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

Title: SU-F-T-564: 3 Year Experience of Treatment Plan QualityAssurance for Vero SBRT Patients

Abstract

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 dosemore » 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.« less

Authors:
;  [1];  [2]
  1. University of Florida, Jacksonville, FL (United States)
  2. University of Florida/Radiation Oncology, Jacksonville, FL (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22649139
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; COMPUTER CODES; IONIZATION CHAMBERS; LINEAR ACCELERATORS; LUNGS; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PATIENTS; PHANTOMS; PLANNING; QUALITY ASSURANCE; RADIATION DOSES

Citation Formats

Su, Z, Li, Z, and Mamalui, M. SU-F-T-564: 3 Year Experience of Treatment Plan QualityAssurance for Vero SBRT Patients. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956749.
Su, Z, Li, Z, & Mamalui, M. SU-F-T-564: 3 Year Experience of Treatment Plan QualityAssurance for Vero SBRT Patients. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956749.
Su, Z, Li, Z, and Mamalui, M. Wed . "SU-F-T-564: 3 Year Experience of Treatment Plan QualityAssurance for Vero SBRT Patients". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956749.
@article{osti_22649139,
title = {SU-F-T-564: 3 Year Experience of Treatment Plan QualityAssurance for Vero SBRT Patients},
author = {Su, Z and Li, Z and Mamalui, M},
abstractNote = {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.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956749},
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}
}