Login Register Cart 0
Generic placeholder image

Current Pharmaceutical Design

Editor-in-Chief

ISSN (Print): 1381-6128
ISSN (Online): 1873-4286

Back
Journal Home About Journal Editorial Board Journal Insight Current Issue Volumes/Issues
Subscribe
Research Article

Machine Log File and Calibration Errors-based Patient-specific Quality Assurance (QA) for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT)

Author(s): Yangguang Ma, Xuanqin Mou, Narasimha M. Beeraka, Yuexin Guo, Junqi Liu, Jianrong Dai* and Ruitai Fan*

Volume 29, Issue 34, 2023

Published on: 24 October, 2023

Page: [2738 - 2751] Pages: 14

DOI: 10.2174/0113816128226519231017050459

conference banner
Abstract

Introduction: Dose reconstructed based on linear accelerator (linac) log-files is one of the widely used solutions to perform patient-specific quality assurance (QA). However, it has a drawback that the accuracy of log-file is highly dependent on the linac calibration. The objective of the current study is to represent a new practical approach for a patient-specific QA during Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using both log-file and calibration errors of linac.

Methods: A total of six cases, including two head and neck neoplasms, two lung cancers, and two rectal carcinomas, were selected. The VMAT-based delivery was optimized by the TPS of Pinnacle^3 subsequently, using Elekta Synergy VMAT linac (Elekta Oncology Systems, Crawley, UK), which was equipped with 80 Multi-leaf collimators (MLCs) and the energy of the ray selected at 6 MV. Clinical mode log-file of this linac was used in this study. A series of test fields validate the accuracy of log-file. Then, six plans of test cases were delivered and log-file of each was obtained. The log-file errors were added to the corresponding plans through the house script and the first reconstructed plan was obtained. Later, a series of tests were performed to evaluate the major calibration errors of the linac (dose-rate, gantry angle, MLC leaf position) and the errors were added to the first reconstruction plan to generate the second reconstruction plan. At last, all plans were imported to Pinnacle and recalculated dose distribution on patient CT and ArcCheck phantom (SUN Nuclear). For the former, both target and OAR dose differences between them were compared. For the latter, γ was evaluated by ArcCheck, and subsequently, the surface dose differences between them were performed.

Results: Accuracy of log-file was validated. If error recordings in the log file were only considered, there were four arcs whose proportion of control points with gantry angle errors more than ± 1°larger than 35%. Errors of leaves within ± 0.5 mm were 95% for all arcs. The distinctness of a single control point MU was bigger, but the distinctness of cumulative MU was smaller. The maximum, minimum, and mean doses for all targets were distributed between -6.79E-02-0.42%, -0.38-0.4%, 2.69E-02-8.54E-02% respectively, whereas for all OAR, the maximum and mean dose were distributed between -1.16-2.51%, -1.21-3.12% respectively. For the second reconstructed dose: the maximum, minimum, and mean dose for all targets was distributed between 0.0995~5.7145%, 0.6892~4.4727%, 0.5829~1.8931% separately. Due to OAR, maximum and mean dose distribution was observed between -3.1462~6.8920%, -6.9899~1.9316%, respectively.

Conclusion: Patient-specific QA based on the log-file could reflect the accuracy of the linac execution plan, which usually has a small influence on dose delivery. When the linac calibration errors were considered, the reconstructed dose was closer to the actual delivery and the developed method was accurate and practical.

Keywords: VMAT QA, log file, calibration error, dose reconstruction, cancers, treatment planning system, radiation oncology.

« Previous Next »
[1]
Hosseini M, Amiri M, Ghanbari M, Mahdi MA, Abdulsahib WK, Salavati-Niasari M. Drug delivery based on chitosan, β-cyclodextrin and sodium carboxymethyl cellulose as well as nanocarriers for advanced leukemia treatment. Biomed Pharmacother 2022; 153: 113369.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2022.113369] [PMID: 35780615]
[2]
Otto K. Volumetric modulated arc therapy: IMRT in a single gantry arc. Med Phys 2008; 35: 310-7.
[3]
Didona A, Lancellotta V, Zucchetti C, et al. Is volumetric modulated arc therapy with constant dose rate a valid option in radiation therapy for head and neck cancer patients? Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2018; 23(3): 175-82.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rpor.2018.02.007] [PMID: 29765265]
[4]
Basavatia AK, Fiedler DA, Ritter J, et al. Comprehensive patient-specific intensity-modulated radiation therapy quality assurance comparing Mobius3D/FX to conventional methods of evaluation. Cureus 2021; 13(5): e14910.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.14910] [PMID: 34113520]
[5]
Nakaguchi Y, Araki F, Ono T, et al. Validation of a quick three-dimensional dose verification system for pre-treatment IMRT QA. Radiological Phys Technol 2015; 8(1): 73-80.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12194-014-0294-x] [PMID: 25261343]
[6]
Inui S, Nishio T, Ueda Y, et al. Machine log file-based dose verification using novel iterative CBCT reconstruction algorithm in commercial software during volumetric modulated arc therapy for prostate cancer patients. Phys Med 2021; 92: 24-31.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2021.11.004] [PMID: 34837857]
[7]
Litzenberg DW, Moran JM, Fraass BA. Verification of dynamic and segmental IMRT delivery by dynamic log file analysis. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2002; 3(2): 63-72.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v3i2.2578] [PMID: 11958647]
[8]
Schreibmann E, Dhabaan A, Elder E, Fox T. Patient-specific quality assurance method for VMAT treatment delivery. Med Phys 2009; 36(10): 4530-5.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.3213085] [PMID: 19928084]
[9]
Sastre-Padro M, Lervåg C, Eilertsen K, Malinen E. The performance of multileaf collimators evaluated by the stripe test. Med Dosim 2009; 34(3): 202-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meddos.2008.08.005] [PMID: 19647629]
[10]
Pasquino M, Borca VC, Catuzzo P, Ozzello F, Tofani S. Transmission, penumbra and leaf positional accuracy in commissioning and quality assurance program of a multileaf collimator for step-and-shoot IMRT treatments. Tumori 2006; 92(6): 511-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/030089160609200608] [PMID: 17260492]
[11]
Hounsell AR, Jordan TJ. Quality control aspects of the Philips multileaf collimator. Radiother Oncol 1997; 45(3): 225-33.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8140(97)00100-X] [PMID: 9426116]
[12]
Li JG, Dempsey JF, Ding L, Liu C, Palta JR. Validation of dynamic MLC-controller log files using a two-dimensional diode array. Med Phys 2003; 30(5): 799-805.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.1567951] [PMID: 12772987]
[13]
Yang Y, Xing L. Using the volumetric effect of a finite-sized detector for routine quality assurance of multileaf collimator leaf positioning. Med Phys 2003; 30(3): 433-41.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.1543150] [PMID: 12674244]
[14]
Simon TA, Kahler D, Simon WE, et al. An MLC calibration method using a detector array. Med Phys 2009; 36(10): 4495-503.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.3218767] [PMID: 19928080]
[15]
James HV, Atherton S, Budgell GJ, Kirby MC, Williams PC. Verification of dynamic multileaf collimation using an electronic portal imaging device. Phys Med Biol 2000; 45(2): 495-509.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/45/2/316] [PMID: 10701517]
[16]
Vieira SC, Dirkx MLP, Pasma KL, Heijmen BJM. Fast and accurate leaf verification for dynamic multileaf collimation using an electronic portal imaging device. Med Phys 2002; 29(9): 2034-40.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.1501141] [PMID: 12349924]
[17]
Samant SS, Zheng W, Parra NA, et al. Verification of multileaf collimator leaf positions using an electronic portal imaging device. Med Phys 2002; 29(12): 2900-12.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.1515760] [PMID: 12512727]
[18]
Chang J, Obcemea CH, Sillanpaa J, Mechalakos J, Burman C. Use of EPID for leaf position accuracy QA of dynamic multi-leaf collimator (DMLC) treatment. Med Phys 2004; 31(7): 2091-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.1760187] [PMID: 15305462]
[19]
Sastre-Padro M, Heide UA, Welleweerd H. An accurate calibration method of the multileaf collimator valid for conformal and intensity modulated radiation treatments. Phys Med Biol 2004; 49(12): 2631-43.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/49/12/011] [PMID: 15272678]
[20]
Yang Y, Xing L. Quantitative measurement of MLC leaf displacements using an electronic portal image device. Phys Med Biol 2004; 49(8): 1521-33.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/49/8/010] [PMID: 15152689]
[21]
Parent L, Seco J, Evans PM, Dance DR, Fielding A. Evaluation of two methods of predicting MLC leaf positions using EPID measurements. Med Phys 2006; 33(9): 3174-82.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.2335490] [PMID: 17022210]
[22]
Baker SJK, Budgell GJ, MacKay RI. Use of an amorphous silicon electronic portal imaging device for multileaf collimator quality control and calibration. Phys Med Biol 2005; 50(7): 1377-92.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/50/7/003] [PMID: 15798330]
[23]
Mohammadi M, Bezak E. Evaluation of MLC leaf positioning using a scanning liquid ionization chamber EPID. Phys Med Biol 2007; 52(1): N21-33.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/52/1/N03] [PMID: 17183123]
[24]
Budgell GJ, Clarke MF. Analysis of the measurement precision of an amorphous silicon EPID used for MLC leaf position quality control and the long-term calibration stability of an optically controlled MLC. Phys Med Biol 2008; 53(15): N297-306.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/53/15/N01] [PMID: 18635894]
[25]
Clarke MF, Budgell GJ. Use of an amorphous silicon EPID for measuring MLC calibration at varying gantry angle. Phys Med Biol 2008; 53(2): 473-85.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/53/2/013] [PMID: 18185000]
[26]
Mamalui-Hunter M, Li H, Low DA. MLC quality assurance using EPID: A fitting technique with subpixel precision. Med Phys 2008; 35(6Part1): 2347-55.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.2919560] [PMID: 18649468]
[27]
Budgell GJ, Mott JHL, Williams PC, Brown KJ. Requirements for leaf position accuracy for dynamic multileaf collimation. Phys Med Biol 2000; 45(5): 1211-27.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/45/5/310] [PMID: 10843101]
[28]
Stell AM, Li JG, Zeidan OA, Dempsey JF. An extensive log-file analysis of step-and-shoot intensity modulated radiation therapy segment delivery errors. Med Phys 2004; 31(6): 1593-602.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.1751011] [PMID: 15259664]
[29]
Feygelman V, Zhang G, Stevens C, Nelms BE. Evaluation of a new VMAT QA device, or the “X” and “O” array geometries. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2011; 12(2): 146-68.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v12i2.3346] [PMID: 21587178]
[30]
Chang L, Ho SY, Wu JM, Yu CY, Sung CC. Technical innovation to calibrate the gantry angle indicators of linear accelerators. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2001; 2(1): 54-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v2i1.2630] [PMID: 11674839]
[31]
Chang L, Ho SY, Du YC, Lin CM, Chen T. An improved method to accurately calibrate the gantry angle indicators of the radiotherapy linear accelerators. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A 2007; 576(2-3): 441-5.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2007.03.030]

Rights & Permissions Print Cite
Article Metrics
20
2
Wayfinder Image
© 2024 Bentham Science Publishers | Privacy Policy