Quantitative evaluation of 3D dosimetry for stereotactic volumetric-modulated arc delivery using COMPASS

Investigation of optimum minimum segment width on VMAT plan quality and deliverability: A comprehensive dosimetric and clinical evaluation using DVH analysis

Purpose

Minimum segment width (MSW) plays a fundamental role in the shaping of optimized apertures and creation of segments of varying sizes and shapes in complex radiotherapy treatment plans. The purpose of this work was to study the effect of MSW on dose distribution in patients planned with VMAT for various treatment sites using dose volume histogram (DVH) analysis.

Materials and methods

For the validation of optimum MSW, 125 clinical treatment plans were evaluated. Five groups were identified (brain, head and neck, thorax, pelvis, and extremity), and five cases were chosen from each group. For each case, five plans were created with different MSW (0.5, 0.8, 1.0, 1.25, and 1.5 cm). The quality of treatment plans created using different MSW were compared using dosimetric indicators such as target coverage (D₉₈—dose to 98% of the planning target volume (PTV), maximum dose (D₂—maximum dose to 2% of the PTV), monitor units (MU), and DVH parameters related to organs at risk (OAR). The effect of the MSW on delivery accuracy was quantitatively analyzed using the measured fluence utilizing ionization chamber‐based transmission detector and model‐based dose verification system. Traditional global gamma analysis (2%, 2 mm) and dose volume information was gathered for the PTV and organs at risk and compared for different MSWs.

Results

A total of 125 plans were created and compared across five groups. In terms of treatment plan quality, the plans using MSW of 0.5 cm was found to be superior in all groups. PTV coverage (D₉₈) decreased significantly (p < 0.05) as the MSW increased. Similarly, the maximum dose (D₂) was found to be increased significantly (p < 0.05) as the MSW increased from 0.5 cm, with MSW of 1.5 cm being the least in terms of plan quality for both PTVs and OARs. In terms of plan deliverability using DVH analysis, treatment planning system (TPS) compared to measured fluence, VMAT plans produced with MSW of 0.5 cm showed a better dosimetric index and a smaller deviation for both PTVs and OARs. The deliverability of the plans deteriorated as the MSW increased.

Conclusion

Dose volume histogram (DVH) analysis demonstrated that treatment plans with minimal MSW showed better plan quality and deliverability and provided clinical relevance as compared to gamma index analysis.

External beam patient dose verification based on the integral quality monitor (IQM®) output signals

BACKGROUND

The Integral Quality Monitor (IQM^®) can essentially measure the integral fluence through a segment and provide real-time information about the accuracy of radiation delivery based on comparisons of measured segment signals and pre-calculated reference values. However, the present IQM chamber cannot calculate the dose in the patient.

AIM

This study aims to make use of IQM field output signals to calculate the number of monitor units (MUs) delivered through an arbitrary treatment field in order to convert Monte Carlo (MC)-generated dose distributions in a patient model into absolute dose.

METHODS

XiO and Monaco treatment planning systems (TPSs) were used to define treatment beam portals for cervix and esophagus conformal radiotherapy as well as prostate intensity-modulated radiotherapy for the translation of patient and beam setup information from DICOM to DOSXYZnrc. The planned beams were simulated in a patient model built from actual patient CT images and each simulated integral field/segment was weighted with its MUs before summation to get the total dose in the plan. The segment beam weights (MUs) were calculated as the ratio of the open-field IQM measured signal and the calculated signal per MU extracted from chamber sensitivity maps. These are the actual MUs delivered not just MUs set. The beam weighting method was evaluated by comparing weighted MC doses with original planned doses using profile and isodose comparisons, dose difference maps, γ analysis and dose-volume histogram (DVH) data.

RESULTS

γ pass rates of up to 98% were found, except for the esophagus plan where the γ pass rate was below 45%. DVH comparisons showed good agreement for most organs, with the largest differences observed in low-density lung. However, these discrepancies can result from differences in dose calculation algorithms or differences in MUs used for dose weighting planned by the TPS and MUs calculated using IQM field output signals. To test this, a 4-field box DOSXYZnrc MC simulation weighted with planned (XiO) MUs was compared with the same simulation weighted with IQM-based MUs. Dose differences of up to 5% were found on the isocentre slice. For XiO versus MC, up to 7% dose differences were found, indicating additional error due to limitations of XiO's superposition algorithm. Dose differences between MC Monaco and MC EGSnrc were less than 3%.

CONCLUSIONS

The most valuable comparison was MC versus MC as it eliminated algorithm discrepancies and evaluated dose differences precisely according to beam weighting. For XiO TPS, care must be taken as dose differences may also arise due to limitations in XiO's planning software, not merely due to differences in MUs. Overall, the IQM was successfully used to compute beam dose weights to accurately reconstruct the patient dose using unweighted MC beams. Our technique can be used for pre-treatment QA provided each segment output is known and an accurate linac source model is available.

DVH analysis using a transmission detector and model-based dose verification system as a comprehensive pretreatment QA tool for VMAT plans: Clinical experience and results

Purpose

Dose volume histogram (DVH)‐based analysis is utilized as a pretreatment quality assurance tool to determine clinical relevance from measured dose which is difficult in conventional gamma‐based analysis. In this study, we report our clinical experience with an ionization‐based transmission detector and model‐based verification system, using DVH analysis, as a comprehensive pretreatment QA tool for complex volumetric modulated arc therapy plans.

