Two years experience with quality assurance protocol for patient related Rapid Arc treatment plan verification using a two dimensional ionization chamber array

Evaluation and improvement of angular response for a commercial 2D detector array for patient-specific QA

PURPOSE

MatriXX ionization chamber array has been widely used for the composite dose verification of IMRT/VMAT plans. However, in addition to its dose response dependence on gantry angle, there seems to be an offset between the beam axis and measured dose profile by MatriXX for oblique beam incidence at various gantry angles, leading to unnecessary quality assurance (QA) fails. In this study, we investigated the offset at various setup conditions and how to eliminate or decrease it to improve the accuracy of MatriXX for IMRT/VMAT plan verification with original gantry angles.

METHODS

We measured profiles for a narrow beam with MatriXX located at various depths in increments of 0.5 mm from the top to bottom of the sensitive volume of the array detectors and gantry angles from 0° to 360°. The optimal depth for QA measurement was determined at the depth where the measured profile had minimum offset.

RESULTS

The measured beam profile offset varies with incident gantry angle, increasing from vertical direction to lateral direction, and could be over 3 cm at vendor-recommended depth for near lateral direction beams. The offset also varies with depth, and the minimum offset (almost 0 for most oblique beams) was found to be at a depth of ∼2.5 mm below the vendor suggested depth, which was chosen as the optimal depth for all QA measurements. Using the optimal depth we determined, QA results (3%/2 mm Gamma analysis) were largely improved with an average of 99.4% gamma passing rate (no fails for 95% criteria) for 10 IMRT and VMAT plans with original gantry angles compared to 94.1% using the vendor recommended depth.

CONCLUSIONS

The improved accuracy and passing rate for QA measurement performed at the optimal depth with original gantry angles would lead to reduction in unnecessary repeated QA or plan changes due to QA system errors.

A study on the correlation between radiation field size and gamma index passing rate for MatriXX

This study aimed to analyze the influence of the radiation field size on the passing rate of the treatment planning system using MatriXX if the field irradiated the circuit.Two sets of static fields which were 10 cm and 30 cm in the left-right direction (X), and was 31 cm to 40 cm in gun-target direction (Y) were designed. In these fields, the gantry was 0 and the monitor units were 200 MU. Two plans from an esophagus carcinoma patient with a planning target volume of 86.4 cm and a cervical carcinoma patient with a planning target volume (PTV) of 2094.1 cm were chosen. The passing rates of these plans were gained without and with protecting the circuit area from lead alloys. The gamma analysis was used and the standard was set to 3%/3 mm.The verification passing rate decreased from 95.0% to 69.2% when X was 10 cm while Y increased from 31 cm to 40 cm. With the protection from low melting point lead alloys, the passing rate was from 96.2% to 89.6%. The results of the second set of plans without lead alloys were similar but the passing rate decreased more sharply. The passing rates of the 2 patients were 99.5% and 57.1%. With the protection of the lead alloys, their passing rates were 99.8% and 72.1%, respectively.The results showed that with the increase of the radiation field size in the Y direction, more areas were irradiated in the circuit, and the passing rate gradually decreases and dropped sharply at a certain threshold. After putting lead alloys above the circuit, the passing rate was much better in the static field but was still less than 90% in the second patient volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) because the circuit was irradiate in other directions. In daily QA, we should pay attention to these patients with long size tumor.

Assessment of Imprecise Small Photon Beam Modeling by Two Treatment Planning System Algorithms

BACKGROUND

Dosimetric accuracy in intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is the main part of quality assurance program. Improper beam modeling of small fields by treatment planning system (TPS) can lead to inaccuracy in treatment delivery. This study aimed to evaluate of the dose delivery accuracy at small segments of IMRT technique using two-dimensional (2D) array as well as evaluate the capability of two TPSs algorithm in modeling of small fields.

METHODS

Irradiation were performed using 6 MV photon beam of Siemens Artiste linear accelerator. Dosimetric behaviors of two dose calculation algorithms, namely, collapsed cone convolution/superposition (CCCS) and full scatter convolution (FSC) in small segments of IMRT plans were analyzed using a 2D diode array and gamma evaluation.

RESULTS

Comparisons of measurements against TPSs calculations showed that percentage difference of output factors of small fields were 2% and 15% for CCCS and FSC algorithm, respectively. Gamma analysis of calculated dose distributions by TPSs against those measured by 2D array showed that in passing criteria of 3 mm/3%, the mean pass rate for all segment sizes is higher than 95% except for segment sizes below 3 cm × 3 cm optimized by TiGRT TPS.

CONCLUSIONS

High pass rate of gamma index (95%) achieved in planned small segments by Prowess relative to results obtained with TiGRT. This study showed that the accuracy of small field modeling differs between two dose calculation algorithms.

Study of impacts of different evaluation criteria on gamma pass rates in VMAT QA using MatriXX and EPID

Aim: This study evaluates the impacts of using different evaluation criteria on gamma pass rates in two commercially available QA methods employed for the verification of VMAT plans using different hypothetical planning target volumes (PTVs) and anatomical regions.

Introduction: Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is a widely accepted technique to deliver highly conformal treatment in a very efficient manner. As their level of complexity is high in comparison to intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), the implementation of stringent quality assurance (QA) before treatment delivery is of paramount importance.

Material and Methods: Two sets of VMAT plans were generated using Eclipse planning systems, one with five different complex hypothetical three-dimensional PTVs and one including three anatomical regions. The verification of these plans was performed using a MatriXX ionization chamber array embedded inside a MultiCube phantom and a Varian EPID dosimetric system attached to a Clinac iX. The plans were evaluated based on the 3%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm, and 1%/1 mm global gamma criteria and with three low-dose threshold values (0%, 10%, and 20%).

Results: The gamma pass rates were above 95% in all VMAT plans, when the 3%/3mm gamma criterion was used and no threshold was applied. In both systems, the pass rates decreased as the criteria become stricter. Higher pass rates were observed when no threshold was applied and they tended to decrease for 10% and 20% thresholds.

Conclusion: The results confirm the suitability of the equipments used and the validity of the plans. The study also confirmed that the threshold settings greatly affect the gamma pass rates, especially for lower gamma criteria.

Practical implications for the quality assurance of modulated radiation therapy techniques using point detector arrays

PURPOSE

Linac parameters potentially influencing the delivery quality of IMRT and VMAT plans are investigated with respect to threshold ranges, consequently to be considered in a linac based quality assurance procedure. Three commercially available 2D arrays are used to further investigate the influence of the measurement device.

METHODS

Using three commercially available 2D arrays (Mx: MatriXX^evolution , Oc: Octavius¹⁵⁰⁰ , Mc: MapCHECK2), simple static measurements, measurements for MLC characterization and dynamic interplay of gantry movement, MLC movement and variable dose rate were performed. The results were evaluated with respect to each single array as well as among each other.

RESULTS

Simple static measurements showed different array responses to dose, dose rate and profile homogeneity and revealed instabilities in dose delivery and profile shape during linac ramp up. Using the sweeping gap test, all arrays were able to detect small leaf misalignments down to ±0.1 mm, but this test also demonstrated up to 15% dose deviation due to profile instabilities and fast accelerating leaves during linac ramp up. Tests including gantry rotation showed different stability of gantry mounts for each array. Including gantry movement and dose rate variability, differences compared to static delivery were smaller compared to dose differences when simultaneously controling interplay of gantry movement, leaf movement and dose rate variability.

CONCLUSION

Linac based QA is feasible with the tested commercially available 2D arrays. Limitations of each array and the linac ramp up characteristics should be carefully considered during individual plan generation and regularly checked in linac QA. Especially the dose and dose profile during linac ramp up should be checked regularly, as well as MLC positioning accuracy using a sweeping gap test. Additionally, dynamic interplay tests including various gantry rotation speeds and angles, various leaf speeds and various dose rates should be included.

Twin machines validation for VMAT treatments using electronic portal-imaging device: a multicenter study

Purpose

To verify the accuracy of volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) using the RapidArc™ device when switching patients from one single linear accelerator (linac) to a paired energy and mechanics "twin" linac without reoptimization of the original treatment plan.

Patients and Methods

Four centers using 8 linacs were involved in this study. Seventy-four patients previously treated with the 6MV photon RapidArc™ technique were selected for analysis, using 242 measurements. In each institution, all patients were planned on linac A, and their plans were verified both on linac A and on the twin linac B. Verifications were done using the amorphous silicium electronic portal imager (EPID) of the linacs and were analyzed with the EpiQa software (Epidos, Bratislavia, Slovakia). The gamma index formalism was used for validation with a double threshold of 3 % and 3 mm with a measurement resolution of 0.39 mm/pixel, and a smoothed resolution of approximately 2.5 mm.

Results

The number of points passing the gamma criteria between the measured and computed doses was 94.79 ± 2.57 % for linac A and 94.61 ± 2.46 % for linac B. Concerning the smoothed measurement analysis, 98.67 ± 1.26 % and 98.59 ± 1.20 % points passing the threshold were obtained for linacs A and B, respectively.

