Encrypted login | home

Program Information

3 Year Experience of Treatment Plan QualityAssurance for Vero SBRT Patients

no image available
Z Su

Z Su1*, M Mamalui2 , Z Li3 , (1) University of Florida, Jacksonville, FL, (2) University of Florida/Radiation Oncology, Jacksonville, FL, (3) University of Florida, Jacksonville, FL


SU-F-T-564 (Sunday, July 31, 2016) 3:00 PM - 6:00 PM Room: Exhibit Hall

Purpose: To verify treatment plan monitor units from iPlan treatment planning system for Vero Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) treatment using both software-based and (homogeneous and heterogeneous) phantom-based approaches.

Methods: Dynamic conformal arcs (DCA) were used for SBRT treatment of oligometastasis patients using Vero linear accelerator. For each plan, Monte Carlo calculated treatment plans MU (prescribed dose to water with 1% variance) is verified first by RadCalc software with 3% difference threshold. Beyond 3% differences, treatment plans were copied onto (homogeneous) Scanditronix phantom for non-lung patients and copied onto (heterogeneous) CIRS phantom for lung patients and the corresponding plan dose was measured using a cc01 ion chamber. The difference between the planed and measured dose was recorded. For the past 3 years, we have treated 180 patients with 315 targets. Out of these patients, 99 targets treatment plan RadCalc calculation exceeded 3% threshold and phantom based measurements were performed with 26 plans using Scanditronix phantom and 73 plans using CIRS phantom. Mean and standard deviation of the dose differences were obtained and presented.

Results: For all patient RadCalc calculations, the mean dose difference is 0.76% with a standard deviation of 5.97%. For non-lung patient plan Scanditronix phantom measurements, the mean dose difference is 0.54% with standard deviation of 2.53%; for lung patient plan CIRS phantom measurements, the mean dose difference is -0.04% with a standard deviation of 1.09%; The maximum dose difference is 3.47% for Scanditronix phantom measurements and 3.08% for CIRS phantom measurements.

Conclusion: Limitations in secondary MU check software lead to perceived large dose discrepancies for some of the lung patient SBRT treatment plans. Homogeneous and heterogeneous phantoms were used in plan quality assurance for non-lung patients and lung patients, respectively. Phantom based QA showed the relative good agreement between iPlan calculated dose and measured dose.

Contact Email: