Dosimetric validation and clinical implementation of two 3D dose verification systems for quality assurance in volumetric‐modulated arc therapy techniques

A pretreatment quality assurance program for volumetric techniques should include redundant calculations and measurement-based verifications. The patient-specific quality assurance process must be based in clinically relevant metrics. The aim of this study was to show the commission, clinical implementation, and comparison of two systems that allow performing a 3D redundant dose calculation. In addition, one of them is capable of reconstructing the dose on patient anatomy from measurements taken with a 2D ion chamber array. Both systems were compared in terms of reference calibration data (absolute dose, output factors, percentage depth-dose curves, and profiles). Results were in good agreement for absolute dose values (discrepancies were below 0.5%) and output factors (mean differences were below 1%). Maximum mean discrepancies were located between 10 and 20 cm of depth for PDDs (-2.7%) and in the penumbra region for profiles (mean DTA of 1.5 mm). Validation of the systems was performed by comparing point-dose measurements with values obtained by the two systems for static, dynamic fields from AAPM TG-119 report, and 12 real VMAT plans for different anatomical sites (differences better than 1.2%). Comparisons between measurements taken with a 2D ion chamber array and results obtained by both systems for real VMAT plans were also performed (mean global gamma passing rates better than 87.0% and 97.9% for the 2%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm criteria). Clinical implementation of the systems was evaluated by comparing dose-volume parameters for all TG-119 tests and real VMAT plans with TPS values (mean differences were below 1%). In addition, comparisons between dose distributions calculated by TPS and those extracted by the two systems for real VMAT plans were also performed (mean global gamma passing rates better than 86.0% and 93.0% for the 2%/2 mm and 3%/ 3 mm criteria). The clinical use of both systems was successfully evaluated.