Independent Dose Verification Research Articles

A feasibility study of independent verification of dose calculation for Vero4DRT using a Clarkson-based algorithm

Dose verification for a gimbal-mounted image-guided radiotherapy system, Vero4DRT (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) is usually carried out by pretreatment measurement. Independent verification calculations using Monte Carlo methods for Vero4DRT have been published. As the Clarkson method is faster and easier to use than measurement and Monte Carlo methods, we evaluated the accuracy of an independent calculation verification program and its feasibility as a secondary check for Vero4DRT. Computed tomography (CT)-based dose calculation was performed using a modified Clarkson-based algorithm. In this study, 120 patients' treatment plans were collected in our institute. The treatments were performed using conventional irradiation for lung and prostate, 3-dimensional (3D) conformal stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for the lung, and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for the prostate. Differences between the treatment planning system (TPS) and the Clarkson-based independent dose verification software were computed, and confidence limits (CLs, mean ± 2 standard deviation %) for Vero4DRT were compared with the CLs for the C-arms linear accelerators in the previous study. The results of the CLs, the conventional irradiation, SBRT, and IMRT showed 2.2 ± 3.5% (CL of the C-arms linear accelerators: 2.4 ± 5.3%), 1.1 ± 1.7% (−0.3 ± 2.0%), 4.8 ± 3.7% (5.4 ± 5.3%), and −0.5 ± 2.5% (−0.1 ± 3.6%) differences, respectively. The dose disagreement between the TPS and CT-based independent dose verification software was less than the 5% action level of American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 114 (TG114). The CLs for the gimbal-mounted Vero4DRT were similar to the deviations for C-arms linear accelerators.

An automated dose verification software for brachytherapy.

PurposeTo report an implementation method and the results of independent brachytherapy dose verification software (DVS).Material and methodsThe DVS was developed based on Visual C++ and adopted a modular structure design. The DICOM RT files exported from a treatment planning system (TPS) were automatically loaded into the DVS. The DVS used the TG-43 formalism for dose calculation. A total of 15 cervical cancer patients who underwent brachytherapy were retrospectively selected to test the DVS. Dosimetric parameters and γ analysis (0.1 cm, 5%) were used to evaluate the dose differences between the DVS and the TPS.ResultsCompared with the TPS dose, the γ pass rates of the dose calculated by the DVS were higher than 98%. For the clinical target volume (CTV), the dosimetric differences were less than 0.63% for D90% and D100%. For the bladder, rectum, and sigmoid, the agreement of D0.1cc, D1cc, and D2cc were within a 0.78% level.ConclusionsWith minimal human-computer interactions, the DVS can verify the accuracy of doses calculated by the TPS.

Independent dose verification system with Monte Carlo simulations using TOPAS for passive scattering proton therapy at the National Cancer Center in Korea

For the independent validation of treatment plans, we developed a fully automated Monte Carlo (MC)-based patient dose calculation system with the tool for particle simulation (TOPAS) and proton therapy machine installed at the National Cancer Center in Korea to enable routine and automatic dose recalculation for each patient. The proton beam nozzle was modeled with TOPAS to simulate the therapeutic beam, and MC commissioning was performed by comparing percent depth dose with the measurement. The beam set-up based on the prescribed beam range and modulation width was automated by modifying the vendor-specific method. The CT phantom was modeled based on the DICOM CT files with TOPAS-built-in function, and an in-house-developed C++ code directly imports the CT files for positioning the CT phantom, RT-plan file for simulating the treatment plan, and RT-structure file for applying the Hounsfield unit (HU) assignment, respectively. The developed system was validated by comparing the dose distributions with those calculated by the treatment planning system (TPS) for a lung phantom and two patient cases of abdomen and internal mammary node. The results of the beam commissioning were in good agreement of up to 0.8 mm2 for B8 option in both of the beam range and the modulation width of the spread-out Bragg peaks. The beam set-up technique can predict the range and modulation width with an accuracy of 0.06% and 0.51%, respectively, with respect to the prescribed range and modulation in arbitrary points of B5 option (128.3, 132.0, and 141.2 mm2 of range). The dose distributions showed higher than 99% passing rate for the 3D gamma index (3 mm distance to agreement and 3% dose difference) between the MC simulations and the clinical TPS in the target volume. However, in the normal tissues, less favorable agreements were obtained for the radiation treatment planning with the lung phantom and internal mammary node cases. The discrepancies might come from the limitations of the clinical TPS, which is the inaccurate dose calculation algorithm for the scattering effect, in the range compensator and inhomogeneous material. Moreover, the steep slope of the compensator, conversion of the HU values to the human phantom, and the dose calculation algorithm for the HU assignment also could be reasons of the discrepancies. The current study could be used for the independent dose validation of treatment plans including high inhomogeneities, the steep compensator, and riskiness such as lung, head & neck cases. According to the treatment policy, the dose discrepancies predicted with MC could be used for the acceptance decision of the original treatment plan.

