IMRT Quality Assurance Research Articles

Portability of IMRT QA between matched linear accelerators.

To determine if patient-specific IMRT quality assurance can be measured on any matched treatment delivery system (TDS) for patient treatment delivery on another. Three VMAT plans of varying complexity were created for each available energy for head and neck, SBRT lung, and right chestwall anatomical sites. Each plan was delivered on three matched Varian TrueBeam TDSs to the same Scandidos Delta4 Phantom+ diode array with only energy-specific device calibrations. Dose distributions were corrected for TDS output and then compared to TPS calculations using gamma analysis. Round-robin comparisons between measurements from each TDS were also performed using point-by-point dose difference, median dose difference, and the percent of point dose differences within 2% of the mean metrics. All plans had more than 95% of points passing a gamma analysis using 3%/3mm criteria with global normalization and a 20% threshold when comparing measurements to calculations. The tightest gamma analysis criteria where a plan still passed>95% were similar across delivery systems-within 0.5%/0.5mm for all but three plan/energy combinations. Median dose deviations in measurement-to-measurement comparisons were within 0.7% and 1.0% for global and local normalization, respectively. More than 90% of the point differences were within 2%. A set of plans spanning available energies and complexity levels were delivered by three matched TDSs. Comparisons to calculations and between measurements showed dose distributions delivered by each TDS using the same DICOM RT-plan file meet tolerances much smaller than typical clinical IMRT QA criteria. This demonstrates each TDS is modeled to a similar accuracy by a common class (shared) beam model. Additionally, it demonstrates that dose distributions from one TDS show small differences in median dose to the others. This is an important validation component of the common beam model approach, allowing for operational improvements in the clinic.

Evaluation of complexity and deliverability of IMRT treatment plans for breast cancer

This study aimed to predict the outcome of patient specific quality assurance (PSQA) in IMRT for breast cancer using complexity metrics, such as MU factor, MAD, CAS, MCS. Several breast cancer plans were considered, including LBCS, RBCS, LBCM, RBCM, left breast, right breast and the whole breast for both Edge and TrueBeam LINACS. Dose verification was completed by Portal Dosimetry (PD). The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was employed to determine whether the treatment plans pass or failed. The area under the curve (AUC) was used to assess the classification performance. The correlation of PSQA and complexity metrics was examined using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (Rs). For LINACS, the most suitable complexity metric was found to be the MU factor (Edge Rs = − 0.608, p < 0.01; TrueBeam Rs = − 0.739, p < 0.01). Regarding the specific breast cancer categories, the optimal complexity metrics were as follows: MAD (AUC = 0.917) for LBCS, MCS (AUC = 0.681) for RBCS, MU factor (AUC = 0.854) for LBCM and MAD (AUC = 0.731) for RBCM. On the Edge LINAC, the preferable method for breast cancers was MCS (left breast, AUC = 0.938; right breast, AUC = 0.813), while on the TrueBeam LINAC, it became MU factor (left breast, AUC = 0.950) and MCS (right breast, AUC = 0.806), respectively. Overall, there was no universally suitable complexity metric for all types of breast cancers. The choice of complexity metric depended on different cancer types, locations and treatment LINACs. Therefore, when utilizing complexity metrics to predict PSQA outcomes in IMRT for breast cancer, it was essential to select the appropriate metric based on the specific circumstances and characteristics of the treatment.

A structured FMEA approach to optimizing combinations of plan-specific quality assurance techniques for IMRT and VMAT QA.

