Patient Specific Quality Assurance: Transition from IMRT to IMAT

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to test a patient-specific quality assurance (QA) protocol for intensity-modulated arc radiotherapy (IMAT), and to evaluate the use of an intensity-modulated stationary radiotherapy QA device (2D ion chamber array). Thirty-nine IMAT treatment plans for brain, spine, and prostate were analyzed using 3 methods: ion chamber (1D absolute, n=39), film (2D relative, coronal/sagittal, n=8), and 2D ion chamber array ("ICA," 2D absolute, coronal/sagittal, n=39) measurements. All measurements were compared to the treatment planning system (TPS) dose calculation with gamma analysis (3%, 3mm distance-to-agreement criteria) or absolute point dose comparison. The ICA measurements were also directly compared to film and ion chamber for validation. Absolute 1D measurements agreed well calculation (ion chamber: average deviation 1.4%, range −0.9% to 2.8%; ICA: average deviation 0.7%, range -1.8% to 2.9%). Relative 2D measurements also showed good agreement with calculation (>93% of pixels in all films passing gamma, >90% of pixels in all ICA measurements passing gamma). ICA and film relative dose results were highly similar (> 90% of pixels passing gamma in 94% of QAs). Coronal and sagittal ICA measurements were statistically indistinguishable by the paired t-test with a hypothesized mean difference of 0.2%. Ion chamber and ICA absolute dose measurements usually agreed well, but had disparities of 2–3% in 18% of plans. After validating the new IMAT implementation with ion chamber, film, and ICA, we reduced our QA from 5 (ion chamber, film, and ICA) to 2 measurements (ion chamber and single ICA) per plan. The ICA (Matrixx®, IBA Dosimetry) was validated in relative analysis mode, but ion chamber measurements are recommended for absolute dose comparison.