Introduction Results of use of methodology for VMAT commissioning and quality assurance, utilizing both control point tests and dosimetric measurements are presented. Methods and Materials A generalizable, phantom measurement approach is used to characterize the accuracy of the measurement system. Correction for angular response of the measurement system and inclusion of couch structures are used to characterize the full range gantry angles desirable for clinical plans. A dose based daily QA measurement approach is defined. Results Agreement in the static vs. VMAT picket fence control point test was better than 0.5 mm. Control point tests varying gantry rotation speed, leaf speed and dose rate, demonstrated agreement with predicted values better than 1%. Angular dependence of the MatriXX array, varied over a range of 0.94–1.06, with respect to the calibration condition. Phantom measurements demonstrated central axis dose accuracy for un-modulated four field box plans was ≥2.5% vs. 1% with and without angular correction respectively with better results for VMAT (0.4%) vs. IMRT (1.6%) plans. Daily QA results demonstrated average agreement all three chambers within 0.4% over 9 month period with no false positives at a 3% threshold. Discussion The methodology described is simple in design and characterizes both the inherit limitations of the measurement system as well at the dose based measurements that may be directly related to patient plan QA.
References
[1]
Ling CC, Zhang P, Archambault Y, Bocaneck J, Tang G, et al. (2008) Commissioning and Quality Assurance of RapidArc Radiotherapy Delivery System, Int. J. Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 72: 575–581.
[2]
Van Esch A, Huyskens DP, Behrens CF, Samsoe E, Sjolin M, et al. (2011) Implementing RapidArc into clinical routine: a comprehensive program from machine QA to TPS validation and patient QA. Med Phys. 38: 5146–5166.
[3]
Bedford JL, Warrington AP (2009) Commissioning of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT)., Int. J. Radiation Oncology Biol. Phys. 73: 537–545.
[4]
Dobler B, Groeger C, Treutwein M, Alvarez-Moret J, Goetzfried T, et al. (2011) Commissioning of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in a dual-vendor environment Radiother Oncol. 99: 86–89.
[5]
Clivio A, Nicolini G, Vanetti E, Fogliata A, Cozzi L (2011) Commissioning and early experience with a new-generation low-energy linear accelerator with advanced delivery and imaging functionalities. Radiat Oncol. 6: 129.
[6]
Ezzell GA, Burmeister JW, Dogan N, LoSasso T, et al. (2009) IMRT commissioning: Multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM task group 119. Med. Phys. 36: 5359–5373.
[7]
Klein EE, Hanley J, Bayouth J, Yin FF, et al. (2009) Task Group 142 report: Quality assurance of medical accelerators, Med. Phys (36) 4197–4212.
[8]
Palta J, Kim S, Li J, Liu C (2003) Tolerance Limits and Action Levels for Planning and Delivery of IMRT. In: Palta JR, Mackie TR, editors. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy: the state of art. Madison, WI: Medical Physics Publishing. 593–612.
[9]
Masi L, Casamassima F, Doro R, Francescon P (2011) Quality assurance of volumetric modulated arc therapy: evaluation and comparison of different dosimetric systems. Med Phys. 38: 612–621.
[10]
Gloi AM, Buchana RE, Zuge CL, Goettler AM (2011) RapidArc quality assurance through MapCHECK J Appl Clin Med Phys. 12: 39–47.
[11]
Chandraraj V, Stathakis S, Manickam R, Esquivel C, Supe SS, et al. (2011) Comparison of four commercial devices for RapidArc and sliding window IMRT QA. J Appl Clin Med Phys (12) 338–349.
[12]
Iftimia I, Cirino ET, Xiong L, Mower HW (2010) Quality assurance methodology for Varian RapidArc treatment plans. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 11: 130–143.
[13]
Zhen H, Nelms BE, Tome WA (2011) Moving from gamma passing rates to patient DVH-based QA metrics in pretreatment dose QA. Med Phys. 38: 5477–5489.
[14]
Kruse JJ (2010) On the insensitivity of single field planar dosimetry to IMRT Inaccuracies. Med. Phys. 37: 2516–2524.
[15]
Nelms BE, Zhen H, Tomé WA (2011) Per-beam, planar IMRT QA passing rates do not predict clinically relevant patient dose errors. Med Phys (38) 1037–1044.
