Advertisement

Multi-centre audit of VMAT planning and pre-treatment verification

      Abstract

      Background and purpose

      We performed a multi-centre intercomparison of VMAT dose planning and pre-treatment verification. The aims were to analyse the dose plans in terms of dosimetric quality and deliverability, and to validate whether in-house pre-treatment verification results agreed with those of an external audit.

      Materials and methods

      The nine participating centres encompassed different machines, equipment, and methodologies. Two mock cases (prostate and head and neck) were planned using one and two arcs. A plan quality index was defined to compare the plans and different complexity indices were calculated to check their deliverability. We compared gamma index pass rates using the centre’s equipment and methodology to those of an external audit (global 3D gamma, absolute dose differences, 10% of maximum dose threshold). Log-file analysis was performed to look for delivery errors.

      Results

      All centres fulfilled the dosimetric goals but plan quality and delivery complexity were heterogeneous and uncorrelated, depending on the manufacturer and the planner’s methodology. Pre-treatment verifications results were within tolerance in all cases for gamma 3%-3 mm evaluation. Nevertheless, differences between the external audit and in-house measurements arose due to different equipment or methodology, especially for 2%-2 mm criteria with differences up to 20%. No correlation was found between complexity indices and verification results amongst centres.

      Conclusions

      All plans fulfilled dosimetric constraints, but plan quality and complexity did not correlate and were strongly dependent on the planner and the vendor. In-house measurements cannot completely replace external audits for credentialing.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Radiotherapy and Oncology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

      1. ESTRO. Guidelines for the verification of IMRT. 2008. http://www.estro.be/ESTRO/.

        • Hernandez V.
        • Abella R.
        • Calvo J.F.
        • Jurado-Bruggemann D.
        • Sancho I.
        • Carrasco P.
        Determination of the optimal tolerance for MLC positioning in sliding window and VMAT techniques.
        Med Phys. 2015; 42: 1911-1916https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4915541
        • Jornet N.
        • Carrasco P.
        • Beltrán M.
        • Calvo J.F.
        • Escudé L.
        • Hernández V.
        • et al.
        Multicentre validation of IMRT pre-treatment verification: comparison of in-house and external audit.
        Radiother Oncol. 2014; 112: 381-388https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2014.06.016
        • Weber D.C.
        • Poortmans P.M.P.
        • Hurkmans C.W.
        • Aird E.
        • Gulyban A.
        • Fairchild A.
        Quality assurance for prospective EORTC radiation oncology trials: the challenges of advanced technology in a multicenter international setting.
        Radiother Oncol. 2011; 100: 150-156https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2011.05.073
        • Ezzell G.A.
        • Burmeister J.W.
        • Dogan N.
        • LoSasso T.J.
        • Mechalakos J.G.
        • Mihailidis D.
        • et al.
        IMRT commissioning: multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM task group 119.
        Med Phys. 2009; 36: 5359-5373https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3238104
      2. Prescribing, recording and reporting photon-beam intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) (ICRU report 83). J ICRU 2010;10:1–35. doi:10.1093/jicru/ndq025.

