Premium
Poster — Thur Eve — 30: Comparison of treatment planning and delivery performance of VMAT versus IMRT
Author(s) -
Bergman A,
Vollans E,
Duzenli C
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.4740138
Subject(s) - linear particle accelerator , nuclear medicine , quality assurance , monte carlo method , ionization chamber , radiation treatment planning , eclipse , truebeam , medicine , medical physics , physics , radiation therapy , mathematics , optics , beam (structure) , radiology , statistics , ion , external quality assessment , pathology , quantum mechanics , astronomy , ionization
The purpose of this study was to determine whether VMAT (Varian RapidArc ™) treatment planning and delivery performance is in compliance with accepted quality assurance tolerances developed for sliding window IMRT. We present an analysis of data for over 1300 patients treated with VMAT and IMRT over a period of three years. Data was acquired on 6 dosimetrically matched linacs for sites including head and neck, brain, gynaecological, and a variety of other cancer cases treated with 6 MV. We have demonstrated that it is possible to dosimetrically match multiple Varian iX linacs with the millennium series MLC using a sliding gap and intercept test. QA is performed by Monte Carlo simulation and ion chamber measurement comparisons with Varian Eclipse TPS as well as linac log file analysis of MLC positions, gantry angles and monitor units on each patient. Point dose and 3D gamma analysis indicate that agreement between Eclipse and measurement or Monte Carlo calculation is site specific, with the dosimetric leaf gap parameter in Eclipse optimized for the most frequently treated site Point dose agreement within 2% and gamma pass rate of > 95% (3%/ 3 mm) is achievable for all sites for both IMRT and VMAT. Linac log file analysis indicates that planned MLC positions are achieved within 2 mm >99.7% of the time for both sliding window IMRT and VMAT. Planned gantry angles are achieved within 0.6 mm 99.8% of the time and planned MU's within 0.1 mm are achieved 99.8% of the time for VMAT.