Predicted Inferior Outcomes for Lung SBRT With Treatment Planning Systems That Fail Independent Phantom-Based Audits

Purpose: More than 15% of radiation therapy clinics fail external audits with anthropomorphic phantoms conducted by Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Houston (IROC-H) while passing other industry-standard quality assurance (QA) tests. We seek to evaluate the predicted effect of such failed plans on outcomes for patients treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for lung tumors. Methods and Materials: We conducted a retrospective study of 55 patients treated with SBRT for lung tumors with a prescription biologically equivalent dose (BED)₁₀ ≥100 Gy using a treatment planning system (TPS) that passed IROC-H phantom audits. Sample linear accelerator beam models with introduced errors were commissioned by varying the multileaf collimator leaf-tip offset parameter (ie, dosimetric leaf gap) over the range ±1.0 mm relative to the validated model. These models mimic TPS that pass internal QA measures but fail IROC-H tests. Patient plans were recalculated on sample beam models. The predicted tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were calculated based on published dose-response models. Results: A leaf-tip offset value of −1.0 mm decreased the fraction of plans receiving a planning treatment volume of BED₁₀ ≥100 Gy from 95% to 27%. This translated to a significant decrease in 2-year TCP of 4.8% (95% CI: 2.0%-5.5%) with a decrease in TCP up to 21%. Conversely, a leaf-tip offset of +1.0 mm resulted in 36% of patients exceeding previously met organs at risk (OAR) constraints, including 2 instances of spinal cord and brachial plexus overdoses and a small increase in chest wall NTCP of 0.7%, (95% CI: 0.5%-0.8%). Conclusions: Simulated treatment plans with modest MLC leaf offsets result in lung SBRT plans that significantly underdose tumor or exceed OAR constraints. These dosimetric endpoints translate to significant detriments in TCP. These simulated plans mimic planning systems that pass internal QA measures but fail independent phantom-based tests, underscoring the need for enhanced quality assurance including external audits of TPS.