P249] Influence of gamma index comparison on differences in dose calculation algorithm deposition method

Abstract

Purpose Phantomless patient specific QA saves time and is able to detect errors by comparing the TPS dose distribution with a secondary independent dose calculation. TG 218 recommends that gamma analysis should be performed on metrics such as, mean gamma, γ > 1 and γ > 1.5, per structure. The aim of this study is to investigate how gamma index comparison is affected by differences on dose calculation algorithms when treating bone metastases. Methods 10 patients treated for bone metastases in different sites were chosen and 3D and VMAT plans were created using Elekta Monaco TPS in a Versa linac and 10 MV photons. Both 3D and VMAT dose distributions were calculated with Monaco XVMC Monte Carlo (MC) calculation algorithm using dose to medium in medium MC(Dm,m) and dose to water in medium MC(Dw,m) dose deposition modes. All plans were also calculated and evaluated using IBA Compass incorporating a Collapsed Cone convolution superposition algorithm calculating dose to water in medium CC(Dw,m). 3D dose distribution evaluation was performed in terms of gamma metrics such as mean gamma values and % PTV with γ > 1 and γ > 1.5 using 3%, 3 mm criteria for the following combinations: (a) MC(Dw,m) vs CC(Dw,m) and (b) MC(Dm,m) vs CC(Dw,m). Results For the 3D plans, average mean gamma values for MC(Dw,m) vs CC(Dw,m) and MC(Dm,m) vs CC(Dw,m) were found 0.37 ± 0.1 and 0.52 ± 0.12 respectively. The average % PTV points with γ > 1 were found 6.34 ± 5.7% and 12.6 ± 7.5% and the average % PTV points with γ > 1.5 1.45 ± 1.87% and 2.21 ± 2.28%, respectively. Corresponding values for the VMAT plans were 0.46 ± 0.12 and 0.68 ± 0.09 (mean gamma values), 9.48 ± 7.26% and 21.5 ± 7.3% (% PTV points with γ > 1) and 2.37 ± 2.8% and 7.95 ± 7.4% (% PTV points with γ > 1.5). Conclusions Gamma index comparison revealed that both MC and CC calculation algorithms are in fair agreement in dose calculation determination providing that the same dose deposition mode (i.e. Dw,m or Dm,m) is used. The use of different dose deposition mode, results in increased differences in dose calculation determination in structures/areas where materials different than water, such as bone, is included. The observed differences are also increased as the complexity of the plan increases (e.g. VMAT vs 3D).