Impact of Different Independent Dose Verification Software Programs for Secondary Check.

A multi-institutional study was performed to identify the impact of different independent dose verification programs on independent dose verification software program. Data for 1,543 treatment fields were collected in three institutions. RADCALC and Simple MU Analysis (Simple MU) using the Clarkson-based algorithm were used. RADCALC needs the input of radiological path length (RPL) from radiotherapy treatment planning systems (RTPSs) (Eclipse or Pinnacle3). The Simple MU computes the RPL using CT images independently from the RTPSs. Ion-chamber measurements were performed for commissioning the two programs and the RTPSs. Next, the results of the two programs were compared to the RTPSs obtained in the clinically-approved plans in all three institutions. The commissioning results showed ±1.5% variation in the ion-chamber measurements and there was slight difference between the institutions. The RADCALC (0.9±2.2%) and the Simple MU (1.7±2.1%) results showed a slight systematic difference. Pinnacle3 computed longer RPLs because it used CT-physical density tables. Thus, there was an impact on the accuracy in the treatment plans involving bone and other high-density materials. Dose calculation algorithms in different dose verification programs provided similar results. However, care must be taken because different RPL calculation methods in the RTPSs may affect dose difference between different independent dose verification programs by 1%.

Precision in Wedge Off-axis Using Independent Dose Verification.

It is essential for quality assurance to verify the safety of each individual patient's plan in radiation therapy. The tolerance level for independent verification of monitor unit calculations for non-IMRT clinical radiotherapy has been shown in the AAPM TG114. Thus, we investigated the precision of independent MU (dose) verification considering a wedge off-axis calculation and we conducted a study at twelve institutes for independent verification with the wedge off-axis calculation. The results obtained with the wedge off-axis calculation showed better agreement with the treatment planning system calculation results than those without the former calculation in a phantom study and in the patient retrospective study. The confidence limits with the wedge off-axis calculation were 2.2±3.4% and 2.0±4.3% for the plans with a physical wedge and a non-physical wedge in the patient study, respectively. However, the confidence limits were over 5% without the off-axis calculation. From our multi-institutional study, the results suggested that the tolerance level for the wedge off-axis plan would be 5% when considering the wedge off-axis calculation and the level was similar to that of the treatment planning system using other conventional irradiation techniques.

Performance Characteristics of an Independent Dose Verification Program for Helical Tomotherapy.

Helical tomotherapy with its advanced method of intensity-modulated radiation therapy delivery has been used clinically for over 20 years. The standard delivery quality assurance procedure to measure the accuracy of delivered radiation dose from each treatment plan to a phantom is time-consuming. RadCalc®, a radiotherapy dose verification software, has released specifically for beta testing a module for tomotherapy plan dose calculations. RadCalc®'s accuracy for tomotherapy dose calculations was evaluated through examination of point doses in ten lung and ten prostate clinical plans. Doses calculated by the TomoHDA™ tomotherapy treatment planning system were used as the baseline. For lung cases, RadCalc® overestimated point doses in the lung by an average of 13%. Doses within the spinal cord and esophagus were overestimated by 10%. Prostate plans showed better agreement, with overestimations of 6% in the prostate, bladder, and rectum. The systematic overestimation likely resulted from limitations of the pencil beam dose calculation algorithm implemented by RadCalc®. Limitations were more severe in areas of greater inhomogeneity and less prominent in regions of homogeneity with densities closer to 1 g/cm3. Recommendations for RadCalc® dose calculation algorithms and anatomical representation were provided based on the results of the study.

