This study aimed to provide a detailed evaluation and comparison of a range of modulated beam evaluation metrics, in terms of their correlation with QA testing results and their variation between treatment sites, for a large number of treatments. Ten metrics including the modulation index (MI), fluence map complexity, modulation complexity score (MCS), mean aperture displacement (MAD) and small aperture score (SAS) were evaluated for 546 beams from 122 intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment plans targeting the anus, rectum, endometrium, brain, head and neck and prostate. The calculated sets of metrics were evaluated in terms of their relationships to each other and their correlation with the results of electronic portal imaging based quality assurance (QA) evaluations of the treatment beams. Evaluation of the MI, MAD and SAS suggested that beams used in treatments of the anus, rectum, head and neck were more complex than the prostate and brain treatment beams. Seven of the ten beam complexity metrics were found to be strongly correlated with the results from QA testing of the IMRT beams (p < 0.00008). For example, values of SAS (with multileaf collimator apertures narrower than 10 mm defined as 'small') less than 0.2 also identified QA passing IMRT beams with 100% specificity. However, few of the metrics are correlated with the results from QA testing of the VMAT beams, whether they were evaluated as whole 360° arcs or as 60° sub-arcs. Select evaluation of beam complexity metrics (at least MI, MCS and SAS) is therefore recommended, as an intermediate step in the IMRT QA chain. Such evaluation may also be useful as a means of periodically reviewing VMAT planning or optimiser performance.

This work provides a method (and a large sample of results) for calculating equivalent action levels for different gamma evaluation criteria. This work constitutes a valuable guide for clinical decision making and a means to compare published gamma evaluation results from studies using different evaluation criteria. More generally, the data provided by this work support the recommendation that gamma criteria that specifically prioritize the property of greatest clinical importance for each treatment modality of anatomical site should be selected when using gamma evaluations for modulated radiotherapy QA. It is therefore suggested that departments using the gamma evaluation as a QA analysis tool should consider the relative importance of dose difference and distance to agreement, when selecting gamma evaluation criteria.

The dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) is a beam configuration parameter used in the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system, to model the effects of rounded MLC leaf ends. Measuring the DLG using the conventional sliding‐slit technique has been shown to be produce questionable results for some volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatments. This study therefore investigated the use of radiochromic film measurements to optimize the DLG specifically for the purpose of producing accurate VMAT plans using a flattening‐filter‐free (FFF) beam, for use in treating vertebral targets using a stereotactic (SABR, also known as SBRT) fractionation schedule. Four test treatments were planned using a VMAT technique, to deliver a prescription of 24 Gy in 3 fractions to four different spine SABR treatment sites. Measurements of the doses delivered by these treatments were acquired using an ionization chamber and radiographic film. These measurements were compared with the doses calculated by the treatment planning system using a range of DLG values, including a DLG identified using the conventional sliding‐slit method (1.1 mm). An optimal DLG value was identified, as the value that produced the closest agreement between the planned and measured doses (1.9 mm). The accuracy of the dose calculations produced using the optimized DLG value was verified using additional radiochromic film measurements in a heterogeneous phantom. This study provided a specific initial DLG (1.9 mm) as well as a film‐based optimization method, which may be used by radiotherapy centers when attempting to commission or improve an FFF VMAT‐based SABR treatment programme.

Gafchromic EBT3 film is widely used for patient specific quality assurance of complex treatment plans. Film dosimetry techniques commonly involve the use of transmission scanning to produce TIFF files, which are analysed using a non-linear calibration relationship between the dose and red channel net optical density (netOD). Numerous film calibration techniques featured in the literature have not been independently verified or evaluated. A range of previously published film dosimetry techniques were re-evaluated, to identify whether these methods produce better results than the commonly-used non-linear, netOD method. EBT3 film was irradiated at calibration doses between 0 and 4000 cGy and 25 pieces of film were irradiated at 200 cGy to evaluate uniformity. The film was scanned using two different scanners: The Epson Perfection V800 and the Epson Expression 10000XL. Calibration curves, uncertainty in the fit of the curve, overall uncertainty and uniformity were calculated following the methods described by the different calibration techniques. It was found that protocols based on a conventional film dosimetry technique produced results that were accurate and uniform to within 1%, while some of the unconventional techniques produced much higher uncertainties (> 25% for some techniques). Some of the uncommon methods produced reliable results when irradiated to the standard treatment doses (< 400 cGy), however none could be recommended as an efficient or accurate replacement for a common film analysis technique which uses transmission scanning, red colour channel analysis, netOD and a non-linear calibration curve for measuring doses up to 4000 cGy when using EBT3 film.

This study assessed the validity of the conversion from percentage depth dose (PDD) to tissue maximum ratio (TMR) using BJR Supplement 25 data for flattened and flattening filter free (FFF) beams. PDD and TMR scans for a variety of field sizes were measured in water using a Sun Nuclear Corporation 3D SCANNER™ on a Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator in 6 MV, 10 MV and 6 MV FFF beams. The BJR Supplement 25 data was used to convert the measured PDDs to TMRs and these were compared with the directly measured TMR data. The TMR plots calculated from PDD were within 1% for the 10 MV and 6 MV flattened beams, for field sizes 3 cm × 3 cm to 40 cm × 40 cm inclusive, at depths measured beyond the depth of maximum dose. The disagreement between the measured and calculated TMR plots for the 6 MV FFF beam increased with depth and field size to a maximum of 1.7% for a 40 cm × 40 cm field. The results found in this study indicate that the BJR Supplement 25 data should not be used for field sizes larger than 20 cm × 20 cm at depths greater than 15 cm for the 6 MV FFF beam. It is advised that PDD to TMR conversion for FFF beams should be done with phantom scatter ratios appropriate to FFF beams, or the TMR should be directly measured if required.