Many commercial tools are available for plan-specific quality assurance (QA) of radiotherapy plans, with their functionality assessed in isolation. However, multiple QA tools are required to review the full range of potential errors. It is important to assess their effectiveness in combination with each other to look for ways to both streamline the QA process and to make certain that errors of high impact and/or high occurrence are caught before reaching patient treatment. To develop a structured method to assess the effective risk reduction of combinations of QA methods for IMRT/VMAT treatments. First, a structured prospective risk assessment was performed to establish the major failure modes (FMs) of IMRT/VMAT QA, and assign occurrence (O), severity (S), and baseline detectability (BD) rankings to them. The baseline assumed that chart checks and linear accelerator QA was performed, but no plan-specific secondary dose calculation or measurement was done. Second, the detectability of each FM for two secondary dose calculation methods and four plan measurement methods (point-based dose calculation, Monte-Carlo-based dose calculation, 2D fluence-based measurement, 2.5D phantom-based measurement, log file analysis with dose recalculation, and log file analysis combined with MLC QA) was determined. Third, we used a minimum detectability approach in addition to each FM's occurrence and severity to determine the optimal combination of QA methods.We analyzed the cumulative risk priority number of eight combinations of QA methods. The analysis was done on (1) all FMs, (2) FMs with high severity, (3) FMs with high-risk priority numbers (RPN) of O*S*BD, and (4) on FMs with both high severity and high RPN. Our analysis resulted in 54 FMs, including commissioning, planning, data transfer, and linear accelerator failures. 1D secondary dose calculation plus measurement provided a 19%-22% risk reduction from baseline. 1D/3D secondary dose calculation plus log files created a 25%-32% reduction. 3D secondary dose calculation plus measurement resulted in a 27%-34% reduction. 3D secondary dose calculation plus log files with additional machine QA provided the greatest reduction of 31%-42%. This novel structured approach to comparing combinations of QA methods will allow us to optimize our procedures, with the goal of detecting all clinically significant FMs. Our results show that log-file QA with 3D dose recalculation and supplemental machine QA provides better risk reduction than measurement-based QA. This work builds evidence to justify reducing or eliminating measurement-based PSQA with an independent 3D dose verification, log-file measurement, and appropriate supplementation of machine QA. The process also highlights FMs that cannot be caught by pre-treatment QA, prompting us to consider future directions for on-treatment QA.

Investigating a correlation between MLC positional errors and IMRT QA passing rate

Patient-specific quality assurance (QA) using measurement-based techniques has been the standard method used in many institutions as an essential step to ensure the accuracy of the actual treatment. In this work, we studied the use of the trajectory log files in specifying the influence of the linear accelerator multi-leaf collimators (MLC) positional errors in the passing rates of our measurement-based QA. In the study, we analyzed sixty-five QA treatment plan results including plans for head and neck, lungs, pelvises, craniospinal, and total body irradiation. Eclipse treatment planning system with Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) dose calculation engine was the system used to generate all of our treatment plans. All plans were delivered on Varian® linear accelerator UNIQUE which is equipped with 120 Millennium MLC. Trajectory log files generated during treatment delivery were analyzed by a software developed using MATLAB. We compared the planned versus the actual delivered fluence from the recorded log files. Direct subtraction of both fluences allowed us to calculate the degree of match between both fluences. We called it the MLC matching percentage. Measurement-based QAs for all IMRT patients were done using Octavius 4D -PTW dosimetry that incorporates 729 chamber array. The gamma analysis passing rates were calculated by verisoft software using criteria of 3% for dose and 3 mm for distance to agreement and based on the global maximum dose of calculation volume and suppressing the dose blow of 5% of maximum dose of the calculated volume. Then we tested the correlation between the QA passing rate with the related MLC matching percentage. The gamma analysis passing rate was in the range of 90%–99.1% and the matching percentage ranged from 89% to 98.8%. The assessment of the correlation between the gamma passing rate and the matching percentage showed 0.45 correlation coefficient. The p-value was less than 0.05 which indicates a statistically significant correlation. The effect size was on the order of 0.7. Trajectory log file analysis combined with the measurement-based patient specific QA is beneficial to our IMRT QA process and it could be an aid to detect the actual delivery error and hence could improve our passing rates in the future.

Image-based features in machine learning to identify delivery errors and predict error magnitude for patient-specific IMRT quality assurance

ObjectiveTo identify delivery error type and predict associated error magnitude by image-based features using machine learning (ML).MethodsIn this study, a total of 40 thoracic plans (including 208 beams) were selected, and four error types with different magnitudes were introduced into the original plans, including 1) collimator misalignment (COLL), 2) monitor unit (MU) variation, 3) systematic multileaf collimator misalignment (MLCS), and 4) random MLC misalignment (MLCR). These dose distributions of portal dose predictions for the original plans were defined as the reference dose distributions (RDD), while those for the error-introduced plans were defined as the error-introduced dose distributions (EDD). Both distributions were calculated for all beams with portal dose image prediction (PDIP). Besides, 14 image-based features were extracted from RDD and EDD of portal dose predictions to obtain the feature vectors. In addition, a random forest was adopted for the multiclass classification task, and regression prediction for error magnitude.ResultsThe top five features extracted with the highest weight included 1) the relative displacement in the x direction, 2) the ratio of the absolute minimum residual error to the maximal RDD value, 3) the product of the maximum and minimum residuals, 4) the ratio of the absolute maximum residual error to the maximal RDD value, and 5) the ratio of the absolute mean residual value to the maximal RDD value. The relative displacement in the x direction had the highest weight. The overall accuracy of the five-class classification model was 99.85% for the validation set and 99.30% for the testing set. This model could be applied to the classification of the error-free plan, COLL, MU, MLCS, and MLCR with an accuracy of 100%, 98.4%, 99.9%, 98.0%, and 98.3%, respectively. MLCR had the worst performance in error magnitude prediction (70.1–96.6%), while others had better performance in error magnitude prediction (higher than 93%). In the error magnitude prediction, the mean absolute error (MAE) between predicted error magnitude and actual error ranged from 0.03 to 0.33, with the root mean squared error (RMSE) varying from 0.17 to 0.56 for the validation set. The MAE and RMSE ranged from 0.03 to 0.50 and 0.44 to 0.59 for the test set, respectively.ConclusionIt could be demonstrated in this study that the image-based features extracted from RDD and EDD can be employed to identify different types of delivery errors and accurately predict error magnitude with the assistance of ML techniques. They can be used to associate traditional gamma analysis with clinically based analysis for error classification and magnitude prediction in patient-specific IMRT quality assurance.

Application of Machine Learning to Patient-Specific IMRT Quality Assurance

Application of Machine Learning to Patient-Specific IMRT Quality Assurance

A tool for patient-specific prediction of delivery discrepancies in machine parameters using trajectory log files.

Multileaf collimator (MLC) delivery discrepancy between planned and actual (delivered) positions have detrimental effect on the accuracy of dose distributions for both IMRT and VMAT. In this study, we evaluated the consistency of MLC delivery discrepancies over the course of treatment and over time to verify that a predictive machine learning model would be applicable throughout the course of treatment. Next, the MLC and gantry positions recorded in prior trajectory log files were analyzed to build a machine learning algorithm to predict MLC positional discrepancies during delivery for a new treatment plan. An open source tool was developed and released to predict the MLC positional discrepancies at treatment delivery for any given plan. Trajectory log files of 142 IMRT plans and 125 VMAT plans from 9 Varian TrueBeam linear accelerators were collected and analyzed. The consistency of delivery discrepancy over patient-specific quality assurance (QA) and patient treatment deliveries was evaluated. Data were binned by treatment site and machine type to determine their relationship with MLC and gantry angle discrepancies. Motion-related parameters including MLC velocity, MLC acceleration, control point, dose rate, and gravity vector, gantry velocity and gantry acceleration, where applicable, were analyzed to evaluate correlations with MLC and gantry discrepancies. Several regression models, such as simple/multiple linear regression, decision tree, and ensemble method (boosted tree and bagged tree model) were used to develop a machine learning algorithm to predict MLC discrepancy based on MLC motion parameters. MLC discrepancies at patient-specific QA differed from those at patient treatment deliveries by a small (mean=0.0021±0.0036mm, P=0.0089 for IMRT; mean=0.0010±0.0016mm, P=0.0003 for VMAT) but statistically significant amount, likely due to setting the gantry angle to zero for QA in IMRT. MLC motion parameters, MLC velocity and gravity vector, showed significant correlation (P<0.001) with MLC discrepancy, especially MLC velocity, which had an approximately linear relationship (slope = -0.0027, P<0.001, R2 =0.79). Incorporating MLC motion parameters, the final generalized model trained by data from all linear accelerators can predict MLC discrepancy to a high degree of accuracy with high correlation (R2 =0.86) between predicted and actual MLC discrepancies. The same prediction results were found across different treatment sites and linear accelerators. We have developed a machine learning model using trajectory log files to predict the MLC discrepancies during delivery. This model has been a released as a research tool in which a DICOM-RT with predicted MLC positions can be generated using the original DICOM-RT file as input. This tool can be used to simulate radiotherapy treatment delivery and may be useful for studies evaluating plan robustness and dosimetric uncertainties from treatment delivery.

Evaluation of the effect of random setup errors on dose delivery in Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy

Abstract Aim: To conduct a study on the effect of random setup errors inpatient for dose delivery in Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy plans using Octavius 4D phantom. Materials and methods: 11 patients with cancer of H&amp;N were selected for this study. An IMRT plan was created for each patient. The IMRT quality assurance plans were transferred to Mosaiq workstation in a linear accelerator. These plans were delivered at the reference treatment position. Subsequently, the QA plans were delivered on the Octavius 4D phantom after introducing errors in various translational and rotational directions. The setup inaccuracies introduced varied from 1 mm to 5 mm along X, Y. These setup uncertainties were then introduced along X and Y direction simultaneously in equal measures. Similarly, IMRT plans were delivered also after introducing roll and yaw rotation of 1, 2 and 3 degrees in phantom. The deviation of gamma indices at all these positions was analyzed with respect to the reference setup position. Results: The percentage of points passing the gamma acceptance criterion decrease as we increase the setup error. The change is found to be very insignificant with setup error up to 2 mm along X, Y or XY direction. Similarly, the rotational error of up to 3 degrees is found to be acceptable. Conclusions: Small setup (&lt; 2 mm) correction in patients may not adversely affect the dose delivery. But an error of similar magnitude in 2 directions simultaneously has a much greater impact on IMRT dose delivery.

Evaluation of Delta4DVH Anatomy in 3D Patient-Specific IMRT Quality Assurance.

Purpose:To evaluate the performance of Delta4DVH Anatomy in patient-specific intensity-modulated radiotherapy quality assurance.Materials and Methods:Dose comparisons were performed between Anatomy doses calculated with treatment plan dose measured modification and pencil beam algorithms, treatment planning system doses, film doses, and ion chamber measured doses in homogeneous and inhomogeneous geometries. The sensitivity of Anatomy doses to machine errors and output calibration errors was also investigated.Results:For a Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) plan evaluated on the Delta4 geometry, the conventional gamma passing rate was 99.6%. For a water-equivalent slab geometry, good agreements were found between dose profiles in film, treatment planning system, and Anatomy treatment plan dose measured modification and pencil beam calculations. Gamma passing rate for Anatomy treatment plan dose measured modification and pencil beam doses versus treatment planning system doses was 100%. However, gamma passing rate dropped to 97.2% and 96% for treatment plan dose measured modification and pencil beam calculations in inhomogeneous head & neck phantom, respectively. For the 10 patients’ quality assurance plans, good agreements were found between ion chamber measured doses and the planned ones (deviation: 0.09% ± 1.17%). The averaged gamma passing rate for conventional and Anatomy treatment plan dose measured modification and pencil beam gamma analyses in Delta4 geometry was 99.6% ± 0.89%, 98.54% ± 1.60%, and 98.95% ± 1.27%, respectively, higher than averaged gamma passing rate of 97.75% ± 1.23% and 93.04% ± 2.69% for treatment plan dose measured modification and pencil beam in patients’ geometries, respectively. Anatomy treatment plan dose measured modification dose profiles agreed well with those in treatment planning system for both Delta4 and patients’ geometries, while pencil beam doses demonstrated substantial disagreement in patients’ geometries when compared to treatment planning system doses. Both treatment planning system doses are sensitive to multileaf collimator and monitor unit (MU) errors for high and medium dose metrics but not sensitive to the gantry and collimator rotation error smaller than 3°.Conclusions:The new Delta4DVH Anatomy with treatment plan dose measured modification algorithm is a useful tool for the anatomy-based patient-specific quality assurance. Cautions should be taken when using pencil beam algorithm due to its limitations in handling heterogeneity and in high-dose gradient regions.

4 Complexity metrics combination to optimize the pre-treatment quality assurance for IMRT and VMAT plans

Introduction. New radiotherapy technologies are associated with very complex treatments, with highly inhomogeneous beam fluences. However, plans whose intensity is strongly modulated may be too complex and the dose may be delivered improperly. In order to ensure the adequacy between the calculated dose and the dose delivered by the accelerator, pre-treatment quality assurance measurements are performed. When the difference between calculation and measurement is too important, plans need to be modified and recalculated.

290O - Long-term results of phase II trial of reduced modified clinical target volume in low-risk nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated with intensity modulated radiotherapy

BackgroundIntensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is the standard of care for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Part of the IMRT quality assurance process involves accurate target volume delineation, which is crucial for local control and survival. Current practice utilizes a uniform contouring method for clinical target volume (CTV) for all stages of NPC. Here, we conducted a single-arm phase 2 trial investigating the tumor control rates of reduced CTV margins and corresponding doses in low-risk, early-stage NPC. MethodsPatients with biopsy-proven stage I-IIb (6th UICC/AJCC) NPC were enrolled. All patients were treated with IMRT alone. Two CTVs (CTV1 [high risk] and CTV2 [low risk]) were outlined; CTV1 was defined by grossly identified tumour (on MRI or CT) plus 5-mm margin (3-mm posteriorly); CTV2 was CTV1 plus 5-mm margin (3-mm posteriorly). 60 Gy and 50–54 Gy in 30 fractions were prescribed to CTV1 and CTV2, respectively. Primary end-point was locoregional recurrence free survival (LRRFS). ResultsFrom May 2001 to August 2006, 103 patients were recruited; all patients completed IMRT as planned (time duration 39-61 days). At a median follow-up of 12.6 years, five patients developed locoregional failures; of which one was in-field, and four were regional recurrence (two in-field and two marginal). 10-year LRRFS, distant metastasis free survival (DMFS), disease specific survival (DSS) and overall survival (OS) were 95.0% and 94.1%, 94.0% and 91.1%, respectively. The most common grade 1-2 late toxicities included subcutaneous fibrosis (79.6%), hearing loss (53.4%) and skin dystrophy (43.2%); grade 3 included subcutaneous fibrosis (2.9%) and hearing loss (2.9%); and no grade 4 late toxicity. ConclusionsReduced CTV margins and corresponding doses results in optimal longterm tumour control, with minimal late adverse events. Clinical trial identificationNCT03839602. Legal entity responsible for the studyProf. Chong Zhao. FundingHas not received any funding. DisclosureM.L.K. Chua: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Janssen, Astellas, Varian, Ferring Singapore and AstraZeneca; Research grant / Funding (institution): Ferring Singapore, GenomeDx Biosciences, Varian, MedLever. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

1141P - Long-term results of phase II trial of reduced modified clinical target volume in low-risk nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated with intensity modulated radiotherapy

BackgroundIntensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is the standard of care for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Part of the IMRT quality assurance process involves accurate target volume delineation, which is crucial for local control and survival. Current practice utilizes a uniform contouring method for clinical target volume (CTV) for all stages of NPC. Here, we conducted a single-arm phase 2 trial investigating the tumor control rates of reduced CTV margins and corresponding doses in low-risk, early-stage NPC. MethodsPatients with biopsy-proven stage I-IIb (6th UICC/AJCC) NPC were enrolled. All patients were treated with IMRT alone. Two CTVs (CTV1 [high risk] and CTV2 [low risk]) were outlined; CTV1 was defined by grossly identified tumour (on MRI or CT) plus 5-mm margin (3-mm posteriorly); CTV2 was CTV1 plus 5-mm margin (3-mm posteriorly). 60Gy and 50–54Gy in 30 fractions were prescribed to CTV1 and CTV2, respectively. Primary end-point was locoregional recurrence free survival (LRRFS). ResultsFrom May 2001 to August 2006, 103 patients were recruited; all patients completed IMRT as planned (time duration 39-61 days). At a median follow-up of 12.6 years, five patients developed locoregional failures; of which one was in-field, and four were regional recurrence (two in-field and two marginal). 10-year LRRFS, distant metastasis free survival (DMFS), disease specific survival (DSS) and overall survival (OS) were 95.0% and 94.1%, 94.0% and 91.1%, respectively. The most common grade 1-2 late toxicities included subcutaneous fibrosis (79.6%), hearing loss (53.4%) and skin dystrophy (43.2%); grade 3 included subcutaneous fibrosis (2.9%) and hearing loss (2.9%); and no grade 4 late toxicity. ConclusionsReduced CTV margins and corresponding doses results in optimal long-term tumour control, with minimal late adverse events. Clinical trial identificationNCT03839602. Legal entity responsible for the studyChong Zhao. FundingNational Natural Science Foundation of China [No. 81872469]; Science and Technology Project of Guangdong Province [No. 2014A020212433]. DisclosureM.L.K. Chua: Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy: Janssen, Astellas, Varian, Ferring Singapore and AstraZeneca; Research grant / Funding (institution), Structured research agreement/Research funding - Ferring Singapore, GenomeDx Biosciences, Varian, MedLever.: Ferring Singapore, GenomeDx Biosciences, Varian, MedLever. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

National survey of patient specific IMRT quality assurance in China

BackgroundTo analyze and present the China’s national survey on patient-specific IMRT quality assurance (QA).MethodsA national survey was conducted in all radiotherapy centers in China to collect comprehensive information on status of IMRT QA practice, including machine, technique, equipment, issues and suggestions.ResultsFour hundred and three centers responded to this survey, accounting for 56.92% of all the centers implementing IMRT in China. The total number of medical physicists and the total number of patients treated with IMRT annually in these centers was 1599 and 305,000 respectively. All centers implemented measurement-based verification. Point dose verification and 2D dose verification was implemented in 331 and 399 centers, respectively. Three hundred forty-eight centers had 2D arrays, and 52 centers had detector devices designed to measure VMAT beams. EPID and film were used in 78 and 70 centers, respectively. Seventeen and 20 centers used log file and 3D DVH analysis, respectively. One hundred sixty-eight centers performed measurement-based verification not for each patient based on different selection criteria. The techniques and methods varied significantly in both point dose and dose distribution verification, from evaluation metrics, criteria, tolerance limit, and steps to check failed IMRT QA plans. Major issues identified in this survey were the limited resources of physicists, QA devices, and linacs.ConclusionsIMRT QA was implemented in all the surveyed centers. The practice of IMRT QA varied significantly between centers. An increase in personnel, QA devices and linacs is highly desired. National standard, guideline, regulation and training programs are urgently needed in China for consistent and effective implementation of IMRT QA.

Interpretation of Gamma Index for Quality Assurance of Simultaneously Integrated Boost (SIB) IMRT Plans for Head and Neck Carcinoma

Abstract Objective: The Gamma Index is prerequisite to estimate point-by-point difference between measured and calculated dose distribution in terms of both Distance to Agreement (DTA) and Dose Difference (DD). This study aims to inquire what percentage of pixels passing a certain criteria assure a good quality plan and suggest gamma index as efficient mechanism for dose verification of Simultaneous Integrated Boost Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy plans. Method: In this study, dose was calculated for 14 head and neck patients and IMRT Quality Assurance was performed with portal dosimetry using the Eclipse treatment planning system. Eclipse software has a Gamma analysis function to compare measured and calculated dose distribution. Plans of this study were deemed acceptable when passing rate was 95% using tolerance for Distance to agreement (DTA) as 3mm and Dose Difference (DD) as 5%. Result and Conclusion: Thirteen cases pass tolerance criteria of 95% set by our institution. Confidence Limit for DD is 9.3% and for gamma criteria our local CL came out to be 2.0% (i.e., 98.0% passing). Lack of correlation was found between DD and γ passing rate with R2 of 0.0509. Our findings underline the importance of gamma analysis method to predict the quality of dose calculation. Passing rate of 95% is achieved in 93% of cases which is adequate level of accuracy for analyzed plans thus assuring the robustness of SIB IMRT treatment technique. This study can be extended to investigate gamma criteria of 5%/3mm for different tumor localities and to explore confidence limit on target volumes of small extent and simple geometry.

Investigation of error detection capabilities of phantom, EPID and MLC log file based IMRT QA methods.

A patient specific quality assurance (QA) should detect errors that originate anywhere in the treatment planning process. However, the increasing complexity of treatment plans has increased the need for improvements in the accuracy of the patient specific pretreatment verification process. This has led to the utilization of higher resolution QA methods such as the electronic portal imaging device (EPID) as well as MLC log files and it is important to know the types of errors that can be detected with these methods. In this study, we will compare the ability of three QA methods (Delta4®, MU‐EPID, Dynalog QA) to detect specific errors. Multileaf collimator (MLC) errors, gantry angle, and dose errors were introduced into five volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for a total of 30 plans containing errors. The original plans (without errors) were measured five times with each method to set a threshold for detectability using two standard deviations from the mean and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) derived limits. Gamma passing percentages as well as percentage error of planning target volume (PTV) were used for passing determination. When applying the standard 95% pass rate at 3%/3 mm gamma analysis errors were detected at a rate of 47, 70, and 27% for the Delta4, MU‐EPID and Dynalog QA respectively. When using thresholds set at 2 standard deviations from our base line measurements errors were detected at a rate of 60, 30, and 47% for the Delta4, MU‐EPID and Dynalog QA respectively. When using ROC derived thresholds errors were detected at a rate of 60, 27, and 47% for the Delta4, MU‐EPID and Dynalog QA respectively. When using dose to the PTV and the Dynalog method 11 of the 15 small MLC errors were detected while none were caught using gamma analysis. A combination of the EPID and Dynalog QA methods (scaling Dynalog doses using EPID images) matches the detection capabilities of the Delta4 by adding additional comparison metrics. These additional metrics are vital in relating the QA measurement to the dose received by the patient which is ultimately what is being confirmed.

An analysis of the ArcCHECK‐MRdiode 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.

A preliminary study on the use of FX-Glycine gel and an in-house optical cone beam CT readout for IMRT and RapidArc verification

The radiochromic FX gel with Optical CT readout has been investigated by several authors and has shown promising results for 3D dosimetry. One of the applications of the gel dosimeters is their use in 3D dose verification for IMRT and RapidArc quality assurance. Though polymer gel has been used successfully for clinical dose verification, the use of FX gel for clinical dose verification with optical cone beam CT needs further validation. In this work, we have used FX gel and an in- house optical readout system for gamma analysis between the dose matrices of measured dose distribution and a treatment planning system (TPS) calculated dose distribution for a few test cases.

A method to enhance 2D ion chamber array patient specific quality assurance for IMRT.

Gamma index comparison has been established as a method for patient specific quality assurance in IMRT. Detector arrays can replace radiographic film systems to record 2D dose distributions and fulfill quality assurance requirements. These electronic devices present spatial resolution disadvantages with respect to films. This handicap can be partially overcome with a multiple acquisition sequence of adjacent 2D dose distributions. The detector spatial response influence can also be taken into account through the convolution of the calculated dose with the detector spatial response. A methodology that employs both approaches could allow for enhancements of the quality assurance procedure. 35 beams from different step and shoot IMRT plans were delivered on a phantom. 2D dose distributions were recorded with a PTW-729 ion chamber array for individual beams, following the multiple acquisition methodology. 2D dose distributions were also recorded on radiographic films. Measured dose distributions with films and with the PTW-729 array were processed with the software RITv5.2 for Gamma index comparison with calculated doses. Calculated dose was also convolved with the ion chamber 2D response and the Gamma index comparisons with the 2D dose distribution measured with the PTW-729 array was repeated. 3.7±2.7% of points surpassed the accepted Gamma index when using radiographic films compared with calculated dose, with a minimum of 0.67 and a maximum of 13.27. With the PTW-729 multiple acquisition methodology compared with calculated dose, 4.1±1.3% of points surpassed the accepted Gamma index, with a minimum of 1.44 and a maximum of 11.26. With the PTW- multiple acquisition methodology compared with convolved calculated dose, 2.7±1.3% of points surpassed the accepted Gamma index, with a minimum of 0.42 and a maximum of 5.75. The results obtained in this work suggest that the comparison of merged adjacent dose distributions with convolved calculated dose represents an enhancement in the methodology for IMRT patient specific quality assurance with the PTW-729 ion chamber array.

Curtailing patient-specific IMRT QA procedures from 2D dose error distribution.

A patient-specific quality assurance (QA) test is conducted to verify the accuracy of dose delivery. It generally consists of three verification processes: the absolute point dose difference, the planar dose differences at each gantry angle, and the planar dose differences by 3D composite irradiation. However, this imposes a substantial workload on medical physicists. The objective of this study was to determine whether our novel method that predicts the 3D delivered dose allows certain patient-specific IMRT QAs to be curtailed. The object was IMRT QA for the pelvic region with regard to point dose and composite planar dose differences. We compared measured doses, doses calculated in the treatment planning system, and doses predicted by in-house software. The 3D predicted dose was reconstructed from the per-field measurement by incorporating the relative dose error distribution into the original dose grid of each beam. All point dose differences between the measured and the calculated dose were within ±3%, whereas 93.3% of them between the predicted and the calculated dose were within ±3%. As for planar dose differences, the gamma passing rates between the calculated and the predicted dose were higher than those between the calculated and the measured dose. Comparison and statistical analysis revealed a correlation between the predicted and the measured dose with regard to both point dose and planar dose differences. We concluded that the prediction-based approach is an accurate substitute for the conventional measurement-based approach in IMRT QA for the pelvic region. Our novel approach will help medical physicists save time on IMRT QA.

SU‐F‐T‐291: Development of Physician‐Driven, Clinically‐Relevant Pass/fail Criteria for a DVH‐Based IMRT Patient Specific QA Program

Purpose:To derive and implement physician driven metrics for dose volume histogram (DVH)‐based patient specific quality assurance (QA) for prostate radiation therapy based on clinically relevant deviations.Methods:An observership study presented 3 radiation oncology physicians from our institution with a series of artificial DVH‐based IMRT QA results, each generated by introducing iteratively larger perturbations from a planned DVH (from our pool of 20 real patient plans) to portions of the bladder, rectum, and planning target volume (PTV) DVHs. Physician responses were quantified by recording acceptable deviations from both in‐house defined clinical goals (e.g. V70Gy &lt; 10cc for rectum, mean dose for bladder) and other accepted dosimetric indices from the literature . The newly defined DVH criteria were used to evaluate 14 clinical IMRT plans measured using ArcCHECK and processed using 3DVH (Sun Nuclear Corporation, Melbourne, FL), all of which passed the standard 3%/3mm 2D‐Γ comparison at &gt;90% (absolute dose). In addition, 4 intentionally perturbed plans were measured, all with close to 90% 2D‐Γ passing rates (relative dose). We compared physician derived constraints against 2D‐Γ results to establish the relationship with an accepted IMRT QA metric.Results:Of the 14 clinical patients measured, 7 were flagged for physician review (i.e. did not pass physician‐derived DVH constraints). The rectum and bladder ΔD0.1cc constraint was the root cause of 5/7 of these QA failures. Of the 4 perturbed plans, 3/4 patients failed multiple DVH criteria in the bladder and rectum. Observership results from one physician‐derived metric (PTV ΔD0.1cc) were found to be too strict and excluded from analysis.Conclusion:We derived clinically relevant physician driven criteria for DVH‐based patient specific QA at our institution. In N=14 patient plans, implementation of these criteria reduced the need for physician review of patient QA results by 50%. Further refinement of PTV D0.1cc constraint is needed.Partially funded by Sun Nuclear Corporation research agreement.