Dosimetric evaluation of MobiusFX in the RapidArc delivery quality assurance comparing with 3DVH.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Song JY
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5568283 | biostudies-literature | 2017
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Dosimetric evaluation of MobiusFX in the RapidArc delivery quality assurance comparing with 3DVH.
Song Ju-Young JY Jeong Jae-Uk JU Yoon Mee Sun MS Ahn Sung-Ja SJ Chung Woong-Ki WK Nam Taek-Keun TK
PloS one 20170823 8
The dosimetric characteristics of MobiusFX, which uses the treatment machine log file to calculate the dose inside the patient body, were analyzed for use in the RapidArc delivery quality assurance (DQA) process. The accuracy and usefulness of MobiusFX in clinical cases was evaluated by comparing the dose calculated by MobiusFX with that calculated by the conventional measurement dose based program, 3DVH. The results of gamma evaluation with three different criteria (3%-3 mm, 4%-3 mm, 5%-3 mm) w ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:A practical method was designed to verify the accuracy of dose distributions calculated using Compass, which can reconstruct the dose distribution inside a patient's body during intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Twelve virtual IMRT treatment plans were developed using an ArcCHECK diode detector array, and then the recalculated and reconstructed doses in Compass were compared with the actual measurements to assess the dosimetric accuracy. Based on the results of gamma evaluation for the 12 plans, Compass achieved average pass rates higher than 98%, which confirmed proper dosimetric accuracy in the IMRT quality assurance process. The validity of Compass for clinical applications was also confirmed through an additional comparison with the results calculated using 3DVH, another dose reconstruction program. It is necessary to verify the accuracy of the dose calculated using the program in advance before the commercialized dose reconstruction program is applied in clinical practice. This study has limitations in that it did not provide a real scientific contribution such as an introduction of new algorithm for dose calculation and the development of new measurement tools. However, the method based on the comparative analysis with the actual measured dose values as devised in this study seems to be useful in that it can be applied effectively to verify the dosimetric accuracy of the dose reconstruction program before first using it in the clinical cases.
| S-EPMC6301628 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose of this study was to evaluate the dosimetric profiles and delivery accuracy of running-start-stop (RSS) delivery in tomotherapy and to present initial quality assurance (QA) results on the accuracy of the dynamic jaw motion, dosimetric penumbrae of the RSS dynamic jaw and the static jaw were measured by radiographic films. Delivery accuracy of the RSS was evaluated by gamma analysis on film measurements of 12 phantom plans. Consistency in the performance of RSS was evaluated by QA procedures over the first nine months after the installation of the feature. These QA were devised to check: 1) positional accuracy of moving jaws; 2) consistency of relative radiation output collimated by discrete and continuously sweeping jaws; 3) consistency of field widths and profiles. In the longitudinal direction, the dose penumbra in RSS delivery was reduced from 17.3mm to 10.2 mm for 2.5 cm jaw, and from 33.2 mm to 9.6 mm for 5 cm jaw. Gamma analysis on the twelve plans revealed that over 90% of the voxels in the proximity of the penumbra region satisfied the gamma criteria of 2% dose difference and 2 mm distance-to-agreement. The initial QA results during the first nine months after installation of the RSS are presented. Jaw motion was shown to be accurate with maximum encoder error less than 0.42 mm. The consistency of relative output for discrete and continuously sweeping jaws was within 1.2%. Longitudinal radiation profiles agreed to the reference profile with maximum gamma < 1 and field width error < 1.8%. With the same jaw width, RSS showed better dose penumbrae compared to those from static jaw delivery. The initial QA results on the accuracy of moving jaws, reproducibility of dosimetric output and profiles were satisfactory.
| S-EPMC5691007 | biostudies-other
Project description:The gamma analysis used for quality assurance of a complex radiotherapy plan examines the dosimetric equivalence between planned and measured dose distributions within some tolerance. This study explores whether the dosimetric difference is correlated with any radiobiological difference between delivered and planned dose.VMAT or IMRT plans optimized for 14 cancer patients were calculated and delivered to a QA device. Measured dose was compared against planned dose using 2-D gamma analysis. Dose volume histograms (for various patient structures) obtained by interpolating measured data were compared against the planned ones using a 3-D gamma analysis. Dose volume histograms were used in the Poisson model to calculate tumor control probability for the treatment targets and in the Sigmoid dose-response model to calculate normal tissue complication probability for the organs at risk.Differences in measured and planned dosimetric data for the patient plans passing at ?94.9% rate at 3%/3 mm criteria are not statistically significant. Average ± standard deviation tumor control probabilities based on measured and planned data are 65.8±4.0% and 67.8±4.1% for head and neck, and 71.9±2.7% and 73.3±3.1% for lung plans, respectively. The differences in tumor control probabilities obtained from measured and planned dose are statistically insignificant. However, the differences in normal tissue complication probabilities for larynx, lungs-GTV, heart, and cord are statistically significant for the patient plans meeting ?94.9% passing criterion at 3%/3 mm.A ?90% gamma passing criterion at 3%/3 mm cannot assure the radiobiological equivalence between planned and delivered dose. These results agree with the published literature demonstrating the inadequacy of the criterion for dosimetric QA and suggest for a tighter tolerance.
| S-EPMC5874955 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0813 protocol requires the use of dose calculation algorithms with tissue heterogeneity corrections to compute dose on stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) plans. A new photon dose calculation algorithm called Acuros XB (AXB) has recently been implemented in the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS). The main purpose of this study was to compare the dosimetric results of AXB with that of anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) for RTOG 0813 parameters. Additionally, phantom study was done to evaluate the dose prediction accuracy of AXB and AAA beyond low-density medium of different thicknesses by comparing the calculated results with the measurements. For the RTOG dosimetric study, 14 clinically approved SBRT NSCLC cases were included. The planning target volume (PTV) ranged from 3.2-43.0 cc. RapidArc treatment plans were generated in the Eclipse TPS following RTOG 0813 dosimetric criteria, and treatment plans were calculated using AAA with heterogeneity correction (AAA plans). All the AAA plans were then recalculated using AXB with heterogeneity correction (AXB plans) for identical beam parameters and same number of monitor units. The AAA and AXB plans were compared for following RTOG 0813 parameters: ratio of prescription isodose volume to PTV (R100%), ratio of 50% prescription isodose volume to PTV (R50%), maximal dose 2 cm from the PTV in any direction as a percentage of prescription dose (D2cm), and the percentage of ipsilateral lung receiving dose equal to or larger than 20 Gy (V20). The phantom study showed that the results of AXB had better agreement with the measurements, and the difference ranged from -1.7% to 2.8%. The AAA results showed larger disagreement with the measurements, with differences from 4.1% to 12.5% for field size 5 × 5cm2 and from 1.4% to 6.8% for field size 10 × 10 cm2. The results from the RTOG SBRT lung cases showed that, on average, the AXB plans produced lower values for R100%, R50%, and D2cm by 4.96%, 1.15%, and 1.60%, respectively, but higher V20 of ipsilateral lung by 1.09% when compared with AAA plans. In the set of AAA plans, minor deviation was seen for R100% (six cases), R50% (nine cases), D2cm (four cases), and V20 (one case). Similarly, the AXB plans also showed minor deviation for R100% (one case), R50% (eight cases), D2cm (three cases), and V20 (one case). The dosimetric results presented in the current study show that both the AXB and AAA can meet the RTOG 0813 dosimetric criteria.
| S-EPMC5711238 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose of our study is to establish an efficient quality assurance (QA) procedure using a transmission-type detector (IBA, Stealth chamber), a reference signal detector, as a field chamber. Relative dosimetry items, including monitor unit linearity, output constancy based on dose rate and field size, and output factor were measured and compared with results obtained from the Farmer-type chamber (IBA, Wellhofer, FC65-G). Moreover, output for each field size was measured to assess its applicability to small fields. Results using the Stealth chamber were in good agreement with the FC65-G within 1.0%, except for output constancy according to gantry angle, which had a 1.1% error rate for the Stealth chamber and 2.7% for the FC65-G. Differences of up to - 6.26% output factor were observed for the Stealth chamber and up to - 0.56% for the CC-13 ionization chamber (IBA) in the 3 × 3 cm2 field. Our study confirmed the possibility of using Stealth chambers for relative dosimetry measurement in QA.
| S-EPMC10590446 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives:The aim of the study was to explore what components of the General Medical Council's (GMC) Quality Assurance Framework work, for whom, in what circumstances and how?Setting:UK undergraduate and postgraduate medical education and training.Participants:We conducted interviews with a stratified sample of 36 individuals. This included those who had direct experiences, as well as those with external insights, representing local, national and international organisations within and outside medicine.Intervention:The GMC quality assure education to protect patient and public safety utilising complex intervention components including meeting standards, institutional visits and monitoring performance. However, the context in which these are implemented matters. We undertook an innovative realist evaluation to test an initial programme theory. Data were analysed using framework analysis.Results:Across components of the intervention, we identified key mechanisms, including transparent reporting to promote quality improvement; dialogical feedback; partnership working facilitating interactions between regulators and providers, and role clarity in conducting proportionate interventions appropriate to risk. The GMC's framework was commended for being comprehensive and enabling a broad understanding of an organisation's performance. Unintended consequences included confusion over roles and boundaries in different contexts which often undermined effectiveness.Conclusions:This realist evaluation substantiates the literature and reveals deeper understandings about quality assuring medical education. While standardised approaches are implemented, interventions need to be contextually proportionate. Routine communication is beneficial to verify data, share concerns and check risk; however, ongoing partnership working can foster assurance. The study provides a modified programme theory to explicate how education providers and regulators can work more effectively together to uphold education quality, and ultimately protect public safety. The findings have influenced the GMC's approach to quality assurance which impacts on all medical students and doctors in training.
| S-EPMC6937024 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:To evaluate the performance of Delta4DVH Anatomy in patient-specific intensity-modulated radiotherapy quality assurance. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Dose comparisons were performed between Anatomy doses calculated with treatment plan dose measured modification and pencil beam algorithms, treatment planning system doses, film doses, and ion chamber measured doses in homogeneous and inhomogeneous geometries. The sensitivity of Anatomy doses to machine errors and output calibration errors was also investigated. RESULTS:For a Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) plan evaluated on the Delta4 geometry, the conventional gamma passing rate was 99.6%. For a water-equivalent slab geometry, good agreements were found between dose profiles in film, treatment planning system, and Anatomy treatment plan dose measured modification and pencil beam calculations. Gamma passing rate for Anatomy treatment plan dose measured modification and pencil beam doses versus treatment planning system doses was 100%. However, gamma passing rate dropped to 97.2% and 96% for treatment plan dose measured modification and pencil beam calculations in inhomogeneous head & neck phantom, respectively. For the 10 patients' quality assurance plans, good agreements were found between ion chamber measured doses and the planned ones (deviation: 0.09% ± 1.17%). The averaged gamma passing rate for conventional and Anatomy treatment plan dose measured modification and pencil beam gamma analyses in Delta4 geometry was 99.6% ± 0.89%, 98.54% ± 1.60%, and 98.95% ± 1.27%, respectively, higher than averaged gamma passing rate of 97.75% ± 1.23% and 93.04% ± 2.69% for treatment plan dose measured modification and pencil beam in patients' geometries, respectively. Anatomy treatment plan dose measured modification dose profiles agreed well with those in treatment planning system for both Delta4 and patients' geometries, while pencil beam doses demonstrated substantial disagreement in patients' geometries when compared to treatment planning system doses. Both treatment planning system doses are sensitive to multileaf collimator and monitor unit (MU) errors for high and medium dose metrics but not sensitive to the gantry and collimator rotation error smaller than 3°. CONCLUSIONS:The new Delta4DVH Anatomy with treatment plan dose measured modification algorithm is a useful tool for the anatomy-based patient-specific quality assurance. Cautions should be taken when using pencil beam algorithm due to its limitations in handling heterogeneity and in high-dose gradient regions.
| S-EPMC7388137 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Delta(4DVH) Anatomy 3D quality assurance (QA) system (ScandiDos), which converts the measured detector dose into the dose distribution in the patient geometry was evaluated. It allows a direct comparison of the calculated 3D dose with the measured back-projected dose. In total, 16 static and 16 volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) fields were planned using four different energies. Isocenter dose was measured with a pinpoint chamber in homogeneous phantoms to investigate the dose prediction by the Delta(4DVH) Anatomy algorithm for static fields. Dose distributions of VMAT fields were measured using GAFCHROMIC film. Gravitational gantry errors up to 10° were introduced into all VMAT plans to study the potential of detecting errors. Additionally, 20 clinical treatment plans were verified. For static fields, the Delta(4DVH) Anatomy predicted the isocenter dose accurately, with a deviation to the measured phantom dose of 1.1% ± 0.6%. For VMAT fields the predicted Delta(4DVH) Anatomy dose in the isocenter plane corresponded to the measured dose in the phantom, with an average gamma agreement index (GAI) (3 mm/3%) of 96.9± 0.4%. The Delta(4DVH) Anatomy detected the induced systematic gantry error of 10° with a relative GAI (3 mm/3%) change of 5.8% ± 1.6%. The conventional Delta(4PT) QA system detected a GAI change of 4.2%± 2.0%. The conventional Delta(4PT) GAI (3 mm/3%) was 99.8% ± 0.4% for the clinical treatment plans. The mean body and PTV-GAI (3 mm/5%) for the Delta(4DVH) Anatomy were 96.4% ± 2.0% and 97.7%± 1.8%; however, this dropped to 90.8%± 3.4% and 87.1% ± 4.1% for passing criteria of 3 mm/3%. The anatomy-based patient specific quality assurance system predicts the dose distribution correctly for a homogeneous case. The limiting factor for the error detection is the large variability in the error-free plans. The dose calculation algorithm is inferior to that used in the TPS (Eclipse).
| S-EPMC5875461 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A pretreatment quality assurance program for volumetric techniques should include redundant calculations and measurement-based verifications. The patient-specific quality assurance process must be based in clinically relevant metrics. The aim of this study was to show the commission, clinical implementation, and comparison of two systems that allow performing a 3D redundant dose calculation. In addition, one of them is capable of reconstructing the dose on patient anatomy from measurements taken with a 2D ion chamber array. Both systems were compared in terms of reference calibration data (absolute dose, output factors, percentage depth-dose curves, and profiles). Results were in good agreement for absolute dose values (discrepancies were below 0.5%) and output factors (mean differences were below 1%). Maximum mean discrepancies were located between 10 and 20 cm of depth for PDDs (-2.7%) and in the penumbra region for profiles (mean DTA of 1.5 mm). Validation of the systems was performed by comparing point-dose measurements with values obtained by the two systems for static, dynamic fields from AAPM TG-119 report, and 12 real VMAT plans for different anatomical sites (differences better than 1.2%). Comparisons between measurements taken with a 2D ion chamber array and results obtained by both systems for real VMAT plans were also performed (mean global gamma passing rates better than 87.0% and 97.9% for the 2%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm criteria). Clinical implementation of the systems was evaluated by comparing dose-volume parameters for all TG-119 tests and real VMAT plans with TPS values (mean differences were below 1%). In addition, comparisons between dose distributions calculated by TPS and those extracted by the two systems for real VMAT plans were also performed (mean global gamma passing rates better than 86.0% and 93.0% for the 2%/2 mm and 3%/ 3 mm criteria). The clinical use of both systems was successfully evaluated.
| S-EPMC5690088 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose of this study is to evaluate the use of the Dosimetry Check system for patient-specific IMRT QA. Typical QA methods measure the dose in an array dosimeter surrounded by homogenous medium for which the treatment plan has been recomputed. With the Dosimetry Check system, fluence measurements acquired on a portal dosimeter is applied to the patient's CT scans. Instead of making dose comparisons in a plane, Dosimetry Check system produces isodose lines and dose-volume histograms based on the planning CT images. By exporting the dose distribution from the treatment planning system into the Dosimetry Check system, one is able to make a direct comparison between the calculated dose and the planned dose. The versatility of the software is evaluated with respect to the two IMRT techniques - step and shoot and volumetric arc therapy. The system analyzed measurements made using EPID, PTW seven29, and IBA MatriXX, and an intercomparison study was performed. Plans from patients previously treated at our institution with treated anatomical site on brain, head & neck, liver, lung, and prostate were analyzed using Dosimetry Check system for any anatomical site dependence. We have recommendations and possible precautions that may be necessary to ensure proper QA with the Dosimetry Check system.
| S-EPMC5690116 | biostudies-other