Search

The purpose of this study was comparing dose-volume histogram (DVH)-based plan verification methods for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) pretreatment QA. We evaluated two 3D dose reconstruction systems: ArcCHECK-3DVH system (Sun Nuclear corp.) and Varian dynalog-based dose reconstruction (DBDR) system, developed in-house. Fifteen prostate cancer patients (67.6 Gy/26 Fr), four head and neck cancer patient (66 Gy/33 Fr), and four esophagus cancer patients (60 Gy/30 Fr) treated with VMAT were studied. First, ArcCHECK measurement was performed on all plans; simultaneously, the Varian dynalog data sets that contained the actual delivered parameters (leaf positions, gantry angles, and cumulative MUs) were acquired from the Linac control system. Thereafter, the delivered 3D patient dose was reconstructed by 3DVH software (two different calculating modes were used: High Sensitivity (3DVH-HS) and Normal Sensitivity (3DVH-NS)) and in-house DBDR system. We evaluated the differences between the TPS-calculated dose and the reconstructed dose using 3D gamma passing rates and DVH dose index analysis. The average 3D gamma passing rates (3%/3 mm) between the TPS-calculated dose and the reconstructed dose were 99.1 ± 0.6%, 99.7 ± 0.3%, and 100.0 ± 0.1% for 3DVH-HS, 3DVH-NS, and DBDR, respectively. For the prostate cases, the average differences between the TPS-calculated dose and reconstructed dose in the PTV mean dose were 1.52 ± 0.50%, -0.14 ± 0.55%, and -0.03 ± 0.07% for 3DVH-HS, 3DVH-NS, and DBDR, respectively. For the head and neck and esophagus cases, the dose difference to the TPS-calculated dose caused by an effect of heterogeneity was more apparent under the 3DVH dose reconstruction than the DBDR. Although with some residual dose reconstruction errors, these dose reconstruction methods can be clinically used as effective tools for DVH-based QA for VMAT delivery., (© 2017 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.)

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of commercially available software, using patient DVH-based QA metrics, by investigating the correlation between estimated 3D patient dose and magnitude of MLC misalignments. We tested 3DVH software with an ArcCHECK. Two different calculating modes of ArcCHECK Planned Dose Perturbation (ACPDP) were used: "Normal Sensitivity" and "High Sensitivity". Ten prostate cancer patients treated with hypofractionated VMAT (67.6 Gy/26 Fr) in our hospital were studied. For the baseline plan, we induced MLC errors (-0.75, -0.5, -0.25, 0.25, 0.5, and 0.75 mm for each single bank). We calculated the dose differences between the ACPDP dose with error and TPS dose with error using gamma passing rates and using DVH-based QA metrics. The correlations between dose estimation error and MLC position error varied with each structure and metric. A comparison using 1%/1 mm gamma index showed that the larger was the MLC error-induced, the worse were the gamma passing rates. Slopes of linear fit to dose estimation error versus MLC position error for mean dose and D95 to the PTV were 1.76 and 1.40% mm-1, respectively, for "Normal Sensitivity", and -0.53 and -0.88% mm-1, respectively, for "High Sensitivity", showing better accuracy for "High Sensitivity" than "Normal Sensitivity". On the other hand, the slopes for mean dose to the rectum and bladder, V35 to the rectum and bladder and V55 to the rectum and bladder, were -1.00, -0.55, -2.56, -1.25, -3.53, and -1.85%mm-1, respectively, for "Normal Sensitivity", and -2.89, -2.39, -4.54, -3.12, -6.24, and -4.11% mm-1, respectively, for "High Sensitivity", showing significant better accuracy for "Normal Sensitivity" than "High Sensitivity". Our results showed that 3DVH had some residual error for both sensitivities. Furthermore, we found that "Normal Sensitivity" might have better accuracy for the DVH metric for the PTV and that "High Sensitivity" might have better accuracy for DVH metrics for the rectum and bladder. We must be willing to tolerate this residual error in clinical care.