Measurement comparison and Monte Carlo analysis for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivery verification using the ArcCHECK dosimetry system

Evaluating the effect of high-density measurement mode on patient-specific quality assurance for head and neck cancer with ArcCHECK

The high-density measurement (HDm) mode of the ArcCHECK device can achieve a twofold resolution enhancement compared to the standard measurement (Sm) mode. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of HDm on the gamma passing rate (GPR) for the patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) in head and neck cancer. We retrospectively evaluated 30 patients who underwent volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for head and neck cancer. Absolute gamma analysis was performed on Sm and HDm data. We also investigated correlations between the modulation complexity score for VMAT (MCSv) and differences in the GPR between the two measurement modes. The global GPR of Sm and HDm was 81.0% ± 8.4% and 82.6% ± 7.6% for the 2%/2 mm criterion, 94.0% ± 4.1% and 94.9% ± 3.6% for the 3%/2 mm criterion, and 96.6% ± 2.4% and 97.0% ± 2.4% for the 3%/3 mm criterion, respectively. HDm slightly improved GPR (p < 0.01) for the 2%/2 mm criterion. Differences in GPR between Sm and HDm for the 2%/2 mm, 3%/2 mm, and 3%/3 mm criteria were 1.6% ± 3.0%, 0.8% ± 2.0%, and 0.4% ± 1.2%, respectively. No correlation was identified between the MCSv and the difference in GPR between Sm and HDm. Despite an improvement in GPR with HDm, the difference in GPR between Sm and HDm was approximately 2% even when the tighter criteria were used. Moreover, the change in the GPR between Sm and HDm did not depend on plan complexity. Thus, the effect of HDm on GPR is limited for the PSQA in VMAT for head and neck cancer.

Evaluation of kV-CBCT based 3D dose calculation accuracy and its validation using delivery fluence derived dose metrics in Head and Neck Cancer

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the dosimetric impact of Hounsfield unit (HU) variations in kilovoltage cone-beam computed tomography (kV-CBCT) based 3D dose calculation accuracy in the treatment planning system and its validation using measured treatment delivery dose (MTDD) derived dose metrics for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) and Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) plans in Head and Neck (HN) Cancer.

METHODS

CBCT dose calculation accuracy was evaluated for 8 VMAT plans on inhomogeneous phantom and 40 VMAT and IMRT plans of HN Cancer patients and validated using ArcCHECK diode array MTDD derived 3D dose metric on CT and CBCT.

RESULTS

The mean percentage dose difference between CBCT and CT in TPS (ΔD(CBCT-CT)_TPS) and 3DVH (ΔD(CBCT-CT)_3DVH) were compared for the corresponding evaluation dose metrics (D_98%, D_95%, D_50%, D_2%, D_max, D_1cc, D_0.03cc, D_mean) of all PTVs and OARs in phantom and patients. ΔD(CBCT-CT)_TPS and ΔD(CBCT-CT)_3DVH for all evaluation dose points of all PTVs and OARs were less than 2.55% in phantom and 2.4% in HN patients. The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) between ΔD(CBCT-CT)_TPS and ΔD(CBCT-CT)_3DVH for all dose points in all PTVs and OARs showed a strong to moderate correlation in phantom and patients with p < 0.001.

CONCLUSIONS

This study evaluated and validated the potential feasibility of kV-CBCT for treatment plan 3D dose reconstruction in clinical decision making for Adaptive radiotherapy on CT in Head and Neck cancer.

Quality assurance for dynamic tumor tracking

The purpose of this work was to develop a treatment plan verification routine for a linear accelerator dedicated to SBRT treatments with gimbal based dynamic tumor tracking using three commercially available phantoms. The accelerator system has two special features: It operates with a rotation of the ring shaped gantry instead of a couch rotation and target motion can be compensated for via a gimbal system (dynamic tumor tracking, DTT). DTT plans were each measured with the three different phantoms. Afterwards the measured dose distribution was compared with the calculated dose distribution via global Gamma Index analysis (3mm / 3%, threshold: 10%). The global gamma pass rates were on average (93.5±7.2) % for ArcCHECK, (98.0±2.6) % for OCTAVIUS® 4D and (98.4±4.2) % for MatriXX Evolution. All three systems could be used for quality assurance with ring rotations and DTT, however, each with limitations.

Geometric and dosimetric quality assurance using logfiles and a 3D helical diode detector for Dynamic WaveArc

PURPOSE

To conduct patient-specific geometric and dosimetric quality assurance (QA) for the Dynamic WaveArc (DWA) using logfiles and ArcCHECK (Sun Nuclear Inc., Melbourne, FL, USA).

METHODS

Twenty DWA plans, 10 for pituitary adenoma and 10 for prostate cancer, were created using RayStation version 4.7 (RaySearch Laboratories, Stockholm, Sweden). Root mean square errors (RMSEs) between the actual and planned values in the logfiles were evaluated. Next, the dose distributions were reconstructed based on the logfiles. The differences between dose-volumetric parameters in the reconstructed plans and those in the original plans were calculated. Finally, dose distributions were assessed using ArcCHECK. In addition, the reconstructed dose distributions were compared with planned ones.

RESULTS

The means of RMSEs for the gantry, O-ring, MLC position, and MU for all plans were 0.2°, 0.1°, 0.1 mm, and 0.4 MU, respectively. Absolute means of the change in PTV D_99% were 0.4 ± 0.4% and 0.1 ± 0.1% points between the original and reconstructed plans for pituitary adenoma and prostate cancer, respectively. The mean of the gamma passing rate (3%/3 mm) between the measured and planned dose distributions was 97.7%. In addition, that between the reconstructed and planned dose distributions was 99.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

We have demonstrated that the geometric accuracy and gamma passing rates were within AAPM 119 and 142 criteria during DWA. Dose differences in the dose-volumetric parameters using the logfile-based dose reconstruction method were also clinically acceptable in DWA.

Moving GPU-OpenCL-based Monte Carlo dose calculation toward clinical use: Automatic beam commissioning and source sampling for treatment plan dose calculation

We have previously developed a GPU‐based Monte Carlo (MC) dose engine on the OpenCL platform, named goMC, with a built‐in analytical linear accelerator (linac) beam model. In this paper, we report our recent improvement on goMC to move it toward clinical use. First, we have adapted a previously developed automatic beam commissioning approach to our beam model. The commissioning was conducted through an optimization process, minimizing the discrepancies between calculated dose and measurement. We successfully commissioned six beam models built for Varian TrueBeam linac photon beams, including four beams of different energies (6 MV, 10 MV, 15 MV, and 18 MV) and two flattening‐filter‐free (FFF) beams of 6 MV and 10 MV. Second, to facilitate the use of goMC for treatment plan dose calculations, we have developed an efficient source particle sampling strategy. It uses the pre‐generated fluence maps (FMs) to bias the sampling of the control point for source particles already sampled from our beam model. It could effectively reduce the number of source particles required to reach a statistical uncertainty level in the calculated dose, as compared to the conventional FM weighting method. For a head‐and‐neck patient treated with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), a reduction factor of ~2.8 was achieved, accelerating dose calculation from 150.9 s to 51.5 s. The overall accuracy of goMC was investigated on a VMAT prostate patient case treated with 10 MV FFF beam. 3D gamma index test was conducted to evaluate the discrepancy between our calculated dose and the dose calculated in Varian Eclipse treatment planning system. The passing rate was 99.82% for 2%/2 mm criterion and 95.71% for 1%/1 mm criterion. Our studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and feasibility of our auto‐commissioning approach and new source sampling strategy for fast and accurate MC dose calculations for treatment plans.

3D VMAT Verification Based on Monte Carlo Log File Simulation with Experimental Feedback from Film Dosimetry

A model based on a specific phantom, called QuAArC, has been designed for the evaluation of planning and verification systems of complex radiotherapy treatments, such as volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). This model uses the high accuracy provided by the Monte Carlo (MC) simulation of log files and allows the experimental feedback from the high spatial resolution of films hosted in QuAArC. This cylindrical phantom was specifically designed to host films rolled at different radial distances able to take into account the entrance fluence and the 3D dose distribution. Ionization chamber measurements are also included in the feedback process for absolute dose considerations. In this way, automated MC simulation of treatment log files is implemented to calculate the actual delivery geometries, while the monitor units are experimentally adjusted to reconstruct the dose-volume histogram (DVH) on the patient CT. Prostate and head and neck clinical cases, previously planned with Monaco and Pinnacle treatment planning systems and verified with two different commercial systems (Delta4 and COMPASS), were selected in order to test operational feasibility of the proposed model. The proper operation of the feedback procedure was proved through the achieved high agreement between reconstructed dose distributions and the film measurements (global gamma passing rates > 90% for the 2%/2 mm criteria). The necessary discretization level of the log file for dose calculation and the potential mismatching between calculated control points and detection grid in the verification process were discussed. Besides the effect of dose calculation accuracy of the analytic algorithm implemented in treatment planning systems for a dynamic technique, it was discussed the importance of the detection density level and its location in VMAT specific phantom to obtain a more reliable DVH in the patient CT. The proposed model also showed enough robustness and efficiency to be considered as a pre-treatment VMAT verification system.

Validation of an improved helical diode array and dose reconstruction software using TG-244 datasets and stringent dose comparison criteria

The original helical ArcCHECK (AC) diode array and associated software for 3D measurement‐guided dose reconstruction were characterized and validated; however, recent design changes to the AC required that the subject be revisited. The most important AC change starting in 2014 was a significant reduction in the overresponse of diodes to scattered radiation outside of the direct beam, accomplished by reducing the amount of high‐Z materials adjacent to the diodes. This change improved the diode measurement accuracy, but in the process invalidated the dose reconstruction models that were assembled based on measured data acquired with the older version of the AC. A correction mechanism was introduced in the reconstruction software (3DVH) to accommodate this and potential future design changes without requiring updating model parameters. For each permutation of AC serial number and beam model, the user can define in 3DVH a single correction factor which will be used to compensate for the difference in the out‐of‐field response between the new and original AC designs. The exact value can be determined by minimizing the dose‐difference with an ionization chamber or another independent dosimeter. A single value of 1.17, corresponding to the maximum measured out‐of‐field response difference between the new and old AC, provided satisfactory results for all studied energies (6X, 15X, and flattening filter‐free 10XFFF). A library of standard cases recommended by the AAPM TG‐244 Report was used for reconstructed dose verification. The overall difference between reconstructed dose and an ion chamber in a water‐equivalent phantom in the targets was 0.0% ± 1.4% (1 SD). The reconstructed dose on a homogeneous phantom was also compared to a biplanar diode dosimeter (Delta4) using gamma analysis with 2% (local dose‐error normalization)/2 mm/10% cutoff criteria. The mean agreement rate was 96.7% ± 3.7%. For the plans common with the previous comparison, the mean agreement rate was 98.3% ± 0.8%, essentially unchanged. We conclude that the proposed software modification adequately addresses the change in the dosimeter response.

PACS number(s): 87.55Qr

Robotic radiosurgery system patient-specific QA for extracranial treatments using the planar ion chamber array and the cylindrical diode array

Robotic radiosurgery system has been increasingly employed for extracranial treatments. This work is aimed to study the feasibility of a cylindrical diode array and a planar ion chamber array for patient‐specific QA with this robotic radiosurgery system and compare their performance. Fiducial markers were implanted in both systems to enable image‐based setup. An in‐house program was developed to postprocess the movie file of the measurements and apply the beam‐by‐beam angular corrections for both systems. The impact of noncoplanar delivery was then assessed by evaluating the angles created by the incident beams with respect to the two detector arrangements and cross‐comparing the planned dose distribution to the measured ones with/without the angular corrections. The sensitivity of detecting the translational (1–3 mm) and the rotational (1°–3°) delivery errors were also evaluated for both systems. Six extracranial patient plans (PTV 7–137 cm³⁾ were measured with these two systems and compared with the calculated doses. The plan dose distributions were calculated with ray‐tracing and the Monte Carlo (MC) method, respectively. With 0.8 by 0.8 mm² diodes, the output factors measured with the cylindrical diode array agree better with the commissioning data. The maximum angular correction for a given beam is 8.2% for the planar ion chamber array and 2.4% for the cylindrical diode array. The two systems demonstrate a comparable sensitivity of detecting the translational targeting errors, while the cylindrical diode array is more sensitive to the rotational targeting error. The MC method is necessary for dose calculations in the cylindrical diode array phantom because the ray‐tracing algorithm fails to handle the high‐Z diodes and the acrylic phantom. For all the patient plans, the cylindrical diode array/ planar ion chamber array demonstrate 100%/>;92%(3%/3 mm) passing rates. The feasibility of using both systems for robotic radiosurgery system patient‐specific QA has been demonstrated. For gamma evaluation, 2%/2 mm criteria for cylindrical diode array and 3%/3 mm criteria for planar ion chamber array are suggested. The customized angular correction is necessary as proven by the improved passing rate, especially with the planar ion chamber array system.

PACS number: 29.40.‐n

The quality assurance of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for early stage prostate cancer: a technical note

As radiation therapy transitions from intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) it is important to consider the quality assurance (QA) of VMAT plans in light of what has previously been learned and developed in IMRT QA. This technical note assesses if IMRT based plan QA software, which has reduced the need in IMRT for phantom dose measurements on the linear accelerator, can be incorporated into VMAT QA processes. Twenty prostate cases were retrospectively planned using VMAT with one arc to deliver a prescription of 74 Gy in 37 fractions. A plan QA was performed using both IMSure (version 3.3), a software-based IMRT QA program, and ArcCHECK (version 6.2.3.5713), a phantom-based VMAT QA tool. Outcomes assessed included the time needed to perform the QA of both the IMSure and ArcCHECK QA methods, and agreement between planned dose and QA measured dose. On average per case, the ArcCHECK technique needed 31.5 min to perform the VMAT plan QA, while IMSure required 3.5 min to perform the same QA. All 20 cases passed dosimetric QA using ArcCHECK. However, using IMSure, three cases failed dosimetric QA using the departments existing IMRT QA criteria. This research has demonstrated that the IMRT QA software IMSure may be incorporated into the QA of VMAT plans, however the criteria to assess the dosimetry of the VMAT plans may need to be different to that for IMRT cases. The implication of this research for radiation therapists is to be critically aware of the differences between the plan QA requirements and methods for IMRT and those required for VMAT.

Comparing measurement-derived (3DVH) and machine log file-derived dose reconstruction methods for VMAT QA in patient geometries

The purpose of this study was to compare the measurement-derived (3DVH) dose reconstruction method with machine log file-derived dose reconstruction method in patient geometries for VMAT delivery. A total of ten patient plans were selected from a regular fractionation plan to complex SBRT plans. Treatment sites in the lung and abdomen were chosen to explore the effects of tissue heterogeneity on the respective dose reconstruction algorithms. Single- and multiple-arc VMAT plans were generated to achieve the desired target objectives. Delivered plan in the patient geometry was reconstructed by using ArcCHECK Planned Dose Perturbation (ACPDP) within 3DVH software, and by converting the machine log file to Pinnacle3 9.0 treatment plan format and recalculating dose with CVSP algorithm. In addition, delivered gantry angles between machine log file and 3DVH 4D measurement were also compared to evaluate the accuracy of the virtual inclinometer within the 3DVH. Measured ion chamber and 3DVH-derived isocenter dose agreed with planned dose within 0.4% ± 1.2% and -1.0% ± 1.6%, respectively. 3D gamma analysis showed greater than 98% between log files and 3DVH reconstructed dose. Machine log file reconstructed doses and TPS dose agreed to within 2% in PTV and OARs over the entire treatment. 3DVH reconstructed dose showed an average maximum dose difference of 3% ± 1.2% in PTV, and an average mean difference of -4.5% ± 10.5% in OAR doses. The average virtual inclinometer error (VIE) was -0.65° ± 1.6° for all patients, with a maximum error of -5.16° ± 4.54° for an SRS case. The time averaged VIE was within 1°-2°, and did not have a large impact on the overall accuracy of the estimated patient dose from ACPDP algorithm. In this study, we have compared two independent dose reconstruction methods for VMAT QA. Both methods are capable of taking into account the measurement and delivery parameter discrepancy, and display the delivered dose in CT patient geometry rather than the phantom geometry. The dose discrepancy can be evaluated in terms of DVH of the structures and provides a more intuitive understanding of the dosimetric impact of the delivery errors on the target and normal structure dose.

Monte Carlo modeling of HD120 multileaf collimator on Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator for verification of 6X and 6X FFF VMAT SABR treatment plans

A Monte Carlo (MC) validation of the vendor-supplied Varian TrueBeam 6 MV flattened (6X) phase-space file and the first implementation of the Siebers-Keall MC MLC model as applied to the HD120 MLC (for 6X flat and 6X flattening filter-free (6X FFF) beams) are described. The MC model is validated in the context of VMAT patient-specific quality assurance. The Monte Carlo commissioning process involves: 1) validating the calculated open-field percentage depth doses (PDDs), profiles, and output factors (OF), 2) adapting the Siebers-Keall MLC model to match the new HD120-MLC geometry and material composition, 3) determining the absolute dose conversion factor for the MC calculation, and 4) validating this entire linac/MLC in the context of dose calculation verification for clinical VMAT plans. MC PDDs for the 6X beams agree with the measured data to within 2.0% for field sizes ranging from 2 × 2 to 40 × 40 cm2. Measured and MC profiles show agreement in the 50% field width and the 80%-20% penumbra region to within 1.3 mm for all square field sizes. MC OFs for the 2 to 40 cm2 square fields agree with measurement to within 1.6%. Verification of VMAT SABR lung, liver, and vertebra plans demonstrate that measured and MC ion chamber doses agree within 0.6% for the 6X beam and within 2.0% for the 6X FFF beam. A 3D gamma factor analysis demonstrates that for the 6X beam, &gt; 99% of voxels meet the pass criteria (3%/3 mm). For the 6X FFF beam, &gt; 94% of voxels meet this criteria. The TrueBeam accelerator delivering 6X and 6X FFF beams with the HD120 MLC can be modeled in Monte Carlo to provide an independent 3D dose calculation for clinical VMAT plans. This quality assurance tool has been used clinically to verify over 140 6X and 16 6X FFF TrueBeam treatment plans.