BackgroundDelivery variations during radiotherapy can cause discrepancies between planned and delivered dose distribution. These variations could arise from random and systematic offsets in certain machine parameters or systematic offsets related to the calibration process of the treatment unit.PurposeThe aim of this study was to present a novel simulation‐based methodology to evaluate realistic delivery variations in three dimensions (3D). Additionally, we investigated the dosimetric impact of delivery variations for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for different treatment sites and complexities.MethodsTwelve VMAT plans for different treatment sites (prostate‐, head & neck‐, lung‐, and gynecological cancer) were selected. The clinical plan used for the treatment of each patient was reoptimized to create one plan with reduced complexity (i.e., simple plan) and one of higher complexity (i.e., complex plan). This resulted in a total of 36 plans. Delivery variations were simulated by randomly introducing offsets in multi‐leaf collimator position, jaw position, gantry angle and collimator angle simultaneously. Twenty simulations were carried out for each of the 36 plans, yielding 720 simulated deliveries. To explore the impact of individual offsets, additional simulations were conducted for each type of offset separately. A 3D dose calculation was performed for each simulation using the same calculation engine as for the clinical plan. Two standard deviations (2SD) of dose were determined for every voxel for 3D‐spatial evaluations. The dose variation in certain DVH metrics, that is, D2% and D98% for the clinical target volume and five different DVH metrics for selected organs at risk, was calculated for the twenty simulated deliveries of each plan. For comparison, the effect of delivery variations was assessed by conducting measurements with the Delta4 phantom.ResultsThe volume of voxels with 2SD above 1% of the prescribed dose was consistently larger for the complex plans in comparison to their corresponding simple and clinical plans. 2SDs larger than 1% were in many cases, found to accumulate outside the planning target volume. For complex plans, regions with 2SDs larger than 1% were detected also inside the high dose region, exhibiting, on average, a size six times larger volume, than those observed in simple plans. Similar results were found for all treatment sites. Variation in the selected DVH metrics for the simulated deliveries was generally largest for the complex plans with few exceptions. When comparing the 2SD distribution of the measurements with the 2SD distribution from the simulations, the spatial information showed deviations outside the PTV in both simulations and measurements. However, the measured values were, on average, 35% higher for the prostate plans and 10% higher for the head & neck plans compared to the simulated values.ConclusionsThe presented methodology effectively quantified and localized dose deviations due to delivery offsets. The 3D analysis provided information that was undetectable using the analysis based on DVH metrics. Dosimetric uncertainties due to delivery variations were prominent at the edge of the high‐dose region irrespective of treatment site and plan complexity. Dosimetric uncertainties inside the high‐dose region was more profound for plans of higher complexity.
