Cargando…

Characteristics and limitations of a secondary dose check software for VMAT plan calculation

PURPOSE: To assess the implementation, accuracy, and validity of the dosimetric leaf gap correction (DLGC) in Mobius3D VMAT plan calculations. METHODS: The optimal Mobius3D DLGC was determined for both a TrueBeam with a Millennium multi‐leaf collimator and a TrueBeamSTx with a high‐definition multi‐...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shepard, Andrew J., Frigo, Sean P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7984465/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33666339
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13206
_version_ 1783668069845958656
author Shepard, Andrew J.
Frigo, Sean P.
author_facet Shepard, Andrew J.
Frigo, Sean P.
author_sort Shepard, Andrew J.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To assess the implementation, accuracy, and validity of the dosimetric leaf gap correction (DLGC) in Mobius3D VMAT plan calculations. METHODS: The optimal Mobius3D DLGC was determined for both a TrueBeam with a Millennium multi‐leaf collimator and a TrueBeamSTx with a high‐definition multi‐leaf collimator. By analyzing a broad series of seven VMAT plans and comparing the calculated to the measured dose delivered to a cylindrical phantom, optimal DLGC values were determined by minimizing the dose difference for both the collection of all plans, as well as for each plan individually. The effects of plan removal from the optimization of the collective DLGC value, as well as plan‐specific DLGC values, were explored to determine the impact of plan suite design on the final DLGC determination. RESULTS: Optimal collective DLGC values across all energies were between −0.71 and 0.89 mm for the TrueBeam, and between 0.35 and 1.85 mm for the TrueBeamSTx. The dose differences ranged between −6.1% and 2.6% across all plans when the optimal collective DLGC values were used. On a per‐plan basis, the plan‐specific optimal DLGC values ranged from −4.36 to 2.35 mm for the TrueBeam, and between −1.83 and 2.62 mm for the TrueBeamSTx. Comparing the plan‐specific optimal DLGC to the average absolute leaf position from the central axis for each plan, a negative correlation was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal DLGC determination depends on the plans investigated, making it essential for users to utilize a suite of test plans that encompasses the full range of expected clinical plans when determining the optimal DLGC value. Validation of the secondary dose calculation should always be based on measurements, and not a comparison with the primary TPS. Varying disagreement with measurements across plans for a single DLGC value indicates potential limitations in the Mobius3D MLC model.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7984465
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79844652021-03-25 Characteristics and limitations of a secondary dose check software for VMAT plan calculation Shepard, Andrew J. Frigo, Sean P. J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics PURPOSE: To assess the implementation, accuracy, and validity of the dosimetric leaf gap correction (DLGC) in Mobius3D VMAT plan calculations. METHODS: The optimal Mobius3D DLGC was determined for both a TrueBeam with a Millennium multi‐leaf collimator and a TrueBeamSTx with a high‐definition multi‐leaf collimator. By analyzing a broad series of seven VMAT plans and comparing the calculated to the measured dose delivered to a cylindrical phantom, optimal DLGC values were determined by minimizing the dose difference for both the collection of all plans, as well as for each plan individually. The effects of plan removal from the optimization of the collective DLGC value, as well as plan‐specific DLGC values, were explored to determine the impact of plan suite design on the final DLGC determination. RESULTS: Optimal collective DLGC values across all energies were between −0.71 and 0.89 mm for the TrueBeam, and between 0.35 and 1.85 mm for the TrueBeamSTx. The dose differences ranged between −6.1% and 2.6% across all plans when the optimal collective DLGC values were used. On a per‐plan basis, the plan‐specific optimal DLGC values ranged from −4.36 to 2.35 mm for the TrueBeam, and between −1.83 and 2.62 mm for the TrueBeamSTx. Comparing the plan‐specific optimal DLGC to the average absolute leaf position from the central axis for each plan, a negative correlation was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal DLGC determination depends on the plans investigated, making it essential for users to utilize a suite of test plans that encompasses the full range of expected clinical plans when determining the optimal DLGC value. Validation of the secondary dose calculation should always be based on measurements, and not a comparison with the primary TPS. Varying disagreement with measurements across plans for a single DLGC value indicates potential limitations in the Mobius3D MLC model. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-03-05 /pmc/articles/PMC7984465/ /pubmed/33666339 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13206 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Shepard, Andrew J.
Frigo, Sean P.
Characteristics and limitations of a secondary dose check software for VMAT plan calculation
title Characteristics and limitations of a secondary dose check software for VMAT plan calculation
title_full Characteristics and limitations of a secondary dose check software for VMAT plan calculation
title_fullStr Characteristics and limitations of a secondary dose check software for VMAT plan calculation
title_full_unstemmed Characteristics and limitations of a secondary dose check software for VMAT plan calculation
title_short Characteristics and limitations of a secondary dose check software for VMAT plan calculation
title_sort characteristics and limitations of a secondary dose check software for vmat plan calculation
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7984465/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33666339
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13206
work_keys_str_mv AT shepardandrewj characteristicsandlimitationsofasecondarydosechecksoftwareforvmatplancalculation
AT frigoseanp characteristicsandlimitationsofasecondarydosechecksoftwareforvmatplancalculation