Assessment of combined use of ArcCheck® detector and portal dosimetry for delivery quality assurance of head and neck and prostate volumetric-modulated arc therapy.

PURPOSE: To assess the efficiency of combined use of ArcCheck® detector (AC) and portal dosimetry (PDIP) for delivery quality assurance of head and neck and prostate volumetric-modulated arc therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Measurement processes were studied with the Gamma index method according to three analysis protocols. The detection sensitivity to technical errors of each individual or combined measurement processes was studied by inserting collimator, dose and MLC opening error into five head and neck and five prostate initial treatment plans. A total of 220 plans were created and 660 analyses were conducted by comparing measurements to error free planned dose matrix. RESULTS: For head and neck localization, collimator errors could be detected from 2° for AC and 3° for PDIP. Dose and MLC errors could be detected from 2% and 0.5 mm for AC and PDIP. Depending on the analysis protocol, the detection sensitivity of total simulated errors ranged from 54% to 88% for AC vs 40% to 74% for PDIP and 58% to 92% for the combined process. For the prostate localization, collimator errors could be detected from 4° for AC while they could not be detected by PDIP. Dose and MLC errors could be detected from 3% and 0.5 mm for AC and PDIP. The detection sensitivity of total simulated errors ranged from 30% to 56% for AC vs 16% to 38% for PDIP and 30% to 58% for combined process. CONCLUSION: The combined use of the two measurement processes did not statistically improve the detectability of technical errors compared to use of single process.

Quality assurance program and early toxicities in the phase III BONBIS randomized trial evaluating the role of a localized radiation boost in ductal carcinoma in situ.

PURPOSE: To describe the quality assurance (QA) program and early toxicities in the phase III randomized trial BONBIS (NCT00907868) on the role of a localized radiation boost in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: From November 2008 to July 2014, 2004 patients were randomized in arm A (only whole breast radiotherapy, WBRT) and arm B (WBRT + boost). The QA program involved 44 participant centers that performed the dummy run (DR). Compliance and uniformity of clinical target volume (CTV) delineations, and dose prescription and delivery according to the BONBIS trial radiotherapy guidelines were analyzed. Acute toxicities (during and up to 3 months after radiotherapy completion, NCI-CTCAE v3.0 classification) were evaluated in 1929 patients. RESULTS: The differences in whole breast CTV (CTV1) and planning target volume (PTV1) were ≤10%, and the differences in boost CTV (CTV2) and PTV (PTV2) were ≥20% compared with the reference DR values; 95% of the prescribed dose encompassed 98.7% and 100% of the median CTV1 and CTV2. Grade ≥2 breast erythema (38.3% vs. 22.4% of grade 2 and 5.4% vs. 2.1% of grade 3, p < 0.001), grade ≥2 dermatitis (2.8% vs. 0.7%, p < 0.001), and grade 2 hyperpigmentation (6.9% vs. 3.6%, p = 0.005) were more frequent in arm B than arm A. No acute lung or cardiac toxicity was observed. Smoking history, large breast size, and large breast CTV were strong predictive factors of grade ≥2 acute skin toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: The QA program showed deviations in breast and tumor bed delineation. The boost significantly increased acute skin toxicities.