than Pinnacle³ planned doses. In comparison for prostate beams (n=46), measured point doses were 0.8% (600 MU/min) and 0.4% (300 MU/min) higher. The reduction in planned‐measured point‐dose discrepancies at 300 MU/min can be attributed in part to the inclusion of the first segment (overshoot) in the admixture of segments that deliver measured dose. Pinnacle³ plans for 10/9 head and neck/prostate treatments were adjusted by ±0.5 MU to include the effects of overshoot and undershoot at 600 MU/min. Comparing original and adjusted plans for each site indicated that the original plan was preferred in 70% and 89% of head and neck and prostate cases, respectively. The disparity between planned and delivered treatment that this suggests can potentially be mitigated by treating SSIMRT at a dose rate below 600 MU/min.

PACS number(s): 87.55.Qr, 87.56.bd, 87.56.N‐

The step-and-shoot IMRT overshooting phenomenon: a novel method to mitigate patient overdosage

The goal of this work is to evaluate the dosimetric impact of an overshooting phenomenon in step‐and‐shoot IMRT delivery, and to demonstrate a novel method to mitigate the issue. Five pelvis IMRT patients treated on Varian 2100C EX linacs with larger than +4.5% phantom ion chamber point‐dose difference relative to planned dose were investigated. For each patient plan, 5 fractions were delivered. DynaLog files were recorded and centi‐MU pulses from dose integrator board for every control point (CP) were counted using a commercial pulse counter. The counter recorded CP MU agrees with DynaLog records, both showing an ~0.6 MU overshoot of the first segment of every beam. The 3D patient dose was recalculated from the counter records and compared to the planned dose, showing that the overshoot resulted in on average 2.05% of PTV D95 error, and 2.49%, 2.61% and 2.45% of D1cc error for rectum, bladder, and bowel, respectively. The initial plans were then modified by inserting a specially designed MLC segment to the start of every beam. The modified plans were also delivered five times. The dose from the modified delivery was calculated using counter recorded CP MU. The corresponding Dx parameters were all within 0.31% from the original plan. IMRT QA results also show a 2.2% improvement in ion chamber point‐dose agreement. The results demonstrate that the proposed plan modification method effectively eliminates the overdosage from the overshooting phenomenon.

PACS number(s): 87.55.Qr, 87.55.km

The report of Task Group 100 of the AAPM: Application of risk analysis methods to radiation therapy quality management

The increasing complexity of modern radiation therapy planning and delivery challenges traditional prescriptive quality management (QM) methods, such as many of those included in guidelines published by organizations such as the AAPM, ASTRO, ACR, ESTRO, and IAEA. These prescriptive guidelines have traditionally focused on monitoring all aspects of the functional performance of radiotherapy (RT) equipment by comparing parameters against tolerances set at strict but achievable values. Many errors that occur in radiation oncology are not due to failures in devices and software; rather they are failures in workflow and process. A systematic understanding of the likelihood and clinical impact of possible failures throughout a course of radiotherapy is needed to direct limit QM resources efficiently to produce maximum safety and quality of patient care. Task Group 100 of the AAPM has taken a broad view of these issues and has developed a framework for designing QM activities, based on estimates of the probability of identified failures and their clinical outcome through the RT planning and delivery process. The Task Group has chosen a specific radiotherapy process required for "intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)" as a case study. The goal of this work is to apply modern risk-based analysis techniques to this complex RT process in order to demonstrate to the RT community that such techniques may help identify more effective and efficient ways to enhance the safety and quality of our treatment processes. The task group generated by consensus an example quality management program strategy for the IMRT process performed at the institution of one of the authors. This report describes the methodology and nomenclature developed, presents the process maps, FMEAs, fault trees, and QM programs developed, and makes suggestions on how this information could be used in the clinic. The development and implementation of risk-assessment techniques will make radiation therapy safer and more efficient.

Log-file analysis of accuracy of beam localization for brain tumor treatment by CyberKnife

PURPOSE

The CyberKnife system generates log-files including actual treatment parameters for each procedure. In this study, log-files were analyzed to evaluate the mechanical uncertainty in beam localization over the long term (approximately 1 year), as were patterns of patient movements during brain tumor treatments using CyberKnife.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The clinical to planning target volume (CTV-PTV) margin in clinical use was examined based on this analysis. Log-file analysis was performed using data from 140 brain tumor patients (267 treatment plans; 27,166 beams; approximately 66 beams/fraction), who underwent CyberKnife stereotactic radiosurgery and radiation therapy. We calculated a mean error and 2 standard deviations (2σ) for this population. Additionally, we calculated the radius R_95% spatially covering 95% of all error vectors.

