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

Title: SU-F-T-301: Planar Dose Pass Rate Inflation Due to the MapCHECK Measurement Uncertainty Function

Abstract

Purpose: To quantify the effect of the Measurement Uncertainty function on planar dosimetry pass rates, as analyzed with Sun Nuclear Corporation analytic software (“MapCHECK” or “SNC Patient”). This optional function is toggled on by default upon software installation, and automatically increases the user-defined dose percent difference (%Diff) tolerance for each planar dose comparison. Methods: Dose planes from 109 IMRT fields and 40 VMAT arcs were measured with the MapCHECK 2 diode array, and compared to calculated planes from a commercial treatment planning system. Pass rates were calculated within the SNC analytic software using varying calculation parameters, including Measurement Uncertainty on and off. By varying the %Diff criterion for each dose comparison performed with Measurement Uncertainty turned off, an effective %Diff criterion was defined for each field/arc corresponding to the pass rate achieved with MapCHECK Uncertainty turned on. Results: For 3%/3mm analysis, the Measurement Uncertainty function increases the user-defined %Diff by 0.8–1.1% average, depending on plan type and calculation technique, for an average pass rate increase of 1.0–3.5% (maximum +8.7%). For 2%, 2 mm analysis, the Measurement Uncertainty function increases the user-defined %Diff by 0.7–1.2% average, for an average pass rate increase of 3.5–8.1% (maximum +14.2%). The largest increases in passmore » rate are generally seen with poorly-matched planar dose comparisons; the MapCHECK Uncertainty effect is markedly smaller as pass rates approach 100%. Conclusion: The Measurement Uncertainty function may substantially inflate planar dose comparison pass rates for typical IMRT and VMAT planes. The types of uncertainties incorporated into the function (and their associated quantitative estimates) as described in the software user’s manual may not accurately estimate realistic measurement uncertainty for the user’s measurement conditions. Pass rates listed in published reports or otherwise compared to the results of other users or vendors should clearly indicate whether the Measurement Uncertainty function is used.« less

Authors:
 [1]; ; ;  [2]
  1. Northside Hospital Cancer Institute, Atlanta, GA (United States)
  2. Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22648909
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; COMPUTER CODES; PLANNING; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY; RATS

Citation Formats

Bailey, D, Spaans, J, Kumaraswamy, L, and Podgorsak, M. SU-F-T-301: Planar Dose Pass Rate Inflation Due to the MapCHECK Measurement Uncertainty Function. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956486.
Bailey, D, Spaans, J, Kumaraswamy, L, & Podgorsak, M. SU-F-T-301: Planar Dose Pass Rate Inflation Due to the MapCHECK Measurement Uncertainty Function. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956486.
Bailey, D, Spaans, J, Kumaraswamy, L, and Podgorsak, M. 2016. "SU-F-T-301: Planar Dose Pass Rate Inflation Due to the MapCHECK Measurement Uncertainty Function". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956486.
@article{osti_22648909,
title = {SU-F-T-301: Planar Dose Pass Rate Inflation Due to the MapCHECK Measurement Uncertainty Function},
author = {Bailey, D and Spaans, J and Kumaraswamy, L and Podgorsak, M},
abstractNote = {Purpose: To quantify the effect of the Measurement Uncertainty function on planar dosimetry pass rates, as analyzed with Sun Nuclear Corporation analytic software (“MapCHECK” or “SNC Patient”). This optional function is toggled on by default upon software installation, and automatically increases the user-defined dose percent difference (%Diff) tolerance for each planar dose comparison. Methods: Dose planes from 109 IMRT fields and 40 VMAT arcs were measured with the MapCHECK 2 diode array, and compared to calculated planes from a commercial treatment planning system. Pass rates were calculated within the SNC analytic software using varying calculation parameters, including Measurement Uncertainty on and off. By varying the %Diff criterion for each dose comparison performed with Measurement Uncertainty turned off, an effective %Diff criterion was defined for each field/arc corresponding to the pass rate achieved with MapCHECK Uncertainty turned on. Results: For 3%/3mm analysis, the Measurement Uncertainty function increases the user-defined %Diff by 0.8–1.1% average, depending on plan type and calculation technique, for an average pass rate increase of 1.0–3.5% (maximum +8.7%). For 2%, 2 mm analysis, the Measurement Uncertainty function increases the user-defined %Diff by 0.7–1.2% average, for an average pass rate increase of 3.5–8.1% (maximum +14.2%). The largest increases in pass rate are generally seen with poorly-matched planar dose comparisons; the MapCHECK Uncertainty effect is markedly smaller as pass rates approach 100%. Conclusion: The Measurement Uncertainty function may substantially inflate planar dose comparison pass rates for typical IMRT and VMAT planes. The types of uncertainties incorporated into the function (and their associated quantitative estimates) as described in the software user’s manual may not accurately estimate realistic measurement uncertainty for the user’s measurement conditions. Pass rates listed in published reports or otherwise compared to the results of other users or vendors should clearly indicate whether the Measurement Uncertainty function is used.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956486},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • Purpose: The most common metric for comparing measured to calculated dose, such as for pretreatment quality assurance of intensity-modulated photon fields, is a pass rate (%) generated using percent difference (%Diff), distance-to-agreement (DTA), or some combination of the two (e.g., gamma evaluation). For many dosimeters, the grid of analyzed points corresponds to an array with a low areal density of point detectors. In these cases, the pass rates for any given comparison criteria are not absolute but exhibit statistical variability that is a function, in part, on the detector sampling geometry. In this work, the authors analyze the statistics ofmore » various methods commonly used to calculate pass rates and propose methods for establishing confidence intervals for pass rates obtained with low-density arrays. Methods: Dose planes were acquired for 25 prostate and 79 head and neck intensity-modulated fields via diode array and electronic portal imaging device (EPID), and matching calculated dose planes were created via a commercial treatment planning system. Pass rates for each dose plane pair (both centered to the beam central axis) were calculated with several common comparison methods: %Diff/DTA composite analysis and gamma evaluation, using absolute dose comparison with both local and global normalization. Specialized software was designed to selectively sample the measured EPID response (very high data density) down to discrete points to simulate low-density measurements. The software was used to realign the simulated detector grid at many simulated positions with respect to the beam central axis, thereby altering the low-density sampled grid. Simulations were repeated with 100 positional iterations using a 1 detector/cm{sup 2} uniform grid, a 2 detector/cm{sup 2} uniform grid, and similar random detector grids. For each simulation, %/DTA composite pass rates were calculated with various %Diff/DTA criteria and for both local and global %Diff normalization techniques. Results: For the prostate and head/neck cases studied, the pass rates obtained with gamma analysis of high density dose planes were 2%-5% higher than respective %/DTA composite analysis on average (ranging as high as 11%), depending on tolerances and normalization. Meanwhile, the pass rates obtained via local normalization were 2%-12% lower than with global maximum normalization on average (ranging as high as 27%), depending on tolerances and calculation method. Repositioning of simulated low-density sampled grids leads to a distribution of possible pass rates for each measured/calculated dose plane pair. These distributions can be predicted using a binomial distribution in order to establish confidence intervals that depend largely on the sampling density and the observed pass rate (i.e., the degree of difference between measured and calculated dose). These results can be extended to apply to 3D arrays of detectors, as well. Conclusions: Dose plane QA analysis can be greatly affected by choice of calculation metric and user-defined parameters, and so all pass rates should be reported with a complete description of calculation method. Pass rates for low-density arrays are subject to statistical uncertainty (vs. the high-density pass rate), but these sampling errors can be modeled using statistical confidence intervals derived from the sampled pass rate and detector density. Thus, pass rates for low-density array measurements should be accompanied by a confidence interval indicating the uncertainty of each pass rate.« less
  • Purpose: Currently there is no primary calibration standard for determining the absorbed dose rate-to-water at the surface of β-emitting concave ophthalmic applicators and plaques. Machining tolerances involved in the design of concave window extrapolation chambers are a limiting factor for development of such a standard. Use of a windowless extrapolation chamber avoids these window-machining tolerance issues. As a windowless extrapolation chamber has never been attempted, this work focuses on proof of principle measurements with a planar, windowless extrapolation chamber to verify the accuracy in comparison to initial calibration, which could be extended to the design of a hemispherical, windowless extrapolationmore » chamber. Methods: The window of an extrapolation chamber defines the electrical field, aids in aligning the source parallel to the collector-guard assembly, and decreases the backscatter due to attenuation of lower electron energy. To create a uniform and parallel electric field in this research, the source was made common to the collector-guard assembly. A precise positioning protocol was designed to enhance the parallelism of the source and collector-guard assembly. Additionally, MCNP5 was used to determine a backscatter correction factor to apply to the calibration. With these issues addressed, the absorbed dose rate-to-water of a Tracerlab 90Sr planar ophthalmic applicator was determined using National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) calibration formalism, and the results of five trials with this source were compared to measurements at NIST with a traditional extrapolation chamber. Results: The absorbed dose rate-to-water of the planar applicator was determined to be 0.473 Gy/s ±0.6%. Comparing these results to NIST's determination of 0.474 Gy/s yields a −0.6% difference. Conclusion: The feasibility of a planar, windowless extrapolation chamber has been demonstrated. A similar principle will be applied to developing a primary calibration standard for concave applicators and plaques. This research is funded by the customers of the University of Wisconsin Accredited Dosimetry Calibration Laboratory.« less
  • Purpose: Despite improvements of HDR brachytherapy delivery systems, verification of source position is still typically based on the length of the wire reeled out relative to the parked position. Yet, the majority of errors leading to medical events in HDR treatments continue to be classified as missed targets or wrong treatment sites. We investigate the feasibility of using dose maps acquired with a two-dimensional diode array to independently verify the source locations, dwell times, and dose during an HDR treatment. Methods: Custom correction factors were integrated into frame-by-frame raw counts recorded for a Varian VariSource™ HDR afterloader Ir-192 source locatedmore » at various distances in air and in solid water from a MapCHECK2™ diode array. The resultant corrected counts were analyzed to determine the dwell position locations and doses delivered. The local maxima of polynomial equations fitted to the extracted dwell dose profiles provided the X and Y coordinates while the distance to the source was determined from evaluation of the full width at half maximum (FWHM). To verify the approach, the experiment was repeated as the source was moved through dwell positions at various distances along an inclined plane, mimicking a vaginal cylinder treatment. Results: Dose map analysis was utilized to provide the coordinates of the source and dose delivered over each dwell position. The accuracy in determining source dwell positions was found to be +/−1.0 mm of the preset values, and doses within +/−3% of those calculated by the BrachyVision™ treatment planning system for all measured distances. Conclusion: Frame-by-frame data furnished by a 2 -D diode array can be used to verify the dwell positions and doses delivered by the HDR source over the course of treatment. Our studies have verified that measurements provided by the MapCHECK2™ can be used as a routine QA tool for HDR treatment delivery verification.« less
  • Shutdown dose rate (SDDR) analysis requires (a) a neutron transport calculation to estimate neutron flux fields, (b) an activation calculation to compute radionuclide inventories and associated photon sources, and (c) a photon transport calculation to estimate final SDDR. In some applications, accurate full-scale Monte Carlo (MC) SDDR simulations are needed for very large systems with massive amounts of shielding materials. However, these simulations are impractical because calculation of space- and energy-dependent neutron fluxes throughout the structural materials is needed to estimate distribution of radioisotopes causing the SDDR. Biasing the neutron MC calculation using an importance function is not simple becausemore » it is difficult to explicitly express the response function, which depends on subsequent computational steps. Furthermore, the typical SDDR calculations do not consider how uncertainties in MC neutron calculation impact SDDR uncertainty, even though MC neutron calculation uncertainties usually dominate SDDR uncertainty.« less