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

Title: SU-F-T-227: A Comprehensive Patient Specific, Structure Specific, Pre-Treatment 3D QA Protocol for IMRT, SBRT and VMAT - Clinical Experience

Abstract

Purpose: To present a 3D QA method and clinical results for 550 patients. Methods: Five hundred and fifty patient treatment deliveries (400 IMRT, 75 SBRT and 75 VMAT) from various treatment sites, planned on Raystation treatment planning system (TPS), were measured on three beam-matched Elekta linear accelerators using IBA’s COMPASS system. The difference between TPS computed and delivered dose was evaluated in 3D by applying three statistical parameters to each structure of interest: absolute average dose difference (AADD, 6% allowed difference), absolute dose difference greater than 6% (ADD6, 4% structure volume allowed to fail) and 3D gamma test (3%/3mm DTA, 4% structure volume allowed to fail). If the allowed value was not met for a given structure, manual review was performed. The review consisted of overlaying dose difference or gamma results with the patient CT, scrolling through the slices. For QA to pass, areas of high dose difference or gamma must be small and not on consecutive slices. For AADD to manually pass QA, the average dose difference in cGy must be less than 50cGy. The QA protocol also includes DVH analysis based on QUANTEC and TG-101 recommended dose constraints. Results: Figures 1–3 show the results for the three parametersmore » per treatment modality. Manual review was performed on 67 deliveries (27 IMRT, 22 SBRT and 18 VMAT), for which all passed QA. Results show that statistical parameter AADD may be overly sensitive for structures receiving low dose, especially for the SBRT deliveries (Fig.1). The TPS computed and measured DVH values were in excellent agreement and with minimum difference. Conclusion: Applying DVH analysis and different statistical parameters to any structure of interest, as part of the 3D QA protocol, provides a comprehensive treatment plan evaluation. Author G. Gueorguiev discloses receiving travel and research funding from IBA for unrelated to this project work. Author B. Crawford discloses receiving travel funding from IBA for unrelated to this project work.« less

Authors:
; ; ;  [1];  [2]; ; ; ;  [1];  [3]
  1. Massachusetts General Hospital Boston MA (United States)
  2. (United States)
  3. University of Massachusetts Lowell Lowell, MA (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22648844
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; DELIVERY; DIFFERENTIAL THERMAL ANALYSIS; LINEAR ACCELERATORS; PATIENTS; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY; REVIEWS

Citation Formats

Gueorguiev, G, Cotter, C, Young, M, Toomeh, D, University of Massachusetts Lowell Lowell, MA, Khan, F, Crawford, B, Turcotte, J, Sharp, G, and Mah’D, M. SU-F-T-227: A Comprehensive Patient Specific, Structure Specific, Pre-Treatment 3D QA Protocol for IMRT, SBRT and VMAT - Clinical Experience. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956366.
Gueorguiev, G, Cotter, C, Young, M, Toomeh, D, University of Massachusetts Lowell Lowell, MA, Khan, F, Crawford, B, Turcotte, J, Sharp, G, & Mah’D, M. SU-F-T-227: A Comprehensive Patient Specific, Structure Specific, Pre-Treatment 3D QA Protocol for IMRT, SBRT and VMAT - Clinical Experience. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956366.
Gueorguiev, G, Cotter, C, Young, M, Toomeh, D, University of Massachusetts Lowell Lowell, MA, Khan, F, Crawford, B, Turcotte, J, Sharp, G, and Mah’D, M. Wed . "SU-F-T-227: A Comprehensive Patient Specific, Structure Specific, Pre-Treatment 3D QA Protocol for IMRT, SBRT and VMAT - Clinical Experience". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956366.
@article{osti_22648844,
title = {SU-F-T-227: A Comprehensive Patient Specific, Structure Specific, Pre-Treatment 3D QA Protocol for IMRT, SBRT and VMAT - Clinical Experience},
author = {Gueorguiev, G and Cotter, C and Young, M and Toomeh, D and University of Massachusetts Lowell Lowell, MA and Khan, F and Crawford, B and Turcotte, J and Sharp, G and Mah’D, M},
abstractNote = {Purpose: To present a 3D QA method and clinical results for 550 patients. Methods: Five hundred and fifty patient treatment deliveries (400 IMRT, 75 SBRT and 75 VMAT) from various treatment sites, planned on Raystation treatment planning system (TPS), were measured on three beam-matched Elekta linear accelerators using IBA’s COMPASS system. The difference between TPS computed and delivered dose was evaluated in 3D by applying three statistical parameters to each structure of interest: absolute average dose difference (AADD, 6% allowed difference), absolute dose difference greater than 6% (ADD6, 4% structure volume allowed to fail) and 3D gamma test (3%/3mm DTA, 4% structure volume allowed to fail). If the allowed value was not met for a given structure, manual review was performed. The review consisted of overlaying dose difference or gamma results with the patient CT, scrolling through the slices. For QA to pass, areas of high dose difference or gamma must be small and not on consecutive slices. For AADD to manually pass QA, the average dose difference in cGy must be less than 50cGy. The QA protocol also includes DVH analysis based on QUANTEC and TG-101 recommended dose constraints. Results: Figures 1–3 show the results for the three parameters per treatment modality. Manual review was performed on 67 deliveries (27 IMRT, 22 SBRT and 18 VMAT), for which all passed QA. Results show that statistical parameter AADD may be overly sensitive for structures receiving low dose, especially for the SBRT deliveries (Fig.1). The TPS computed and measured DVH values were in excellent agreement and with minimum difference. Conclusion: Applying DVH analysis and different statistical parameters to any structure of interest, as part of the 3D QA protocol, provides a comprehensive treatment plan evaluation. Author G. Gueorguiev discloses receiving travel and research funding from IBA for unrelated to this project work. Author B. Crawford discloses receiving travel funding from IBA for unrelated to this project work.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956366},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016},
month = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016}
}
  • Purpose: The aim of this work is to quantify the impact of modeling the treatment couch on the passing rate of ion chamber measurements during VMAT quality assurance. Methods: For the initial characterization, attenuation and surface dose measurements were performed following the guidelines of TG-176 for the Civco Universal couch top using an Elekta VersaHD accelerator at an energy of 6 MV. A simulation CT was performed to aid in the creation of contours for representing the shape and size of the couch top in the treatment planning system (TPS). A uniform value of density for the couch wall wasmore » determined by comparing the ratios of ion chamber measurements made in a 30×30×11 cm3 water phantom with the TPS dose values of a plan with the same geometry. At our institution, patient specific quality assurance is performed using a Sun Nuclear ArcCheck with a multi-plug for chamber measurements, a 0.125cc PTW TN31010 chamber, and a Sun Nuclear 1010 electrometer. Ten VMAT plans were transferred into the phantom geometry created in the TPS with two settings: with and without the couch. The chamber measurements were compared to both treatment plans. Results: A maximum attenuation of 3.6% was observed when the gantry angle was set to 120 and 240 degrees, passing obliquely through the couch. A uniform density of 0.6 g/cm3 for the couch wall was determined in the TPS by comparison with measured data. The VMAT ion chamber measurement/plan ratios systematically improved by 1.79% ±0.53% for all patients when the couch was included in the calculation. Conclusion: The attenuation and surface dose changes produced by the Civco couch can generate observable dose difference in VMAT plans. Including a couch model in the phantom plan used for patient specific VMAT QA can improve the ionization chamber agreement by up to ∼2%.« less
  • Purpose: The purpose of this study is to inter-compare and find statistically significant differences between flattened field fixed-beam (FB) IMRT with flattening-filter free (FFF) volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for stereotactic body radiation therapy SBRT. Methods: SBRT plans using FB IMRT and FFF VMAT were generated for fifteen SBRT lung patients using 6 MV beams. For each patient, both IMRT and VMAT plans were created for comparison. Plans were generated utilizing RTOG 0915 (peripheral, 10 patients) and RTOG 0813 (medial, 5 patients) lung protocols. Target dose, critical structure dose, and treatment time were compared and tested for statistical significance. Parametersmore » of interest included prescription isodose surface coverage, target dose heterogeneity, high dose spillage (location and volume), low dose spillage (location and volume), lung dose spillage, and critical structure maximum- and volumetric-dose limits. Results: For all criteria, we found equivalent or higher conformality with VMAT plans as well as reduced critical structure doses. Several differences passed a Student's t-test of significance: VMAT reduced the high dose spillage, evaluated with conformality index (CI), by an average of 9.4%±15.1% (p=0.030) compared to IMRT. VMAT plans reduced the lung volume receiving 20 Gy by 16.2%±15.0% (p=0.016) compared with IMRT. For the RTOG 0915 peripheral lesions, the volumes of lung receiving 12.4 Gy and 11.6 Gy were reduced by 27.0%±13.8% and 27.5%±12.6% (for both, p<0.001) in VMAT plans. Of the 26 protocol pass/fail criteria, VMAT plans were able to achieve an average of 0.2±0.7 (p=0.026) more constraints than the IMRT plans. Conclusions: FFF VMAT has dosimetric advantages over fixed beam IMRT for lung SBRT. Significant advantages included increased dose conformity, and reduced organs-at-risk doses. The overall improvements in terms of protocol pass/fail criteria were more modest and will require more patient data to establish difference trends of more statistical significance.« less
  • Purpose: The RavenQA system (LAP Laser, Germany) is a QA device with a phosphor screen detector for performing the QA tasks of TG-142. This study tested if it is feasible to use the system for the patient specific QA of the Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT). Methods: Water equivalent material (5cm) is attached to the front of the detector plate of the RavenQA for dosimetry purpose. Then the plate is attached to the gantry to synchronize the movement between the detector and the gantry. Since the detector moves together with gantry, The ’Reset gantry to 0’ function of the Eclipsemore » planning system (Varian, CA) is used to simulate the measurement situation when calculating dose of the detector plate. The same gantry setup is used when delivering the treatment beam for feasibility test purposes. Cumulative dose is acquired for each arc. The optical scatter component of each captured image from the CCD camera is corrected by deconvolving the 2D spatial invariant optical scatter kernel (OSK). We assume that the OSK is a 2D isotropic point spread function with inverse-squared decrease as a function of radius from the center. Results: Three cases of VMAT plans including head & neck, whole pelvis and abdomen-pelvis are tested. Setup time for measurements was less than 5 minutes. Passing rates of absolute gamma were 99.3, 98.2, 95.9 respectively for 3%/3mm criteria and 96.2, 97.1, 86.4 for 2%/2mm criteria. The abdomen-pelvis field has long treatment fields, 37cm, which are longer than the detector plate (25cm). This plan showed relatively lower passing rate than other plans. Conclusion: An algorithm for IMRT/VMAT verification using the RavenQA has been developed and tested. The model of spatially invariant OSK works well for deconvolution purpose. It is proved that the RavenQA can be used for the patient specific verification of VMAT. This work is funded in part by a Maryland Industrial Partnership Program grant to University of Maryland and to JPLC who owns the Raven technology. John Wong is a co-founder of JPLC.« less
  • Purpose: Patient-specific QA procedures for IMRT and VMAT are traditionally performed by comparing TPS calculations with measured single point values and plane dose distributions by means of gamma analysis. New QA devices permit us to calculate 3D dose distributions on patient anatomy as redundant secondary check and reconstruct it from measurements taken with 2D and 3D detector arrays. 3D dose calculations allow us to perform DVH-based comparisons with clinical relevance, as well as 3D gamma analysis. One of these systems (Compass, IBA Dosimetry) combines traditional 2D with new anatomical-based 3D gamma analysis. This work shows the ability of this systemmore » by comparing 2D and 3D gamma analysis in pre-treatment QA for several VMAT prostate plans. Methods: Compass is capable of calculating dose as secondary check from DICOM TPS data and reconstructing it from measurements taken by a 2D ion chamber array (MatriXX Evolution, IBA Dosimetry). Both 2D and 3D gamma tests are available to compare calculated and reconstructed dose in Compass with TPS RT Dose. Results: 15 VMAT prostate plans have been measured with Compass. Dose is reconstructed with Compass for these plans. 2D gamma comparisons can be done for any plane from dose matrix. Mean gamma passing rates for isocenter planes (axial, coronal, sagittal) are (99.7±0.2)%, (99.9±0.1)%, (99.9±0.1)% for reconstructed dose planes. 3D mean gamma passing rates are (98.5±1.7)% for PTVs, (99.1±1.5)% for rectum, (100.0±0.0)% for bladder, (99.6±0.7)% for femoral heads and (98.1±4.1)% for penile bulb. Conclusion: Compass is a powerful tool to perform a complete pre-treatment QA analysis, from 2D techniques to 3D DVH-based techniques with clinical relevance. All reported values for VMAT prostate plans are in good agreement with TPS values. This system permits us to ensure the accuracy in the delivery of VMAT treatments completing a full patient-specific QA program.« less
  • Purpose: Due to the high dose per fraction in SBRT, dose conformity and dose fall-off are critical. In patients with cervical cancer, rapid dose fall-off is particularly important to limit dose to the nearby rectum, small bowel, and bladder. This study compares the target volume dose fall-off for two radiation delivery techniques, fixed-field IMRT & VMAT, using non-coplanar beam geometries. Further comparisons are made between 6 and 10MV photon beam energies. Methods: Eleven (n=11) patients were planned in Pinnacle3 v9.10 with a NovalisTx (HD120 MLC) machine model using 6 and 10 MV photons. The following three techniques were used: (1)more » IMRT (10 non-coplanar beams) (2) Dual, coplanar 360° VMAT arcs (4° spacing), and (3) Triple, non-coplanar VMAT arcs (1 full arc and dual partial arcs). All plans were normalized such that 98% of the PTV received at least 28Gy/4Fx. Dose was calculated using a 2.0mm isotropic dose grid. To assess dose fall-off, twenty concentric 2mm thick rings were created around the PTV. The maximum dose in each ring was recorded and the data was fitted to model dose fall-off. A separate analysis was performed by separating target volumes into small (0–50cc), medium (51–80cc), and large (81–110cc). Results: Triple, non-coplanar VMAT arcs showed the best dose fall-off for all patients evaluated. All fitted regressions had an R{sup 2}≥0.99. At 10mm from the PTV edge, 10 MV VMAT3-arc had an absolute improvement in dose fall-off of 3.8% and 6.9% over IMRT and VMAT2-arc, respectively. At 30mm, 10 MV VMAT3-arc had an absolute improvement of 12.0% and 7.0% over IMRT and VMAT2-arc, respectively. Faster dose fall-off was observed for small volumes as opposed to medium and large ones—9.6% at 20mm. Conclusion: Triple, non-coplanar VMAT arcs offer the sharpest dose fall-off for cervical SBRT plans. This improvement is most pronounced when treating smaller target volumes.« less