RESULTS

The mean mechanical uncertainties of CyberKnife brain tumor treatment were found to be 0.07, 0.01, and -0.09 mm in the +inferior/-superior, +left/-right, and +anterior/-posterior directions, respectively. The mean (2σ) of R_95% was 1.02 (0.42) mm. A smaller degree of correlation between patient movement and R_95% was observed.

CONCLUSION

The CyberKnife is robust in tracking accuracy, regardless of patient movement. The effectiveness of log-file analysis was demonstrated regarding quality control for monitoring beam localization in the CyberKnife system. The CTV-PTV margin of 2.0 mm was found to be adequate in brain tumor treatments using the CyberKnife.

A machine learning approach to the accurate prediction of multi-leaf collimator positional errors

Discrepancies between planned and delivered movements of multi-leaf collimators (MLCs) are an important source of errors in dose distributions during radiotherapy. In this work we used machine learning techniques to train models to predict these discrepancies, assessed the accuracy of the model predictions, and examined the impact these errors have on quality assurance (QA) procedures and dosimetry. Predictive leaf motion parameters for the models were calculated from the plan files, such as leaf position and velocity, whether the leaf was moving towards or away from the isocenter of the MLC, and many others. Differences in positions between synchronized DICOM-RT planning files and DynaLog files reported during QA delivery were used as a target response for training of the models. The final model is capable of predicting MLC positions during delivery to a high degree of accuracy. For moving MLC leaves, predicted positions were shown to be significantly closer to delivered positions than were planned positions. By incorporating predicted positions into dose calculations in the TPS, increases were shown in gamma passing rates against measured dose distributions recorded during QA delivery. For instance, head and neck plans with 1%/2 mm gamma criteria had an average increase in passing rate of 4.17% (SD = 1.54%). This indicates that the inclusion of predictions during dose calculation leads to a more realistic representation of plan delivery. To assess impact on the patient, dose volumetric histograms (DVH) using delivered positions were calculated for comparison with planned and predicted DVHs. In all cases, predicted dose volumetric parameters were in closer agreement to the delivered parameters than were the planned parameters, particularly for organs at risk on the periphery of the treatment area. By incorporating the predicted positions into the TPS, the treatment planner is given a more realistic view of the dose distribution as it will truly be delivered to the patient.

Leakage-Penumbra effect in intensity modulated radiation therapy step-and-shoot dose delivery

AIM

To study the leakage-penumbra (LP) effect with a proposed correction method for the step-and-shoot intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT).

METHODS

Leakage-penumbra dose profiles from 10 randomly selected prostate IMRT plans were studied. The IMRT plans were delivered by a Varian 21 EX linear accelerator equipped with a 120-leaf multileaf collimator (MLC). For each treatment plan created by the Pinnacle(3) treatment planning system, a 3-dimensional LP dose distribution generated by 5 coplanar photon beams, starting from 0(o) with equal separation of 72(o), was investigated. For each photon beam used in the step-and-shoot IMRT plans, the first beam segment was set to have the largest area in the MLC leaf-sequencing, and was equal to the planning target volume (PTV). The overshoot effect (OSE) and the segment positional errors were measured using a solid water phantom with Kodak (TL and X-OMAT V) radiographic films. Film dosimetric analysis and calibration were carried out using a film scanner (Vidar VXR-16). The LP dose profiles were determined by eliminating the OSE and segment positional errors with specific individual irradiations.

RESULTS

A non-uniformly distributed leaf LP dose ranging from 3% to 5% of the beam dose was measured in clinical IMRT beams. An overdose at the gap between neighboring segments, represented as dose peaks of up to 10% of the total BP, was measured. The LP effect increased the dose to the PTV and surrounding critical tissues. In addition, the effect depends on the number of beams and segments for each beam. Segment positional error was less than the maximum tolerance of 1 mm under a dose rate of 600 monitor units per minute in the treatment plans. The OSE varying with the dose rate was observed in all photon beams, and the effect increased from 1 to 1.3 Gy per treatment of the rectal intersection. As the dosimetric impacts from the LP effect and OSE may increase the rectal post-radiation effects, a correction of LP was proposed and demonstrated for the central beam profile for one of the planned beams.

CONCLUSION

We concluded that the measured dosimetric impact of the LP dose inaccuracy from photon beam segment in step-and-shoot IMRT can be corrected.

Patient-specific quality assurance for the delivery of (60)Co intensity modulated radiation therapy subject to a 0.35-T lateral magnetic field

PURPOSE

This work describes a patient-specific dosimetry quality assurance (QA) program for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using ViewRay, the first commercial magnetic resonance imaging-guided RT device.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The program consisted of: (1) a 1-dimensional multipoint ionization chamber measurement using a customized 15-cm(3) cube-shaped phantom; (2) 2-dimensional (2D) radiographic film measurement using a 30- × 30- × 20-cm(3) phantom with multiple inserted ionization chambers; (3) quasi-3D diode array (ArcCHECK) measurement with a centrally inserted ionization chamber; (4) 2D fluence verification using machine delivery log files; and (5) 3D Monte Carlo (MC) dose reconstruction with machine delivery files and phantom CT.

RESULTS

Ionization chamber measurements agreed well with treatment planning system (TPS)-computed doses in all phantom geometries where the mean ± SD difference was 0.0% ± 1.3% (n=102; range, -3.0%-2.9%). Film measurements also showed excellent agreement with the TPS-computed 2D dose distributions where the mean passing rate using 3% relative/3 mm gamma criteria was 94.6% ± 3.4% (n=30; range, 87.4%-100%). For ArcCHECK measurements, the mean ± SD passing rate using 3% relative/3 mm gamma criteria was 98.9% ± 1.1% (n=34; range, 95.8%-100%). 2D fluence maps with a resolution of 1 × 1 mm(2) showed 100% passing rates for all plan deliveries (n=34). The MC reconstructed doses to the phantom agreed well with planned 3D doses where the mean passing rate using 3% absolute/3 mm gamma criteria was 99.0% ± 1.0% (n=18; range, 97.0%-100%), demonstrating the feasibility of evaluating the QA results in the patient geometry.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a dosimetry program for ViewRay's patient-specific IMRT QA. The methodology will be useful for other ViewRay users. The QA results presented here can assist the RT community to establish appropriate tolerance and action limits for ViewRay's IMRT QA.

A multi-institution evaluation of MLC log files and performance in IMRT delivery

Background

The multileaf collimator (MLC) is a critical component to accurate intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) delivery. This study examined MLC positional accuracy via MLC logs from Varian machines from six institutions and three delivery techniques to evaluate typical positional accuracy and treatment and mechanical parameters that affect accuracy. Typical accuracy achieved was compared against TG-142 recommendations for MLC performance; more appropriate recommendations are suggested.

Methods

Over 85,000 Varian MLC treatment logs were collected from six institutions and analyzed with FractionCHECK. Data were binned according to institution and treatment type to determine overall root mean square (RMS) and 95^th percentile error values, and then to look for correlations between those errors and with mechanical and treatment parameters including mean and maximum leaf speed, gantry angle, beam-on time, mean leaf error, and number of segments.

Results

Results of treatment logs found that leaf RMS error and 95^th percentile leaf error were consistent between institutions, but varied by treatment type. The step and shoot technique had very small errors: the mean RMS leaf error was 0.008 mm. For dynamic treatments the mean RMS leaf error was 0.32 mm, while volumetric-modulated arc treatment (VMAT) showed an RMS leaf error of 0.46 mm. Most MLC leaf errors were found to be well below TG-142 recommended tolerances. For the dynamic and VMAT techniques, the mean and maximum leaf speeds were significantly linked to the leaf RMS error. Additionally, for dynamic delivery, the mean leaf error was correlated with RMS error, whereas for VMAT the average gantry speed was correlated. For all treatments, the RMS error and the 95^th percentile leaf error were correlated.

Conclusions

Restricting the maximum leaf speed can help improve MLC performance for dynamic and VMAT deliveries. Furthermore, the tolerances of leaf RMS and error counts for all treatment types should be tightened from the TG-142 values to make them more appropriate for clinical performance. Values of 1 mm for the 95^th percentile of leaf RMS error and 1.5 mm for the 95^th percentile leaf error are suggested as action levels for all treatment types.

