【摘要】 目的 分析重力因素对二维探测器阵列验证静态调强计划的影响，判断机架角度归为0°的测量方法是否安全可靠。 方法 在0°机架角和实际治疗机架角分别测量静态调强计划的剂量分布，以3 mm范围内偏差lt;3%(3% 3 mm)标准进行γ分析，获得相对于参考剂量分布的通过率，分析通过率变化规律。分析两种方法测量的等中心点绝对剂量的差异。 结果 通过率的变化呈随机分布，96.9%的照射野偏差lt;2.5%。所有计划的85.7%绝对剂量偏差lt;2%，最大偏差为4.75%。 结论 使用二维探测器阵列在0°角进行调强计划的日常验证是安全可靠的。【Abstract】 Objective To analyze impacts of gravity on the verification of IMRT plans with 2-Dimensional detector arrays and to evaluate the reliability of the measurements in vertical direction (gantry angle=0). Methods The dose distributions for each beam in IMRT plans were measured with 0 degree gantry angle and actual gantry angle respectively. The γ percentage pass rate (according to 3% 3 mm) for each beam under each angle condition was obtained by the comparison between the measured dose distribution and the calculated dose map from the treatment planning system which was treated as the reference distribution. Then the absolute dose at the isocenter for each plan was measured at each angle condition and was analyzed. Results The variations of γ percentage pass rates between the two types of measurements were randomly distributed, and the deviations for 96.9% beams were less than±2.5%. The differences between absolute doses for 85.7% beams were less than±2% and the biggest deviation was -4.75%. Conclusion Verification of IMRT plans for the radiotherapy quality assurance using 2-Dimensional detector arrays in 0 degree gantry angle is safe and reliable.
The aim of this study is to compare the planning quality and delivery efficiency between dynamic intensity modulated radiation therapy (d-IMRT) and dual arc volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) systematically for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients with multi-prescribed dose levels, and to analyze the correlations between target volumes and plan qualities. A total of 20 patients of NPC with 4–5 prescribed dose levels to achieve simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) treated by sliding window d-IMRT in our department from 2014 to 2015 were re-planned with dual arc VMAT. All optimization objectives for each VMAT plan were as the same as the corresponding d-IMRT plan. The dose parameters for targets and organ at risk (OAR), the delivery time and monitor units (MU) in two sets of plans were compared respectively. The treatment accuracy was tested by three dimensional dose validation system. Finally, the correlations between the difference of planning quality and the volume of targets were discussed. The conform indexes (CIs) of planning target volumes (PTVs) in VMAT plans were obviously high than those in d-IMRT plans (P < 0.05), but no significant correlations between the difference of CIs and the volume of targets were discovered ( P > 0.05). The target coverage and heterogeneity indexes (HIs) of PTV 1 and PGTVnd and PTV3 in two sets of plans were consistent. The doses of PTV2 decreased and HIs were worse in VMAT plans. VMAT could provide better spinal cord and brainstem sparing, but increase mean dose of parotids. The average number of MUs and delivery time for d-IMRT were 3.32 and 2.19 times of that for VMAT. The γ-index (3 mm, 3%) analysis for each plans was more than 97% in COMPASS® measurement for quality assurance (QA). The results show that target dose coverages in d-IMRT and VMAT plans are similar for NPC with multi-prescribed dose levels. VMAT could improve the the CIs of targets, but reduce the dose to the target volume in neck except for PGTVnd. The biggest advantages of VMAT over d-IMRT are delivery efficiency and QA.
Patient-specific volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) quality assurance (QA) process is an important component of the implementation process of clinical radiotherapy. The tolerance limit and action limit of discrepancies between the calculated dose and the delivered radiation dose are the key parts of the VMAT QA processes as recognized by the AAPM TG-218 report, however, there is no unified standard for these two values among radiotherapy centers. In this study, based on the operational recommendations given in the AAPM TG-218 report, treatment site-specific tolerance limits and action limits of gamma pass rate in VMAT QA processes when using ArcCHECK for dose verification were established by statistical process control (SPC) methodology. The tolerance limit and action limit were calculated based on the first 25 in-control VMAT QA for each site. The individual control charts were drawn to continuously monitor the VMAT QA process with 287 VMAT plans and analyze the causes of VMAT QA out of control. The tolerance limits for brain, head and neck, abdomen and pelvic VMAT QA processes were 94.56%, 94.68%, 94.34%, and 92.97%, respectively, and the action limits were 93.82%, 92.54%, 93.23%, and 90.29%, respectively. Except for pelvic, the tolerance limits for the brain, head and neck, and abdomen were close to the universal tolerance limit of TG-218 (95%), and the action limits for all sites were higher than the universal action limit of TG-218 (90%). The out-of-control VMAT QAs were detected by the individual control chart, including one case of head and neck, two of the abdomen and two of the pelvic site. Four of them were affected by the setup error, and one was affected by the calibration of ArcCHECK. The results show that the SPC methodology can effectively monitor the IMRT/VMAT QA processes. Setting treatment site-specific tolerance limits is helpful to investigate the cause of out-of-control VMAT QA.