Initial experience of ArcCHECK and 3DVH software for RapidArc treatment plan verification

The purpose of this study was to perform delivery quality assurance with ArcCHECK and 3DVH system (Sun Nuclear, FL) and to evaluate the suitability of this system for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) (RapidArc [RA]) verification. This software calculates the delivered dose distributions in patients by perturbing the calculated dose using errors detected in fluence or planar dose measurements. The device is tested to correlate the gamma passing rate (%GP) and the composite dose predicted by 3DVH software. A total of 28 patients with prostate cancer who were treated with RA were analyzed. RA treatments were delivered to a diode array phantom (ArcCHECK), which was used to create a planned dose perturbation (PDP) file. The 3DVH analysis used the dose differences derived from comparing the measured dose with the treatment planning system (TPS)-calculated doses to perturb the initial TPS-calculated dose. The 3DVH then overlays the resultant dose on the patient's structures using the resultant "PDP" beams. Measured dose distributions were compared with the calculated ones using the gamma index (GI) method by applying the global (Van Dyk) normalization and acceptance criteria, i.e., 3%/3mm. Paired differences tests were used to estimate statistical significance of the differences between the composite dose calculated using 3DVH and %GP. Also, statistical correlation by means of logistic regression analysis has been analyzed. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) analysis for patient plans revealed small differences between treatment plan calculations and 3DVH results for organ at risk (OAR), whereas planning target volume (PTV) of the measured plan was systematically higher than that predicted by the TPS. The t-test results between the planned and the estimated DVH values showed that mean values were incomparable (p < 0.05). The quality assurance (QA) gamma analysis 3%/3mm showed that in all cases there were only weak-to-moderate correlations (Pearson r: 0.12 to 0.74). Moreover, clinically relevant differences increased with increasing QA passing rate, indicating that some of the largest dose differences occurred in the cases of high QA passing rates, which may be called "false negatives." The clinical importance of any disagreement between the measured and the calculated dose is often difficult to interpret; however, beam errors (either in delivery or in TPS calculation) can affect the effectiveness of the patient dose. Further research is needed to determinate the role of a PDP-type algorithm to accurately estimate patient dose effect.