Encrypted login | home

Program Information

Initial Experience with VMAT Plan and Delivery Verification Using a DICOM-RT Framework and Linac Delivery Log Files

R Reynolds

R Reynolds*, A Pompos , X Gu , S Jiang , S Stojadinovic , UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX


SU-E-T-213 Sunday 3:00PM - 6:00PM Room: Exhibit Hall

Purpose: Mobius3D/MobiusFX (M3D/MFX), a commercial DICOM-RT based plan and delivery verification system, was used to compare calculated and delivered volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) dose distributions using TrueBeam delivery log files (TrajectoryLogs).

Methods: M3D/MFX utilizes measured linac commissioning data to generate institution specific beam models for evaluating planned and delivered dose distributions. 30 RapidArc prostate plans and 30 head and neck SmartArc plans were used in this study. For every plan, CT images, contoured structure sets, RT-plan, and RT-dose files were exported to M3D, which recalculated the patients’ planning CT dose distributions using a collapsed-cone-convolution-superposition algorithm. MFX utilized the acquired TrajectoryLogs to compute patients’ delivered dose distributions based on actual treatment delivery parameters. The agreement between computed and delivered dose distributions was evaluated utilizing a (3%, 3mm) global 3D-gamma analysis and dose-volume histogram changes for targets and organs at risk.

Results: Excellent 3D-gamma agreements were observed for all VMAT plans. On average, for computed and delivered RapidArc and SmartArc plans the gamma passing rates were (99.0%±1.4%) and (96.8%±1.8%), respectively. The average difference for primary target prescription dose percent-coverage between calculated and delivered plans was (-0.09%±2.52%) for RapidArc and (-2.71%±4.62%) for SmartArc cases. Similarly, the planning target mean dose differences were (1.38%±0.96%) for RapidArc and (1.17%±0.72%) for SmartArc plans. For the prostate plans, the calculated and delivered variations of the maximum dose for a 2cc volume for bladder and rectum were (1.32%±1.26%) and (0.65%±1.44%), respectively. The spinal-cord 2cc maximum dose differences of (3.26%±1.68%) were observed for the SmartArc plans.

Conclusions: Clinical quality assurance practice based on linac treatment log files for verification of delivered 3D dose distributions in the patients’ geometries represents a paradigm shift from dose measurements in a phantom. This approach captures treatment planning beam modeling differences as well as the linac uncertainties during treatment delivery of the plan.

Contact Email: