Dataset Information

Anatomy-based, patient-specific VMAT QA using EPID or MLC log files.

ABSTRACT: In this project, we investigated the use of an electronic portal imaging device (EPID), together with the treatment planning system (TPS) and MLC log files, to determine the delivered doses to the patient and evaluate the agreement between the treatment plan and the delivered dose distribution. The QA analysis results are presented for 15 VMAT patients using the EPID measurements, the ScandiDos Delta4 dosimeter, and the beam fluence calculated from the multileaf collimator (MLC) log file. EPID fluence images were acquired in continuous acquisition mode for each of the patients and they were processed through an in-house MATLAB program to create an opening density matrix (ODM), which was used as the input fluence for the dose calculation in the TPS (Pinnacle3). The EPID used in this study was the aSi1000 Varian on a Novalis TX linac equipped with high-definition MLC. The actual MLC positions and gantry angles were retrieved from the MLC log files and the data were used to calculate the delivered dose distributions in Pinnacle. The resulting dose distributions were then compared against the corresponding planned dose distributions using the 3D gamma index with 3 mm/3% passing criteria. The ScandiDos Delta4 phantom was also used to measure a 2D dose distribution for all the 15 patients and a 2D gamma was calculated for each patient using the Delta4 software. The average 3D gamma using the EPID images was 96.1% ± 2.2%. The average 3D gamma using the log files was 98.7% ± 0.5%. The average 2D gamma from the Delta4 was 98.1% ± 2.1%. Our results indicate that the use of the EPID, combined with MLC log files and a TPS, is a viable method for QA of VMAT plans.

SUBMITTER: Defoor DL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5690143 | biostudies-literature | 2015 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Anatomy-based, patient-specific VMAT QA using EPID or MLC log files.

Defoor Dewayne L DL Vazquez-Quino Luis A LA Mavroidis Panayiotis P Papanikolaou Nikos N Stathakis Sotirios S

Journal of applied clinical medical physics 20150508 3

In this project, we investigated the use of an electronic portal imaging device (EPID), together with the treatment planning system (TPS) and MLC log files, to determine the delivered doses to the patient and evaluate the agreement between the treatment plan and the delivered dose distribution. The QA analysis results are presented for 15 VMAT patients using the EPID measurements, the ScandiDos Delta4 dosimeter, and the beam fluence calculated from the multileaf collimator (MLC) log file. EPID f ...[more]

PMID: 26103490

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and purposeThe study evaluated the differences in leaf positioning deviations by the log files of three advanced accelerators with two delivery techniques, and established specific assessment parameters of leaf positioning deviations for different types of accelerators.MethodsA total of 420 treatment plans with 5 consecutive treatment log files were collected from the Trilogy, TrueBeam and Halcyon accelerators. Millennium MLC was equipped on the Trilogy and TrueBeam accelerators. A jawless design and dual-layer MLC were adopted on the Halcyon accelerator. 70 IMRT and 70 VMAT plans were selected randomly on each accelerator. The treatment sites of all plans included head and neck, chest, breast, pelvis and other sites. The parsing tasks for 2100 log files were proceeded by SunCheck software from Sun Nuclear Corporation. The maximum leaf root mean square (RMS) errors, 95th percentile errors and percentages of different leaf positioning errors were statistically analyzed. The correlations between these evaluation parameters and accelerator performance parameters (maximum leaf speed, mean leaf speed, gantry and arc angle) were analyzed.ResultsThe average maximum leaf RMS errors of the Trilogy in the IMRT and VMAT plans were 0.44 ± 0.09 mm and 0.79 ± 0.07 mm, respectively, which were higher than the TrueBeam's 0.03 ± 0.01 mm, 0.03 ± 0.01 mm and the Halcyon's 0.05 ± 0.01 mm, 0.07 ± 0.01 mm. Similar data results were shown in the 95th percentile error. The maximum leaf RMS errors were strongly correlated with the 95th percentile errors (Pearson index > 0.5). The leaf positioning deviations in VMAT were higher than those in IMRT for all accelerators. In TrueBeam and Halcyon, leaf position errors above 1 mm were not found in IMRT and VMAT plans. The main influencing factor of leaf positioning deviation was the leaf speed, which has no strong correlation with gantry and arc angles.ConclusionsCompared with the quality assurance guidelines, the MLC positioning deviations tolerances of the three accelerators should be tightened. For both IMRT and VMAT techniques, the 95th percentile error and the maximum RMS error are suggested to be tightened to 1.5 and 1 mm respectively for the Trilogy accelerator. In TrueBeam and Halcyon accelerators, the 95th percentile error and maximum RMS error of 1 and 0.5 mm, respectively, are considered appropriate.