Two-year experience with the commercial Gamma Knife Check software.

The Gamma Knife Check software is an FDA approved second check system for dose calculations in Gamma Knife radiosurgery. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and the stability of the commercial software package as a tool for independent dose verification. The Gamma Knife Check software version 8.4 was commissioned for a Leksell Gamma Knife Perfexion and a 4C unit at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in May 2012. Independent dose verifications were performed using this software for 319 radiosurgery cases on the Perfexion and 283 radiosurgery cases on the 4C units. The cases on each machine were divided into groups according to their diagnoses, and an averaged absolute percent dose difference for each group was calculated. The percentage dose difference for each treatment target was obtained as the relative difference between the Gamma Knife Check dose and the dose from the tissue maximum ratio algorithm (TMR 10) from the GammaPlan software version 10 at the reference point. For treatment plans with imaging skull definition, results obtained from the Gamma Knife Check software using the measurement‐based skull definition method are used for comparison. The collected dose difference data were also analyzed in terms of the distance from the treatment target to the skull, the number of treatment shots used for the target, and the gamma angles of the treatment shots. The averaged percent dose differences between the Gamma Knife Check software and the GammaPlan treatment planning system are 0.3%, 0.89%, 1.24%, 1.09%, 0.83%, 0.55%, 0.33%, and 1.49% for the trigeminal neuralgia, acoustic neuroma, arteriovenous malformation (AVM), meningioma, pituitary adenoma, glioma, functional disorders, and metastasis cases on the Perfexion unit. The corresponding averaged percent dose differences for the 4C unit are 0.33%, 1.2%, 2.78% 1.99%, 1.4%, 1.92%, 0.62%, and 1.51%, respectively. The dose difference is, in general, larger for treatment targets in the peripheral regions of the skull owing to the difference in the numerical methods used for skull shape simulation in the GammaPlan and the Gamma Knife Check software. Larger than 5% dose differences were observed on both machines for certain targets close to patient skull surface and for certain targets in the lower half of the brain on the Perfexion, especially when shots with 70 and/or 110 gamma angles are used. Out of the 1065 treatment targets studied, a 5% cutoff criterion cannot always be met for the dose differences between the studied versions of the Gamma Knife Check software and the planning system for 40 treatment targets.PACS number(s): 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc

SU‐F‐T‐268: A Feasibility Study of Independent Dose Verification for Vero4DRT

Purpose:Vero4DRT (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd.) has been released for a few years. The treatment planning system (TPS) of Vero4DRT is dedicated, so the measurement is the only method of dose verification. There have been no reports of independent dose verification using Clarksonbased algorithm for Vero4DRT. An independent dose verification software program of the general‐purpose linac using a modified Clarkson‐based algorithm was modified for Vero4DRT. In this study, we evaluated the accuracy of independent dose verification program and the feasibility of the secondary check for Vero4DRT.Methods:iPlan (Brainlab AG) was used as the TPS. PencilBeam Convolution was used for dose calculation algorithm of IMRT and X‐ray Voxel Monte Carlo was used for the others. Simple MU Analysis (SMU, Triangle Products, Japan) was used as the independent dose verification software program in which CT‐based dose calculation was performed using a modified Clarkson‐based algorithm. In this study, 120 patients’ treatment plans were collected in our institute. The treatments were performed using the conventional irradiation for lung and prostate, SBRT for lung and Step and shoot IMRT for prostate. Comparison in dose between the TPS and the SMU was done and confidence limits (CLs, Mean ± 2SD %) were compared to those from the general‐purpose linac.Results:As the results of the CLs, the conventional irradiation (lung, prostate), SBRT (lung) and IMRT (prostate) show 2.2 ± 3.5% (CL of the general‐purpose linac: 2.4 ± 5.3%), 1.1 ± 1.7% (−0.3 ± 2.0%), 4.8 ± 3.7% (5.4 ± 5.3%) and −0.5 ± 2.5% (−0.1 ± 3.6%), respectively. The CLs for Vero4DRT show similar results to that for the general‐purpose linac.Conclusion:The independent dose verification for the new linac is clinically available as a secondary check and we performed the check with the similar tolerance level of the general‐purpose linac.This research is partially supported by Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED)

