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.

A Comparative Study of Dosimetric Verification of Halcyon™ Treatment Plans Using Varian Portal Dosimetry and PTW Array 1500

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

VMAT plan quality comparison between Clinac-iX and halcyon treatment delivery systems for nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Halcyon Clinical Performance Evaluation: A Log File-Based Study in Comparison with a C-arm Linac.

The delivery assessment for small targets on Halcyon radiotherapy system – Measured and calculated dose comparison

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

Portability of IMRT QA between matched linear accelerators

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

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

Comparative Evaluation of Dosimetric Quality and Treatment Efficiency for Halcyon, TrueBeam, and TomoTherapy in Cervical-Thoracic Esophageal Cancer Radiotherapy

Dosimetric Evaluation of Hippocampus Sparing Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy in Patients with Stage T1-T2 and Stage T3-T4 Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma

A Simulated Dosimetric Study of Contribution to Radiotherapy Accuracy by Fractional Image Guidance Protocol of Halcyon System

Comparative assessment and QA measurement array validation of Monte Carlo and Collapsed Cone dose algorithms for small fields and clinical treatment plans

Evaluation of patient-specific quality assurance for fractionated stereotactic treatment plans with 6 and 10MV photon beams in beam-matched linacs

Comparison of Different Dosimetric Indices for Volumetric Arc Modulated Treatment Planning Using 2 Different Treatment Planning Systems: A Feasibility Study for Total Body Irradiation

Experimental Verification of HW-Plan Treatment Planing System

Pediatric Cone Beam CT on Varian Halcyon and TrueBeam Radiotherapy Systems: Radiation Dose and Positioning Accuracy Evaluations.

Dosimetric advantages of dual arc increments for head and neck volumetric‐modulated arc therapy in the Monaco treatment planning system

Installation product acceptance of Varian Halcyon accelerator

IMRT QA Analysis: What to Do with Unresolved Discrepancies?

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