Project description:The purpose of this study was to compare the measurement-derived (3DVH) dose reconstruction method with machine log file-derived dose reconstruction method in patient geometries for VMAT delivery. A total of ten patient plans were selected from a regular fractionation plan to complex SBRT plans. Treatment sites in the lung and abdomen were chosen to explore the effects of tissue heterogeneity on the respective dose reconstruction algorithms. Single- and multiple-arc VMAT plans were generated to achieve the desired target objectives. Delivered plan in the patient geometry was reconstructed by using ArcCHECK Planned Dose Perturbation (ACPDP) within 3DVH software, and by converting the machine log file to Pinnacle3 9.0 treatment plan format and recalculating dose with CVSP algorithm. In addition, delivered gantry angles between machine log file and 3DVH 4D measurement were also compared to evaluate the accuracy of the virtual inclinometer within the 3DVH. Measured ion chamber and 3DVH-derived isocenter dose agreed with planned dose within 0.4% ± 1.2% and -1.0% ± 1.6%, respectively. 3D gamma analysis showed greater than 98% between log files and 3DVH reconstructed dose. Machine log file reconstructed doses and TPS dose agreed to within 2% in PTV and OARs over the entire treatment. 3DVH reconstructed dose showed an average maximum dose difference of 3% ± 1.2% in PTV, and an average mean difference of -4.5% ± 10.5% in OAR doses. The average virtual inclinometer error (VIE) was -0.65° ± 1.6° for all patients, with a maximum error of -5.16° ± 4.54° for an SRS case. The time averaged VIE was within 1°-2°, and did not have a large impact on the overall accuracy of the estimated patient dose from ACPDP algorithm. In this study, we have compared two independent dose reconstruction methods for VMAT QA. Both methods are capable of taking into account the measurement and delivery parameter discrepancy, and display the delivered dose in CT patient geometry rather than the phantom geometry. The dose discrepancy can be evaluated in terms of DVH of the structures and provides a more intuitive understanding of the dosimetric impact of the delivery errors on the target and normal structure dose.

Project description:Purpose:To characterize the clinical utility of a new commercially available system for daily patient treatment quality assurance using electronic portal imaging detector (EPID) exit dose images. Methods and Materials:The PerFRACTION automated quality assurance system was used to acquire integrated EPID images for every field every day for 60 treatment courses for 57 patients. Four thousand seventy-nine field values from 855 fractions were analyzed. Gamma passing rates were computed by the system for each field daily. Passing rates and pass-fail status were recorded by treatment modality (intensity modulated radiation therapy or 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy) and location. When failures occurred, an attempt was made to determine the reason. Results:Overall, 23% and 8% of fields failed at 2%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm, respectively. Forty-eight percent and 24% of fields failed at least once during the course of therapy for the 2 tolerance settings. Eighteen percent and 8% of all fractions failed and 60% and 28% of courses failed for the 2 tolerance settings, respectively. Eighteen percent of daily field passing rates were below 75% for 3%/3 mm tolerances. Intensity modulated radiation therapy had higher passing rates than 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy. For 3%/3 mm tolerances, the fraction fail rate for the brain, extremity, and spine treatment sites failed the least, whereas the abdomen, chest, and head and neck failed more often. The most commonly identified reason for failure was body position change, but the reason for about half the daily field value failures could not be identified. Conclusions:This is the first report of the clinical utility of a commercial daily patient treatment quality assurance system using EPID exit images. Variations were found in a clinically relevant percentage of images, and these potentially indicate important treatment variations. Reasons for failures are not always discernable. The system was practical to use because of automation and continues to be used for monitoring of nearly every patient in every field every day.

Project description:The purpose of this work was to assess the monitor unit (MU) values and position accuracy of spot scanning proton beams as recorded by the daily treatment logs of the treatment control system, and furthermore establish the feasibility of using the delivered spot positions and MU values to calculate and evaluate delivered doses to patients.To validate the accuracy of the recorded spot positions, the authors generated and executed a test treatment plan containing nine spot positions, to which the authors delivered ten MU each. The spot positions were measured with radiographic films and Matrixx 2D ion-chambers array placed at the isocenter plane and compared for displacements from the planned and recorded positions. Treatment logs for 14 patients were then used to determine the spot MU values and position accuracy of the scanning proton beam delivery system. Univariate analysis was used to detect any systematic error or large variation between patients, treatment dates, proton energies, gantry angles, and planned spot positions. The recorded patient spot positions and MU values were then used to replace the spot positions and MU values in the plan, and the treatment planning system was used to calculate the delivered doses to patients. The results were compared with the treatment plan.Within a treatment session, spot positions were reproducible within ±0.2 mm. The spot positions measured by film agreed with the planned positions within ±1 mm and with the recorded positions within ±0.5 mm. The maximum day-to-day variation for any given spot position was within ±1 mm. For all 14 patients, with ∼1 500 000 spots recorded, the total MU accuracy was within 0.1% of the planned MU values, the mean (x, y) spot displacement from the planned value was (-0.03 mm, -0.01 mm), the maximum (x, y) displacement was (1.68 mm, 2.27 mm), and the (x, y) standard deviation was (0.26 mm, 0.42 mm). The maximum dose difference between calculated dose to the patient based on the plan and recorded data was within 2%.The authors have shown that the treatment log file in a spot scanning proton beam delivery system is precise enough to serve as a quality assurance tool to monitor variation in spot position and MU value, as well as the delivered dose uncertainty from the treatment delivery system. The analysis tool developed here could be useful for assessing spot position uncertainty and thus dose uncertainty for any patient receiving spot scanning proton beam therapy.

Project description:A first-time survey across 15 cancer centers in Ontario, Canada, on the current practice of patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivery was conducted. The objectives were to assess the current state of PSQA practice, identify areas for potential improvement, and facilitate the continued improvement in standardization, consistency, efficacy, and efficiency of PSQA regionally. The survey asked 40 questions related to PSQA practice for IMRT/VMAT delivery. The questions addressed PSQA policy and procedure, delivery log evaluation, instrumentation, measurement setup and methodology, data analysis and interpretation, documentation, process, failure modes, and feedback. The focus of this survey was on PSQA activities related to routine IMRT/VMAT treatments on conventional linacs, including stereotactic body radiation therapy but excluding stereotactic radiosurgery. The participating centers were instructed to submit answers that reflected the collective view or opinion of their department and represented the most typical process practiced. The results of the survey provided a snapshot of the current state of PSQA practice in Ontario and demonstrated considerable variations in the practice. A large majority (80%) of centers performed PSQA measurements on all VMAT plans. Most employed pseudo-3D array detectors with a true composite (TC) geometry. No standard approach was found for stopping or reducing frequency of measurements. The sole use of delivery log evaluation was not widely implemented, though most centers expressed interest in adopting this technology. All used the Gamma evaluation method for analyzing PSQA measurements; however, no universal approach was reported on how Gamma evaluation and pass determination criteria were determined. All or some PSQA results were reviewed regularly in two-thirds of the centers. Planning related issues were considered the most frequent source for PSQA failures (40%), whereas the most frequent course of action for a failed PSQA was to review the result and decide whether to proceed to treatment.

Project description:PURPOSE:The goal of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of monitoring relevant variations during treatments for electronic portal imaging device (EPID)-based 3D in vivo verification performed using planning CTs. METHODS:Experiments on two simple phantoms (uniform and nonuniform phantoms) and a thoracic phantom were analyzed in this study, and six relevant variations including the machine output, planning target volume (PTV) deformation, multileaf collimator (MLC) and Phantom shift (set-up errors), and gantry and couch angle shifts were evaluated. 3D gamma and dose-volume histogram (DVH) methods were used to evaluate the detection sensitivity of the EPID-based 3D in vivo dosimetry and the dose accuracy of the EPID reconstruction, respectively, as affected by the variations, and the results were validated by determining the consistency with TPS simulated results. RESULTS:The results of the simple phantoms showed that the gamma failure rates and DVH trend of EPID reconstructions were consistent with the results of TPS simulations for machine output and MLC shifts and inconsistent for phantom shift, gantry/couch angle shift and PTV deformation variations. The results of the thoracic phantom showed that CBCT-guided EPID reconstruction sensitively detected 3-mm Phantom shift in thoracic phantom and its gamma failure rates and DVH trend were consistent with the results of TPS simulations. CONCLUSION:The variations, such as machine output and MLC shift, that are phantom unrelated and cause changes in the beam of the linear accelerator can be sensitively detected by EPID-based 3D in vivo dosimetry and do not affect the accuracy of the EPID reconstruction dose. Planning CT will limit the detection sensitivity and the accuracy of the reconstruction dose of the EPID-based 3D in vivo dosimetry for phantom-related variations (such as Phantom shift and gantry/couch angle shift). EPID reconstruction combined with IGRT technology is a more effective method to monitor phantom shift variations.

Dataset Information

Anatomy-based, patient-specific VMAT QA using EPID or MLC log files.

Publications

Anatomy-based, patient-specific VMAT QA using EPID or MLC log files.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets