Comparative analysis of two dose-volume histogram prediction tools for treatment planning in volumetric-modulated arc therapy: A multi-planner study.

The increase in high-precision radiation therapy, particularly volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), has increased patient numbers and expanded treatment sites. However, a significant challenge in VMAT treatment planning is the inconsistent plan quality among different planners and facilities. This study explored the use of dose-volume histogram (DVH) prediction tools to address these disparities, specifically focusing on RapidPlan (Varian Medical Systems) and PlanIQ (Sun Nuclear). RapidPlan predicts achievable DVHs and automatically generates optimization objectives. While it has demonstrated organ-at-risk (OAR) dose reduction benefits, the quality of the plan used to build its model significantly affects its predictions. On the other hand, PlanIQ offers ease of use and does not require prior model-building. Five planners participated in this study, each creating two treatment plans: one referencing RapidPlan and the other using PlanIQ. The planners had the freedom to adjust parameters while referencing the DVH predictions. The plans were evaluated using "Plan Quality Metric" (PQM) scores to assess the planning target volume excluding the rectum and OARs. The results revealed that RapidPlan-referenced plans often outperformed PlanIQ-based plans, with less interplanner variability. PlanIQ played a pivotal role in the construction of the RapidPlan model. This study is the first to compare plans generated by multiple planners using both tools. This study provides insights into optimizing treatment planning by considering the characteristics of both RapidPlan and PlanIQ.

Knowledge-based model building for treatment planning for prostate cancer using commercial treatment planning quality assurance software tools.

This study devised a method to efficiently launch the RapidPlan model for volumetric-modulated arc therapy for prostate cancer in small- and medium-sized facilities using high-quality treatment plans with the PlanIQ software as a reference. Treatment plans were generated for 30 patients with prostate cancer to construct the RapidPlan model using PlanIQ as a reference. In the context of PlanIQ-referenced treatment planning, treatment plans were developed, such that the feasibility dose-volume histogram of each organ-at-risk fell within F ≤ 0.1. For validation of the RapidPlan model, treatment plans were formulated for 20 patients using both RapidPlan and PlanIQ, and the differences were evaluated. The results of RapidPlan model validity assessment revealed that the RapidPlan-produced treatment plans exhibited higher quality in 11 of 20 patients. No significant differences were found between the treatment plans. In conclusion, high-quality treatment plans formulated using PlanIQ as reference facilitated efficient implementation of RapidPlan modeling.

Differences between professionals in treatment planning for patients with stage III lung cancer using treatment-planning QA software.

Background: The quality of treatment planning for stage III non-small cell lung cancer varies within and between facilities due to the different professions involved in planning. Dose estimation parameters were calculated using a feasibility dose-volume histogram (FDVH) implemented in the treatment planning quality assurance software PlanIQ. This study aimed to evaluate differences in treatment planning between occupations using manual FDVH-referenced treatment planning to identify their characteristics. Materials and methods: The study included ten patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer, and volumetric-modulated arc therapy was used as the treatment planning technique. Fifteen planners, comprising five radiation oncologists, five medical physicists, and five radiological technologists, developed treatment strategies after referring to the FDVH. Results: Medical physicists had a higher mean dose at D98% of the planning target volume (PTV) and a lower mean dose at D2% of the PTV than those in other occupations. Medical physicists had the lowest irradiation lung volumes (V5 Gy and V13 Gy) compared to other professions, and radiation oncologists had the lowest V20 Gy and mean lung dose. Radiological technologists had the highest irradiation volumes for dose constraints at all indexes on the normal lung volume. Conclusions: The quality of the treatment plans developed in this study differed between occupations due to their background expertise, even when an FDVH was used as a reference. Therefore, discussing and sharing knowledge and treatment planning techniques among professionals is essential to determine the optimal treatment plan for each facility and patient.

Predicting the complexity of head-and-neck volumetric-modulated arc therapy planning using a radiation therapy planning quality assurance software.

