Initial clinical experience with ArcCHECK for IMRT/VMAT QA

Many devices designed for the purpose of performing patient‐specific IMRT/VMAT QA are commercially available. In this work we report our experience and initial clinical results with the ArcCHECK. The ArcCHECK consists of a cylindrical array of diode detectors measuring entry and exit doses. The measured result is a cumulative dose displayed as a 2D matrix. The detector array requires both an absolute dose calibration, and a calibration of the detector response, relative to each other. In addition to the calibrations suggested by the manufacturer, various tests were performed in order to assess its stability and performance prior to clinical introduction. Tests of uniformity, linearity, and repetition rate dependence of the detector response were conducted and described in this work. Following initial testing, the ArcCHECK device was introduced in the clinic for routine patient‐specific IMRT QA. The clinical results from one year of use were collected and analyzed. The gamma pass rates at the [Formula: see text] criterion were reported for 3,116 cases that included both IMRT and VMAT treatment plans delivered on 18 linear accelerators. The gamma pass rates were categorized based on the treatment site, treatment technique, type of MLCs, operator, ArcCHECK device, and LINAC model. We recorded the percent of failures at the clinically acceptable threshold of 90%. In addition, we calculated the threshold that encompasses two standard deviations (2 SD) (95%) of QAs (T95) for each category investigated. The commissioning measurements demonstrated that the device performed as expected. The uniformity of the detector response to a constant field arc delivery showed a 1% standard deviation from the mean. The variation in dose with changing repetition rate was within 1 cGy of the mean, while the measured dose showed a linear relation with delivered MUs. Our initial patient QA results showed that, at the clinically selected passing criterion, 4.5% of cases failed. On average T95 was 91%, ranging from 73% for gynecological sites to 96.5% for central nervous system sites. There are statistically significant differences in passing rates between IMRT and VMAT, high‐definition (HD) and non‐HD MLCs, and different LINAC models (p‐values [Formula: see text]). An additional investigation into the failing QAs and a comparison with ion‐chamber measurements reveals that the differences observed in the passing rates between the different studied factors can be largely explained by the field size dependence of the device. Based on our initial experience with the ArcCHECK, our passing rates are, on average, consistent with values reported in the AAPM TG‐119. However, the significant variations between QAs that were observed based on the size of the treatment fields may need to be corrected to improve the specificity and sensitivity of the device. PACS number(s): 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc