Program Information
Analysis of MLC Errors On Gamma Pass Rates for Patient-Specific and Conventional Phantoms
D Sterling*, E Ehler , University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
Presentations
SU-E-T-114 (Sunday, July 12, 2015) 3:00 PM - 6:00 PM Room: Exhibit Hall
Purpose: To evaluate whether a 3D patient-specific phantom is better able to detect known MLC errors in a clinically delivered treatment plan than conventional phantoms. 3D printing may make fabrication of such phantoms feasible.
Methods: Two types of MLC errors were introduced into a clinically delivered, non-coplanar IMRT, partial brain treatment plan. First, uniformly distributed random errors of up to 3mm, 2mm, and 1mm were introduced into the MLC positions for each field. Second, systematic MLC-bank position errors of 5mm, 3.5mm, and 2mm due to simulated effects of gantry and MLC sag were introduced. The original plan was recalculated with these errors on the original CT dataset as well as cylindrical and planar IMRT QA phantoms. The original dataset was considered to be a perfect 3D patient-specific phantom. The phantoms were considered to be ideal 3D dosimetry systems with no resolution limitations.
Results: Passing rates for Gamma Index (3%/3mm and no dose threshold) were calculated on the 3D phantom, cylindrical phantom, and both on a composite and field-by-field basis for the planar phantom. Pass rates for 5mm systematic and 3mm random error were 86.0%, 89.6%, 98% and 98.3% respectively. For 3.5mm systematic and 2mm random error the pass rates were 94.7%, 96.2%, 99.2% and 99.2% respectively. For 2mm systematic error with 1mm random error the pass rates were 99.9%, 100%, 100% and 100% respectively.
Conclusion: A 3D phantom with the patient anatomy is able to discern errors, both severe and subtle, that are not seen using conventional phantoms. Therefore, 3D phantoms may be beneficial for commissioning new treatment machines and modalities, patient-specific QA and end-to-end testing.
Contact Email: