Assessing the sensitivity and suitability of a range of detectors for SIMT PSQA

PURPOSE

Single-isocenter multi-target intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy (SIMT) is an effective treatment for brain metastases with complex treatment plans and delivery optimization necessitating rigorous quality assurance. This work aims to assess five methods for quality assurance of SIMT treatment plans in terms of their suitability and sensitivity to delivery errors.

METHODS

Sun Nuclear ArcCHECK and SRS MapCHECK, GafChromic EBT Radiochromic Film, machine log files, and Varian Portal Dosimetry were all used to measure 15 variations of a single SIMT plan. Variations of the original plan were created with Python. They comprised various degrees of systematic MLC offsets per leaf up to 2 mm, random per-leaf variations with differing minimum and maximum magnitudes, simulated collimator, and dose miscalibrations (MU scaling). The erroneous plans were re-imported into Eclipse and plan-quality degradation was assessed by comparing each plan variation to the original clinical plan in terms of the percentage of clinical goals passing relative to the original plan. Each erroneous plan could be then ranked by the plan-quality degradation percentage following recalculation in the TPS so that the effects of each variation could be correlated with γ pass rates and detector suitability.

RESULTS & CONCLUSIONS

It was found that 2%/1 mm is a good starting point for the ArcCHECK, Portal Dosimetry, and the SRS MapCHECK methods, respectively, and provides clinically relevant error detection sensitivity. Looser dose criteria of 5%/1 mm or 5%/1.5 mm are suitable for film dosimetry and log-file-based methods. The statistical methods explored can be expanded to other areas of patient-specific QA and detector assessment.

Impact of the Acuros XB spatial discretization error on ArcCHECK VMAT QA for small-field SBRT

PURPOSE

To evaluate the impact of the Acuros XB spatial discretization errors on ArcCHECK volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) QA for small-field SBRT plans.

METHODS

Eighteen SBRT VMAT arcs that failed the ArcCHECK VMAT QA were retrospectively analyzed. Plan verification doses were calculated using Eclipse Acuros XB, and absolute 3%/2 mm gamma passing rates were calculated to compare ArcCHECK and MapCHECK2 with MapPHAN. Verification doses were recalculated using AAA in Eclipse and with the EGSnrc Monte Carlo package. In addition, error-reduced Acuros XB doses were calculated by subdividing the entire arc into several sub-arcs ("split-arc" method), with the angular ranges of the sub-arcs optimized to balance accuracy and efficiency. Relative gamma passing rates were calculated and compared for the four methods: (1) Acuros XB; (2) AAA; (3) EGSnrc Monte Carlo; and (4) the split-arc method.

RESULTS

The absolute gamma passing rates were below 90% for ArcCHECK and above 95% for MapCHECK2. The averaged relative gamma passing rates were (1) 84.7% for clinical Acuros XB; (2) 96.8% for AAA; (3) 98.8% for EGSnrc Monte Carlo; and (4) 96.8% for the split-arc method with 60° sub-arc angle. Compared to the clinical Acuros XB, the split-arc method improved the relative gamma passing rate by 12.1% on average. No significant difference was found between AAA and the split-arc method (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The Acuros XB spatial discretization errors can significantly impact the ArcCHECK VMAT QA results for small-field SBRT plans. The split-arc method may be used to improve the VMAT QA results.

Evaluating the effect of high-density measurement mode on patient-specific quality assurance for head and neck cancer with ArcCHECK

The high-density measurement (HDm) mode of the ArcCHECK device can achieve a twofold resolution enhancement compared to the standard measurement (Sm) mode. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of HDm on the gamma passing rate (GPR) for the patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) in head and neck cancer. We retrospectively evaluated 30 patients who underwent volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for head and neck cancer. Absolute gamma analysis was performed on Sm and HDm data. We also investigated correlations between the modulation complexity score for VMAT (MCSv) and differences in the GPR between the two measurement modes. The global GPR of Sm and HDm was 81.0% ± 8.4% and 82.6% ± 7.6% for the 2%/2 mm criterion, 94.0% ± 4.1% and 94.9% ± 3.6% for the 3%/2 mm criterion, and 96.6% ± 2.4% and 97.0% ± 2.4% for the 3%/3 mm criterion, respectively. HDm slightly improved GPR (p < 0.01) for the 2%/2 mm criterion. Differences in GPR between Sm and HDm for the 2%/2 mm, 3%/2 mm, and 3%/3 mm criteria were 1.6% ± 3.0%, 0.8% ± 2.0%, and 0.4% ± 1.2%, respectively. No correlation was identified between the MCSv and the difference in GPR between Sm and HDm. Despite an improvement in GPR with HDm, the difference in GPR between Sm and HDm was approximately 2% even when the tighter criteria were used. Moreover, the change in the GPR between Sm and HDm did not depend on plan complexity. Thus, the effect of HDm on GPR is limited for the PSQA in VMAT for head and neck cancer.