The difference between the 2 dose matrices acquired on the EPID was very small, with 99.92 ± 0.06 % of the points passing the criteria.

Conclusion

For linacs sharing the same mechanical and energy parameters, this study tends to indicate that patients may be safely switched from treatment with one linac to treatment with its twin linac using the same VMAT plan.

Statistical analysis on 2D array of ion chamber performance

Purpose

In this work, dosimetric properties of the PTW Octavius detector in and out of the irradiation field have been evaluated. The 2D array of ion chambers has the potential to simplify the linear accelerator QA and pre-treatment verification.

Materials and methods

The evaluation was performed using customised written codes in Matlab and SPSS software for statistical analysis.

Results

Experiments indicate that the reproducibility and stability of the measurements were excellent; the detector showed the same signal with a maximum deviation of <0·5% in the short and long term. Comparisons of the ion chamber with the detector showed the same results with a maximum deviation of ~0·1%. As the detector response is linear with the dose, it can be used for the measurement at regions of high-dose gradient effectively. Logarithmic regression y=0·127 ln(x)+0·729 for detector signal and field size changes yielded a coefficient of determination of 0·997. The dose value decreases with increase in source-to-surface distance, which was modelled using a binomial regression with a coefficient of determination of 0·998 that agrees with the ionisation chamber measurement within 1%.

Conclusion

On the basis of the measurements and comparisons performed, this system is a reliable and accurate dosimeter for quality assurance in radiotherapy.

The sensitivity of gamma-index method to the positioning errors of high-definition MLC in patient-specific VMAT QA for SBRT

Background

To investigate the sensitivity of various gamma criteria used in the gamma-index method for patient-specific volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) quality assurance (QA) for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) using a flattening filter free (FFF) photon beam.

Methods

Three types of intentional misalignments were introduced to original high-definition multi-leaf collimator (HD-MLC) plans. The first type, referred to Class Out, involved the opening of each bank of leaves. The second type, Class In, involved the closing of each bank of leaves. The third type, Class Shift, involved the shifting of each bank of leaves towards the ground. Patient-specific QAs for the original and the modified plans were performed with MapCHECK2 and EBT2 films. The sensitivity of the gamma-index method using criteria of 1%/1 mm, 1.5%/1.5 mm, 1%/2 mm, 2%/1 mm and 2%/2 mm was investigated with absolute passing rates according to the magnitudes of MLCs misalignments. In addition, the changes in dose-volumetric indicators due to the magnitudes of MLC misalignments were investigated. The correlations between passing rates and the changes in dose-volumetric indicators were also investigated using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (γ).

Results

The criterion of 2%/1 mm was able to detect Class Out and Class In MLC misalignments of 0.5 mm and Class Shift misalignments of 1 mm. The widely adopted clinical criterion of 2%/2 mm was not able to detect 0.5 mm MLC errors of the Class Out or Class In types, and also unable to detect 3 mm Class Shift errors. No correlations were observed between dose-volumetric changes and gamma passing rates (γ < 0.8).

Conclusions

Gamma criterion of 2%/1 mm was found to be suitable as a tolerance level with passing rates of 90% and 80% for patient-specific VMAT QA for SBRT when using MapCHECK2 and EBT2 film, respectively.

Clinically relevant quality assurance for intensity modulated radiotherapy plans: gamma maps and DVH-based evaluation

PURPOSE

To explore a novel patient-dose DVH-based method for pretreatment dose quality assurance tests.

METHODS

20 IMRT plans for head-and-neck cancer patients were used. A comparison was performed between the planned dose distributions, the computed, and the reconstructed ones using the gamma-index (GI) method. The GI analysis was performed using both the 3%/3 mm and the 2%/2 mm criteria.

RESULTS

No significant DVH-deviation was observed. Considering the 3%/3 mm criteria the mean GI% < 1 for the body and structures was significantly higher compared to 2%/2 mm criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results underline the importance of QA-methods based on DVH-metrics to predict the impact of delivered dose.

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

The purpose of this study was to evaluate quantitatively the patient‐specific 3D dosimetry tool COMPASS with 2D array MatriXX detector for stereotactic volumetric‐modulated arc delivery. Twenty‐five patients CT images and RT structures from different sites (brain, head & neck, thorax, abdomen, and spine) were taken from CyberKnife Multiplan planning system for this study. All these patients underwent radical stereotactic treatment in CyberKnife. For each patient, linac based volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) stereotactic plans were generated in Monaco TPS v3.1 using Elekta Beam Modulator MLC. Dose prescription was in the range of 5–20 Gy per fraction. Target prescription and critical organ constraints were tried to match the delivered treatment plans. Each plan quality was analyzed using conformity index (CI), conformity number (CN), gradient Index (GI), target coverage (TC), and dose to 95% of volume (D95). Monaco Monte Carlo (MC)‐calculated treatment plan delivery accuracy was quantitatively evaluated with COMPASS‐calculated (CCA) dose and COMPASS indirectly measured (CME) dose based on dose‐volume histogram metrics. In order to ascertain the potential of COMPASS 3D dosimetry for stereotactic plan delivery, 2D fluence verification was performed with MatriXX using MultiCube phantom. Routine quality assurance of absolute point dose verification was performed to check the overall delivery accuracy. Quantitative analyses of dose delivery verification were compared with pass and fail criteria of 3 mm and 3% distance to agreement and dose differences. Gamma passing rate was compared with 2D fluence verification from MatriXX with MultiCube. Comparison of COMPASS reconstructed dose from measured fluence and COMPASS computed dose has shown a very good agreement with TPS calculated dose. Each plan was evaluated based on dose volume parameters for target volumes such as dose at 95% of volume (D95) and average dose. For critical organs dose at 20% of volume (D20), dose at 50% of volume (D50), and maximum point doses were evaluated. Comparison was carried out using gamma analysis with passing criteria of 3 mm and 3%. Mean deviation of 1.9%±1% was observed for dose at 95% of volume (D95) of target volumes, whereas much less difference was noticed for critical organs. However, significant dose difference was noticed in two cases due to the smaller tumor size. Evaluation of this study revealed that the COMPASS 3D dosimetry is efficient and easy to use for patient‐specific QA of VMAT stereotactic delivery. 3D dosimetric QA with COMPASS provides additional degrees of freedom to check the high‐dose modulated stereotactic delivery with very high precision on patient CT images.

PACS numbers: 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Monitor unit optimization in RapidArc plans for prostate cancer

Intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has become a standard treatment for prostate cancer based on the superior sparing of the bladder, rectum, and other surrounding normal tissues compared to three‐dimensional conformal radiotherapy, despite the longer delivery time and the increased number of monitor units (MU). The novel RapidArc technique represents a further step forward because of the lower number of MUs per fraction and the shorter delivery time, compared to IMRT. This paper refers to MU optimization in RA plans for prostate cancer, using a tool incorporated in Varian TPS Eclipse. The goal was to get the lowest MU RA plan for each patient, keeping a well‐defined level of PTV coverage and OAR sparing. Seven prostate RA plans (RA MU‐Optimized) were retrospectively generated using the MU optimization tool in Varian Eclipse TPS. Dosimetric outcome and nontarget tissue sparing were compared to those of RA clinical plans (RA Clinical) used to treat patients. Compared to RA Clinical, RA MU‐Optimized plans resulted in an about 28% (p=0.018) reduction in MU. The total integral dose (ID) to each nontarget tissue (but not the penile bulb) showed a consistent average relative reduction, statistically significant only for the femoral heads. Within the intermediate dose region (40–60 Gy), ID reductions (4%−17% p<0.05) were found for the rectum, while a slight but significant (0.4%−0.9%,p<0.05) higher ID was found for the whole body. Among the remaining data, the mean dose to the bladder was also reduced (−12%,p=0.028). Plans using MU optimization are clinically applicable and more MU efficient, ameliorating the exposure of the rectum and the bladder to intermediate doses.

PACS number: 87

Quality assurance of TomoDirect treatment plans using I'mRT MatriXX

Purpose:

To evaluate the performance of 2D-array I’mRT MatriXX for dose verification of TomoDirect treatment plans.

Methods:

In this study, a 2D-array ion chamber device – the I’mRT MatriXX and Multicube Phantom from IBA – was used for dose verification of different TomoDirect plans. Pre-treatment megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) was performed on the phantom setup for position correction. After the irradiation of treatment plans on the I’mRT MatriXX and Multicube Phantom, the measured doses of coronal planes were compared with those from the planning calculations for verification. The results were evaluated by comparing the absolute dose difference in the high dose region as well as the gamma analysis of the 2D-dose distributions on the coronal plane. The comparison was then repeated with the measured dose corrected for angular dependence of the MatriXX.

Results:

When angular dependence is taken into account, the passing rate of gamma analysis is over 90% for all measurements using the MatriXX. If there is no angular dependence correction, the passing rate of gamma analysis worsens for treatment plans with dose contribution from the rear. The passing rate can be as low as 53.55% in extreme cases, i.e. where all doses in the treatment plan are delivered from the rear.

Conclusion:

It is important to correct the measured dose for angular dependence when verifying TomoDirect treatment plans using the MatriXX. If left uncorrected, a large dose discrepancy may be introduced to the verification results.

Angular dependence correction of MatriXX and its application to composite dose verification

We measured the angular dependence of central and off‐axis detectors in a 2D ionization chamber array, MatriXX, and applied correction factors (CFs) to improve the accuracy of composite dose verification of IMRT and VMAT. The MatriXX doses were measured with a 10° step for gantry angles (θ) of 0°–180°, and a 1° step for lateral angles of 90°–110° in a phantom, with a 30×10 cm2 field for 6 MV and 10 MV photons. The MatriXX doses were also calculated under the same conditions by the Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm. The CFs for the angular dependence of MatriXX were obtained as a function of θ from the ratios of MatriXX‐measured doses to MC‐calculated doses, and normalized at θ=0°. The corrected MatriXX were validated with different fields, various simple plans, and clinical treatment plans. The dose distributions were compared with those of MC calculations and film. The absolute doses were also compared with ionization chamber and MC‐calculated doses. The angular dependence of MatriXX showed over‐responses of up to 6% and 4% at θ=90° and under‐responses of up to 15% and 11% at 92°, and 8% and 5% at 180° for 6 MV and 10 MV photons, respectively. At 92°, the CFs for the off‐axis detectors were larger by up to 7% and 6% than those for the central detectors for 6 MV and 10 MV photons, respectively, and were within 2.5% at other gantry angles. For simple plans, MatriXX doses with angular correction were within 2% of those measured with the ionization chamber at the central axis and off‐axis. For clinical treatment plans, MatriXX with angular correction agreed well with dose distributions calculated by the treatment planning system (TPS) for gamma evaluation at 3% and 3 mm. The angular dependence corrections of MatriXX were useful in improving the measurement accuracy of composite dose verification of IMRT and VMAT.

PACS number: 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc

Implementing RapidArc into clinical routine: a comprehensive program from machine QA to TPS validation and patient QA

PURPOSE

With the increased commercial availability of intensity modulated arc therapy (IMAT) comes the need for comprehensive QA programs, covering the different aspects of this newly available technology. This manuscript proposes such a program for the RapidArc (RA) (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto) IMAT solution.

METHODS

The program was developed and tested out for a Millennium120 MLC on iX Clinacs and a HighDefinition MLC on a Novalis TX, using a variety of measurement equipment including Gafchromic film, 2D ion chamber arrays (Seven29 and StarCheck, PTW, Freiburg, Germany) with inclinometer and Octavius phantom, the Delta4 systam (ScandiDos, Uppsala, Sweden) and the portal imager (EPID). First, a number of complementary machine QA tests were developed to monitor the correct interplay between the accelerating/decelerating gantry, the variable dose rate and the MLC position, straining the delivery to the maximum allowed limits. Second, a systematic approach to the validation of the dose calculation for RA was adopted, starting with static gantry and RA specific static MLC shapes and gradually moving to dynamic gantry, dynamic MLC shapes. RA plans were then optimized on a series of artificial structures created within the homogeneous Octavius phantom and within a heterogeneous lung phantom. These served the double purpose of testing the behavior of the optimization algorithm (PRO) as well as the precision of the forward dose calculation. Finally, patient QA on a series of clinical cases was performed with different methods. In addition to the well established in-phantom QA, we evaluated the portal dosimetry solution within the Varian approach.

RESULTS

For routine machine QA, the "Snooker Cue" test on the EPID proved to be the most sensitive to overall problem detection. It is also the most practical one. The "Twinkle" and "Sunrise" tests were useful to obtain well differentiated information on the individual treatment delivery components. The AAA8.9 dose calculations showed excellent agreement with all corresponding measurements, except in areas where the 2.5 mm fixed fluence resolution was insufficient to accurately model the tongue and groove effect or the dose through nearly closed opposing leafs. Such cases benefited from the increased fluence resolution in AAA10.0. In the clinical RA fields, these effects were smeared out spatially and the impact of the fluence resolution was considerably less pronounced. The RA plans on the artificial structure sets demonstrated some interesting characteristics of the PRO8.9 optimizer, such as a sometimes unexpected dependence on the collimator rotation and a suboptimal coverage of targets within lung tissue. Although the portal dosimetry was successfully validated, we are reluctant to use it as a sole means of patient QA as long as no gantry angle information is embedded.

CONCLUSIONS

The all-in validation program allows a systematic approach in monitoring the different levels of RA treatments. With the systematic approach comes a better understanding of both the capabilities and the limits of the used solution. The program can be useful for implementation, but also for the validation of major upgrades.