Dataset Information

Brachytherapy dose-volume histogram commissioning with multiple planning systems.

ABSTRACT: The first quality assurance process for validating dose-volume histogram data involving brachytherapy procedures in radiation therapy is presented. The process is demonstrated using both low dose-rate and high dose-rate radionuclide sources. A rectangular cuboid was contoured in five commercially available brachytherapy treatment planning systems. A single radioactive source commissioned for QA testing was positioned coplanar and concentric with one end. Using the brachytherapy dosimetry formalism defined in the AAPM Task Group 43 report series, calculations were performed to estimate dose deposition in partial volumes of the cuboid structure. The point-source approximation was used for a 125I source and the line-source approximation was used for a 192Ir source in simulated permanent and temporary implants, respectively. Hand-calculated, dose-volume results were compared to TPS-generated, dose-volume histogram (DVH) data to ascertain acceptance. The average disagreement observed between hand calculations and the treatment planning system DVH was less than 1% for the five treatment planning systems and less than 5% for 1 cm ? r ? 5 cm. A reproducible method for verifying the accuracy of volumetric statistics from a radiation therapy TPS can be employed. The process satisfies QA requirements for TPS commissioning, upgrading, and annual testing. We suggest that investigations be performed if the DVH %Vol(TPS) "actual variance" calculations differ by more than 5% at any specific radial distance with respect to %Vol(TG-43), or if the "average variance" DVH %Vol(TPS) calculations differ by more than 2% over all radial distances with respect to %Vol(TG-43).

SUBMITTER: Gossman MS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5875493 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Brachytherapy dose-volume histogram commissioning with multiple planning systems.

Gossman Michael S MS Hancock Samuel S SS Kudchadker Rajat J RJ Lundahl Paul R PR Cao Minsong M Melhus Christopher S CS

Journal of applied clinical medical physics 20140306 2

The first quality assurance process for validating dose-volume histogram data involving brachytherapy procedures in radiation therapy is presented. The process is demonstrated using both low dose-rate and high dose-rate radionuclide sources. A rectangular cuboid was contoured in five commercially available brachytherapy treatment planning systems. A single radioactive source commissioned for QA testing was positioned coplanar and concentric with one end. Using the brachytherapy dosimetry formali ...[more]

PMID: 24710449

Similar Datasets

Project description:The purpose of this work is to evaluate the performance of applying patient dosimetric information induced by individual uniform-intensity radiation fields in organ-at risk (OAR) dose-volume histogram (DVH) prediction, and extend to DVH prediction of planning target volume (PTV). Ninety nasopharyngeal cancer intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans and 60 rectal cancer volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were employed in this study. Of these, 20 nasopharyngeal cancer cases and 15 rectal cancer cases were randomly selected as the testing data. The DVH prediction was performed using two methods. One method applied the individual dose-volume histograms (IDVHs) induced by a series of fields with uniform-intensity irradiation and the other method applied the distance-to-target histogram and the conformal-plan-dose-volume histogram (DTH + CPDVH). The determination coefficient R2 and mean absolute error (MAE) were used to evaluate DVH prediction accuracy. The PTV DVH prediction was performed using the IDVHs. The PTV dose coverage was evaluated using D98, D95, D1 and uniformity index (UI). The OAR dose was compared using the maximum dose, V30 and V40. The significance of the results was examined with the Wilcoxon signed rank test. For PTV DVH prediction using IDVHs, the clinical plan and IDVHs prediction method achieved mean UI values of 1.07 and 1.06 for nasopharyngeal cancer, and 1.04 and 1.05 for rectal cancer, respectively. No significant difference was found between the clinical plan results and predicted results using the IDVHs method in achieving PTV dose coverage (D98, D95, D1 and UI) for both nasopharyngeal cancer and rectal cancer (p-values ≥ 0.052). For OAR DVH prediction, no significant difference was found between the IDVHs and DTH + CPDVH methods for the R2, MAE, the maximum dose, V30 and V40 (p-values ≥ 0.087 for all OARs). This work evaluates the performance of dosimetric information of several individual fields with uniform-intensity radiation for DVH prediction, and extends its application to PTV DVH prediction. The results indicated that the IDVHs method is comparable to the DTH + CPDVH method in accurately predicting the OAR DVH. The IDVHs method quantified the input features of the PTV and showed reliable PTV DVH prediction, which is helpful for plan quality evaluation and plan generation.

