Abstract:Purpose/Objective: To date, we have treated approximately 800 patients with IMRT at this institution using the Siemens Primus or Primart linear accelerators and the SMLC delivery technique. Prior to the initial patient treatment, each plan is evaluated and a series of QA tests are performed including absolute dose verification. This verification is a comparison between the dose calculated in phantom by the treatment planning system and the dose measured in phantom during irradiation. Our clinical acceptance criteria dictate that the values should agree to within ± 3% for treatment to begin. Values exceeding this limit trigger additional analysis, measurement and double-checking prior to patient treatment. An example is given where the mean deviation value was −6.5% with a maximum deviation measured of −8.8%. The focus of this work is to analyze the accuracy of our dosimetry QA procedure and address discrepancies that are significantly greater than ± 3%.Materials/Methods: All IMRT treatment plans are generated using the Corvus treatment planning system. Once a satisfactory plan is obtained a hybrid plan is generated. This plan utilizes the leaf sequences and associated MU designed for the patient plan and calculates dose on a virtual phantom. The physical phantom is then irradiated under the same conditions using the same leaf sequences. An absolute dose comparison is made by comparing dose in the physical phantom as measured using a 0.125cc PTW ionization chamber with dose predicted at the same point(s) in the virtual phantom by the treatment planning system. Agreement to within ± 3% indicates that the plan is appropriately deliverable as far as absolute dose is concerned. Values exceeding this limit prompt additional investigation. This investigation includes reassessing the treatment plan and hybrid plan for errors in data extraction, investigation of input data into the R&V system for accuracy and completeness, and investigation of deliverability with respect to beam placement. The phantom irradiation is then repeated to eliminate errors due to improper setup. Discrepancies outside a ± 4% window are verified using Monte Carlo simulations of both the dose in the virtual phantom and dose in the original patient CT data set. With agreement between the original Corvus calculated relative dose distributions and the distributions generated in film and Monte Carlo simulations, the MU can be scaled appropriately to bring the absolute dose into our acceptable range. When agreement is not present the individual patient plans are regenerated with changes in input parameters and/or beam directions.Results: Upon evaluation of our absolute dose data it was found that the agreement between measured dose and dose predicted by the planning system in phantom was within ± 1% for 37.9% of the cases, ± 2% for 68.6% and ± 3% for 93.6% of the cases. The discrepancies were more than 3% and more than 4% in only 6.4% and less than 1% of all cases, respectively. Monte Carlo calculation of absolute dose compares to within 2% of dose in phantom or the patient CT data set in the non-gradient portion of the dose distribution associated with the target as tested for 20 prostate cases.Conclusions: There appear to be some intensity maps that are not deliverable to within our clinical acceptance criteria even though the planning system generated a leaf sequence and associated MU set. Verification of absolute dose as well as the relative dose distribution is essential especially in these cases. While MU scaling may result in acceptable delivery, verification of the resultant dose distribution is needed since the Siemens linacs allow for integer MU delivery only. Monte Carlo can serve as an independent dose verification tool in the QA process. Evaluation of different leaf sequencing options is made for these cases and comparisons made using both measurement and Monte Carlo simulations. Purpose/Objective: To date, we have treated approximately 800 patients with IMRT at this institution using the Siemens Primus or Primart linear accelerators and the SMLC delivery technique. Prior to the initial patient treatment, each plan is evaluated and a series of QA tests are performed including absolute dose verification. This verification is a comparison between the dose calculated in phantom by the treatment planning system and the dose measured in phantom during irradiation. Our clinical acceptance criteria dictate that the values should agree to within ± 3% for treatment to begin. Values exceeding this limit trigger additional analysis, measurement and double-checking prior to patient treatment. An example is given where the mean deviation value was −6.5% with a maximum deviation measured of −8.8%. The focus of this work is to analyze the accuracy of our dosimetry QA procedure and address discrepancies that are significantly greater than ± 3%. Materials/Methods: All IMRT treatment plans are generated using the Corvus treatment planning system. Once a satisfactory plan is obtained a hybrid plan is generated. This plan utilizes the leaf sequences and associated MU designed for the patient plan and calculates dose on a virtual phantom. The physical phantom is then irradiated under the same conditions using the same leaf sequences. An absolute dose comparison is made by comparing dose in the physical phantom as measured using a 0.125cc PTW ionization chamber with dose predicted at the same point(s) in the virtual phantom by the treatment planning system. Agreement to within ± 3% indicates that the plan is appropriately deliverable as far as absolute dose is concerned. Values exceeding this limit prompt additional investigation. This investigation includes reassessing the treatment plan and hybrid plan for errors in data extraction, investigation of input data into the R&V system for accuracy and completeness, and investigation of deliverability with respect to beam placement. The phantom irradiation is then repeated to eliminate errors due to improper setup. Discrepancies outside a ± 4% window are verified using Monte Carlo simulations of both the dose in the virtual phantom and dose in the original patient CT data set. With agreement between the original Corvus calculated relative dose distributions and the distributions generated in film and Monte Carlo simulations, the MU can be scaled appropriately to bring the absolute dose into our acceptable range. When agreement is not present the individual patient plans are regenerated with changes in input parameters and/or beam directions. Results: Upon evaluation of our absolute dose data it was found that the agreement between measured dose and dose predicted by the planning system in phantom was within ± 1% for 37.9% of the cases, ± 2% for 68.6% and ± 3% for 93.6% of the cases. The discrepancies were more than 3% and more than 4% in only 6.4% and less than 1% of all cases, respectively. Monte Carlo calculation of absolute dose compares to within 2% of dose in phantom or the patient CT data set in the non-gradient portion of the dose distribution associated with the target as tested for 20 prostate cases. Conclusions: There appear to be some intensity maps that are not deliverable to within our clinical acceptance criteria even though the planning system generated a leaf sequence and associated MU set. Verification of absolute dose as well as the relative dose distribution is essential especially in these cases. While MU scaling may result in acceptable delivery, verification of the resultant dose distribution is needed since the Siemens linacs allow for integer MU delivery only. Monte Carlo can serve as an independent dose verification tool in the QA process. Evaluation of different leaf sequencing options is made for these cases and comparisons made using both measurement and Monte Carlo simulations.

Abstract:Purpose/Objective(s)To determine whether introduced delivery errors in IMRT and VMAT treatments can be detected by a 3D diode array using conventional analysis techniques.Material/MethodsA 3D QA device with 2 orthogonal diode array planes was used for IMRT and VMAT QA. The diode spacing is 5mm in the central 6cmx6cm region and 1cm in the peripheral 20cmx20cm region. 3D volumetric dose is interpolated from the measured planar dose. Patient plans were modified using an in-house program to introduce the following three types of errors in IMRT and VMAT delivery: (1). constant positioning errors for all leaves on one leaf bank (1, 2, and 3mm); (2). constant positioning errors for one central leaf (1, 3, and 20mm); (3). errors in collimator angle (2 and 5 deg). The measurements for the modified plans were compared to the calculated dose for the original plan for 3D gamma analysis to evaluate the sensitivity of the device to these delivery errors. Brain, head-and-neck, and prostate patient plans were tested for each type of error.ResultsThe Table shows the gamma analysis pass rates using different criteria (3%, 3mm or 2%, 2mm) for the original plan and the plan with introduced errors in IMRT and VMAT delivery. As shown in the table, when using the traditional 3%, 3mm criteria for gamma analysis, a 2mm positioning error of the leaf bank leads to obvious drop of the pass rate in both IMRT and VMAT QAs. However, a single leaf positioning error of up to 3mm and collimator rotation angle errors of up to 5 degrees didn't significantly reduce the pass rate. Large single leaf positioning errors of 20mm reduced the pass rate by a similar amount as the 2mm leaf bank positioning error. Reducing the gamma analysis criteria to 2mm, 2% enhanced the sensitivity of the device to delivery errors, especially errors in collimator rotation angles. Results of the 3D gamma map indicated that the failure region was mainly in the center of the field for leaf bank positioning errors, in the single leaf motion region for single leaf positioning errors, and in the boundary of the field for collimator rotation angle errors.ConclusionPoster Viewing Abstract 3491; Table3D gamma analysis pass rate for different delivery errors in IMRT and VMATIMRT, gamma analysis (3%, 3mm)IMRT, gamma analysis (2%, 2mm)VMAT, gamma analysis (3%, 3mm)VMAT, gamma analysis (2%, 2mm)Original plan100.0%100.0%97.8%97.2%Leaf bank 1mm99.7%95.2%99.2%94.5%Leaf bank 2mm95.9%78.9%90.5%76.5%Leaf bank 3mm77.4%56.7%75.0%57.0%Central leaf 1mm100.0%99.8%100.0%98.1%Central leaf 3mm100.0%99.1%99.7%96.1%Central leaf 20mm94.1%92.1%90.9%85.0%Collimator 2degree100.0%99.0%100.0%98.0%Collimator 5degree99.3%91.9%100.0%97.1% Open table in a new tab Purpose/Objective(s)To determine whether introduced delivery errors in IMRT and VMAT treatments can be detected by a 3D diode array using conventional analysis techniques. To determine whether introduced delivery errors in IMRT and VMAT treatments can be detected by a 3D diode array using conventional analysis techniques. Material/MethodsA 3D QA device with 2 orthogonal diode array planes was used for IMRT and VMAT QA. The diode spacing is 5mm in the central 6cmx6cm region and 1cm in the peripheral 20cmx20cm region. 3D volumetric dose is interpolated from the measured planar dose. Patient plans were modified using an in-house program to introduce the following three types of errors in IMRT and VMAT delivery: (1). constant positioning errors for all leaves on one leaf bank (1, 2, and 3mm); (2). constant positioning errors for one central leaf (1, 3, and 20mm); (3). errors in collimator angle (2 and 5 deg). The measurements for the modified plans were compared to the calculated dose for the original plan for 3D gamma analysis to evaluate the sensitivity of the device to these delivery errors. Brain, head-and-neck, and prostate patient plans were tested for each type of error. A 3D QA device with 2 orthogonal diode array planes was used for IMRT and VMAT QA. The diode spacing is 5mm in the central 6cmx6cm region and 1cm in the peripheral 20cmx20cm region. 3D volumetric dose is interpolated from the measured planar dose. Patient plans were modified using an in-house program to introduce the following three types of errors in IMRT and VMAT delivery: (1). constant positioning errors for all leaves on one leaf bank (1, 2, and 3mm); (2). constant positioning errors for one central leaf (1, 3, and 20mm); (3). errors in collimator angle (2 and 5 deg). The measurements for the modified plans were compared to the calculated dose for the original plan for 3D gamma analysis to evaluate the sensitivity of the device to these delivery errors. Brain, head-and-neck, and prostate patient plans were tested for each type of error. ResultsThe Table shows the gamma analysis pass rates using different criteria (3%, 3mm or 2%, 2mm) for the original plan and the plan with introduced errors in IMRT and VMAT delivery. As shown in the table, when using the traditional 3%, 3mm criteria for gamma analysis, a 2mm positioning error of the leaf bank leads to obvious drop of the pass rate in both IMRT and VMAT QAs. However, a single leaf positioning error of up to 3mm and collimator rotation angle errors of up to 5 degrees didn't significantly reduce the pass rate. Large single leaf positioning errors of 20mm reduced the pass rate by a similar amount as the 2mm leaf bank positioning error. Reducing the gamma analysis criteria to 2mm, 2% enhanced the sensitivity of the device to delivery errors, especially errors in collimator rotation angles. Results of the 3D gamma map indicated that the failure region was mainly in the center of the field for leaf bank positioning errors, in the single leaf motion region for single leaf positioning errors, and in the boundary of the field for collimator rotation angle errors. The Table shows the gamma analysis pass rates using different criteria (3%, 3mm or 2%, 2mm) for the original plan and the plan with introduced errors in IMRT and VMAT delivery. As shown in the table, when using the traditional 3%, 3mm criteria for gamma analysis, a 2mm positioning error of the leaf bank leads to obvious drop of the pass rate in both IMRT and VMAT QAs. However, a single leaf positioning error of up to 3mm and collimator rotation angle errors of up to 5 degrees didn't significantly reduce the pass rate. Large single leaf positioning errors of 20mm reduced the pass rate by a similar amount as the 2mm leaf bank positioning error. Reducing the gamma analysis criteria to 2mm, 2% enhanced the sensitivity of the device to delivery errors, especially errors in collimator rotation angles. Results of the 3D gamma map indicated that the failure region was mainly in the center of the field for leaf bank positioning errors, in the single leaf motion region for single leaf positioning errors, and in the boundary of the field for collimator rotation angle errors. ConclusionPoster Viewing Abstract 3491; Table3D gamma analysis pass rate for different delivery errors in IMRT and VMATIMRT, gamma analysis (3%, 3mm)IMRT, gamma analysis (2%, 2mm)VMAT, gamma analysis (3%, 3mm)VMAT, gamma analysis (2%, 2mm)Original plan100.0%100.0%97.8%97.2%Leaf bank 1mm99.7%95.2%99.2%94.5%Leaf bank 2mm95.9%78.9%90.5%76.5%Leaf bank 3mm77.4%56.7%75.0%57.0%Central leaf 1mm100.0%99.8%100.0%98.1%Central leaf 3mm100.0%99.1%99.7%96.1%Central leaf 20mm94.1%92.1%90.9%85.0%Collimator 2degree100.0%99.0%100.0%98.0%Collimator 5degree99.3%91.9%100.0%97.1% Open table in a new tab

