Accuracy of one algorithm used to modify a planned DVH with data from actual dose delivery

Detection and accurate quantification of treatment delivery errors is important in radiation therapy. This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of DVH based QA in quantifying delivery errors. Eighteen previously treated VMAT plans (prostate, H&N, and brain) were randomly chosen for this study. Conventional IMRT delivery QA was done with the ArcCHECK diode detector for error‐free plans and plans with the following modifications: 1) induced monitor unit differences up to ±3.0%,2) control point deletion (3, 5, and 8 control points were deleted for each arc), and 3) gantry angle shift (2° uniform shift clockwise and counterclockwise). 2D and 3D distance‐to‐agreement (DTA) analyses were performed for all plans with SNC Patient software and 3DVH software, respectively. Subsequently, accuracy of the reconstructed DVH curves and DVH parameters in 3DVH software were analyzed for all selected cases using the plans in the Eclipse treatment planning system as standard. 3D DTA analysis for error‐induced plans generally gave high pass rates, whereas the 2D evaluation seemed to be more sensitive to detecting delivery errors. The average differences for DVH parameters between each pair of Eclipse recalculation and 3DVH prediction were within 2% for all three types of error‐induced treatment plans. This illustrates that 3DVH accurately quantifies delivery errors in terms of actual dose delivered to the patients. 2D DTA analysis should be routinely used for clinical evaluation. Any concerns or dose discrepancies should be further analyzed through DVH‐based QA for clinically relevant results and confirmation of a conventional passing‐rate‐based QA. PACS number(s): 87.56.Fc, 87.55.Qr, 87.55.dk, 87.55.km

[1]  Benjamin E Nelms,et al.  Evaluating IMRT and VMAT dose accuracy: practical examples of failure to detect systematic errors when applying a commonly used metric and action levels. , 2013, Medical physics.

[2]  Núria Jornet,et al.  3D DVH-based metric analysis versus per-beam planar analysis in IMRT pretreatment verification. , 2012, Medical physics.

[3]  Geoffrey G. Zhang,et al.  Validation of measurement‐guided 3D VMAT dose reconstruction on a heterogeneous anthropomorphic phantom , 2013, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[4]  Sara Bresciani,et al.  Pretreatment patient-specific IMRT quality assurance: a correlation study between gamma index and patient clinical dose volume histogram. , 2012, Medical physics.

[5]  Aitang Xing,et al.  Sensitivity of a helical diode array dosimeter to Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy delivery errors. , 2015, Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics.

[6]  R. Steenbakkers,et al.  Evaluation of DVH-based treatment plan verification in addition to gamma passing rates for head and neck IMRT. , 2014, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[7]  Christina Skourou,et al.  Sensitivity of volumetric modulated arc therapy patient specific QA results to multileaf collimator errors and correlation to dose volume histogram based metrics. , 2013, Medical physics.

[8]  M van Herk,et al.  Catching errors with in vivo EPID dosimetry. , 2010, Medical physics.

[9]  Maria F Chan,et al.  Using a Novel Dose QA Tool to Quantify the Impact of Systematic Errors Otherwise Undetected by Conventional QA Methods: Clinical Head and Neck Case Studies , 2014, Technology in cancer research & treatment.

[10]  Geoffrey G. Zhang,et al.  VMAT QA: Measurement-guided 4D dose reconstruction on a patient. , 2012, Medical physics.

[11]  M. de Groot,et al.  Efficient and reliable 3D dose quality assurance for IMRT by combining independent dose calculations with measurements. , 2013, Medical physics.

[12]  Geoffrey G. Zhang,et al.  Evaluation of semiempirical VMAT dose reconstruction on a patient dataset based on biplanar diode array measurements , 2014, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

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

[14]  Benjamin E Nelms,et al.  Per-beam, planar IMRT QA passing rates do not predict clinically relevant patient dose errors. , 2011, Medical physics.

[15]  J. Mechalakos,et al.  IMRT commissioning: multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119. , 2009, Medical physics.

[16]  Jon J Kruse,et al.  On the insensitivity of single field planar dosimetry to IMRT inaccuracies. , 2010, Medical physics.

[17]  Arthur J Olch,et al.  Evaluation of the accuracy of 3DVH software estimates of dose to virtual ion chamber and film in composite IMRT QA. , 2011, Medical physics.

[18]  Benjamin E Nelms,et al.  Statistical variability and confidence intervals for planar dose QA pass rates. , 2011, Medical physics.

[19]  Per Munck af Rosenschöld,et al.  Patient QA systems for rotational radiation therapy: a comparative experimental study with intentional errors. , 2013, Medical physics.