skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: SU-F-T-285: Evaluation of a Patient DVH-Based IMRT QA System

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the clinical performance of a patient DVH-based QA system for prostate VMAT QA. Methods: Mobius3D(M3D) is a QA software with an independent beam model and dose engine. The MobiusFX(MFX) add-on predicts patient dose using treatment machine log files. We commissioned the Mobius beam model in two steps. First, the stock beam model was customized using machine commissioning data, then verified against the TPS with 12 simple phantom plans and 7 clinical 3D plans. Secondly, the Dosimetric Leaf Gap(DLG) in the Mobius model was fine-tuned for VMAT treatment based on ion chamber measurements for 6 clinical VMAT plans. Upon successful commissioning, we retrospectively performed IMRT QA for 12 VMAT plans with the Mobius system as well as the ArcCHECK-3DVH system. Selected patient DVH values (PTV D95, D50; Bladder D2cc, Dmean; Rectum D2cc) were compared between TPS, M3D, MFX, and 3DVH. Results: During the first commissioning step, TPS and M3D calculated target Dmean for 3D plans agree within 0.7%±0.7%, with 3D gamma passing rates of 98%±2%. In the second commissioning step, the Mobius DLG was adjusted by 1.2mm from the stock value, reducing the average difference between MFX calculation and ion chamber measurement from 3.2% to 0.1%. In retrospectivemore » prostate VMAT QA, 5 of 60 MFX calculated DVH values have a deviation greater than 5% compared to TPS. One large deviation at high dose level was identified as a potential QA failure. This echoes the 3DVH QA result, which identified 2 instances of large DVH deviation on the same structure. For all DVH’s evaluated, M3D and MFX show high level of agreement (0.1%±0.2%), indicating that the observed deviation is likely from beam modelling differences rather than delivery errors. Conclusion: Mobius system provides a viable solution for DVH based VMAT QA, with the capability of separating TPS and delivery errors.« less

Authors:
; ; ;  [1]
  1. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22648897
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; BEAMS; COMMISSIONING; COMPUTER CODES; IONIZATION CHAMBERS; PATIENTS; RADIOTHERAPY; SIMULATION

Citation Formats

Zhen, H, Redler, G, Chu, J, and Turian, J. SU-F-T-285: Evaluation of a Patient DVH-Based IMRT QA System. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956425.
Zhen, H, Redler, G, Chu, J, & Turian, J. SU-F-T-285: Evaluation of a Patient DVH-Based IMRT QA System. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956425.
Zhen, H, Redler, G, Chu, J, and Turian, J. Wed . "SU-F-T-285: Evaluation of a Patient DVH-Based IMRT QA System". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956425.
@article{osti_22648897,
title = {SU-F-T-285: Evaluation of a Patient DVH-Based IMRT QA System},
author = {Zhen, H and Redler, G and Chu, J and Turian, J},
abstractNote = {Purpose: To evaluate the clinical performance of a patient DVH-based QA system for prostate VMAT QA. Methods: Mobius3D(M3D) is a QA software with an independent beam model and dose engine. The MobiusFX(MFX) add-on predicts patient dose using treatment machine log files. We commissioned the Mobius beam model in two steps. First, the stock beam model was customized using machine commissioning data, then verified against the TPS with 12 simple phantom plans and 7 clinical 3D plans. Secondly, the Dosimetric Leaf Gap(DLG) in the Mobius model was fine-tuned for VMAT treatment based on ion chamber measurements for 6 clinical VMAT plans. Upon successful commissioning, we retrospectively performed IMRT QA for 12 VMAT plans with the Mobius system as well as the ArcCHECK-3DVH system. Selected patient DVH values (PTV D95, D50; Bladder D2cc, Dmean; Rectum D2cc) were compared between TPS, M3D, MFX, and 3DVH. Results: During the first commissioning step, TPS and M3D calculated target Dmean for 3D plans agree within 0.7%±0.7%, with 3D gamma passing rates of 98%±2%. In the second commissioning step, the Mobius DLG was adjusted by 1.2mm from the stock value, reducing the average difference between MFX calculation and ion chamber measurement from 3.2% to 0.1%. In retrospective prostate VMAT QA, 5 of 60 MFX calculated DVH values have a deviation greater than 5% compared to TPS. One large deviation at high dose level was identified as a potential QA failure. This echoes the 3DVH QA result, which identified 2 instances of large DVH deviation on the same structure. For all DVH’s evaluated, M3D and MFX show high level of agreement (0.1%±0.2%), indicating that the observed deviation is likely from beam modelling differences rather than delivery errors. Conclusion: Mobius system provides a viable solution for DVH based VMAT QA, with the capability of separating TPS and delivery errors.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956425},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016},
month = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016}
}