skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: SU-E-T-616: Plan Quality Assessment of Both Treatment Planning System Dose and Measurement-Based 3D Reconstructed Dose in the Patient

Abstract

Purpose: Systematic radiotherapy plan quality assessment promotes quality improvement. Software tools can perform this analysis by applying site-specific structure dose metrics. The next step is to similarly evaluate the quality of the dose delivery. This study defines metrics for acceptable doses to targets and normal organs for a particular treatment site and scores each plan accordingly. The input can be the TPS or the measurement-based 3D patient dose. From this analysis, one can determine whether the delivered dose distribution to the patient receives a score which is comparable to the TPS plan score, otherwise replanning may be indicated. Methods: Eleven neuroblastoma patient plans were exported from Eclipse to the Quality Reports program. A scoring algorithm defined a score for each normal and target structure based on dose-volume parameters. Each plan was scored by this algorithm and the percentage of total possible points was obtained. Each plan also underwent IMRT QA measurements with a Mapcheck2 or ArcCheck. These measurements were input into the 3DVH program to compute the patient 3D dose distribution which was analyzed using the same scoring algorithm as the TPS plan. Results: The mean quality score for the TPS plans was 75.37% (std dev=14.15%) compared to 71.95% (stdmore » dev=13.45%) for the 3DVH dose distribution. For 3/11 plans, the 3DVH-based quality score was higher than the TPS score, by between 0.5 to 8.4 percentage points. Eight/11 plans scores decreased based on IMRT QA measurements by 1.2 to 18.6 points. Conclusion: Software was used to determine the degree to which the plan quality score differed between the TPS and measurement-based dose. Although the delivery score was generally in good agreement with the planned dose score, there were some that improved while there was one plan whose delivered dose quality was significantly less than planned. This methodology helps evaluate both planned and delivered dose quality. Sun Nuclear Corporation has provded a license for the software described.« less

Authors:
 [1]
  1. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22538125
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 42; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2015 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; ALGORITHMS; COMPUTER CODES; NEOPLASMS; NERVE TISSUE; PATIENTS; QUALITY ASSURANCE; RADIATION DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS; RADIOTHERAPY

Citation Formats

Olch, A. SU-E-T-616: Plan Quality Assessment of Both Treatment Planning System Dose and Measurement-Based 3D Reconstructed Dose in the Patient. United States: N. p., 2015. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4924979.
Olch, A. SU-E-T-616: Plan Quality Assessment of Both Treatment Planning System Dose and Measurement-Based 3D Reconstructed Dose in the Patient. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4924979.
Olch, A. Mon . "SU-E-T-616: Plan Quality Assessment of Both Treatment Planning System Dose and Measurement-Based 3D Reconstructed Dose in the Patient". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4924979.
@article{osti_22538125,
title = {SU-E-T-616: Plan Quality Assessment of Both Treatment Planning System Dose and Measurement-Based 3D Reconstructed Dose in the Patient},
author = {Olch, A},
abstractNote = {Purpose: Systematic radiotherapy plan quality assessment promotes quality improvement. Software tools can perform this analysis by applying site-specific structure dose metrics. The next step is to similarly evaluate the quality of the dose delivery. This study defines metrics for acceptable doses to targets and normal organs for a particular treatment site and scores each plan accordingly. The input can be the TPS or the measurement-based 3D patient dose. From this analysis, one can determine whether the delivered dose distribution to the patient receives a score which is comparable to the TPS plan score, otherwise replanning may be indicated. Methods: Eleven neuroblastoma patient plans were exported from Eclipse to the Quality Reports program. A scoring algorithm defined a score for each normal and target structure based on dose-volume parameters. Each plan was scored by this algorithm and the percentage of total possible points was obtained. Each plan also underwent IMRT QA measurements with a Mapcheck2 or ArcCheck. These measurements were input into the 3DVH program to compute the patient 3D dose distribution which was analyzed using the same scoring algorithm as the TPS plan. Results: The mean quality score for the TPS plans was 75.37% (std dev=14.15%) compared to 71.95% (std dev=13.45%) for the 3DVH dose distribution. For 3/11 plans, the 3DVH-based quality score was higher than the TPS score, by between 0.5 to 8.4 percentage points. Eight/11 plans scores decreased based on IMRT QA measurements by 1.2 to 18.6 points. Conclusion: Software was used to determine the degree to which the plan quality score differed between the TPS and measurement-based dose. Although the delivery score was generally in good agreement with the planned dose score, there were some that improved while there was one plan whose delivered dose quality was significantly less than planned. This methodology helps evaluate both planned and delivered dose quality. Sun Nuclear Corporation has provded a license for the software described.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4924979},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 42,
place = {United States},
year = {Mon Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2015},
month = {Mon Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2015}
}
  • Purpose: To clinically evaluate the differences in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment plan and delivery between two commercial treatment planning systems. Methods: Two commercial VMAT treatment planning systems with different VMAT optimization algorithms and delivery approaches were evaluated. This study included 16 clinical VMAT plans performed with the first system: 2 spine, 4 head and neck (HN), 2 brain, 4 pancreas, and 4 pelvis plans. These 16 plans were then re-optimized with the same number of arcs using the second treatment planning system. Planning goals were invariant between the two systems. Gantry speed, dose rate modulation, MLC modulation, planmore » quality, number of monitor units (MUs), VMAT quality assurance (QA) results, and treatment delivery time were compared between the 2 systems. VMAT QA results were performed using Mapcheck2 and analyzed with gamma analysis (3mm/3% and 2mm/2%). Results: Similar plan quality was achieved with each VMAT optimization algorithm, and the difference in delivery time was minimal. Algorithm 1 achieved planning goals by highly modulating the MLC (total distance traveled by leaves (TL) = 193 cm average over control points per plan), while maintaining a relatively constant dose rate (dose-rate change <100 MU/min). Algorithm 2 involved less MLC modulation (TL = 143 cm per plan), but greater dose-rate modulation (range = 0-600 MU/min). The average number of MUs was 20% less for algorithm 2 (ratio of MUs for algorithms 2 and 1 ranged from 0.5-1). VMAT QA results were similar for all disease sites except HN plans. For HN plans, the average gamma passing rates were 88.5% (2mm/2%) and 96.9% (3mm/3%) for algorithm 1 and 97.9% (2mm/2%) and 99.6% (3mm/3%) for algorithm 2. Conclusion: Both VMAT optimization algorithms achieved comparable plan quality; however, fewer MUs were needed and QA results were more robust for Algorithm 2, which more highly modulated dose rate.« less
  • Purpose: In proton double-scattering radiotherapy, compensators are the essential patient specific devices to contour the distal dose distribution to the tumor target. Traditional compensator QA is limited to checking the drilled surface profiles against the plan. In our work, a compensator QA process was established that assess the entire compensator including its internal structure for patient 3D dose verification. Methods: The fabricated patient compensators were CT scanned. Through mathematical image processing and geometric transformations, the CT images of the proton compensator were combined with the patient simulation CT images into a new series of CT images, in which the imagedmore » compensator is placed at the planned location along the corresponding beam line. The new CT images were input into the Eclipse treatment planning system. The original plan was calculated to the combined CT image series without the plan compensator. The newly computed patient 3D dose from the combined patientcompensator images was verified against the original plan dose. Test plans include the compensators with defects intentionally created inside the fabricated compensators. Results: The calculated 3D dose with the combined compensator and patient CT images reflects the impact of the fabricated compensator to the patient. For the test cases in which no defects were created, the dose distributions were in agreement between our method and the corresponding original plans. For the compensator with the defects, the purposely changed material and a purposely created internal defect were successfully detected while not possible with just the traditional compensator profiles detection methods. Conclusion: We present here a 3D dose verification process to qualify the fabricated proton double-scattering compensator. Such compensator detection process assesses the patient 3D impact of the fabricated compensator surface profile as well as the compensator internal material and structure changes. This research receives funding support from CURA Medical Technologies.« less
  • Purpose: To estimate and compare the doses received by the obturator, external and internal iliac lymph nodes and point Methods: CT-MR fused image sets of 15 patients obtained for each of 5 fractions of HDR brachytherapy using tandem and ring applicator, were used to generate treatment plans optimized to deliver a prescription dose to HRCTV-D90 and to minimize the doses to organs at risk (OARs). For each set of image, target volume (GTV, HRCTV) OARs (Bladder, Rectum, Sigmoid), and both left and right pelvic lymph nodes (obturator, external and internal iliac lymph nodes) were delineated. Dose-volume histograms (DVH) were generatedmore » for pelvic nodal groups (left and right obturator group, internal and external iliac chains) Per fraction DVH parameters used for dose comparison included dose to 100% volume (D100), and dose received by 2cc (D2cc), 1cc (D1cc) and 0.1 cc (D0.1cc) of nodal volume. Dose to point B was compared with each DVH parameter using 2 sided t-test. Pearson correlation were determined to examine relationship of point B dose with nodal DVH parameters. Results: FIGO clinical stage varied from 1B1 to IIIB. The median pretreatment tumor diameter measured on MRI was 4.5 cm (2.7– 6.4cm).The median dose to bilateral point B was 1.20 Gy ± 0.12 or 20% of the prescription dose. The correlation coefficients were all <0.60 for all nodal DVH parameters indicating low degree of correlation. Only 2 cc of obturator nodes was not significantly different from point B dose on t-test. Conclusion: Dose to point B does not adequately represent the dose to any specific pelvic nodal group. When using image guided 3D dose-volume optimized treatment nodal groups should be individually identified and delineated to obtain the doses received by pelvic nodes.« less
  • Purpose: With the anticipated introduction of in vivo range verification methods, the use of anterior fields for proton therapy of prostate cancer may become an attractive treatment option, and improve upon the dose distributions achievable with conventional lateral-opposed fields. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the planned dose accuracy for lateral versus anterior oblique field arrangements. Methods: Four patients with low/intermediate risk prostate cancer, participating in a clinical trial at our institution, were selected for this study. All patients were treated using lateral-opposed fields (LAT). The clinical target volume (CTV) received a total dose of 79.2 Gy in 44more » fractions. Anterior oblique research plans (ANT) were created using the clinical planning system, and featured beams with ±35-degree gantry angle, 1.2 cm aperture margins, 3-mm range compensator smearing and no range uncertainty margins. Monte Carlo (MC) simulations were performed for both beam arrangements using TOPAS. Dose volume histograms were analyzed and compared for planned and MC dose distributions. Differences between MC and planned DVH parameters were computed as a percentage of the total prescribed dose. Results: For all patients, CTV dose was systematically lower (∼2–2.5%) for MC than the plan. This discrepancy was slightly larger (∼0.5%) for LAT compared to ANT plans for all cases. Although the dose differences for bladder and anterior rectal wall remained within 0.7% for all LAT cases, they were slightly larger for ANT plans, especially for case 3 due to larger patient size and MC-plan range difference. The EUD difference for femoral heads was within 0.6% for both LAT and ANT cases. Conclusion: The dose calculated by the treatment planning system using pencil beam algorithm agrees with MC to within 2.5% and is comparable for lateral and anterior scenarios. The dose agreement in the anterior rectal wall is range- and hence, patient-dependent for ANT treatments.« less
  • Purpose: This research investigates the use of Mult-ileaf Collimator (MLC) dynalog files to modify a Volumetric Arc Therapy (VMAT) DICOM Radiotherapy Treatment file from the Treatment Planning System (TPS) for quality assurance and treatment plan verification. Methods: Actual MLC positions and gantry angles where retrieved from the MLC Dynalog files of an approved and treated VMAT plan. The treatment machine used was a Novalis TX linac equipped with high definition MLC. The DICOM RT file of the plan was exported from the TPS (Eclipse, Varian Medical Systems) and the actual MLC leaf positions and gantry angles were inserted in placemore » of the planned positions for each control point. The modified DICOM RT file was then imported back into the TPS where dose calculations were performed. The resulting dose distributions were then exported to VeriSoft (PTW) where a 3D gamma was calculated using 3mm-3% and 2mm-2% criteria. A 2D gamma was also calculated using dose measurements on the Delta4 (Sandidose) phantom. Results: A 3D gamma was calculated in Verisoft at 3mm-3% of 99.5% and at 2mm-2% of 99.2%. The pretreatment verification on the Delta4 yielded a 2D gamma at 3mm-3% of 97.9% and at 2mm-2% of 88.5%. The dose volume histograms of the approved plan and the dynalog plan are virtually identical. Conclusion: Initial results show good agreement of the dynalog dose distribution with the approved plan. Future work on this research will aim to increase the number of patients and replace the planned fractionated dose per control point with the actual fractionated dose.« less