Verification of monitor unit calculations for non‐IMRT clinical radiotherapy: Report of AAPM Task Group 114

The Gamma Knife Check software is an FDA approved second check system for dose calculations in Gamma Knife radiosurgery. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and the stability of the commercial software package as a tool for independent dose verification. The Gamma Knife Check software version 8.4 was commissioned for a Leksell Gamma Knife Perfexion and a 4C unit at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in May 2012. Independent dose verifications were performed using this software for 319 radiosurgery cases on the Perfexion and 283 radiosurgery cases on the 4C units. The cases on each machine were divided into groups according to their diagnoses, and an averaged absolute percent dose difference for each group was calculated. The percentage dose difference for each treatment target was obtained as the relative difference between the Gamma Knife Check dose and the dose from the tissue maximum ratio algorithm (TMR 10) from the GammaPlan software version 10 at the reference point. For treatment plans with imaging skull definition, results obtained from the Gamma Knife Check software using the measurement‐based skull definition method are used for comparison. The collected dose difference data were also analyzed in terms of the distance from the treatment target to the skull, the number of treatment shots used for the target, and the gamma angles of the treatment shots. The averaged percent dose differences between the Gamma Knife Check software and the GammaPlan treatment planning system are 0.3%, 0.89%, 1.24%, 1.09%, 0.83%, 0.55%, 0.33%, and 1.49% for the trigeminal neuralgia, acoustic neuroma, arteriovenous malformation (AVM), meningioma, pituitary adenoma, glioma, functional disorders, and metastasis cases on the Perfexion unit. The corresponding averaged percent dose differences for the 4C unit are 0.33%, 1.2%, 2.78% 1.99%, 1.4%, 1.92%, 0.62%, and 1.51%, respectively. The dose difference is, in general, larger for treatment targets in the peripheral regions of the skull owing to the difference in the numerical methods used for skull shape simulation in the GammaPlan and the Gamma Knife Check software. Larger than 5% dose differences were observed on both machines for certain targets close to patient skull surface and for certain targets in the lower half of the brain on the Perfexion, especially when shots with 70 and/or 110 gamma angles are used. Out of the 1065 treatment targets studied, a 5% cutoff criterion cannot always be met for the dose differences between the studied versions of the Gamma Knife Check software and the planning system for 40 treatment targets.PACS number(s): 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two‐year experience with the commercial Gamma Knife Check software

Bhatnagar

Bednarz

et al. 2016

“…We chose to retain the 3% dose‐error threshold from TG‐218, which is also similar to the point‐dose verification recommendations for complex non‐IMRT beams 30. Given the tight SRS spatial accuracy expectations, a 1 mm distance‐to‐agreement threshold seemed desirable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A hybrid volumetric dose verification method for single‐isocenter multiple‐target cranial SRS

Ahmed

Kapatoes

Zhang

et al. 2018

A commercial semi‐empirical volumetric dose verification system (PerFraction [PF], Sun Nuclear Corp.) extracts multi‐leaf collimator positions from the electronic portal imaging device movies collected during a pre‐treatment run, while the rest of the delivered control point information is harvested from the accelerator log files. This combination is used to reconstruct dose on a patient CT dataset with a fast superposition/convolution algorithm. The method was validated for single‐isocenter multi‐target SRS VMAT treatments against absolute radiochromic film measurements in a cylindrical phantom. The targets ranged in size from 0.8 to 3.6 cm and in number from 3 to 10 per plan. A total of 17 films rotated at different angles around the cylinder axis were analyzed. Each of 27 total targets was intercepted by at least one film, and 2–4 different films were analyzed per plan. Film dose was always scaled to the ion chamber measurement in a high‐dose, low‐gradient area deliberately created at the isocenter. The planar dose agreement between PF and film using 3%(Global dose‐difference normalization)/1 mm gamma analysis was on average 99.2 ± 1.1%. The point dose difference in the low‐gradient area in the middle of every target was below 3%, while PF‐reconstructed and film dose centroids for individual targets showed submillimeter agreement when measured on a well aligned accelerator. Volumetrically, all voxels in all plans agreed between PF and the primary treatment planning system at the 3%/1 mm level. With proper understanding of its advantages and shortcomings, the tool can be applied to patient‐specific QA in routine radiosurgical clinical practice.

“…Due to the multifactorial nature and fundamental importance of accurate dose calculation, an independent method of verifying delivery parameters has been recommended by international7, 8 and national9 bodies alike. Historically, these independent methods have been rudimentary in nature — calculating dose to a single point under simplified scatter conditions 10, 11, 12.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A clinical database to assess action levels and tolerances for the ongoing use of Mobius3D

Jolly

Dunn

Kenny

2016

In radiation therapy, calculation of dose within the patient contains inherent uncertainties, inaccuracies, limitations, and the potential for random error. Thus, point dose‐independent verification of such calculations is a well‐established process, with published data to support the setting of both action levels and tolerances. Mobius3D takes this process one step further with a full independent calculation of patient dose and comparisons of clinical parameters such as mean target dose and voxel‐by‐voxel gamma analysis. There is currently no published data to directly inform tolerance levels for such parameters, and therefore this work presents a database of 1000 Mobius3D results to fill this gap. The data are tested for normality using a normal probability plot and found to fit this distribution for three sub groups of data; Eclipse, iPlan and the treatment site Lung. The mean (μ) and standard deviation (σ) of these sub groups is used to set action levels and tolerances at μ ± 2σ and μ ± 3σ, respectively. A global (3%, 3 mm) gamma tolerance is set at 88.5%. The mean target dose tolerance for Eclipse data is the narrowest at ± 3%, whilst iPlan and Lung have a range of −5.0 to 2.2% and −1.8 to 5.0%, respectively. With these limits in place, future results failing the action level or tolerance will fall within the worst 5% and 1% of historical results and an informed decision can be made regarding remedial action prior to treatment.