title: Independent calculation of monitor units for VMAT and SPORT.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Dose and monitor units (MUs) represent two important facets of a radiation therapy treatment. In current practice, verification of a treatment plan is commonly done in dose domain, in which a phantom measurement or forward dose calculation is performed to examine the dosimetric accuracy and the MU settings of a given treatment plan. While it is desirable to verify directly the MU settings, a computational framework for obtaining the MU values from a known dose distribution has yet to be developed. This work presents a strategy to calculate independently the MUs from a given dose distribution of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and station parameter optimized radiation therapy (SPORT).
  
  
  METHODS
  The dose at a point can be expressed as a sum of contributions from all the station points (or control points). This relationship forms the basis of the proposed MU verification technique. To proceed, the authors first obtain the matrix elements which characterize the dosimetric contribution of the involved station points by computing the doses at a series of voxels, typically on the prescription surface of the VMAT/SPORT treatment plan, with unit MU setting for all the station points. An in-house Monte Carlo (MC) software is used for the dose matrix calculation. The MUs of the station points are then derived by minimizing the least-squares difference between doses computed by the treatment planning system (TPS) and that of the MC for the selected set of voxels on the prescription surface. The technique is applied to 16 clinical cases with a variety of energies, disease sites, and TPS dose calculation algorithms.
  
  
  RESULTS
  For all plans except the lung cases with large tissue density inhomogeneity, the independently computed MUs agree with that of TPS to within 2.7% for all the station points. In the dose domain, no significant difference between the MC and Eclipse Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) dose distribution is found in terms of isodose contours, dose profiles, gamma index, and dose volume histogram (DVH) for these cases. For the lung cases, the MC-calculated MUs differ significantly from that of the treatment plan computed using AAA. However, the discrepancies are reduced to within 3% when the TPS dose calculation algorithm is switched to a transport equation-based technique (Acuros™). Comparison in the dose domain between the MC and Eclipse AAA/Acuros calculation yields conclusion consistent with the MU calculation.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  A computational framework relating the MU and dose domains has been established. The framework does not only enable them to verify the MU values of the involved station points of a VMAT plan directly in the MU domain but also provide a much needed mechanism to adaptively modify the MU values of the station points in accordance to a specific change in the dose domain.
authors: Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305.
authors: Xin
authors: X
authors: Chen
authors: Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305.
authors: Karl
authors: K
authors: Bush
authors: Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305.
authors: Aiping
authors: A
authors: Ding
authors: Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305.
authors: Lei
authors: L
authors: Xing
mesh_terms: D019583:Dose Fractionation, Radiation; D006801:Humans; D009010:Monte Carlo Method; D019047:Phantoms, Imaging; D050397:Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated / Q000379:methods*
references: Phys Med Biol. 2011 Sep 7;56(17):N175-81
references: 21841211
references: Med Phys. 2011 Oct;38(10):5477-89
references: 21992366
references: J Biomed Opt. 2011 Dec;16(12):125003
references: 22191916
references: Phys Med Biol. 2012 Feb 7;57(3):757-69
references: 22252134
references: Br J Radiol. 2012 Jul;85(1015):1002-10
references: 22745206
references: Med Phys. 2013 Feb;40(2):020601
references: 23387721
references: Med Phys. 2013 May;40(5):050701
references: 23635247
references: Radiother Oncol. 2013 Dec;109(3):370-6
references: 24100148
references: Med Phys. 2003 Aug;30(8):2089-115
references: 12945975
references: Phys Med Biol. 2000 Mar;45(3):N1-7
references: 10730973
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 Mar 15;88(4):920-6
references: 24606852
references: Med Phys. 2003 Nov;30(11):2937-47
references: 14655941
references: Med Phys. 1995 May;22(5):503-24
references: 7643786
references: Phys Med Biol. 1995 Sep;40(9):1435-49
references: 8532757
references: Med Phys. 1996 Apr;23(4):445-57
references: 9157256
references: Phys Med Biol. 1999 Feb;44(2):463-78
references: 10070795
references: Med Phys. 1999 Feb;26(2):187-95
references: 10076972
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 Jun 1;62(2):595-605
references: 15890605
references: Phys Med Biol. 2007 Jul 21;52(14):4345-60
references: 17664612
references: Med Phys. 2008 Jan;35(1):310-7
references: 18293586
references: Phys Med Biol. 2008 Oct 7;53(19):N359-70
references: 18758001
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Oct 1;72(2):575-81
references: 18793960
references: Phys Med Biol. 2009 May 7;54(9):N167-76
references: 19384007
references: Phys Med Biol. 2009 Jul 7;54(13):4299-310
references: 19531844
references: Med Phys. 2009 May;36(5):1813-21
references: 19544800
references: Phys Med Biol. 2010 Oct 7;55(19):5619-33
references: 20826904
references: Phys Med Biol. 2011 Mar 7;56(5):R31-54
references: 21297245
references: Med Phys. 2011 Jan;38(1):504-30
references: 21361219
references: Med Phys. 2011 Feb;38(2):612-21
references: 21452698
references: Med Phys. 2011 Mar;38(3):1313-38
references: 21520843
references: Phys Med Biol. 2011 Aug 7;56(15):4827-38
references: 21753232