Background/Aim: The more complex the treatment plan, the higher the possibility of errors in dose verification. Recently, a treatment planning quality assurance (QA) software (PlanIQ) with a function to objectively evaluate the quality of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment plans by scoring and calculating the ideal dose-volume histogram has been marketed. This study aimed to assess the association between the scores of ideal treatment plans identified using PlanIQ and the results of dose verification and to investigate whether the results of dose verification can be predicted based on the complexity of treatment plans. Materials and methods: Dose verification was performed using an ionization chamber dosimeter, a radiochromic film, and a three-dimensional dose verification system, Delta4 PT. Correlations between the ideal treatment plan scores obtained by PlanIQ and the results of the absolute dose verification and dose distribution verification were obtained, and it was examined whether dose verifications could be predicted from the complexity of the treatment plans. Results: Even when the score from the ideal treatment plan was high, the results of absolute dose verification and dose distribution verification were sometimes poor. However, even when the score from the ideal treatment plan was low, the absolute volume verification and dose distribution verification sometimes yielded good results. Conclusions: Treatment plan complexity can be determined in advance from the ideal treatment plan score calculated by PlanIQ. However, it is difficult to predict the results of dose verification using an ideal treatment plan.

Impact of treatment planning quality assurance software on volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans for prostate cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION: Software that evaluates the quality of treatment plans (PlanIQTM) has become commercially available in recent years. It includes a feasibility assessment tool that provides the ideal dose volume histogram (DVH) for each organ at risk, based on the ideal dose falloff from the prescribed dose at the target boundary. It is important to investigate whether the PlanIQTM assessment tool (Feasibility DVHTM) can assist treatment planners who have limited to no experience in treatment planning. Therefore, the present study aimed to evaluate this tool's usefulness for improving the quality of treatment plans. MATERIALS & METHODS: This study included 5 patients with prostate cancer. The treatment planners were 2 graduate students, 2 undergraduate students, and one clinical planner. All students were radiological technology and medical physics students with no clinical experience. Two different volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were developed before and after Feasibility DVHTM. The quality of each treatment plan was evaluated based on a scoring system implemented in PlanIQTM. RESULTS: Of 5 patients included, 4 received improved treatment plans when Feasibility DVHTM was used. Moreover, 4 of 5 treatment planners showed improvement in treatment planning using Feasibility DVHTM. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that using the Feasibility DVHTM tool may improve treatment plans for different planners and patients. However, planners at any level of experience should be trained to check the dose distribution in addition to checking the DVH, which depends on the adequacy of the contours.

Modalities and techniques used for stereotactic radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and image-guided radiotherapy: A 2018 survey by the Japan Society of Medical Physics.

Over the last several decades, there have been great advances in radiotherapy with the development of new technologies and modalities, and radiotherapy trends have changed rapidly. To comprehend the current state of radiotherapy in Japan, the QA/QC 2016-2017 Committee of the Japan Society of Medical Physics set up an intensity-modulated radiotherapy/image-guided radiotherapy (IMRT/IGRT) working group and performed a Web-based survey to show the current status of radiotherapy in Japan. The Web-based questionnaire, developed using Google Forms, contained 42 items: 7 on stereotactic radiotherapy implementation, 4 on IMRT, 24 on IGRT, and 7 on respiratory motion management. The survey was conducted from 17 January to 9 March of 2018; in total, 335 institutions provided data. The results show that volumetric modulated arc therapy was used at a level comparable to that of static gantry IMRT. For IGRT, machine-integrated computed tomography (CT), including kilovoltage or megavoltage cone-beam CT and megavoltage CT, was used at many institutions in conjunction with target-based image registration. For respiratory motion management, breath holding was the most commonly used technique. Our hope is that multi-institutional surveys such as this one will be conducted periodically to elucidate the current status of radiotherapy and emerging developments in this field. If our questionnaire was distributed worldwide, in the same format, then global trends in radiotherapy could be better understood.

Validation of secondary dose calculation system with manufacturer-provided reference beam data using heterogeneous phantoms.

The Mobius3D (M3D) system (Mobius Medical Systems) is a second-check dosimetry system. We investigated the dose calculation accuracy of this system using heterogeneous phantoms with reference beam data provided by the manufacturer using simple and patient plans. We compared the dose distributions between M3D and the treatment planning system, as well as the measurements in solid water phantoms, heterogeneous phantoms, and patient plans for Varian and Elekta accelerators. The M3D results agreed well with the measurements in the solid water phantoms for the simple plans. However, the accuracy of M3D appeared to depend on the type of accelerator, as indicated by the slight differences in the dose measurements. Furthermore, the M3D dose measurements differed by 5-10% in the lung and bone regions. Regarding the patient plans, we confirmed that M3D is reasonably accurate as a second-check system, despite the slight accelerator type-dependent dose difference.

Commissioning and validation of fluence-based 3D VMAT dose reconstruction system using new transmission detector.

In this study, we evaluated the basic performance of the three-dimensional dose verification system COMPASS (IBA Dosimetry). This system is capable of reconstructing 3D dose distributions on the patient anatomy based on the fluence measured using a new transmission detector (Dolphin, IBA Dosimetry) during treatment. The stability of the absolute dose and geometric calibrations of the COMPASS system with the Dolphin detector were investigated for fundamental validation. Furthermore, multileaf collimator (MLC) test patterns and a complicated volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan were used to evaluate the accuracy of the reconstructed dose distributions determined by the COMPASS. The results from the COMPASS were compared with those of a Monte Carlo simulation (MC), EDR2 film measurement, and a treatment planning system (TPS). The maximum errors for the absolute dose and geometrical position were - 0.28% and 1.0 mm for 3 months, respectively. The Dolphin detector, which consists of ionization chamber detectors, was firmly mounted on the linear accelerator and was very stable. For the MLC test patterns, the TPS showed a > 5% difference at small fields, while the COMPASS showed good agreement with the MC simulation at small fields. However, the COMPASS produced a large error for complex small fields. For a clinical VMAT plan, COMPASS was more accurate than TPS. COMPASS showed real delivered-dose distributions because it uses the measured fluence, a high-resolution detector, and accurate beam modeling. We confirm here that the accuracy and detectability of the delivered dose of the COMPASS system are sufficient for clinical practice.

Image quality of four-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography obtained at various gantry rotation speeds for liver stereotactic body radiation therapy with fiducial markers.

In this study, qualities of 4D cone-beam CT (CBCT) images obtained using various gantry rotation speeds (GRSs) for liver stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) with fiducial markers were quantitatively evaluated. Abdominal phantom containing a fiducial marker was moved along a sinusoidal waveform, and 4D-CBCT images were acquired with GRSs of 50-200°â€¯min-1. We obtained the 4D-CBCT projection data from six patients who underwent liver SBRT and generated 4D-CBCT images at GRSs of 67-200°â€¯min-1, by varying the number of projection data points. The image quality was evaluated based on the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and structural similarity index (SSIM). The fiducial marker positions with different GRSs were compared with the setup values and a reference position in the phantom and clinical studies, respectively. The root mean square errors (RMSEs) were calculated relative to the reference positions. In the phantom study, the mean SNR, CNR, and SSIM decreased from 37.6 to 10.1, from 39.8 to 10.1, and from 0.9 to 0.7, respectively, as the GRS increased from 50 to 200°â€¯min-1. The fiducial marker positions were within 2.0 mm at all GRSs. Similarly, in the clinical study, the mean SNR, CNR, and SSIM decreased from 50.4 to 13.7, from 24.2 to 6.0, and from 0.92 to 0.73, respectively. The mean RMSEs were 2.0, 2.1, and 3.6 mm for the GRSs of 67, 100, and 200°â€¯min-1, respectively. We conclude that GRSs of 67 and 85°â€¯min-1 yield images of acceptable quality for 4D-CBCT in liver SBRT with fiducial markers.

Plan quality and delivery time comparisons between volumetric modulated arc therapy and intensity modulated radiation therapy for scalp angiosarcoma: A planning study.