Methods and Materials

Seventy‐three subsequent treatment plans categorized into four clinical sites (Head and Neck, Thorax, Abdomen, and Pelvis) were evaluated. The average dose (D_mean) and dose received by 1% (D₁) of the planning target volumes (PTVs) and organs at risks (OARs) calculated using the treatment planning system (TPS) were compared to a computed (model‐based) and reconstructed dose, from the measured fluence, using DVH analysis. The correlation between gamma (3% 3 mm) and DVH‐based analysis for targets was evaluated. Furthermore, confidence and action limits for detector and verification systems were established.

Results

Linear regression confirmed an excellent correlation between TPS planned and computed dose using a model‐based verification system (r² = 1). The average percentage difference between TPS calculated and reconstructed dose for PTVs achieved using DVH analysis for each site is as follows: Head and Neck — 0.57 ± 2.8% (D_mean) and 2.6 ± 2.7% (D₁), Abdomen — 0.19 ± 2.8% and 1.64 ± 2.2%, Thorax — 0.24 ± 2.1% and 3.12 ± 2.8%, Pelvis 0.37 ± 2.4% and 1.16 ± 2.3%, respectively. The average percentage of passed gamma values achieved was above 95% for all cases. However, no correlation was observed between gamma passing rates and DVH difference (%) for PTVs (r² = 0.11). The results demonstrate a confidence limit of 5% (D_mean and D₁) for PTVs using DVH analysis for both computed and reconstructed dose distribution.

Conclusion

DVH analysis of treatment plan using a model‐based verification system and transmission detector provided useful information on clinical relevance for all cases and could be used as a comprehensive pretreatment patient‐specific QA tool.

Validation of Dolphin dosimetry in three dimensional patient-specific quality assurance programme

Aim

The aim of this study is to commission and validate Dolphin-Compass dosimetry as a patient-specific Quality Assurance (QA) device.

Background

The advancement of radiation therapy in terms of highly conformal delivery techniques demands a novel method of patient-specific QA. Dolphin-Compass system is a dosimetry solution capable of doing different QA in radiation therapy.

Materials and methods

Dolphin, air-vented ionization detector array mounted on Versa-HD Linear Accelerator (LINAC) was used for measurements. The Compass is a dose computation algorithm which requires modelling of LINAC head similar to other Treatment Planning Systems (TPS). The dosimetry system was commissioned after measuring the required beam data. The validation was performed by comparison of treatment plans generated in Monaco TPS against the measurement data. Different types of simple, complex, static and dynamic radiation fields and highly conformal treatment plans of patients were used in this study.

Results

For all field sizes, point doses obtained from Dolphin-Compass dosimetry were in good agreement with the corresponding TPS calculated values in most of the regions, except the penumbra, outside field and at build-up depth. The results of gamma passing rates of measurements by using different Multi-leaf Collimator patterns and Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy fluence were also found to be in good correlation with the corresponding TPS values.

Conclusions

The commissioning and validation of dosimetry was performed with the help of various fields, MLC patterns and complex treatment plans. The present study also evaluated the efficiency of the 3D dosimetry system for the QA of complex treatment plans.

Dosimetric evaluation of the compass program for patient dose analysis in IMRT delivery quality assurance

A practical method was designed to verify the accuracy of dose distributions calculated using Compass, which can reconstruct the dose distribution inside a patient’s body during intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Twelve virtual IMRT treatment plans were developed using an ArcCHECK diode detector array, and then the recalculated and reconstructed doses in Compass were compared with the actual measurements to assess the dosimetric accuracy. Based on the results of gamma evaluation for the 12 plans, Compass achieved average pass rates higher than 98%, which confirmed proper dosimetric accuracy in the IMRT quality assurance process. The validity of Compass for clinical applications was also confirmed through an additional comparison with the results calculated using 3DVH, another dose reconstruction program. It is necessary to verify the accuracy of the dose calculated using the program in advance before the commercialized dose reconstruction program is applied in clinical practice. This study has limitations in that it did not provide a real scientific contribution such as an introduction of new algorithm for dose calculation and the development of new measurement tools. However, the method based on the comparative analysis with the actual measured dose values as devised in this study seems to be useful in that it can be applied effectively to verify the dosimetric accuracy of the dose reconstruction program before first using it in the clinical cases.

Novel methodologies for dosimetry audits: Adapting to advanced radiotherapy techniques

With new radiotherapy techniques, treatment delivery is becoming more complex and accordingly, these treatment techniques require dosimetry audits to test advanced aspects of the delivery to ensure best practice and safe patient treatment. This review of novel methodologies for dosimetry audits for advanced radiotherapy techniques includes recent developments and future techniques to be applied in dosimetry audits. Phantom-based methods (i.e. phantom-detector combinations) including independent audit equipment and local measurement equipment as well as phantom-less methods (i.e. portal dosimetry, transmission detectors and log files) are presented and discussed. Methodologies for both conventional linear accelerator (linacs) and new types of delivery units, i.e. Tomotherapy, stereotactic devices and MR-linacs, are reviewed. Novel dosimetry audit techniques such as portal dosimetry or log file evaluation have the potential to allow parallel auditing (i.e. performing an audit at multiple institutions at the same time), automation of data analysis and evaluation of multiple steps of the radiotherapy treatment chain. These methods could also significantly reduce the time needed for audit and increase the information gained. However, to maximise the potential, further development and harmonisation of dosimetry audit techniques are required before these novel methodologies can be applied.

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.