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

Title: SU-G-TeP4-08: Automating the Verification of Patient Treatment Parameters

Abstract

Purpose: To automate the daily verification of each patient’s treatment by utilizing the trajectory log files (TLs) written by the Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator while reducing the number of false positives including jaw and gantry positioning errors, that are displayed in the Treatment History tab of Varian’s Chart QA module. Methods: Small deviations in treatment parameters are difficult to detect in weekly chart checks, but may be significant in reducing delivery errors, and would be critical if detected daily. Software was developed in house to read TLs. Multiple functions were implemented within the software that allow it to operate via a GUI to analyze TLs, or as a script to run on a regular basis. In order to determine tolerance levels for the scripted analysis, 15,241 TLs from seven TrueBeams were analyzed. The maximum error of each axis for each TL was written to a CSV file and statistically analyzed to determine the tolerance for each axis accessible in the TLs to flag for manual review. The software/scripts developed were tested by varying the tolerance values to ensure veracity. After tolerances were determined, multiple weeks of manual chart checks were performed simultaneously with the automated analysis to ensure validity. Results:more » The tolerance values for the major axis were determined to be, 0.025 degrees for the collimator, 1.0 degree for the gantry, 0.002cm for the y-jaws, 0.01cm for the x-jaws, and 0.5MU for the MU. The automated verification of treatment parameters has been in clinical use for 4 months. During that time, no errors in machine delivery of the patient treatments were found. Conclusion: The process detailed here is a viable and effective alternative to manually checking treatment parameters during weekly chart checks.« less

Authors:
; ; ;  [1]
  1. The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22649471
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; ERRORS; LINEAR ACCELERATORS; PATIENTS; RADIOTHERAPY; TOLERANCE; VERIFICATION

Citation Formats

DiCostanzo, D, Ayan, A, Woollard, J, and Gupta, N. SU-G-TeP4-08: Automating the Verification of Patient Treatment Parameters. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4957133.
DiCostanzo, D, Ayan, A, Woollard, J, & Gupta, N. SU-G-TeP4-08: Automating the Verification of Patient Treatment Parameters. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4957133.
DiCostanzo, D, Ayan, A, Woollard, J, and Gupta, N. 2016. "SU-G-TeP4-08: Automating the Verification of Patient Treatment Parameters". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4957133.
@article{osti_22649471,
title = {SU-G-TeP4-08: Automating the Verification of Patient Treatment Parameters},
author = {DiCostanzo, D and Ayan, A and Woollard, J and Gupta, N},
abstractNote = {Purpose: To automate the daily verification of each patient’s treatment by utilizing the trajectory log files (TLs) written by the Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator while reducing the number of false positives including jaw and gantry positioning errors, that are displayed in the Treatment History tab of Varian’s Chart QA module. Methods: Small deviations in treatment parameters are difficult to detect in weekly chart checks, but may be significant in reducing delivery errors, and would be critical if detected daily. Software was developed in house to read TLs. Multiple functions were implemented within the software that allow it to operate via a GUI to analyze TLs, or as a script to run on a regular basis. In order to determine tolerance levels for the scripted analysis, 15,241 TLs from seven TrueBeams were analyzed. The maximum error of each axis for each TL was written to a CSV file and statistically analyzed to determine the tolerance for each axis accessible in the TLs to flag for manual review. The software/scripts developed were tested by varying the tolerance values to ensure veracity. After tolerances were determined, multiple weeks of manual chart checks were performed simultaneously with the automated analysis to ensure validity. Results: The tolerance values for the major axis were determined to be, 0.025 degrees for the collimator, 1.0 degree for the gantry, 0.002cm for the y-jaws, 0.01cm for the x-jaws, and 0.5MU for the MU. The automated verification of treatment parameters has been in clinical use for 4 months. During that time, no errors in machine delivery of the patient treatments were found. Conclusion: The process detailed here is a viable and effective alternative to manually checking treatment parameters during weekly chart checks.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4957133},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • Purpose: Physics second-checks for external beam radiation therapy are performed, in-part, to verify that the machine parameters in the Record-and-Verify (R&V) system that will ultimately be sent to the LINAC exactly match the values initially calculated by the Treatment Planning System (TPS). While performing the second-check, a large portion of the physicists’ time is spent navigating and arranging display windows to locate and compare the relevant numerical values (MLC position, collimator rotation, field size, MU, etc.). Here, we describe the development of a software tool that guides the physicist by aggregating and succinctly displaying machine parameter data relevant to themore » physics second-check process. Methods: A data retrieval software tool was developed using Python to aggregate data and generate a list of machine parameters that are commonly verified during the physics second-check process. This software tool imported values from (i) the TPS RT Plan DICOM file and (ii) the MOSAIQ (R&V) Structured Query Language (SQL) database. The machine parameters aggregated for this study included: MLC positions, X&Y jaw positions, collimator rotation, gantry rotation, MU, dose rate, wedges and accessories, cumulative dose, energy, machine name, couch angle, and more. Results: A GUI interface was developed to generate a side-by-side display of the aggregated machine parameter values for each field, and presented to the physicist for direct visual comparison. This software tool was tested for 3D conformal, static IMRT, sliding window IMRT, and VMAT treatment plans. Conclusion: This software tool facilitated the data collection process needed in order for the physicist to conduct a second-check, thus yielding an optimized second-check workflow that was both more user friendly and time-efficient. Utilizing this software tool, the physicist was able to spend less time searching through the TPS PDF plan document and the R&V system and focus the second-check efforts on assessing the patient-specific plan-quality.« less
  • Purpose: We developed a method to calculate patient doses corresponding to IMRT QA measurements in order to determine and assess the actual dose delivered for plans with failed (or borderline) IMRT QA. This work demonstrates the feasibility of automatically computing delivered patient dose from portal dosimetry measurements in the Varian TPS system, which would provide a valuable and clinically viable IMRT QA tool for physicists and physicians. Methods: IMRT QA fluences were measured using portal dosimetry, processed using in-house matlab software, and imported back into Eclipse to calculate dose on the planning CT. To validate the proposed workflow, the Eclipsemore » calculated portal dose for a 5-field sliding window prostate boost plan was processed as described above. The resulting dose was compared to the planned dose and found to be within 0.5 Gy. Two IMRT QA results for the prostate boost plan (one that failed and one that passed) were processed and the resulting patient doses were evaluated. Results: The max dose difference between IMRT QA #1 and the original planned and approved dose is 4.5 Gy, while the difference between the planned and IMRT QA #2 dose is 4.0 Gy. The inferior portion of the PTV is slightly underdosed in both plans, and the superior portion is slightly overdosed. The patient dose resulting from IMRT QA #1 and #2 differs by only 0.5 Gy. With this new information, it may be argued that the evaluated plan alteration to obtain passing gamma analysis produced clinically irrelevant differences. Conclusion: Evaluation of the delivered QA dose on the planning CT provides valuable information about the clinical relevance of failed or borderline IMRT QAs. This particular workflow demonstrates the feasibility of pushing the measured IMRT QA portal dosimetry results directly back onto the patient planning CT within the Varian system.« less
  • Purpose: To implement a comprehensive non-measurement-based verification program for patient-specific IMRT QA Methods: Based on published guidelines, a robust IMRT QA program should assess the following components: 1) accuracy of dose calculation, 2) accuracy of data transfer from the treatment planning system (TPS) to the record-and-verify (RV) system, 3) treatment plan deliverability, and 4) accuracy of plan delivery. Results: We have implemented an IMRT QA program that consist of four components: 1) an independent re-calculation of the dose distribution in the patient anatomy with a commercial secondary dose calculation program: Mobius3D (Mobius Medical Systems, Houston, TX), with dose accuracy evaluationmore » using gamma analysis, PTV mean dose, PTV coverage to 95%, and organ-at-risk mean dose; 2) an automated in-house-developed plan comparison system that compares all relevant plan parameters such as MU, MLC position, beam iso-center position, collimator, gantry, couch, field size settings, and bolus placement, etc. between the plan and the RV system; 3) use of the RV system to check the plan deliverability and further confirm using “mode-up” function on treatment console for plans receiving warning; and 4) implementation of a comprehensive weekly MLC QA, in addition to routine accelerator monthly and daily QA. Among 1200 verifications, there were 9 cases of suspicious calculations, 5 cases of delivery failure, no data transfer errors, and no failure of weekly MLC QA. These 9 suspicious cases were due to the PTV extending to the skin or to heterogeneity correction effects, which would not have been caught using phantom measurement-based QA. The delivery failure was due to the rounding variation of MLC position between the planning system and RV system. Conclusion: A very efficient, yet comprehensive, non-measurement-based patient-specific QA program has been implemented and used clinically for about 18 months with excellent results.« less
  • Purpose: Fast and reliable comprehensive quality assurance tools are required to validate the safety and accuracy of complex intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans for prostate treatment. In this study, we evaluated the performance of the COMPASS system for both off-line and potential online procedures for the verification of IMRT treatment plans. Methods and Materials: COMPASS has a dedicated beam model and dose engine, it can reconstruct three-dimensional dose distributions on the patient anatomy based on measured fluences using either the MatriXX two-dimensional (2D) array (offline) or a 2D transmission detector (T2D) (online). For benchmarking the COMPASS dose calculation, various dose-volume indicesmore » were compared against Monte Carlo-calculated dose distributions for five prostate patient treatment plans. Gamma index evaluation and absolute point dose measurements were also performed in an inhomogeneous pelvis phantom using extended dose range films and ion chamber for five additional treatment plans. Results: MatriXX-based dose reconstruction showed excellent agreement with the ion chamber (<0.5%, except for one treatment plan, which showed 1.5%), film ({approx}100% pixels passing gamma criteria 3%/3 mm) and mean dose-volume indices (<2%). The T2D based dose reconstruction showed good agreement as well with ion chamber (<2%), film ({approx}99% pixels passing gamma criteria 3%/3 mm), and mean dose-volume indices (<5.5%). Conclusion: The COMPASS system qualifies for routine prostate IMRT pretreatment verification with the MatriXX detector and has the potential for on-line verification of treatment delivery using T2D.« less