Dataset Information

Clinical evaluation of an anatomy-based patient specific quality assurance system.

ABSTRACT: 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).

SUBMITTER: Hauri P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5875461 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical evaluation of an anatomy-based patient specific quality assurance system.

Hauri Pascal P Verlaan Sarah S Graydon Shaun S Ahnen Linda L Klöck Stephan S Lang Stephanie S

Journal of applied clinical medical physics 20140306 2

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 predictio ...[more]

PMID: 24710453

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:PurposeTo develop and validate an informatics toolkit that extracts anatomy-specific computed tomography (CT) radiation exposure metrics (volume CT dose index and dose-length product) from existing digital image archives through optical character recognition of CT dose report screen captures (dose screens) combined with Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine attributes.Materials and methodsThis institutional review board-approved HIPAA-compliant study was performed in a large urban health care delivery network. Data were drawn from a random sample of CT encounters that occurred between 2000 and 2010; images from these encounters were contained within the enterprise image archive, which encompassed images obtained at an adult academic tertiary referral hospital and its affiliated sites, including a cancer center, a community hospital, and outpatient imaging centers, as well as images imported from other facilities. Software was validated by using 150 randomly selected encounters for each major CT scanner manufacturer, with outcome measures of dose screen retrieval rate (proportion of correctly located dose screens) and anatomic assignment precision (proportion of extracted exposure data with correctly assigned anatomic region, such as head, chest, or abdomen and pelvis). The 95% binomial confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for discrete proportions, and CIs were derived from the standard error of the mean for continuous variables. After validation, the informatics toolkit was used to populate an exposure repository from a cohort of 54 549 CT encounters; of which 29 948 had available dose screens.ResultsValidation yielded a dose screen retrieval rate of 99% (597 of 605 CT encounters; 95% CI: 98%, 100%) and an anatomic assignment precision of 94% (summed DLP fraction correct 563 in 600 CT encounters; 95% CI: 92%, 96%). Patient safety applications of the resulting data repository include benchmarking between institutions, CT protocol quality control and optimization, and cumulative patient- and anatomy-specific radiation exposure monitoring.ConclusionLarge-scale anatomy-specific radiation exposure data repositories can be created with high fidelity from existing digital image archives by using open-source informatics tools.

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:BackgroundThe responsible use of 3D-printing in medicine includes a context-based quality assurance. Considerable literature has been published in this field, yet the quality of assessment varies widely. The limited discriminatory power of some assessment methods challenges the comparison of results. The total error for patient specific anatomical models comprises relevant partial errors of the production process: segmentation error (SegE), digital editing error (DEE), printing error (PrE). The present review provides an overview to improve the general understanding of the process specific errors, quantitative analysis, and standardized terminology.MethodsThis review focuses on literature on quality assurance of patient-specific anatomical models in terms of geometric accuracy published before December 4th, 2022 (n = 139). In an attempt to organize the literature, the publications are assigned to comparable categories and the absolute values of the maximum mean deviation (AMMD) per publication are determined therein.ResultsThe three major examined types of original structures are teeth or jaw (n = 52), skull bones without jaw (n = 17) and heart with coronary arteries (n = 16). VPP (vat photopolymerization) is the most frequently employed basic 3D-printing technology (n = 112 experiments). The median values of AMMD (AMMD: The metric AMMD is defined as the largest linear deviation, based on an average value from at least two individual measurements.) are 0.8 mm for the SegE, 0.26 mm for the PrE and 0.825 mm for the total error. No average values are found for the DEE.ConclusionThe total error is not significantly higher than the partial errors which may compensate each other. Consequently SegE, DEE and PrE should be analyzed individually to describe the result quality as their sum according to rules of error propagation. Current methods for quality assurance of the segmentation are often either realistic and accurate or resource efficient. Future research should focus on implementing models for cost effective evaluations with high accuracy and realism. Our system of categorization may be enhancing the understanding of the overall process and a valuable contribution to the structural design and reporting of future experiments. It can be used to educate specialists for risk assessment and process validation within the additive manufacturing industry.

Project description:The purpose of this work was to develop an end-to-end patient-specific quality assurance (QA) technique for spot-scanned proton therapy that is more sensitive and efficient than traditional approaches. The patient-specific methodology relies on independently verifying the accuracy of the delivered proton fluence and the dose calculation in the heterogeneous patient volume. A Monte Carlo dose calculation engine, which was developed in-house, recalculates a planned dose distribution on the patient CT data set to verify the dose distribution represented by the treatment planning system. The plan is then delivered in a pre-treatment setting and logs of spot position and dose monitors, which are integrated into the treatment nozzle, are recorded. A computational routine compares the delivery log to the DICOM spot map used by the Monte Carlo calculation to ensure that the delivered parameters at the machine match the calculated plan. Measurements of dose planes using independent detector arrays, which historically are the standard approach to patient-specific QA, are not performed for every patient. The nozzle-integrated detectors are rigorously validated using independent detectors in regular QA intervals. The measured data are compared to the expected delivery patterns. The dose monitor reading deviations are reported in a histogram, while the spot position discrepancies are plotted vs. spot number to facilitate independent analysis of both random and systematic deviations. Action thresholds are linked to accuracy of the commissioned delivery system. Even when plan delivery is acceptable, the Monte Carlo second check system has identified dose calculation issues which would not have been illuminated using traditional, phantom-based measurement techniques. The efficiency and sensitivity of our patient-specific QA program has been improved by implementing a procedure which independently verifies patient dose calculation accuracy and plan delivery fidelity. Such an approach to QA requires holistic integration and maintenance of patient-specific and patient-independent QA.

Dataset Information

Clinical evaluation of an anatomy-based patient specific quality assurance system.

Publications

Clinical evaluation of an anatomy-based patient specific quality assurance system.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets