Dataset Information

Commissioning and comprehensive evaluation of the ArcCHECK cylindrical diode array for VMAT pretreatment delivery QA.

ABSTRACT: We present commissioning and comprehensive evaluation for ArcCHECK as a QA equipment for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), using the 6 MV photon beam with and without the flattening filter, and the SNC patient software (version 6.2). In addition to commissioning involving absolute dose calibration, array calibration, and PMMA density verification, ArcCHECK was evaluated for its response dependency on linac dose rate, instantaneous dose rate, radiation field size, beam angle, and couch insertion. Scatter dose characterization, consistency and symmetry of response, and dosimetry accuracy evaluation for fixed aperture arcs and clinical VMAT patient plans were also investigated. All the evaluation tests were performed with the central plug inserted and the homogeneous PMMA density value. Results of gamma analysis demonstrated an overall agreement between ArcCHECK-measured and TPS-calculated reference doses. The diode based field size dependency was found to be within 0.5% of the reference. The dose rate-based dependency was well within 1% of the TPS reference, and the angular dependency was found to be ± 3% of the reference, as tested for BEV angles, for both beams. Dosimetry of fixed arcs, using both narrow and wide field widths, resulted in clinically acceptable global gamma passing rates on the 3%/3mm level and 10% threshold. Dosimetry of narrow arcs showed an improvement over published literature. The clinical VMAT cases demonstrated high level of dosimetry accuracy in gamma passing rates.

SUBMITTER: Chaswal V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5875521 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Commissioning and comprehensive evaluation of the ArcCHECK cylindrical diode array for VMAT pretreatment delivery QA.

Chaswal Vibha V Weldon Michael M Gupta Nilendu N Chakravarti Arnab A Rong Yi Y

Journal of applied clinical medical physics 20140708 4

We present commissioning and comprehensive evaluation for ArcCHECK as a QA equipment for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), using the 6 MV photon beam with and without the flattening filter, and the SNC patient software (version 6.2). In addition to commissioning involving absolute dose calibration, array calibration, and PMMA density verification, ArcCHECK was evaluated for its response dependency on linac dose rate, instantaneous dose rate, radiation field size, beam angle, and couch ins ...[more]

PMID: 25207411

Similar Datasets

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:PurposeIn this study, we evaluate and compare single isocenter multiple target VMAT (SIMT) and Conformal Arc Informed VMAT (CAVMAT) radiosurgery's sensitivity to uncertainties in dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) and treatment delivery. CAVMAT is a novel planning technique that uses multiple target conformal arcs as the starting point for limited inverse VMAT optimization.MethodsAll VMAT and CAVMAT plans were recalculated with DLG values of 0.4, 0.8, and 1.2 mm. DLG effect on V6Gy [cc], V12Gy [cc], and V16Gy [cc], and target dose was evaluated. Plans were delivered to a Delta4 (ScandiDos, Madison, WI) phantom and gamma analysis performed with varying criteria. Log file analysis was performed to evaluate MLC positional error. Sixteen targets were delivered to a SRS MapCHECK (Sun Nuclear Corp., Melbourne, FL) to evaluate VMAT and CAVMAT's dose difference (DD) as a function of DLG.ResultsVMAT's average maximum and minimum target dose sensitivity to DLG was 9.08 ±3.50%/mm and 9.50 ± 3.30%/mm, compared to 3.20 ± 1.60%/mm and 4.72 ± 1.60%/mm for CAVMAT. For VMAT, V6Gy [cc], V12Gy [cc], and V16Gy [cc] sensitivity was 35.83 ± 9.50%/mm, 34.12 ± 6.60%/mm, and 39.23 ± 8.40%/mm. In comparison, CAVMAT's sensitivity was 23.19 ± 4.50%/mm, 22.45 ± 4.40%/mm, and 24.88 ± 4.90%/mm, respectively. Upon delivery to the Delta4 , CAVMAT offered superior dose agreement compared to VMAT. For a 1%/1 mm gamma analysis, VMAT and CAVMAT had a passing rate of 94.53 ± 4.40% and 99.28 ± 1.70%, respectively. CAVMAT was more robust to DLG variation, with the SRS MapCHECK plans yielding an absolute average DD sensitivity of 2.99 ± 1.30%/mm compared to 5.07 ± 1.10%/mm for VMAT. Log files demonstrated minimal differences in MLC positional error for both techniques.ConclusionsCAVMAT remains robust to delivery uncertainties while offering a target dose sensitivity to DLG less than half that of VMAT, and 65% of that of VMAT for V6Gy [cc], V12Gy [cc], and V16Gy [cc]. The superior dose agreement and reduced sensitivity of CAVMAT to DLG uncertainties indicate promise as a robust alternative to VMAT for SIMT SRS.

Project description:The purpose of this study was to compare the measurement-derived (3DVH) dose reconstruction method with machine log file-derived dose reconstruction method in patient geometries for VMAT delivery. A total of ten patient plans were selected from a regular fractionation plan to complex SBRT plans. Treatment sites in the lung and abdomen were chosen to explore the effects of tissue heterogeneity on the respective dose reconstruction algorithms. Single- and multiple-arc VMAT plans were generated to achieve the desired target objectives. Delivered plan in the patient geometry was reconstructed by using ArcCHECK Planned Dose Perturbation (ACPDP) within 3DVH software, and by converting the machine log file to Pinnacle3 9.0 treatment plan format and recalculating dose with CVSP algorithm. In addition, delivered gantry angles between machine log file and 3DVH 4D measurement were also compared to evaluate the accuracy of the virtual inclinometer within the 3DVH. Measured ion chamber and 3DVH-derived isocenter dose agreed with planned dose within 0.4% ± 1.2% and -1.0% ± 1.6%, respectively. 3D gamma analysis showed greater than 98% between log files and 3DVH reconstructed dose. Machine log file reconstructed doses and TPS dose agreed to within 2% in PTV and OARs over the entire treatment. 3DVH reconstructed dose showed an average maximum dose difference of 3% ± 1.2% in PTV, and an average mean difference of -4.5% ± 10.5% in OAR doses. The average virtual inclinometer error (VIE) was -0.65° ± 1.6° for all patients, with a maximum error of -5.16° ± 4.54° for an SRS case. The time averaged VIE was within 1°-2°, and did not have a large impact on the overall accuracy of the estimated patient dose from ACPDP algorithm. In this study, we have compared two independent dose reconstruction methods for VMAT QA. Both methods are capable of taking into account the measurement and delivery parameter discrepancy, and display the delivered dose in CT patient geometry rather than the phantom geometry. The dose discrepancy can be evaluated in terms of DVH of the structures and provides a more intuitive understanding of the dosimetric impact of the delivery errors on the target and normal structure dose.

Dataset Information

Commissioning and comprehensive evaluation of the ArcCHECK cylindrical diode array for VMAT pretreatment delivery QA.

Publications

Commissioning and comprehensive evaluation of the ArcCHECK cylindrical diode array for VMAT pretreatment delivery QA.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets