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

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 0.09955.7145%, 0.68924.4727%, 0.58291.8931% separately. Due to OAR, maximum and mean dose distribution was observed between -3.14626.8920%, -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.