Optimization of the dosimetric leaf gap for use in planning VMAT treatments of spine SABR cases.

The dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) is a beam configuration parameter used in the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system, to model the effects of rounded MLC leaf ends. Measuring the DLG using the conventional sliding-slit technique has been shown to be produce questionable results for some volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatments. This study therefore investigated the use of radiochromic film measurements to optimize the DLG specifically for the purpose of producing accurate VMAT plans using a flattening-filter-free (FFF) beam, for use in treating vertebral targets using a stereotactic (SABR, also known as SBRT) fractionation schedule. Four test treatments were planned using a VMAT technique, to deliver a prescription of 24 Gy in 3 fractions to four different spine SABR treatment sites. Measurements of the doses delivered by these treatments were acquired using an ionization chamber and radiographic film. These measurements were compared with the doses calculated by the treatment planning system using a range of DLG values, including a DLG identified using the conventional sliding-slit method (1.1 mm). An optimal DLG value was identified, as the value that produced the closest agreement between the planned and measured doses (1.9 mm). The accuracy of the dose calculations produced using the optimized DLG value was verified using additional radiochromic film measurements in a heterogeneous phantom. This study provided a specific initial DLG (1.9 mm) as well as a film-based optimization method, which may be used by radiotherapy centers when attempting to commission or improve an FFF VMAT-based SABR treatment programme.

Technical Note: Relationships between gamma criteria and action levels: Results of a multicenter audit of gamma agreement index results.

PURPOSE: The aim of this work was to use a multicenter audit of modulated radiotherapy quality assurance (QA) data to provide a practical examination of gamma evaluation criteria and action level selection. The use of the gamma evaluation method for patient-specific pretreatment QA is widespread, with most commercial solutions implementing the method. METHODS: Gamma agreement indices were calculated using the criteria 1%/1 mm, 2%/2 mm, 2%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm, 3%/3 mm, and 5%/3 mm for 1265 pretreatment QA measurements, planned at seven treatment centers, using four different treatment planning systems, delivered using three different delivery systems (intensity-modulated radiation therapy, volumetric-modulated arc therapy, and helical tomotherapy) and measured using three different dose measurement systems. The sensitivity of each pair of gamma criteria was evaluated relative to the gamma agreement indices calculated using 3%/3 mm. RESULTS: A linear relationship was observed for 2%/2 mm, 2%/3 mm, and 3%/2 mm. This result implies that most beams failing at 3%/3 mm would also fail for those criteria, if the action level was adjusted appropriately. Some borderline plans might be passed or failed depending on the relative priority (tighter tolerance) used for dose difference or distance to agreement evaluation. Dosimeter resolution and treatment modality were found to have a smaller effect on the results of QA measurements than the number of dimensions (2D or 3D) over which the gamma evaluation was calculated. CONCLUSIONS: This work provides a method (and a large sample of results) for calculating equivalent action levels for different gamma evaluation criteria. This work constitutes a valuable guide for clinical decision making and a means to compare published gamma evaluation results from studies using different evaluation criteria. More generally, the data provided by this work support the recommendation that gamma criteria that specifically prioritize the property of greatest clinical importance for each treatment modality of anatomical site should be selected when using gamma evaluations for modulated radiotherapy QA. It is therefore suggested that departments using the gamma evaluation as a QA analysis tool should consider the relative importance of dose difference and distance to agreement, when selecting gamma evaluation criteria.