Experience with patient-specific quality assurance of dosimetrist-led online adaptive prostate SBRT

Abstract

Introduction

The aim of this study was to assess the results of the local pre-treatment verifications of online adaptive prostate SBRT plans performed by dosimetrists

Methods and Materials

Prostate SBRT treatments are planned in our department using an online adaptive method developed and validated by our group. The adaptive plans were computed on the daily CBCT scan using the Acuros XB v. 16.1 algorithm of the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system. Adaptive plans consisted of a single VMAT with 6 MV flattening-filter-free (FFF) energy performed on a Varian TrueBeam linac. Pre-treatment verification of the adaptive “plan-of-the-day” (POD) created in each treatment session was performed using the Mobius 3D v. 3.1 secondary dose calculation program (M3D). Commissioning of M3D included the tuning of the dosimetric leaf gap correction (DLGc) parameter. Generic and specific DLGc values were then derived using a set of plans for typical sites (prostate, head and neck, brain, lung and bone palliative) and another set were determined for specific online SBRT PODs (gDLGc and sDLGc, respectively). The first 50 prostate patients treated with the PACE-B schedule (5 × 7.25 Gy) were included, i.e., 250 adaptive SBRT PODs were collected in this study. For each online adaptive POD, a global 3D gamma comparison between the Eclipse 3D dose and the M3D dose in the patient CBCT was performed. Gamma passing rates (GPRs) for the whole external patient contour (Body) and the PTV were recorded, using the 5 % global /3 mm criteria. The target mean dose and target coverage differences between the Eclipse and M3D doses were also analyzed (ΔDmean and ΔD90 %, respectively). The accuracy of M3D was assessed against PRIMO Monte Carlo software. Twenty-five online prostate SBRT PODs were randomly selected from the set of 250 adaptive plans and simulated with PRIMO.

Results

Values of -1 mm and -0.14 mm were found as optimal gDLGc and sDLGc, respectively. Over the 250 online adaptive PODs, excellent GPR values ∼ 100 % were obtained for the Body and PTV structures, regardless the type of DLGc used. The use of the sDLGc instead of the gDLGc provided better results for ΔDmean (0.1 % ± 0.5% vs. -1.9 ± 0.7 %) and ΔD90 % (-1.0 % ± 0.5 %. vs. -3.5 % ± 0.8 %). This issue was also observed when M3D calculations were compared to PRIMO simulations.

Conclusions

M3D can be effectively used for independent pre-treatment verifications of online adaptive prostate SBRT plans. The use of a specific DLGc value is advised for this SBRT online adaptive technique.