Frame average optimization of cine‐mode EPID images used for routine clinical in vivo patient dose verification of VMAT deliveries

Purpose: The in vivo 3D dose delivered to a patient during volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivery can be calculated using electronic portal imaging device (EPID) images. These images must be acquired in cine‐mode (i.e., “movie” mode) in order to capture the time‐dependent delivery information. The angle subtended by each cine‐mode EPID image during an arc can be changed via the frame averaging number selected within the image acquisition software. A large frame average number will decrease the EPID's angular resolution and will result in a decrease in the accuracy of the dose information contained within each image. Alternatively, less EPID images acquired per delivery will decrease the overall 3D patient dose calculation time, which is appealing for large‐scale clinical implementation. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the optimal frame average value per EPID image, defined as the highest frame averaging that can be used without an appreciable loss in 3D dose reconstruction accuracy for VMAT treatments. Methods: Six different VMAT plans and six different SBRT‐VMAT plans were delivered to an anthropomorphic phantom. Delivery was carried out on a Varian 2300ix model linear accelerator (Linac) equipped with an aS1000 EPID running at a frame acquisition rate of 7.5 Hz. An additional PC was set up at the Linac console area, equipped with specialized frame‐grabber hardware and software packages allowing continuous acquisition of all EPID frames during delivery. Frames were averaged into “frame‐averaged” EPID images using matlab. Each frame‐averaged data set was used to calculate the in vivo dose to the patient and then compared to the single EPID frame in vivo dose calculation (the single frame calculation represents the highest possible angular resolution per EPID image). A mean percentage dose difference of low dose (80% prescription dose) was calculated for each frame averaged scenario for each plan. The authors defined their unacceptable loss of accuracy as no more than a ±1% mean dose difference in the high dose region. Optimal frame average numbers were then determined as a function of the Linac's average gantry speed and the dose per fraction. Results: The authors found that 9 and 11 frame averages were suitable for all VMAT and SBRT‐VMAT treatments, respectively. This resulted in no more than a 1% loss to any of the dose region's mean percentage difference when compared to the