Encrypted login | home

Program Information

Robustness of Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) Plans to Systematic MLC Positional Errors

no image available
P Qi

P Qi*, P Xia , Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH


SU-E-T-405 Sunday 3:00PM - 6:00PM Room: Exhibit Hall

Purpose: To evaluate the dosimetric impact of systematic MLC positional errors (PEs) on the quality of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans.

Methods: Five patients with head-and-neck cancer (HN) and five patients with prostate cancer were randomly chosen for this study. The clinically approved VMAT plans were designed with 2-4 coplanar arc beams with none-zero collimator angles in the Pinnacle planning system. The systematic MLC PEs of 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 mm on both MLC banks were introduced into the original VMAT plans using an in-house program, and recalculated with the same planned Monitor Units in the Pinnacle system. For each patient, the original VMAT plans and plans with MLC PEs were evaluated according to the dose-volume histogram information and Gamma index analysis.

Results: For one primary target, the ratio of V100 in the plans with 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 mm MLC PEs to those in the clinical plans was 98.8 ± 2.2%, 97.9 ± 2.1%, 90.1 ± 9.0% for HN cases and 99.5 ± 3.2%, 98.9 ± 1.0%, 97.0 ± 2.5% for prostate cases. For all OARs, the relative difference of Dmean in all plans was less than 1.5%. With 2mm/2% criteria for Gamma analysis, the passing rates were 99.0 ± 1.5% for HN cases and 99.7 ± 0.3% for prostate cases between the planar doses from the original plans and the plans with 1.0 mm MLC errors. The corresponding Gamma passing rates dropped to 88.9 ± 5.3% for HN cases and 83.4 ± 3.2% for prostate cases when comparing planar doses from the original plans and the plans with 2.0 mm MLC errors.

Conclusion: For VMAT plans, systematic MLC PEs up to 1.0 mm did not affect the plan quality in term of target coverage, OAR sparing, and Gamma analysis with 2mm/2% criteria.

Contact Email: