Are simple IMRT beams more robust against MLC error? Exploring the impact of MLC errors on planar quality assurance and plan quality for different complexity beams.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wang J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5690928 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:In intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) planning, reducing the pencil-beam size may lead to a significant improvement in dose conformity, but also increase the time needed for the dose calculation and plan optimization. The authors develop and evaluate a postoptimization refinement (POpR) method, which makes fine adjustments to the multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf positions after plan optimization, enhancing the spatial precision and improving the plan quality without a significant impact on the computational burden.The authors' POpR method is implemented using a commercial treatment planning system based on direct aperture optimization. After an IMRT plan is optimized using pencil beams with regular pencil-beam step size, a greedy search is conducted by looping through all of the involved MLC leaves to see if moving the MLC leaf in or out by half of a pencil-beam step size will improve the objective function value. The half-sized pencil beams, which are used for updating dose distribution in the greedy search, are derived from the existing full-sized pencil beams without need for further pencil-beam dose calculations. A benchmark phantom case and a head-and-neck (HN) case are studied for testing the authors' POpR method.Using a benchmark phantom and a HN case, the authors have verified that their POpR method can be an efficient technique in the IMRT planning process. Effectiveness of POpR is confirmed by noting significant improvements in objective function values. Dosimetric benefits of POpR are comparable to those of using a finer pencil-beam size from the optimization start, but with far less computation and time.The POpR is a feasible and practical method to significantly improve IMRT-plan quality without compromising the planning efficiency.
| S-EPMC3416882 | biostudies-other
Project description:PURPOSE:Multileaf collimator (MLC) tracking is being clinically pioneered to continuously compensate for thoracic and pelvic motion during radiotherapy. The purpose of this work was to characterize the performance of two MLC leaf-fitting algorithms, direct optimization and piecewise optimization, for real-time motion compensation with different plan complexity and tumor trajectories. METHODS:To test the algorithms, both in silico and phantom experiments were performed. The phantom experiments were performed on a Trilogy Varian linac and a HexaMotion programmable motion platform. High and low modulation VMAT plans for lung and prostate cancer cases were used along with eight patient-measured organ-specific trajectories. For both MLC leaf-fitting algorithms, the plans were run with their corresponding patient trajectories. To compare algorithms, the average exposure errors, i.e., the difference in shape between ideal and fitted MLC leaves by the algorithm, plan complexity and system latency of each experiment were calculated. RESULTS:Comparison of exposure errors for the in silico and phantom experiments showed minor differences between the two algorithms. The average exposure errors for in silico experiments with low/high plan complexity were 0.66/0.88 cm2 for direct optimization and 0.66/0.88 cm2 for piecewise optimization, respectively. The average exposure errors for the phantom experiments with low/high plan complexity were 0.73/1.02 cm2 for direct and 0.73/1.02 cm2 for piecewise optimization, respectively. The measured latency for the direct optimization was 226 ± 10 ms and for the piecewise algorithm was 228 ± 10 ms. In silico and phantom exposure errors quantified for each treatment plan demonstrated that the exposure errors from the high plan complexity (0.96 cm2 mean, 2.88 cm2 95% percentile) were all significantly different from the low plan complexity (0.70 cm2 mean, 2.18 cm2 95% percentile) (P < 0.001, two-tailed, Mann-Whitney statistical test). CONCLUSIONS:The comparison between the two leaf-fitting algorithms demonstrated no significant differences in exposure errors, neither in silico nor with phantom experiments. This study revealed that plan complexity impacts the overall exposure errors significantly more than the difference between the algorithms.
| S-EPMC7441573 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In this work, overshoot and undershoot effects associated with step-and-shoot IMRT (SSIMRT) delivery on a Varian Clinac 21iX are investigated, and their impact on patient-specific QA point dose measurements and treatment plan delivery are evaluated. Pinnacle3 SSIMRT plans consisting of 5, 10, and 15 identical 5 × 5 cm2 MLC defined segments and MU/segment values of 5 MU, 10 MU, and 20 MU were utilized and delivered at 600/300 MU/min. Independent of the number of segments the overshoot and undershoot at 600 MU/min were approximately ± 10%, ± 5%, and ± 2.5% for 5 MU/segment, 10 MU/segment, and 20 MU/segment, respectively. At 300 MU/min, each of these values is approximately halved. Interfractional variation of these effects (10 fractions), as well as dosimetric variations for intermediate segments, are reduced at the lower dose rate. QA point-dose measurements for a sample (n = 29) of head and neck SSIMRT beams were on average 2.9% (600 MU/min) and 1.7% (300 MU/min) higher than Pinnacle3 planned doses. In comparison for prostate beams (n = 46), measured point doses were 0.8% (600 MU/min) and 0.4% (300 MU/min) higher. The reduction in planned-measured point-dose discrepancies at 300 MU/min can be attributed in part to the inclusion of the first segment (overshoot) in the admixture of segments that deliver measured dose. Pinnacle3 plans for 10/9 head and neck/prostate treatments were adjusted by ± 0.5 MU to include the effects of overshoot and undershoot at 600 MU/min. Comparing original and adjusted plans for each site indicated that the original plan was preferred in 70% and 89% of head and neck and prostate cases, respectively. The disparity between planned and delivered treatment that this suggests can potentially be mitigated by treating SSIMRT at a dose rate below 600 MU/min.
