Title

Comparison of multi-institutional pre-treatment verification for VMAT of nasopharynx with delivery errors

RIS ID

129740

Publication Details

Pogson, E. M., Arumugam, S., Hansen, C. R., Currie, M., Blake, S. J., Roberts, N., Carolan, M., Vial, P., Alharthi, T., Holloway, L. & Thwaites, D. I. (2018). Comparison of multi-institutional pre-treatment verification for VMAT of nasopharynx with delivery errors. Physica Medica: an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology, 53 25-31.

Abstract

Purpose: Measurement-based pre-treatment verification with phantoms frequently uses gamma analysis to assess acceptable delivery accuracy. This study evaluates the sensitivity of a commercial system to simulated machine errors for three different institutions' Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) planning approaches. Methods: VMAT plans were generated for ten patients at three institutions using each institution's own protocol (manually-planned at institution 1; auto-planned at institutions 2 and 3). Errors in Multi-Leaf Collimator (MLC) field size (FS), MLC shift (S), and collimator angle (C) of −5, −2, −1, 1, 2 and 5 mm or degrees were introduced. Dose metric constraints discriminated which error magnitudes were considered unacceptable. The smallest magnitude error treatment plans deemed clinically unacceptable (typically for a 5% dose change) were delivered to the ArcCHECK for all institutions, and with a high-dose point ion chamber measurement in 2 institutions. Error detection for different gamma analysis criteria was compared. Results: Not all deliberately introduced VMAT plan errors were detected using a typical 3D 3%/3 mm global gamma pass rate of 95%. Considering all institutions, gamma analysis was least sensitive to negative FS errors. The most sensitive was a 2%/2 mm global analysis for institution 1, whilst for institution 2 it was 3%/3 mm global analysis. The majority of errors (58/59 for institution 1, 54/60 for institution 3) were detected using ArcCHECK and ion chamber measurements combined. Conclusions: Not all clinically unacceptable errors are detected. Combining ion chamber measurements with gamma analysis improved sensitivity and is recommended. Optimum gamma settings varied across institutions.

Please refer to publisher version or contact your library.

Share

COinS
 

Link to publisher version (DOI)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2018.07.007