A comparison of the gamma index analysis in various commercial IMRT/VMAT QA systems

PurposeLinac parameters potentially influencing the delivery quality of IMRT and VMAT plans are investigated with respect to threshold ranges, consequently to be considered in a linac based quality assurance procedure. Three commercially available 2D arrays are used to further investigate the influence of the measurement device.MethodsUsing three commercially available 2D arrays (Mx: MatriXXevolution, Oc: Octavius1500, Mc: MapCHECK2), simple static measurements, measurements for MLC characterization and dynamic interplay of gantry movement, MLC movement and variable dose rate were performed. The results were evaluated with respect to each single array as well as among each other.ResultsSimple static measurements showed different array responses to dose, dose rate and profile homogeneity and revealed instabilities in dose delivery and profile shape during linac ramp up. Using the sweeping gap test, all arrays were able to detect small leaf misalignments down to ±0.1 mm, but this test also demonstrated up to 15% dose deviation due to profile instabilities and fast accelerating leaves during linac ramp up. Tests including gantry rotation showed different stability of gantry mounts for each array. Including gantry movement and dose rate variability, differences compared to static delivery were smaller compared to dose differences when simultaneously controling interplay of gantry movement, leaf movement and dose rate variability.ConclusionLinac based QA is feasible with the tested commercially available 2D arrays. Limitations of each array and the linac ramp up characteristics should be carefully considered during individual plan generation and regularly checked in linac QA. Especially the dose and dose profile during linac ramp up should be checked regularly, as well as MLC positioning accuracy using a sweeping gap test. Additionally, dynamic interplay tests including various gantry rotation speeds and angles, various leaf speeds and various dose rates should be included.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Practical implications for the quality assurance of modulated radiation therapy techniques using point detector arrays

Kantz

McDermott

Söhn

et al. 2017

“…Such a problem is also present in IMRT plans, where the resolution of the detector can be inadequate in steep dose profiles, as the linear interpolation of measurements in a discrete array of detectors can produce an overly smoothed dose profile reconstruction. So the detector resolution together with the algorithm lead to a poor agreement when the dose profile is more modulated 15, 23, 24. On the contrary, in RapidArc delivery, the larger amount of acquired data produces a better estimation of measured dose.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Practical application of Octavius^®‐4D: Characteristics and criticalities for IMRT and VMAT verification

Urso

Lorusso

Marzoli

et al. 2018

Octavius®‐4D is a very effective device in radiotherapy treatment quality assurance (QA), due to its simple set‐up and analysis package. However, even if it is widely used, its main characteristics and criticalities were only partially investigated. Taking start from its commissioning, the aim of this work was to study the main dependencies of the device response. The outcome dependence was studied comparing results by different delivery techniques [Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy, IMRT (n = 29) and RapidArc, RA (n = 15)], anatomical regions [15 head/neck, 19 pelvis and 10 pancreas] and linear accelerators [DHX (n = 14) and Trilogy (n = 30)]. Moreover, the agreement dependency on the section of the phantom was assessed. Plan evaluations obtained by 2D, 3D, and volumetric γ‐index (both local and global) were also compared. Generally, high dose gradient resulted critically managed by the assembly, with a smoother effect in RA technique. Worse agreements emerged in the 2D γ‐index vs those of 3D and volumetric (P < 0.001), that were instead statistically comparable in global metric (P > 0.300). Volumetric plan evaluation was coherent with the average of passing rates on the 3 phantom axes (r ≥ 0.9), but transversal section provided best agreements vs sagittal and coronal ones (P < 0.050). The three studied districts furnished comparable results (P > 0.050) while the two LINACs provided different agreements (P < 0.005). The study pointed out that the phantom transversal section better fits the planned dose distribution, so this should be accounted when a two‐dimensional evaluation is needed. Moreover, the major reliability of the 3D metric with respect to the 2D one, as it better agrees with the dosimetric evaluation on the whole volume, suggests that it should be preferred in a two‐dimensional evaluation. Better agreements, obtained with RA vs IMRT technique, confirm that Octavius®‐4D is specifically conceived for rotational delivery. Lastly, the assembly resulted sensitive to different technology.

“…The most popular methods of performing 2D gamma analysis use either 2D ion chamber or diode arrays. Hussein et al (7) investigated five commercial QA systems, including 2D ion chamber array PTW 2D‐array and 2D diode arrays ScandiDos

{Delta}^{4}

and Sun Nuclear ArcCHECK. The author concluded that good statistical agreement exists between predicted gamma based on virtual measurement relative to independent prediction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical implementation and error sensitivity of a 3D quality assurance protocol for prostate and thoracic IMRT

Gueorguiev

Cotter

Turcotte

et al. 2015

This work aims at three goals: first, to define a set of statistical parameters and plan structures for a 3D pretreatment thoracic and prostate intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA) protocol; secondly, to test if the 3D QA protocol is able to detect certain clinical errors; and third, to compare the 3D QA method with QA performed with single ion chamber and 2D gamma test in detecting those errors. The 3D QA protocol measurements were performed on 13 prostate and 25 thoracic IMRT patients using IBA's COMPASS system. For each treatment planning structure included in the protocol, the following statistical parameters were evaluated: average absolute dose difference (AADD), percent structure volume with absolute dose difference greater than 6% (ADD6), and 3D gamma test. To test the 3D QA protocol error sensitivity, two prostate and two thoracic step‐and‐shoot IMRT patients were investigated. Errors introduced to each of the treatment plans included energy switched from 6 MV to 10 MV, multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf errors, linac jaws errors, monitor unit (MU) errors, MLC and gantry angle errors, and detector shift errors. QA was performed on each plan using a single ion chamber and 2D array of ion chambers for 2D and 3D QA. Based on the measurements performed, we established a uniform set of tolerance levels to determine if QA passes for each IMRT treatment plan structure: maximum allowed AADD is 6%; maximum 4% of any structure volume can be with ADD6 greater than 6%, and maximum 4% of any structure volume may fail 3D gamma test with test parameters 3%/3 mm DTA. Out of the three QA methods tested the single ion chamber performed the worst by detecting 4 out of 18 introduced errors, 2D QA detected 11 out of 18 errors, and 3D QA detected 14 out of 18 errors.PACS number: 87.56.Fc