Using eclipse scripting to fully automate in-vivo image analysis to improve treatment quality and safety

被引:4
作者
Chalise, Ananta Raj [1 ]
Bojechko, Casey [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif San Diego, Dept Radiat Med & Appl Sci, 3855 Hlth Sci Dr, La Jolla, CA 92037 USA
关键词
automated comprehensive QA; EPID; ESAPI; Halcyon; patient specific QA; Quality assurance; DOSIMETRY; TOOL;
D O I
10.1002/acm2.13585
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Purpose An automated, in-vivo system to detect patient anatomy changes and machine output was developed using novel analysis of in-vivo electronic portal imaging device (EPID) images for every fraction of treatment on a Varian Halcyon. In-vivo approach identifies errors that go undetected by routine quality assurance (QA) to compliment daily machine performance check (MPC), with minimal physicist workload. Methods Images for all fractions treated on a Halcyon were automatically downloaded and analyzed at the end of treatment day. For image analysis, compared to first fraction, the mean difference of high-dose region of interest is calculated. This metric has shown to predict changes in planning treatment volume (PTV) mean dose. Flags are raised for: (Type-A) treatment fraction whose mean difference exceeds 10%, to protect against large errors, and (Type-B) patients with three consecutive fractions with mean exceeding +/- 3%, to protect against systematic trends. If a threshold is exceeded, a physicist is e-mailed, a report for flagged patients, for investigation. To track machine output changes, for all patients treated on a day, the average and standard deviations are uploaded to a QA portal, along with the reviewed MPC, ensuring comprehensive QA for the Halcyon. To guide clinical implementation, a retrospective study from November 2017 till December 2020 was conducted, which grouped errors by treatment site. This framework has been used prospectively since January 2021. Results From retrospective data of 1633 patients (35 759 fractions), no Type-A errors were found and only 45 patients (2.76%) had Type-B errors. These Type-B deviations were due to head-and-neck weight loss. For 6 months of prospective use (345 patients), 13 patients (3.7%) had Type-B errors and no Type-A errors. Conclusions This automated system protects against errors that can occur in vivo to provide a more comprehensive QA. This fully automated framework can be implemented in other centers with a Halcyon, requiring a desktop computer and analysis scripts.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 18 条
[1]   Quantifying the performance of in vivo portal dosimetry in detecting four types of treatment parameter variations [J].
Bojechko, C. ;
Ford, E. C. .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2015, 42 (12) :6912-6918
[2]   A quantification of the effectiveness of EPID dosimetry and software-based plan verification systems in detecting incidents in radiotherapy [J].
Bojechko, Casey ;
Phillps, Mark ;
Kalet, Alan ;
Ford, Eric C. .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2015, 42 (09) :5363-5369
[3]   Evaluation of automated pre-treatment and transit in-vivo dosimetry in radiotherapy using empirically determined parameters [J].
Bossuyt, Evy ;
Weytjens, Reinhilde ;
Nevens, Daan ;
De Vos, Sarah ;
Verellen, Dirk .
PHYSICS & IMAGING IN RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2020, 16 :113-129
[4]   Using a Novel Dose QA Tool to Quantify the Impact of Systematic Errors Otherwise Undetected by Conventional QA Methods: Clinical Head and Neck Case Studies [J].
Chan, Maria F. ;
Li, Jingdong ;
Schupak, Karen ;
Burman, Chandra .
TECHNOLOGY IN CANCER RESEARCH & TREATMENT, 2014, 13 (01) :57-67
[5]  
Fiagan Yawo A C, 2020, Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol, V16, P65, DOI 10.1016/j.tipsro.2020.10.005
[6]   TG-51 reference dosimetry for the Halcyon™: A clinical experience [J].
Lloyd, Samantha A. M. ;
Lim, Tze Yee ;
Fave, Xenia ;
Flores-Martinez, Everardo ;
Atwood, Todd F. ;
Moiseenko, Vitali .
JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2018, 19 (04) :98-102
[7]   A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions [J].
Low, DA ;
Harms, WB ;
Mutic, S ;
Purdy, JA .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 1998, 25 (05) :656-661
[8]   A dose-gradient analysis tool for IMRT QA [J].
Moran, Jean M. ;
Radawski, Jeffrey ;
Fraass, Benedick A. .
JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2005, 6 (02) :62-73
[9]   A survey on planar IMRT QA analysis [J].
Nelms, Benjamin E. ;
Simon, Jeff A. .
JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2007, 8 (03) :76-90
[10]   Evaluating IMRT and VMAT dose accuracy: Practical examples of failure to detect systematic errors when applying a commonly used metric and action levels [J].
Nelms, Benjamin E. ;
Chan, Maria F. ;
Jarry, Genevieve ;
Lemire, Matthieu ;
Lowden, John ;
Hampton, Carnell ;
Feygelman, Vladimir .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2013, 40 (11)