Evaluation the combined effect of three dose reconstruction systems on VMAT dosimetry verification of lung cancer
Ma Yangguang1, Mai Rizhen2, Pei Yuntong1, Hu Jinyan1, Kong Fanyang1, Wang Xuemin3, Guo Yuexin1
1Department of Radiation Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450052, China; 2Department of Medical Equipment, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450052, China; 3Department of Radiotherapy Hospital Unit Radiation Therapy, Shaanxi Provincial Tumor Hospital, Xi'an 710061, China
Abstract：Objective To evaluate the combined effect of an trajectory log field based(LBF)and two commercial dose reconstruction systems on volume-modulated arc therapy(VMAT)dose verification of lung cancer. Methods An in-house program was developed to introduce errors in trajectory log of TrueBeam to the origin plan and recalculate the dose of the error plan in treatment planning system(TPS). A total of 18 lung cancer cases treated by two-arc VMAT were selected to perform on LINAC and measured by ArcCheck simultaneously. Then, the reconstructed doses were obtained by 3DVH. The mode of reconstruction was calculated by LFB and Compass. Five of the 18 cases were performed on LINAC two times in four hours and measured by ArcCheck to evaluate the stability of the TrueBeam performance. The 18 plans were recalculated and performed on LINAC with a solid water phantom with 5 cm build-up, 4 cm back scattering thickness and a FC65-G detector in the center. The measured dose by detector was compared with the reconstructed dose by three systems. Results TheTruebeam performance was stable. For all of the 18 cases, the point dose measured by FC65-G and reconstructed by three systems had a deviation of less than 2% to the TPS calculated. For all of the organs reconstructed by LBF and most organs reconstructed by 3DVH and Compass, the γ pass rate between them and TPS all exceeded 90% under all criteria, as well as the ArcCheck measured Results. For all the organ dose difference between reconstructed and TPS, LBF system had the smallest difference, followed by the Compass system except the lung, and the 3DVH had the highest difference. Conclusions LBF, 3DVH and Compass can reflect the VMAT dose verification Results of lung cancer from different perspectives. The combined application of three systems can demonstrate the verification Results in an intuitive manner, which is beneficial for subsequent analysis.
Ma Yangguang,Mai Rizhen,Pei Yuntong et al. Evaluation the combined effect of three dose reconstruction systems on VMAT dosimetry verification of lung cancer[J]. Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology, 2021, 30(1): 76-80.
[1] Low DA, Harms WB, Mutic S, et al. A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions[J]. Med Phys, 1998, 25(5):656-661. DOI:10.1118/1.598248. [2] Zhang D, Wang B, Zhang G, et al. Comparison of 3D and 2D gamma passing rate criteria for detection sensitivity to IMRT delivery errors[J]. J Appl Clin Med Phys, 2018, 19(4):230-238. DOI:10.1002/acm2.12389. [3] Saito M, Sano N, Shibata Y, et al. Comparison of MLC error sensitivity of various commercial devices for VMAT pre-treatment quality assurance[J]. J Appl Clin Med Phys, 2018, 19(3):87-93. DOI:10.1002/acm2.12288. [4] Park JI, Park JM, Kim J, et al. Gamma-index method sensitivity for gauging plan delivery accuracy of volumetric modulated arc therapy[J]. Phys Med, 2015, 31(8):1118–1122. DOI:10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.08.005. [5] Park JM, Kim JI, Park SY, et al. Reliability of the gamma index analysis as a verification method of volumetric modulated arc therapy plans[J]. Radiat Oncol, 2018, 13(1):1-14. DOI:10.1186/s13014-018-1123-x. [6] Nelms BE, Zhen H, Tom WA. Per-beam, planar IMRT QA passing rates do not predict clinically relevant patient dose errors[J]. Med Phys, 2011, 38(2):1037-1044. DOI:10.1118/1.3544657. [7] Zhen H, Nelms BE, Tomé WA. Moving from gamma passing rates to patient DVH-based QA metrics in pretreatment dose QA[J]. Med Phys, 2011, 38(10):5477-5489. DOI:10.1118/1.3633904. [8] Cozzolino M, Oliviero C, Califano G, et al. Clinically relevant quality assurance(QA)for prostate RapidArc plans:gamma maps and DVH-based evaluation[J]. Phys Med, 2014, 30(4):462-472. DOI:10.1016/j.ejmp.2014.01.003. [9] Stanhope CW, Drake DG, Liang J, et al. Evaluation of machine log files/MC-based treatment planning and delivery QA as compared to ArcCheck QA[J]. Med Phys, 2018, 45(7):2864-2874. DOI:10.1002/mp.12926. [10] Woon WA, Ravindran PB, Ekanayake P, et al. Trajectory log file sensitivity:a critical analysis using DVH and EPID[J]. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother, 2018, 23(5):346-359. DOI:10.1016/j.rpor.2018.07.006. [11] Kadoya N, Kon Y, Takayama Y, et al. Quantifying the performance of two different types of commercial software programs for 3D patient dose reconstruction for prostate cancer patients:machine log files vs. machine log files with EPID images[J]. Phys Med, 2018, 45(2):170-176. DOI:10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.12.018. [12] Vikraman S, Manigandan D, Karrthick KP, et al. Quantitative evaluation of 3D dosimetry for stereotactic volumetric-modulated arc delivery using COMPASS[J]. J Appl Clin Med Phys, 2014, 16(1):192-207. DOI:10.1120/jacmp.v16i1.5128. [13] Nelms BE, Opp D, Robinson J, et al. VMAT QA:measurement-guided 4D dose reconstruction on a patient[J]. Med Phys, 2012, 39(7):4228-4238. DOI:10.1118/1.4729709. [14] Katsuta Y, Kadoya N, Fujita Y, et al. Log file-based patient dose calculations of double-arc VMAT for head-and-neck radiotherapy[J]. Phys Med, 2018, 48(1):6-10. DOI:10.1016/j.ejmp.2018.03.006. [15] Vazquez-Quino LA, Huerta-Hernandez CI, Rangaraj D. Clinical experience with machine log file software for volumetric-modulated arc therapy techniques[J]. Proc(Baylor Univ Med Cent), 2017, 30(3):276-279. DOI:10.1080/08998280.2017.11929614. [16] Pasler M, Kaas J, Perik T, et al. Linking log files with dosimetric accuracy-a multi-institutional study on quality assurance of volumetric modulated arc therapy[J]. Radiother Oncol, 2015, 117(3):407-411. DOI:10.1016/j.radonc.2015.11.005.
2021, Vol. 30 
