An independent Monte Carlo–based IMRT QA tool for a 0.35 T MRI-guided linear accelerator

Academic Article


  • Purpose: To develop an independent log file–based intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA) tool for the 0.35 T magnetic resonance-linac (MR-linac) and investigate the ability of various IMRT plan complexity metrics to predict the QA results. Complexity metrics related to tissue heterogeneity were also introduced. Methods: The tool for particle simulation (TOPAS) Monte Carlo code was utilized with a previously validated linac head model. A cohort of 29 treatment plans was selected for IMRT QA using the developed QA tool and the vendor-supplied adaptive QA (AQA) tool. For 27 independent patient cases, various IMRT plan complexity metrics were calculated to assess the deliverability of these plans. A correlation between the gamma pass rates (GPRs) from the AQA results and calculated IMRT complexity metrics was determined using the Pearson correlation coefficients. Tissue heterogeneity complexity metrics were calculated based on the gradient of the Hounsfield units. Results: The median and interquartile range for the TOPAS GPRs (3%/3 mm criteria) were 97.24% and 3.75%, respectively, and were 99.54% and 0.36% for the AQA tool, respectively. The computational time for TOPAS ranged from 4 to 8 h to achieve a statistical uncertainty of <1.5%, whereas the AQA tool had an average calculation time of a few minutes. Of the 23 calculated IMRT plan complexity metrics, the AQA GPRs had correlations with 7 out of 23 of the calculated metrics. Strong correlations (|r| > 0.7) were found between the GPRs and the heterogeneity complexity metrics introduced in this work. Conclusions: An independent MC and log file–based IMRT QA tool was successfully developed and can be clinically deployed for offline QA. The complexity metrics will supplement QA reports and provide information regarding plan complexity.
  • Authors

    Digital Object Identifier (doi)

    Author List

  • Khan AU; Simiele EA; Lotey R; DeWerd LA; Yadav P
  • Volume

  • 24
  • Issue

  • 2