Comparison between two different algorithms used for pretreatment QA via aSi portal images

RapidArc treatment planning quality assurance using electronic portal imaging device for cervical cancer

Purpose:

The main objective of this study is to assure the quality of cervical cancer treatment plans using an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) in RapidArc techniques.

Materials and Methods:

Fifteen cases of cervical cancer patients undergoing RapidArc technique were selected to evaluate the quality assurance (QA) of their treatment. The computed tomography (CT) of each patient was obtained with 3-mm-slice thickness and transferred to the Eclipse treatment planning system. The prescribed dose (PD) of 50·4 Gy with 1·8 Gy per fraction to planning target volume (PTV) was used for each patient. The aim of treatment planning was to achieve 95% of PD to cover 97%, and dose to the PTV should not receive 105% of the PD. All RapidArc plans were created using the AAA algorithm and treated on Varian DHX using 6 MV photon beam, with two full arcs. Gamma analysis was used to evaluate the quality of the treatment plans with accepting criteria of 95% at 3%/3 mm.

Results:

In this study, maximum and average gamma values were 2·53 ± 0·409 and 0·195 ± 0·059 showing very small deviation and indicating the smaller difference between both predicted and portal doses. Gamma Area changes from > 0·8 to > 1·2. SD increased to 5·4% and mean standard error increased to 4·67%.

Conclusion:

On the basis of these outcomes, we can summarise that the EPID is a useful tool for QA in standardising and evaluating RapidArc treatment plans of cervical cancer in routine clinical practice.

A model-based 3D patient-specific pre-treatment QA method for VMAT using the EPID

This study reports the development and validation of a model-based, 3D patient dose reconstruction method for pre-treatment quality assurance using EPID images. The method is also investigated for sensitivity to potential MLC delivery errors. Each cine-mode EPID image acquired during plan delivery was processed using a previously developed back-projection dose reconstruction model providing a 3D dose estimate on the CT simulation data. Validation was carried out using 24 SBRT-VMAT patient plans by comparing: (1) ion chamber point dose measurements in a solid water phantom, (2) the treatment planning system (TPS) predicted 3D dose to the EPID reconstructed 3D dose in a solid water phantom, and (3) the TPS predicted 3D dose to the EPID and our forward predicted reconstructed 3D dose in the patient (CT data). AAA and AcurosXB were used for TPS predictions. Dose distributions were compared using 3%/3 mm (95% tolerance) and 2%/2 mm (90% tolerance) γ-tests in the planning target volume (PTV) and 20% dose volumes. The average percentage point dose differences between the ion chamber and the EPID, AcurosXB, and AAA were 0.73  ±  1.25%, 0.38  ±  0.96% and 1.06  ±  1.34% respectively. For the patient (CT) dose comparisons, seven (3%/3 mm) and nine (2%/2 mm) plans failed the EPID versus AAA. All plans passed the EPID versus Acuros XB and the EPID versus forward model γ-comparisons. Four types of MLC sensitive errors (opening, shifting, stuck, and retracting), of varying magnitude (0.2, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 mm), were introduced into six different SBRT-VMAT plans. γ-comparisons of the erroneous EPID dose and original predicted dose were carried out using the same criteria as above. For all plans, the sensitivity testing using a 3%/3 mm γ-test in the PTV successfully determined MLC errors on the order of 1.0 mm, except for the single leaf retraction-type error. A 2%/2 mm criteria produced similar results with two more additional detected errors.