Comparison of pretreatment VMAT quality assurance with the integral quality monitor (IQM) and electronic portal imaging device (EPID).

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare pretreatment volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) quality assurance (QA) measurements and evaluate the multileaf collimator (MLC) error sensitivity of two detectors: the integral quality monitor (IQM) system (iRT systems IQM) and the electronic portal imaging device (EPID) (Varian PortalVision aS1200). Pretreatment QA measurements were performed for 20 retrospective VMAT plans (53 arcs). A subset of ten plans (23 arcs) was used to investigate MLC error sensitivity of each device. Eight MLC error plans were created for each VMAT plan. The errors included systematic opening/closing (±0.25, ±0.50, ±0.75 mm) of the MLC and random positional errors (1 mm) for individual/groups of leaves. The IQM was evaluated using the percent error of the measured cumulative signal relative to the calculated signal. The EPID was evaluated using two methods: a novel percent error of the measured relative to the predicted cumulative signals, and gamma (γ) analysis (1%/1 mm, 2%/2 mm, 3%/3 mm and 3%/1 mm for Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy plans). The average change in maximum dose obtained from dose‐volume histogram (DVH) data and change in detector signals for different systematic MLC shifts was also compared. Cumulative signal differences showed similar levels of agreement between measured and expected detector signals (IQM: 1.00 ± 0.55%; EPID: 1.22 ± 0.92%). Results from γ analysis lacked specificity. Only the 1%/1 mm criteria produced data with remarkable differences. A strong linear correlation was observed between IQM and EPID cumulative signal differences with MLC error magnitude (R = 0.99). Likewise, results indicate a strong correlation between the cumulative signal for both detectors and DVH dose (RIQM = 0.99; REPID = 0.97). In conclusion, use of cumulative signal differences could be more useful for detecting errors in treatment delivery in EPID than γ analysis.