Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

SU-D-201-01: A Multi-Institutional Study Quantifying the Impact of Simulated Linear Accelerator VMAT Errors for Nasopharynx.

Medical Physics 2016 June
PURPOSE: To quantify the impact of differing magnitudes of simulated linear accelerator errors on the dose to the target volume and organs at risk for nasopharynx VMAT.

METHODS: Ten nasopharynx cancer patients were retrospectively replanned twice with one full arc VMAT by two institutions. Treatment uncertainties (gantry angle and collimator in degrees, MLC field size and MLC shifts in mm) were introduced into these plans at increments of 5,2,1,-1,-2 and -5. This was completed using an in-house Python script within Pinnacle3 and analysed using 3DVH and MatLab. The mean and maximum dose were calculated for the Planning Target Volume (PTV1), parotids, brainstem, and spinal cord and then compared to the original baseline plan. The D1cc was also calculated for the spinal cord and brainstem. Patient average results were compared across institutions.

RESULTS: Introduced gantry angle errors had the smallest effect of dose, no tolerances were exceeded for one institution, and the second institutions VMAT plans were only exceeded for gantry angle of ±5° affecting different sided parotids by 14-18%. PTV1, brainstem and spinal cord tolerances were exceeded for collimator angles of ±5 degrees, MLC shifts and MLC field sizes of ±1 and beyond, at the first institution. At the second institution, sensitivity to errors was marginally higher for some errors including the collimator error producing doses exceeding tolerances above ±2 degrees, and marginally lower with tolerances exceeded above MLC shifts of ±2. The largest differences occur with MLC field sizes, with both institutions reporting exceeded tolerances, for all introduced errors (±1 and beyond).

CONCLUSION: The plan robustness for VMAT nasopharynx plans has been demonstrated. Gantry errors have the least impact on patient doses, however MLC field sizes exceed tolerances even with relatively low introduced errors and also produce the largest errors. This was consistent across both departments. The authors acknowledge funding support from the NSW Cancer Council.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app