SU‐F‐T‐288: Impact of Trajectory Log Files for Clarkson‐Based Independent Dose Verification of IMRT and VMAT

Purpose:To investigate the effect of the trajectory files from linear accelerator for Clarkson‐based independent dose verification in IMRT and VMAT plans.Methods:A CT‐based independent dose verification software (Simple MU Analysis: SMU, Triangle Products, Japan) with a Clarksonbased algorithm was modified to calculate dose using the trajectory log files. Eclipse with the three techniques of step and shoot (SS), sliding window (SW) and Rapid Arc (RA) was used as treatment planning system (TPS). In this study, clinically approved IMRT and VMAT plans for prostate and head and neck (HN) at two institutions were retrospectively analyzed to assess the dose deviation between DICOM‐RT plan (PL) and trajectory log file (TJ). An additional analysis was performed to evaluate MLC error detection capability of SMU when the trajectory log files was modified by adding systematic errors (0.2, 0.5, 1.0 mm) and random errors (5, 10, 30 mm) to actual MLC position.Results:The dose deviations for prostate and HN in the two sites were 0.0% and 0.0% in SS, 0.1±0.0%, 0.1±0.1% in SW and 0.6±0.5%, 0.7±0.9% in RA, respectively. The MLC error detection capability shows the plans for HN IMRT were the most sensitive and 0.2 mm of systematic error affected 0.7% dose deviation on average. Effect of the MLC random error did not affect dose error.Conclusion:The use of trajectory log files including actual information of MLC location, gantry angle, etc should be more effective for an independent verification. The tolerance level for the secondary check using the trajectory file may be similar to that of the verification using DICOM‐RT plan file. From the view of the resolution of MLC positional error detection, the secondary check could detect the MLC position error corresponding to the treatment sites and techniques.This research is partially supported by Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED)

SU‐F‐T‐494: A Multi‐Institutional Study of Independent Dose Verification Using Golden Beam Data

Purpose:In general, beam data of individual linac is measured for independent dose verification software program and the verification is performed as a secondary check. In this study, independent dose verification using golden beam data was compared to that using individual linac's beam data.Methods:Six institutions were participated and three different beam data were prepared. The one was individual measured data (Original Beam Data, OBD) .The others were generated by all measurements from same linac model (Model‐GBD) and all linac models (All‐GBD). The three different beam data were registered to the independent verification software program for each institute. Subsequently, patient's plans in eight sites (brain, head and neck, lung, esophagus, breast, abdomen, pelvis and bone) were analyzed using the verification program to compare doses calculated using the three different beam data.Results:1116 plans were collected from six institutes. Compared to using the OBD, the results shows the variation using the Model‐GBD based calculation and the All‐GBD was 0.0 ± 0.3% and 0.0 ± 0.6%, respectively. The maximum variations were 1.2% and 2.3%, respectively. The plans with the variation over 1% shows the reference points were located away from the central axis with/without physical wedge.Conclusion:The confidence limit (2SD) using the Model‐GBD and the All‐GBD was within 0.6% and 1.2%, respectively. Thus, the use of golden beam data may be feasible for independent verification. In addition to it, the verification using golden beam data provide quality assurance of planning from the view of audit.This research is partially supported by Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development(AMED)

SU‐F‐T‐267: A Clarkson‐Based Independent Dose Verification for the Helical Tomotherapy