Project description:The aim of this work is to evaluate the performance of a commercial brachytherapy treatment planning system (TPS) with TG-43 Vendors Input Data (VID), analyze possible discrepancies with respect to a proper reference source and its implications for standard treatments, and judge the effectiveness of certain widespread recommended quality controls to find potential errors related with the interpolations of TG-43 VID tables. The TPS evaluated was a BrachyVision 8.6 loaded with TG-43 VID for a VariSource high-dose-rate 192Ir source (Vs2000). The reference data chosen were the TG-43 data published in the literature. In the first step, we compared TG-43 VID with respect to the chosen reference data. Next, we used percent dose-rate differences in a point array matrix to compare the outcomes of the TPS on standard treatment setup with respect to an in-house developed program (MATLAB R2009a-based) loaded with the chosen full TG-43 reference data. The cases with major discrepancies were evaluated using the gamma-index analysis. The comparison with the reference data indicated a lack of sample in the angles between near to the tip (between 165 < θ < 180) and cable (0 < θ < 15) of the F(r,θ)(VID), which causes a dose underestimation of approximately 17% in the investigated points due to inaccurate interpolations. The differences over 2% encompassed approximately 17% of the surrounding source volume. These results have special relevance in treatment using one applicator with a few dwell steps or in Fletcher treatments where 10% dose underestimates were identified within the tumor or in organs at risk, respectively. Our results suggest that the differences found in the TPS under study are created by a lack of information on the angles in high-gradient zones in the F(r,θ)(VID), which generates important differences in dosimetric results. In contrast, the gamma analysis shows very good results (between 90% and 100% of passed points) in the analyzed treatments (one dwell and Fletcher). Further studies are required to exclude the possibility of finding noticeable effects in the DVH of treatment plans caused by the discrepancies here described. To achieve more strict control over the TPS dose-rate calculation, we recommend using QA test thinking in a source with nonaxial symmetry, adding a control point on the angles of the high-dose gradient zones (e.g., between 0° and 15° and between 165° and 180°). More studies are required to achieve full understanding of the clinical implication of such discrepancies.

Project description:MIM Symphony is a recently introduced low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy treatment planning system (TPS). We evaluated the dosimetric and planning accuracy of this new TPS compared to the universally used VariSeed TPS. For dosimetric evaluation of the MIM Symphony version 5.4 TPS, we compared dose calculations from the MIM Symphony TPS with the formalism recommended by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 43 report (TG-43) and those generated by the VariSeed version 8.0 TPS for iodine-125 (I-125; Models 6711 and IAI-125A), palladium-103 (Pd-103; Model 200), and cesium-131 (Cs-131; Model Cs-1). Validation was performed for both line source and point source approximations. As part of the treatment planning validation, first a QA phantom (CIRS Brachytherapy QA Phantom Model 045 SN#D7210-3) containing three ellipsoid objects with certified volumes was scanned in order to check the volume accuracy of the contoured structures in MIM Symphony. Then the DICOM data containing 100 patient plans from the VariSeed TPS were imported into the MIM Symphony TPS. The 100 plans included 25 each of I-125 pre-implant plans, Pd-103 pre-implant plans, I-125 Day 30 plans (i.e., from 1 month after implantation), and Pd-103 Day 30 plans. The dosimetric parameters (including prostate volume, prostate D90 values, and rectum V100 values) of the 100 plans were calculated independently on the two TPSs. Other TPS tests that were done included verification of source input and geometrical accuracy, data transfer between different planning systems, text printout, 2D dose plots, DVH printout, and template grid accuracy. According to the line source formalism, the dosimetric results between the MIM Symphony TPS and TG-43 were within 0.5% (0.02 Gy) for r > 1 cm. In the line source approximation validation, MIM Symphony TPS values agreed with VariSeed TPS values to within 0.5% (0.09 Gy) for r > 1 cm. Similarly, in point source approximation validation, the MIM Symphony values agreed to within 1% of the TG-43 and VariSeed values for r > 1 cm. The volume calculations obtained from the MIM Symphony TPS for the CIRS Brachytherapy QA Phantom were within 1% of the actual volume of the phantom. For the clinical cases, the volume and dosimetric parameter calculations for the prostate and rectum did not differ substantially between the pre-implant and Day 30 plans. Overall, our investigations showed negligible differences in dosimetry calculations and planning parameters between the two TPSs. The tests done to check the performance of the MIM Symphony TPS, such as the library data, data transfer, isodose and DVH printout, were found to be satisfactory. On the basis of these results, we conclude that the MIM Symphony TPS can be used as an alternative to the VariSeed TPS for low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy.

Dataset Information

Brachytherapy dose-volume histogram commissioning with multiple planning systems.

Publications

Brachytherapy dose-volume histogram commissioning with multiple planning systems.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets