Vol. 8, 2023
Radiotherapy
EVALUATING VMAT DELIVERY ACCURACY USING END-TO-END TEST FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF VMAT PLANS
Angela Dameska, Milena Teodosievska Dilindarski, Dushko Lukarski
Pages: 131-135
DOI: 10.37392/RapProc.2023.27
Abstract | References | Full Text (PDF)
Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is the next step in the improvement of the dynamic intensity modulated radiotherapy by improving the delivery efficiency and reducing the treatment time. In this study we have evaluated the delivery accuracy of different types of VMAT plans by performing an end-to-end test using the CIRS IMRT Thorax 002LFC phantom on two different radiotherapy units, a Varian iX Clinac and a Halcyon unit. We have created 10 different VMAT plans and measured the dose in different points according to a modified IAEA CRP E24017 protocol. For the measurement points representing the target volumes we have found that using two or three arcs gives acceptable results, but for single arc treatments the results were suboptimal. For low-dose regions, field size was found to have a more pronounced effect especially on the iX unit, with larger fields leading to slightly reduced accuracy. Inaccuracies are usually highest where the inhomogeneity of the body is greatest, such as the points representing the lungs and the spinal cord regions, where the computational algorithms themselves also contribute to the overall inaccuracy. In conclusion, the end-to-end test showed that the plans are clinically acceptable, but the recommendations for these particular machines would be not to use single arc treatments and to consider algorithm inaccuracies in regions of greater inhomogeneity during the treatment planning process.
-
K. Otto, “Volumetric modulated arc therapy: IMRT in a single gantry arc,”
Med. Phys., vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 310 – 317, Jan. 2008.
DOI: 10.1118/1.2818738
PMid: 18293586 -
E. Vanetti et al., “Volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy for carcinomas of
the oro-pharynx, hypo-pharynx and larynx: a treatment planning comparison
with fixed field IMRT,” Radiother. Oncol., vol. 92, no. 1,
pp. 111 – 117, Jul. 2009.
DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2008.12.008
PMid: 19157609 -
J. Gomez-Millan Barrachina et al., “Potential advantages of volumetric arc
therapy in head and neck cancer,” Head & Neck, vol. 37, no.
6, pp. 909 – 914, Jun. 2015.
DOI: 10.1002/hed.23685
PMid: 24623665 -
U. Akbas et al., “Nasopharyngeal carcinoma radiotherapy with hybrid
technique,” Med. Dosim., vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 251 – 257, Sep. 2019.
DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2018.09.003
PMid: 30366620 -
N. Zhao et al., “A hybrid IMRT/VMAT technique for the treatment of
nasopharyngeal cancer,” Biomed Res. Int., vol. 2015, 940102, 2015.
DOI: 10.1155/2015/940102
PMid: 25688371
PMCid: PMC4320861 -
X. Jin et al., “CBCT-based volumetric and dosimetric variation evaluation
of volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy in the treatment of nasopharyngeal
cancer patients,” Radiat. Oncol., vol. 8, no. 1, 279, Dec. 2013.
DOI: 10.1186/1748-717X-8-279
PMid: 24289312
PMCid: PMC4222038 -
J. M. Park, H. G. Wu, H. J. Kim, C. H. Choi, J. I. Kim, “Comparison of
treatment plans between IMRT with MR-linac and VMAT for lung SABR,”
Radiat. Oncol., vol. 14, no. 1, 105, Jun. 2019.
DOI: 10.1186/s13014-019-1314-0
PMid: 31196120
PMCid: PMC6567463 -
E. E. Klein et al., “Task Group 142 report: Quality assurance of medical
accelerators,” Med. Phys., vol. 36, no. 9, pp. 4197 – 4212, Sep.
2009.
DOI: 10.1118/1.3190392
PMid: 19810494 -
J. Hanley et al., “AAPM Task Group 198 Report: An implementation guide for
TG 142 quality assurance of medical accelerators,” Med. Phys.,
vol. 48, no. 10, pp. e830 – e885, Oct. 2021.
DOI: 10.1002/mp.14992
PMid: 34036590 -
M. Miften et al., “Tolerance limits and methodologies for IMRT
measurement-based verification QA: Recommendations of AAPM Task Group No.
218,” Med. Phys., vol. 45, no. 4, pp. e53 – e83, Apr. 2018.
DOI: 10.1002/mp.12810
PMid: 29443390 -
T. C. Zhu et al., “Report of AAPM Task Group 219 on independent
calculation-based dose/MU verification for IMRT,” Med. Phys., vol.
48, no. 10, pp. e808 – e829, Oct. 2021.
DOI: 10.1002/mp.15069
PMid: 34213772 -
P. Kazantsev et al., “IAEA methodology for on-site end-to-end IMRT/VMAT
audits an international pilot study,” Acta Oncol., vol. 59, no. 2,
pp. 141 – 148, Feb. 2020.
DOI: 10.1080/0284186X.2019.1685128
PMid: 31746249 -
P. Wesolowska et al., “Testing the methodology for a dosimetric end-to-end
audit of IMRT/VMAT: results of IAEA multicentre and national studies,”
Acta Oncol., vol. 58, no. 12, pp. 1731 – 1739, Dec. 2019.
DOI: 10.1080/0284186X.2019.1648859
PMid: 31423867 -
T. Santos et al., “IMRT national audit in Portugal,” Phys. Med.,
vol. 65, pp. 128 – 136, Sep. 2019.
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2019.08.013
PMid: 31450123 -
L. Tuntipumiamorn et al., “Multi-institutional evaluation using the
end-to-end test for implementation of dynamic techniques of radiation
therapy in Thailand,” Rep. Pract. Oncol. Radiother., vol.
24, no. 1, pp. 124 – 132, Jan-Feb. 2019.
DOI: 10.1016/j.rpor.2018.11.005
PMid: 30532660
PMCid: PMC6265520 -
H. Schiefer et al., “The Swiss IMRT dosimetry intercomparison using a
thorax phantom,” Med. Phys.,nvol. 37, no. 8, pp. 4424 –
4431, Aug. 2010.
DOI: 10.1118/1.3460795
PMid: 20879601 -
D. S. Radojcic et al., “Experimental validation of Monte Carlo based
treatment planning system in bone density equivalent media,”
Radiol. Oncol., vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 495 – 504, Sep. 2020.
DOI: 10.2478/raon-2020-0051
PMid: 32936784
PMCid: PMC7585341 -
E. Gershkevitsh et al., “Dosimetric inter-institutional comparison in
European radiotherapy centres: Results of IAEA supported treatment planning
system audit,” Acta Oncol., vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 628 – 636, May 2014.
DOI: 10.3109/0284186X.2013.840742
PMid: 24164104