| S-EPMC5690035 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:To create a snapshot of common practices for 3D-CRT and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) QA through a large-scale survey and compare to TG-218 recommendations. METHODS:A survey of 3D-CRT and IMRT QA was constructed at and distributed by the IROC-Houston QA center to all institutions monitored by IROC (n = 2,861). The first part of the survey asked about methods to check dose delivery for 3D-CRT. The bulk of the survey focused on IMRT QA, inquiring about treatment modalities, standard tools used to verify planned dose, how assessment of agreement is calculated and the comparison criteria used, and the strategies taken if QA fails. RESULTS:The most common tools for dose verification were a 2D diode array (52.8%), point(s) measurement (39.0%), EPID (27.4%), and 2D ion chamber array (23.9%). When IMRT QA failed, the highest average rank strategy utilized was to remeasure with the same setup, which had an average position ranking of 1.1 with 90.4% of facilities employing this strategy. The second highest average ranked strategy was to move to a new calculation point and remeasure (54.9%); this had an average ranking of 2.1. CONCLUSION:The survey provided a snapshot of the current state of dose verification for IMRT radiotherapy. The results showed variability in approaches and that work is still needed to unify and tighten criteria in the medical physics community, especially in reference to TG-218's recommendations.
| S-EPMC7386182 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8292698 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We proposed to perform a basic dosimetry commissioning on a new imager sys-tem, the Varian aS1200 electronic portal imaging device (EPID) and TrueBeam 2.0 linear accelerator for flattened (FF) and flattening filter-free (FFF) beams, then to develop an image-based quality assurance (QA) model for verification of the system delivery accuracy for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treat-ments. For dosimetry testing, linearity of dose response with MU, imager lag, and effectiveness of backscatter shielding were investigated. Then, an image-based model was developed to convert images to planar dose onto a virtual water phantom. The model parameters were identified using energy fluence of the Acuros treatment planning system (TPS) and, reference dose profiles and output factors measured at depths of 5, 10, 15, and 20 cm in water phantom for square fields. To validate the model, its calculated dose was compared to measured dose from MapCHECK 2 diode arrays for 36 IMRT fields at 10 cm depth delivered with 6X, 6XFFF, 10X, and 10XFFF energies. An in-house gamma function was used to compare planar doses pixel-by-pixel. Finally, the method was applied to the same IMRT fields to verify their pretreatment delivery dose compared with Eclipse TPS dose. For the EPID commissioning, dose linearity was within 0.4% above 5 MU and ~ 1% above 2 MU, measured lag was smaller than the previous EPIDs, and profile symmetry was improved. The model was validated with mean gamma pass rates (standard deviation) of 99.0% (0.4%), 99.5% (0.6%), 99.3% (0.4%), and 98.0% (0.8%) at 3%/3 mm for respectively 6X, 6XFFF, 10X, and 10XFFF beams. Using the same comparison criteria, the beam deliveries were verified with mean pass rates of 100% (0.0%), 99.6% (0.3%), 99.9% (0.1%), and 98.7% (1.4%). Improvements were observed in dosimetric response of the aS1200 imager compared to previous EPID models, and the model was successfully developed for the new system and delivery energies of 6 and 10 MV, FF, and FFF modes.
| S-EPMC5690494 | biostudies-literature
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:PurposeTo evaluate the performance of Delta4DVH Anatomy in patient-specific intensity-modulated radiotherapy quality assurance.Materials and methodsDose 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.ResultsFor 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°.ConclusionsThe 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 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
Project description:To develop and implement a failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA)-based commissioning and quality assurance framework for dynamic multileaf collimator (DMLC) tumor tracking systems.A systematic failure mode and effect analysis was performed for a prototype real-time tumor tracking system that uses implanted electromagnetic transponders for tumor position monitoring and a DMLC for real-time beam adaptation. A detailed process tree of DMLC tracking delivery was created and potential tracking-specific failure modes were identified. For each failure mode, a risk probability number (RPN) was calculated from the product of the probability of occurrence, the severity of effect, and the detectibility of the failure. Based on the insights obtained from the FMEA, commissioning and QA procedures were developed to check (i) the accuracy of coordinate system transformation, (ii) system latency, (iii) spatial and dosimetric delivery accuracy, (iv) delivery efficiency, and (v) accuracy and consistency of system response to error conditions. The frequency of testing for each failure mode was determined from the RPN value.Failures modes with RPN > or = 125 were recommended to be tested monthly. Failure modes with RPN < 125 were assigned to be tested during comprehensive evaluations, e.g., during commissioning, annual quality assurance, and after major software/hardware upgrades. System latency was determined to be approximately 193 ms. The system showed consistent and accurate response to erroneous conditions. Tracking accuracy was within 3%-3 mm gamma (100% pass rate) for sinusoidal as well as a wide variety of patient-derived respiratory motions. The total time taken for monthly QA was approximately 35 min, while that taken for comprehensive testing was approximately 3.5 h.FMEA proved to be a powerful and flexible tool to develop and implement a quality management (QM) framework for DMLC tracking. The authors conclude that the use of FMEA-based QM ensures efficient allocation of clinical resources because the most critical failure modes receive the most attention. It is expected that the set of guidelines proposed here will serve as a living document that is updated with the accumulation of progressively more intrainstitutional and interinstitutional experience with DMLC tracking.
| S-EPMC3016096 | biostudies-other