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

Title: SU-F-T-285: Evaluation of a Patient DVH-Based IMRT QA System

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the clinical performance of a patient DVH-based QA system for prostate VMAT QA. Methods: Mobius3D(M3D) is a QA software with an independent beam model and dose engine. The MobiusFX(MFX) add-on predicts patient dose using treatment machine log files. We commissioned the Mobius beam model in two steps. First, the stock beam model was customized using machine commissioning data, then verified against the TPS with 12 simple phantom plans and 7 clinical 3D plans. Secondly, the Dosimetric Leaf Gap(DLG) in the Mobius model was fine-tuned for VMAT treatment based on ion chamber measurements for 6 clinical VMAT plans. Upon successful commissioning, we retrospectively performed IMRT QA for 12 VMAT plans with the Mobius system as well as the ArcCHECK-3DVH system. Selected patient DVH values (PTV D95, D50; Bladder D2cc, Dmean; Rectum D2cc) were compared between TPS, M3D, MFX, and 3DVH. Results: During the first commissioning step, TPS and M3D calculated target Dmean for 3D plans agree within 0.7%±0.7%, with 3D gamma passing rates of 98%±2%. In the second commissioning step, the Mobius DLG was adjusted by 1.2mm from the stock value, reducing the average difference between MFX calculation and ion chamber measurement from 3.2% to 0.1%. In retrospectivemore » prostate VMAT QA, 5 of 60 MFX calculated DVH values have a deviation greater than 5% compared to TPS. One large deviation at high dose level was identified as a potential QA failure. This echoes the 3DVH QA result, which identified 2 instances of large DVH deviation on the same structure. For all DVH’s evaluated, M3D and MFX show high level of agreement (0.1%±0.2%), indicating that the observed deviation is likely from beam modelling differences rather than delivery errors. Conclusion: Mobius system provides a viable solution for DVH based VMAT QA, with the capability of separating TPS and delivery errors.« less

Authors:
; ; ;  [1]
  1. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22648897
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; BEAMS; COMMISSIONING; COMPUTER CODES; IONIZATION CHAMBERS; PATIENTS; RADIOTHERAPY; SIMULATION

Citation Formats

Zhen, H, Redler, G, Chu, J, and Turian, J. SU-F-T-285: Evaluation of a Patient DVH-Based IMRT QA System. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956425.
Zhen, H, Redler, G, Chu, J, & Turian, J. SU-F-T-285: Evaluation of a Patient DVH-Based IMRT QA System. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956425.
Zhen, H, Redler, G, Chu, J, and Turian, J. 2016. "SU-F-T-285: Evaluation of a Patient DVH-Based IMRT QA System". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956425.
@article{osti_22648897,
title = {SU-F-T-285: Evaluation of a Patient DVH-Based IMRT QA System},
author = {Zhen, H and Redler, G and Chu, J and Turian, J},
abstractNote = {Purpose: To evaluate the clinical performance of a patient DVH-based QA system for prostate VMAT QA. Methods: Mobius3D(M3D) is a QA software with an independent beam model and dose engine. The MobiusFX(MFX) add-on predicts patient dose using treatment machine log files. We commissioned the Mobius beam model in two steps. First, the stock beam model was customized using machine commissioning data, then verified against the TPS with 12 simple phantom plans and 7 clinical 3D plans. Secondly, the Dosimetric Leaf Gap(DLG) in the Mobius model was fine-tuned for VMAT treatment based on ion chamber measurements for 6 clinical VMAT plans. Upon successful commissioning, we retrospectively performed IMRT QA for 12 VMAT plans with the Mobius system as well as the ArcCHECK-3DVH system. Selected patient DVH values (PTV D95, D50; Bladder D2cc, Dmean; Rectum D2cc) were compared between TPS, M3D, MFX, and 3DVH. Results: During the first commissioning step, TPS and M3D calculated target Dmean for 3D plans agree within 0.7%±0.7%, with 3D gamma passing rates of 98%±2%. In the second commissioning step, the Mobius DLG was adjusted by 1.2mm from the stock value, reducing the average difference between MFX calculation and ion chamber measurement from 3.2% to 0.1%. In retrospective prostate VMAT QA, 5 of 60 MFX calculated DVH values have a deviation greater than 5% compared to TPS. One large deviation at high dose level was identified as a potential QA failure. This echoes the 3DVH QA result, which identified 2 instances of large DVH deviation on the same structure. For all DVH’s evaluated, M3D and MFX show high level of agreement (0.1%±0.2%), indicating that the observed deviation is likely from beam modelling differences rather than delivery errors. Conclusion: Mobius system provides a viable solution for DVH based VMAT QA, with the capability of separating TPS and delivery errors.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956425},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • Purpose: Raven QA (JPLC, MD) is a unified and comprehensive quality assurance system for QA of TG-142, which use a phosphor screen, a mirror system and a camera. It is to test if this device can be used for IMRT QA dosimetry. Methods: A lung IMRT case is used deliver dose to Raven QA. Accuracy of dose distribution of 5cm slab phantom using Eclipse planning system (Varian) has been confirmed both from a Monte Carlo Simulation and from a MapCheck (SunNuclear) measurement. Geometric distortion and variation of spatial dose response are corrected after background subtraction. A pin-hole grid plate ismore » designed and used to determine the light scatter in the Raven QA box and the spatial dose response. Optic scatter model was not applied in this preliminary study. Dose is normalized to the response of the 10×10 field and the TMR of 5cm depth was considered. Results: Time to setup the device for IMRT QA takes less than 5 minutes as other commercially available devices. It shows excellent dose linearity and dose rate independent, less than 1 %. Background signal, however, changes for different field sizes. It is believed to be due to inaccurate correction of optic scatter. Absolute gamma (5%, 5mm) passing rate was higher than 95%. Conclusion: This study proves that the Raven QA can be used for a patient specific IMRT verification. Part of this study is supported by the Maryland Industrial Partnership Grant.« less
  • Purpose: This research, investigates the viability of using the Electronic portal imaging device (EPID) coupled with the treatment planning system (TPS), to calculate the doses delivered and verify agreement with the treatment plan. The results of QA analysis using the EPID, Delta4 and fluence calculations using the multi-leaf collimator (MLC) dynalog files on 10 IMRT patients are presented in this study. Methods: EPID Fluence Images in integrated mode and Dynalog files for each field were acquired for 10 IMRT (6MV) patients and processed through an in house MatLab program to create an opening density matrix (ODM) which was used asmore » the input fluence for dose calculation with the TPS (Pinnacle3, Philips). The EPID used in this study was the aSi1000 Varian on a Novalis TX linac equipped with high definition MLC. The resulting dose distributions were then exported to VeriSoft (PTW) where a 3D gamma was calculated using 3mm-3% criteria. The Scandidos Delta4 phantom was also used to measure a 2D dose distribution for all 10 patients and a 2D gamma was calculated for each patient using the Delta4 software. Results: The average 3D gamma for all 10 patients using the EPID images was 98.2% ± 2.6%. The average 3D gamma using the dynalog files was 94.6% ± 4.9%. The average 2D gamma from the Delta4 was 98.1% ± 2.5%. The minimum 3D gamma for the EPID and dynalog reconstructed dose distributions was found on the same patient which had a very large PTV, requiring the jaws to open to the maximum field size. Conclusion: Use of the EPID, combined with a TPS is a viable method for QA of IMRT plans. A larger ODM size can be implemented to accommodate larger field sizes. An adaptation of this process to Volumetric Arc Therapy (VMAT) is currently under way.« less
  • A new inverse treatment planning system (TPS) for external beam radiation therapy with high energy photons is commercially available that utilizes both dose-volume-based cost functions and a selection of cost functions which are based on biological models. The purpose of this work is to evaluate quality of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans resulting from the use of biological cost functions in comparison to plans designed using a traditional TPS employing dose-volume-based optimization. Treatment planning was performed independently at two institutions. For six cancer patients, including head and neck (one case from each institution), prostate, brain, liver, and rectal cases, segmentalmore » multileaf collimator IMRT plans were designed using biological cost functions and compared with clinically used dose-based plans for the same patients. Dose-volume histograms and dosimetric indices, such as minimum, maximum, and mean dose, were extracted and compared between the two types of treatment plans. Comparisons of the generalized equivalent uniform dose (EUD), a previously proposed plan quality index (fEUD), target conformity and heterogeneity indices, and the number of segments and monitor units were also performed. The most prominent feature of the biologically based plans was better sparing of organs at risk (OARs). When all plans from both institutions were combined, the biologically based plans resulted in smaller EUD values for 26 out of 33 OARs by an average of 5.6 Gy (range 0.24 to 15 Gy). Owing to more efficient beam segmentation and leaf sequencing tools implemented in the biologically based TPS compared to the dose-based TPS, an estimated treatment delivery time was shorter in most (five out of six) cases with some plans showing up to 50% reduction. The biologically based plans were generally characterized by a smaller conformity index, but greater heterogeneity index compared to the dose-based plans. Overall, compared to plans based on dose-volume optimization, plans with equivalent target coverage obtained using the biologically based TPS demonstrate improved dose distributions for the majority of normal structures.« less
  • Purpose: As a module of ARCHER -- Accelerated Radiation-transport Computations in Heterogeneous EnviRonments, ARCHER{sub RT} is designed for RadioTherapy (RT) dose calculation. This paper describes the application of ARCHERRT on patient-dependent TomoTherapy and patient-independent IMRT. It also conducts a 'fair' comparison of different GPUs and multicore CPU. Methods: The source input used for patient-dependent TomoTherapy is phase space file (PSF) generated from optimized plan. For patient-independent IMRT, the open filed PSF is used for different cases. The intensity modulation is simulated by fluence map. The GEANT4 code is used as benchmark. DVH and gamma index test are employed to evaluatemore » the accuracy of ARCHER{sub RT} code. Some previous studies reported misleading speedups by comparing GPU code with serial CPU code. To perform a fairer comparison, we write multi-thread code with OpenMP to fully exploit computing potential of CPU. The hardware involved in this study are a 6-core Intel E5-2620 CPU and 6 NVIDIA M2090 GPUs, a K20 GPU and a K40 GPU. Results: Dosimetric results from ARCHER{sub RT} and GEANT4 show good agreement. The 2%/2mm gamma test pass rates for different clinical cases are 97.2% to 99.7%. A single M2090 GPU needs 50~79 seconds for the simulation to achieve a statistical error of 1% in the PTV. The K40 card is about 1.7∼1.8 times faster than M2090 card. Using 6 M2090 card, the simulation can be finished in about 10 seconds. For comparison, Intel E5-2620 needs 507∼879 seconds for the same simulation. Conclusion: We successfully applied ARCHER{sub RT} to Tomotherapy and patient-independent IMRT, and conducted a fair comparison between GPU and CPU performance. The ARCHER{sub RT} code is both accurate and efficient and may be used towards clinical applications.« less
  • Purpose: Using Linac dynamic logs (Dynalogs) we evaluate the impact of a single failing MLC motor on the deliverability of an IMRT plan by assessing the recalculated dose volume histograms (DVHs) taking the delivered MLC positions and beam hold-offs into consideration. Methods: This is a retrospective study based on a deteriorating MLC motor (leaf 36B) which was observed to be failing via Dynalog analysis. To investigate further, Eclipse-importable MLC files were generated from Dynalogs to recalculate the actual delivered dose and to assess the clinical impact through DVHs. All deliveries were performed on a Varian 21EX linear accelerator equipped withmore » Millennium-120 MLC. The analysis of Dynalog files and subsequent conversion to Eclipse-importable MLC files were all performed by in-house programming in Python. Effects on plan DVH are presented in the following section on a particular brain-IMRT plan which was delivered with a failing MLC motor which was then replaced. Results: Global max dose increased by 13.5%, max dose to the brainstem PRV increased by 8.2%, max dose to the optic chiasm increased by 7.6%, max dose to optic nerve increased by 8.8% and the mean dose to the PTV increased by 7.9% when comparing the original plan to the fraction with the failing MLC motor. The reason the dose increased was due to the failure being on the B-bank which is the lagging side on a sliding window delivery, therefore any failures on this side will cause an over-irradiation as the B-bank leaves struggles to keep the window from growing. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that a single failing MLC motor may jeopardize the entire delivery. This may be due to the bad MLC motor drawing too much current causing all MLCs on the same bank to underperform. This hypothesis will be investigated in a future study.« less