Evaluation of Delta 4DVH Anatomy in 3D Patient-Specific IMRT Quality Assurance.

Purpose: To evaluate the performance of Delta(4DVH)Anatomy in patient-specific intensity-modulated radiotherapy quality assurance. Materials and Methods: Dose comparisons were performed between Anatomy doses calculated with treatment plan dose measured modification and pencil beam algorithms, treatment planning system doses, film doses, and ion chamber measured doses in homogeneous and inhomogeneous geometries. The sensitivity of Anatomy doses to machine errors and output calibration errors was also investigated. Results: For a Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) plan evaluated on the Delta(4)geometry, the conventional gamma passing rate was 99.6%. For a water-equivalent slab geometry, good agreements were found between dose profiles in film, treatment planning system, and Anatomy treatment plan dose measured modification and pencil beam calculations. Gamma passing rate for Anatomy treatment plan dose measured modification and pencil beam doses versus treatment planning system doses was 100%. However, gamma passing rate dropped to 97.2% and 96% for treatment plan dose measured modification and pencil beam calculations in inhomogeneous head & neck phantom, respectively. For the 10 patients' quality assurance plans, good agreements were found between ion chamber measured doses and the planned ones (deviation: 0.09% +/- 1.17%). The averaged gamma passing rate for conventional and Anatomy treatment plan dose measured modification and pencil beam gamma analyses in Delta(4)geometry was 99.6% +/- 0.89%, 98.54% +/- 1.60%, and 98.95% +/- 1.27%, respectively, higher than averaged gamma passing rate of 97.75% +/- 1.23% and 93.04% +/- 2.69% for treatment plan dose measured modification and pencil beam in patients' geometries, respectively. Anatomy treatment plan dose measured modification dose profiles agreed well with those in treatment planning system for both Delta(4)and patients' geometries, while pencil beam doses demonstrated substantial disagreement in patients' geometries when compared to treatment planning system doses. Both treatment planning system doses are sensitive to multileaf collimator and monitor unit (MU) errors for high and medium dose metrics but not sensitive to the gantry and collimator rotation error smaller than 3 degrees. Conclusions: The new Delta(4DVH)Anatomy with treatment plan dose measured modification algorithm is a useful tool for the anatomy-based patient-specific quality assurance. Cautions should be taken when using pencil beam algorithm due to its limitations in handling heterogeneity and in high-dose gradient regions.