Considerations for the verification of volumetric modulated arc therapy-planned dose distributions

Background: Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is the standard of care for many clinical indications, but should only be considered with proper technical support and quality assurance (QA) in place. Despite the high accuracy of VMAT systems, errors can be present and adequate verification is re...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Lourens Strauss, William Shaw
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: AOSIS 2019-09-01
Series:South African Journal of Oncology
Subjects:
QA
DVH
Online Access:https://sajo.org.za/index.php/sajo/article/view/86
id doaj-246b5f663ec04c70b097a88dff936f82
record_format Article
spelling doaj-246b5f663ec04c70b097a88dff936f822021-02-02T00:07:13ZengAOSISSouth African Journal of Oncology2518-87042523-06462019-09-0130e1e910.4102/sajo.v3i0.8643Considerations for the verification of volumetric modulated arc therapy-planned dose distributionsLourens Strauss0William Shaw1Department of Medical Physics, University of the Free State, BloemfonteinDepartment of Medical Physics, University of the Free State, BloemfonteinBackground: Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is the standard of care for many clinical indications, but should only be considered with proper technical support and quality assurance (QA) in place. Despite the high accuracy of VMAT systems, errors can be present and adequate verification is required. Dosimetric VMAT verification systems have a broadly similar analysis philosophy. However, many factors influence the analyses and the subsequent QA outcome, based on which the plan will pass or fail. Aim: This study investigated various factors that influence the dosimetric impact and detectability of known linac component deviations on VMAT QA, including geometries, tissue densities, gamma criteria and dose–volume differences. Setting: Universitas Hospital (Annex), Bloemfontein, South Africa. Methods: Deliberate multi-leaf collimator (MLC)-bank offsets were introduced on four different VMAT plans of the prostate, nasopharynx and brain. Measured reference dose sets were compared to measured QA results, using the IBA Dolphin© detector and Compass© software for three dosimetric scenarios. Gamma pass rates over a range of criteria from 1%/2-mm to 4%/4-mm in the total volumes and per structure, as well as dose–volume differences were studied. Results: Gamma tests in the total patient/phantom did not sufficiently detect errors. The calculation media did not influence the QA outcome greatly. However, the detection geometry affected the results. Per structure gamma analyses provided superior error detection, although still missed some clinically relevant differences. The addition of dose–volume analyses highlighted several important errors. Conclusion: Volumetric modulated arc therapy using only total volume gamma analyses can easily overlook clinically relevant errors. The choice of gamma criterion is crucial. Verification with at least a per structure gamma test in combination with dose–volume checks is recommended, especially in small target volume cases.https://sajo.org.za/index.php/sajo/article/view/86QAVMATgammaDVHverification
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Lourens Strauss
William Shaw
spellingShingle Lourens Strauss
William Shaw
Considerations for the verification of volumetric modulated arc therapy-planned dose distributions
South African Journal of Oncology
QA
VMAT
gamma
DVH
verification
author_facet Lourens Strauss
William Shaw
author_sort Lourens Strauss
title Considerations for the verification of volumetric modulated arc therapy-planned dose distributions
title_short Considerations for the verification of volumetric modulated arc therapy-planned dose distributions
title_full Considerations for the verification of volumetric modulated arc therapy-planned dose distributions
title_fullStr Considerations for the verification of volumetric modulated arc therapy-planned dose distributions
title_full_unstemmed Considerations for the verification of volumetric modulated arc therapy-planned dose distributions
title_sort considerations for the verification of volumetric modulated arc therapy-planned dose distributions
publisher AOSIS
series South African Journal of Oncology
issn 2518-8704
2523-0646
publishDate 2019-09-01
description Background: Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is the standard of care for many clinical indications, but should only be considered with proper technical support and quality assurance (QA) in place. Despite the high accuracy of VMAT systems, errors can be present and adequate verification is required. Dosimetric VMAT verification systems have a broadly similar analysis philosophy. However, many factors influence the analyses and the subsequent QA outcome, based on which the plan will pass or fail. Aim: This study investigated various factors that influence the dosimetric impact and detectability of known linac component deviations on VMAT QA, including geometries, tissue densities, gamma criteria and dose–volume differences. Setting: Universitas Hospital (Annex), Bloemfontein, South Africa. Methods: Deliberate multi-leaf collimator (MLC)-bank offsets were introduced on four different VMAT plans of the prostate, nasopharynx and brain. Measured reference dose sets were compared to measured QA results, using the IBA Dolphin© detector and Compass© software for three dosimetric scenarios. Gamma pass rates over a range of criteria from 1%/2-mm to 4%/4-mm in the total volumes and per structure, as well as dose–volume differences were studied. Results: Gamma tests in the total patient/phantom did not sufficiently detect errors. The calculation media did not influence the QA outcome greatly. However, the detection geometry affected the results. Per structure gamma analyses provided superior error detection, although still missed some clinically relevant differences. The addition of dose–volume analyses highlighted several important errors. Conclusion: Volumetric modulated arc therapy using only total volume gamma analyses can easily overlook clinically relevant errors. The choice of gamma criterion is crucial. Verification with at least a per structure gamma test in combination with dose–volume checks is recommended, especially in small target volume cases.
topic QA
VMAT
gamma
DVH
verification
url https://sajo.org.za/index.php/sajo/article/view/86
work_keys_str_mv AT lourensstrauss considerationsfortheverificationofvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyplanneddosedistributions
AT williamshaw considerationsfortheverificationofvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyplanneddosedistributions
_version_ 1724314463684788224