Use of a plastic scintillator detector for patient-specific quality assurance of VMAT SRS.

PURPOSE: To evaluate a scintillator detector for patient-specific quality assurance of VMAT radiosurgery plans. METHODS: The detector was comprised of a 1 mm diameter, 1 mm high scintillator coupled to an acrylic optical fiber. Sixty VMAT SRS plans for treatment of single targets having sizes ranging from 3 mm to 30.2 mm equivalent diameter (median 16.3 mm) were selected. The plans were delivered to a 20 cm × 20 cm x 15 cm water equivalent plastic phantom having either the scintillator detector or radiochromic film at the center. Calibration films were obtained for each measurement session. The films were scanned and converted to dose using a 3-channel technique. RESULTS: The mean difference between scintillator and film was -0.45% (95% confidence interval -0.1% to 0.8%). For target equivalent diameter smaller than the median, the mean difference was 1.1% (95% confidence interval 0.5% to 1.7%). For targets larger than the median, the mean difference was -0.2% (95% confidence interval -0.7% to 0.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The scintillator detector response is independent of target size for targets as small as 3 mm and is well-suited for patient-specific quality assurance of VMAT SRS plans. Further work is needed to evaluate the accuracy for VMAT plans that treat multiple targets using a single isocenter.

Assessing the feasibility of single target radiosurgery quality assurance with portal dosimetry.

PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility of using portal dosimetry (PD) for pre-treatment quality assurance of single target, flattening filter free (FFF), volumetric arc therapy intracranial radiosurgery plans. METHODS: A PD algorithm was created for a 10X FFF beam on a Varian Edge linear accelerator (Varian Inc, Palo Alto, CA, USA). Treatment plans that were previously evaluated with Gafchromic EBT-XD (Ashland, Bridgewater, NJ, USA) film were measured via PD and analyzed with the ARIA Portal Dosimetry workspace. Absolute dose evaluation for film and PD was done by computing the mean dose in the region receiving greater than or equal to 90% of the max dose and comparing to the mean dose in the same region calculated by the treatment planning system (TPS). Gamma analysis with 10% threshold and 3%/2 mm passing criteria was performed on film and portal images. RESULTS: Thirty-six PD verification plans were delivered and analyzed. The average PD to TPS dose was 0.989 ± 0.01 while film to TPS dose was 1.026 ± 0.01. All PD plans passed the gamma analysis with 100% of points having gamma <1. Overall, PD to TPS dose agreement was found to be target size dependent. As target size decreases, PD to TPS dose ratio decreased from 1.004 for targets with diameters between 15-31 mm and 0.978 for targets with diameters less than 15 mm. CONCLUSION: The agreement of PD to TPS mean dose in the high dose region was found to be dependent on target size. Film measurements did not exhibit size dependence. All PD plans passed the 3%/2 mm gamma analysis, but caution should be used when using PD to assess overall dosimetric accuracy of the treatment plan for small targets.