Commissioning results of an automated treatment planning verification system

Preliminary evaluation of a novel secondary check tool for intensity modulated radiotherapy treatment planning

PURPOSE

To evaluate the dosimetric accuracy of the Delta4 Insight (DI) secondary-check dosimetry system.

METHODS

Absolute dosimetry in reference conditions, output factors, percent depth doses normalized and off-axis dose profiles for different field sizes calculated by DI were compared with measurements. Dose calculations for 20 clinical IMRT/VMAT plans generated in the TPS using both AAA or AcurosXB algorithms were compared with measurements. The average difference between calculated and measured point dose in high-dose region was calculated for all cases. 3D dose measurements were performed in Delta4 Phantom+ and a comparison between calculated and measured dose distributions was performed by means of the gamma analysis with 3 %/2 mm criteria. The dose distributions calculated by DI for 20 IMRT/VMAT plans were compared with those calculated by the TPS.

RESULTS

The absolute dosimetry computed by DI showed dose value in agreement with the measured one within 0.3 %. The average differences between measured and calculated output factors were less than 2.5 %. The average PDD differences were less than 0.6 %. An excellent agreement between calculations and off-axis measurements is found. The point doses calculated for the 20 recalculated plan showed good agreement with measurements with average differences less than 0.5 %. The average gamma pass rate values for the Delta4 Phantom + 3D dose analysis was greater than 97.%. The comparison of DI with theTPS showed good agreement for the used metrics.

CONCLUSIONS

Delta4 Insight may provide a useful independent secondary dose verification system for IMRT/VMAT plans, complementing the traditional global QA protocols.

Comprehensive Patient-Specific Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance Comparing Mobius3D/FX to Conventional Methods of Evaluation

Purpose

To determine the appropriateness of implementing Mobius3D/FX (Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA) as not only a pretreatment secondary check but as an alternative to measurement-based patient-specific intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA).

Methods

Mobius3D/FX was commissioned and stock beam models were tweaked so that an independent recalculated 3D dose distribution can be obtained. Then, 50 patient-specific treatment plans for various indications were delivered across a 2D ion chamber array, radiochromic film setup, and electronic portal imager and analyzed with MobiusFX and gamma analysis. The concordance of plans scored as passing between MobiusFX and the conventional methods of QA was determined.

Results

All analyzed treatment plans passed with a gamma passing rate >90% across all conventional QA methods, most commonly using a 3%/3mm gamma criterion except for film measurements where a 5%/3mm criterion was applied. There was good agreement and concordance between MobiusFX and conventional methods when using a 3%/3mm criteria for MobiusFX, whereas a 2%/2mm criteria appeared too stringent as it failed treatment plans deemed clinically acceptable using conventional methods.

Conclusions

Using a 50-sample subset of clinically delivered treatment plans this non-inferiority-type comparison shows Mobius3D/FX based on log file analysis to be a suitable alternative to conventional QA methods when utilizing the 3%/3mm gamma criterion. Methods based on log file analysis can provide an opportunity for resource sparing, improving the efficiency, and workflow for evaluating IMRT treatment plans.

Validation of a secondary dose check tool against Monte Carlo and analytical clinical dose calculation algorithms in VMAT

PURPOSE

Patient-specific quality assurance (QA) is very important in radiotherapy, especially for patients with highly conformed treatment plans like VMAT plans. Traditional QA protocols for these plans are time-consuming reducing considerably the time available for patient treatments. In this work, a new MC-based secondary dose check software (SciMoCa) is evaluated and benchmarked against well-established TPS (Monaco and Pinnacle3 ) by means of treatment plans and dose measurements.

METHODS

Fifty VMAT plans have been computed using same calculation parameters with SciMoCa and the two primary TPSs. Plans were validated with measurements performed with a 3D diode detector (ArcCHECK) by translating patient plans to phantom geometry. Calculation accuracy was assessed by measuring point dose differences and gamma passing rates (GPR) from a 3D gamma analysis with 3%-2 mm criteria. Comparison between SciMoCa and primary TPS calculations was made using the same estimators and using both patient and phantom geometry plans.

RESULTS

TPS and SciMoCa calculations were found to be in very good agreement with validation measurements with average point dose differences of 0.7 ± 1.7% and -0.2 ± 1.6% for SciMoCa and two TPSs, respectively. Comparison between SciMoCa calculations and the two primary TPS plans did not show any statistically significant difference with average point dose differences compatible with zero within error for both patient and phantom geometry plans and GPR (98.0 ± 3.0% and 99.0 ± 3.0% respectively) well in excess of the typical 95 % clinical tolerance threshold.

CONCLUSION

This work presents results obtained with a significantly larger sample than other similar analyses and, to the authors' knowledge, compares SciMoCa with a MC-based TPS for the first time. Results show that a MC-based secondary patient-specific QA is a clinically viable, reliable, and promising technique, that potentially allows significant time saving that can be used for patient treatment and a per-plan basis QA that effectively complements traditional commissioning and calibration protocols.

Characteristics and limitations of a secondary dose check software for VMAT plan calculation

Purpose

To assess the implementation, accuracy, and validity of the dosimetric leaf gap correction (DLGC) in Mobius3D VMAT plan calculations.

Methods

The optimal Mobius3D DLGC was determined for both a TrueBeam with a Millennium multi‐leaf collimator and a TrueBeamSTx with a high‐definition multi‐leaf collimator. By analyzing a broad series of seven VMAT plans and comparing the calculated to the measured dose delivered to a cylindrical phantom, optimal DLGC values were determined by minimizing the dose difference for both the collection of all plans, as well as for each plan individually. The effects of plan removal from the optimization of the collective DLGC value, as well as plan‐specific DLGC values, were explored to determine the impact of plan suite design on the final DLGC determination.

Results

Optimal collective DLGC values across all energies were between −0.71 and 0.89 mm for the TrueBeam, and between 0.35 and 1.85 mm for the TrueBeamSTx. The dose differences ranged between −6.1% and 2.6% across all plans when the optimal collective DLGC values were used. On a per‐plan basis, the plan‐specific optimal DLGC values ranged from −4.36 to 2.35 mm for the TrueBeam, and between −1.83 and 2.62 mm for the TrueBeamSTx. Comparing the plan‐specific optimal DLGC to the average absolute leaf position from the central axis for each plan, a negative correlation was observed.

Conclusions

The optimal DLGC determination depends on the plans investigated, making it essential for users to utilize a suite of test plans that encompasses the full range of expected clinical plans when determining the optimal DLGC value. Validation of the secondary dose calculation should always be based on measurements, and not a comparison with the primary TPS. Varying disagreement with measurements across plans for a single DLGC value indicates potential limitations in the Mobius3D MLC model.

Commissioning and clinical implementation of Mobius3D and MobiusFX: Experience on multiple linear accelerators

PURPOSE

To provide practical guidelines for Mobius3D commissioning based on experiences of commissioning/clinical implementation of Mobius3D and MobiusFX as patient-specific quality assurance tools on multiple linear accelerators.

METHODS

The vendor-suggested Mobius3D commissioning procedures, including beam model adjustment and dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) optimization, were performed for 6 MV X-ray beams of six Elekta linear accelerators. For the beam model adjustment, beam data, such as the percentage depth dose, off-axis ratio (OAR), and output factor (OF), were measured using a water phantom and compared to the vendor-provided reference values. DLG optimization was performed to determine an optimal DLG correction factor to minimize the mean difference between Mobius3D-calculated and measured doses for multiple volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans. Small-field VMAT plans, in which Mobius3D has dose calculate uncertainties, were initially included in the DLG optimization, but excluded later.

RESULTS

The measured beam data were consistent across the six linear accelerators. Relatively large differences between the reference and measured values were observed for the OAR at large off-axis distances (>5 cm) and for the OF for small fields (<3 × 3 cm²). The optimal DLG correction factor was 0.6 ± 0.3 (range: 0.3-1.0) with small-field plans and 0.2 ± 0.2 (0.0-0.5) without them.

CONCLUSIONS

A reasonable agreement was found between the vendor-provided reference and measured beam models. DLG optimization results were dependent on the selection of the VMAT plans, requiring careful attention to the known dose calculation uncertainties of Mobius3D when determining a DLG correction factor.

Exploring the gamma surface: A new method for visualising modulated radiotherapy quality assurance results

PURPOSE

This work presents a novel method of visualising the results of patient-specific quality assurance (QA) for modulated radiotherapy treatment plans, using a three-dimensional distribution of gamma pass rates, referred to as the "gamma surface". The method was developed to aid in comparing borderline and failing QA plans, and to better compare patient-specific QA results between departments.

METHODS

Gamma surface plots were created for a representative sample of situations encountered during patient-specific QA. To produce a gamma surface plot, for each QA result, gamma pass rates were plotted as a heat map, with dose difference on one axis and distance-to-agreement on the other. This involved the calculation of 100 × 100 gamma pass rates over a dose difference and distance-to-agreement grid. As examples, five 220 × 680 arrays of dose points from radiotherapy treatment plans were compared against measurement data consisting of 21 × 66 arrays of dose points spaced 10 mm apart.

RESULTS

The gamma surface plots facilitated the rapid evaluation of criteria combinations for each plan, clearly highlighting the difference between plans that are modelled and delivered well, and those that are not. Large scale features were also evident in each surface, hinting at potential over-modulation, systematic dose errors, and small or large scale areas of disagreement in the distributions.

CONCLUSIONS

Gamma surface plots are a useful tool for investigating QA failures and borderline results, and have the capacity to grant insights into treatment plan QA performance that may otherwise be missed.

Assessment of dosimetric leaf gap correction factor in Mobius3D commissioning affected by couch top

This study assesses the dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) correction factor in Mobius3D commissioning affected by a couch top platform and calculates the optimal DLG value according to the point dose difference function. DLG optimizations were performed for 3 LINAC machines and a total of 30 patient volumetric modulated arc therapy plans (i.e., 10 plans per each LINAC). Point dose calculations were performed using an automatic dose calculation system in Mobius3D as well as Mobis3D calculation using a Mobius Verification Phantom (MVP)-based quality assurance plan with a carbon fiber couch top. Subsequently, the results were compared with measurement data. The averaged point dose measured for the MVP with a couch top decreased by approximately 2% relative to that without the couch top. The average of the optimal DLG factors increased by 1.153 mm due to the couch top effect for a dose decrease of 2% at the measured point. In the procedure of Mobius beam commissioning, users should adjust the DLG correction factor using a specific phantom (including MVP) with a couch top structure. If the DLG optimization were performed by using MVP automatic dose calculation system, the factor should be increased by approximately 1.2 mm per 2% dose difference considering user's couch top effect.

Migration of treatment planning system using existing commissioned planning system

Introduction:

Commissioning of a new planning system involves extensive data acquisition which can be onerous involving significant clinic downtime. This could be circumvented by extracting data from existing treatment planning system (TPS) to speed up the process.

Material and methods:

In this study, commissioning beam data was obtained from a clinically commissioned TPS (Pinnacle™) using Matlab™ generated Pinnacle™ executable scripts to commission an independent 3D dose verification TPS (Eclipse™). Profiles and output factors for commissioning as required by Eclipse™ were computed on a 50 × 50 × 50 cm3 water phantom at a dose grid resolution of 2 mm3. Verification doses were computed and compared to clinical TPS dose profiles based on TG-106 guidelines. Standard patient plans from Pinnacle™ including intensity modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy were re-computed on Eclipse™ TPS while maintaining the same monitor units. Computed dose was exported back to Pinnacle for comparison with the original plans. This methodology enabled us to alleviate all ambiguities that arise in such studies.

Results:

Profile analysis using in-house software showed that for all field sizes including small multi-leaf collimator-generated fields, >95% of infield and penumbra data points of Eclipse™ match Pinnacle™ generated and measured profiles with 2%/2 mm gamma criteria. Excellent agreement was observed in the penumbra regions, with >95% of the data points passing distance to agreement criteria for complex C-shaped and S-shaped profiles. Dose volume histograms and isodose lines of patient plans agreed well to within a 0·5% for target coverage.

Findings:

Migration of TPS is possible without compromising accuracy or enduring the cumbersome measurement of commissioning data. Economising time for commissioning such a verification system or for migration of TPS can add great QA value and minimise downtime.

Investigating the use of aperture shape controller in VMAT treatment deliveries

BACKGROUND

Aperture shape controller (ASC) is a recently introduced leaf sequencer that controls the complexity of multileaf collimator apertures in the Photon Optimizer algorithm of the Eclipse treatment planning system. The aim of this study is to determine if the ASC can reduce plan complexity and improve verification results, without compromising plan quality.

METHODS

Thirteen plans grouped into cohorts of head and neck/brain, breast/chest and pelvis were reoptimised using the same optimization as the non-ASC setting for low, moderate and high ASC settings. These plans were analyzed using plan quality indices such as the conformity index and homogeneity index in addition to dose-volume histogram based analysis on PTVs and organ at risks. Complexity assessments were performed using metrics such as average leaf pair opening, modulation complexity scores, relative monitor units (MU) and treatment time. Monitor unit per gantry angle variations were also analyzed. A third-party algorithm was also used to assess 3D dose distributions produced using the new leaf sequencer tool. Deliverability for the final multileaf collimator distribution was quantified using portal dose image prediction based gamma analysis.

RESULTS

Plan conformality assessments showed comparable results and no significant plan degradation for plans reoptimised using ASC. Reduction in overall MU distributions were seen in some cases using higher ASC however, no overall trends were observed. In general, treatment deliverability, assessed using gamma analysis did not improve drastically however MU per degree distribution in 1 case improved when reoptimised using ASC. Treatment MUs generally reduced when ASC settings were used whilst in 1 case an increase in the treatment time factor > 1.8 was observed. The third-party algorithm assessment showed an underestimation of dose calculations for all cohorts used in this study when a higher ASC setting is used.

CONCLUSIONS

The impact of using ASC in treatment plans was characterised in this study. Although plan complexity marginally improved when using higher ASC settings, no consensus could be reached based on metrics analyzed in this study. A reduction in MU distribution was observed with increasing ASC settings in most cases. This study recommends that ASC to be used as an additional tool only to test its suitability to reduce plan complexity.

A multi-institutional initiative on patient-related quality assurance: Independent computational dose verification of fluence-modulated treatment techniques

PURPOSE

This multi-institutional study investigates whether computational verification of fluence-modulated treatment plans using independent software with its own Strahlerkopfmodel is an appropriate method for patient-related quality assurance (PRQA) in the context of various combinations of linear accelerators (linacs), treatment techniques and treatment planning systems (TPS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The PRQA-software's (Mobius3D) recalculations of 9 institutions' treatment plans were analyzed for a horseshoe-shaped planning target volume (PTV) inside a phantom. The recomputed dose distributions were compared to a) the dose distributions as calculated by all TPS's and b) the measured dose distributions, which were acquired using the same independent measuring system for all institutions. Furthermore, dose volume histograms were examined. The penumbra deviations and mean gamma values were quantified using Verisoft (PTW). Additionally, workflow requirements for computational verification were discussed.

RESULTS

Mobius3D is compatible with all examined TPSs, treatment techniques and linacs. The mean PTV dose differences (Mobius3D-TPS, <3.0%) and 3D gamma passing rates (>95.0%) led to a positive plan acceptance result in all cases. These results are similar to the outcome of the dosimetric measurements with one exception. The mean gamma values (<0.5) show a good agreement between Mobius3D and the TPS dose distributions.

CONCLUSION

Using Mobius3D was proven to be an appropriate computational PRQA method for the tested combinations of linacs, treatment techniques and TPS's. The clinical use of Mobius3D has to be complemented with regular dosimetric measurements and thorough linac and TPS QA. Mobius3D's computational verification reduced measurement effort and personnel needs in comparison to dosimetric verifications.

Commissioning of the Mobius3D independent dose verification system for TomoTherapy

In radiation therapy, a secondary independent dose verification is an important component of a quality control system. Mobius3D calculates three‐dimensional (3D) patient dose using reference beam data and a collapsed cone convolution algorithm and analyzes dose‐volume histogram automatically. There are currently no published data on commissioning and determining tolerance levels of Mobius3D for TomoTherapy. To verify the calculation accuracy and adjust the parameters of this system, we compared the measured dose using an ion chamber and film in a phantom with the dose calculated using Mobius3D for nine helical intensity‐modulated radiation therapy plans, each with three nominal field widths. We also compared 126 treatment plans used in our institution to treat prostate, head‐and‐neck, and esophagus tumors based on dose calculations by treatment planning system for given dose indices and 3D gamma passing rates with those produced by Mobius3D. On the basis of these results, we showed that the action and tolerance levels at the average dose for the planning target volume (PTV) at each treatment site are at μ ± 2σ and μ ± 3σ, respectively. After adjusting parameters, the dose difference ratio on average was −0.2 ± 0.6% using ion chamber and gamma passing rate with the criteria of 3% and 3 mm on average was 98.8 ± 1.4% using film. We also established action and tolerance levels for the PTV at the prostate, head‐and‐neck, esophagus, and for the organ at risk at all treatment sites. Mobius3D calculations thus provide an accurate secondary dose verification system that can be commissioned easily and immediately after installation. Before clinical use, the Mobius3D system needs to be commissioned using the treatment plans for patients treated in each institution to determine the calculational accuracy and establish tolerances for each treatment site and dose index.

Validation of secondary dose calculation system with manufacturer-provided reference beam data using heterogeneous phantoms

The Mobius3D (M3D) system (Mobius Medical Systems) is a second-check dosimetry system. We investigated the dose calculation accuracy of this system using heterogeneous phantoms with reference beam data provided by the manufacturer using simple and patient plans. We compared the dose distributions between M3D and the treatment planning system, as well as the measurements in solid water phantoms, heterogeneous phantoms, and patient plans for Varian and Elekta accelerators. The M3D results agreed well with the measurements in the solid water phantoms for the simple plans. However, the accuracy of M3D appeared to depend on the type of accelerator, as indicated by the slight differences in the dose measurements. Furthermore, the M3D dose measurements differed by 5-10% in the lung and bone regions. Regarding the patient plans, we confirmed that M3D is reasonably accurate as a second-check system, despite the slight accelerator type-dependent dose difference.

Clinical implementation of Dosimetry Check™ for TomoTherapy® delivery quality assurance

Purpose

The delivery quality assurance (DQA) of intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans is a prerequisite for ensuring patient treatments. This work investigated the clinical usefulness of a new DQA system, Dosimetry Check™(DC), on TomoTherapy^®‐based helical IMRT plans.

Methods

The DQA was performed for 15 different TomoTherapy^®‐based clinical treatment plans. In Tomotherapy^® machines, the couch position was set to a height of 400 mm and the treatment plans were delivered using QA‐Treatment mode. For each treatment plan, the plan data and measured beam fluence were transferred to a DC‐installed computer. Then, DC reconstructed the three‐dimensional (3D) dose distribution to the CT images of the patient. The reconstructed dose distribution was compared with that of the original plan in terms of absolute dose, two‐dimensional (2D) planes and 3D volume. The DQA results were compared with those performed by a conventional method using the cheese phantom with ion chamber and radiochromic film.

Results

For 14 out of the 15 treatment plans, the absolute dose difference between the measurement and calculation was less than 3% and the gamma pass rate with the 3%/3 mm gamma evaluation criteria was greater than 95% for both DQA methods. The P‐value calculated using Wilcoxon signed‐rank test was 0.256, which implies no statistically significance in determining the absolute dose difference between the two methods. For one treatment plan generated using the 5.0 cm field width, the absolute dose difference was greater than 3% and the gamma pass rate was less than 95% with DC, while the DQA result with the cheese phantom method passed our TomoTherapy^® DQA tolerance.

Conclusion

We have clinically implemented DC for the DQA of TomoTherapy^®‐based helical IMRT treatment plans. DC carried out the accurate DQA results as performed with the conventional cheese phantom method. This new DQA system provided more information in verifying the dose delivery to patients, while simplifying the DQA process.

Automated data mining of a plan-check database and example application

Purpose

The aim of this work was to present the development and example application of an automated data mining software platform that preforms bulk analysis of results and patient data passing through the 3D plan and delivery QA system, Mobius3D.

Methods

Python, matlab, and Java were used to create an interface that reads JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) created for every approved Mobius3D pre‐treatment plan‐check. The aforementioned JSON files contain all the information for every pre‐treatment QA check performed by Mobius3D, including all 3D dose, CT, structure set information, as well as all plan information and patient demographics. Two Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) were created, the first is called Mobius3D‐Database (M3D‐DB) and presents the check results in both filterable tabular and graphical form. These data are presented for all patients and includes mean dose differences, 90% coverage, 3D gamma pass rate percentages, treatment sites, machine, beam energy, Multi‐Leaf Collimator (MLC) mode, treatment planning system (TPS), plan names, approvers, dates and times. Group statistics and statistical process control levels are then calculated based on filter settings. The second GUI, called Mobius3D organ at risk (M3DOAR), analyzes dose‐volume histogram data for all patients and all Organs‐at‐Risk (OAR). The design of the software is such that all treatment parameters and treatment site information are able to be filtered and sorted with the results, plots, and statistics updated.

Results

The M3D‐DB software can summarize and filter large numbers of plan‐checks from Mobius3D. The M3DOAR software is also able to analyze large amounts of dose‐volume data for patient groups which may prove useful in clinical trials, where OAR doses for large numbers of patients can be compared and correlated. Target DVHs can also be analyzed en mass.

Conclusions

This work demonstrates a method to extract the large amount of treatment data for every patient that is stored by Mobius3D but not easily accessible. With scripting, it is possible to mine this data for research and clinical trials as well as patient and TPS QA.

Validation of a modern second-check dosimetry system using a novel verification phantom

Purpose

To evaluate the Mobius second‐check dosimetry system by comparing it to ionization‐chamber dose measurements collected in the recently released Mobius Verification Phantom™ (MVP). For reference, a comparison of these measurements to dose calculated in the primary treatment planning system (TPS), Varian Eclipse with the AcurosXB dose algorithm, is also provided. Finally, patient dose calculated in Mobius is compared directly to Eclipse to demonstrate typical expected results during clinical use of the Mobius system.

Methods

Seventeen anonymized intensity‐modulated clinical treatment plans were selected for analysis. Dose was recalculated on the MVP in both Eclipse and Mobius. These calculated doses were compared to doses measured using an A1SL ionization‐chamber in the MVP. Dose was measured and analyzed at two different chamber positions for each treatment plan. Mobius calculated dose was then compared directly to Eclipse using the following metrics; target mean dose, target D95%, global 3D gamma pass rate, and target gamma pass rate. Finally, these same metrics were used to analyze the first 36 intensity modulated cases, following clinical implementation of the Mobius system.

Results

The average difference between Mobius and measurement was 0.3 ± 1.3%. Differences ranged from −3.3 to + 2.2%. The average difference between Eclipse and measurement was −1.2 ± 0.7%. Eclipse vs. measurement differences ranged from −3.0 to −0.1%. For the 17 anonymized pre‐clinical cases, the average target mean dose difference between Mobius and Eclipse was 1.0 ± 1.1%. Average target D95% difference was ‐0.9 ± 2.0%. Average global gamma pass rate, using a criteria of 3%, 2 mm, was 94.4 ± 3.3%, and average gamma pass rate for the target volume only was 80.2 ± 12.3%. Results of the first 36 intensity‐modulated cases, post‐clinical implementation of Mobius, were similar to those seen for the 17 pre‐clinical test cases.

Conclusion

Mobius correctly calculated dose for each tested intensity modulated treatment plan, agreeing with measurement to within 3.5% for all cases analyzed. The dose calculation accuracy and independence of the Mobius system is sufficient to provide a rigorous second‐check of a modern TPS.

Treatment Planning System Calculation Errors Are Present in Most Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Houston Phantom Failures

PURPOSE

The anthropomorphic phantom program at the Houston branch of the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC-Houston) is an end-to-end test that can be used to determine whether an institution can accurately model, calculate, and deliver an intensity modulated radiation therapy dose distribution. Currently, institutions that do not meet IROC-Houston's criteria have no specific information with which to identify and correct problems. In the present study, an independent recalculation system was developed to identify treatment planning system (TPS) calculation errors.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A recalculation system was commissioned and customized using IROC-Houston measurement reference dosimetry data for common linear accelerator classes. Using this system, 259 head and neck phantom irradiations were recalculated. Both the recalculation and the institution's TPS calculation were compared with the delivered dose that was measured. In cases in which the recalculation was statistically more accurate by 2% on average or 3% at a single measurement location than was the institution's TPS, the irradiation was flagged as having a "considerable" institutional calculation error. The error rates were also examined according to the linear accelerator vendor and delivery technique.

RESULTS

Surprisingly, on average, the reference recalculation system had better accuracy than the institution's TPS. Considerable TPS errors were found in 17% (n=45) of the head and neck irradiations. Also, 68% (n=13) of the irradiations that failed to meet the IROC-Houston criteria were found to have calculation errors.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly 1 in 5 institutions were found to have TPS errors in their intensity modulated radiation therapy calculations, highlighting the need for careful beam modeling and calculation in the TPS. An independent recalculation system can help identify the presence of TPS errors and pass on the knowledge to the institution.

Validation of a GPU-Based 3D dose calculator for modulated beams

A superposition/convolution GPU-accelerated dose computation algorithm (the Calculator) has been recently incorporated into commercial software. The algorithm requires validation prior to clinical use. Three photon energies were examined: conventional 6 MV and 15 MV, and 10 MV flattening filter free (10 MVFFF). For a set of IMRT and VMAT plans based on four of the five AAPM Practice Guideline 5a downloadable datasets, ion chamber (IC) measurements were performed on the water-equivalent phantoms. The average difference between the Calculator and IC was -0.3 ± 0.8% (1SD). The same plans were projected on a phantom containing a biplanar diode array. We used the forthcoming criteria for routine gamma analysis, 3% dose-error (global (G) normalization, 2 mm distance to agreement, and 10% low dose cutoff). The γ (3%G/2 mm) average passing rate was 98.9 ± 2.1%. Measurement-guided three-dimensional dose reconstruction on the patient CT dataset (excluding the Lung) resulted in a similar average agreement rate with the Calculator: 98.2 ± 2.0%. The mean γ (3%G/2 mm) passing rate comparing the Calculator to the TPS (again excluding the Lung) was 99.0 ± 1.0%. Because of the significant inhomogeneity, the Lung case was investigated separately. The calculator has an alternate heterogeneity correction mode that can change the results in the thorax for higher-energy beams (15 MV). As this correction is nonphysical and was optimized for simple slab geometries, its application leads to mixed results when compared to the TPS and independent Monte Carlo calculations, depending on the CT dataset and the plan. The Calculator vs. TPS 15 MV Guideline 5a IMRT and VMAT plans demonstrate 96.3% and 93.4% γ (3%G/2 mm) passing rates respectively. For the lower energies, which should be predominantly used in the thoracic region, the passing rates for the same plans and criteria range from 98.6 to 100%. Overall, the Calculator accuracy is sufficient for the intended use.

Experimental Validation of Monte Carlo Simulations Based on a Virtual Source Model for TomoTherapy in a RANDO Phantom

A virtual source model for Monte Carlo simulations of helical TomoTherapy has been developed previously by the authors. The purpose of this work is to perform experiments in an anthropomorphic (RANDO) phantom with the same order of complexity as in clinical treatments to validate the virtual source model to be used for quality assurance secondary check on TomoTherapy patient planning dose. Helical TomoTherapy involves complex delivery pattern with irregular beam apertures and couch movement during irradiation. Monte Carlo simulation, as the most accurate dose algorithm, is desirable in radiation dosimetry. Current Monte Carlo simulations for helical TomoTherapy adopt the full Monte Carlo model, which includes detailed modeling of individual machine component, and thus, large phase space files are required at different scoring planes. As an alternative approach, we developed a virtual source model without using the large phase space files for the patient dose calculations previously. In this work, we apply the simulation system to recompute the patient doses, which were generated by the treatment planning system in an anthropomorphic phantom to mimic the real patient treatments. We performed thermoluminescence dosimeter point dose and film measurements to compare with Monte Carlo results. Thermoluminescence dosimeter measurements show that the relative difference in both Monte Carlo and treatment planning system is within 3%, with the largest difference less than 5% for both the test plans. The film measurements demonstrated 85.7% and 98.4% passing rate using the 3 mm/3% acceptance criterion for the head and neck and lung cases, respectively. Over 95% passing rate is achieved if 4 mm/4% criterion is applied. For the dose–volume histograms, very good agreement is obtained between the Monte Carlo and treatment planning system method for both cases. The experimental results demonstrate that the virtual source model Monte Carlo system can be a viable option for the accurate dose calculation of helical TomoTherapy.

A clinical database to assess action levels and tolerances for the ongoing use of Mobius3D

In radiation therapy, calculation of dose within the patient contains inherent uncertainties, inaccuracies, limitations, and the potential for random error. Thus, point dose‐independent verification of such calculations is a well‐established process, with published data to support the setting of both action levels and tolerances. Mobius3D takes this process one step further with a full independent calculation of patient dose and comparisons of clinical parameters such as mean target dose and voxel‐by‐voxel gamma analysis. There is currently no published data to directly inform tolerance levels for such parameters, and therefore this work presents a database of 1000 Mobius3D results to fill this gap. The data are tested for normality using a normal probability plot and found to fit this distribution for three sub groups of data; Eclipse,iPlan and the treatment site Lung. The mean (μ) and standard deviation (σ) of these sub groups is used to set action levels and tolerances at μ ± 2σ and μ ± 3σ, respectively. A global (3%, 3 mm) gamma tolerance is set at 88.5%. The mean target dose tolerance for Eclipse data is the narrowest at ± 3%, whilst iPlan and Lung have a range of −5.0 to 2.2% and −1.8 to 5.0%, respectively. With these limits in place, future results failing the action level or tolerance will fall within the worst 5% and 1% of historical results and an informed decision can be made regarding remedial action prior to treatment.

On the use of a convolution-superposition algorithm for plan checking in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) aims to deliver a highly conformal ablative dose to a small target. Dosimetric verification of SBRT for lung tumors presents a challenge due to heterogeneities, moving targets, and small fields. Recent software (M3D) designed for dosimetric verification of lung SBRT treatment plans using an advanced convolution–superposition algorithm was evaluated. Ten lung SBRT patients covering a range of tumor volumes were selected. 3D CRT plans were created using the XiO treatment planning system (TPS) with the superposition algorithm. Dose was recalculated in the Eclipse TPS using the AAA algorithm, M3D verification software using the collapsed‐cone‐convolution algorithm, and in‐house Monte Carlo (MC). Target point doses were calculated with RadCalc software. Near‐maximum, median, and near‐minimum target doses, conformity indices, and lung doses were compared with MC as the reference calculation. M3D 3D gamma passing rates were compared with the XiO and Eclipse. Wilcoxon signed‐rank test was used to compare each calculation method with XiO with a threshold of significance of p<0.05. M3D and RadCalc point dose calculations were greater than MC by up to 7.7% and 13.1%, respectively, with M3D being statistically significant (s.s.). AAA and XiO calculated point doses were less than MC by 11.3% and 5.2%, respectively (AAA s.s.). Median and near‐minimum and near‐maximum target doses were less than MC when calculated with AAA and XiO (all s.s.). Near‐maximum and median target doses were higher with M3D compared with MC (s.s.), but there was no difference in near‐minimum M3D doses compared with MC. M3D‐calculated ipsilateral lung V20 Gy and V5 Gy were greater than that calculated with MC (s.s.); AAA‐ and XiO‐calculated V20 Gy was lower than that calculated with MC, but not statistically different to MC for V5 Gy. Nine of the 10 plans achieved M3D gamma passing rates greater than 95% and 80%for 5%/1 mm and 3%/1 mm criteria, respectively. M3D typically calculated a higher target and lung dose than MC for lung SBRT plans. The results show a range of calculated doses with different algorithms and suggest that M3D is in closer agreement with Monte Carlo, thus discrepancies between the TPS and M3D software will be observed for lung SBRT plans. M3D provides a useful supplement to verification of lung SBRT plans by direct measurement, which typically excludes patient specific heterogeneities.

PACS number(s): 87.55.D‐, 87.55.Qr, 87.55.K‐