Commissioning and comprehensive evaluation of the ArcCHECK cylindrical diode array for VMAT pretreatment delivery QA

Assessing focal spot alignment in clinical linear accelerators: a comprehensive evaluation with triplet phantoms

A fundamental parameter to evaluate the beam delivery precision and stability on a clinical linear accelerator (linac) is the focal spot position (FSP) measured relative to the collimator axis of the radiation head. The aims of this work were to evaluate comprehensive data on FSP acquired on linacs in clinical use and to establish the ability of alternative phantoms to detect effects on patient plan delivery related to FSP. FSP measurements were conducted using a rigid phantom holding two ball-bearings at two different distances from the radiation source. Images of these ball-bearings were acquired using the electronic portal imaging device (EPID) integrated with each linac. Machine QA was assessed using a radiation head-mounted PTW STARCHECK phantom. Patient plan QA was investigated using the SNC ArcCHECK phantom positioned on the treatment couch, irradiated with VMAT plans across a complete 360° gantry rotation and three X-ray energies. This study covered eight Elekta linacs, including those with 6 MV, 18 MV, and 6 MV flattening-filter-free (FFF) beams. The largest range in the FSP was found for 6 MV FFF. The FSP of one linac, retrofitted with 6 MV FFF, displayed substantial differences in FSP compared to 6 MV FFF beams on other linacs, which all had FSP ranges less than 0.50 mm and 0.25 mm in the lateral and longitudinal directions, respectively. The PTW STARCHECK phantom proved effective in characterising the FSP, while the SNC ArcCHECK measurements could not discern FSP-related features. Minor variations in FSP may be attributed to adjustments in linac parameters, component replacements necessary for beam delivery, and the wear and tear of various linac components, including the magnetron and gun filament. Consideration should be given to the ability of any particular phantom to detect a subsequent impact on the accuracy of patient plan delivery.

Comparative Study of Fluence Distribution and Point Dose Using Arc-check and Delta4 Phantoms

The study aims to assess the fluence distribution and point dosage between two phantoms for patient-specific quality assurance on the Tomotherapy system. This was a retrospective study conducted on 15 patients who had radiation using the Helical Tomotherapy Machine (Radixact, Accuray Inc.). We used two phantoms to quantify the fluence produced by the treatment planning system (TPS) and recorded from the machine. The ArcCHECK (Sun-Nuclear) has 1386 diodes placed in a cylindrical configuration. The minimal resolution for this was 7 mm. The second was Delta4, supplied by ScandiDos. It has 1069 diode detectors arrayed in a crossed orthogonal configuration with a minimum resolution of 5 mm. All patient plans were transferred to these phantoms to validate the accuracy of treatment plan delivery. We used SunCHECK and ScandiDos Delta4 software to compare the fluence produced by the TPS with the fluence measured by the equipment. In ArcCHECK, we used an external ionization chamber, cc13 (IBA dosimetry), whereas in Delta4,we employed a central diode detector to quantify point dosage. The mean and standard deviation of the gamma pass percentage with ArcCHECK were 98.3 ± 0.8%, with an average point dose deviation of ± 0.94%. The mean and standard deviation of the gamma pass percentage using Delta4 was 99.1 ± 1.6%, while the average point dose deviation was ± 0.60%, both of which were well within the 3% tolerance employing the two phantoms.

Influence of dose calculation algorithms on the helical diode array using volumetric-modulated arc therapy for small targets

BACKGROUND

For patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) for small targets, the dose resolution can change depending on the characteristics of the dose calculation algorithms.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the influence of the dose calculation algorithms Acuros XB (AXB), anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA), photon Monte Carlo (pMC), and collapsed cone (CC) on a helical diode array using volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for small targets.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

ArcCHECK detectors were inserted with a physical depth of 2.9 cm from the surface. To evaluate the influence of the dose calculation algorithms for small targets, rectangular fields of 2×100, 5×100, 10×100, 20×100, 50×100, and 100×100 mm2 were irradiated and measured using ArcCHECK with TrueBeam STx. A total of 20 VMAT plans for small targets, including the clinical sites of 19 brain metastases and one spine, were also evaluated. The gamma passing rates (GPRs) were evaluated for the rectangular fields and the 20 VMAT plans using AXB, AAA, pMC, and CC.

RESULTS

For rectangular fields of 2×100 and 5×100 mm2, the GPR at 3%/2 mm of AXB was < 50% because AXB resulted in a coarser dose resolution with narrow beams. For field sizes > 10×100 mm2, the GPR at 3%/2 mm was > 88.1% and comparable for all dose calculation algorithms. For the 20 VMAT plans, the GPRs at 3%/2 mm were 79.1 ± 15.7%, 93.2 ± 5.8%, 94.9 ± 4.1%, and 94.5 ± 4.1% for AXB, AAA, pMC, and CC, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The behavior of the dose distribution on the helical diode array differed depending on the dose calculation algorithm for small targets. Measurements using ArcCHECK for VMAT with small targets can have lower GPRs owing to the coarse dose resolution of AXB around the detector area.

Commissioning and clinical evaluation of a novel high-resolution quality assurance digital detector array for SRS and SBRT

PURPOSE

We aimed to perform the commissioning and clinical evaluation of myQA SRS detector array for patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS)/ stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) plans.

METHODS

To perform the commissioning of myQA SRS, its dose linearity, dose-rate dependence, angular dependence, and field-size dependence were investigated. Ten SBRT plans were selected for clinical evaluation: 1) Common clinical deviations based on the original SBRT plan (Plan0), including multileaf collimator (MLC) positioning deviation and treatment positioning deviation were introduced. 2) Compared the performance of the myQA SRS and a high-resolution EPID dosimetry system in PSQA measurement for the SBRT plans. Evaluation parameters include gamma passing rate (GPR) and distance-to-agreement (DTA) pass rate (DPR).

RESULTS

The dose linearity, angle dependence, and field-size dependence of myQA SRS system exhibit excellent performance. The myQA SRS is highly sensitive in the detection of MLC deviations. The GPR of (3%/1 mm) decreases from 90.4% of the original plan to 72.7%/62.9% with an MLC outward/inward deviation of 3 mm. Additionally, when the setup error deviates by 1 mm in the X, Y, and Z directions with the GPR of (3%/1 mm) decreasing by an average of -20.9%, -25.7%, and -24.7%, respectively, and DPR (1 mm) decreasing by an average of -33.7%, -32.9%, and -29.8%. Additionally, the myQA SRS has a slightly higher GPR than EPID for PSQA, However, the difference is not statistically significant with the GPR of (3%/1 mm) of (average 90.4%% vs. 90.1%, p = 0.414).

CONCLUSION

Dosimetry characteristics of the myQA SRS device meets the accuracy and sensitivity requirement of PSQA for SRS/SBRT treatment. The dose rate dependence should be adequately calibrated before its application and a more stringent GPR (3%/1 mm) evaluation criterion is suggested when it is used for SRS/SBRT QA.

Technical note: A simple method for patient-specific quality assurance for lateral targets on a 1.5 T MR-Linac

The Elekta Unity magnetic resonance (MR) linac is limited to longitudinal couch motion and a sagittal-only laser, which restricts the ability to perform patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) measurements for very lateral targets. This work introduces a simple method to perform PSQA using the Sun Nuclear ArcCheck-MR phantom at left and right lateral positions without additional equipment or in-house construction. The proposed setup places the center of the phantom 1.3 cm vertical and 12.9 cm lateral to isocenter in either the left or right direction. Computed tomography (CT) scans are used to simulate the setup and create a QA plan template in the Monaco treatment planning system (TPS). The workflow is demonstrated for four patients, with an average axial distance from the center of the bore to the planning target volume (PTV) of 12.4 cm. Gamma pass rates were above 94% for all plans using global 3%/2 mm gamma criterion with a 10% threshold. Setup uncertainties are slightly larger for the proposed lateral setup compared to the centered setup on the Elekta platform (∼1 mm compared to ∼0.5 mm), but acceptable pass rates are achievable without optimizing shifts in the gamma analysis software. In general, adding the left and right lateral positions increases the axial area in the bore encompassed by the cylindrical measurement array by 147%, substantially increasing the flexibility of measurements for offset targets. Based on this work, we propose using the lateral QA setup if the closest distance to the PTV edge from isocenter is larger than the array radius (10.5 cm) or the percent of the PTV encompassed by the diode array would be increased with the lateral setup compared to the centered setup.

Comparison of Progressive Resolution Optimizer and Photon Optimizer algorithms in RapidArc delivery for head and neck SIB treatments

Background

The aim of this study is to analyze and verify characterization of two different algorithms using simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) in head and neck (H&N) plans.

Materials and methods

In our study 15 patients were selected, who received radiation therapy by using Eclipse volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) Progressive Resolution Optimizer (PRO) algorithm 15.1. The same cases were re-optimized using a Photon Optimizer (PO) algorithm 15.6.A total of 30 treatment plans (15 PRO-VMAT plans and 15 PO-VMAT plans) were produced in the present study. All plans were created using double full arcs, keeping the identical constraints, cost functions and optimization time. Plan evaluation was done using planning target volume (PTV) parameters (D98%, D95%, D50%, D2% mean dose and V105%), homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), Monitor unit (MU) per degree with control points (CP), organ at risk (OAR) doses and gamma verification (Portal dosimetry and ArcCHECK) values were evaluated. Treatment was delivered in Varian Truebeam 2.5, energy 6 MV with Millennium 120 multileaf collimator (MLC).

Results

The PTV coverage (D95%) for PRO and PO were 98.7 ± 0.8 Gy, 98.8 ± 0.9 Gy, HI were 0.09 ± 0.02 and 0.09 ± 0.02, CI were 0.98 ± 0.01 and 0.99 ± 0.01. Monitor units (MU) for PRO and PO were 647.5 ± 137.9, 655.2 ± 138.4. The Portal dose results were [3%, 3mm (%) & 1 %, 1 mm (%)] for PO and PRO 100 ± 0.1, 95.1 ± 1.4 and 100 ± 0.1, 95.2 ± 1.3. For ArcCHECK were 99.9 ± 0.1, 94.7 ± 3.0 and 99.9 ± 0.1, 93.5 ± 3.9, respectively.

Conclusion

Results showed that PTV coverage and OAR doses were comparable. For individual patients CI and HI of PO showed slightly higher values than PRO. MUs for PO were slightly increased as compared to PRO. MU per degree with each individual control points generated by PO showed a high degree of modulation compared to PRO. Hence, new PO optimizer can produce a comparable degree of plan while using the same PRO objectives.

Preliminary study on dosimetry characteristics of a novel cylindrical dose verification system

OBJECTIVE

To develop a novel ionization chamber array dosimetry system, study its dosimetry characteristics, and perform preliminary tests for plan dose verification.

METHODS

The dosimetry characteristics of this new array were tested, including short-term and long-term reproducibility, dose linearity, dose rate dependence, field size dependence, and angular dependence. The open field and MLC field plans were designed for dose testing. Randomly select 30 patient treatment plans (10 intensity-modulated radiation therapy [IMRT] plans and 20 volumetric modulated arc therapy [VMAT] plans) that have undergone dose verification using Portal Dosimetry to perform verification measurement and evaluate dose verification test results.

RESULTS

The dosimetry characteristics of the arrays all performed well. The gamma passing rates (3%/2 mm) were more than 96% for the combined open field and MLC field plans. The average gamma pass rates were (99.54 ± 0.58)% and (96.70 ± 3.41)% for the 10 IMRT plans and (99.32 ± 0.89)% and (94.91 ± 6.01)% for the 20 VMAT plans at the 3%/2 mm and 2%/2 mm criteria, respectively, which is similar to the Portal Dosimetry's measurement results.

CONCLUSIONS

This novel ionization chamber array demonstrates good dosimetry characteristics and is suitable for clinical IMRT and VMAT plan verifications.

Dosimetric comparison of fixed field dynamic IMRT and VMAT techniques in simultaneous integrated boost radiotherapy of prostate cancer

High-risk prostate cancer can take advantage of the combination of hypofractionated radiotherapy and pelvic conventional fraction radiotherapy. The comparison between fixed field dynamic IMRT and VMAT techniques can provide suggestions for clinical treatment. We selected 10 high-risk prostate cancer patients who received radiotherapy at the cancer center of Sun Yat-sen University from January 2016 to December 2019. The targets contained in prostate, seminal vesicles and pelvic lymph nodes. With the same prescription and optimized parameters, 9F, single-arc (1ARC) and double-arc (2ARC) treatment plans were developed. The dose distribution of the targets, OAR, MU, treatment time and gamma pass ratios of dose verification was compared. The D2% (69.37 ± 0.89) Gy, D50% (66.92 ± 0.63) Gy, HI (0.09 ± 0.02), and CI (0.83 ± 0.05) of PTV1 in 9F were slightly better than those of 1ARC which were (71.13 ± 1.21) Gy, (68.50 ± 0.76) Gy, (0.12 ± 0.02), (0.74 ± 0.07), except D98%, the difference was significant (P < .05). All dosimetry indices of PTV1 in 9F and 2ARC were close and have no significant differences (P > .05). The V95% (99.45 ± 0.78)% of PTV2 in 9F was slightly better than that in 1ARC (99.35 ± 1.28)%. The difference was significant (P < .05). All dosimetry indices of PTV2 in 9F and 2ARC were close and the difference was not significant (P > .05). The Dmean of the bladder and the V67.5 Gy of rectum between all three plans were similar. The Dmean of left and right femoral in 1ARC and 2ARC were lower than that in 9F, and the difference was significant (P < .05). Other dosimetry indices of OARs in 9F were lower than those in 1ARC and 2ARC, and much lower than 1ARC. The difference was significant (P < .05). Mean monitor units in 1ARC and 2ARC were fewer by 70.0% and 67.2% in comparison with 9F. The treatment mean time in 1ARC and 2ARC was shorter by 81.7% and 61% in comparison with 9F. Verification pass ratios of γ (3%/3 mm) were 97.8% (9F), 98.9% (1ARC) and 99.4% (2ARC) respectively. The difference was significant (P < .05). Compared with IMRT, VMAT improved delivery efficiency noticeably. Two arcs provided comparable tumor dosimetry coverage, but performed worse in dose sparing for bladder, rectum and small bowel. The IMRT plan was preferable to VMAT in prostate cancer simultaneous integrated boost radiotherapy.

Treatment plan prescreening for patient-specific quality assurance measurements using independent Monte Carlo dose calculations

PURPOSE

This study proposes a method to identify plans that failed patient-specific quality assurance (QA) and attempts to establish a criterion to prescreen treatment plans for patient-specific QA measurements with independent Monte Carlo dose calculations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patient-specific QA results measured with an ArcCHECK diode array of 207 patients (head and neck: 25; thorax: 61; abdomen: 121) were retrospectively analyzed. All patients were treated with the volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique and plans were optimized with a Pinnacle v16.2 treatment planning system using an analytical algorithm-based dose engine. Afterwards, phantom verification plans were designed and recalculated by an independent GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo (MC) dose engine, ArcherQA. Moreover, sensitivity and specificity analyzes of gamma passing rates between measurements and MC calculations were carried out to show the ability of MC to monitor failing plans (ArcCHECK 3%/3 mm,<90%), and attempt to determine the appropriate threshold and gamma passing rate criterion utilized by ArcherQA to prescreen treatment plans for ArcCHECK measurements. The receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve was also utilized to characterize the performance of different gamma passing rate criterion used by ArcherQA.

RESULTS

The thresholds for 100% sensitivity to detect plans that failed patient-specific QA by independent calculation were 97.0%, 95.4%, and 91.0% for criterion 3%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm, and 2%/2 mm, respectively, which corresponded to specificities of 0.720, 0.528, and 0.585, respectively. It was shown that the 3%/3 mm criterion with 97% threshold for ArcherQA demonstrated perfect sensitivity and the highest specificity compared with other criteria, which may be suitable for prescreening treatment plans treated with the investigated machine to implement measurement-based patient-specific QA of patient plans. In addition, the area under the curve (AUC) calculated from ROC analysis for criterion 3%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm, and 2%/2 mm used by ArcherQA were 0.948, 0.924, and 0.929, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Independent dose calculation with the MC-based program ArcherQA has potential as a prescreen treatment for measurement-based patient-specific QA. AUC values (>0.9) showed excellent classification accuracy for monitoring failing plans with independent MC calculations.

Statistical analysis of correlation of gamma passing results for two quality assurance phantoms used for patient-specific quality assurance in volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy

Patient-specific quality assurance (QA) data must be migrated from outdated QA systems to new ones to produce objective results that can be understood by oncologists. We aimed to evaluate a method for obtaining a high correlation of dose distributions according to various gamma passing rates among two types of 2D detectors for the migration of patient-specific QA data of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). The patient-specific QA of 20 patients undergoing VMAT was measured in two different modes: standard single measurement (SM) mode and multiple merged measurements (MM) techniques using ArcCHECK (AC) and OCTAVIUS (OT). The correlation of the measured and calculated dose distributions was evaluated according to varying gamma passing rates (3%/3 mm, 2%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm, and 1%/1 mm). The gamma passing rates were analyzed using the Anderson-Darling normality test. Treatment plan dose distributions were calculated by intentionally shifting the calculation isocenter position (x,y,z ± 0.5, ± 1.0, ± 1.5, and ± 2.0 mm). The highest correlation between the SM and MM was observed with a gamma passing rate of 1%/1 mm with AC (r = 0.866) and 3%/2 mm with OT (r = 0.916). However, SM and MM did not follow a normal distribution with a rate of 3%/2 mm in OT. The second-highest correlation was obtained with a rate of 2%/2 mm (r = 0.900). Among the two 2D detectors, the highest correlation between the calculated and measured dose distributions was obtained for a gamma passing rate of 1%/1 mm using SM in AC and 2%/2 mm using MM in OT (r = 0.716). Adjusting the gamma passing rate and measurement mode of AC and OT resulted in higher correlations between measured and calculated dose distributions. The high correlation between different 2D detectors objectively indicated a potential migration method. This enabled the sharing of more accurate patient-specific QA data from 2D detectors with different phantoms. A high correlation was observed between the two types of detectors in this study (r = 0.716); therefore, the proposed method should be useful for oncologists to share information regarding patient-specific QA for VMAT.

Assessment of Delivery Quality Assurance for Stereotactic Radiosurgery With Cyberknife

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to establish and assess a practical delivery quality assurance method for stereotactic radiosurgery with Cyberknife by analyzing the geometric and dosimetric accuracies obtained using a PTW31016 PinPoint ionization chamber and EBT3 films. Moreover, this study also explores the relationship between the parameters of plan complexity, target volume, and deliverability parameters and provides a valuable reference for improving plan optimization and validation.

Methods

One hundred fifty cases of delivery quality assurance plans were performed on Cyberknife to assess point dose and planar dose distribution, respectively, using a PTW31016 PinPoint ionization chamber and Gafchromic EBT3 films. The measured chamber doses were compared with the planned mean doses in the sensitive volume of the chamber, and the measured planar doses were compared with the calculated dose distribution using gamma index analysis. The gamma passing rates were evaluated using the criteria of 3%/1 mm and 2%/2 mm. The statistical significance of the correlations between the complexity metrics, target volume, and the gamma passing rate were analyzed using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient.

Results

For point dose comparison, the averaged dose differences (± standard deviations) were 1.6 ± 0.73% for all the cases. For planar dose distribution, the mean gamma passing rate for 3%/1 mm, and 2%/2 mm evaluation criteria were 94.26% ± 1.89%, and 93.86% ± 2.16%, respectively. The gamma passing rates were higher than 90% for all the delivery quality assurance plans with the criteria of 3%/1 mm and 2%/2 mm. The difference in point dose was lowly correlated with volume of PTV, number of beams, and treatment time for 150 DQA plans, and highly correlated with volume of PTV for 18 DQA plans of small target. DQA gamma passing rate (2%/2 mm) was a moderate significant correlation for the number of nodes, number of beams and treatment time, and a low correlation with MU.

