ABSTRACT
To investigate the γ pass rate limit of plan verification equipment for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan verification and its sensitivity on the opening and closing errors of multi-leaf collimator (MLC), 50 cases of nasopharyngeal carcinoma VMAT plan with clockwise and counterclockwise full arcs were randomly selected. Eight kinds of MLC opening and closing errors were introduced in 10 cases of them, and 80 plans with errors were generated. Firstly, the plan verification was conducted in the form of field-by-field measurement and true composite measurement. The γ analysis with the criteria of 3% dose difference, distance to agreement of 2 mm, 10% dose threshold, and absolute dose global normalized conditions were performed for these fields. Then gradient analysis was used to investigate the sensitivity of field-by-field measurement and true composite measurement on MLC opening and closing errors, and the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) was used to investigate the optimal threshold of γ pass rate for identifying errors. Tolerance limits and action limits for γ pass rates were calculated using statistical process control (SPC) method for another 40 cases. The error identification ability using the tolerance limit calculated by SPC method and the universal tolerance limit (95%) were compared with using the optimal threshold of ROC. The results show that for the true composite measurement, the clockwise arc and the counterclockwise arc, the descent gradients of the γ passing rate with per millimeter MLC opening error are 10.61%, 7.62% and 6.66%, respectively, and the descent gradients with per millimeter MLC closing error are 9.75%, 7.36% and 6.37%, respectively. The optimal thresholds obtained by the ROC method are 99.35%, 97.95% and 98.25%, respectively, and the tolerance limits obtained by the SPC method are 98.98%, 97.74% and 98.62%, respectively. The tolerance limit calculated by SPC method is close to the optimal threshold of ROC, both of which could identify all errors of ±2 mm, while the universal tolerance limit can only partially identify them, indicating that the universal tolerance limit is not sensitive on some large errors. Therefore, considering the factors such as ease of use and accuracy, it is suggested to use the true composite measurement in clinical practice, and to formulate tolerance limits and action limits suitable for the actual process of the institution based on the SPC method. In conclusion, it is expected that the results of this study can provide some references for institutions to optimize the radiotherapy plan verification process, set appropriate pass rate limit, and promote the standardization of plan verification.