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

Development of a new VMAT QA framework for Mobius3D using control-point specific EPID images

Purpose

This study presents novel quality assurance (QA) approach for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) that leverages frame-by-frame electronic portal imaging device (EPID) images integrated into Mobius3D for accurate three-dimensional dose calculations.

Methods

Sequential EPID images for VMAT plans were acquired every 0.4-second by iView system and processed through iterative deconvolution to mitigate blurring from photon scattering. Deconvolved images were binarized to define multi-leaf collimator (MLC) positions. Pre-acquired box fluences determined optimal threshold for binarization and adjusted for detector shift depending on gantry and collimator angles. Sequential EPID images were re-scaled using pixel scaling factor (PSF) and converted to monitor unit (MU) proportional values. Generated EPID-based log file, including control-point specific MLC and monitor units (MU) information, were analyzed in Mobius3D for Gamma passing rate (GPR) of VMAT plans from 18 patients. Plan complexity indices were calculated and correlated with GPR.

Results

Clinically appropriate threshold was defined to be 20000 that can extract accurate MLC data from the deconvolved binarized EPID images. Positional deviations due to gantry and collimator rotations were observed to be up to 4.5 pixels. Recalibrated EPID pixel values showed linearity with MU regardless of changes in dose rate. Consequently, average GPR for 18 patients evaluated using Mobius3D reached 95.2% ± 3.7%%, based on 3% dose difference and 3mm distance-to-agreement criterion. It was found that two plan complexity indices showed statistically significant correlation with GPR.

Conclusion

This study successfully implemented novel measurement-based VMAT QA framework based on control-point specific EPID, based upon accurate MLC and MU data at each frame.

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.

Assessing quality assurance of multi-leaf collimator using the structural similarity index

PURPOSE

This study aims to evaluate the viability of utilizing the Structural Similarity Index (SSI*) as an innovative imaging metric for quality assurance (QA) of the multi-leaf collimator (MLC). Additionally, we compared the results obtained through SSI* with those derived from a conventional Gamma index test for three types of Varian machines (Trilogy, Truebeam, and Edge) over a 12-week period of MLC QA in our clinic.

METHOD

To assess sensitivity to MLC positioning errors, we designed a 1 cm slit on the reference MLC, subsequently shifted by 0.5-5 mm on the target MLC. For evaluating sensitivity to output error, we irradiated five 25 cm × 25 cm open fields on the portal image with varying Monitor Units (MUs) of 96-100. We compared SSI* and Gamma index tests using three linear accelerator (LINAC) machines: Varian Trilogy, Truebeam, and Edge, with MLC leaf widths of 1, 0.5, and 0.25 mm. Weekly QA included VMAT and static field modes, with Picket fence test images acquired. Mechanical uncertainties related to the LINAC head, electronic portal imaging device (EPID), and MLC during gantry rotation and leaf motion were monitored.

RESULTS

The Gamma index test started detecting the MLC shift at a threshold of 4 mm, whereas the SSI* metric showed sensitivity to shifts as small as 2 mm. Moreover, the Gamma index test identified dose changes at 95MUs, indicating a 5% dose difference based on the distance to agreement (DTA)/dose difference (DD) criteria of 1 mm/3%. In contrast, the SSI* metric alerted to dose differences starting from 97MUs, corresponding to a 3% dose difference. The Gamma index test passed all measurements conducted on each machine. However, the SSI* metric rejected all measurements from the Edge and Trilogy machines and two from the Truebeam.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrate that the SSI* exhibits greater sensitivity than the Gamma index test in detecting MLC positioning errors and dose changes between static and VMAT modes. The SSI* metric outperformed the Gamma index test regarding sensitivity across these parameters.

Detecting outliers beyond tolerance limits derived from statistical process control in patient-specific quality assurance

BACKGROUND

Tolerance limit is defined on pre-treatment patient specific quality assurance results to identify "out of the norm" dose discrepancy in plan. An out-of-tolerance plan during measurement can often cause treatment delays especially if replanning is required. In this study, we aim to develop an outlier detection model to identify out-of-tolerance plan early during treatment planning phase to mitigate the above-mentioned risks.

METHODS

Patient-specific quality assurance results with portal dosimetry for stereotactic body radiotherapy measured between January 2020 and December 2021 were used in this study. Data were divided into thorax and pelvis sites and gamma passing rates were recorded using 2%/2 mm, 2%/1 mm, and 1%/1 mm gamma criteria. Statistical process control method was used to determine six different site and criterion-specific tolerance and action limits. Using only the inliers identified with our determined tolerance limits, we trained three different outlier detection models using the plan complexity metrics extracted from each treatment field-robust covariance, isolation forest, and one class support vector machine. The hyperparameters were optimized using the F1-score calculated from both the inliers and validation outliers' data.

RESULTS

308 pelvis and 200 thorax fields were used in this study. The tolerance (action) limits for 2%/2 mm, 2%/1 mm, and 1%/1 mm gamma criteria in the pelvis site are 99.1% (98.1%), 95.8% (91.1%), and 91.7% (86.1%), respectively. The tolerance (action) limits in the thorax site are 99.0% (98.7%), 97.0% (96.2%), and 91.5% (87.2%). One class support vector machine performs the best among all the algorithms. The best performing model in the thorax (pelvis) site achieves a precision of 0.56 (0.54), recall of 1.0 (1.0), and F1-score of 0.72 (0.70) when using the 2%/2 mm (2%/1 mm) criterion.

CONCLUSION

The model will help the planner to identify an out-of-tolerance plan early so that they can refine the plan further during the planning stage without risking late discovery during measurement.

Delta4-based Dosimetric Error Detection in Volumetric-modulated Arc Therapy: Clinical Significance and Implications

Background

Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is an efficient method of administering intensity-modulated radiotherapy beams. The Delta4 device was employed to examine patient data.

Aims and Objectives

The utility of the Delta4 device in identifying errors for patient-specific quality assurance of VMAT plans was studied in this research.

Materials and Methods

Intentional errors were purposely created in the collimator rotation, gantry rotation, multileaf collimator (MLC) position displacement, and increase in the number of monitor units (MU).

Results

The results show that when the characteristics of the treatment plans were changed, the gamma passing rate (GPR) decreased. The largest percentage of erroneous detection was seen in the increasing number of MU, with a GPR ranging from 41 to 92. Gamma analysis was used to compare the dose distributions of the original and intentional error designs using the 2%/2 mm criteria. The percentage of dose errors (DEs) in the dose-volume histogram (DVH) was also analyzed, and the statistical association was assessed using logistic regression. A modest association (Pearson's R-values: 0.12-0.67) was seen between the DE and GPR in all intentional plans. The findings indicated a moderate association between DVH and GPR. The data reveal that Delta4 is effective in detecting mistakes in treatment regimens for head-and-neck cancer as well as lung cancer.

Conclusion

The study results also imply that Delta4 can detect errors in VMAT plans, depending on the details of the defects and the treatment plans employed.

A novel weight optimized dynamic conformal arcs with TrueBeam™ Linac for very small tumors (≤1 cc) with single isocenter of multiple brain metastases (2≤, ≥4) in stereotactic radiosurgery: A comparison with volumetric modulated arc therapy

Introduction

We evaluated whether improved increase delivery efficiency of weight optimized dynamic conformal arc (WO-DCA) therapy in comparison to volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with single isocenter for SRS treatment of very small volume and multiple brain metastases (BMs).

Materials and Methods

20 patients having a less than 1 cc volume and 2≤, ≥4 of multiple BMs, redesigned for 20 Gy in 1 fraction using WO-DCA and VMAT techniques with double full coplanar and three partial noncoplanar arcs. Plan qualities were compared using tumor coverage, conformity index (CI), gradient index (GI), V4Gy, V10Gy, and V12Gy volumes of brain, monitor units (MUs), and percent of quality assurance pass rate (QA%).

Results

Both techniques satisfied clinical requirements in coverage and CI. VMAT had a significantly higher MU and mean GI than WO-DCA (for MUs; 2330 vs. 1991; P < 0.001, and for GI; 4.72 vs. 3.39; P < 0.001). WO-DCA was found significantly lower V4Gy (171.11 vs. 232.80 cm3, P < 0.001), V10Gy (25.82 vs. 29.71 cm3, P < 0.05), and V12Gy (14.35 vs. 17.28 cm3, P < 0.05) volumes than VMAT. WO-DCA was associated with markedly increase QA pass rates for all plans (97.65% vs. 92.64%, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

WO-DCA may be the first choice compared to the VMAT in reducing the dose in the brain and minimizing small-field dosimetric errors for very small SRS treatment of brain metastases in the range of ≤ 1 cc and 2≤, ≥4.

Clinical implementation of a log file-based machine and patient QA system for IMRT and VMAT treatment plans

PURPOSE

To determine the error detection sensitivity of a commercial log file-based system (LINACWatch®, LW) for integration into clinical routine and to compare it with a measurement device (OCTAVIUS 4D, Oct4D) for IMRT and VMAT delivery QA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

76 VMAT/IMRT plans (H&N, prostate, rectum and breast) preliminarily classified according to their Modulation Complexity Score (MCS) calculated by LW, were considered. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curves were used to establish gamma criteria for LW. 12 plans (3 for each site) were intentionally modified in order to introduce delivery errors regarding MLC, jaws, collimator, gantry and MU (for a total set of 168 incorrect plans) and irradiated on Oct4D; the corresponding log files were analysed by LW. Each incorrect plan was compared to the error-free plan using γ-index analysis for MLC, jaws and MU errors investigation and Root-Mean-Square (RMS) values for gantry and collimator errors investigation.

RESULTS

MCS ranges values were: 0.10-0.20 for H&N, 0.21-0.40 for prostate and rectum, 0.41-1.00 for breast. From ROC curves, the Gamma Passing Rate (GPR) thresholds were: 87%, 92%, 99% for H&N, prostate and rectum, and breast, respectively. The 1.5%/1.5 mm/local criteria were adopted for the γ-analysis. LW sensitivity in detecting the introduced errors was higher when compared to Oct4D: 48.5% vs 30.4% respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

LW can be considered useful complement to phantom-based delivery QA of IMRT/VMAT plans. The MCS tool is effective in detecting over or under modulated plans prior to pre-treatment QA. However, rigorous and routinely machine QCs are recommended.

Error detection using EPID-based 3D in vivo dose verification for lung stereotactic body radiotherapy

PURPOSE

To investigate the error detectability limitations of an EPID-based 3D in vivo dosimetry verification system for lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT).

METHODS

Thirty errors were intentionally introduced, consisting of dynamic and constant machine errors, to simulate the possible errors that may occur during delivery. The dynamic errors included errors in the output, gantry angle and MLC positions related to gantry inertial and gravitational effects, while the constant errors included errors in the collimator angle, jaw positions, central leaf positions, setup shift and thickness to simulate patient weight loss. These error plans were delivered to a CIRS phantom using the SBRT technique for lung cancer. Following irradiation of these error plans, the dose distribution was reconstructed using iViewDose™ and compared with the no error plan.

RESULTS

All errors caused by the central leaf positions, dynamic MLC errors, Jaw inwards movements, setup shifts and patient anatomical changes were successfully detected. However, dynamic gantry angle and collimator angle errors were not detected in the lung case due to the rotation-symmetric target shape. The results showed that the γ_mean and γ_passrate indicators can detect 13 (81.3%) and 14 (87.5%) of the 16 errors respectively without including the gantry angle error, collimator angle error and output error.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, iViewDose™ is an appropriate approach for detecting most types of clinical errors for lung SBRT. However, the phantom results also showed some detectability limitations of the system in terms of dynamic gantry angle and constant collimator angle errors.

Electronic Portal Imaging Device in Pre-Treatment Patient-Specific Quality Assurance of volumetric-modulated arc therapy delivery

Background:

Radiotherapy treatment delivery is evaluated by a pre-treatment patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) procedure to ensure the patient receives an accurate radiation dose. The current PSQA practice by using conventional phantoms requires more set-up time and cost of purchasing the tools. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the efficiency of an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) of linear accelerator (LINAC) as a PSQA tool for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning technique for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) treatment delivery.

Methods:

A NPC VMAT plan on a Rando phantom was performed by following the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0615 protocol. The gamma passing rate of the EPID and PSQA phantom (ArcCHECK) were compared among the gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm and 1%/1 mm, respectively.

Results:

Both EPID and ArcCHECK phantom had distinguishable gamma passing rates in 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm with a difference of 0·87% and 0·30%, respectively. Meanwhile, the EPID system had a lower gamma passing rate than the ArcCHECK phantom in 1%/1 mm (21·23% difference). Furthermore, the sensitivity of the EPID system was evaluated and had the largest deviation in gamma passing rate from the reference position in gamma criteria of 2%/2 mm (41·14%) compared to the 3%/3 mm (25·45%) and 1%/1 mm (31·78%), discretely. The best fit line of the linear regression model for EPID was steeper than the ArcCHECK phantom in 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm, and vice versa in gamma criteria of 1%/1 mm. This indicates that the EPID had a higher sensitivity than the ArcCHECK phantom in 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm but less sensitivity in 1%/1 mm.

Conclusions:

The EPID system was efficient in performing the PSQA test of VMAT treatment in HUSM with the gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm.

Application of failure mode and effects analysis to validate a novel hybrid Linac QC program that integrates automated and conventional QC testing

A hybrid quality control (QC) program was developed that integrates automated and conventional Linac QC, realizing the benefits of both automated and conventional QC, increasing efficiency and maintaining independent measurement methods. Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) was then applied in order to validate the program prior to clinical implementation. The hybrid QC program consists of automated QC with machine performance check and DailyQA3 array on the TrueBeam Linac, and Delta4 volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) standard plan measurements, alongside conventional monthly QC at a reduced frequency. The FMEA followed the method outlined in TG-100. Process maps were created for each treatment type at our center: VMAT, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), conformal, and palliative. Possible failure modes were established by evaluating each stage in the process map. The FMEA followed semiquantitative methods, using data from our QC records from eight Linacs over 3 years for the occurrence estimates, and simulation of failure modes in the treatment planning system, with scoring surveys for severity and detectability. The risk priority number (RPN) was calculated from the product of the occurrence, severity, and detectability scores and then normalized to the maximum and ranked to determine the most critical failure modes. The highest normalized RPN values (100, 90) were found to be for MLC position dynamic for both VMAT and SBRT treatments. The next highest score was 35 for beam position for SBRT, and the majority of scores were less than 20. Overall, these RPN scores for the hybrid Linac QC program indicated that it would be acceptable, but the high RPN score associated with the dynamic MLC failure mode indicates that it would be valuable to perform more rigorous testing of the MLC. The FMEA proved to be a useful tool in validating hybrid QC.