Monitoring daily MLC positional errors using trajectory log files and EPID measurements for IMRT and VMAT deliveries

This work investigated the differences between multileaf collimator (MLC) positioning accuracy determined using either log files or electronic portal imaging devices (EPID) and then assessed the possibility of reducing patient specific quality control (QC) via phantom-less methodologies. In-house software was developed, and validated, to track MLC positional accuracy with the rotational and static gantry picket fence tests using an integrated electronic portal image. This software was used to monitor MLC daily performance over a 1 year period for two Varian TrueBeam linear accelerators, with the results directly compared with MLC positions determined using leaf trajectory log files. This software was validated by introducing known shifts and collimator errors. Skewness of the MLCs was found to be 0.03 ± 0.06° (mean ±1 standard deviation (SD)) and was dependent on whether the collimator was rotated manually or automatically. Trajectory log files, analysed using in-house software, showed average MLC positioning errors with a magnitude of 0.004 ± 0.003 mm (rotational) and 0.004 ± 0.011 mm (static) across two TrueBeam units over 1 year (mean ±1 SD). These ranges, as indicated by the SD, were lower than the related average MLC positioning errors of 0.000 ± 0.025 mm (rotational) and 0.000 ± 0.039 mm (static) that were obtained using the in-house EPID based software. The range of EPID measured MLC positional errors was larger due to the inherent uncertainties of the procedure. Over the duration of the study, multiple MLC positional errors were detected using the EPID based software but these same errors were not detected using the trajectory log files. This work shows the importance of increasing linac specific QC when phantom-less methodologies, such as the use of log files, are used to reduce patient specific QC. Tolerances of 0.25 mm have been created for the MLC positional errors using the EPID-based automated picket fence test. The software allows diagnosis of any specific leaf that needs repair and gives an indication as to the course of action that is required.

A Varian DynaLog file-based procedure for patient dose-volume histogram-based IMRT QA

In the present study, we describe a method based on the analysis of the dynamic MLC log files (DynaLog) generated by the controller of a Varian linear accelerator in order to perform patient‐specific IMRT QA. The DynaLog files of a Varian Millennium MLC, recorded during an IMRT treatment, can be processed using a MATLAB‐based code in order to generate the actual fluence for each beam and so recalculate the actual patient dose distribution using the Eclipse treatment planning system. The accuracy of the DynaLog‐based dose reconstruction procedure was assessed by introducing ten intended errors to perturb the fluence of the beams of a reference plan such that ten subsequent erroneous plans were generated. In‐phantom measurements with an ionization chamber (ion chamber) and planar dose measurements using an EPID system were performed to investigate the correlation between the measured dose changes and the expected ones detected by the reconstructed plans for the ten intended erroneous cases. Moreover, the method was applied to 20 cases of clinical plans for different locations (prostate, lung, breast, and head and neck). A dose‐volume histogram (DVH) metric was used to evaluate the impact of the delivery errors in terms of dose to the patient. The ionometric measurements revealed a significant positive correlation (R2=0.9993) between the variations of the dose induced in the erroneous plans with respect to the reference plan and the corresponding changes indicated by the DynaLog‐based reconstructed plans. The EPID measurements showed that the accuracy of the DynaLog‐based method to reconstruct the beam fluence was comparable with the dosimetric resolution of the portal dosimetry used in this work (3%/3 mm). The DynaLog‐based reconstruction method described in this study is a suitable tool to perform a patient‐specific IMRT QA. This method allows us to perform patient‐specific IMRT QA by evaluating the result based on the DVH metric of the planning CT image (patient DVH‐based IMRT QA).

PACS number: 87.55.Qr

A study on investigating the delivery parameter error effect on the variation of patient quality assurance during RapidArc treatment

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to evaluate delivery parameter errors (DPEs) and their impact on clinical dose variation with the Varian RapidArc technique.

METHODS

The dynalog files of 16 head-and-neck patients were retrospectively analyzed to characterize three RapidArc DPEs: dose MU, gantry angle, and MLC gap errors. A total of 64 reconstructed plans were created by creating four variants of each of the original 16 plans (three with the DPEs applied individually and one with the three DPEs combined). These reconstructed plans were compared to the original plans to evaluate the impact of the DPEs on the clinical dose distribution.