Purpose:There have been few reports for independent dose verification for Tomotherapy. We evaluated the accuracy and the effectiveness of an independent dose verification system for the Tomotherapy.Methods:Simple MU Analysis (SMU, Triangle Product, Ishikawa, Japan) was used as the independent verification system and the system implemented a Clarkson‐based dose calculation algorithm using CT image dataset. For dose calculation in the SMU, the Tomotherapy machine‐specific dosimetric parameters (TMR, Scp, OAR and MLC transmission factor) were registered as the machine beam data. Dose calculation was performed after Tomotherapy sinogram from DICOM‐RT plan information was converted to the information for MU and MLC location at more segmented control points. The performance of the SMU was assessed by a point dose measurement in non‐IMRT and IMRT plans (simple target and mock prostate plans). Subsequently, 30 patients’ treatment plans for prostate were compared.Results:From the comparison, dose differences between the SMU and the measurement were within 3% for all cases in non‐IMRT plans. In the IMRT plan for the simple target, the differences (Average±1SD) were −0.70±1.10% (SMU vs. TPS), −0.40±0.10% (measurement vs. TPS) and −1.20±1.00% (measurement vs. SMU), respectively. For the mock prostate, the differences were −0.40±0.60% (SMU vs. TPS), −0.50±0.90% (measurement vs. TPS) and −0.90±0.60% (measurement vs. SMU), respectively. For patients’ plans, the difference was −0.50±2.10% (SMU vs. TPS).Conclusion:A Clarkson‐based independent dose verification for the Tomotherapy can be clinically available as a secondary check with the similar tolerance level of AAPM Task group 114.This research is partially supported by Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED)

SU-F-T-609: Impact of Dosimetric Variation for Prescription Dose Using Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA) in Lung SBRT

Purpose: Actual irradiated prescription dose to patients cannot be verified. Thus, independent dose verification and second treatment planning system are used as the secondary check. AAA dose calculation engine has contributed to lung SBRT. We conducted a multi-institutional study to assess variation of prescription dose for lung SBRT when using AAA in reference to using Acuros XB and Clarkson algorithm. Methods: Six institutes in Japan participated in this study. All SBRT treatments were planed using AAA in Eclipse and Adaptive Convolve (AC) in Pinnacle3. All of the institutes used a same independent dose verification software program (Simple MU Analysis: SMU, Triangle Product, Ishikawa, Japan), which implemented a Clarkson-based dose calculation algorithm using CT image dataset. A retrospective analysis for lung SBRT plans (73 patients) was performed to compute the confidence limit (CL, Average±2SD) in dose between the AAA and the SMU. In one of the institutes, a additional analysis was conducted to evaluate the variations between the AAA and the Acuros XB (AXB). Results: The CL for SMU shows larger systematic and random errors of 8.7±9.9 % for AAA than the errors of 5.7±4.2 % for AC. The variations of AAA correlated with the mean CT values in the voxels of PTV (a correlation coefficient : −0.7) . The comparison of AXB vs. AAA shows smaller systematic and random errors of −0.7±1.7%. The correlation between dose variations for AXB and the mean CT values in PTV was weak (0.4). However, there were several plans with more than 2% deviation of AAPM TG114 (Maximum: −3.3 %). Conclusion: In comparison for AC, prescription dose calculated by AAA may be more variable in lung SBRT patient. Even AXB comparison shows unexpected variation. Care should be taken for the use of AAA in lung SBRT. This research is partially supported by Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED)

MO-FG-202-05: Identifying Treatment Planning System Errors in IROC-H Phantom Irradiations

Purpose: Treatment Planning System (TPS) errors can affect large numbers of cancer patients receiving radiation therapy. Using an independent recalculation system, the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Houston (IROC-H) can identify institutions that have not sufficiently modelled their linear accelerators in their TPS model. Methods: Linear accelerator point measurement data from IROC-H's site visits was aggregated and analyzed from over 30 linear accelerator models. Dosimetrically similar models were combined to create “classes”. The class data was used to construct customized beam models in an independent treatment dose verification system (TVS). Approximately 200 head and neck phantom plans from 2012 to 2015 were recalculated using this TVS. Comparison of plan accuracy was evaluated by comparing the measured dose to the institution's TPS dose as well as the TVS dose. In cases where the TVS was more accurate than the institution by an average of >2%, the institution was identified as having a non-negligible TPS error. Results: Of the ∼200 recalculated plans, the average improvement using the TVS was ∼0.1%; i.e. the recalculation, on average, slightly outperformed the institution's TPS. Of all the recalculated phantoms, 20% were identified as having a non-negligible TPS error. Fourteen plans failed current IROC-H criteria; the average TVS improvement of the failing plans was ∼3% and 57% were found to have non-negligible TPS errors. Conclusion: IROC-H has developed an independent recalculation system to identify institutions that have considerable TPS errors. A large number of institutions were found to have non-negligible TPS errors. Even institutions that passed IROC-H criteria could be identified as having a TPS error. Resolution of such errors would improve dose delivery for a large number of IROC-H phantoms and ultimately, patients.

TH‐AB‐201‐01: A Feasibility Study of Independent Dose Verification for CyberKnife

Purpose:CyberKnife irradiation is composed of tiny‐size, multiple and intensity‐modulated beams compared to conventional linacs. Few of the publications for Independent dose calculation verification for CyberKnife have been reported. In this study, we evaluated the feasibility of independent dose verification for CyberKnife treatment as Secondary check.Methods:The followings were measured: test plans using some static and single beams, clinical plans in a phantom and using patient's CT. 75 patient plans were collected from several treatment sites of brain, lung, liver and bone. In the test plans and the phantom plans, a pinpoint ion‐chamber measurement was performed to assess dose deviation for a treatment planning system (TPS) and an independent verification program of Simple MU Analysis (SMU). In the clinical plans, dose deviation between the SMU and the TPS was performed.Results:In test plan, the dose deviations were 3.3±4.5%, and 4.1±4.4% for the TPS and the SMU, respectively. In the phantom measurements for the clinical plans, the dose deviations were −0.2±3.6% for the TPS and −2.3±4.8% for the SMU. In the clinical plans using the patient's CT, the dose deviations were −3.0±2.1% (Mean±1SD). The systematic difference was partially derived from inverse square law and penumbra calculation.Conclusion:The independent dose calculation for CyberKnife shows −3.0±4.2% (Mean±2SD) and our study, the confidence limit was achieved within 5% of the tolerance level from AAPM task group 114 for non‐IMRT treatment. Thus, it may be feasible to use independent dose calculation verification for CyberKnife treatment as the secondary check.This research is partially supported by Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED)

44 - Moderato: A Monte Carlo platform for independent dose verification of cyberknife and tomotherapy treatments

44 - Moderato: A Monte Carlo platform for independent dose verification of cyberknife and tomotherapy treatments

A Monte Carlo model for independent dose verification in IMRT and VMAT for the Varian Novalis TX with high definition MLC