Comparison of dosimetric effects of MLC positional errors on VMAT and IMRT plans for SBRT radiotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer

The positional accuracy of multi-leaf collimators (MLC) is important in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). The aim of this study was to investigate the impact between MLC positional error and dosimetry of volume intensity modulated (VMAT) and general intensity modulated (IMRT) plans for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Fifteen patients with NSCLC were selected to design the 360 SBRT-VMAT plans and the 360 SBRT-IMRT error plans. The DICOM files for these treatment plans were imported into a proprietary computer program that introduced delivery errors. Random and systematic MLC position (0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 mm) errors were introduced. The systematic errors were shift errors (caused by gravity), opening errors, and closing errors. The CI, GI, d2cm and generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD) were calculated for the original plan and all treatment plans, accounting for the errors. Dose sensitivity was calculated using linear regression for MLC position errors. The random MLC errors were relatively insignificant. MLC shift, opening, and closing errors had a significant effect on the dose distribution of the SBRT plan. VMAT was more significant than IMRT. To ensure that the gEUD variation of PTV is controlled within 2%, the shift error, opening error, and closing error of IMRT should be less than 2.4 mm, 1.15 mm, and 0.97 mm, respectively. For VMAT, the shift error, opening error, and closing error should be less than 0.95 mm, 0.32 mm, and 0.38 mm, respectively. The dose sensitivity results obtained in this study can be used as a guide for patient-based quality assurance efforts. The position error of the MLC system had a significant impact on the gEUD of the SBRT technology. The MLC systematic error has a greater dosimetric impact on the VMAT plan than on the IMRT plan for SBRT, which should be carefully monitored.

Comprehensive clinical evaluation of TomoEQA for patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance in helical tomotherapy

Background

Based on a previous study on the feasibility of TomoEQA, an exit detector-based patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance (QA) method for helical tomotherapy, an in-depth clinical evaluation was conducted.

Methods

Data of one hundred patients were analyzed to evaluate the clinical usefulness of TomoEQA for patient-specific pre-treatment QA in comparison with the conventional phantom-based method. Additional investigations were also performed under unusual measurement conditions to validate the off-axis region. In addition to the clinical evaluation of TomoEQA, a statistical analysis was conducted to determine the plan parameters that affect the pass/failure results of pre-treatment QA.

Results

The average and standard deviations of the gamma passing rate and point dose error for TomoEQA were comparable to those of the conventional QA method. For TomoEQA, the average values of the gamma passing rate and point dose error were 96.32% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 3.94; 95% confidence interval (CI), 95.55 to 97.09) and − 1.12% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 1.04; CI, − 1.32 to − 0.92), respectively. For the conventional QA method, the average values of the gamma passing rate and point dose error were 95.95% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 4.35; 95% confidence interval (CI), 95.10 to 96.80) and − 1.20% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 1.61; CI, − 1.52 to − 0.88), respectively. Further experiments on the off-axis region demonstrated that TomoEQA can provide accurate results for 3D dose analysis, which is inherently difficult in the conventional QA method. Through a statistical analysis based on the results of TomoEQA, it was validated that the total fraction (Total Fx), monitor units, beam-on-time, leaf-of-time below 100 ms, and planning target volume diameter were statistically significant for the pass/failure of the pre-treatment QA results.

Conclusions

TomoEQA is a clinically beneficial alternative to the conventional phantom-based QA method.

Assessment of Statistical Process Control Based DVH Action Levels for Systematic Multi-Leaf Collimator Errors in Cervical Cancer RapidArc Plans

Background

In the patient-specific quality assurance (QA), DVH is a critical clinically relevant parameter that is finally used to determine the safety and effectiveness of radiotherapy. However, a consensus on DVH-based action levels has not been reached yet. The aim of this study is to explore reasonable DVH-based action levels and optimal DVH metrics in detecting systematic MLC errors for cervical cancer RapidArc plans.

Methods

In this study, a total of 148 cervical cancer RapidArc plans were selected and measured with COMPASS 3D dosimetry system. Firstly, the patient-specific QA results of 110 RapidArc plans were retrospectively reviewed. Then, DVH-based action limits (AL) and tolerance limits (TL) were obtained by statistical process control. Secondly, systematic MLC errors were introduced in 20 RapidArc plans, generating 380 modified plans. Then, the dose difference (%DE) in DVH metrics between modified plans and original plans was extracted from measurement results. After that, the linear regression model was used to investigate the detection limits of DVH-based action levels between %DE and systematic MLC errors. Finally, a total of 180 test plans (including 162 error-introduced plans and 18 original plans) were prepared for validation. The error detection rate of DVH-based action levels was compared in different DVH metrics of 180 test plans.

Results

A linear correlation was found between systematic MLC errors and %DE in all DVH metrics. Based on linear regression model, the systematic MLC errors between -0.94 mm and 0.88 mm could be caught by the TL of PTV₉₅ ([-1.54%, 1.51%]), and the systematic MLC errors between -1.00 mm and 0.80 mm could also be caught by the TL of PTV_mean ([-2.06%, 0.38%]). In the validation, for original plans, PTV₉₅ showed the minimum error detection rate of 5.56%. For error-introduced plans with systematic MLC errors more than 1mm, PTV_mean showed the maximum error detection rate of 88.89%, and then was followed by PTV₉₅ (86.67%). All the TL of DVH metrics showed a poor error detection rate in identifying error-induced plans with systematic MLC errors less than 1mm.

Conclusion

In 3D quality assurance of cervical cancer RapidArc plans, process-based tolerance limits showed greater advantages in distinguishing plans introduced with systematic MLC errors more than 1mm, and reasonable DVH-based action levels can be acquired through statistical process control. During DVH-based verification, main focus should be on the DVH metrics of target volume. OARs in low-dose regions were found to have a relatively higher dose sensitivity to smaller systematic MLC errors, but may be accompanied with higher false error detection rate.

Evaluation of the ability of three commercially available dosimeters to detect systematic delivery errors in step-and-shoot IMRT plans

Background

There is limited data on error detectability for step-and-shoot intensity modulated radiotherapy (sIMRT) plans, despite significant work on dynamic methods. However, sIMRT treatments have an ongoing role in clinical practice. This study aimed to evaluate variations in the sensitivity of three patient-specific quality assurance (QA) devices to systematic delivery errors in sIMRT plans.

Materials and methods

Four clinical sIMRT plans (prostate and head and neck) were edited to introduce errors in: Multi-Leaf Collimator (MLC) position (increasing field size, leaf pairs offset (1-3 mm) in opposite directions; and field shift, all leaves offset (1-3 mm) in one direction); collimator rotation (1-3 degrees) and gantry rotation (0.5-2 degrees). The total dose for each plan was measured using an ArcCHECK diode array. Each field, excluding those with gantry offsets, was also measured using an Electronic Portal Imager and a MatriXX Evolution 2D ionisation chamber array. 132 plans (858 fields) were delivered, producing 572 measured dose distributions. Measured doses were compared to calculated doses for the no-error plan using Gamma analysis with 3%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm, and 2%/2 mm criteria (1716 analyses).

Results

Generally, pass rates decreased with increasing errors and/or stricter gamma criteria. Pass rate variations with detector and plan type were also observed. For a 3%/3 mm gamma criteria, none of the devices could reliably detect 1 mm MLC position errors or 1 degree collimator rotation errors.

Conclusions

This work has highlighted the need to adapt QA based on treatment plan type and the need for detector specific assessment criteria to detect clinically significant errors.

Novel Clinically Weight-Optimized Dynamic Conformal Arcs (WO-DCA) for Liver SBRT: A Comparison with Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT)

PURPOSE

To evaluate the feasibility of shortening the duration of liver stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT) without jeopardizing dosimetry or conformity by utilizing weight-optimized dynamic conformal arcs (WO-DCA) as opposed to volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for tumors away from critical structures.

METHODS

Nineteen patients with liver metastasis were included, previously treated with 50 Gy in 4 fractions with VMAT technique using two partial coplanar arcs of 6 MV beams delivered in high-definition multi-leaf collimator (HD-MLC). Two coplanar partial WO-DCA were generated on Pinnacle treatment planning system (TPS) for each patient; and MLC aperture around the planning target volume (PTV) was automatically generated at different margins for both arcs and maintained dynamically around the target during arc rotation. Weight of the two arcs using optimization method was adjusted between the arcs to maximize tumor coverage and protect organs at risk (OAR) based on the RTOG-0438 protocol.

RESULTS

The WO-DCA plans successfully "agreed" with the standard VMAT for OAR (liver, spinal cord, stomach, duodenum, small bowel, and heart) and PTV (Dmean, D98%, D2%, CI, and GI), with superior mean quality assurance (QA) pass rate (97.06 vs 93.00 for VMAT; P < 0.001 and t = 8.87). Similarly, the WO-DCA technique additionally reduced the beam-on time (3.26 vs 4.43; P < 0.001) and monitor unit (1860 vs 2705 for VMAT; P < 0.001) values significantly.

CONCLUSION

The WO-DCA plans might minimize small-field dosimetry errors and defeat patient-specific VMAT QA requirements due to the omission of MLC beam modulation through the target volume. The WO-DCA plans may additionally enable faster treatment delivery times and lower OAR without sacrificing target doses in SBRT of liver tumors away from critical structures.

Retrospective analysis of portal dosimetry pre-treatment quality assurance of intracranial SRS/SRT VMAT treatment plans

Background:

The complexity associated with the treatment planning and delivery of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) or stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans which employs continuous dynamic modulation of dose rate, field aperture and gantry speed necessitates diligent pre-treatment patient-specific quality assurance (QA). Numerous techniques for pre-treatment VMAT treatment plans QA are currently available with the aid of several different devices including the electronic portal imager (EPID). Although several studies have provided recommendations for gamma criteria for VMAT pre-treatment QA, there are no specifics for SRS/SRT VMAT QA. Thus, we conducted a study to evaluate intracranial SRS/SRT VMAT QA to determine clinical action levels for gamma criteria based on the institutional estimated means and standard deviations.

Materials and methods:

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 118 EPID patient-specific pre-treatment QA dosimetric measurements of 47 brain SRS/SRT VMAT treatment plans using the integrated Varian solution (RapidArcTM planning, EPID and Portal dosimetry system) for planning, delivery and EPID QA analysis. We evaluated the maximum gamma (γmax), average gamma (γave) and percentage gamma passing rate (%GP) for different distance-to-agreement/dose difference (DTA/DD) criteria and low-dose thresholds.

Results:

The gamma index analysis shows that for patient-specific SRS/SRT VMAT QA with the portal dosimetry, the mean %GP is ≥98% for 2–3 mm/1–3% and Field+0%, +5% and +10% low-dose thresholds. When applying stricter spatial criteria of 1 mm, the mean %GP is >90% for DD of 2–3% and ≥88% for DD of 1%. The mean γmax ranges: 1·32 ± 1·33–2·63 ± 2·35 for 3 mm/1–3%, 1·57 ± 1·36–2·87 ± 2·29 for 2 mm/1–3% and 2·36 ± 1·83–3·58 ± 2·23 for 1 mm/1–3%. Similarly the mean γave ranges: 0·16 ± 0·06–0·19 ± 0·07 for 3 mm/1–3%, 0·21 ± 0·08–0·27 ± 0·10 for 2 mm/1–3% and 0·34 ± 0·14–0·49 ± 0·17 for 1 mm/1–3%. The mean γmax and mean γave increase with increased DTA and increased DD for all low-dose thresholds.

Conclusions:

The establishment of gamma criteria local action levels for SRS/SRT VMAT pre-treatment QA based on institutional resources is imperative as a useful tool for standardising the evaluation of EPID-based patient-specific SRS/SRT VMAT QA. Our data suggest that for intracranial SRS/SRT VMAT QA measured with the EPID, a stricter gamma criterion of 1 mm/2% or 1 mm/3% with ≥90% %GP could be used while still maintaining an in-control QA process with no extra burden on resources and time constraints.

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.

Usability of detecting delivery errors during treatment of prostate VMAT with a gantry-mounted transmission detector

Volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) requires highly accurate control of multileaf collimator (MLC) movement, rotation speed of linear accelerator gantry, and monitor units during irradiation. Pretreatment validation and monitoring of these factors during irradiation are necessary for appropriate VMAT treatment. Recently, a gantry mounted transmission detector “Delta⁴ Discover® (D4D)” was developed to detect errors in delivering doses and dose distribution immediately after treatment. In this study, the performance of D4D was evaluated. Simulation plans, in which the MLC position was displaced by 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 mm from the clinically used original plans, were created for ten patients who received VMAT treatment for prostate cancer. Dose deviation (DD), distance‐to‐agreement (DTA), and gamma index analysis (GA) for each plan were evaluated by D4D. These results were compared to the results (DD, DTA and GA) measured by Delta⁴ Phantom + (D4P). We compared the deviations between the planned and measured values of the MLC stop positions A‐side and B‐side in five clinical cases of prostate VMAT during treatment and measured the GA values. For D4D, when the acceptable errors for DD, DTA, and GA were determined to be ≤3%, ≤2 mm, and ≤3%/2 mm, respectively, the minimum detectable errors in the MLC position were 2.0, 1.5, and 1.5 mm based on DD, DTA, and GA respectively. The corresponding minimum detectable MLC position errors were 2.0, 1.0, and 1.5 mm, respectively, for D4P. The deviation between the planned and measured position of MLC stopping point of prostate VMAT during treatment was stable at an average of −0.09 ± 0.05 mm, and all GA values were above 99.86%. In terms of delivering doses and dose distribution of VMAT, error detectability of D4D was comparable to that of D4P. The transmission‐type detector “D4D” is thus suitable for detecting delivery errors during irradiation.

Intrinsic detector sensitivity analysis as a tool to characterize ArcCHECK and EPID sensitivity to variations in delivery for lung SBRT VMAT plans

PURPOSE

To investigate intrinsic sensitivity of an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) and the ArcCHECK detector and to use this in assessing their performance in detecting delivery variations for lung SBRT VMAT. The effect of detector spatial resolution and dose matrix interpolation on the gamma pass rate was also considered.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifteen patients' lung SBRT VMAT plans were used. Delivery variations (errors) were introduced by modifying collimator angles, multi-leaf collimator (MLC) field sizes and MLC field shifts by ±5, ±2, and ±1 degrees or mm (investigating 103 plans in total). EPID and ArcCHECK measured signals with introduced variations were compared to measured signals without variations (baseline), using OmniPro-I'mRT software and gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm, 2%/1 mm, and 1%/1 mm, to test each system's basic performance. The measurement sampling resolution for each was also changed to 1 mm and results compared to those with the default detector system resolution.

RESULTS

Intrinsic detector sensitivity analysis, that is, comparing measurement to baseline measurement, rather than measurement to plan, demonstrated the intrinsic constraints of each detector and indicated the limiting performance that users might expect. Changes in the gamma pass rates for ArcCHECK, for a given introduced error, were affected only by dose difference (DD %) criteria. However, the EPID showed only slight changes when changing DD%, but greater effects when changing distance-to-agreement criteria. This is pertinent for lung SBRT where the minimum dose to the target will drop dramatically with geometric errors. Detector resolution and dose matrix interpolation have an impact on the gamma results for these SBRT plans and can lead to false positives or negatives in error detection if not understood.

