Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Quality Research Articles

Predicting the complexity of head-and-neck volumetric-modulated arc therapy planning using a radiation therapy planning quality assurance software.

The more complex the treatment plan, the higher the possibility of errors in dose verification. Recently, a treatment planning quality assurance (QA) software (PlanIQ) with a function to objectively evaluate the quality of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment plans by scoring and calculating the ideal dose-volume histogram has been marketed. This study aimed to assess the association between the scores of ideal treatment plans identified using PlanIQ and the results of dose verification and to investigate whether the results of dose verification can be predicted based on the complexity of treatment plans. Dose verification was performed using an ionization chamber dosimeter, a radiochromic film, and a three-dimensional dose verification system, Delta4 PT. Correlations between the ideal treatment plan scores obtained by PlanIQ and the results of the absolute dose verification and dose distribution verification were obtained, and it was examined whether dose verifications could be predicted from the complexity of the treatment plans. Even when the score from the ideal treatment plan was high, the results of absolute dose verification and dose distribution verification were sometimes poor. However, even when the score from the ideal treatment plan was low, the absolute volume verification and dose distribution verification sometimes yielded good results. Treatment plan complexity can be determined in advance from the ideal treatment plan score calculated by PlanIQ. However, it is difficult to predict the results of dose verification using an ideal treatment plan.

Predictive gamma passing rate of 3D detector array-based volumetric modulated arc therapy quality assurance for prostate cancer via deep learning.

To predict the gamma passing rate (GPR) of the three-dimensional (3D) detector array-based volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) quality assurance (QA) for prostate cancer using a convolutional neural network (CNN) with the 3D dose distribution. One hundred thirty-five VMAT plans for prostate cancer were selected: 110 plans were used for training and validation, and 25 plans were used for testing. Verification plans were measured using a helical 3D diode array (ArcCHECK). The dose distribution on the detector element plane of these verification plans was used as input data for the CNN model. The measured GPR (mGPR) values were used as the training data. The CNN model comprises eighteen layers and predicted GPR (pGPR) values. The mGPR and pGPR values were compared, and a cumulative frequency histogram of the prediction error was created to clarify the prediction error tendency. The correlation coefficients of pGPR and mGPR were 0.67, 0.69, 0.66, and 0.73 for 3%/3-mm, 3%/2-mm, 2%/3-mm, and 2%/2-mm gamma criteria, respectively. The respective mean±standard deviations of pGPR-mGPR were -0.87±2.18%, -0.65±2.93%, -0.44±2.53%, and -0.71±3.33%. The probabilities of false positive error cases (pGPR < mGPR) were 72%, 60%, 68%, and 56% for each gamma criterion. We developed a deep learning-based prediction model of the 3D detector array-based VMAT QA for prostate cancer, and evaluated the accuracy and tendency of prediction GPR. This model can provide a proactive estimation for the results of the patient-specific QA before the verification measurement.

Preliminary study on monitoring patient-specific volumetric modulated arc therapy quality assurance process with statistical process control methodology on the basis of TG-218 report

Patient-specific volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) quality assurance (QA) process is an important component of the implementation process of clinical radiotherapy. The tolerance limit and action limit of discrepancies between the calculated dose and the delivered radiation dose are the key parts of the VMAT QA processes as recognized by the AAPM TG-218 report, however, there is no unified standard for these two values among radiotherapy centers. In this study, based on the operational recommendations given in the AAPM TG-218 report, treatment site-specific tolerance limits and action limits of gamma pass rate in VMAT QA processes when using ArcCHECK for dose verification were established by statistical process control (SPC) methodology. The tolerance limit and action limit were calculated based on the first 25 in-control VMAT QA for each site. The individual control charts were drawn to continuously monitor the VMAT QA process with 287 VMAT plans and analyze the causes of VMAT QA out of control. The tolerance limits for brain, head and neck, abdomen and pelvic VMAT QA processes were 94.56%, 94.68%, 94.34%, and 92.97%, respectively, and the action limits were 93.82%, 92.54%, 93.23%, and 90.29%, respectively. Except for pelvic, the tolerance limits for the brain, head and neck, and abdomen were close to the universal tolerance limit of TG-218 (95%), and the action limits for all sites were higher than the universal action limit of TG-218 (90%). The out-of-control VMAT QAs were detected by the individual control chart, including one case of head and neck, two of the abdomen and two of the pelvic site. Four of them were affected by the setup error, and one was affected by the calibration of ArcCHECK. The results show that the SPC methodology can effectively monitor the IMRT/VMAT QA processes. Setting treatment site-specific tolerance limits is helpful to investigate the cause of out-of-control VMAT QA.

SU-E-T-405: Robustness of Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) Plans to Systematic MLC Positional Errors

Purpose: To evaluate the dosimetric impact of systematic MLC positional errors (PEs) on the quality of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans. Methods: Five patients with head-and-neck cancer (HN) and five patients with prostate cancer were randomly chosen for this study. The clinically approved VMAT plans were designed with 2–4 coplanar arc beams with none-zero collimator angles in the Pinnacle planning system. The systematic MLC PEs of 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 mm on both MLC banks were introduced into the original VMAT plans using an in-house program, and recalculated with the same planned Monitor Units in the Pinnacle system. For each patient, the original VMAT plans and plans with MLC PEs were evaluated according to the dose-volume histogram information and Gamma index analysis. Results: For one primary target, the ratio of V100 in the plans with 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 mm MLC PEs to those in the clinical plans was 98.8 ± 2.2%, 97.9 ± 2.1%, 90.1 ± 9.0% for HN cases and 99.5 ± 3.2%, 98.9 ± 1.0%, 97.0 ± 2.5% for prostate cases. For all OARs, the relative difference of Dmean in all plans was less than 1.5%. With 2mm/2% criteria for Gamma analysis, the passing rates were 99.0 ± 1.5% for HN cases and 99.7 ± 0.3% for prostate cases between the planar doses from the original plans and the plans with 1.0 mm MLC errors. The corresponding Gamma passing rates dropped to 88.9 ± 5.3% for HN cases and 83.4 ± 3.2% for prostate cases when comparing planar doses from the original plans and the plans with 2.0 mm MLC errors. Conclusion: For VMAT plans, systematic MLC PEs up to 1.0 mm did not affect the plan quality in term of target coverage, OAR sparing, and Gamma analysis with 2mm/2% criteria.

A Comparison Study of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Quality Assurances Using Portal Dosimetry and MapCHECK 2

A Varian Portal Dosimetry system was compared to an isocentrica lly mounted MapCHECK 2 diode array for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) QA. A Varian TrueBeam STx with an aS-1000 digital imaging panel was used to acquire VMAT QA images for 13 plans using four photon energies (6, 8, 10 and 15 MV). The EPID-based QA images were compared to the Portal Dose Image Prediction calculated in the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS). An isocentrically mounted Sun Nuclear MapCHECK 2 diode array with 5 cm water-equivalent buildup was also used for the VMAT QAs and the measurements were compared to a composite dose plane from the Eclipse TPS. A γtest was implemented in the Sun Nuclear Patient software with 10% threshold and absolute comparison at 1%/1 mm (dose difference/distance-to-agreement), 2%/2 mm, and 3%/3 mm criteria for both QA methods. The two-tailed paired Student’s t-test was employed to analyze the statistical significance at 95% confidence level. The average γpassing rates were greater than 95% at 3%/3 mm using both methods for all four energies. The differences in the average passing rates between the two methods were within 1.7% and 1.6% of each other when analyzed at 2%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm, respectively. The EPID passing rates were somewhat better than the MapCHECK 2 when analyzed at 1%/1 mm; the difference was lower for 8 MV and 10 MV. However, the differences were not statistically significant for all criteria and energies (p-values ＞0.05). The EPID-based QA showed large off-axis over-response and dependence of γpassing rate on energy, while the MapCHECK 2 was susceptible to the MLC tongue-and-groove effect. The two fluence-based QA techniques can be an alternative tool of VMAT QA to each other, if the limitations of each QA method (mechanical sag, detector response, and detector alignment) are carefully considered.

EP-1471: Volumetric modulated arc therapy quality assurance: Characterisation and evaluation of Octavius 4D system

EP-1471: Volumetric modulated arc therapy quality assurance: Characterisation and evaluation of Octavius 4D system