        • Mohan R.
        • Arnfield M.
        • Tong S.
        • Wu Q.
        • Siebers J.
        The impact of fluctuations in intensity patterns on the number of monitor units and the quality and accuracy of intensity modulated radiotherapy.
        Med Phys. 2000; 27: 1226https://doi.org/10.1118/1.599000
        • Du W.
        • Cho S.H.
        • Zhang X.
        • Hoffman K.E.
        • Kudchadker R.J.
        Quantification of beam complexity in intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment plans.
        Med Phys. 2014; 41: 21716https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4861821
        • McNiven A.L.
        • Sharpe M.B.
        • Purdie T.G.
        A new metric for assessing IMRT modulation complexity and plan deliverability.
        Med Phys. 2010; 37: 505-515https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3276775
        • Park J.M.
        • Park S.-Y.
        • Kim H.
        • Kim J.H.
        • Carlson J.
        • Ye S.-J.
        Modulation indices for volumetric modulated arc therapy.
        Phys Med Biol. 2014; 59: 7315-7340https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/59/23/7315
        • Low D.A.
        • Moran J.M.
        • Dempsey J.F.
        • Dong L.
        • Oldham M.
        Dosimetry tools and techniques for IMRT.
        Med Phys. 2011; 38: 1313-1338https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3514120
        • McGarry C.K.
        • Agnew C.E.
        • Hussein M.
        • Tsang Y.
        • Hounsell A.R.
        • Clark C.H.
        The use of log file analysis within VMAT audits.
        Br J Radiol. 2016; 89: 20150489https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20150489
        • Kerns J.R.
        • Childress N.
        • Kry S.F.
        A multi-institution evaluation of MLC log files and performance in IMRT delivery.
        Radiat Oncol. 2014; 9: 176https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-9-176
        • Olasolo-Alonso J.
        • Vázquez-Galiñanes A.
        • Pellejero-Pellejero S.
        • Pérez-Azorín J.F.
        Evaluation of MLC performance in VMAT and dynamic IMRT by log file analysis.
        Phys Med. 2017; 33: 87-94https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2016.12.013
        • McGarry C.K.
        • Agnew C.E.
        • Hussein M.
        • Tsang Y.
        • McWilliam A.
        • Hounsell A.R.
        • et al.
        The role of complexity metrics in a multi-institutional dosimetry audit of VMAT.
        Br J Radiol. 2016; 89: 20150445https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20150445
        • Mans A.
        • Schuring D.
        • Arends M.P.
        • Vugts C.A.J.M.
        • Wolthaus J.W.H.
        • Lotz H.T.
        • et al.
        The NCS code of practice for the quality assurance and control for volumetric modulated arc therapy.
        Phys Med Biol. 2016; 61: 7221-7235https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/61/19/7221
        • Clark C.H.
        • Hussein M.
        • Tsang Y.
        • Thomas R.
        • Wilkinson D.
        • Bass G.
        • et al.
        A multi-institutional dosimetry audit of rotational intensity-modulated radiotherapy.
        Radiother Oncol. 2014; 113: 272-278https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2014.11.015
        • Hussein M.
        • Rowshanfarzad P.
        • Ebert M.A.
        • Nisbet A.
        • Clark C.H.
        A comparison of the gamma index analysis in various commercial IMRT/VMAT QA systems.
        Radiother Oncol. 2013; 109: 370-376https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2013.08.048
        • Xing A.
        • Arumugam S.
        • Deshpande S.
        • George A.
        • Holloway L.
        • Vial P.
        • et al.
        SU-E-T-407: evaluation of four commercial dosimetry systems for routine patient-specific tomotherapy delivery quality assurance.
        Med Phys. 2014; 41 (319)https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4888740
        • International Atomic Energy Agency
        IAEA technical report series No.398.
        At Energy. 2000; : 1-229https://doi.org/10.1097/00004032-200111000-00017
        • Ma C.-M.
        • Li J.
        Dose specification for radiation therapy: dose to water or dose to medium?.
        Phys Med Biol. 2011; 56: 3073-3089https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/56/10/012
        • Andreo P.
        Dose to “water-like” media or dose to tissue in MV photons radiotherapy treatment planning: still a matter of debate.
        Phys Med Biol. 2015; 60: 309-337https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/60/1/309
        • Liu B.
        • Adamson J.
        • Rodrigues A.
        • Zhou F.
        • Yin F.F.
        • Wu Q.
        A novel technique for VMAT QA with EPID in cine mode on a Varian TrueBeam linac.
        Phys Med Biol. 2013; 58: 6683-6700https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/58/19/6683
        • Woodruff H.C.
        • Fuangrod T.
        • Rowshanfarzad P.
        • McCurdy B.M.C.
        • Greer P.B.
        Gantry-angle resolved VMAT pretreatment verification using EPID image prediction.
        Med Phys. 2013; 40: 81715https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4816384
        • Yang K.
        • Yan D.
        • Tyagi N.
        Sensitivity analysis of physics and planning SmartArc parameters for single and partial arc VMAT planning.
        J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2012; 13: 3760https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v13i6.3760
        • Followill D.S.
        • Urie M.
        • Galvin J.M.
        • Ulin K.
        • Xiao Y.
        • Fitzgerald T.J.
        Credentialing for participation in clinical trials.
        Front Oncol. 2012; 2: 198https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2012.00198
        • Weber D.C.
        • Tomsej M.
        • Melidis C.
        • Hurkmans C.W.
        QA makes a clinical trial stronger: Evidence-based medicine in radiation therapy.
        Radiother Oncol. 2012; 105: 4-8https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2012.08.008