SU-F-T-273: Using a Diode Array to Explore the Weakness of TPS DoseCalculation Algorithm for VMAT and Sliding Window Techniques

• Published in: Medical physics (Lancaster) Vol. 43; no. 6; p. 3525
• Main Authors: Park, J, Lu, B, Yan, G, Li, F, Li, J, Liu, C
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States American Association of Physicists in Medicine 01.06.2016
• Subjects: 60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; ALGORITHMS; DELIVERY; Medical treatment planning; Multileaf collimators; QUALITY ASSURANCE; RADIATION DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS; RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; RADIOTHERAPY; RATS; TWO-DIMENSIONAL CALCULATIONS
• ISSN: 0094-2405; 2473-4209
• DOI: 10.1118/1.4956413

Purpose: To identify the weakness of dose calculation algorithm in a treatment planning system for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and sliding window (SW) techniques using a two-dimensional diode array. Methods: The VMAT quality assurance(QA) was implemented with a diode array using multiple partial arcs that divided from a VMAT plan; each partial arc has the same segments and the original monitor units. Arc angles were less than ± 30°. Multiple arcs delivered through consecutive and repetitive gantry operating clockwise and counterclockwise. The source-toaxis distance setup with the effective depths of 10 and 20 cm were used for a diode array. To figure out dose errors caused in delivery of VMAT fields, the numerous fields having the same segments with the VMAT field irradiated using different delivery techniques of static and step-and-shoot. The dose distributions of the SW technique were evaluated by creating split fields having fine moving steps of multi-leaf collimator leaves. Calculated doses using the adaptive convolution algorithm were analyzed with measured ones with distance-to-agreement and dose difference of 3 mm and 3%.. Results: While the beam delivery through static and step-and-shoot techniques showed the passing rate of 97 ± 2%, partial arc delivery of the VMAT fields brought out passing rate of 85%. However, when leaf motion was restricted less than 4.6 mm/°, passing rate was improved up to 95 ± 2%. Similar passing rate were obtained for both 10 and 20 cm effective depth setup. The calculated doses using the SW technique showed the dose difference over 7% at the final arrival point of moving leaves. Conclusion: Error components in dynamic delivery of modulated beams were distinguished by using the suggested QA method. This partial arc method can be used for routine VMAT QA. Improved SW calculation algorithm is required to provide accurate estimated doses.