Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 18, 2026
Radiation Planning Assistant - A Streamlined, Fully Automated Radiotherapy Treatment Planning System
Published on: April 11, 2018
Multi-institutional comparison of simulated treatment delivery errors in ssIMRT, manually planned VMAT and
Elise M Pogson1, Sankar Aruguman2, Christian R Hansen3
1Institute of Medical Physics, School of Physics, University of Sydney, Sydney 2006, Australia; Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres, Liverpool 2170, Australia; Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Sydney 2170, Australia.
Purpose:
To quantify the impact of simulated errors for nasopharynx radiotherapy across multiple institutions and planning techniques (auto-plan generated Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (ap-VMAT), manually planned VMAT (mp-VMAT) and manually planned step and shoot Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (mp-ssIMRT)).
Methods:
Ten patients were retrospectively planned with VMAT according to three institution's protocols. Within one institution two further treatment plans were generated using differing treatment planning techniques. This resulted in mp-ssIMRT, mp-VMAT, and ap-VMAT plans. Introduced treatment errors included Multi Leaf Collimator (MLC) shifts, MLC field size (MLCfs), gantry and collimator errors. A change of more than 5% in most selected dose metrics was considered to have potential clinical impact. The original patient plan total Monitor Units (MUs) were correlated to the total number of dose metrics exceeded.
Results:
The impact of different errors was consistent, with ap-VMAT plans (two institutions) showing larger dose deviations than mp-VMAT created plans (one institution). Across all institutions' VMAT plans the significant errors included; ±5° for the collimator angle, ±5mm for the MLC shift and +1, ±2 and ±5mm for the MLC field size. The total number of dose metrics exceeding tolerance was positively correlated to the VMAT total plan MUs (r=0.51, p<0.001), across all institutions and techniques.
Conclusions:
Differences in VMAT robustness to simulated errors across institutions occurred due to planning method differences. Whilst ap-VMAT was most sensitive to MLC errors, it also produced the best quality treatment plans. Mp-ssIMRT was most robust to errors. Higher VMAT treatment plan complexity led to less robust plans.
More Related Videos
05:18Author Spotlight: Improving Radiation Therapy Access with Radiation Planning Assistant
Published on: October 6, 2023
07:57Positron Emission Tomography-based Dose Painting Radiation Therapy in a Glioblastoma Rat Model using the Small Animal Radiation Research Platform
Published on: March 24, 2022