RESULTS

The mean dose MU, gantry angle, and MLC gap error for all patients were 0.00 ± 0.00 MU, -0.36 ± 0.03°, and 0.00 ± 0.01 mm, respectively. The DPEs had no obvious dosimetric impact on any of the studied dosimetric endpoints except the parotid dose. The gantry angle error, MLC gap error, and combined DPEs changed the parotid Dmean (mean dose) and parotid V30 (volume receiving at least 30 Gy) by 1%-2%.

CONCLUSIONS

It is feasible to use dose distributions reconstructed from dynalog file data as a quality assurance tool. The dose MU, gantry angle, and MLC errors have only minor effects on the accuracy of the delivered dose.

Radiobiological model-based bio-anatomical quality assurance in intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer

A bio-anatomical quality assurance (QA) method employing tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) is described that can integrate radiobiological effects into intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). We evaluated the variations in the radiobiological effects caused by random errors (r-errors) and systematic errors (s-errors) by evaluating TCP and NTCP in two groups: patients with an intact prostate (G(intact)) and those who have undergone prostatectomy (G(tectomy)). The r-errors were generated using an isocenter shift of ±1 mm to simulate a misaligned patient set-up. The s-errors were generated using individual leaves that were displaced inwardly and outwardly by 1 mm on multileaf collimator field files. Subvolume-based TCP and NTCP were visualized on computed tomography (CT) images to determine the radiobiological effects on the principal structures. The bio-anatomical QA using the TCP and NTCP maps differentiated the critical radiobiological effects on specific volumes, particularly at the anterior rectal walls and planning target volumes. The s-errors showed a TCP variation of -40-25% in G(tectomy) and -30-10% in G(intact), while the r-errors were less than 1.5% in both groups. The r-errors for the rectum and bladder showed higher NTCP variations at ±20% and ±10%, respectively, and the s-errors were greater than ±65% for both. This bio-anatomical method, as a patient-specific IMRT QA, can provide distinct indications of clinically significant radiobiological effects beyond the minimization of probable physical dose errors in phantoms.

Is RapidArc more susceptible to delivery uncertainties than dynamic IMRT?

PURPOSE

Rotational IMRT has been adopted by many clinics for its promise to deliver treatments in a shorter amount of time than other conventional IMRT techniques. In this paper, the authors investigate whether RapidArc is more susceptible to delivery uncertainties than dynamic IMRT using fixed fields.

METHODS

Dosimetric effects of delivery uncertainties in dose rate, gantry angle, and MLC leaf positions were evaluated by incorporating these uncertainties into RapidArc and sliding window IMRT (SW IMRT) treatment plans for five head-and-neck and five prostate cases. Dose distributions and dose-volume histograms of original and modified plans were recalculated and compared using Gamma analysis and dose indices of planned treatment volumes (PTV) and organs at risk (OAR). Results of Gamma analyses using passing criteria ranging from 1%-1 mm up to 5%-3 mm were reported.

RESULTS

Systematic shifts in MLC leaf bank positions of SW-IMRT cases resulted in 2-4 times higher average percent differences than RapidArc cases. Uniformly distributed random variations of 2 mm for active MLC leaves had a negligible effect on all dose distributions. Sliding window cases were much more sensitive to systematic shifts in gantry angle. Dose rate variations during RapidArc must be much larger than typical machine tolerances to affect dose distributions significantly; dynamic IMRT is inherently not susceptible to such variations.

CONCLUSIONS

RapidArc deliveries were found to be more tolerant to variations in gantry position and MLC leaf position than SW IMRT. This may be attributed to the fact that the average segmental field size or MLC leaf opening is much larger for RapidArc. Clinically acceptable treatments may be delivered successfully using RapidArc despite large fluctuations in dose rate and gantry position.

Quality assurance of dynamic parameters in volumetric modulated arc therapy

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to demonstrate quality assurance checks for accuracy of gantry speed and position, dose rate and multileaf collimator (MLC) speed and position for a volumetric modulated arc treatment (VMAT) modality (Synergy S; Elekta, Stockholm, Sweden), and to check that all the necessary variables and parameters were synchronous.

METHODS

Three tests (for gantry position-dose delivery synchronisation, gantry speed-dose delivery synchronisation and MLC leaf speed and positions) were performed.

