Dataset Information

Measurement comparison and Monte Carlo analysis for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivery verification using the ArcCHECK dosimetry system.

ABSTRACT: The objective of this study is to validate the capabilities of a cylindrical diode array system for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment quality assurance (QA). The VMAT plans were generated by the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) with the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) for dose calculation. An in-house Monte Carlo (MC) code was utilized as a validation tool for the TPS calculations and the ArcCHECK measurements. The megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) of the ArcCHECK system was adopted for the geometry reconstruction in the TPS and for MC simulations. A 10 × 10 cm2 open field validation was performed for both the 6 and 10 MV photon beams to validate the absolute dose calibration of the ArcCHECK system and also the TPS dose calculations for this system. The impact of the angular dependency on noncoplanar deliveries was investigated with a series of 10 × 10 cm2 fields delivered with couch rotation 0° to 40°. The sensitivity of detecting the translational (1 to 10 mm) and the rotational (1° to 3°) misalignments was tested with a breast VMAT case. Ten VMAT plans (six prostate, H&N, pelvis, liver, and breast) were investigated to evaluate the agreement of the target dose and the peripheral dose among ArcCHECK measurements, and TPS and MC dose calculations. A customized acrylic plug holding an ion chamber was used to measure the dose at the center of the ArcCHECK phantom. Both the entrance and the exit doses measured by the ArcCHECK system with and without the plug agreed with the MC simulation to 1.0%. The TPS dose calculation with a 2.5 mm grid overestimated the exit dose by up to 7.2% when the plug was removed. The agreement between the MC and TPS calculations for the ArcCHECK without the plug improved significantly when a 1 mm dose calculation grid was used in the TPS. The noncoplanar delivery test demonstrated that the angular dependency has limited impact on the gamma passing rate (< 1.2% drop) for the 2%-3% dose and 2mm-3 mm DTA criteria. A 1° rotational misalignment introduces 11.3% (3%/3mm) to 21.3% (1%/1 mm) and 0.2% (3%/3 mm) to 0.8% (1%/1 mm) Gamma passing rate drop for ArcCHECK system and MatriXX system, respectively. Both systems have comparable sensitivity to the AP misalignments. However, a 2 mm RL misalignment introduces gamma passing rate drop ranging from 0.9% (3%/3 mm) to 4.0% (1%/1 mm) and 5.0% (3%/3 mm) to 12.0% (1%/1 mm) for ArcCHECK and MatriXX measurements, respectively. For VMAT plan QA, the gamma analysis passing rates ranged from 96.1% (H&N case) to 99.9% (prostate case), when using the 3%/3 mm DTA criteria for the peripheral dose validation between the TPS and ArcCHCEK measurements. The peripheral dose validation between the MC simulation and ArcCHECK measurements showed at least 97.9% gamma passing rates. The central dose validation also showed an agreement within 2.2% between TPS/MC calculations and ArcCHECK measurements. The worst discrepancy was found in the H&N case, which is the most complex VMAT case. The ArcCHECK system is suitable for VMAT QA evaluation based on the sensitivity to detecting misalignments, the clinical impact of the angular dependency, and the correlation between the dose agreements in the peripheral region and the central region. This work also demonstrated the importance of carrying out a thorough validation of both the TPS and the dosimetry system prior to utilizing it for QA, and the value of having an independent dose calculation tool, such as the MC method, in clinical practice.

SUBMITTER: Lin MH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5714369 | biostudies-literature | 2013 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Measurement comparison and Monte Carlo analysis for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivery verification using the ArcCHECK dosimetry system.

Lin Mu-Han MH Koren Sion S Veltchev Iavor I Li Jinsheng J Wang Lu L Price Robert A RA Ma C-M CM

Journal of applied clinical medical physics 20130506 2

The objective of this study is to validate the capabilities of a cylindrical diode array system for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment quality assurance (QA). The VMAT plans were generated by the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) with the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) for dose calculation. An in-house Monte Carlo (MC) code was utilized as a validation tool for the TPS calculations and the ArcCHECK measurements. The megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) of the ArcCH ...[more]

PMID: 23470927

Similar Datasets

Project description:A model based on a specific phantom, called QuAArC, has been designed for the evaluation of planning and verification systems of complex radiotherapy treatments, such as volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). This model uses the high accuracy provided by the Monte Carlo (MC) simulation of log files and allows the experimental feedback from the high spatial resolution of films hosted in QuAArC. This cylindrical phantom was specifically designed to host films rolled at different radial distances able to take into account the entrance fluence and the 3D dose distribution. Ionization chamber measurements are also included in the feedback process for absolute dose considerations. In this way, automated MC simulation of treatment log files is implemented to calculate the actual delivery geometries, while the monitor units are experimentally adjusted to reconstruct the dose-volume histogram (DVH) on the patient CT. Prostate and head and neck clinical cases, previously planned with Monaco and Pinnacle treatment planning systems and verified with two different commercial systems (Delta4 and COMPASS), were selected in order to test operational feasibility of the proposed model. The proper operation of the feedback procedure was proved through the achieved high agreement between reconstructed dose distributions and the film measurements (global gamma passing rates > 90% for the 2%/2 mm criteria). The necessary discretization level of the log file for dose calculation and the potential mismatching between calculated control points and detection grid in the verification process were discussed. Besides the effect of dose calculation accuracy of the analytic algorithm implemented in treatment planning systems for a dynamic technique, it was discussed the importance of the detection density level and its location in VMAT specific phantom to obtain a more reliable DVH in the patient CT. The proposed model also showed enough robustness and efficiency to be considered as a pre-treatment VMAT verification system.

Project description:The purpose of this study was to evaluate quantitatively the patient-specific 3D dosimetry tool COMPASS with 2D array MatriXX detector for stereotactic volumetric-modulated arc delivery. Twenty-five patients CT images and RT structures from different sites (brain, head & neck, thorax, abdomen, and spine) were taken from CyberKnife Multiplan planning system for this study. All these patients underwent radical stereotactic treatment in CyberKnife. For each patient, linac based volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) stereotactic plans were generated in Monaco TPS v3.1 using Elekta Beam Modulator MLC. Dose prescription was in the range of 5-20 Gy per fraction. Target prescription and critical organ constraints were tried to match the delivered treatment plans. Each plan quality was analyzed using conformity index (CI), conformity number (CN), gradient Index (GI), target coverage (TC), and dose to 95% of volume (D95). Monaco Monte Carlo (MC)-calculated treatment plan delivery accuracy was quantitatively evaluated with COMPASS-calculated (CCA) dose and COMPASS indirectly measured (CME) dose based on dose-volume histogram metrics. In order to ascertain the potential of COMPASS 3D dosimetry for stereotactic plan delivery, 2D fluence verification was performed with MatriXX using MultiCube phantom. Routine quality assurance of absolute point dose verification was performed to check the overall delivery accuracy. Quantitative analyses of dose delivery verification were compared with pass and fail criteria of 3 mm and 3% distance to agreement and dose differences. Gamma passing rate was compared with 2D fluence verification from MatriXX with MultiCube. Comparison of COMPASS reconstructed dose from measured fluence and COMPASS computed dose has shown a very good agreement with TPS calculated dose. Each plan was evaluated based on dose volume parameters for target volumes such as dose at 95% of volume (D95) and average dose. For critical organs dose at 20% of volume (D20), dose at 50% of volume (D50), and maximum point doses were evaluated. Comparison was carried out using gamma analysis with passing criteria of 3 mm and 3%. Mean deviation of 1.9% ± 1% was observed for dose at 95% of volume (D95) of target volumes, whereas much less difference was noticed for critical organs. However, significant dose difference was noticed in two cases due to the smaller tumor size. Evaluation of this study revealed that the COMPASS 3D dosimetry is efficient and easy to use for patient-specific QA of VMAT stereotactic delivery. 3D dosimetric QA with COMPASS provides additional degrees of freedom to check the high-dose modulated stereotactic delivery with very high precision on patient CT images.

Project description:Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans may require more control points (or segments) than some of fixed-beam IMRT plans that are created with a limited number of segments. Increasing number of control points in a VMAT plan for a given prescription dose could create a large portion of the total number of segments with small number monitor units (MUs) per segment. The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of the small number MU/segment on the delivery accuracy of VMAT delivered with various dose rates. Ten patient datasets were planned for hippocampus sparing for whole brain irradiation. For each dataset, two VMAT plans were created with maximum dose rates of 600 MU/min (the maximum field size of 21 × 40 cm2) and 1000 MU/min (the maximum field size of 15 × 15 cm2) for a daily dose of 3 Gy. Without reoptimization, the daily dose of these plans was purposely reduced to 1.5 Gy and 1.0 Gy while keeping the same total dose. Using the two dose rates and three different daily doses, six VMAT plans for each dataset were delivered to a physical phantom to investigate how the changes of dose rate and daily doses impact on delivery accuracy. Using the gamma index, we directly compared the delivered planar dose profiles with the reduced daily doses (1.5 Gy and 1.0 Gy) to the delivered planar dose at 3 Gy daily dose, delivered at dose rate of 600 MU/min and 1000 MU/min, respectively. The average numbers of segments with MU/segment ? 1 were 35 ± 8, 87 ± 6 for VMAT-600 1.5 Gy, VMAT-600 1 Gy plans, and 30 ± 7 and 42 ± 6 for VMAT-1000 1.5 Gy and VMAT-1000 1 Gy plans, respectively. When delivered at 600 MU/min dose rate, the average gamma index passing rates (1%/1 mm criteria) of comparing delivered 1.5 Gy VMAT planar dose profiles to 3.0 Gy VMAT delivered planar dose profiles was 98.28% ± 1.66%, and the average gamma index passing rate of comparing delivered 1.0 Gy VMAT planar dose to 3.0 Gy VMAT delivered planar dose was 83.75% ± 4.86%. If using 2%/2mm and 3%/3 mm criteria, the gamma index passing rates were greater than 97% for both 1.5 Gy VMAT and 1.0 Gy VMAT delivered planar doses. At 1000MU/min dose rate, the average gamma index passing rates were 96.59% ± 2.70% for 1.5 Gy VMAT planar dose profiles and 79.37% ± 9.96% for 1.0 Gy VMAT planar dose profiles when compared to the 3.0 Gy VMAT planar delivered dose profile. When using 2%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm criteria, the gamma index passing rates were greater than 93% for both 1.5 Gy VMAT and 1.0 Gy VMAT planar delivered dose. Under a stricter gamma index criterion (1%/1 mm), significant differences in delivered planar dose profiles at different daily doses were detected, indicating that the known communication delay between the MU console and MLC console may affect VMAT delivery accuracy.

Project description:The purpose of this study is to evaluate the sensitivities of 3D diode arrays to setup error for patient-specific quality assurance (QA) of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Translational setup errors of ± 1, ± 2, and ± 3 mm in the RL, SI, and AP directions and rotational setup errors of ± 1° and ± 2° in the pitch, roll, and yaw directions were set up in two phantom systems, ArcCHECK and Delta4, with VMAT plans for 11 patients. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) followed by automatic correction using a HexaPOD 6D treatment couch ensured the position accuracy. Dose distributions of the two phantoms were compared in order to evaluate the agreement between calculated and measured values by using γ analysis with 3%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm, and 2%/2 mm criteria. To determine the impact on setup error for VMAT QA, we evaluated the sensitivity of results acquired by both 3D diode array systems to setup errors in translation and rotation. For the VMAT QA of all patients, the pass rate with the 3%/3 mm criteria exceeded 95% using either phantom. For setup errors of 3 mm and 2°, respectively, the pass rates with the 3%/3mm criteria decreased by a maximum of 14.0% and 23.5% using ArcCHECK, and 14.4% and 5.0% using Delta4. Both systems are sensitive to setup error, and do not have mechanisms to account for setup errors in the software. The sensitivity of both VMAT QA systems was strongly dependent on the patient-specific plan. The sensitivity of ArcCHECK to the rotational error was higher than that of Delta4. In order to achieve less than 3% mean pass rate reduction of VMAT plan QA with the 3%/3 mm criteria, a setup accuracy of 2 mm/1° and 2 mm/2° is required for ArcCheck and Delta4 devices, respectively. The cumulative effect of the combined 2 mm translational and 1° rotational errors caused 3.8% and 2.4% mean pass rates reduction with 3%/3 mm criteria, respectively, for ArcCHECK and Delta4 systems. For QA of VMAT plans for nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) using the ArcCHECK system, the setup should be more accurate.

Project description:To introduce a hybrid volumetric modulated arc therapy/intensity modulated radiation therapy (VMAT/IMRT) optimization strategy called FusionArc that combines the delivery efficiency of single-arc VMAT with the potentially desirable intensity modulation possible with IMRT.A beamlet-based inverse planning system was enhanced to combine the advantages of VMAT and IMRT into one comprehensive technique. In the hybrid strategy, baseline single-arc VMAT plans are optimized and then the current cost function gradients with respect to the beamlets are used to define a metric for predicting which beam angles would benefit from further intensity modulation. Beams with the highest metric values (called the gradient factor) are converted from VMAT apertures to IMRT fluence, and the optimization proceeds with the mixed variable set until convergence or until additional beams are selected for conversion. One phantom and two clinical cases were used to validate the gradient factor and characterize the FusionArc strategy. Comparisons were made between standard IMRT, single-arc VMAT, and FusionArc plans with one to five IMRT∕hybrid beams.The gradient factor was found to be highly predictive of the VMAT angles that would benefit plan quality the most from beam modulation. Over the three cases studied, a FusionArc plan with three converted beams achieved superior dosimetric quality with reductions in final cost ranging from 26.4% to 48.1% compared to single-arc VMAT. Additionally, the three beam FusionArc plans required 22.4%-43.7% fewer MU∕Gy than a seven beam IMRT plan. While the FusionArc plans with five converted beams offer larger reductions in final cost--32.9%-55.2% compared to single-arc VMAT--the decrease in MU∕Gy compared to IMRT was noticeably smaller at 12.2%-18.5%, when compared to IMRT.A hybrid VMAT∕IMRT strategy was implemented to find a high quality compromise between gantry-angle and intensity-based degrees of freedom. This optimization method will allow patients to be simultaneously planned for dosimetric quality and delivery efficiency without switching between delivery techniques. Example phantom and clinical cases suggest that the conversion of only three VMAT segments to modulated beams may result in a good combination of quality and efficiency.

Dataset Information

Measurement comparison and Monte Carlo analysis for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivery verification using the ArcCHECK dosimetry system.

Publications

Measurement comparison and Monte Carlo analysis for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivery verification using the ArcCHECK dosimetry system.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets