Abstract:Background Delivery variations during radiotherapy can cause discrepancies between planned and delivered dose distribution. These variations could arise from random and systematic offsets in certain machine parameters or systematic offsets related to the calibration process of the treatment unit. Purpose The aim of this study was to present a novel simulation‐based methodology to evaluate realistic delivery variations in three dimensions (3D). Additionally, we investigated the dosimetric impact of delivery variations for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for different treatment sites and complexities. Methods Twelve VMAT plans for different treatment sites (prostate‐, head & neck‐, lung‐, and gynecological cancer) were selected. The clinical plan used for the treatment of each patient was reoptimized to create one plan with reduced complexity (i.e., simple plan) and one of higher complexity (i.e., complex plan). This resulted in a total of 36 plans. Delivery variations were simulated by randomly introducing offsets in multi‐leaf collimator position, jaw position, gantry angle and collimator angle simultaneously. Twenty simulations were carried out for each of the 36 plans, yielding 720 simulated deliveries. To explore the impact of individual offsets, additional simulations were conducted for each type of offset separately. A 3D dose calculation was performed for each simulation using the same calculation engine as for the clinical plan. Two standard deviations (2SD) of dose were determined for every voxel for 3D‐spatial evaluations. The dose variation in certain DVH metrics, that is, D2% and D98% for the clinical target volume and five different DVH metrics for selected organs at risk, was calculated for the twenty simulated deliveries of each plan. For comparison, the effect of delivery variations was assessed by conducting measurements with the Delta4 phantom. Results The volume of voxels with 2SD above 1% of the prescribed dose was consistently larger for the complex plans in comparison to their corresponding simple and clinical plans. 2SDs larger than 1% were in many cases, found to accumulate outside the planning target volume. For complex plans, regions with 2SDs larger than 1% were detected also inside the high dose region, exhibiting, on average, a size six times larger volume, than those observed in simple plans. Similar results were found for all treatment sites. Variation in the selected DVH metrics for the simulated deliveries was generally largest for the complex plans with few exceptions. When comparing the 2SD distribution of the measurements with the 2SD distribution from the simulations, the spatial information showed deviations outside the PTV in both simulations and measurements. However, the measured values were, on average, 35% higher for the prostate plans and 10% higher for the head & neck plans compared to the simulated values. Conclusions The presented methodology effectively quantified and localized dose deviations due to delivery offsets. The 3D analysis provided information that was undetectable using the analysis based on DVH metrics. Dosimetric uncertainties due to delivery variations were prominent at the edge of the high‐dose region irrespective of treatment site and plan complexity. Dosimetric uncertainties inside the high‐dose region was more profound for plans of higher complexity.

Interfractional variation in whole-breast VMAT irradiation: a dosimetric study with complementary SGRT and CBCT patient setup

Volumetric and Dosimetric Variations in Radiation Treatment Planning Using CT Images Based on Different Reconstructed Field-of-view

Evaluation Of The Dosimetric Impact Of Interfractional Anatomical Variations On Prostate Proton Therapy Using Daily In-Room Ct Images

Setup margins based on the inter‐ and intrafractional setup error of left‐sided breast cancer radiotherapy using deep inspiration breath‐hold technique (DIBH) and surface guided radiotherapy (SGRT)

Intrafraction variation of mean tumor position during image-guided hypofractionated stereotactic body radiotherapy for lung cancer

Evaluation of setup and intrafraction motion for surface guided whole‐breast cancer radiotherapy

SU-GG-J-109: A Study on Image Guided Radiotherapy Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) for Head and Neck Cancer IMRT Patient Setup

SU-FF-J-39: Image Guided Radiation Therapy: Investigation of Interfraction Setup and External Contour Variation for Prostate IMRT Using CT and MRI

An alternative approach to GTV margin determination in stereotactic body radiotherapy

SU‐E‐J‐10: Inter‐Fractional Tumor Motion Analysis Using 4D‐CT and CBCT

Impact of delivery variations on 3D dose distributions for volumetric modulated arc therapy plans of various complexity

Image-Guided Study of Interfraction and Intrafraction Set-up Variability and Margins in Reverse Semi-Decubitus Breast Radiation Therapy

Simulation of dosimetric consequences of intrafraction variation of tumor drift in lung cancer stereotactic body radiotherapy

Evaluation of Interfraction Setup Uncertainty of GBM Patients Wearing TTFields (tumor treating fields) during Radiotherapy

Does the protocol-required uniform margin around the CTV adequately account for setup inaccuracies in whole breast irradiation?

Impact of Positioning Errors on the Dosimetry of Breath-Hold-Based Volumetric Arc Modulated and Tangential Field-in-Field Left-Sided Breast Treatments

Intrafraction Motion in Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Versus Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy

Comparison of Setup Accuracy of Optical Surface Image Versus Orthogonal X-Ray Images for VMAT of the Left Breast Using Deep-Inspiration Breath-Hold.

Dosimetric effect of rotational setup errors in volumetric modulated arc therapy and field-in-field treatment of left-sided breast cancer

Evaluating Inter-fraction Variations in Tumor Volumes with Repeated 4D-CT

In Silico Studies of the Impact of Rotational Errors on Translation Shifts and Dose Distribution in Image-Guided Radiotherapy.