Sensitivity of Three Patient-Specific Quality Assurance Systems to MLC Aperture Errors With Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy

Purpose: To compare the sensitivity of ArcCHECK (AC), portal dosimetry (PD), and an in-house logfile-based system (LF) to multileaf collimators (MLC) aperture errors and the ability to identify these errors. Methods and Materials: For 12 retrospective original head and neck volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans, MLC aperture errors of ± 0.4mm, ± 1.2mm, ± 2mm, and ± 3mm were introduced for each plan, resulting in 96 plans with errors. AC, PD, and LF were used for the gamma evaluation at 3%/3mm, 3%/2mm, and 2%/2mm criteria. Gradient analysis was used to evaluate the sensitivity to MLC aperture errors. The area under the curve (AUC) obtained from the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to evaluate the ability to identify MLC aperture errors and dose errors, and the optimal cut-off value to identify the error was obtained. Results: The gamma pass rate (%GP) of LF had the smallest descent gradient as the MLC error increases in any case. The descent gradient of PD was larger than AC, except for the case at the 2%/2mm criteria. For the 3%/3mm criteria, the MLC aperture errors that can be perfectly identified by AC, PD, and LF were ± 3mm, ± 2mm, and ± 1.2mm, respectively, and the average percent dose error (%DEs) of dose metrics in targets that can be perfectly identified were 4% to 5%, 3% to 4%, and 2% to 3%, respectively. For the 3%/2mm criteria, the errors that AC, PD, and LF can perfectly identify were the same as the 3%/3mm criteria. For the 2%/2mm criteria, AC can perfectly identify the MLC error of ± 2mm and the %DE of 3% to 4%. PD and LF can identify the MLC error of ± 1.2mm and the %DE of 2% to 3%. Conclusion: Different patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) systems have different sensitivity and recognition abilities to MLC aperture errors. Institutions should formulate their own customized %GP limits based on their PSQA process through ROC or other methods.

The impact of different optimization strategies on the agreement between planned and delivered doses during volumetric modulated arc therapy for total marrow irradiation

Aim of the study

To evaluate the agreement between planned and delivered doses and its potential correlation with the plans' complexity subjected to dosimetric verification.

Material and methods

Four isocentre volumetric modulated arc therapy for total marrow irradiation plans optimized simultaneously with (P1) and without (P2) MU reduction were evaluated dosimetrically by γ method performed in a global mode for 4 combinations of γ-index criteria (2%/2 mm, 2%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm, and 3%/3 mm). The evaluation was conducted for 4 regions (head and neck, chest, abdomen and upper pelvis, and lower pelvis and thighs) that were determined geometrically by the isocentres. The Wilcoxon test was used to detect significant differences between γ passing rate (GPR) analysis results for the P1 and P2 plans. The Pearson correlation was used to check the relationship between GPR and the plans' complexity.

Results

Except for the head and neck region, the P2 plans had better GPRs than the P1 plans. Only for hard combinations of γ-index criteria (i.e. 2%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm) were the GPRs differences between P1 and P2 clinically meaningful, and they were detected in the chest, abdomen and upper pelvis, and lower pelvis and thighs regions. The highest correlations between GPR and the indices describing the plans' complexity were found for the chest region. No correlation was found for the head and neck region.

Conclusions

The P2 plans showed better agreement between planned and delivered doses compared to the P1 plans. The GPR and the plans' complexity depend on the anatomy region and are most important for the chest region.

Dose rate correction for a silicon diode detector array

Purpose

A signal dependence on dose rate was reported for the ArcCHECK array due to recombination processes within the diodes. The purpose of our work was to quantify the necessary correction and apply them to quality assurance measurements.

Methods

Static 10 × 10 cm² 6‐MV fields delivered by a linear accelerator were applied to the detector array while decreasing the average dose rate, that is, the pulse frequency, from 500 to 30 MU/min. An ion chamber was placed inside the ArcCHECK cavity as a reference. Furthermore, the instantaneous dose rate dependence (DRD) was studied. The position of the detector was adjusted to change the dose‐per‐pulse, varying the distance between the focus and the diode closest to the focus between 69.6 and 359.6 cm. Reference measurements were performed with an ion chamber placed inside a PMMA slab phantom at the same source‐to‐detector distances (SDDs). Exponential saturation functions were fitted to the data, with different parameters to account for two generations of ArcCHECK detectors (types 2 and 3) and both DRDs. Corrections were applied to 12 volumetric modulated arc therapy plans.

Results

The sensitivity decreased by up to 2.8% with a decrease in average dose rate and by 9% with a decrease in instantaneous dose rate. Correcting the average DRD, the mean gamma pass rates (2%/2‐mm criterion) of the treatment plans were improved by 5 percentage points (PP) for diode type 3 and 0.4 PP for type 2. Correcting the instantaneous DRD, the improvement was 8.4 PP for type 3 and 0.9 PP for type 2.

Conclusions

The instantaneous DRD was identified as the prevailing effect on the diode sensitivity. We developed and validated a method to correct this behavior. The number of falsely not passed treatment plans could be considerably reduced.

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.

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.

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.

Error sensitivity of a log file analysis tool compared with a helical diode array dosimeter for VMAT delivery quality assurance

PURPOSE

Integrating log file analysis with LINACWatch® (LW) into clinical routine as part of the quality assurance (QA) process could be a time-saving strategy that does not compromise on quality. The purpose is to determine the error sensitivity of log file analysis using LINACWatch® compared with a measurement device (ArcCHECK®, AC) for VMAT delivery QA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Multi-leaf collimator (MLC) errors, collimator angle errors, MLC shift errors and dose errors were inserted to analyze error detection sensitivity. A total of 36 plans were manipulated with different magnitudes of errors. The gamma index protocols for AC were 3%/3 mm/Global and 2%/2 mm/Global, as well as 2%/2 mm/Global, and 1.5%/1.5 mm/Global for LW. Additionally, deviations of the collimator and monitor units between TPS and log file were calculated as RMS values. A 0.125 cm³ ionization chamber was used to independently examine the effect on dose.

RESULTS

The sensitivity for AC was 20.4% and 49.6% vs 63.0% and 86.5% for LW, depending on the analysis protocol. For MLC opening and closing errors, the detection rate was 19.0% and 47.7% for AC vs 50.5% and 75.5% for LW. For MLC shift errors, it was 29.6% and 66.7% for AC vs 66.7% and 83.3% for LW. AC could detect 25.0% and 44.4% of all collimator errors. Log file analysis detected all collimator errors using 1° detection level. 13.2% and 42.4% of all dose errors were detected by AC vs 59.0% and 92.4% for LW using gamma analysis. Using RMS value, all dose errors were detected by LW (1% detection level).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study clearly show that log file analysis is an excellent complement to phantom-based delivery QA of VMAT plans. We recommend a 1.5%/1.5 mm/Global criteria for log file-based gamma calculations. Log file analysis was implemented successfully in our clinical routine for VMAT delivery QA.

Validation of the RapidArc Delivery System Using a Volumetric Phantom as Per Task Group Report 119 of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine

Aim

This study validated the RapidArc (RA) delivery using a volumetric ArcCHECK phantom as per the guidelines proposed in Task Group Report 119 from the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task group 119 (AAPM TG 119). This study also investigated the impact of the Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm in comparison to analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) on the RA dose calculations in the homogeneous medium of the ArcCHECK phantom.

Materials and Methods

A volumetric ArcCHECK phantom along with AAPM TG 119 tests was used to evaluate the RA plans and verify the dose delivery for photon beam of 6 MV energy.

Results

The RA planning results were comparable and satisfied the planning criteria stated in the TG 119 report for all test cases. The average percentage gamma passing rates for the AAA-calculated plans were 98.5 (standard deviation [SD]: 0.6), 98.5 (SD: 1.3), and 98.1 (SD: 2.0) and for the AXB-calculated plans were 95.1 (SD: 1.8), 96.1 (SD: 1.3), and 94.0 (SD: 0.9) for the Clinac-iX (6 MV) and TrueBeam (TB)-STx (6 MV_filtered beam [FB] and 6 MV_flattening filter-free beam [FFFB]), respectively. For ion chamber measurements, the average percentage dose differences for the AAA-calculated plans were 1.5 (SD: 2.5), 2.7 (SD: 1.4), and 1.4(SD: 2.7) and for AXB-calculated plans were 2.3 (SD: 1.6), 3.2 (SD: 1.5), and 2.3 (SD: 2.0) for Clinac-iX (6 MV) and TB-STx (6 MV_FB and 6 MV_FFFB), respectively.

Conclusion

Thus, the ArcCHECK can successfully be utilized for the validation of the RA delivery. The AXB has potential to perform dose calculations comparable to those of the AAA for RA plans in the homogeneous medium of the ArcCHECK phantom.

A novel method for monitoring the constancy of beam path accuracy in CyberKnife

The aim of current work was to present a novel evaluation procedure implemented for checking the constancy of beam path accuracy of a CyberKnife system based on ArcCHECK. A tailor‐made Styrofoam with four implanted fiducial markers was adopted to enable the fiducial tracking during beam deliveries. A simple two‐field plan and an isocentric plan were created for determining the density override of ArcCHECK in MultiPlan and the constancy of beam path accuracy respectively. Correlation curves for all diodes involved in the study were obtained by analyzing the dose distributions calculated by MultiPlan after introducing position shifts in anteroposterior, superoinferior, and left–right directions. The ability of detecting systematic position error was also evaluated by changing the position of alignment center intentionally. The one standard deviation (SD) result for reproducibility test showed the RMS of 0.054 mm and the maximum of 0.263 mm, which was comparable to the machine self‐test result. The mean of absolute value of position errors in the constancy test was measured to 0.091 mm with a SD of 0.035 mm, while the root‐mean‐square was 0.127 mm with a SD of 0.034 mm. All introduced systematic position errors range from 0.3 to 2 mm were detected successfully. Efficient method for evaluating the constancy of beam path accuracy of CyberKnife has been developed and proven to be sensitive enough for detecting a systematic drift of robotic manipulator. Once the workflow is streamlined, our proposed method will be an effective and easy quality assurance procedure for medical physicists.

[Study of Stability and Sensitivity of Three-dimensional Diode Array Detector]

PURPOSE

Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has become a widely accepted and efficient treatment technique for many types of cancers. Patient's specific quality assurance (QA) should be performed with QA devices. Stability and sensitivity tests conducted on the ArcCHECK (AC) 3D diode array were performed.

METHODS

Set-up error test with AC was performed. The set-up position moved to lateral (mm), longitudinal (mm) and rotational (°) were 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0, respectively. Sensitivity change test of diode array with AC through 230 days was also performed. Same array calibration data was applied to all measurements of volumetric-modulated arc therapy benchmark test through 230 days. Gamma method (2 mm/2% criteria) was performed to analyze the result of all measurements.

RESULTS

In the results of positional error, gamma pass rate become degenerate according to positional error became larger. With 0.5 mm or 0.5° positional error, decreasing rate of the pass rate of lateral, longitudinal and rotational were 1.0%, 2.5% and 4.2%, respectively. In the sensitivity change test, the gamma pass rate decreased 2.2%/100 days with same calibration data.

CONCLUSION

AC has highly sensitivity against positional error. Sensitivity of AC has been changed and pass rate was decreased 2.2%/100 days through 230 days. Array calibration should be performed in consideration of change of sensitivity.

Evaluation of machine log files/MC-based treatment planning and delivery QA as compared to ArcCHECK QA

PURPOSE

A treatment planning/delivery QA tool using linac log files (LF) and Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation is investigated as a standalone alternative to phantom-based patient-specific QA (ArcCHECK (AC)).

METHODS

Delivering a variety of fields onto MapCHECK2 and ArcCHECK, diode sensitivity dependence on dose rate (in-field) and energy (primarily out-of-field) was quantified. AC and LF QAs were analyzed with respect to delivery complexity by delivering 12 × 12 cm static fields/arcs comprised of varying numbers of abutting sub-fields onto ArcCHECK. About 11 clinical dual-arc VMAT patients planned using Pinnacle's convolution-superposition (CS) were delivered on ArcCHECK and log file dose (LF-CS and LF-MC) calculated. To minimize calculation time, reduced LF-CS sampling (1/2/3/4° control point spacing) was investigated. Planned ("Plan") and LF-reconstructed CS and MC doses were compared with each other and AC measurement via statistical [mean ± StdDev(σ)] and gamma analyses to isolate dosimetric uncertainties and quantify the relative accuracies of AC QA and MC-based LF QA.

RESULTS

Calculation and ArcCHECK measurement differed by up to 1.5% in-field due to variation in dose rate and up to 5% out-of-field. For the experimental segment-varying plans, despite CS calculation deviating by as much as 13% from measurement, Plan-MC and LF-MC doses generally matched AC measurement within 3%. Utilizing 1° control point spacing, 2%/2 mm LF-CS vs AC pass rates (97%) were slightly lower than Plan-CS vs AC pass rates (97.5%). Utilizing all log file samples, 2%/2 mm LF-MC vs AC pass rates (97.3%) were higher than Plan-MC vs AC (96.5%). Phantom-dependent, calculation algorithm-dependent (MC vs CS), and delivery error-dependent dose uncertainties were 0.8 ± 1.2%, 0.2 ± 1.1%, and 0.1 ± 0.9% respectively.

CONCLUSION

Reconstructing every log file sample with no increase in computational cost, MC-based LF QA is faster and more accurate than CS-based LF QA. Offering similar dosimetric accuracy compared to AC measurement, MC-based log files can be used for treatment planning QA.

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.

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.

Detecting anomalies in a deliberately biased tomotherapy plan: Comparison of two patient-specific quality assurance processes involving ArcCHECK® and Gafchromic® EBT3 films

PURPOSE

This work proposes a comparative evaluation of two of our patient-specific quality assurance processes involving ArcCHECK^® (Sun Nuclear) and Gafchromic^® EBT3 films (Ashland) in order to determine which detector is able to most effectively detect an anomaly in a deliberately biased tomotherapy plan.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A complex clinical head and neck tomotherapy plan was deliberately biased by introducing six errors: multileaf collimator leaf positional errors by leaving one and two central leafs closed during the whole treatment, initial radiation angle errors (+0.5° and +1.0°) and multileaf collimator leafs opening time errors (+0.5% and +1.0%). For each error-induced plan, comparison of ArcCHECK^® with Gafchromic^® EBT3 films (20.3×25.4cm²) was performed through two methods: a dose matrices subtraction study and a gamma index analysis.

RESULTS

The dose matrices subtraction study shows that our ArcCHECK^® processing is able to detect all the six induced errors contrary to the one using films, which are only able to detect the two biases involving multileaf collimator leaf positional errors. The gamma index analysis confirms the previous method, since it shows all six errors induced in the reference plan seem to be widely detected with ArcCHECK^® with the more restrictive 1%/1mm gamma criterion, whereas films may only be able to detect biases in relation to multileaf collimator leaf positional errors. It also shows the common 3%/3mm gamma criterion does not allow deciding between both detectors in the detection of the six induced biases.

CONCLUSION

Both comparative methods showed ArcCHECK^® processing is more suitable to detect the six errors introduced in the reference treatment plan.

An analysis of the ArcCHECK-MR diode array's performance for ViewRay quality assurance

The ArcCHECK-MR diode array utilizes a correction system with a virtual inclinometer to correct the angular response dependencies of the diodes. However, this correction system cannot be applied to measurements on the ViewRay MR-IGRT system due to the virtual inclinometer's incompatibility with the ViewRay's multiple simultaneous beams. Additionally, the ArcCHECK's current correction factors were determined without magnetic field effects taken into account. In the course of performing ViewRay IMRT quality assurance with the ArcCHECK, measurements were observed to be consistently higher than the ViewRay TPS predictions. The goals of this study were to quantify the observed discrepancies and test whether applying the current factors improves the ArcCHECK's accuracy for measurements on the ViewRay. Gamma and frequency analysis were performed on 19 ViewRay patient plans. Ion chamber measurements were performed at a subset of diode locations using a PMMA phantom with the same dimensions as the ArcCHECK. A new method for applying directionally dependent factors utilizing beam information from the ViewRay TPS was developed in order to analyze the current ArcCHECK correction factors. To test the current factors, nine ViewRay plans were altered to be delivered with only a single simultaneous beam and were measured with the ArcCHECK. The current correction factors were applied using both the new and current methods. The new method was also used to apply corrections to the original 19 ViewRay plans. It was found the ArcCHECK systematically reports doses higher than those actually delivered by the ViewRay. Application of the current correction factors by either method did not consistently improve measurement accuracy. As dose deposition and diode response have both been shown to change under the influence of a magnetic field, it can be concluded the current ArcCHECK correction factors are invalid and/or inadequate to correct measurements on the ViewRay system.

Filmless methods for quality assurance of Tomotherapy using ArcCHECK

PURPOSE

Tomotherapy delivers an intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment by the synchronization of gantry rotation, multileaf collimator (MLC), and couch movement. This dynamic nature makes the quality assurance (QA) important and challenging. The purpose of this study is to develop some methodologies using an ArcCHECK for accurate QA measurements of the gantry angle and speed, MLC synchronization and leaf open time, couch translation per gantry rotation, couch speed and uniformity, and constancy of longitudinal beam profile for a Tomotherapy unit.

METHODS

Four test plans recommended by AAPM Task Group 148 (TG148) and the manufacturer were chosen for this study. Helical and static star shot tests are used for checking the leaves opened at the expected gantry angles. Another helical test is to verify the couch traveled the expected distance per gantry rotation. The final test is for checking the couch speed constancy with a static gantry. ArcCHECK can record the detector signal every 50 ms as a movie file, and has a virtual inclinometer for gantry angle measurement. These features made the measurement of gantry angle and speed, MLC synchronization and leaf open time, and longitudinal beam profile possible. A shaping parameter was defined for facilitating the location of the beam center during the plan delivery, which was thereafter used to calculate the couch translation per gantry rotation and couch speed. The full width at half maximum (FWHM) was calculated for each measured longitudinal beam profile and then used to evaluate the couch speed uniformity. Furthermore, a mean longitudinal profile was obtained for constancy check of field width. The machine trajectory log data were also collected for comparison. Inhouse programs were developed in MATLAB to process both the ArcCHECK and machine log data.

RESULTS

The deviation of our measurement results from the log data for gantry angle was calculated to be less than 0.4°. The percentage differences between measured and planned leaf open time were found to be within 0.5% in all the tests. Our results showed mean values of MLC synchronization of 0.982, 0.983, and 0.995 at static gantry angle 0°, 45°, and 135°, respectively. The mean value of measured couch translation and couch speed by ArcCHECK had less than 0.1% deviation from the planned values. The variation in the value of FWHM suggested the couch speed uniformity was better than 1%. The mean of measured longitudinal profiles was suitable for constancy check of field width.

CONCLUSION

Precise and efficient methods for measuring the gantry angle and speed, leaf open time, couch translation per gantry rotation, couch speed and uniformity, and constancy of longitudinal beam profile of Tomotherapy using ArcCHECK have been developed and proven to be accurate compared with machine log data. Estimation of the Tomotherapy binary MLC leaf open time is proven to be precise enough to verify the leaf open time as small as 277.8 ms. Our method also makes the observation and quantification of the synchronization of leaves possible.

Evaluation and Performance of ArcCheck and Film using Gamma Criteria in Pre-treatment Quality Assurance of Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy

Aim:

The aim of this study is to assess the use of ArcCHECK (AC) as an alternative method to replace film dosimetry for pre-treatment quality assurance (QA) of three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) treatment plans.

Materials and Methods:

Twenty-five patients with a varied diagnosis of lung, spine, sacrum, sternum, ribs, scapula, and femur undergoing SABR were selected for this study. Pre-treatment QA was performed for all the patients using ionization chamber and film dosimetry. Measurements were also carried out on an AC phantom. The planned and measured doses from the AC device and EBT3 films were compared using four different gamma criteria: 2%/2 mm, 3%/2 mm, 3%/1 mm, and 3%/3 mm.

Results:

The mean gamma passing rates at 3%/3 mm for all non-spine SABR cases were 98.79 ± 0.96 and 99.27 ± 1.03 with AC and films, respectively. The mean passing rates at 3%/2 mm for AC and films were 98.76 ± 0.42 and 99.43 ± 0.27 respectively for spine VMAT SABR, and 87.15 ± 2.45 and 99.79 ± 0.14 respectively for spine IMRT SABR. In the case of spine tumors, the gamma criterion was tightened due to the proximity of spinal cord to the planning target volume. Our results show that AC provides good results for all VMAT SABR plans.

Conclusion:

The AC results at 3%/3 mm were in good agreement with film dosimetry for most cases. We observed a significant reduction in QA time on using AC for SABR QA. This study showed that AC results are comparable to film dosimetry for all studied sites except for spine IMRT SABR.

Analyzing the performance of ArcCHECK diode array detector for VMAT plan

AIM

The aim of this study is to evaluate performance of ArcCHECK diode array detector for the volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) patient specific quality assurance (QA). VMAT patient specific QA results were correlated with ion chamber measurement. Dose response of the ArcCHECK detector was studied.

BACKGROUND

VMAT delivery technique improves the dose distribution. It is complex in nature and requires proper QA before its clinical implementation. ArcCHECK is a novel three dimensional dosimetry system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twelve retrospective VMAT plans were calculated on ArcCHECK phantom. Point dose and dose map were measured simultaneously with ion chamber (IC-15) and ArcCHECK diode array detector, respectively. These measurements were compared with their respective TPS calculated values.

RESULTS

The ion chamber measurements are in good agreement with TPS calculated doses. Mean difference between them is 0.50% with standard deviation of 0.51%. Concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) obtained for ion chamber measurements is 0.9996. These results demonstrate a strong correlation between the absolute dose predicted by our TPS and the measured dose. The CCC between ArcCHECK doses and TPS predictions on the CAX was found to be 0.9978. In gamma analysis of dose map, the mean passing rate was 98.53% for 3% dose difference and 3 mm distance to agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

The VMAT patient specific QA with an ion chamber and ArcCHECK phantom are consistent with the TPS calculated dose. Statistically good agreement was observed between ArcCHECK measured and TPS calculated. Hence, it can be used for routine VMAT QA.

The quality assurance of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for early stage prostate cancer: a technical note

As radiation therapy transitions from intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) it is important to consider the quality assurance (QA) of VMAT plans in light of what has previously been learned and developed in IMRT QA. This technical note assesses if IMRT based plan QA software, which has reduced the need in IMRT for phantom dose measurements on the linear accelerator, can be incorporated into VMAT QA processes. Twenty prostate cases were retrospectively planned using VMAT with one arc to deliver a prescription of 74 Gy in 37 fractions. A plan QA was performed using both IMSure (version 3.3), a software-based IMRT QA program, and ArcCHECK (version 6.2.3.5713), a phantom-based VMAT QA tool. Outcomes assessed included the time needed to perform the QA of both the IMSure and ArcCHECK QA methods, and agreement between planned dose and QA measured dose. On average per case, the ArcCHECK technique needed 31.5 min to perform the VMAT plan QA, while IMSure required 3.5 min to perform the same QA. All 20 cases passed dosimetric QA using ArcCHECK. However, using IMSure, three cases failed dosimetric QA using the departments existing IMRT QA criteria. This research has demonstrated that the IMRT QA software IMSure may be incorporated into the QA of VMAT plans, however the criteria to assess the dosimetry of the VMAT plans may need to be different to that for IMRT cases. The implication of this research for radiation therapists is to be critically aware of the differences between the plan QA requirements and methods for IMRT and those required for VMAT.

Helical tomotherapy quality assurance with ArcCHECK

To design a quality assurance (QA) procedure for helical tomotherapy that measures multiple beam parameters with 1 delivery and uses a rotating gantry to simulate treatment conditions. The customized QA procedure was preprogrammed on the tomotherapy operator station. The dosimetry measurements were performed using an ArcCHECK diode array and an A1SL ion chamber inserted in the central holder. The ArcCHECK was positioned 10cm above the isocenter so that the 21-cm diameter detector array could measure the 40-cm wide tomotherapy beam. During the implementation of the new QA procedure, separate comparative measurements were made using ion chambers in both liquid and solid water, the tomotherapy onboard detector array, and a MapCHECK diode array for a period of 10 weeks. There was good agreement (within 1.3%) for the beam output and cone ratio obtained with the new procedure and the routine QA measurements. The measured beam energy was comparable (0.3%) to solid water measurement during the 10-week evaluation period, excluding 2 of the 10 measurements with unusually high background. The symmetry reading was similarly compromised for those 2 weeks, and on the other weeks, it deviated from the solid water reading by ~2.5%. The ArcCHECK phantom presents a suitable alternative for performing helical tomotherapy QA, provided the background is collected properly. The proposed weekly procedure using ArcCHECK and water phantom makes the QA process more efficient.