Dataset Information

Survey results of 3D-CRT and IMRT quality assurance practice.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Mehrens H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7386182 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Survey results of 3D-CRT and IMRT quality assurance practice.

Mehrens Hunter H Taylor Paige P Followill David S DS Kry Stephen F SF

Journal of applied clinical medical physics 20200430 7

<h4>Purpose</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>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 treatme ...[more]

PMID: 32351006

Similar Datasets

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: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.

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.

Dataset Information

Survey results of 3D-CRT and IMRT quality assurance practice.

Publications

Survey results of 3D-CRT and IMRT quality assurance practice.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets