AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate the sensitivity of the trajectory log file based quality assurance to detect potential errors such as MLC positioning and gantry positioning by comparing it with EPID measurement using the most commonly used criteria of 3%/3 mm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An in-house program was used to modified plans using information from log files, which can then be used to recalculate a new dose distribution. The recalculated dose volume histograms (DVH) were compared with the originals to assess differences in target and critical organ dose. The dose according to the differences in DVH was also compared with dosimetry from an electronic portal imaging device. RESULTS: In all organs at risk (OARs) and planning target volumes (PTVs), there was a strong positive linear relationship between MLC positioning and dose error, in both IMRT and VMAT plans. However, gantry positioning errors exhibited little impact in VMAT delivery. For the ten clinical cases, no significant correlations were found between gamma passing rates under the criteria of 3%/3 mm for the composite dose and the mean dose error in DVH (r < 0.3, P > 0.05); however, a significant positive correlation was found between the gamma passing rate of 3%/3 mm (%) averaged over all fields and the mean dose error in the DVH of the VMAT plans (r = 0.59, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study has successfully shown the sensitivity of the trajectory log file to detect the impact of systematic MLC errors and random errors in dose delivery and analyzed the correlation of gamma passing rates with DVH.
AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate the sensitivity of the trajectory log file based quality assurance to detect potential errors such as MLC positioning and gantry positioning by comparing it with EPID measurement using the most commonly used criteria of 3%/3 mm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An in-house program was used to modified plans using information from log files, which can then be used to recalculate a new dose distribution. The recalculated dose volume histograms (DVH) were compared with the originals to assess differences in target and critical organ dose. The dose according to the differences in DVH was also compared with dosimetry from an electronic portal imaging device. RESULTS: In all organs at risk (OARs) and planning target volumes (PTVs), there was a strong positive linear relationship between MLC positioning and dose error, in both IMRT and VMAT plans. However, gantry positioning errors exhibited little impact in VMAT delivery. For the ten clinical cases, no significant correlations were found between gamma passing rates under the criteria of 3%/3 mm for the composite dose and the mean dose error in DVH (r < 0.3, P > 0.05); however, a significant positive correlation was found between the gamma passing rate of 3%/3 mm (%) averaged over all fields and the mean dose error in the DVH of the VMAT plans (r = 0.59, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study has successfully shown the sensitivity of the trajectory log file to detect the impact of systematic MLC errors and random errors in dose delivery and analyzed the correlation of gamma passing rates with DVH.
Authors: José Olasolo-Alonso; Alejandro Vázquez-Galiñanes; Santiago Pellejero-Pellejero; José Fernando Pérez-Azorín Journal: Phys Med Date: 2017-01-05 Impact factor: 2.685
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: Dewayne L Defoor; Sotirios Stathakis; Joseph E Roring; Neil A Kirby; Panayiotis Mavroidis; Mohammad Obeidat; Nikos Papanikolaou Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2017-06-06 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Seng Boh Lim; Benjamin J Zwan; Danny Lee; Peter B Greer; Dale Michael Lovelock Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2021-02-26 Impact factor: 2.102
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