INTRODUCTION: Due to its spherical surface, scalp angiosarcoma requires careful consideration for radiation therapy planning and dose delivery. Herein, we investigated whether volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is superior to intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in terms of the plan quality and delivery time. METHODS: Three different coplanar treatment plans were created for four patients, comprising a two-arc VMAT plan as well as 5-field and 9-field IMRT plans with 6 MV beams. The X-ray Voxel Monte Carlo algorithm was employed for dose calculation. A radiation therapy dose of 60 Gy was prescribed to the planning target volume (PTV) in 30 fractions. The homogeneity indexes (HIs) and conformity indexes (CIs) of the PTV, organs at risk (OARs) doses and delivery times were calculated and compared. RESULTS: For the VMAT, 5-field and 9-field IMRT plans, the mean HIs were 0.14, 0.16 and 0.15; CIs100% were 0.63, 0.61 and 0.64; CIs98% were 0.72, 0.66 and 0.70 and CIs95% were 0.74, 0.67 and 0.71 respectively. All mean dose parameters of the VMAT and 9-field IMRT plans for the brain were equal to or lower than those of the 5-field IMRT plan. For the 5-field IMRT plan, the dose constraints for the left lens were not satisfied in two patients. The mean delivery times were 3.3, 11.1 and 14.7 min for the VMAT, 5-field and 9-field IMRT plans respectively. CONCLUSION: The VMAT plan quality is comparable to that of 9-field IMRT, with a reduced delivery time. Therefore, VMAT represents a valuable, sophisticated irradiation technique for treating scalp angiosarcoma.

Validation of a method for in vivo 3D dose reconstruction in SBRT using a new transmission detector.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) involves the delivery of substantially larger doses over fewer fractions than conventional therapy. Therefore, SBRT treatments will strongly benefit patients using vivo patient dose verification, because the impact of the fraction is large. For in vivo measurements, a commercially available quality assurance (QA) system is the COMPASS system (IBA Dosimetry, Germany). For measurements, the system uses a new transmission detector (Dolphin, IBA Dosimetry). In this study, we evaluated the method for in vivo 3D dose reconstruction for SBRT using this new transmission detector. We confirmed the accuracy of COMPASS with Dolphin for SBRT using multi leaf collimator (MLC) test patterns and clinical SBRT cases. We compared the results between the COMPASS, the treatment planning system, the Kodak EDR2 film, and the Monte Carlo (MC) calculations. MLC test patterns were set up to investigate various aspects of dose reconstruction for SBRT: (a) simple open fields (2 × 2-10 × 10 cm2 ), (b) a square wave chart pattern, and (c) the MLC position detectability test in which the MLCs were changed slightly. In clinical cases, we carried out 6 and 8 static IMRT beams for SBRT in the lung and liver. For MLC test patterns, the differences between COMPASS and MC were around 3%. The COMPASS with the dolphin system showed sufficient resolution in SBRT. For clinical cases, COMPASS can detect small changes for the dose profile and dose-volume histogram. COMPASS also showed good agreement with MC. We can confirm the feasibility of SBRT QA using the COMPASS system with Dolphin. This method was successfully operated using the new transmission detector and verified by measurements and MC.

Evaluation of Absorbed Dose for CBCT in Image-guided Radiation Therapy: Comparison of Each Devices and Facilities.

Recently, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is used worldwide, highly accurate verification of the location using image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) has become critical. However, the use of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) to ascertain the location each time raises concerns about its influence on radiotherapy dosage and increased radiation exposure. The purpose of this study was to measure the absorbed dose using nine kilovoltage (kV) devices and two megavoltage (MV) devices (total 11 devices) at eight facilities, compare the absorbed dose among the devices, and assess the characteristics of the respective devices to ensure optimal clinical operation. For the measurement of the absorbed dose, a farmer-type ionization chamber dosimeter, calibrated using a 60Co and an IMRT dose verification phantom manufactured from water-equivalent material RW3, was used to measure the absorbed dose at nine points in the phantom for two regions, the pelvic and cephalic region. The average absorbed dose of the pelvic region was 3.09±0.21 cGy in kV-CBCT (OBI), 1.16±0.16 cGy in kV-CBCT (XVI), 5.64±1.48 cGy in MV-CBCT (4 MV), and 6.33±1.54 cGy in MV-CBCT (6 MV). The average absorbed dose of the cephalic region was 0.38±0.03 cGy in kV-CBCT (OBI), 0.23±0.06 cGy in kV-CBCT (XVI), 4.02±0.72 cGy in MV-CBCT (4 MV), and 4.46±0.77 cGy in MV-CBCT (6 MV). There was a difference in the absorbed dose at the measured points as well as in the dose distribution in the phantom cross section. No major difference was observed in the absorbed dose among identical devices, but a difference was identified among the devices installed at multiple facilities. Therefore, the angle of rotation should be paid attention to when CBCT is taken, and the image-taking conditions should be determined. In addition, it is important to handle the devices only after ascertaining the absorbed dose of each device.

