Independent calculation‐based verification of volumetric‐modulated arc therapy–stereotactic body radiotherapy plans for lung cancer. Issue 7 (11th May 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ono, Tomohiro; Mitsuyoshi, Takamasa; Shintani, Takashi; Tsuruta, Yusuke; Iramina, Hiraku; Hirashima, Hideaki; Miyabe, Yuki; Nakamura, Mitsuhiro; Matsuo, Yukinori; Mizowaki, Takashi
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 21:Issue 7(2020)
• Page Start: 135
• Page End: 143
• Publication Date: 2020-05-11
• Subjects: independent verification -- lung cancer -- secondary treatment planning system -- stereotactic body radiotherapy -- volumetric‐modulated arc therapy; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12900
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract: This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of independent calculation‐based verification of volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT)–stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for patients with lung cancer using a secondary treatment planning system (sTPS). In all, 50 patients with lung cancer who underwent VMAT‐SBRT between April 2018 and May 2019 were included in this study. VMAT‐SBRT plans were devised using the Collapsed‐Cone Convolution in RayStation (primary TPS: pTPS). DICOM files were transferred to Eclipse software (sTPS), which utilized the Eclipse software, and the dose distribution was then recalculated using Acuros XB. For the verification of dose distribution in homogeneous phantoms, the differences among pTPS, sTPS, and measurements were evaluated using passing rates of a dose difference of 5% (DD5%) and gamma index of 3%/2 mm (γ3%/2 mm). The ArcCHECK cylindrical diode array was used for measurements. For independent verification of dose‐volume parameters per the patient's geometry, dose‐volume indices for the planning target volume (PTV) including D95% and the isocenter dose were evaluated. The mean differences (± standard deviations) between the pTPS and sTPS were then calculated. The gamma passing rates of DD5% and γ3%/2 mm criteria were 99.2 ± 2.4% and 98.6 ± 3.2% for pTPS vs. sTPS, 92.9 ± 4.0% and 94.1 ± 3.3% for pTPS vs. measurement, and 93.0 ± 4.4% and 94.3 ± 4.1% for sTPS vs. measurement, respectively. The differences between pTPS and sTPS for the PTVs of D95% and the isocenter dose were −3.1 ± 2.0% and −2.3 ± 1.8%, respectively. Our investigation of VMAT‐SBRT plans for lung cancer revealed that independent calculation‐based verification is a time‐efficient method for patient‐specific quality assurance.