Implementation of phantom-less IMRT delivery verification using Varian DynaLog files and R/V output

被引:51
作者
Agnew, C. E. [1 ]
King, R. B. [1 ]
Hounsell, A. R. [1 ,2 ]
McGarry, C. K. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Belfast Hlth & Social Care Trust, No Ireland Canc Ctr, Radiotherapy Phys Dept, Belfast BT9 7AB, Antrim, North Ireland
[2] Queens Univ Belfast, Ctr Canc Res & Cell Biol, Belfast, Antrim, North Ireland
关键词
INTENSITY-MODULATED RADIOTHERAPY; COMPLEXITY;
D O I
10.1088/0031-9155/57/21/6761
中图分类号
R318 [生物医学工程];
学科分类号
0831 ;
摘要
This study aims to evaluate the use of Varian radiotherapy dynamic treatment log (DynaLog) files to verify IMRT plan delivery as part of a routine quality assurance procedure. Delivery accuracy in terms of machine performance was quantified by multileaf collimator (MLC) position errors and fluence delivery accuracy for patients receiving intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment. The relationship between machine performance and plan complexity, quantified by the modulation complexity score (MCS) was also investigated. Actual MLC positions and delivered fraction of monitor units (MU), recorded every 50 ms during IMRT delivery, were extracted from the DynaLog files. The planned MLC positions and fractional MU were taken from the record and verify system MLC control file. Planned and delivered beam data were compared to determine leaf position errors with and without the overshoot effect. Analysis was also performed on planned and actual fluence maps reconstructed from the MLC control file and delivered treatment log files respectively. This analysis was performed for all treatment fractions for 5 prostate, 5 prostate and pelvic node (PPN) and 5 head and neck (H&N) IMRT plans, totalling 82 IMRT fields in similar to 5500 DynaLog files. The root mean square (RMS) leaf position errors without the overshoot effect were 0.09, 0.26, 0.19 mm for the prostate, PPN and H&N plans respectively, which increased to 0.30, 0.39 and 0.30 mm when the overshoot effect was considered. Average errors were not affected by the overshoot effect and were 0.05, 0.13 and 0.17 mm for prostate, PPN and H&N plans respectively. The percentage of pixels passing fluence map gamma analysis at 3%/3 mm was 99.94 +/- 0.25%, which reduced to 91.62 +/- 11.39% at 1%/1 mm criterion. Leaf position errors, but not gamma passing rate, were directly related to plan complexity as determined by the MCS. Site specific confidence intervals for average leaf position errors were set at -0.03-0.12 mm for prostate and -0.02-0.28 mm for more complex PPN and H&N plans. For all treatment sites confidence intervals for RMS errors with the overshoot was set at 0-0.50 mm and for the percentage of pixels passing a gamma analysis at 1%/1 mm a confidence interval of 68.83% was set also for all treatment sites. This work demonstrates the successful implementation of treatment log files to validate IMRT deliveries and how dynamic log files can diagnose delivery errors not possible with phantom based QC. Machine performance was found to be directly related to plan complexity but this is not the dominant determinant of delivery accuracy.
引用
收藏
页码:6761 / 6777
页数:17
相关论文
共 22 条
[1]   The inter- and intrafraction reproducibilities of three common IMRT delivery techniques [J].
Buckey, Courtney R. ;
Stathakis, Sotirios ;
Papanikolaou, Niko .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2010, 37 (09) :4854-4860
[2]   Consistency and reproducibility of the VMAT plan delivery using three independent validation methods [J].
Chandraraj, Varatharaj ;
Stathakis, Sotirios ;
Manickam, Ravikumar ;
Esquivel, Carlos ;
Supe, Sanjay S. ;
Papanikolaou, Nikos .
JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2011, 12 (01) :129-140
[3]   Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: preliminary safety results from the CHHiP randomised controlled trial [J].
Dearnaley, David ;
Syndikus, Isabel ;
Sumo, Georges ;
Bidmead, Margaret ;
Bloomfield, David ;
Clark, Catharine ;
Gao, Annie ;
Hassan, Shama ;
Horwich, Alan ;
Huddart, Robert ;
Khoo, Vincent ;
Kirkbride, Peter ;
Mayles, Helen ;
Mayles, Philip ;
Naismith, Olivia ;
Parker, Chris ;
Patterson, Helen ;
Russell, Martin ;
Scrase, Christopher ;
South, Chris ;
Staffurth, John ;
Hall, Emma .
LANCET ONCOLOGY, 2012, 13 (01) :43-54
[4]  
Ezzell G A, 2001, J Appl Clin Med Phys, V2, P138, DOI 10.1120/1.1386508
[5]   IMRT commissioning: Multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119 [J].
Ezzell, Gary A. ;
Burmeister, Jay W. ;
Dogan, Nesrin ;
LoSasso, Thomas J. ;
Mechalakos, James G. ;
Mihailidis, Dimitris ;
Molineu, Andrea ;
Palta, Jatinder R. ;
Ramsey, Chester R. ;
Salter, Bill J. ;
Shi, Jie ;
Xia, Ping ;
Yue, Ning J. ;
Xiao, Ying .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2009, 36 (11) :5359-5373
[6]   A NATIONAL PHASE III TRIAL OF PELVIC LYMPH NODE (LN) IMRT IN PROSTATE CANCER (PIVOTAL): A COMPARISON OF LN OUTLINING METHODS [J].
Harris, V. ;
South, C. ;
Cruickshank, C. ;
Dearnaley, D. .
RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2011, 99 :S486-S487
[7]  
James H, 2008, 96 IPEM
[8]   Improving delivery of segments with small MU in step-and-shoot IMRT [J].
Kuperman, VY ;
Lam, WC .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2006, 33 (04) :1067-1073
[9]  
LaSasso TL, 2002, AAPM 44 ANN M
[10]   Validation of dynamic MLC-controller log files using a two-dimensional diode array [J].
Li, JG ;
Dempsey, JF ;
Ding, L ;
Liu, CR ;
Palta, JR .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2003, 30 (05) :799-805