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》

Commissioning and quality assurance for VMAT delivery systems: An efficient time-resolved system using real-time EPID imaging.

An ideal commissioning and quality assurance (QA) program for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) delivery systems should assess the performance of each individual dynamic component as a function of gantry angle. Procedures within such a program should also be time-efficient, independent of the delivery system and be sensitive to all types of errors. The purpose of this work is to develop a system for automated time-resolved commissioning and QA of VMAT control systems which meets these criteria. The procedures developed within this work rely solely on images obtained, using an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) without the presence of a phantom. During the delivery of specially designed VMAT test plans, EPID frames were acquired at 9.5 Hz, using a frame grabber. The set of test plans was developed to individually assess the performance of the dose delivery and multileaf collimator (MLC) control systems under varying levels of delivery complexities. An in-house software tool was developed to automatically extract features from the EPID images and evaluate the following characteristics as a function of gantry angle: dose delivery accuracy, dose rate constancy, beam profile constancy, gantry speed constancy, dynamic MLC positioning accuracy, MLC speed and acceleration constancy, and synchronization between gantry angle, MLC positioning and dose rate. Machine log files were also acquired during each delivery and subsequently compared to information extracted from EPID image frames. The largest difference between measured and planned dose at any gantry angle was 0.8% which correlated with rapid changes in dose rate and gantry speed. For all other test plans, the dose delivered was within 0.25% of the planned dose for all gantry angles. Profile constancy was not found to vary with gantry angle for tests where gantry speed and dose rate were constant, however, for tests with varying dose rate and gantry speed, segments with lower dose rate and higher gantry speed exhibited less profile stability. MLC positional accuracy was not observed to be dependent on the degree of interdigitation. MLC speed was measured for each individual leaf and slower leaf speeds were shown to be compensated for by lower dose rates. The test procedures were found to be sensitive to 1 mm systematic MLC errors, 1 mm random MLC errors, 0.4 mm MLC gap errors and synchronization errors between the MLC, dose rate and gantry angle controls systems of 1°. In general, parameters measured by both EPID and log files agreed with the plan, however, a greater average departure from the plan was evidenced by the EPID measurements. QA test plans and analysis methods have been developed to assess the performance of each dynamic component of VMAT deliveries individually and as a function of gantry angle. This methodology relies solely on time-resolved EPID imaging without the presence of a phantom and has been shown to be sensitive to a range of delivery errors. The procedures developed in this work are both comprehensive and time-efficient and can be used for streamlined commissioning and QA of VMAT delivery systems.

Zwan BJ ，Barnes MP ，Hindmarsh J ，Lim SB ，Lovelock DM ，Fuangrod T ，O'Connor DJ ，Keall PJ ，Greer PB ... -  《-》

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 ... -  《-》

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》

An error detection method for real-time EPID-based treatment delivery quality assurance.

To quantify the error detection power of a new treatment delivery error detection method. The method validates monitor unit (MU) resolved beam apertures using real-time EPID images. The on-board EPID imager was used to measure cine-EPID (~10 Hz) images for 27 beams from 15 VMAT/SBRT clinical treatment plans and five nonclinical plans. For each frame acquisition, planned apertures were interpolated from the treatment plan multileaf collimator (MLC) positions expected during the frame acquisition interval. Inaccurate deliveries were identified by monitoring in-aperture missed fluence and out-of-aperture excess fluence beyond a specified buffer. Delivery errors were simulated by perturbing the planned MLC positions before comparison with nonperturbed measured apertures. Systematic 1-5 mm MLC leaf shifts were used to train a logistic regression model to determine the error detection threshold. Model accuracy was monitored using tenfold cross-validation. The model's error detection ability was tested with other error modes: plan control point (CP) weight perturbations, collimator rotations, random MLC leaf position errors, EPID imager shift, and stuck MLC leaf. The error detection accuracy was evaluated using the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) and the false positive rate (FPR). Per-beam error thresholds of >1, >5, and >10% errant frames were tested to label per-beam errors. The model also was tested for its ability to distinguish five cases with highly similar plans and compared with gamma analysis. Delivery errors were detected by monitoring intended per-frame images with a 2 mm MLC buffer. Frame-by-frame aperture errors were identified with an optimal threshold of 0.3% of the expected aperture area. The per-frame FPR was 0.02%. The MCC was 1.00 (perfect classification) for detection based on 1% of frames for random CP weight shift, 3 mm random MLC shifts, 90° and 180° collimator rotations, and an MLC leaf stuck after 10% of the beam delivery. The MCC for 2°, 4°, and 8° collimator rotation were 0.53, 0.76, and 0.96, respectively, for the 1% of beam delivery threshold. The 3 mm EPID shift had poor detection, with a minimum MCC of 0.14. The highly similar plans were reliably detected by the aperture check but were not detectable with gamma analysis. The high error detection sensitivity and low FPR makes the aperture check error detection method well suited to pretreatment and during-treatment beam delivery quality assurance (QA). The aperture check detects subtle beam delivery errors, including those resulting from MLC leaf positioning deviations, CP MU shifts, and stuck MLC leaves. Furthermore, the method can distinguish between highly similar treatment plans. Since the aperture check method monitors for the aperture shapes over a given MU interval, it is also sensitive to errors in MU per CP, without requiring dosimetric calibration of the EPID. The aperture check is one part of a Swiss cheese error detection scheme, which provides redundant error testing of multiple error modes, including nonaperture related errors. The rapid error detection, at 1% of a beam's delivery, make the aperture check a potential candidate for QA of on-line adaptive radiotherapy, or other situations in which pretreatment delivery QA is impractical.

Alves VGL ，Ahmed M ，Aliotta E ，Choi W ，Siebers JV ... -  《-》