Refinement of MLC modeling improves commercial QA dosimetry system for SRS and SBRT patient‐specific QA

Purpose: To assess the implementation, accuracy, and validity of the dosimetric leaf gap correction (DLGC) in Mobius3D VMAT plan calculations. Methods: The optimal Mobius3D DLGC was determined for both a TrueBeam with a Millennium multi-leaf collimator and a TrueBeamSTx with a high-definition multileaf collimator. By analyzing a broad series of seven VMAT plans and comparing the calculated to the measured dose delivered to a cylindrical phantom, optimal DLGC values were determined by minimizing the dose difference for both the collection of all plans, as well as for each plan individually. The effects of plan removal from the optimization of the collective DLGC value, as well as plan-specific DLGC values, were explored to determine the impact of plan suite design on the final DLGC determination. Results: Optimal collective DLGC values across all energies were between −0.71 and 0.89 mm for the TrueBeam, and between 0.35 and 1.85 mm for the True-BeamSTx. The dose differences ranged between −6.1% and 2.6% across all plans when the optimal collective DLGC values were used. On a per-plan basis, the planspecific optimal DLGC values ranged from −4.36 to 2.35 mm for the TrueBeam, and between −1.83 and 2.62 mm for the TrueBeamSTx. Comparing the plan-specific optimal DLGC to the average absolute leaf position from the central axis for each plan, a negative correlation was observed. Conclusions: The optimal DLGC determination depends on the plans investigated, making it essential for users to utilize a suite of test plans that encompasses the full range of expected clinical plans when determining the optimal DLGC value. Validation of the secondary dose calculation should always be based on measurements, and not a comparison with the primary TPS. Varying disagreement with measurements across plans for a single DLGC value indicates potential limitations in the Mobius3D MLC model.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Characteristics and limitations of a secondary dose check software for VMAT plan calculation

Shepard

Frigo

2021

“…For example, for the TrueBeam accelerator with its 20 ms controller interrogation cycle and strict delivery linearity enforcement inside each control point,36 even the gantry acceleration trajectory is highly predictable and reproducible 37. Therefore, while not going as far as endorsing the log file analysis as a “premier SRS/SBRT QA tool,”38 we nevertheless suggest that coupled with thorough TPS commissioning and comprehensive ongoing accelerator QA program, the hybrid verification method validated in this paper is a viable tool that could be applied in clinical practice.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A hybrid volumetric dose verification method for single‐isocenter multiple‐target cranial SRS

Ahmed

Kapatoes

Zhang

et al. 2018

A commercial semi‐empirical volumetric dose verification system (PerFraction [PF], Sun Nuclear Corp.) extracts multi‐leaf collimator positions from the electronic portal imaging device movies collected during a pre‐treatment run, while the rest of the delivered control point information is harvested from the accelerator log files. This combination is used to reconstruct dose on a patient CT dataset with a fast superposition/convolution algorithm. The method was validated for single‐isocenter multi‐target SRS VMAT treatments against absolute radiochromic film measurements in a cylindrical phantom. The targets ranged in size from 0.8 to 3.6 cm and in number from 3 to 10 per plan. A total of 17 films rotated at different angles around the cylinder axis were analyzed. Each of 27 total targets was intercepted by at least one film, and 2–4 different films were analyzed per plan. Film dose was always scaled to the ion chamber measurement in a high‐dose, low‐gradient area deliberately created at the isocenter. The planar dose agreement between PF and film using 3%(Global dose‐difference normalization)/1 mm gamma analysis was on average 99.2 ± 1.1%. The point dose difference in the low‐gradient area in the middle of every target was below 3%, while PF‐reconstructed and film dose centroids for individual targets showed submillimeter agreement when measured on a well aligned accelerator. Volumetrically, all voxels in all plans agreed between PF and the primary treatment planning system at the 3%/1 mm level. With proper understanding of its advantages and shortcomings, the tool can be applied to patient‐specific QA in routine radiosurgical clinical practice.

Model refinement increases confidence levels and clinical agreement when commissioning a three‐dimensional secondary dose calculation system

Bismack

Dolan

Laugeman

et al. 2022

Self Cite

Evaluate custom beam models for a second check dose calculation system using statistically verifiable passing criteria for film analysis, DVH, and 3D gamma metrics. Methods: Custom beam models for nine linear accelerators for the Sun Nuclear Dose Calculator algorithm (SDC, Sun Nuclear) were evaluated using the AAPM-TG119 test suite (5 Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) and 5 Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) plans) and a set of clinical plans. Where deemed necessary, adjustments to Multileaf Collimator (MLC) parameters were made to improve results. Comparisons to the Analytic Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA), and gafchromic film measurements were performed. Confidence intervals were set to 95% per TG-119. Film gamma criteria were 3%/3 mm (conventional beams) or 3%/1 mm (Stereotactic Radiosurgery [SRS] beams). Dose distributions in solid water phantom were evaluated based on DVH metrics (e.g., D95, V20) and 3D gamma criteria (3%/3 mm or 3%/1 mm). Film passing rates, 3D gamma passing rates,and DVH metrics were reported for HD MLC machines and Millennium MLC Machines. Results: For HD MLC machines, SDC gamma film agreement was 98.76% ± 2.30% (5.74% CL) for 6FFF/6srs (3%/1 mm), and 99.80% ± 0.32% (0.83% CL) for 6x (3%/3 mm). For Millennium MLC machines, film passing rates were 98.20% ± 3.14% (7.96% CL), 99.52% ± 1.14% (2.71% CL), and 99.69% ± 0.82% (1.91% CL) for 6FFF, 6x, and 10x, respectively. For SDC to AAA comparisons: HD MLC Linear Accelerators (LINACs); DVH point agreement was 0.97% ± 1.64% (4.18% CL) and 1.05% ± 2.12% (5.20% CL); 3D gamma agreement was 99.97% ± 0.14% (0.30% CL) and 100.00% ± 0.02% (0.05% CL), for 6FFF/6srs and 6x, respectively; Millennium MLC LINACs: DVH point agreement was 0.77% ± 2.40% (5.47% CL), 0.80% ± 3.40% (7.47% CL), and 0.07% ± 2.15% (4.30% CL); 3D gamma agreement was 99.97% ± 0.13% (0.29% CL), 99.97% ± 0.17% (0.36% CL), and 99.99% ± 0.06% (0.12% CL) for 6FFF, 6x, and 10x, respectively. Conclusion: SDC shows agreement well within TG119 CLs for film and redundant dose calculation comparisons with AAA. In some models (SRS), this was achieved using stricter criteria. TG119 plans can be used to help guideThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.