Skip to main content
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/39/12/10.1118/1.4764482
1.
1. J. L. Bedford and A. P. Warrington, “Commissioning of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT),” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 73, 537545 (2009).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.08.055
2.
2. S. Korreman, J. Medin, and F. Kjaer-Kristoffersen, “Dosimetric verification of RapidArc treatment delivery,” Acta Oncol. 48, 185191 (2009).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02841860802287116
3.
3. C. C. Ling, P. Zhang, Y. Archambault, J. Bocanek, G. Tang, and T. Losasso, “Commissioning and quality assurance of RapidArc radiotherapy delivery system,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 72(2), 575581 (2008).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.05.060
4.
4. K. Otto, “Volumetric modulated arc therapy: IMRT in a single gantry arc,” Med. Phys. 35(1), 310317 (2008).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.2818738
5.
5. M. F. Clarke and G. J. Budgell, “Use of an amorphous silicon EPID for measuring MLC calibration at varying gantry angles,” Phys. Med. Biol. 53, 473485 (2008).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/53/2/013
6.
6. L. Lee, W. Mao, and L. Xing, “The use of EPID-measured leaf sequence files for IMRT dose reconstruction in adaptive radiation therapy,” Med. Phys. 35, 50195029 (2008).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.2990782
7.
7. D. W. Litzenberg, J. M. Moran, and B. A. Fraass, “Verification of dynamic and segmental IMRT delivery by dynamic log file analysis,” J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 3, 6372 (2002).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/1.1449362
8.
8. E. Schreibman, A. Dhabaan, E. Elder, and T. Fox, “Patient-specific quality assurance method for VMAT treatment delivery,” Med. Phys. 36(10), 45304535 (2009).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.3213085
9.
9. K. Yang, D. Yan, and N. Tyagi, “Sensitivity analysis of physics and planning SmartArc parameters for single and partial arc VMAT planning,” J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 13(6) (2012) (accepted).
10.
10. D. A. Low, W. B. Harms, S. Mutic, and J. A. Purdy, “A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions,” Med. Phys. 25(5), 656661 (1998).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.598248
11.
11.Verbal communication with Elekta engineers.
12.
12. A. Bertelsen, E. L. Lorenzen, and C. Brink, “Validation of a new control system for Elekta accelerators facilitating continuously variable dose rate,” Med. Phys. 38(8), 48024810 (2011).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.3615621
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/39/12/10.1118/1.4764482
Loading
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/39/12/10.1118/1.4764482
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aapm/journal/medphys/39/12/10.1118/1.4764482
2012-11-26
2016-10-01

Abstract

Purpose:

To develop a real time dose monitoring and dose reconstruction tool to identify and quantify sources of errors during patient specific volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivery and quality assurance.

Methods:

The authors develop a VMAT delivery monitor tool called linac data monitor that connects to the linac in clinical mode and records, displays, and compares real time machine parameters with the planned parameters. A new measure, called integral error, keeps a running total of leaf overshoot and undershoot errors in each leaf pair, multiplied by leaf width, and the amount of time during which the error exists in monitor unit delivery. Another tool reconstructs Pinnacle3™ format delivered plan based on the saved machine logfile and recalculates actual delivereddose in patient anatomy.Delivery characteristics of various standard fractionation and stereotactic body radiation therapy(SBRT) VMAT plans delivered on Elekta Axesse and Synergy linacs were quantified.

Results:

The MLC and gantry errors for all the treatment sites were 0.00 ± 0.59 mm and 0.05 ± 0.31°, indicating a good MLC gain calibration. Standard fractionation plans had a larger gantry error than SBRT plans due to frequent dose rate changes. On average, the MLC errors were negligible but larger errors of up to 6 mm and 2.5° were seen when dose rate varied frequently. Large gantry errors occurred during the acceleration and deceleration process, and correlated well with MLC errors (r = 0.858, p = 0.0004). PTV mean, minimum, and maximum dose discrepancies were 0.87 ± 0.21%, 0.99 ± 0.59%, and 1.18 ± 0.52%, respectively. The organs at risk (OAR) doses were within 2.5%, except some OARs that showed up to 5.6% discrepancy in maximum dose. Real time displayed normalized total positive integral error (normalized to the total monitor units) correlated linearly with MLC (r = 0.9279, p < 0.001) and gantry errors (r = 0.742, p = 0.005). There is a strong correlation between total integral error and PTV mean (r = 0.683, p = 0.015), minimum (r = 0.6147, p = 0.033), and maximum dose (r = 0.6038, p = 0.0376).

Conclusions:

Errors may exist during complex VMAT planning and delivery.Linac data monitor is capable of detecting and quantifying mechanical and dosimetric errors at various stages of planning and delivery.

Loading

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/aapm/journal/medphys/39/12/1.4764482.html;jsessionid=ekYgWIGvMB7WUSAwzhHLCQeh.x-aip-live-02?itemId=/content/aapm/journal/medphys/39/12/10.1118/1.4764482&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah&containerItemId=content/aapm/journal/medphys
true
true

Access Key

  • FFree Content
  • OAOpen Access Content
  • SSubscribed Content
  • TFree Trial Content
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
/content/realmedia?fmt=ahah&adPositionList=
&advertTargetUrl=//oascentral.aip.org/RealMedia/ads/&sitePageValue=online.medphys.org/39/12/10.1118/1.4764482&pageURL=http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapm/journal/medphys/39/12/10.1118/1.4764482'
Right1,Right2,Right3,