Is it necessary to perform measurement‐based patient‐specific quality assurance for online adaptive radiotherapy with Elekta Unity MR‐Linac?

Abstract This study aimed to investigate the necessity of measurement‐based patient‐specific quality assurance (PSQA) for online adaptive radiotherapy by analyzing measurement‐based PSQA results and calculation‐based 3D independent dose verification results with Elekta Unity MR‐Linac. There are two workflows for Elekta Unity enabled in the treatment planning system: adapt to position (ATP) and adapt to shape (ATS). ATP plans are those which have relatively slighter shifts from reference plans by adjusting beam shapes or weights, whereas ATS plans are the new plans optimized from the beginning with probable re‐contouring targets and organs‐at‐risk. PSQA gamma passing rates were measured using an MR‐compatible ArcCHECK diode array for 78 reference plans and corresponding 208 adaptive plans (129 ATP plans and 79 ATS plans) of Elekta Unity. Subsequently, the relationships between ATP, or ATS plans and reference plans were evaluated separately. The Pearson's r correlation coefficients between ATP or ATS adaptive plans and corresponding reference plans were also characterized using regression analysis. Moreover, the Bland–Altman plot method was used to describe the agreement of PSQA results between ATP or ATS adaptive plans and reference plans. Additionally, Monte Carlo‐based independent dose verification software ArcherQA was used to perform secondary dose check for adaptive plans. For ArcCHECK measurements, the average gamma passing rates (ArcCHECK vs. TPS) of PSQA (3%/2 mm criterion) were 99.51% ± 0.88% and 99.43% ± 0.54% for ATP and ATS plans, respectively, which were higher than the corresponding reference plans 99.34% ± 1.04% ( p < 0.05) and 99.20% ± 0.71% ( p < 0.05), respectively. The Pearson's r correlation coefficients were 0.720 between ATP and reference plans and 0.300 between ATS and reference plans with ArcCHECK, respectively. Furthermore, >95% of data points of differences between both ATP and ATS plans and reference plans were within ±2σ (standard deviation) of the mean difference between adaptive and reference plans with ArcCHECK measurements. With ArcherQA calculation, the average gamma passing rates (ArcherQA vs. TPS) were 98.23% ± 1.64% and 98.15% ± 1.07% for ATP and ATS adaptive plans, separately. It might be unnecessary to perform measurement‐based PSQA for both ATP and ATS adaptive plans for Unity if the gamma passing rates of both measurements of corresponding reference plans and independent dose verification of adaptive plans have high gamma passing rates. Periodic machine QA and verification of adaptive plans were recommended to ensure treatment safety.