PURPOSE: A Monte Carlo (MC) based QA process to validate the dynamic beam delivery accuracy for Varian RapidArc (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) using Linac delivery log files (DynaLog) is presented. Using DynaLog file analysis and MC simulations, the goal of this article is to (a) confirm that adequate sampling is used in the RapidArc optimization algorithm (177 static gantry angles) and (b) to assess the physical machine performance [gantry angle and monitor unit (MU) delivery accuracy]. METHODS: Ten clinically acceptable RapidArc treatment plans were generated for various tumor sites and delivered to a water-equivalent cylindrical phantom on the treatment unit. Three Monte Carlo simulations were performed to calculate dose to the CT phantom image set: (a) One using a series of static gantry angles defined by 177 control points with treatment planning system (TPS) MLC control files (planning files), (b) one using continuous gantry rotation with TPS generated MLC control files, and (c) one using continuous gantry rotation with actual Linac delivery log files. Monte Carlo simulated dose distributions are compared to both ionization chamber point measurements and with RapidArc TPS calculated doses. The 3D dose distributions were compared using a 3D gamma-factor analysis, employing a 3%/3 mm distance-to-agreement criterion. RESULTS: The dose difference between MC simulations, TPS, and ionization chamber point measurements was less than 2.1%. For all plans, the MC calculated 3D dose distributions agreed well with the TPS calculated doses (gamma-factor values were less than 1 for more than 95% of the points considered). Machine performance QA was supplemented with an extensive DynaLog file analysis. A DynaLog file analysis showed that leaf position errors were less than 1 mm for 94% of the time and there were no leaf errors greater than 2.5 mm. The mean standard deviation in MU and gantry angle were 0.052 MU and 0.355 degrees, respectively, for the ten cases analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy and flexibility of the Monte Carlo based RapidArc QA system were demonstrated. Good machine performance and accurate dose distribution delivery of RapidArc plans were observed. The sampling used in the TPS optimization algorithm was found to be adequate.
PURPOSE: A Monte Carlo (MC) based QA process to validate the dynamic beam delivery accuracy for Varian RapidArc (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) using Linac delivery log files (DynaLog) is presented. Using DynaLog file analysis and MC simulations, the goal of this article is to (a) confirm that adequate sampling is used in the RapidArc optimization algorithm (177 static gantry angles) and (b) to assess the physical machine performance [gantry angle and monitor unit (MU) delivery accuracy]. METHODS: Ten clinically acceptable RapidArc treatment plans were generated for various tumor sites and delivered to a water-equivalent cylindrical phantom on the treatment unit. Three Monte Carlo simulations were performed to calculate dose to the CT phantom image set: (a) One using a series of static gantry angles defined by 177 control points with treatment planning system (TPS) MLC control files (planning files), (b) one using continuous gantry rotation with TPS generated MLC control files, and (c) one using continuous gantry rotation with actual Linac delivery log files. Monte Carlo simulated dose distributions are compared to both ionization chamber point measurements and with RapidArc TPS calculated doses. The 3D dose distributions were compared using a 3D gamma-factor analysis, employing a 3%/3 mm distance-to-agreement criterion. RESULTS: The dose difference between MC simulations, TPS, and ionization chamber point measurements was less than 2.1%. For all plans, the MC calculated 3D dose distributions agreed well with the TPS calculated doses (gamma-factor values were less than 1 for more than 95% of the points considered). Machine performance QA was supplemented with an extensive DynaLog file analysis. A DynaLog file analysis showed that leaf position errors were less than 1 mm for 94% of the time and there were no leaf errors greater than 2.5 mm. The mean standard deviation in MU and gantry angle were 0.052 MU and 0.355 degrees, respectively, for the ten cases analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy and flexibility of the Monte Carlo based RapidArc QA system were demonstrated. Good machine performance and accurate dose distribution delivery of RapidArc plans were observed. The sampling used in the TPS optimization algorithm was found to be adequate.
Authors: Gregory Smyth; Philip M Evans; Jeffrey C Bamber; Henry C Mandeville; A Rollo Moore; Liam C Welsh; Frank H Saran; James L Bedford Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2019-04-05 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Conor K McGarry; Christina E Agnew; Mohammad Hussein; Yatman Tsang; Alan R Hounsell; Catharine H Clark Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-04-13 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Yuhe Wang; Thomas R Mazur; Olga Green; Yanle Hu; Hua Li; Vivian Rodriguez; H Omar Wooten; Deshan Yang; Tianyu Zhao; Sasa Mutic; H Harold Li Journal: Med Phys Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: X Ronald Zhu; Yupeng Li; Dennis Mackin; Heng Li; Falk Poenisch; Andrew K Lee; Anita Mahajan; Steven J Frank; Michael T Gillin; Narayan Sahoo; Xiaodong Zhang Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2015-04-10 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Gordon H Chan; Lee C L Chin; Ady Abdellatif; Jean-Pierre Bissonnette; Lesley Buckley; Daria Comsa; Dal Granville; Jenna King; Patrick L Rapley; Aaron Vandermeer Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2021-06-19 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Philipp Szeverinski; Matthias Kowatsch; Thomas Künzler; Marco Meinschad; Patrick Clemens; Alexander F DeVries Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2021-06-20 Impact factor: 2.102