The sensitivity of ArcCHECK-based gamma analysis to manufactured errors in helical tomotherapy radiation delivery.

Three-dimensional measurement arrays are an efficient means of acquiring a distribution of data for patient plan delivery QA. However, the tie between plan integrity and traditional gamma-based analysis of these data are not clear. This study explores the sensitivity of such analysis by creating errors in Helical Tomotherapy delivery and measuring the passing rates with an ArcCHECK cylindrical diode array. Errors were introduced in each of the couch speed, leaf open time, and gantry starting position in increasing magnitude while the resulting gamma passing rates were tabulated. The error size required to degrade the gamma passing rate to 90% or below was on average a 3% change in couch speed, 5° in gantry synchronization, or a 5 ms in leaf closing speed for a 3%/3 mm Van Dyk gamma analysis. This varied with plan type, with prostate plans exhibiting less sensitivity than head and neck plans and with gamma analysis criteria, but in all cases the error magnitudes were large compared to actual machine tolerances. These findings suggest that the sensitivity of ArcCHECK-based gamma analysis to single-mode errors in tomotherapy plans is dependent upon plan and analysis type and at traditional passing thresholds unable to detect small defects in the plan.

Optimization for high-dose-rate brachytherapy of cervical cancer with adaptive simulated annealing and gradient descent.

PURPOSE: To validate an in-house optimization program that uses adaptive simulated annealing (ASA) and gradient descent (GD) algorithms and investigate features of physical dose and generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD)-based objective functions in high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy for cervical cancer. METHODS: Eight Syed/Neblett template-based cervical cancer HDR interstitial brachytherapy cases were used for this study. Brachytherapy treatment plans were first generated using inverse planning simulated annealing (IPSA). Using the same dwell positions designated in IPSA, plans were then optimized with both physical dose and gEUD-based objective functions, using both ASA and GD algorithms. Comparisons were made between plans both qualitatively and based on dose-volume parameters, evaluating each optimization method and objective function. A hybrid objective function was also designed and implemented in the in-house program. RESULTS: The ASA plans are higher on bladder V75% and D2cc (p=0.034) and lower on rectum V75% and D2cc (p=0.034) than the IPSA plans. The ASA and GD plans are not significantly different. The gEUD-based plans have higher homogeneity index (p=0.034), lower overdose index (p=0.005), and lower rectum gEUD and normal tissue complication probability (p=0.005) than the physical dose-based plans. The hybrid function can produce a plan with dosimetric parameters between the physical dose-based and gEUD-based plans. The optimized plans with the same objective value and dose-volume histogram could have different dose distributions. CONCLUSIONS: Our optimization program based on ASA and GD algorithms is flexible on objective functions, optimization parameters, and can generate optimized plans comparable with IPSA.