Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  442 / 1082 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 442 / 1082 Next Page
Page Background

S427

ESTRO 36 2017

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Conclusion

Traditionally, there is no way of applying a reference

detector when measuring small fields, especially for SRS

Brainlab conical collimators. The lack of reference signal

usually requires to acquire more signals in each measured

point to suppress the linac output fluctuation, which

results into a long measurement procedure. However, by

the introduction of stealth chamber,“continuous mode”

became available to us which substantially shorten the

measurement time while a good agreement between

measurements with and without stealth chamber for both

PDDs and Profiles was still reached. The use of stealth

chamber is a good solution to spare time during small field

dosimetry measurements. This aspect is important during

the commissioning of the stereotactic unit but it becomes

fundamental for the frequently quality control

performed.

PO-0808 Comparison of multi-institutional QA for

VMAT of Nasopharynx with simulated delivery errors

D.I. Thwaites

1

, E.M. Pogson

1

, S. Arumugam

2

, C.R.

Hansen

3

, M. Currie

4

, S. Blake

1

, N. Roberts

5

, M. Carolan

4

,

P. Vial

2

, J. Juresic

2

, C. Ochoa

2

, J. Yakobi

2

, A. Haman

2

, A.

Trtovac

2

, T. Al-Harthi

1

, L. Holloway

2

1

University of Sydney, Institute of Medical Physics-

School of Physics, Camperdown, Australia

2

Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Treatment Centres,

Medical Physics-Radiation Oncology, Liverpool, Australia

3

Odense University Hospital, Laboratory of Radiation

Physics, Odense, Denmark

4

Illawarra Cancer Care Centre, Medical Physics -

Radiation Oncology, Wollongong, Australia

5

University of Wollongong, Centre of Medical Radiation

Physics, Wollongong, Australia

Purpose or Objective

Quality assurance of individual treatment plans is often

performed using phantom measurement and analysing

acceptable delivery accuracy by gamma analysis with a

required pass rate. Simplifying a complex treatment plan

and measurement into a single number is

problematic. This study evaluates the sensitivity of

different equipment to simulated machine errors and

explores the role of different planning approaches to this

Material and Methods

VMAT plans were generated for a selected patient in

Pinnacle

3

at three institutions, as per their local protocol.

An automated VMAT plan was also generated by institution

3 using Pinnacle

3

Autoplanning. Simulated machine errors

were deliberately introduced to the plans utilising Python.

These included collimator (°), MLC field size (mm) and

MLC shift (mm) errors of 5, 2, 1, -1, -2 and -5 units. Error-

introduced plans were then recalculated and reviewed.

The DVH metrics listed in Table 1 were deemed

unacceptable if their differences relative to the relevant

baseline plan were above the tolerances listed. Plans were

considered unacceptable if any one or more of the limits

were exceeded.

Table 1. DVH metrics and limits.

For each error type (i.e. in Collimator, C; MLC shift,

S; MLC Field Size, FS), the smallest error plans that were

deemed unacceptable were delivered within the given

institution; on an Elekta Linac, measured using an

Arccheck for institutions 1 and 3, and on a Varian Linac ,

measured using a Delta4 for institution 2. Gamma analysis

was performed in SNC Patient version 6.6 or Delta4

software respectively, utilising a 3%/3mm and 2%/2mm

global gamma pass rate (10% isodose threshold with

correction off). Before each set of measurements, MLC

checks and a complex benchmark patient test were used

to ensure the Linacs' performances were within normal

range.

Results

The global 3%/3mm gamma pass is able to detect the

majority of unacceptable plans; however some plans with

significant errors still pass. Interestingly the error type/s

that passed differed at differing institutions (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The smallest error plans (including Collimator

(C), MLC shift (S), and MLC Field Size (FS) error) which

exceeded global gamma pass rates. Errors detected if the

gamma pass rate was < 95% (for 3%/3mm) or <88%

(2%/2mm). Plans that passed are illustrated above the red