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

Title: SU-F-T-303: Quantification of MLC Positioning Accuracy in VMAT Delivery of Head and Neck Cancer Treatment

Abstract

Purpose: Knowing MLC leaf positioning error over the course of treatment would be valuable for treatment planning, QA design, and patient safety. The objective of the current study was to quantify the MLC positioning accuracy for VMAT delivery of head and neck treatment plans. Methods: A total of 837 MLC log files were collected from 14 head and neck cancer patients undergoing full arc VMAT treatment on one Varian Trilogy machine. The actual and planned leaf gaps were extracted from the retrieved MLC log files. For a given patient, the leaf gap error percentage (LGEP), defined as the ratio of the actual leaf gap over the planned, was evaluated for each leaf pair at all the gantry angles recorded over the course of the treatment. Statistics describing the distribution of the largest LGEP (LLGEP) of the 60 leaf pairs including the maximum, minimum, mean, Kurtosis, and skewness were evaluated. Results: For the 14 studied patients, their PTV located at tonsil, base of tongue, larynx, supraglottis, nasal cavity, and thyroid gland with volume ranging from 72.0 cm{sup 3} to 602.0 cm{sup 3}. The identified LLGEP differed between patients. It ranged from 183.9% to 457.7% with a mean of 368.6%. For themore » majority of the patients, the LLGEP distributions peaked at non-zero positions and showed no obvious dependence on gantry rotations. Kurtosis and skewness, with minimum/maximum of 66.6/217.9 and 6.5/12.6, respectively, suggested relatively more peaked while right-skewed leaf error distribution pattern. Conclusion: The results indicate pattern of MLC leaf gap error differs between patients of lesion located at similar anatomic site. Understanding the systemic mechanisms underlying these observed error patterns necessitates examining more patient-specific plan parameters in a large patient cohort setting.« less

Authors:
;  [1]
  1. University Of Miami, Miami, FL (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22648911
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; ACCURACY; ERRORS; NECK; NEOPLASMS; PATIENTS; PLANNING; POSITIONING; RADIOTHERAPY

Citation Formats

Li, X, and Yang, F. SU-F-T-303: Quantification of MLC Positioning Accuracy in VMAT Delivery of Head and Neck Cancer Treatment. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956488.
Li, X, & Yang, F. SU-F-T-303: Quantification of MLC Positioning Accuracy in VMAT Delivery of Head and Neck Cancer Treatment. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956488.
Li, X, and Yang, F. 2016. "SU-F-T-303: Quantification of MLC Positioning Accuracy in VMAT Delivery of Head and Neck Cancer Treatment". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956488.
@article{osti_22648911,
title = {SU-F-T-303: Quantification of MLC Positioning Accuracy in VMAT Delivery of Head and Neck Cancer Treatment},
author = {Li, X and Yang, F},
abstractNote = {Purpose: Knowing MLC leaf positioning error over the course of treatment would be valuable for treatment planning, QA design, and patient safety. The objective of the current study was to quantify the MLC positioning accuracy for VMAT delivery of head and neck treatment plans. Methods: A total of 837 MLC log files were collected from 14 head and neck cancer patients undergoing full arc VMAT treatment on one Varian Trilogy machine. The actual and planned leaf gaps were extracted from the retrieved MLC log files. For a given patient, the leaf gap error percentage (LGEP), defined as the ratio of the actual leaf gap over the planned, was evaluated for each leaf pair at all the gantry angles recorded over the course of the treatment. Statistics describing the distribution of the largest LGEP (LLGEP) of the 60 leaf pairs including the maximum, minimum, mean, Kurtosis, and skewness were evaluated. Results: For the 14 studied patients, their PTV located at tonsil, base of tongue, larynx, supraglottis, nasal cavity, and thyroid gland with volume ranging from 72.0 cm{sup 3} to 602.0 cm{sup 3}. The identified LLGEP differed between patients. It ranged from 183.9% to 457.7% with a mean of 368.6%. For the majority of the patients, the LLGEP distributions peaked at non-zero positions and showed no obvious dependence on gantry rotations. Kurtosis and skewness, with minimum/maximum of 66.6/217.9 and 6.5/12.6, respectively, suggested relatively more peaked while right-skewed leaf error distribution pattern. Conclusion: The results indicate pattern of MLC leaf gap error differs between patients of lesion located at similar anatomic site. Understanding the systemic mechanisms underlying these observed error patterns necessitates examining more patient-specific plan parameters in a large patient cohort setting.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956488},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • Purpose: The advent of the MR-Linac enables real-time and high soft tissue contrast image guidance in radiation therapy (RT) delivery. Potential hot-spots at air-tissue interfaces, such as the sphenoid sinus, in RT for head and neck cancer (HNC), could potentially occur due to the electron return effect (ERE). In this study, we investigate the dosimetric effects of ERE on the dose distribution at air-tissues interfaces in HNC IMRT treatment planning. Methods: IMRT plans were generated based on planning CT’s acquired for HNC cases (nasopharynx, base of skull and paranasal sinus) using a research planning system (Monaco, v5.09.06, Elekta) employing Montemore » Carlo dose calculations with or without the presence of a transverse magnetic field (TMF). The dose in the air cavity was calculated in a 1 & 2 mm thick tissue layer, while the dose to the skin was calculated in a 1, 3 and 5 mm thick tissue layer. The maximum dose received in 1 cc volume, D1cc, were collected at different TMF strengths. Plan qualities generated with or without TMF or with increasing TMF were compared in terms of commonly-used dose-volume parameters (DVPs). Results: Variations in DVPs between plans with and without a TMF present were found to be within 5% of the planning CT. The presence of a TMF results in <5% changes in sinus air tissue interface. The largest skin dose differences with and without TMF were found within 1 mm of the skin surface Conclusion: The presence of a TMF results in practically insignificant changes in HNC IMRT plan quality, except for skin dose. Planning optimization with skin DV constraints could reduce the skin doses. This research was partially supported by Elekta Inc. (Crowley, U.K.)« less
  • Purpose: With the implementation of Cone-beam Computed-Tomography (CBCT) in proton treatment, we introduces a quick and effective tool to verify the patient’s daily setup and geometry changes based on the Water-Equivalent-Thickness Projection-Image(WETPI) from individual beam angle. Methods: A bilateral head neck cancer(HNC) patient previously treated via VMAT was used in this study. The patient received 35 daily CBCT during the whole treatment and there is no significant weight change. The CT numbers of daily CBCTs were corrected by mapping the CT numbers from simulation CT via Deformable Image Registration(DIR). IMPT plan was generated using 4-field IMPT robust optimization (3.5% rangemore » and 3mm setup uncertainties) with beam angle 60, 135, 300, 225 degree. WETPI within CTV through all beam directions were calculated. 3%/3mm gamma index(GI) were used to provide a quantitative comparison between initial sim-CT and mapped daily CBCT. To simulate an extreme case where human error is involved, a couch bar was manually inserted in front of beam angle 225 degree of one CBCT. WETPI was compared in this scenario. Results: The average of GI passing rate of this patient from different beam angles throughout the treatment course is 91.5 ± 8.6. In the cases with low passing rate, it was found that the difference between shoulder and neck angle as well as the head rest often causes major deviation. This indicates that the most challenge in treating HNC is the setup around neck area. In the extreme case where a couch bar is accidently inserted in the beam line, GI passing rate drops to 52 from 95. Conclusion: WETPI and quantitative gamma analysis give clinicians, therapists and physicists a quick feedback of the patient’s setup accuracy or geometry changes. The tool could effectively avoid some human errors. Furthermore, this tool could be used potentially as an initial signal to trigger plan adaptation.« less
  • The purpose of this work is to investigate the effect of dose-calculation accuracy on head and neck (H and N) intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans by determining the systematic dose-prediction and optimization-convergence errors (DPEs and OCEs), using a superposition/convolution (SC) algorithm. Ten patients with locally advanced H and N squamous cell carcinoma who were treated with simultaneous integrated boost IMRT were selected for this study. The targets consisted of gross target volume (GTV), clinical target volume (CTV), and nodal target volumes (CTV nodes). The critical structures included spinal cord, parotid glands, and brainstem. For all patients, three IMRT plansmore » were created: A: an SC optimized plan (SC{sub opt}), B: an SC{sub opt} plan recalculated with Monte Carlo [MC(SC{sub opt})], and C: an MC optimized plan (MC{sub opt}). For each structure, DPEs and OCEs were estimated as DPE{sub SC}=D{sup B}-D{sup A} and OCE{sub SC}=D{sup C}-D{sup B} where A, B, and C stand for the three different optimized plans as defined above. Deliverable optimization was used for all plans, that is, a leaf-sequencing step was incorporated into the optimization loop at each iteration. The range of DPE{sub SC} in the GTV D{sub 98} varied from -1.9% to -4.9%, while the OCE{sub SC} ranged from 0.9% to 7.0%. The DPE{sub SC} in the contralateral parotid D{sub 50} reached 8.2%, while the OCE{sub SC} in the contralateral parotid D{sub 50} varied from 0.91% to 6.99%. The DPE{sub SC} in cord D{sub 2} reached -3.0%, while the OCE{sub SC} reached to -7.0%. The magnitude of the DPE{sub SC} and OCE{sub SC} differences demonstrate the importance of using the most accurate available algorithm in the deliverable IMRT optimization process, especially for the estimation of normal structure doses.« less
  • Purpose: 3D optical surface imaging has been applied to patient positioning in radiation therapy (RT). The optical patient positioning system is advantageous over conventional method using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in that it is radiation free, frameless, and is capable of real-time monitoring. While the conventional radiographic method uses volumetric registration, the optical system uses surface matching for patient alignment. The relative accuracy of these two methods has not yet been sufficiently investigated. This study aims to investigate the theoretical accuracy of the surface registration based on a simulation study using patient data. Methods: This study compares the relative accuracymore » of surface and volumetric registration in head-and-neck RT. The authors examined 26 patient data sets, each consisting of planning CT data acquired before treatment and patient setup CBCT data acquired at the time of treatment. As input data of surface registration, patient’s skin surfaces were created by contouring patient skin from planning CT and treatment CBCT. Surface registration was performed using the iterative closest points algorithm by point–plane closest, which minimizes the normal distance between source points and target surfaces. Six degrees of freedom (three translations and three rotations) were used in both surface and volumetric registrations and the results were compared. The accuracy of each method was estimated by digital phantom tests. Results: Based on the results of 26 patients, the authors found that the average and maximum root-mean-square translation deviation between the surface and volumetric registrations were 2.7 and 5.2 mm, respectively. The residual error of the surface registration was calculated to have an average of 0.9 mm and a maximum of 1.7 mm. Conclusions: Surface registration may lead to results different from those of the conventional volumetric registration. Only limited accuracy can be achieved for patient positioning with an approach based solely on surface information.« less
  • To quantify clinical differences for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) versus intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in terms of dosimetric endpoints and planning and delivery time, twenty head and neck cancer patients have been considered for VMAT using Nucletron Oncentra MasterPlan delivered via an Elekta linear accelerator. Differences in planning time between IMRT and VMAT were estimated accounting for both optimization and calculation. The average delivery time per patient was obtained retrospectively using the record and verify software. For the dosimetric comparison, all contoured organs at risk (OARs) and planning target volumes (PTVs) were evaluated. Of the 20 cases considered,more » 14 had VMAT plans approved. Six VMAT plans were rejected due to unacceptable dose to OARs. In terms of optimization time, there was minimal difference between the two modalities. The dose calculation time was significantly longer for VMAT, 4 minutes per 358 degree arc versus 2 minutes for an entire IMRT plan. The overall delivery time was reduced by 9.2 ± 3.9 minutes for VMAT (51.4 ± 15.6%). For the dosimetric comparison of the 14 clinically acceptable plans, there was almost no statistical difference between the VMAT and IMRT. There was also a reduction in monitor units of approximately 32% from IMRT to VMAT with both modalities demonstrating comparable quality assurance results. VMAT provides comparable coverage of target volumes while sparing OARs for the majority of head and neck cases. In cases where high dose modulation was required for OARs, a clinically acceptable plan was only achievable with IMRT. Due to the long calculation times, VMAT plans can cause delays during planning but marked improvements in delivery time reduce patient treatment times and the risk of intra-fraction motion.« less