RESULTS

The average error in gantry position was 0.5° and the average difference was 3 MU for a linear and a parabolic relationship between gantry position and delivered dose. In the third part of this test (sawtooth variation), the maximum difference was 9.3 MU, with a gantry position difference of 1.2°. In the sweeping field method test, a linear relationship was observed between recorded doses and distance from the central axis, as expected. In the open field method, errors were encountered at the beginning and at the end of the delivery arc, termed the "beginning" and "end" errors. For MLC position verification, the maximum error was -2.46 mm and the mean error was 0.0153 ±0.4668 mm, and 3.4% of leaves analysed showed errors of >±1 mm.

CONCLUSION

This experiment demonstrates that the variables and parameters of the Synergy S are synchronous and that the system is suitable for delivering VMAT using a dynamic MLC.

Evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of independent dose calculation followed by machine log file analysis against conventional measurement based IMRT QA

Experimental methods are commonly used for patient-specific IMRT delivery verification. There are a variety of IMRT QA techniques which have been proposed and clinically used with a common understanding that not one single method can detect all possible errors. The aim of this work was to compare the efficiency and effectiveness of independent dose calculation followed by machine log file analysis to conventional measurement-based methods in detecting errors in IMRT delivery. Sixteen IMRT treatment plans (5 head-and-neck, 3 rectum, 3 breast, and 5 prostate plans) created with a commercial treatment planning system (TPS) were recalculated on a QA phantom. All treatment plans underwent ion chamber (IC) and 2D diode array measurements. The same set of plans was also recomputed with another commercial treatment planning system and the two sets of calculations were compared. The deviations between dosimetric measurements and independent dose calculation were evaluated. The comparisons included evaluations of DVHs and point doses calculated by the two TPS systems. Machine log files were captured during pretreatment composite point dose measurements and analyzed to verify data transfer and performance of the delivery machine. Average deviation between IC measurements and point dose calculations with the two TPSs for head-and-neck plans were 1.2 ± 1.3% and 1.4 ± 1.6%, respectively. For 2D diode array measurements, the mean gamma value with 3% dose difference and 3 mm distance-to-agreement was within 1.5% for 13 of 16 plans. The mean 3D dose differences calculated from two TPSs were within 3% for head-and-neck cases and within 2% for other plans. The machine log file analysis showed that the gantry angle, jaw position, collimator angle, and MUs were consistent as planned, and maximal MLC position error was less than 0.5 mm. The independent dose calculation followed by the machine log analysis takes an average 47 ± 6 minutes, while the experimental approach (using IC and 2D diode array measurements) takes an average about 2 hours in our clinic. Independent dose calculation followed by machine log file analysis can be a reliable tool to verify IMRT treatments. Additionally, independent dose calculations have the potential to identify several problems (heterogeneity calculations, data corruptions, system failures) with the primary TPS, which generally are not identifiable with a measurement-based approach. Additionally, machine log file analysis can identify many problems (gantry, collimator, jaw setting) which also may not be detected with a measurement-based approach. Machine log file analysis could also detect performance problems for individual MLC leaves which could be masked in the analysis of a measured fluence.

Clinical consequences of changing the sliding window IMRT dose rate

Changing pulse repetition frequency or dose rate used for IMRT treatments can alter the number of monitor units (MUs) and the time required to deliver a plan. This work was done to develop a practical picture of the magnitude of these changes. We used Varian's Eclipse Treatment Planning System to calculate the number of MUs and beam‐on times for a total of 40 different treatment plans across an array of common IMRT sites including prostate/pelvis, prostate bed, head and neck, and central nervous system cancers using dose rates of 300, 400 and 600 MU/min. In general, we observed a 4%–7% increase in the number of MUs delivered and a 10–40 second decrease in the beam‐on time for each 100 MU/min of dose rate increase. The increase in the number of MUs resulted in a reduction of the “beam‐on time saved”. The exact magnitude of the changes depended on treatment site and planning target volume. These changes can lead to minor, but not negligible, concerns with respect to radiation protection and treatment planning. Although the number of MUs increased more rapidly for more complex treatment plans, the absolute beam‐on time savings was greater for these plans because of the higher total number of MUs required to deliver them. We estimate that increasing the IMRT dose rate from 300 to 600 MU/min has the potential to add up to two treatment slots per day for each IMRT linear accelerator. These results will be of value to anyone considering general changes to IMRT dose rates within their clinic.

PACS number: 87.55.N