This in-house software can be used to automatically verify the MLC leaf positions for all control points of VMAT plans using cine images acquired by an EPID.

This study compares the EPID dosimetry algorithms of two commercial systems for pretreatment QA, and analyzes dosimetric measurements made with each system alongside the results obtained with a standard diode array. 126 IMRT fields are examined with both EPID dosimetry systems (EPIDose by Sun Nuclear Corporation, Melbourne FL, and Portal Dosimetry by Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto CA) and the diode array, MapCHECK (also by Sun Nuclear Corporation). Twenty‐six VMAT arcs of varying modulation complexity are examined with the EPIDose and MapCHECK systems. Optimization and commissioning testing of the EPIDose physics model is detailed. Each EPID IMRT QA system is tested for sensitivity to critical TPS beam model errors. Absolute dose gamma evaluation (3%, 3 mm, 10% threshold, global normalization to the maximum measured dose) yields similar results (within 1%–2%) for all three dosimetry modalities, except in the case of off‐axis breast tangents. For these off‐axis fields, the Portal Dosimetry system does not adequately model EPID response, though a previously‐published correction algorithm improves performance. Both MapCHECK and EPIDose are found to yield good results for VMAT QA, though limitations are discussed. Both the Portal Dosimetry and EPIDose algorithms, though distinctly different, yield similar results for the majority of clinical IMRT cases, in close agreement with a standard diode array. Portal dose image prediction may overlook errors in beam modeling beyond the calculation of the actual fluence, while MapCHECK and EPIDose include verification of the dose calculation algorithm, albeit in simplified phantom conditions (and with limited data density in the case of the MapCHECK detector). Unlike the commercial Portal Dosimetry package, the EPIDose algorithm (when sufficiently optimized) allows accurate analysis of EPID response for off‐axis, asymmetric fields, and for orthogonal VMAT QA. Other forms of QA are necessary to supplement the limitations of the Portal Vision Dosimetry system.PACS numbers: 87.53.Bn, 87.53.Jw, 87.53.Kn, 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc, 87.57.uq

The spatial variation in DLG is caused by the variation of intraleaf transmission through MLC leaves. Fluences centered on the CAX would not be affected since DLG does not vary; but any fluences residing significantly off axis with narrow sweeping leaves may exhibit significant dose differences. This is due to the fact that there are differences in DLG between the true DLG exhibited by the 1.0 cm width outer leaves and the constant DLG value utilized by the TPS for dose calculation. Since there are large differences in DLG between the 0.5 cm width leaf pairs and 1.0 cm width leaf pairs, there is a need to correct the TPS plans, especially those with high modulation (narrow dynamic MLC gap), with 2D variation of DLG.

Surrounding a shift toward evidence-based medicine and widespread adoption of reporting guidelines such as the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, there has been a growing body of literature evaluating the quality of reporting in human and veterinary medicine. These reviews have consistently demonstrated the presence of substantive deficiencies in completeness of reporting. The purpose of this study was to assess the current status of reporting in veterinary radiation oncology manuscripts in regards to treatment planning methods, dose, and delivery and to introduce a set of reporting guidelines to serve as a standard for future reporting. Forty-six veterinary radiation oncology manuscripts published between 2005 and 2010 were evaluated for reporting of 50 items pertaining to patient data, treatment planning, radiation dose, delivery of therapy, quality assurance, and adjunctive therapy. A mean of 40% of checklist items were reported in a given manuscript (range = 8-75%). Only 9/50 (18%) checklist items were reported in > or = 80% manuscripts. The completeness of reporting was best in regards to a statement of prescription radiation protocol (91-98% reported) and worst in regards to specification of absorbed dose within target volumes and surrounding normal tissues (0-6% reported). No manuscripts met the current International Commission of Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) dose specification recommendations. Incomplete reporting may stem from the predominance of retrospective manuscripts and the variability of protocols and equipment in veterinary radiation oncology. Adoption of reporting guidelines as outlined in this study is recommended to improve the quality of reporting in veterinary radiation oncology.