A retrospective analysis for patient-specific quality assurance of volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans.

Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is now widely used clinically, as it is capable of delivering a highly conformal dose distribution in a short time interval. We retrospectively analyzed patient-specific quality assurance (QA) of VMAT and examined the relationships between the planning parameters and the QA results. A total of 118 clinical VMAT cases underwent pretreatment QA. All plans had 3-dimensional diode array measurements, and 69 also had ion chamber measurements. Dose distribution and isocenter point dose were evaluated by comparing the measurements and the treatment planning system (TPS) calculations. In addition, the relationship between QA results and several planning parameters, such as dose level, control points (CPs), monitor units (MUs), average field width, and average leaf travel, were also analyzed. For delivered dose distribution, a gamma analysis passing rate greater than 90% was obtained for all plans and greater than 95% for 100 of 118 plans with the 3%/3-mm criteria. The difference (mean ± standard deviation) between the point doses measured by the ion chamber and those calculated by TPS was 0.9% ± 2.0% for all plans. For all cancer sites, nasopharyngeal carcinoma and gastric cancer have the lowest and highest average passing rates, respectively. From multivariate linear regression analysis, the dose level (p = 0.001) and the average leaf travel (p < 0.001) showed negative correlations with the passing rate, and the average field width (p = 0.003) showed a positive correlation with the passing rate, all indicating a correlation between the passing rate and the plan complexity. No statistically significant correlation was found between MU or CP and the passing rate. Analysis of the results of dosimetric pretreatment measurements as a function of VMAT plan parameters can provide important information to guide the plan parameter setting and optimization in TPS.

Li G ，Wu K ，Peng G ，Zhang Y ，Bai S ... -  《-》

Volumetric-modulated arc therapy: effective and efficient end-to-end patient-specific quality assurance.

To explore an effective and efficient end-to-end patient-specific quality-assurance (QA) protocol for volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) and to evaluate the suitability of a stationary radiotherapy QA device (two-dimensional [2D] ion chamber array) for VMAT QA. Three methods were used to analyze 39 VMAT treatment plans for brain, spine, and prostate: ion chamber (one-dimensional absolute, n = 39), film (2D relative, coronal/sagittal, n = 8), and 2D ion chamber array (ICA, 2D absolute, coronal/sagittal, n = 39) measurements. All measurements were compared with the treatment planning system dose calculation either via gamma analysis (3%, 3- to 4-mm distance-to-agreement criteria) or absolute point dose comparison. The film and ion chamber results were similarly compared with the ICA measurements. Absolute point dose measurements agreed well with treatment planning system computed doses (ion chamber: median deviation, 1.2%, range, -0.6% to 3.3%; ICA: median deviation, 0.6%, range, -1.8% to 2.9%). The relative 2D dose measurements also showed good agreement with computed doses (>93% of pixels in all films passing gamma, >90% of pixels in all ICA measurements passing gamma). The ICA relative dose results were highly similar to those of film (>90% of pixels passing gamma). The coronal and sagittal ICA measurements were statistically indistinguishable by the paired t test with a hypothesized mean difference of 0.1%. The ion chamber and ICA absolute dose measurements showed a similar trend but had disparities of 2-3% in 18% of plans. After validating the new VMAT implementation with ion chamber, film, and ICA, we were able to maintain an effective yet efficient patient-specific VMAT QA protocol by reducing from five (ion chamber, film, and ICA) to two measurements (ion chamber and single ICA) per plan. The ICA (Matrixx®, IBA Dosimetry) was validated for VMAT QA, but ion chamber measurements are recommended for absolute dose comparison until future developments correct the ICA angular dependence.

O'Daniel J ，Das S ，Wu QJ ，Yin FF ... -  《-》

Impact of plan parameters on the dosimetric accuracy of volumetric modulated arc therapy.

Masi L ，Doro R ，Favuzza V ，Cipressi S ，Livi L ... -  《-》

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

Lin MH ，Koren S ，Veltchev I ，Li J ，Wang L ，Price RA ，Ma CM ... -  《Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics》

A study on correlation between 2D and 3D gamma evaluation metrics in patient-specific quality assurance for VMAT.

In this study, we investigated the correlation between 2-dimensional (2D) and 3D gamma analysis using the new PTW OCTAVIUS 4D system for various parameters. For this study, we selected 150 clinically approved volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans of head and neck (50), thoracic (esophagus) (50), and pelvic (cervix) (50) sites. Individual verification plans were created and delivered to the OCTAVIUS 4D phantom. Measured and calculated dose distributions were compared using the 2D and 3D gamma analysis by global (maximum), local and selected (isocenter) dose methods. The average gamma passing rate for 2D global gamma analysis in coronal and sagittal plane was 94.81% ± 2.12% and 95.19% ± 1.76%, respectively, for commonly used 3-mm/3% criteria with 10% low-dose threshold. Correspondingly, for the same criteria, the average gamma passing rate for 3D planar global gamma analysis was 95.90% ± 1.57% and 95.61% ± 1.65%. The volumetric 3D gamma passing rate for 3-mm/3% (10% low-dose threshold) global gamma was 96.49% ± 1.49%. Applying stringent gamma criteria resulted in higher differences between 2D planar and 3D planar gamma analysis across all the global, local, and selected dose gamma evaluation methods. The average gamma passing rate for volumetric 3D gamma analysis was 1.49%, 1.36%, and 2.16% higher when compared with 2D planar analyses (coronal and sagittal combined average) for 3mm/3% global, local, and selected dose gamma analysis, respectively. On the basis of the wide range of analysis and correlation study, we conclude that there is no assured correlation or notable pattern that could provide relation between planar 2D and volumetric 3D gamma analysis. Owing to higher passing rates, higher action limits can be set while performing 3D quality assurance. Site-wise action limits may be considered for patient-specific QA in VMAT.

Rajasekaran D ，Jeevanandam P ，Sukumar P ，Ranganathan A ，Johnjothi S ，Nagarajan V ... -  《-》