CONCLUSION

The intrinsic sensitivity approach may help in the selection of more meaningful gamma criteria and the choice of optimal QA device for site-specific dose verification.

Identification of a potential source of error for 6FFF beams delivered on an AgilityTM multileaf collimator

Purpose

The performance of the Agility^TM multileaf collimator was investigated with a focus on dynamic, small fields for flattening filter free (FFF) beams.

Methods

In this study we have developed a simple tool to test the robustness of the control mechanisms during dynamic beam delivery for Elekta’s VersaHD linear accelerator with Integrity 4.0.4 control software. We have programed the planning system to calculate dose for delivery of sweeping gaps. These sweeping gaps have a constant speed, constant size, and are delivered at a constant dose rate. Therefore they specifically identify delivery problems in dynamic mode.

Results

The Elekta Agility^TM control mechanism fails to maintain accurate delivery for small, dynamic sweeping gaps. For small gap sizes, the Agility^TM control mechanism delivers a field that is more than four times the size of the planned field width without generating an interlock. This has dosimetric implications: The discrepancy between calculated and measured doses increases with decreasing gap size and exceeds 10% and 60% at isocenter for a 3.5 mm and 1 mm gap size, respectively.

Conclusion

A deficiency of the Agility^TM control system was identified in this study. This deficiency is a potential source of error for volumetric modulated arc therapy fields and could therefore contribute to relatively high failure rates in quality assurance measurements, especially for FFF beams.

Detecting MLC modeling errors using radiomics-based machine learning in patient-specific QA with an EPID for intensity-modulated radiation therapy

PURPOSE

We sought to develop machine learning models to detect multileaf collimator (MLC) modeling errors with the use of radiomic features of fluence maps measured in patient-specific quality assurance (QA) for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with an electric portal imaging device (EPID).

METHODS

Fluence maps measured with EPID for 38 beams from 19 clinical IMRT plans were assessed. Plans with various degrees of error in MLC modeling parameters [i.e., MLC transmission factor (TF) and dosimetric leaf gap (DLG)] and plans with an MLC positional error for comparison were created. For a total of 152 error plans for each type of error, we calculated fluence difference maps for each beam by subtracting the calculated maps from the measured maps. A total of 837 radiomic features were extracted from each fluence difference map, and we determined the number of features used for the training dataset in the machine learning models by using random forest regression. Machine learning models using the five typical algorithms [decision tree, k-nearest neighbor (kNN), support vector machine (SVM), logistic regression, and random forest] for binary classification between the error-free plan and the plan with the corresponding error for each type of error were developed. We used part of the total dataset to perform fourfold cross-validation to tune the models, and we used the remaining test dataset to evaluate the performance of the developed models. A gamma analysis was also performed between the measured and calculated fluence maps with the criteria of 3%/2 and 2%/2 mm for all of the types of error.

RESULTS

The radiomic features and its optimal number were similar for the models for the TF and the DLG error detection, which was different from the MLC positional error. The highest sensitivity was obtained as 0.913 for the TF error with SVM and logistic regression, 0.978 for the DLG error with kNN and SVM, and 1.000 for the MLC positional error with kNN, SVM, and random forest. The highest specificity was obtained as 1.000 for the TF error with a decision tree, SVM, and logistic regression, 1.000 for the DLG error with a decision tree, logistic regression, and random forest, and 0.909 for the MLC positional error with a decision tree and logistic regression. The gamma analysis showed the poorest performance in which sensitivities were 0.737 for the TF error and the DLG error and 0.882 for the MLC positional error for 3%/2 mm. The addition of another type of error to fluence maps significantly reduced the sensitivity for the TF and the DLG error, whereas no effect was observed for the MLC positional error detection.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to the conventional gamma analysis, the radiomics-based machine learning models showed higher sensitivity and specificity in detecting a single type of the MLC modeling error and the MLC positional error. Although the developed models need further improvement for detecting multiple types of error, radiomics-based IMRT QA was shown to be a promising approach for detecting the MLC modeling error.

A patient-specific QA comparison between 2D and 3D diode arrays for single-lesion SRS and SBRT treatments

The purpose of this study is to compare patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) results between two dimensional (2D) diode (SRS MapCHECK^®) and 3D diode (ArcCHECK^®) arrays. Twenty-eight intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and 26 lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) clinical plans with a single lesion were selected and categorized into 4 groups: 20 SRS dynamic conformal arc therapy (DCAT) plans (Group A), 8 SRS volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans (Group B), 6 SBRT DCAT plans (Group C) and 20 SBRT VMAT plans (Group D). An individual field of each plan was delivered on SRS MapCHECK and ArcCHECK and QA analysis was performed using 4 gamma criteria of dose difference/distance-to-agreement of 3%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm, 2%/2 mm and 2%/1 mm. Statistical analysis was performed to compare PSQA results between the 2 QA devices. For all 4 groups and all 4 gamma criteria, average gamma passing rates were higher with SRS MapCHECK.

An error detection method for real-time EPID-based treatment delivery quality assurance

PURPOSE

To quantify the error detection power of a new treatment delivery error detection method. The method validates monitor unit (MU) resolved beam apertures using real-time EPID images.

METHODS

The on-board EPID imager was used to measure cine-EPID (~10 Hz) images for 27 beams from 15 VMAT/SBRT clinical treatment plans and five nonclinical plans. For each frame acquisition, planned apertures were interpolated from the treatment plan multileaf collimator (MLC) positions expected during the frame acquisition interval. Inaccurate deliveries were identified by monitoring in-aperture missed fluence and out-of-aperture excess fluence beyond a specified buffer. Delivery errors were simulated by perturbing the planned MLC positions before comparison with nonperturbed measured apertures. Systematic 1-5 mm MLC leaf shifts were used to train a logistic regression model to determine the error detection threshold. Model accuracy was monitored using tenfold cross-validation. The model's error detection ability was tested with other error modes: plan control point (CP) weight perturbations, collimator rotations, random MLC leaf position errors, EPID imager shift, and stuck MLC leaf. The error detection accuracy was evaluated using the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) and the false positive rate (FPR). Per-beam error thresholds of >1, >5, and >10% errant frames were tested to label per-beam errors. The model also was tested for its ability to distinguish five cases with highly similar plans and compared with gamma analysis.

RESULTS

Delivery errors were detected by monitoring intended per-frame images with a 2 mm MLC buffer. Frame-by-frame aperture errors were identified with an optimal threshold of 0.3% of the expected aperture area. The per-frame FPR was 0.02%. The MCC was 1.00 (perfect classification) for detection based on 1% of frames for random CP weight shift, 3 mm random MLC shifts, 90° and 180° collimator rotations, and an MLC leaf stuck after 10% of the beam delivery. The MCC for 2°, 4°, and 8° collimator rotation were 0.53, 0.76, and 0.96, respectively, for the 1% of beam delivery threshold. The 3 mm EPID shift had poor detection, with a minimum MCC of 0.14. The highly similar plans were reliably detected by the aperture check but were not detectable with gamma analysis.

CONCLUSION

The high error detection sensitivity and low FPR makes the aperture check error detection method well suited to pretreatment and during-treatment beam delivery quality assurance (QA). The aperture check detects subtle beam delivery errors, including those resulting from MLC leaf positioning deviations, CP MU shifts, and stuck MLC leaves. Furthermore, the method can distinguish between highly similar treatment plans. Since the aperture check method monitors for the aperture shapes over a given MU interval, it is also sensitive to errors in MU per CP, without requiring dosimetric calibration of the EPID. The aperture check is one part of a Swiss cheese error detection scheme, which provides redundant error testing of multiple error modes, including nonaperture related errors. The rapid error detection, at 1% of a beam's delivery, make the aperture check a potential candidate for QA of on-line adaptive radiotherapy, or other situations in which pretreatment delivery QA is impractical.

Feasibility of 3D tracking and adaptation of VMAT based on VMAT-CT

BACKGROUND

Local computed tomography (CT) reconstruction is achievable with portal images acquired during volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivery and was named as VMAT-CT. However, the application of VMAT-CT is limited because it has limited field of view and no density information. In addition, the new generation of multi-leaf collimator with faster speed and various collimator angles used in patients' plans could cause more artifacts in VMAT-CT. The goal of this study was to extend VMAT-CT concept, generate complete three-dimensional (3D) CT images, calculate new 3D dose, track and adapt VMAT plan based on updated images and dose.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

VMAT-CT and planning CT of phantoms were fused by rigid or deformable registration to create VMAT-CT+ images. Trackings based on planning CT, VMAT-CT+, and cone beam CT (CBCT) were compared. When prescription dose was not met for planning target volume (PTV), re-planning was demonstrated on an in-house deformable phantom. Possible uncertainties were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Tracking based on VMAT-CT+ was accurate and superior to those based on planning CT and CBCT since VMAT-CT+ can detect changes during treatment. PTV coverage in the deformable phantom decreased after deformations but went up and met the prescription goal after re-planning. The impact of uncertainties on dose was minimal.

CONCLUSION

3D tracking and adaptation of VMAT based on VMAT-CT are feasible. Our study has the potential to increase the confidence of beam delivery, catch and remedy errors during VMAT.

Retrospective analysis of portal dosimetry pre-treatment quality assurance of hybrid IMRT breast treatment plans

Background:

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and sensitivity of the Varian portal dosimetry (PD) system as a quality assurance (QA) tool for breast intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment plans.

Materials and methods:

Four hundred portal dose images from 200 breast cancer patient IMRT treatment plans were analysed. The images were obtained using Varian PortalVision electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs) on Varian TrueBeam Linacs. Three patient plans were selected, and the multi-leaf collimator (MLC) positions were randomly altered by a mean of 0·5, 1, 1·5 and 2 mm with a standard deviation of 0·1 mm on 50, 75 and 100% of control points. Using the improved/global gamma calculation algorithm with a low-dose threshold of 10% in the EPID, the change in gamma passing rates for 3%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm and 1%/1 mm criterion was analysed as a function of the introduced error. The changes in the dose distributions of clinical target volume and organ at risk due to MLC positioning errors were also analysed.

Results:

Symmetric and asymmetric breast or chest wall plan fields are different in delivery as well as in the QA. An average gamma passing rate of 99·8 ± 0·5 is presented for 3%/3 mm symmetric plans and 96·9 ± 4·5 is presented for 3%/3 mm asymmetric plans. An average gamma passing rate of 98·4 ± 4·3 is presented for 2%/2 mm symmetric plans and 89·7 ± 9·5 is presented for 2%/2 mm asymmetric plans. A large-induced error in MLC positioning (2·0 mm, 100% of control points) results in an insignificant change in dose that would be delivered to the patient. However, EPID portal dosimetry is sensitive enough to detect even the slightest change in MLC positioning error (0·5 mm, 50% of control points).

Conclusions:

Stricter pre-treatment QA action levels can be established for breast IMRT plans utilising EPID. For improved sensitivity, a multigamma criteria approach is recommended. The PD tool is sensitive enough to detect MLC positioning errors that contribute to even insignificant dose changes.

Optical imaging provides rapid verification of static small beams, radiosurgery, and VMAT plans with millimeter resolution

PURPOSE

We demonstrate the feasibility of optical imaging as a quality assurance tool for static small beamlets, and pretreatment verification tool for radiosurgery and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans.

METHODS

Small static beams and clinical VMAT plans were simulated in a treatment planning system (TPS) and delivered to a cylindrical tank filled with water-based liquid scintillator. Emission was imaged using a blue-sensitive, intensified CMOS camera time-gated to the linac pulses. For static beams, percentage depth and cross beam profiles of projected intensity distribution were compared to TPS data. Two-dimensional (2D) gamma analysis was performed on all clinical plans, and the technique was tested for sensitivity against common errors (multileaf collimator position, gantry angle) by inducing deliberate errors in the VMAT plans control points. The technique's detection limits for spatial resolution and the smallest number of control points that could be imaged reliably were also tested. The sensitivity to common delivery errors was also compared against a commercial 2.5D diode array dosimeter.

RESULTS

A spatial resolution of 1 mm was achieved with our imaging setup. The optical projected percentage depth intensity profiles agreed to within 2% relative to the TPS data for small static square beams (5, 10, and 50 mm² ). For projected cross beam profiles, a gamma pass rate >99% was achieved for a 3%/1 mm criteria. All clinical plans passed the 3%/3 mm criteria with >95% passing rate. A static 5 mm beam with 20 Monitor Units could be measured with an average percent difference of 5.5 ± 3% relative to the TPS. The technique was sensitive to multileaf collimator errors down to 1 mm and gantry angle errors of 1°.

CONCLUSIONS

Optical imaging provides ample spatial resolution for imaging small beams. The ability to faithfully image down to 20 MU of 5 mm, 6 MV beamlets prove the ability to perform quality assurance for each control point within dynamic plans. The technique is sensitive to small offset errors in gantry angles and multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf positions, and at certain scenario, it exhibits higher sensitivity than a commercial 2.5D diode array.

Validation of new transmission detector transmission factors for online dosimetry: an experimental study

Background

The demand for dose verification during treatment has risen with the increasing use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in modern radiation therapy. This study aims to validate the transmission factors of a new transmission detector, the Dolphin online monitoring system (IBA Dosimetry, Schwarzenbruck, Germany), for clinical use.

Methods

The transmission factors of the Dolphin detector were evaluated using 6 MV, 6 flattening filter free (FFF), 10 MV, and 10 FFF clinical beams from a TrueBeam STx linear accelerator system. Two-dimensional (2D) dose distributions were measured through portal dosimetry with and without Dolphin to derive the transmission factors. The measurements were performed using 10 IMRT and 10 VMAT treatment plans. The transmission factors were calculated using a non-negative least squares problem solver for the 2D dose matrix. Normalized plans were generated using the derived transmission factors. Patient-specific quality assurance with normalized plans was performed using portal dosimetry and an ArcCheck detector to verify the transmission factors. The gamma passing rates were calculated for the 2%/2 mm and 1%/1 mm criteria.

Results

The transmission factors for the 6 MV, 6 FFF, 10 MV, and 10 FFF beams, were 0.878, 0.824, 0.913, and 0.883, respectively. The average dose difference between the original plan without Dolphin and the normalized plan with Dolphin was less than 1.8% for all measurements. The mean passing rates of the gamma evaluation were 98.1 ± 2.1 and 82.9 ± 12.6 for the 2%/2 mm and 1%/1 mm criteria, respectively, for portal dosimetry of the original plan. In the case of the portal dosimetry of the normalized plan, the mean passing rates of the gamma evaluation were 97.2 ± 2.8 and 79.1 ± 14.8 for the 2%/2 mm and 1%/1 mm criteria, respectively.

Conclusions

The Dolphin detector can be used for online dosimetry when valid transmission factors are applied to the clinical plan.

Practical application of Octavius® -4D: Characteristics and criticalities for IMRT and VMAT verification

Octavius^®‐4D is a very effective device in radiotherapy treatment quality assurance (QA), due to its simple set‐up and analysis package. However, even if it is widely used, its main characteristics and criticalities were only partially investigated. Taking start from its commissioning, the aim of this work was to study the main dependencies of the device response. The outcome dependence was studied comparing results by different delivery techniques [Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy, IMRT (n = 29) and RapidArc, RA (n = 15)], anatomical regions [15 head/neck, 19 pelvis and 10 pancreas] and linear accelerators [DHX (n = 14) and Trilogy (n = 30)]. Moreover, the agreement dependency on the section of the phantom was assessed. Plan evaluations obtained by 2D, 3D, and volumetric γ‐index (both local and global) were also compared. Generally, high dose gradient resulted critically managed by the assembly, with a smoother effect in RA technique. Worse agreements emerged in the 2D γ‐index vs those of 3D and volumetric (P < 0.001), that were instead statistically comparable in global metric (P > 0.300). Volumetric plan evaluation was coherent with the average of passing rates on the 3 phantom axes (r ≥ 0.9), but transversal section provided best agreements vs sagittal and coronal ones (P < 0.050). The three studied districts furnished comparable results (P > 0.050) while the two LINACs provided different agreements (P < 0.005). The study pointed out that the phantom transversal section better fits the planned dose distribution, so this should be accounted when a two‐dimensional evaluation is needed. Moreover, the major reliability of the 3D metric with respect to the 2D one, as it better agrees with the dosimetric evaluation on the whole volume, suggests that it should be preferred in a two‐dimensional evaluation. Better agreements, obtained with RA vs IMRT technique, confirm that Octavius^®‐4D is specifically conceived for rotational delivery. Lastly, the assembly resulted sensitive to different technology.

Comparison of 3D and 2D gamma passing rate criteria for detection sensitivity to IMRT delivery errors

This study compared three‐dimensional (3D) and two‐dimensional (2D) percentage gamma passing rates (%GPs) for detection sensitivity to IMRT delivery errors and investigated the correlation between two kinds of %GP. Eleven prostate IMRT cases were selected, and errors in multileaf collimator (MLC) bank sag, MLC leaf traveling, and machine output were simulated by recalculating the dose distributions in patients. 2D doses were extracted from the 3D doses at the isocenter position. The 3D and 2D %GPs with different gamma criteria were then obtained by comparing the recalculated and original doses in specific regions of interest (ROI), such as the whole body, the planning target volume (PTV), the bladder, and the rectum. The sensitivities to simulated errors of the two types of %GP were compared, and the correlation between the 2D and 3D %GPs for different ROIs were analyzed. For the whole‐body evaluation, both the 2D and 3D %GPs with the 3%/3 mm criterion were above 90% for all tested MLC errors and for MU deviations up to 4%, and the 3D %GP was higher than the 2D %GP. In organ‐specific evaluations, the PTV‐specific 2D and 3D %GP gradients were −4.70% and −5.14% per millimeter of the MLC traveling error, and −17.79% and −20.50% per percentage of MU error, respectively. However, a stricter criterion (2%/1 mm) was needed to detect the tested MLC sag error. The Pearson correlation analysis showed a significant strong correlation (r > 0.8 and P < 0.001) between the 2D and 3D %GPs in the whole body and PTV‐specific gamma evaluations. The whole‐body %GP with the 3%/3 mm criterion was inadequate to detect the tested MLC and MU errors, and a stricter criterion may be needed. The PTV‐specific gamma evaluation helped to improve the sensitivity of the error detection, especially using the 3D GP%.

Dosimetric variations in calculation grid size in prostate VMAT: a dose-volume histogram analysis using the Gaussian error function

Background

Varying the calculation grid size can change the results of dose-volume and radiobiological parameters in a treatment plan, and therefore has an impact on the treatment planning quality assurance.

Purpose

This study investigated the dosimetric influence of the calculation grid size variation in the prostate volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan.

Methods and materials

Dose distributions of 10 prostate VMAT plans were acquired using calculation grid sizes of 1–5 mm. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) analysis was carried out to determine the dose-volume variation corresponding to the grid size change using the Gaussian error function (GEF). At the same time, dose-volume points, dose-volume parameters and radiobiological parameters were calculated based on DVHs of targets and organs at risk (OARs) for each grid size.

Results

Comparing percentage variations of GEF parameters between the planning target volume (PTV) and clinical target volume (CTV), GEF parameters of the PTV were found varied more significantly than the CTV. This resulted in larger variations of dose-volume (%ΔCI=40·02 versus 13·55%, %ΔHI=12·45 versus 2·93% and %ΔGI=0·22 versus 0·06%) and radiobiological parameters (%ΔTCP=0·61 versus 0·25% and %ΔEUD=2·11 versus 0·26%) of the PTV compared with CTV. For OARs, the rectal wall showed a larger dose-volume variation than the rectum. However, similar dose-volume variation due to grid size change was not found in the bladder, bladder wall and femur.

Conclusions

Knowing the dosimetric variation in this study is important to the radiotherapy staff in the quality assurance for the prostate VMAT planning.

Error Detection in Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance Using Radiomic Analysis of Gamma Distributions

PURPOSE

To improve the detection of errors in intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with a novel method that uses quantitative image features from radiomics to analyze gamma distributions generated during patient specific quality assurance (QA).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

One hundred eighty-six IMRT beams from 23 patient treatments were delivered to a phantom and measured with electronic portal imaging device dosimetry. The treatments spanned a range of anatomic sites; half were head and neck treatments, and the other half were drawn from treatments for lung and rectal cancers, sarcoma, and glioblastoma. Planar gamma distributions, or gamma images, were calculated for each beam using the measured dose and calculated doses from the 3-dimensional treatment planning system under various scenarios: a plan without errors and plans with either simulated random or systematic multileaf collimator mispositioning errors. The gamma images were randomly divided into 2 sets: a training set for model development and testing set for validation. Radiomic features were calculated for each gamma image. Error detection models were developed by training logistic regression models on these radiomic features. The models were applied to the testing set to quantify their predictive utility, determined by calculating the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operator characteristic curve, and were compared with traditional threshold-based gamma analysis.

RESULTS

The AUC of the random multileaf collimator mispositioning model on the testing set was 0.761 compared with 0.512 for threshold-based gamma analysis. The AUC for the systematic mispositioning model was 0.717 versus 0.660 for threshold-based gamma analysis. Furthermore, the models could discriminate between the 2 types of errors simulated here, exhibiting AUCs of approximately 0.5 (equivalent to random guessing) when applied to the error they were not designed to detect.

CONCLUSIONS

The feasibility of error detection in patient-specific IMRT QA using radiomic analysis of QA images has been demonstrated. This methodology represents a substantial step forward for IMRT QA with improved sensitivity and specificity over current QA methods and the potential to distinguish between different types of errors.

Correlation between gamma passing rate and complexity of IMRT plan due to MLC position errors

PURPOSE

This study evaluates the correlation between the susceptibility of the γ passing rate of IMRT plans to the multi-leaf collimator (MLC) position errors and a quantitative plan complexity metric.

METHODS

Twenty patients were selected for this study. For each patient, two IMRT plans were generated using sliding window and step-&-shoot techniques, respectively. Modulation complexity score (MCS) was calculated for all IMRT plans, and symmetric MLC leaf bank errors, ranging from 0.3 mm to 1 mm, were introduced. Original and modified plans were delivered using Varian's Clinac iX. The obtained dose distribution using ArcCHECK was then compared with the TPS calculated dose distribution of the original plans. 3D gamma analysis was performed for each verification with passing criteria of 2%/2 mm. The γ passing rate decreasing gradient were calculated to evaluate relationship between variation of γ passing rate due to MLC errors and complexity.

RESULTS

A linear regression analysis was applied between γ gradient and complexity, and the results showed a linear correlation (R² = 0.81 and 0.82 for open and closed MLC error types, respectively) indicating the more complex plans are more susceptible to MLC leaf bank errors. Meanwhile, correlation of re-normalized γ passing rate and complexity for all errors scenarios also presented a strong correlation (r > 0.75).

CONCLUSION

The statistics results revealed variation relationship of dosimetry robust of plans with various complexities to MLC errors. Our results also suggested that the observed susceptibility is independent of the delivery techniques.

Dose-volume and radiobiological dependence on the calculation grid size in prostate VMAT planning

This study evaluated the effects of dose-volume and radiobiological dependence on the calculation grid size in prostate volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning. Ten patients with prostate cancer were selected for this retrospective treatment planning study. Prostate VMAT plans were created for the patients using the 6 MV photon beam produced by a Varian TrueBEAM linac with the calculation grid size equal to 1, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, and 5 mm. Dose-volume histograms (DVHs) of targets and organs at risk were generated for different grid sizes. We calculated the radiobiological parameters of the tumor control probability (TCP) of clinical target volume (CTV) and planning target volume (PTV), and the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) of organs at risk (rectal wall, rectum, bladder wall, bladder, left femur, and right femur). The homogeneity, conformity, and gradient indexes of CTV and PTV were calculated for different grid sizes. The TCP of PTV was found decreasing with a rate of 0.06%/mm when the calculation grid size increased from 1 to 5 mm. On the other hand, both NTCPs of rectal wall and rectum were found decreasing with rates of 0.03%/mm and 0.05%/mm, respectively, with an increase of grid size. The homogeneity index of PTV increased with a rate of 0.57/mm of the calculation grid size, whereas the conformity index of PTV decreased with a rate of 0.0075/mm. The gradient index of PTV was found increasing with a rate equal to 0.05/mm. In prostate VMAT planning, variations of dose-volume and radiobiological parameters with calculation grid size on PTV, rectal wall, and rectum were more significant than those of CTV and other organs at risk such as bladder wall, bladder, and femurs. Results in this study are important in the treatment planning quality assurance when the calculation grid size is varied to compromise a shorter dose computing time.

How the detector resolution affects the clinical significance of SBRT pre-treatment quality assurance results

PURPOSE

Aim of this work was to study how the detector resolution can affect the clinical significance of SBRT pre-treatment volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) verification results.

METHODS

Three detectors (PTW OCTAVIUS 4D 729, 1500 and 100 SRS) used in five configurations with different resolution were compared: 729, 729 merged, 1500, 1500 merged and 1000 SRS. Absolute local gamma passing rates of 3D pre-treatment quality assurance (QA) were evaluated for 150 dose distributions in 30 plans. Five different kinds of error were introduced in order to establish the detection sensitivity of the three devices. Percentage dosimetric differences were evaluated between planned dosevolume histogram (DVH) and patients' predicted DVH calculated by PTW DVH 4D® software.

RESULTS

The mean gamma passing rates and the standard deviations were 92.4% ± 3.7%, 94.6% ± 1.8%, 95.3% ± 4.2%, 97.4% ± 2.5% and 97.6% ± 1.4 respectively for 729, 729 merged, 1500, 1500 merged and 1000 SRS with 2% local dose/2mm criterion. The same trend was found on the sensitivity analysis: using a tight gamma analysis criterion (2%L/1mm) only the 1000 SRS detected every kind of error, while 729 and 1500 merged detected three and four kinds of error respectively. Regarding dose metrics extracted from DVH curves, D50% was within the tolerance level in more than 90% of cases only for the 1000 SRS.

CONCLUSIONS

The detector resolution can significantly affect the clinical significance of SBRT pre-treatment verification results. The choice of a detector with resolution suitable to the investigated field size is of main importance to avoid getting false positive.

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.

A novel and independent method for time-resolved gantry angle quality assurance for VMAT

Volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment delivery requires three key dynamic components; gantry rotation, dose rate modulation, and multi‐leaf collimator motion, which are all simultaneously varied during the delivery. Misalignment of the gantry angle can potentially affect clinical outcome due to the steep dose gradients and complex MLC shapes involved. It is essential to develop independent gantry angle quality assurance (QA) appropriate to VMAT that can be performed simultaneously with other key VMAT QA testing. In this work, a simple and inexpensive fully independent gantry angle measurement methodology was developed that allows quantitation of the gantry angle accuracy as a function of time. This method is based on the analysis of video footage of a “Double dot” pattern attached to the front cover of the linear accelerator that consists of red and green circles printed on A4 paper sheet. A standard mobile phone is placed on the couch to record the video footage during gantry rotation. The video file is subsequently analyzed and used to determine the gantry angle from each video frame using the relative position of the two dots. There were two types of validation tests performed including the static mode with manual gantry angle rotation and dynamic mode with three complex test plans. The accuracy was 0.26° ± 0.04° and 0.46° ± 0.31° (mean ± 1 SD) for the static and dynamic modes, respectively. This method is user friendly, cost effective, easy to setup, has high temporal resolution, and can be combined with existing time‐resolved method for QA of MLC and dose rate to form a comprehensive set of procedures for time‐resolved QA of VMAT delivery system.

The sensitivity of gamma index analysis to detect multileaf collimator (MLC) positioning errors using Varian TrueBeam EPID and ArcCHECK for patient-specific prostate volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) quality assurance

Background

Due to the increased degree of modulation and complexity of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans, it is necessary to have a pre-treatment patient-specific quality assurance (QA) programme. The gamma index is commonly used to quantitatively compare two dose distributions. In this study we investigated the sensitivity of single- and multi-gamma criteria techniques to detect multileaf collimator (MLC) positioning errors using the Varian TrueBeam Electronic Portal Imaging DeviceTM (EPID) dosimetry and the ArcCHECKTM device.

Materials and methods

All active MLC positions of seven intact prostate patients VMAT plans were randomly changed with a mean value of 0.25, 0.5, 1 and 2 mm and a standard deviation of 0.1 mm on 25, 50, 75 and 100% of the control points. The change in gamma passing rates of six gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm, 3%/1 mm, 2%/2 mm, 2%/1 mm and 1%/1 mm were analysed individually (single-gamma criterion) and as a group (multi-gamma criteria) as a function of the simulated errors. We used the improved and global gamma calculation algorithms with a low dose threshold of 10% in the EPID and ArcCHECK software, respectively. The changes in the planning target volume dose distributions and the organs at risk due to the MLC positioning errors were also studied.

Results

When 25, 50, 75 and 100% of the control points were modified by the introduction of the simulated errors, the smallest detectable errors with the EPID were 2, 1, 0.5 and 0.5 mm, respectively, using the multi-gamma criteria technique. Similarly for the single-gamma criteria technique errors as small as 2, 1, 1 and 1 mm applied to 25, 50, 75 and 100% of the control points, respectively, were detectable using a 2%/2 mm criterion. However, the smallest detectable errors with the ArcCHECK when using the multi-gamma criteria technique were 2, 2 and 1 mm when MLC errors were applied on 50, 75 and 100% of the control points. When only 25% of the control points were affected the ArcCHECK were unable to detect any of the errors applied. No noticeable difference was observed in the sensitivity using the single- or the multi-gamma criteria techniques with the ArcCHECK.

Conclusion

The Varian TrueBeam EPID dosimetry shows a higher sensitivity in detecting MLC positioning errors compared with the ArcCHECK regardless of using the single- or the multi-gamma criteria techniques. Higher sensitivity was observed using the multi-gamma criteria technique compared with the single-criterion technique when using the EPID.