Yoshiyuki Katsuta1, Noriyuki Kadoya2, Yukio Fujita3, Eiji Shimizu4, Kenichi Matsunaga4, Haruo Matsushita5, Kazuhiro Majima4, Keiichi Jingu5. 1. Department of Radiology, Takeda General Hospital, Aizuwakamatsu, Japan; Department of Radiation Oncology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan. Electronic address: kadoya.n@rad.med.tohoku.ac.jp. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Tokai University Graduate School of Medicine, Isehara, Japan. 4. Department of Radiology, Takeda General Hospital, Aizuwakamatsu, Japan. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The log file-based patient dose estimation includes a residual dose estimation error caused by leaf miscalibration, which cannot be reflected on the estimated dose. The purpose of this study is to determine this residual dose estimation error. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Modified log files for seven head-and-neck and prostate volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans simulating leaf miscalibration were generated by shifting both leaf banks (systematic leaf gap errors: ±2.0, ±1.0, and ±0.5mm in opposite directions and systematic leaf shifts: ±1.0mm in the same direction) using MATLAB-based (MathWorks, Natick, MA) in-house software. The generated modified and non-modified log files were imported back into the treatment planning system and recalculated. Subsequently, the generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD) was quantified for the definition of the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risks. RESULTS: For MLC leaves calibrated within ±0.5mm, the quantified residual dose estimation errors that obtained from the slope of the linear regression of gEUD changes between non- and modified log file doses per leaf gap are in head-and-neck plans 1.32±0.27% and 0.82±0.17Gy for PTV and spinal cord, respectively, and in prostate plans 1.22±0.36%, 0.95±0.14Gy, and 0.45±0.08Gy for PTV, rectum, and bladder, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this work, we determine the residual dose estimation errors for VMAT delivery using the log file-based patient dose calculation according to the MLC calibration accuracy.
PURPOSE: The log file-based patient dose estimation includes a residual dose estimation error caused by leaf miscalibration, which cannot be reflected on the estimated dose. The purpose of this study is to determine this residual dose estimation error. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Modified log files for seven head-and-neck and prostate volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans simulating leaf miscalibration were generated by shifting both leaf banks (systematic leaf gap errors: ±2.0, ±1.0, and ±0.5mm in opposite directions and systematic leaf shifts: ±1.0mm in the same direction) using MATLAB-based (MathWorks, Natick, MA) in-house software. The generated modified and non-modified log files were imported back into the treatment planning system and recalculated. Subsequently, the generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD) was quantified for the definition of the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risks. RESULTS: For MLC leaves calibrated within ±0.5mm, the quantified residual dose estimation errors that obtained from the slope of the linear regression of gEUD changes between non- and modified log file doses per leaf gap are in head-and-neck plans 1.32±0.27% and 0.82±0.17Gy for PTV and spinal cord, respectively, and in prostate plans 1.22±0.36%, 0.95±0.14Gy, and 0.45±0.08Gy for PTV, rectum, and bladder, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this work, we determine the residual dose estimation errors for VMAT delivery using the log file-based patient dose calculation according to the MLC calibration accuracy.
Authors: Michael Barnes; Dennis Pomare; Marcus Doebrich; Therese S Standen; Joshua Wolf; Peter Greer; John Simpson Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2022-06-09 Impact factor: 2.243
Authors: Hannes A Loebner; Werner Volken; Silvan Mueller; Jenny Bertholet; Paul-Henry Mackeprang; Gian Guyer; Daniel M Aebersold; Marco F M Stampanoni; Peter Manser; Michael K Fix Journal: Med Phys Date: 2022-05-04 Impact factor: 4.506
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