IMRT QA Analysis: What to Do with Unresolved Discrepancies?

Can Standard Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance (qa) Detect Potential Delivery Errors?

Breaking bad IMRT QA practice

SU‐FF‐T‐156: Multi‐Institutional Retrospective Analysis of IMRT QA Measurements

Analyzing the Treatment Delivery Accuracy of the uRT Treatment Planning System and uRT-Linac 506C by Use of AAPM TG 119 Test Cases

Analysis of 2 010 patient-specific intensity-modulated radiation therapy dosimetric verification results

Comparison of MLC positioning deviations using log files and establishment of specific assessment parameters for different accelerators with IMRT and VMAT

SU‐E‐T‐485: Clinical Evaluation of Inverse Planning Models and IMRT Delivery Systems in the Framework of AAPM TG‐119 Protocol

MO-F-16A-05: Spot-Scanning Proton Therapy Patient-Specific Quality Assurance: Our Methodology and Results From 295 Treatment Plans

Implementation of phantom-less IMRT delivery verification using Varian DynaLog files and R/V output

SU‐E‐T‐188: Evaluation of a 3D Patient Relevant Dose QA Tool: Multiple Institutional Studies

Dosimetric Systems in Pre-Treatment QA for Stereotactic Treatments: Correlation Agreements and Target Volume Dependency

Assessing the correlation between Gamma passing rate and clinical dosimetric variations in breast cancer IMRT plans with multi-leaf collimator errors: perspectives from the ArcCHECK QA system

DOSIMETRIC VERIFICATION OF THE INTENSITY MODULATED RADIATION THERAPY

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

Portability of IMRT QA between matched linear accelerators

Impact of Delivery Characteristics on Dose Delivery Accuracy of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Different Treatment Sites

SU-C-BRCD-04: Development of an Efficient and Effective Patient Specific QA Program for IMPT

Assessment of Delivery Quality Assurance for Stereotactic Radiosurgery With Cyberknife

Transitioning from measurement-based to combined patient-specific quality assurance for intensity-modulated proton therapy

Evaluation Of The Sensitivity Of Two 3d Diode Array Dosimetry Systems To Setup Error For Quality Assurance (Qa) Of Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy (Vmat)