Conclusion

PTW31016 PinPoint ionization chamber and EBT3 film can be used for routine Cyberknife delivery quality assurance. The point dose difference should be within 3%. The gamma passing rate should be higher than 90% for the criteria of 3%/1 mm and 2%/2 mm. In addition, the plan complexity and PTV volume were found to have some influence on the plan deliverability.

A robust approach to establish tolerance limits for the gamma passing rate-based patient-specific quality assurance using the heuristic control charts

PURPOSE

Establishing the tolerance limits of patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) processes based on the gamma passing rate (GPR) by using normal statistical process control (SPC) methods involves certain problems. The aim of this study was threefold: (a) to show that the heuristic SPC method can replace the quantile method for establishing tolerance limits in PSQA processes and is more robust, (b) to introduce an iterative procedure of "Identify-Eliminate-Recalculate" for establishing the tolerance limits in PSQA processes with unknown states based on retrospective GPRs, and (c) to recommend a workflow to define tolerance limits based on actual clinical retrospective GPRs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 1671 volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) pretreatment plans were measured on four linear accelerators (linacs) and analyzed by treatment sites using the GPRs under the 2%/2 mm, 3%/2 mm, and 3%/3 mm criteria. Normality testing was performed using the Anderson-Darling (AD) statistic and the optimal distributions of GPRs were determined using the Fitter Python package. The iterative "Identify-Eliminate-Recalculate" procedure was used to identify the PSQA outliers. The tolerance limits of the initial PSQAs, remaining PSQAs after elimination, and in-control PSQAs after correction were calculated using the conventional Shewhart method, two transformation methods, three heuristic methods, and two quantile methods. The tolerance limits of PSQA processes with different states for the respective methods, linacs, and treatment sites were comprehensively compared and analyzed.

RESULTS

It was found that 75% of the initial PSQA processes and 63% of the in-control processes were non-normal (AD test, p < 0.05). The optimal distributions of GPRs for the initial and in-control PSQAs varied with different linacs and treatment sites. In the implementation of the "Identify-Eliminate-Recalculate" procedure, the quantile methods could not identify the out-of-control PSQAs effectively due to the influence of outliers. The tolerance limits of the in-control PSQAs, calculated using the quantile of optimal fitting distributions, represented the ground truth. The tolerance limits of the in-control PSQAs and remaining PSQAs after elimination calculated using the heuristic methods were considerably close to the ground truth (the maximum average absolute deviations were 0.50 and 1.03%, respectively). Some transformation failures occurred under both transformation methods. For the in-control PSQAs at 3%/2 mm gamma criteria, the maximum differences in the tolerance limits for four linacs and different treatment sites were 3.10 and 5.02%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The GPR distributions of PSQA processes vary with different linacs and treatment sites but most are skewed. In applying SPC methodologies to PSQA processes, heuristic methods are robust. For in-control PSQA processes, the tolerance limits calculated by heuristic methods are in good agreement with the ground truth. For unknown PSQA processes, the tolerance limits calculated by the heuristic methods after the iterative "Identify-Eliminate-Recalculate" procedure are closest to the ground truth. Setting linac- and treatment site-specific tolerance limits for PSQA processes is necessary for clinical applications.

Dose rate correction for a silicon diode detector array

Purpose

A signal dependence on dose rate was reported for the ArcCHECK array due to recombination processes within the diodes. The purpose of our work was to quantify the necessary correction and apply them to quality assurance measurements.

Methods

Static 10 × 10 cm² 6‐MV fields delivered by a linear accelerator were applied to the detector array while decreasing the average dose rate, that is, the pulse frequency, from 500 to 30 MU/min. An ion chamber was placed inside the ArcCHECK cavity as a reference. Furthermore, the instantaneous dose rate dependence (DRD) was studied. The position of the detector was adjusted to change the dose‐per‐pulse, varying the distance between the focus and the diode closest to the focus between 69.6 and 359.6 cm. Reference measurements were performed with an ion chamber placed inside a PMMA slab phantom at the same source‐to‐detector distances (SDDs). Exponential saturation functions were fitted to the data, with different parameters to account for two generations of ArcCHECK detectors (types 2 and 3) and both DRDs. Corrections were applied to 12 volumetric modulated arc therapy plans.

Results

The sensitivity decreased by up to 2.8% with a decrease in average dose rate and by 9% with a decrease in instantaneous dose rate. Correcting the average DRD, the mean gamma pass rates (2%/2‐mm criterion) of the treatment plans were improved by 5 percentage points (PP) for diode type 3 and 0.4 PP for type 2. Correcting the instantaneous DRD, the improvement was 8.4 PP for type 3 and 0.9 PP for type 2.

Conclusions

The instantaneous DRD was identified as the prevailing effect on the diode sensitivity. We developed and validated a method to correct this behavior. The number of falsely not passed treatment plans could be considerably reduced.

Assessment of the Sun Nuclear ArcCHECK to detect errors in 6MV FFF VMAT delivery of brain SABR using ROC analysis

Institutions use a range of different detector systems for patient-specific quality assurance (QA) measurements conducted to assure that the dose delivered by a patient's radiotherapy treatment plan matches the calculated dose distribution. However, the ability of different detectors to detect errors from different sources is often unreported. This study contains a systematic evaluation of Sun Nuclear's ArcCHECK in terms of the detectability of potential machine-related treatment errors. The five investigated sources of error were multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf positions, gantry angle, collimator angle, jaw positions, and dose output. The study encompassed the clinical treatment plans of 29 brain cancer patients who received stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). Six error magnitudes were investigated per source of error. In addition, the Eclipse AAA beam model dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) parameter was varied with four error magnitudes. Error detectability was determined based on the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC). Detectability of DLG errors was good or excellent (AUC >0.8) at an error magnitude of at least ±0.4 mm, while MLC leaf position and gantry angle errors reached good or excellent detectability at error magnitudes of at least 1.0 mm and 0.6°, respectively. Ideal thresholds, that is, gamma passing rates, to maximize sensitivity and specificity ranged from 79.1% to 98.7%. The detectability of collimator angle, jaw position, and dose output errors was poor for all investigated error magnitudes, with an AUC between 0.5 and 0.6. The ArcCHECK device's ability to detect errors from treatment machine-related sources was evaluated, and ideal gamma passing rate thresholds were determined for each source of error. The ArcCHECK was able to detect errors in DLG value, MLC leaf positions, and gantry angle. The ArcCHECK was unable to detect the studied errors in collimator angle, jaw positions, and dose output.

Initial clinical experience of patient-specific QA of treatment delivery in online adaptive radiotherapy using a 1.5 T MR-Linac

Purpose. This study aims to evaluate the performance of a commercial 1.5 T MR-Linac by analyzing its patient-specific quality assurance (QA) data collected during one full year of clinical operation.Methods and Materials. The patient-specific QA system consisted of offline delivery QA (DQA) and online calculation-based QA. Offline DQA was based on ArcCHECK-MR combined with an ionization chamber. Online QA was performed using RadCalc that calculated and compared the point dose calculation with the treatment planning system (TPS). A total of 24 patients with 189 treatment fractions were enrolled in this study. Gamma analysis was performed and the threshold that encompassed 95% of QA results (T95) was reported. The plan complexity metric was calculated for each plan and compared with the dose measurements to determine whether any correlation existed.Results. All point dose measurements were within 5% deviation. The mean gamma passing rates of the group data were found to be 96.8 ± 4.0% and 99.6 ± 0.7% with criteria of 2%/2mm and 3%/3mm, respectively. T95 of 87.4% and 98.2% was reported for the overall group with the two passing criteria, respectively. No statistically significant difference was found between adaptive treatments with adapt-to-position (ATP) and adapt-to-shape (ATS), whilst the category of pelvis data showed a better passing rate than other sites. Online QA gave a mean deviation of 0.2 ± 2.2%. The plan complexity metric was positively correlated with the mean dose difference whilst the complexity of the ATS cohort had larger variations than the ATP cohort.Conclusions. A patient-specific QA system based on ArcCHECK-MR, solid phantom and ionization chamber has been well established and implemented for validation of treatment delivery of a 1.5 T MR-Linac. Our QA data obtained over one year confirms that good agreement between TPS calculation and treatment delivery was achieved.

Response of the ArcCHECK® device at 6 MV and 15 MV for VMAT and IMRT quality control

PURPOSE

To study the response of the ArcCHECK® device as VMAT and IMRT verification system.

METHODS

Various tests analyzing the linearity, the repeatability and the angular dependence of the device response, its dependence with the pulse repetition rate and the leakage losses were performed. The long-term response in dose measurements and the uniformity of the detectors conforming the system were controlled using a statistical process control program. The Elekta Infinity™ 6 and 15MV photon beams were used.

RESULTS

The device showed excellent repeatability and linearity. The differences between the responses obtained for any pair of angular incidences were less than 2%. The absorbed dose increased by 3% when the pulse repetition rate varied from 50 to 600MU/min. Results are in overall agreement with those found in previous works for the ArcCHECK®, in which a reduced number of the device diodes were analyzed, and for the MapCheck®, an older 2D device that used the same diodes. Charge losses were found to be negligible except for some of the diodes of the device. The statistical process control program is a very useful tool to control the correct functioning of the device in the long term.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the analysis carried out indicate that the working and stability conditions of the ArcCHECK® device are adequate for its purpose. The dependence with the pulse repetition rate should be considered when VMAT or similar treatments are evaluated. A control program for the statistical monitoring of the device would be desirable and useful.

Patient-specific radiotherapy quality assurance for estimating actual treatment dose

This study aimed to evaluate the optimal method for planning computed tomography (CT) for prostate cancer radiotherapy to avoid a dose difference of ≥3% between the actual and planned treatments using multiple acquisition planning CT (MPCT). We calculated the 3-dimensional (3D) displacement error between the pelvic bone and matching fiducial marker on MPCT and cone-beam CT scans of 25 patients who underwent prostate volumetric-modulated arc therapy for prostate cancer. The correlation of the 3D displacement error and the dose difference between planned and actual treatments was calculated using least squares second-order polynomial model. The 3D displacement error showed a moderate correlation with differences between planned and accumulated treatment doses (r = 0.587, p < 0.0001). Moreover, the improvement rate of the minimum 3D displacement error showed a strong correlation with the relative error between each MPCT image (r = 0.793, p < 0.0001). Significant differences were observed between planned and actual treatment doses (p < 0.0001) in the relative 3D displacement errors of <1 mm, 1 to 3 mm, and >3 mm. The 3D displacement error on MPCT (as the selection estimation index for optimal planning CT) is useful for monitoring patient-specific intensity-modulated radiation therapy quality assurance. This new method allows to estimate dose differences from the planned dose before commencing treatment, thereby ensuring high-quality therapy. As radiotherapy quality is critical for patient outcome, these findings may contribute to better management of prostate cancer.

[Effect of Relative Electron Density and Physical Density Adjustment in Patient-specific Quality Assurance Using PMMA Phantom]

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to improve the accuracy of dose-distribution calculations by understanding how the calculated dose varies with the change in the relative electron density replacing polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) in patient-specific quality assurance.

METHOD

We calculated the relative electron density at which dose attenuation in each dose calculation algorithm coincides with the measured value of the dose attenuation of single-field irradiation. Next, the dose change was calculated by changing the relative electron density or physical electron density for substituting PMMA for each X-ray energy and calculation algorithm. Furthermore, using clinical plans, changes in point-dose verification and dose-distribution verification that occurred when the relative electron density or physical electron density was varied were investigated.

RESULTS

The dose attenuation varies depending on the dose-calculation algorithm, and the optimum value of the electron density is different for each. After the electron density optimization, the point dose verification using the 97.1% to 98.3% (3%/3 mm), 90.0% to 94.3% (2%/3 mm) and gained a dominant improvement tendency (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

We clarified dose change accompanying relative electron density or physical electron density change. We concluded that the accuracy of dose-distribution calculation for verification improves by replacing PMMA with optimal relative electron density or physical electron density.

Patient-specific dose quality assurance of single-isocenter multiple brain metastasis stereotactic radiosurgery using PTW Octavius 4D

Purpose

Single‐isocenter multiple brain metastasis stereotactic radiosurgery is an efficient treatment modality increasing in clinical practice. The need to provide accurate, patient‐specific quality assurance (QA) for these plans is met by several options. This study reviews some of these options and explores the use of the Octavius 4D as a solution for patient‐specific plan quality assurance.

Methods

The Octavius 4D Modular Phantom (O4D) with the 1000 SRS array was evaluated in this study. The array consists of 977 liquid‐filled ion chambers. The center 5.5 cm × 5.5 cm area has a detector spacing of 2.5 mm. The ability of the O4D to reconstruct three‐dimensional (3D) dose was validated against a 3D gel dosimeter, ion chamber, and film measurements. After validation, 15 patients with 2–11 targets had their plans delivered to the phantom. The criteria used for the gamma calculation was 3%/1 mm. The portion of targets which were measurable by the phantom was countable. The accompanying software compiled the measured doses allowing each target to be counted from the measured dose distribution.

Results

Spatial resolution was sufficient to verify the high dose distributions characteristic of SRS. Amongst the 15 patients there were 74 targets. Of the 74 targets, 61 (82%) of them were visible on the measured dose distribution. The average gamma passing rate was 99.3% (with sample standard deviation of 0.68%).

Conclusions

The high resolution provided by the O4D with 1000 SRS board insert allows for very high‐resolution measurement. This high resolution in turn can allow for high gamma passing rates. The O4D with the 1000 SRS array is an acceptable method of performing quality assurance for single‐isocenter multiple brain metastasis SRS.

Optimal VMAT Delivery for Elekta MLC Beam Modulator: A Study of Collimator Rotation for Head and Neck Planning

BACKGROUND

Well-optimized treatment planning parameters are vital for optimum beam delivery in advanced radiotherapy techniques. The Elekta "Beam-Modulator" (BM) is a high-resolution multileaf collimation system where each individual leaf is 4 mm wide at the isocentre, without backup diaphragms and jaws. Its maximum aperture is 21 × 16 cm², which results in a limited clinical use for the target geometry of maximum 20 cm in length. The collimator rotation provides an opportunity to treat slightly extended treatment length with optimal target coverage. The study aims to observe the collimator rotation influence on volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan quality for different head and neck target geometries using limited field collimator of BM.

METHODS

Ten patients with head and neck cancer were planned by means of simultaneous integrated boost to deliver VMAT for five patients with three dose levels (70/60/56) and five patients with two dose levels (60/54). The single arc, dual arc, and combined two independent single arcs of 356° each were well optimized for four collimator angles (C) 15°,30°, 45°, and 90°. The plans were prepared for BM with SmartArc module of Pinnacle³ treatment planning system. Statistical significance (P ≤ .05) among collimator angles for planning target volume dose-volume indices was calculated with Student's t-test. Organ-at-risk doses were compared and monitor units were also evaluated as a parameter for dose-delivery efficiency and out-of-field dose index.

RESULTS

The dual arc and combined two independent single arcs achieved planning objectives for C15°, C30°, and C45°. Single arc for all collimator angles and C90° for all VMAT schemes failed to achieve planning objectives. The spread of low dose bath 20, 35, and 40 Gy and deterioration of doses were higher towards periphery at C90° and statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

The small and medium collimator angles for dual-arc VMAT scheme(s) are suitable, whereas single arc and C90° are not suitable in VMAT implementation for Elekta Beam-Modulator collimation system.

Transit and non-transit 3D EPID dosimetry versus detector arrays for patient specific QA

PURPOSE

Despite their availability and simplicity of use, Electronic Portal Imaging Devices (EPIDs) have not yet replaced detector arrays for patient specific QA in 3D. The purpose of this study is to perform a large scale dosimetric evaluation of transit and non-transit EPID dosimetry against absolute dose measurements in 3D.

METHODS

After evaluating basic dosimetric characteristics of the EPID and two detector arrays (Octavius 1500 and Octavius 1000SRS ), 3D dose distributions for 68 VMAT arcs, and 10 IMRT plans were reconstructed within the same phantom geometry using transit EPID dosimetry, non-transit EPID dosimetry, and the Octavius 4D system. The reconstructed 3D dose distributions were directly compared by γ-analysis (2L2 = 2% local/2 mm and 3G2 = 3% global/2 mm, 50% isodose) and by the percentage difference in median dose to the high dose volume (%∆HDVD 50 ).

RESULTS

Regarding dose rate dependency, dose linearity, and field size dependence, the agreement between EPID dosimetry and the two detector arrays was found to be within 1.0%. In the 2L2 γ-comparison with Octavius 4D dose distributions, the average γ-pass rate value was 92.2 ± 5.2%(1SD) and 94.1 ± 4.3%(1SD) for transit and non-transit EPID dosimetry, respectively. 3G2 γ-pass rate values were higher than 95% in 150/156 cases. %∆HDVD 50 values were within 2% in 134/156 cases and within 3% in 155/156 cases. With regard to the clinical classification of alerts, 97.5% of the treatments were equally classified by EPID dosimetry and Octavius 4D.

CONCLUSION

Transit and non-transit EPID dosimetry are equivalent in dosimetric terms to conventional detector arrays for patient specific QA. Non-transit 3D EPID dosimetry can be readily used for pre-treatment patient specific QA of IMRT and VMAT, eliminating the need of phantom positioning.

A novel method for monitoring the constancy of beam path accuracy in CyberKnife

The aim of current work was to present a novel evaluation procedure implemented for checking the constancy of beam path accuracy of a CyberKnife system based on ArcCHECK. A tailor‐made Styrofoam with four implanted fiducial markers was adopted to enable the fiducial tracking during beam deliveries. A simple two‐field plan and an isocentric plan were created for determining the density override of ArcCHECK in MultiPlan and the constancy of beam path accuracy respectively. Correlation curves for all diodes involved in the study were obtained by analyzing the dose distributions calculated by MultiPlan after introducing position shifts in anteroposterior, superoinferior, and left–right directions. The ability of detecting systematic position error was also evaluated by changing the position of alignment center intentionally. The one standard deviation (SD) result for reproducibility test showed the RMS of 0.054 mm and the maximum of 0.263 mm, which was comparable to the machine self‐test result. The mean of absolute value of position errors in the constancy test was measured to 0.091 mm with a SD of 0.035 mm, while the root‐mean‐square was 0.127 mm with a SD of 0.034 mm. All introduced systematic position errors range from 0.3 to 2 mm were detected successfully. Efficient method for evaluating the constancy of beam path accuracy of CyberKnife has been developed and proven to be sensitive enough for detecting a systematic drift of robotic manipulator. Once the workflow is streamlined, our proposed method will be an effective and easy quality assurance procedure for medical physicists.

[Study of Stability and Sensitivity of Three-dimensional Diode Array Detector]

PURPOSE

Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has become a widely accepted and efficient treatment technique for many types of cancers. Patient's specific quality assurance (QA) should be performed with QA devices. Stability and sensitivity tests conducted on the ArcCHECK (AC) 3D diode array were performed.

METHODS

Set-up error test with AC was performed. The set-up position moved to lateral (mm), longitudinal (mm) and rotational (°) were 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0, respectively. Sensitivity change test of diode array with AC through 230 days was also performed. Same array calibration data was applied to all measurements of volumetric-modulated arc therapy benchmark test through 230 days. Gamma method (2 mm/2% criteria) was performed to analyze the result of all measurements.

RESULTS

In the results of positional error, gamma pass rate become degenerate according to positional error became larger. With 0.5 mm or 0.5° positional error, decreasing rate of the pass rate of lateral, longitudinal and rotational were 1.0%, 2.5% and 4.2%, respectively. In the sensitivity change test, the gamma pass rate decreased 2.2%/100 days with same calibration data.

CONCLUSION

AC has highly sensitivity against positional error. Sensitivity of AC has been changed and pass rate was decreased 2.2%/100 days through 230 days. Array calibration should be performed in consideration of change of sensitivity.

Evaluation of machine log files/MC-based treatment planning and delivery QA as compared to ArcCHECK QA

PURPOSE

A treatment planning/delivery QA tool using linac log files (LF) and Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation is investigated as a standalone alternative to phantom-based patient-specific QA (ArcCHECK (AC)).

METHODS

Delivering a variety of fields onto MapCHECK2 and ArcCHECK, diode sensitivity dependence on dose rate (in-field) and energy (primarily out-of-field) was quantified. AC and LF QAs were analyzed with respect to delivery complexity by delivering 12 × 12 cm static fields/arcs comprised of varying numbers of abutting sub-fields onto ArcCHECK. About 11 clinical dual-arc VMAT patients planned using Pinnacle's convolution-superposition (CS) were delivered on ArcCHECK and log file dose (LF-CS and LF-MC) calculated. To minimize calculation time, reduced LF-CS sampling (1/2/3/4° control point spacing) was investigated. Planned ("Plan") and LF-reconstructed CS and MC doses were compared with each other and AC measurement via statistical [mean ± StdDev(σ)] and gamma analyses to isolate dosimetric uncertainties and quantify the relative accuracies of AC QA and MC-based LF QA.

RESULTS

Calculation and ArcCHECK measurement differed by up to 1.5% in-field due to variation in dose rate and up to 5% out-of-field. For the experimental segment-varying plans, despite CS calculation deviating by as much as 13% from measurement, Plan-MC and LF-MC doses generally matched AC measurement within 3%. Utilizing 1° control point spacing, 2%/2 mm LF-CS vs AC pass rates (97%) were slightly lower than Plan-CS vs AC pass rates (97.5%). Utilizing all log file samples, 2%/2 mm LF-MC vs AC pass rates (97.3%) were higher than Plan-MC vs AC (96.5%). Phantom-dependent, calculation algorithm-dependent (MC vs CS), and delivery error-dependent dose uncertainties were 0.8 ± 1.2%, 0.2 ± 1.1%, and 0.1 ± 0.9% respectively.

CONCLUSION

Reconstructing every log file sample with no increase in computational cost, MC-based LF QA is faster and more accurate than CS-based LF QA. Offering similar dosimetric accuracy compared to AC measurement, MC-based log files can be used for treatment planning QA.

Verification of junction dose between VMAT arcs of total body irradiation using a Sun Nuclear ArcCHECK phantom

A volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) approach to total body irradiation (TBI) has recently been introduced at our institution. The planning target volume (PTV) is divided into separate sub-volumes, each being treated with 2 arcs with their own isocentre. Pre-treatment quality assurance of beams is performed on a Sun Nuclear ArcCHECK diode array. Measurement of junction regions between VMAT arcs with separate isocentres has previously been performed with point dose ionization chamber measurements, or with films. Translations of the ArcCHECK with respect to a known distance between the adjacent isocentres of two arcs, which are repeated with the ArcCHECK in an inverted position, allows the recording of a junction dose map. A 3%/3 mm global gamma analysis (10% threshold) pass rate for arc junctions were comparable to their component arcs. Dose maps of junction regions between adjacent arcs with different isocentres can be readily measured on a Sun Nuclear ArcCHECK diode array.

Dosimetric evaluation of MobiusFX in the RapidArc delivery quality assurance comparing with 3DVH

The dosimetric characteristics of MobiusFX, which uses the treatment machine log file to calculate the dose inside the patient body, were analyzed for use in the RapidArc delivery quality assurance (DQA) process. The accuracy and usefulness of MobiusFX in clinical cases was evaluated by comparing the dose calculated by MobiusFX with that calculated by the conventional measurement dose based program, 3DVH. The results of gamma evaluation with three different criteria (3%–3 mm, 4%–3 mm, 5%–3 mm) were analyzed, and the dose changes were calculated while simulating variable position errors (6 mm, 3 mm) and dosimetric output increases (6%, 3%). Although the doses calculated by each tool were not identical due to differences in the calculation algorithms, the doses calculated by MobiusFX were generally similar to those calculated by 3DVH. Based on these results, MobiusFX exhibited the required accuracy for clinical application. However, it could not determine the dosimetric output variation. It should therefore be considered a supplementary DQA tool that can verify the error in the daily treatment process, but not an ideal DQA tool that can replace conventional measurement based DQA methods.

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

Comparisons of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) quality assurance (QA) systems: sensitivity analysis to machine errors

BACKGROUND

In volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), gantry angles, dose rate and the MLC positions vary with the radiation delivery. The quality assurance (QA) system should be able to catch the planning and machine errors. The aim of this study was to investigate the sensitivity of three VMAT QA systems to machine errors.

METHODS

Several types of potential linac machine errors unique to VMAT delivery were simulated in sinusoidal function of gantry angle, including gantry angle itself, MLC position and linac output. Two commercial QA systems, ArcCheck and Delta⁴, and an in-house developed EPID technique were compared in this study. Fifteen full arcs from head and neck plans were selected and modified to include five magnitudes of each type of error, resulting in measurements and γ analyses of 240 arcs on each system. Both qualitative and quantitative comparisons were performed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC), γ pass rate gradient, and overlap histogram methods.

RESULTS

In ROC analysis, the area under curve (AUC) represents the sensitivity and increases with the error magnitude. Using the criteria of 2 %/2 mm/2° (angle to agreement, ATA, only for EPID) and keeping AUC > 0.95, the minimum error detectable of ArcCheck, Delta⁴ and EPID are (2, 3, 3)° in gantry angle and (4, 2, 3) mm in MLC positions for the head and neck plans. No system is sensitive to the simulated output error, the AUC values were all below 0.70 even with 5 % output error. The γ gradient for gantry angle, MLC position and output errors are (-5.1, -2.6, -3.6)%/°, (-2.6, -7.1, -3.3)%/mm and (-0.2, -0.2, -0.3)%/% for ArcCheck, Delta⁴ and EPID, respectively. Therefore, these two analyses are consistent and support the same conclusion. The ATA parameter in EPID technique can be adjusted to tune its sensitivity.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that ArcCheck is more sensitive to gantry angle error and Delta⁴ is more sensitive to MLC position error. All three systems are not sensitive to the simulated output error. With additional analysis parameter, the EPID technique can be tuned to have optimal sensitivity and is able to perform QA for full field size with highest resolution. In addition, ROC analysis avoids the choice of γ pass rate threshold and is more robust compared with other analysis methods.

Patient-related quality assurance with different combinations of treatment planning systems, techniques, and machines : A multi-institutional survey

PURPOSE

This project compares the different patient-related quality assurance systems for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques currently used in the central Germany area with an independent measuring system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The participating institutions generated 21 treatment plans with different combinations of treatment planning systems (TPS) and linear accelerators (LINAC) for the QUASIMODO (Quality ASsurance of Intensity MODulated radiation Oncology) patient model. The plans were exposed to the ArcCHECK measuring system (Sun Nuclear Corporation, Melbourne, FL, USA). The dose distributions were analyzed using the corresponding software and a point dose measured at the isocenter with an ionization chamber.

RESULTS

According to the generally used criteria of a 10 % threshold, 3 % difference, and 3 mm distance, the majority of plans investigated showed a gamma index exceeding 95 %. Only one plan did not fulfill the criteria and three of the plans did not comply with the commonly accepted tolerance level of ±3 % in point dose measurement.

CONCLUSION

Using only one of the two examined methods for patient-related quality assurance is not sufficiently significant in all cases.

Initial clinical experience with ArcCHECK for IMRT/VMAT QA

Many devices designed for the purpose of performing patient‐specific IMRT/VMAT QA are commercially available. In this work we report our experience and initial clinical results with the ArcCHECK. The ArcCHECK consists of a cylindrical array of diode detectors measuring entry and exit doses. The measured result is a cumulative dose displayed as a 2D matrix. The detector array requires both an absolute dose calibration, and a calibration of the detector response, relative to each other. In addition to the calibrations suggested by the manufacturer, various tests were performed in order to assess its stability and performance prior to clinical introduction. Tests of uniformity, linearity, and repetition rate dependence of the detector response were conducted and described in this work. Following initial testing, the ArcCHECK device was introduced in the clinic for routine patient‐specific IMRT QA. The clinical results from one year of use were collected and analyzed. The gamma pass rates at the 3%/3 mm criterion were reported for 3,116 cases that included both IMRT and VMAT treatment plans delivered on 18 linear accelerators. The gamma pass rates were categorized based on the treatment site, treatment technique, type of MLCs, operator, ArcCHECK device, and LINAC model. We recorded the percent of failures at the clinically acceptable threshold of 90%. In addition, we calculated the threshold that encompasses two standard deviations (2 SD) (95%) of QAs (T95) for each category investigated. The commissioning measurements demonstrated that the device performed as expected. The uniformity of the detector response to a constant field arc delivery showed a 1% standard deviation from the mean. The variation in dose with changing repetition rate was within 1 cGy of the mean, while the measured dose showed a linear relation with delivered MUs. Our initial patient QA results showed that, at the clinically selected passing criterion, 4.5% of cases failed. On average T95 was 91%, ranging from 73% for gynecological sites to 96.5% for central nervous system sites. There are statistically significant differences in passing rates between IMRT and VMAT, high‐definition (HD) and non‐HD MLCs, and different LINAC models (p‐values <<0.001). An additional investigation into the failing QAs and a comparison with ion‐chamber measurements reveals that the differences observed in the passing rates between the different studied factors can be largely explained by the field size dependence of the device. Based on our initial experience with the ArcCHECK, our passing rates are, on average, consistent with values reported in the AAPM TG‐119. However, the significant variations between QAs that were observed based on the size of the treatment fields may need to be corrected to improve the specificity and sensitivity of the device.

PACS number(s): 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc

Determination of MLC model parameters for Monaco using commercial diode arrays

Multileaf collimators (MLCs) need to be characterized accurately in treatment planning systems to facilitate accurate intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT). The aim of this study was to examine the use of MapCHECK 2 and ArcCHECK diode arrays for optimizing MLC parameters in Monaco X‐ray voxel Monte Carlo (XVMC) dose calculation algorithm. A series of radiation test beams designed to evaluate MLC model parameters were delivered to MapCHECK 2, ArcCHECK, and EBT3 Gafchromic film for comparison. Initial comparison of the calculated and ArcCHECK‐measured dose distributions revealed it was unclear how to change the MLC parameters to gain agreement. This ambiguity arose due to an insufficient sampling of the test field dose distributions and unexpected discrepancies in the open parts of some test fields. Consequently, the XVMC MLC parameters were optimized based on MapCHECK 2 measurements. Gafchromic EBT3 film was used to verify the accuracy of MapCHECK 2 measured dose distributions. It was found that adjustment of the MLC parameters from their default values resulted in improved global gamma analysis pass rates for MapCHECK 2 measurements versus calculated dose. The lowest pass rate of any MLC‐modulated test beam improved from 68.5% to 93.5% with 3% and 2 mm gamma criteria. Given the close agreement of the optimized model to both MapCHECK 2 and film, the optimized model was used as a benchmark to highlight the relatively large discrepancies in some of the test field dose distributions found with ArcCHECK. Comparison between the optimized model‐calculated dose and ArcCHECK‐measured dose resulted in global gamma pass rates which ranged from 70.0%–97.9% for gamma criteria of 3% and 2 mm. The simple square fields yielded high pass rates. The lower gamma pass rates were attributed to the ArcCHECK overestimating the dose in‐field for the rectangular test fields whose long axis was parallel to the long axis of the ArcCHECK. Considering ArcCHECK measurement issues and the lower gamma pass rates for the MLC‐modulated test beams, it was concluded that MapCHECK 2 was a more suitable detector than ArcCHECK for the optimization process.

PACS number(s): 87.55.Qr

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

PURPOSE

Dynamic treatment planning algorithms use a dosimetric leaf separation (DLS) parameter to model the multi-leaf collimator (MLC) characteristics. Here, we quantify the dosimetric impact of an incorrect DLS parameter and investigate whether common pretreatment quality assurance (QA) methods can detect this effect.

METHODS

16 treatment plans with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique for multiple treatment sites were calculated with a correct and incorrect setting of the DLS, corresponding to a MLC gap difference of 0.5mm. Pretreatment verification QA was performed with a bi-planar diode array phantom and the electronic portal imaging device (EPID). Measurements were compared to the correct and incorrect planned doses using gamma evaluation with both global (G) and local (L) normalization. Correlation, specificity and sensitivity between the dose volume histogram (DVH) points for the planning target volume (PTV) and the gamma passing rates were calculated.

RESULTS

The change in PTV and organs at risk DVH parameters were 0.4-4.1%. Good correlation (>0.83) between the PTVmean dose deviation and measured gamma passing rates was observed. Optimal gamma settings with 3%L/3mm (per beam and composite plan) and 3%G/2mm (composite plan) for the diode array phantom and 2%G/2mm (composite plan) for the EPID system were found. Global normalization and per beam ROC analysis of the diode array phantom showed an area under the curve <0.6.

CONCLUSIONS

A DLS error can worsen pretreatment QA using gamma analysis with reasonable credibility for the composite plan. A low detectability was demonstrated for a 3%G/3mm per beam gamma setting.