RapidArc patient specific mechanical delivery accuracy under extreme mechanical limits using linac log files.

PURPOSE To assess the accuracy of RapidArc (RA) delivery for treatment machine operation near allowable mechanical limits in dynamic multileaf collimator (DMLC) leaf velocities, gantry speeds, and dose rates. METHODS Thirty RA patient plans were created for treatment of lung, gastrointestinal, and head and neck cancers on a Trilogy unit. For each patient, three RA plans were generated; one with medium MLC velocities, highest gantry speeds, and dose rates (case A); one with maximal allowable MLC leaf velocities (case B); and one with lowest gantry speeds (case C). Combinations of dose rates (140-600 MU/min), gantry speeds (2-5.4°/s), and DMLC leaf velocities (1.3-2.4 cm/s) were utilized to test the RapidArc delivery accuracy. Linac delivery log files were acquired after delivery of each plan. In-house developed software was used to read in the original RapidArc DICOM plan and update the plan to reflect the delivered plan by using the leaf position (L), gantry position (G), and MU dose values (D) extracted from the linac log files. This modified DICOM RT plan was imported back to ECLIPSE and the delivered 3D dose map recomputed. Finally, the planned and delivered 3D isodose maps were compared under three criteria to evaluate the dosimetric differences: maximum percentage dose difference, 3D gamma analysis criteria for 3%/3mm DTA, number of dose voxels having a dose difference that is greater than 1%, 2%, or 3% of the maximum dose, and their respective percentages. RESULTS For the three cases indicated above, MLC leaf position discrepancies between planned and delivered values are 0.8 ± 0.2, 1.2 ± 0.2, and 0.8 ± 0.2 mm; the maximum gantry position discrepancies are 0.9° ± 0.2°, 0.9° ± 0.2°, and 0.6° ± 0.1°, and the maximum differences in delivered MU per control point are 0.2 ± 0.1, 0.2 ± 0.1, and 0.04 ± 0.01, respectively. Maximum percentage dose difference observed is 6.7%, for a case where 1 cm MLC leaves were used with high MLC leaf velocity. Maximum number (percentage) of dose voxels having a dose difference that is greater than 1%, 2%, and 3% of the maximum dose were 4761 (0.35%), 897 (0.07%), and 188 (0.01%). This also corresponds to the plan utilizing the most number of 1 cm MLC leaves. The 3D Gamma factor acceptance rates are better than 99%. CONCLUSIONS This work shows that the accuracy of RapidArc delivery holds across the full range of gantry speeds, leaf velocities, and dose rates with small dosimetric uncertainties for 0.5 cm MLC leaves. However, caution should be exercised when using large MLC leaves in RapidArc. A novel technique to obtain the delivered 3D dose distributions using machine log files is also presented.

[1]  D. Low,et al.  A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. , 1998, Medical physics.

[2]  Lijun Ma,et al.  Monte Carlo dose verification for intensity-modulated arc therapy , 2001 .

[3]  Eugene Wong,et al.  Comparison of dose calculation algorithms with Monte Carlo methods for photon arcs. , 2003, Medical physics.

[4]  J. Dempsey,et al.  Evaluation of the gamma dose distribution comparison method. , 2003, Medical physics.

[5]  P. Keall,et al.  Determination of maximum leaf velocity and acceleration of a dynamic multileaf collimator: implications for 4D radiotherapy. , 2005, Medical physics.

[6]  C. Ling,et al.  Commissioning and quality assurance of RapidArc radiotherapy delivery system. , 2008, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[7]  Luca Cozzi,et al.  A treatment planning study comparing volumetric arc modulation with RapidArc and fixed field IMRT for cervix uteri radiotherapy. , 2008, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[8]  S. Zavgorodni,et al.  A Monte Carlo evaluation of RapidArc dose calculations for oropharynx radiotherapy , 2008, Physics in medicine and biology.

[9]  Karl Otto,et al.  Volumetric modulated arc therapy: IMRT in a single gantry arc. , 2007, Medical physics.

[10]  K Bush,et al.  Monte Carlo simulation of RapidArc radiotherapy delivery , 2008, Physics in medicine and biology.

[11]  S. Korreman,et al.  RapidArc Verification Measurements using Three Different Dosimetric Systems , 2008 .

[12]  Suresh Senan,et al.  Volumetric intensity-modulated arc therapy vs. conventional IMRT in head-and-neck cancer: a comparative planning and dosimetric study. , 2009, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[13]  Stine Korreman,et al.  Dosimetric verification of RapidArc treatment delivery , 2009, Acta oncologica.

[14]  W. Kwa,et al.  Monte Carlo based, patient-specific RapidArc QA using Linac log files. , 2009, Medical physics.

[15]  K. Bush,et al.  Clinical significance of multi-leaf collimator positional errors for volumetric modulated arc therapy. , 2010, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[16]  David Sjostrom,et al.  Implementing RapidArc into clinical routine: a comprehensive program from machine QA to TPS validation and patient QA. , 2011, Medical physics.

[17]  Ravikumar Manickam,et al.  Comparison of four commercial devices for RapidArc and sliding window IMRT QA , 2011, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.