Tumor motion changes in stereotactic body radiotherapy for liver tumors: an evaluation based on four-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography and fiducial markers.

BACKGROUND: For stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) of liver tumors, tumor motion induced by respiration must be taken into account in planning and treatment. We evaluated whether liver tumor motion at the planning simulation represents liver tumor motion during SBRT, and estimated inter- and intrafractional tumor motion changes in patients undergoing liver SBRT. METHODS: Ten patients underwent four-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography (4D-CBCT) image-guided liver SBRT with abdominal compression (AC) and fiducial markers. 4D-CBCT was performed to evaluate liver tumor motion at the planning simulation, pre-, and post-SBRT. The translational distances at the center position of the fiducial markers from all 10 phases on the 4D-CBCT images were measured as the extent of the liver tumor motion in the left-right (LR), anterior-posterior (AP), and superior-inferior (SI) directions. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate the correlation between liver tumor motion of the planning simulation and the mean liver tumor motion of the pre-SBRT. Inter- and intrafractional liver tumor motion changes were measured based on the 4D-CBCT of planning simulation, pre-, and post-SBRT. Significant inter- and intrafractional changes in liver tumor motion were defined as a change of >3 mm. RESULTS: The mean (± SD) liver tumor motion of the planning simulation 4D-CBCT was 1.7 ± 0.8 mm, 2.4 ± 2.2 mm, and 5.3 ± 3.3 mm, in the LR, AP, and SI directions, respectively. Those of the pre-SBRT 4D-CBCT were 1.2 ± 0.7 mm, 2.3 ± 2.3 mm, and 4.5 ± 3.8 mm, in the LR, AP, and SI directions, respectively. There was a strong significant correlation between liver tumor motion of the planning simulation and pre-SBRT in the LR (R = 0.7, P < 0.01), AP (R = 0.9, P < 0.01), and SI (R = 0.9, P < 0.01) directions. Significant inter- and intrafractional liver tumor motion changes occurred in 10 and 2% of treatment fractions, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Liver tumor motion at the planning simulation represents liver tumor motion during SBRT. Inter- and intrafractional liver tumor motion changes were small in patients with AC.

Comparison of 3-dimensional dose reconstruction system between fluence-based system and dose measurement-guided system.

COMPASS system (IBA Dosimetry, Schwarzenbruck, Germany) and ArcCHECK with 3DVH software (Sun Nuclear Corp., Melbourne, FL) are commercial quasi-3-dimensional (3D) dosimetry arrays. Cross-validation to compare them under the same conditions, such as a treatment plan, allows for clear evaluation of such measurement devices. In this study, we evaluated the accuracy of reconstructed dose distributions from the COMPASS system and ArcCHECK with 3DVH software using Monte Carlo simulation (MC) for multi-leaf collimator (MLC) test patterns and clinical VMAT plans. In a phantom study, ArcCHECK 3DVH showed clear differences from COMPASS, measurement and MC due to the detector resolution and the dose reconstruction method. Especially, ArcCHECK 3DVH showed 7% difference from MC for the heterogeneous phantom. ArcCHECK 3DVH only corrects the 3D dose distribution of treatment planning system (TPS) using ArcCHECK measurement, and therefore the accuracy of ArcCHECK 3DVH depends on TPS. In contrast, COMPASS showed good agreement with MC for all cases. However, the COMPASS system requires many complicated installation procedures such as beam modeling, and appropriate commissioning is needed. In terms of clinical cases, there were no large differences for each QA device. The accuracy of the compass and ArcCHECK 3DVH systems for phantoms and clinical cases was compared. Both systems have advantages and disadvantages for clinical use, and consideration of the operating environment is important. The QA system selection is depending on the purpose and workflow in each hospital.

Dynamic positioning accuracy of a novel multileaf collimator for volumetric modulated arc therapy.

We investigated the dynamic positioning accuracy of Agility (Elekta) for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). The accuracy of the multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf position during VMAT was evaluated using three different tests: (1) a dynamic multileaf collimator (DMLC) output test with various leaf speeds, and gantry angles; (2) a slit-fence test with and without gantry rotation; and (3) a complicated VMAT plans test with dose distributions compared with measurements using gamma analysis. The DMLC output was within 1.5 % under all test conditions. The agreement between the static and VMAT in the slit-fence test was within 0.5 mm. The pass rate of each complicated VMAT test plan was more than 93.9 % ± 0.36 for gamma analysis. We confirmed the dynamic positioning accuracy of Agility, which during VMAT delivery is within VMAT tolerances. The fastest MLC was found to have the potential to offer clinical advantages, such as high-quality rapid VMAT.

Accuracy of dose calculation algorithms for virtual heterogeneous phantoms and intensity-modulated radiation therapy in the head and neck.

This study verified the dose calculation accuracy of the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA), Acuros XB version 10 (AXB10), and version 11 (AXB11) installed in an Eclipse treatment planning system, by comparing with Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. First, the algorithms were compared in terms of dose distributions using four types of virtual heterogeneous multi-layer phantom for 6 and 15 MV photons. Next, the clinical head and neck intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) dose distributions for 6 MV photons were evaluated using dose volume histograms (DVHs) and three-dimensional gamma analysis. In percentage depth doses (PDDs) for virtual heterogeneous phantoms, AAA overestimated absorbed doses in the air cavity, bone, and aluminum in comparison with MC, AXB10, and AXB11. The PDDs of AXB10 almost agreed with those of MC and AXB11, except for the air cavity. The dose in the air cavity was higher for AXB10 than for AXB11, because their electron cutoff energies are set at 500 and 200 keV, respectively. For head and neck IMRT dose distributions, the D95 in the clinical target volume (CTV) for AAA was almost the same as that for AXB10 and was approximately 7 % larger than that for MC. Comparing each approach with MC using a criterion of 3 %/3 mm, the pass rates for AXB10, AXB11, and AAA were 92.4, 94.7, and 90.4 % in the CTV, respectively. In conclusion, AAA produces dose errors in heterogeneous regions, while AXB11 provides calculation accuracy comparable to MC. AXB10 overestimates the dose in regions that include an air cavity.

Evaluation of a single-scan protocol for radiochromic film dosimetry.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate a single-scan protocol using Gafchromic EBT3 film (EBT3) by comparing it with the commonly used 24-hr measurement protocol for radiochromic film dosimetry. Radiochromic film is generally scanned 24 hr after film exposure (24-hr protocol). The single-scan protocol enables measurement results within a short time using only the verification film, one calibration film, and unirradiated film. The single-scan protocol was scanned 30 min after film irradiation. The EBT3 calibration curves were obtained with the multichannel film dosimetry method. The dose verifications for each protocol were performed with the step pattern, pyramid pattern, and clinical treatment plans for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). The absolute dose distributions for each protocol were compared with those calculated by the treatment planning system (TPS) using gamma evaluation at 3% and 3 mm. The dose distribution for the single-scan protocol was within 2% of the 24-hr protocol dose distribution. For the step pattern, the absolute dose discrepancies between the TPS for the single-scan and 24-hr protocols were 2.0 ± 1.8 cGy and 1.4 ± 1.2 cGy at the dose plateau, respectively. The pass rates were 96.0% for the single-scan protocol and 95.9% for the 24-hr protocol. Similarly, the dose discrepancies for the pyramid pattern were 3.6 ± 3.5cGy and 2.9 ± 3.3 cGy, respectively, while the pass rates for the pyramid pattern were 95.3% and 96.4%, respectively. The average pass rates for the four IMRT plans were 96.7% ± 1.8% for the single-scan protocol and 97.3% ± 1.4% for the 24-hr protocol. Thus, the single-scan protocol measurement is useful for dose verification of IMRT, based on its accuracy and efficiency.