Patient-Specific Quality Assurance Using Monte Carlo Dose Calculation and Elekta Log Files for Prostate Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy

An in-house trajectory log analysis program (LOGQA) was developed to evaluate the delivery accuracy of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Methods have been established in LOGQA to provide analysis on dose indices, gantry angles, and multi-leaf collimator (MLC) positions. Between March 2019 and May 2020, 120 VMAT SBRT plans of various treatment sites using flattening filter-free (FFF) mode were evaluated using both LOGQA and phantom measurements. Gantry angles, dose indices, and MLC positions were extracted from log and compared with each plan. Integrated transient fluence map (ITFM) was reconstructed from log to examine the deviation of delivered fluence against the planned one. Average correlation coefficient of dose index versus gantry angle and ITFM for all patients were 1.0000, indicating that the delivered beam parameters were in good agreement with planned values. Maximum deviation of gantry angles and monitor units (MU) of all patients were less than 0.2 degree and 0.03 % respectively. Regarding MLC positions, maximum and rootmean-square (RMS) deviations from planned values were less than 0.6 mm and 0.3 mm respectively, indicating that MLC positions during delivery followed planned values in precise manner. Results of LOGQA were consistent with measurement, where all gamma-index passing rates were larger than 95 %, with 2 %/2 mm criteria. Three types of intentional errors were introduced to patient plan for software validation. LOGQA was found to recognize the introduced errors of MLC positions, gantry angles, and dose indices with magnitudes of 1 mm, 1 degree, and 5 %, respectively, which were masked in phantom measurement. LOGQA was demonstrated to have the potential to reduce or even replace patient-specific QA measurements for SBRT plan delivery provided that the frequency and amount of measurement-based machine-specific QA can be increased to ensure the log files record real values of machine parameters.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient‐specific quality assurance using machine log files analysis for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT)

Chow

Kan

Chan

2020

“…For LW, three evaluation levels were involved for detecting non‐error‐free plans. First, the calculated fluence of the log file and the fluence of the TPS were compared using the gamma index method 12 . The second evaluation level was the root‐mean‐square (RMS) value of the collimator position and third one was the RMS value of the monitor units.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Common methods of pre‐treatment delivery QA are two‐ or three‐dimensional array detectors, such as MapCHECK ® (Sun Nuclear, Melbourne, FL), ArcCHECK ® (Sun Nuclear, Melbourne, FL) or Delta 2 (Scandidos, Uppsala, Sweden). These measurement arrays with diodes or ionization chambers are a time‐consuming approach to check complex VMAT plans 3,4 and cannot be used during patient treatment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Error sensitivity of a log file analysis tool compared with a helical diode array dosimeter for VMAT delivery quality assurance

Szeverinski

Kowatsch

Künzler

et al. 2020

Purpose: Integrating log file analysis with LINACWatch ® (LW) into clinical routine as part of the quality assurance (QA) process could be a time-saving strategy that does not compromise on quality. The purpose is to determine the error sensitivity of log file analysis using LINACWatch ® compared with a measurement device (Arc-CHECK ® , AC) for VMAT delivery QA. Materials and methods: Multi-leaf collimator (MLC) errors, collimator angle errors, MLC shift errors and dose errors were inserted to analyze error detection sensitivity. A total of 36 plans were manipulated with different magnitudes of errors. The gamma index protocols for AC were 3%/3 mm/Global and 2%/2 mm/Global, as well as 2%/2 mm/Global, and 1.5%/1.5 mm/Global for LW. Additionally, deviations of the collimator and monitor units between TPS and log file were calculated as RMS values. A 0.125 cm 3 ionization chamber was used to independently examine the effect on dose. Results: The sensitivity for AC was 20.4% and 49.6% vs 63.0% and 86.5% for LW, depending on the analysis protocol. For MLC opening and closing errors, the detection rate was 19.0% and 47.7% for AC vs 50.5% and 75.5% for LW. For MLC shift errors, it was 29.6% and 66.7% for AC vs 66.7% and 83.3% for LW. AC could detect 25.0% and 44.4% of all collimator errors. Log file analysis detected all collimator errors using 1°detection level. 13.2% and 42.4% of all dose errors were detected by AC vs 59.0% and 92.4% for LW using gamma analysis. Using RMS value, all dose errors were detected by LW (1% detection level). Conclusion: The results of this study clearly show that log file analysis is an excellent complement to phantom-based delivery QA of VMAT plans. We recommend a 1.5%/1.5 mm/Global criteria for log file-based gamma calculations. Log file analysis was implemented successfully in our clinical routine for VMAT delivery QA.

Cross verification of independent dose recalculation, log files based, and phantom measurement‐based pretreatment quality assurance for volumetric modulated arc therapy

Han

Jin

Zhu

et al. 2020

Independent treatment planning system (TPS) check with Mobius3D software, log files based quality assurance (QA) with MobiusFX, and phantom measurement‐based QA with ArcCHECK were performed and cross verified for head‐and‐neck (17 patients), chest (16 patients), and abdominal (19 patients) cancer patients who underwent volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Dosimetric differences and percentage gamma passing rates (%GPs) were evaluated and compared for this cross verification. For the dosimetric differences in planning target volume (PTV) coverage, there was no significant difference among TPS vs. Mobius3D, TPS vs. MobiusFX, and TPS vs. ArcCHECK. For the dosimetric differences in organs at risks (OARs), the number of metrics with an average dosimetric differences higher than ±3% for TPS vs Mobius3D, TPS vs MobiusFX, and TPS vs ArcCHECK were 1, 1, 7; 2, 1, 4; 1, 1, 5 for the patients with head‐and‐neck, abdomen, and chest cancer, respectively. The %GPs of global gamma indices for Mobius3D and MobiousFX were above 97%, while it ranged from 92% to 96% for ArcCHECK. The %GPs of individual volume‐based gamma indices were around 98% for Mobius3D and MobiousFX, except for γPTV for chest and abdominal cancer (88.9% to 92%); while it ranged from 86% to 99% for ArcCHECK. In conclusion, some differences in dosimetric metrics and gamma passing rates were observed with ArcCHECK measurement‐based QA in comparison with independent dosecheck and log files based QA. Care must be taken when considering replacing phantom measurement‐based IMRT/VMAT QA.