Purpose: With intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), the physician can prescribe, design and deliver optimized treatment plans that target the tumor and spare adjacent critical structures. The increased conformity of such plans often comes at the expenses of adding significant complexity to the delivery of the treatment. With volumetrically modulated arc therapy (VMAT), in addition to the modulation of the intensity of the radiation beam, other mechanical parameters such as gantry speed and dose rate are varied during treatment delivery. It is therefore imperative that we develop comprehensive and accurate methods to validate such complex delivery techniques prior to the commencement of the patient’s treatment. Methods : In this study, a Monte Carlo simulation was performed for the high definition multileaf collimator (HD-MLC) of a Varian Novalis TX linac. Our simulation is based on the MCSIM code and provides a comprehensive model of the linac head. After validating the model in reference geometries, treatment plans for different anatomical sites were simulated and compared against the treatment planning system (TPS) dose calculations. All simulations were performed in a cylindrical water phantom as opposed to the patient anatomy, to remove any complexities associated with density effects. Finally, a comparison through gamma analysis of dose plane between the simulation, the TPS and the measurements from the Matrixx array (IBA) was conducted to verify the accuracy of our model against both the measurements and the TPS. Results : Gamma analysis of ten IMRT and ten VMAT cases for different anatomical sites was performed, using a 3%/3 mm passing criterion. The average passing rates were 97.5% and 94.3% for the IMRT and the VMAT plans respectively when comparing the MCSIM and TPS dose calculations. Conclusion : In the present work a Monte Carlo model of a Novalis TX linac which has been tested and benchmarked to produce phase-space files for the treatment head of the linac was used to produce a input phase-space to calculated dose deposition phenomena in different geometries for IMRT and VMAT treatment modalities. The control points defined for the MLC were replaced by blocks with the same characteristics and materials of the linac MLC to speed up the simulation time. With this technique a simulation of a typical IMRT case can be performed with a 10 computer cluster in about 1.02 hours in average. If the number of computer used is increased the computing time can be reduced even more which make our model suitable for clinical use as a second check method to compare the TPS dose calculated. Our results showed that for IMRT and VMAT deliveries with a HD-MLC, there is an average of 95.9% of the points have a gamma index less than 1 with our chosen criterion between our Monte Carlo simulations and the corresponding measurements and TPS calculations in a cylindrical water equivalent phantom. This Monte Carlo code can be used as pre-treatment, independent dose calculation verification for IMRT and VMAT deliveries.

SU‐E‐T‐762: Toward Volume‐Based Independent Dose Verification as Secondary Check

Purpose:Lung SBRT plan has been shifted to volume prescription technique. However, point dose agreement is still verified using independent dose verification at the secondary check. The volume dose verification is more affected by inhomogeneous correction rather than point dose verification currently used as the check. A feasibility study for volume dose verification was conducted in lung SBRT plan.Methods:Six SBRT plans were collected in our institute. Two dose distributions with / without inhomogeneous correction were generated using Adaptive Convolve (AC) in Pinnacle3. Simple MU Analysis (SMU, Triangle Product, Ishikawa, JP) was used as the independent dose verification software program, in which a modified Clarkson‐based algorithm was implemented and radiological path length was computed using CT images independently to the treatment planning system. The agreement in point dose and mean dose between the AC with / without the correction and the SMU were assessed.Results:In the point dose evaluation for the center of the GTV, the difference shows the systematic shift (4.5% ± 1.9 %) in comparison of the AC with the inhomogeneous correction, on the other hands, there was good agreement of 0.2 ± 0.9% between the SMU and the AC without the correction. In the volume evaluation, there were significant differences in mean dose for not only PTV (14.2 ± 5.1 %) but also GTV (8.0 ± 5.1 %) compared to the AC with the correction. Without the correction, the SMU showed good agreement for GTV (1.5 ± 0.9%) as well as PTV (0.9% ± 1.0%).Conclusion:The volume evaluation for secondary check may be possible in homogenous region. However, the volume including the inhomogeneous media would make larger discrepancy. Dose calculation algorithm for independent verification needs to be modified to take into account the inhomogeneous correction.

SU‐E‐T‐49: A Multi‐Institutional Study of Independent Dose Verification for IMRT

Purpose:AAPM TG114 does not cover the independent verification for IMRT. We conducted a study of independent dose verification for IMRT in seven institutes to show the feasibility.Methods:384 IMRT plans in the sites of prostate and head and neck (HN) were collected from the institutes, where the planning was performed using Eclipse and Pinnacle3 with the two techniques of step and shoot (S&S) and sliding window (SW). All of the institutes used a same independent dose verification software program (Simple MU Analysis: SMU, Triangle Product, Ishikawa, JP), which is Clarkson‐based and CT images were used to compute radiological path length. An ion‐chamber measurement in a water‐equivalent slab phantom was performed to compare the doses computed using the TPS and an independent dose verification program. Additionally, the agreement in dose computed in patient CT images between using the TPS and using the SMU was assessed. The dose of the composite beams in the plan was evaluated.Results:The agreement between the measurement and the SMU were −2.3±1.9 % and −5.6±3.6 % for prostate and HN sites, respectively. The agreement between the TPSs and the SMU were −2.1±1.9 % and −3.0±3.7 for prostate and HN sites, respectively. There was a negative systematic difference with similar standard deviation and the difference was larger in the HN site. The S&S technique showed a statistically significant difference between the SW. Because the Clarkson‐based method in the independent program underestimated (cannot consider) the dose under the MLC.Conclusion:The accuracy would be improved when the Clarkson‐based algorithm should be modified for IMRT and the tolerance level would be within 5%.

SU‐E‐T‐455: Impact of Different Independent Dose Verification Software Programs for Secondary Check

Purpose:There have been many reports for different dose calculation algorithms for treatment planning system (TPS). Independent dose verification program (IndpPro) is essential to verify clinical plans from the TPS. However, the accuracy of different independent dose verification programs was not evident. We conducted a multi‐institutional study to reveal the impact of different IndpPros using different TPSs.Methods:Three institutes participated in this study. They used two different IndpPros (RADCALC and Simple MU Analysis (SMU), which implemented the Clarkson algorithm. RADCALC needed the input of radiological path length (RPL) computed by the TPSs (Eclipse or Pinnacle3). SMU used CT images to compute the RPL independently from TPS). An ion‐chamber measurement in water‐equivalent phantom was performed to evaluate the accuracy of two IndpPros and the TPS in each institute. Next, the accuracy of dose calculation using the two IndpPros compared to TPS was assessed in clinical plan.Results:The accuracy of IndpPros and the TPSs in the homogenous phantom was +/−1% variation to the measurement. 1543 treatment fields were collected from the patients treated in the institutes. The RADCALC showed better accuracy (0.9 ± 2.2 %) than the SMU (1.7 ± 2.1 %). However, the accuracy was dependent on the TPS (Eclipse: 0.5%, Pinnacle3: 1.0%). The accuracy of RADCALC with Eclipse was similar to that of SMU in one of the institute.Conclusion:Depending on independent dose verification program, the accuracy shows systematic dose accuracy variation even though the measurement comparison showed a similar variation. The variation was affected by radiological path length calculation. IndpPro with Pinnacle3 has different variation because Pinnacle3 computed the RPL using physical density. Eclipse and SMU uses electron density, though.

SU‐E‐T‐48: A Multi‐Institutional Study of Independent Dose Verification for Conventional, SRS and SBRT

Purpose:To show the results of a multi‐institutional study of the independent dose verification for conventional, Stereotactic radiosurgery and body radiotherapy (SRS and SBRT) plans based on the action level of AAPM TG‐114.Methods:This study was performed at 12 institutions in Japan. To eliminate the bias of independent dose verification program (Indp), all of the institutions used the same CT‐based independent dose verification software (Simple MU Analysis, Triangle Products, JP) with the Clarkson‐based algorithm. Eclipse (AAA, PBC), Pinnacle3 (Adaptive Convolve) and Xio (Superposition) were used as treatment planning system (TPS). The confidence limits (CL, Mean±2SD) for 18 sites (head, breast, lung, pelvis, etc.) were evaluated in comparison in dose between the TPS and the Indp.Results:A retrospective analysis of 6352 treatment fields was conducted. The CLs for conventional, SRS and SBRT were 1.0±3.7 %, 2.0±2.5 % and 6.2±4.4 %, respectively. In conventional plans, most of the sites showed within 5 % of TG‐114 action level. However, there were the systematic difference (4.0±4.0 % and 2.5±5.8 % for breast and lung, respectively). In SRS plans, our results showed good agreement compared to the action level. In SBRT plans, the discrepancy between the Indp was variable depending on dose calculation algorithms of TPS.Conclusion:The impact of dose calculation algorithms for the TPS and the Indp affects the action level. It is effective to set the site‐specific tolerances, especially for the site where inhomogeneous correction can affect dose distribution strongly.