Sensitivity of the IQM transmission detector to errors of VMAT plans.

The integral quality monitor (IQM) transmission detector is a wedge-shaped large area ionization chamber that reports a position-weighted dose area product for each control point of an IMRT or VMAT plan. In this study, the accuracy of the signal prediction is verified for the Synergy Agility MLC. Tolerance criteria for VMAT plan verification with the IQM were obtained from the observed sensitivity for the detection of incorrectly delivered plans. The predicted IQM signal was compared to the measured signal recorded for a set of 30 VMAT plans for each beam quality of 6 and 10 MV. The system's capability to detect incorrectly delivered plans was tested by measuring altered plans containing small, random deviations. In addition, the observed deviations were related to measurements performed with a second QA phantom. The cumulative IQM signal per arc deviated from the respective calculation on average by -0.48% (6 MV) and +0.21% (10 MV) with a standard deviation of 1.08% in both cases, suggesting a 2% warning and 3% action threshold as plan acceptance criteria. This choice was confirmed by the optimum threshold of 2.5% obtained via receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Reproducibility of individual control points in multiply measured plans was low (on average 7% for 1SD) and thus, segment-by-segment comparison was impractical. A suitable criterion to resolve the angular distribution of the plan was identified by binning three to five control points as a running average. While the correlation between IQM signal deviations and gamma passing rates obtained with the ArcCHECK phantom was low for clinical plans, it was apparent for erroneous plans. Binning led to even higher sensitivity to errors. The IQM was able to detect induced errors at least as reliable as the standard phantom and showed the potential to be used in pretreatment plan verification to ensure the correct plan transfer and delivery. However, there is no direct correlation between the IQM signal deviation and DVH metrics, so the IQM should be primarily used to screen for errors. Finer diagnostics should then be carried out using a different phantom.

Razinskas G ，Wegener S ，Greber J ，Sauer OA ... -  《-》

An investigation of the IQM signal variation and error detection sensitivity for patient specific pre-treatment QA.

To evaluate the Integral Quality Monitor (IQM) as a clinical dosimetry device for detecting photon beam delivery errors in clinically relevant conditions. The IQM's ability to detect delivery errors introduced into clinical VMAT plans for two different treatment sites was assessed. This included measuring 103 nasopharynx VMAT plans and 78 lung SBRT VMAT plans with introduced errors in gantry angle (1-5°) and in MLC-defined field size and field shift (1-5 mm). The IQM sensitivity was compared to ArcCheck detector performance. Signal dependence on field position for on-axis and asymmetrically offset square field sizes from 1 × 1 cm2 to 30 × 30 cm2 was also investigated. The IQM detected almost all introduced clinically-significant MLC field size errors, but not some small gantry angle errors or most MLC field shift errors. The IQM sensitivity was comparable to the ArcCheck for lung SBRT, but worse for the nasopharynx plans. Differences between IQM calculated/predicted and measured signals were within ± 2% for all on-axis square fields, but up to 60% for the smallest asymmetrically offset fields at large offsets. The IQM performance was consistent and reproducible. It showed highest sensitivity to the field size errors for these plans, but did not detect some clinically-significant introduced gantry angle errors or most MLC field shift errors. The IQM calculation model is still being developed, which should improve small offset-field performance. Care is required in IQM use for plan verification or online monitoring, especially for small fields that are off-axis in the detector gradient direction.

Alharthi T ，George A ，Arumugam S ，Holloway L ，Thwaites D ，Vial P ... -  《-》

Comparison of pretreatment VMAT quality assurance with the integral quality monitor (IQM) and electronic portal imaging device (EPID).

The purpose of this study was to compare pretreatment volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) quality assurance (QA) measurements and evaluate the multileaf collimator (MLC) error sensitivity of two detectors: the integral quality monitor (IQM) system (iRT systems IQM) and the electronic portal imaging device (EPID) (Varian PortalVision aS1200). Pretreatment QA measurements were performed for 20 retrospective VMAT plans (53 arcs). A subset of ten plans (23 arcs) was used to investigate MLC error sensitivity of each device. Eight MLC error plans were created for each VMAT plan. The errors included systematic opening/closing (±0.25, ±0.50, ±0.75 mm) of the MLC and random positional errors (1 mm) for individual/groups of leaves. The IQM was evaluated using the percent error of the measured cumulative signal relative to the calculated signal. The EPID was evaluated using two methods: a novel percent error of the measured relative to the predicted cumulative signals, and gamma (γ) analysis (1%/1 mm, 2%/2 mm, 3%/3 mm and 3%/1 mm for Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy plans). The average change in maximum dose obtained from dose-volume histogram (DVH) data and change in detector signals for different systematic MLC shifts was also compared. Cumulative signal differences showed similar levels of agreement between measured and expected detector signals (IQM: 1.00 ± 0.55%; EPID: 1.22 ± 0.92%). Results from γ analysis lacked specificity. Only the 1%/1 mm criteria produced data with remarkable differences. A strong linear correlation was observed between IQM and EPID cumulative signal differences with MLC error magnitude (R = 0.99). Likewise, results indicate a strong correlation between the cumulative signal for both detectors and DVH dose (RIQM  = 0.99; REPID  = 0.97). In conclusion, use of cumulative signal differences could be more useful for detecting errors in treatment delivery in EPID than γ analysis.

Ghafarian M ，Price M ，Morales-Paliza M 《Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics》

Comparison of calculation algorithms to predict the IQM detector response for various modulation degrees of VMAT treatment plans on linear accelerator equipped with the HD120 MLC.

The calculation model for the integral quality monitor (IQM) system does not take into account the characteristics of the HD120 multileaf collimator (MLC), which some Varian accelerators are equipped with. Some treatment plans prepared with this collimator are characterized by a high level of modulation. The aim of the work was to prepare a model for that collimator and to determine the influence of modulation on results of the verification carried out with the use of IQM system. The short and long stabilities of the IQM detector response were verified by measuring the signal for a 6 MV flattening filter-free (FFF) beam with the static field of 10 × 10 cm2 size. The obtained results were compared with the measurements performed with the PTW Farmer chamber. Next, the signals for 35 static square fields 4 × 4 cm2 , covering the whole field 38 × 20 cm2 , were measured with the IQM. Based on the results of these measurements, the original calculation model has been changed in order to achieve the smallest differences between calculations and measurements. While tuning the model, the characteristics of the HD120 MLC were included. Measurements were performed for 30 clinical plans (86 arcs) prepared with 6 MV FFF beams. Among those 30 plans, there were were multitarget plans with single isocenter. For each plan, the modulation complexity score (MCS) was calculated. The measurement results were compared with the calculation results performed with the original and authors' calculation model. Very good stability of the short and long stabilities of the IQM detector response was obtained. Measurements performed for 35 static fields revealed that for the manufacturer's and for the authors' models, the deviation exceeded 3% for 12 and five of the 35 static fields, respectively. The differences for the manufacturer's and authors' algorithms were in the range of ±2% for the 15 and 26 of the fields, respectively. For original and the authors' models, the differences between measured and calculated signals (starting with the segment number 40) were within the range of ±3.5% for 87.6% and 96.7% of all arcs for the respective models. For both models, the dependence of the compliance of measurements and calculations on the MCS was observed. For most of the very modulated arcs, the measured signal was at least 3% lower than the calculated one. The largest differences between measurements and calculations were obtained for single-isocenter multitarget plans. The signal predicted by an algorithm taking into account the real geometry of the collimating system of the Edge accelerator (equipped with the HD120 MLC) made it possible to obtain greater consistency between the measurements and calculations. We characterized the dependence between the MCS of each arc and the compliance of the measurements and calculations. Much worse results were obtained for single-isocenter multitarget plans.

Janiak PT ，Kukołowicz PF 《-》

Comparison of MLC error sensitivity of various commercial devices for VMAT pre-treatment quality assurance.

The purpose of this study was to compare the MLC error sensitivity of various measurement devices for VMAT pre-treatment quality assurance (QA). This study used four QA devices (Scandidos Delta4, PTW 2D-array, iRT systems IQM, and PTW Farmer chamber). Nine retrospective VMAT plans were used and nine MLC error plans were generated for all nine original VMAT plans. The IQM and Farmer chamber were evaluated using the cumulative signal difference between the baseline and error-induced measurements. In addition, to investigate the sensitivity of the Delta4 device and the 2D-array, global gamma analysis (1%/1, 2%/2, and 3%/3 mm), dose difference (1%, 2%, and 3%) were used between the baseline and error-induced measurements. Some deviations of the MLC error sensitivity for the evaluation metrics and MLC error ranges were observed. For the two ionization devices, the sensitivity of the IQM was significantly better than that of the Farmer chamber (P < 0.01) while both devices had good linearly correlation between the cumulative signal difference and the magnitude of MLC errors. The pass rates decreased as the magnitude of the MLC error increased for both Delta4 and 2D-array. However, the small MLC error for small aperture sizes, such as for lung SBRT, could not be detected using the loosest gamma criteria (3%/3 mm). Our results indicate that DD could be more useful than gamma analysis for daily MLC QA, and that a large-area ionization chamber has a greater advantage for detecting systematic MLC error because of the large sensitive volume, while the other devices could not detect this error for some cases with a small range of MLC error.

Saito M ，Sano N ，Shibata Y ，Kuriyama K ，Komiyama T ，Marino K ，Aoki S ，Ashizawa K ，Yoshizawa K ，Onishi H ... -  《Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics》