Literature DB >> 18975688

Statistical process control for IMRT dosimetric verification.

Stephen L Breen1, Douglas J Moseley, Beibei Zhang, Michael B Sharpe.   

Abstract

Patient-specific measurements are typically used to validate the dosimetry of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). To evaluate the dosimetric performance over time of our IMRT process, we have used statistical process control (SPC) concepts to analyze the measurements from 330 head and neck (H&N) treatment plans. The objectives of the present work are to: (i) Review the dosimetric measurements of a large series of consecutive head and neck treatment plans to better understand appropriate dosimetric tolerances; (ii) analyze the results with SPC to develop action levels for measured discrepancies; (iii) develop estimates for the number of measurements that are required to describe IMRT dosimetry in the clinical setting; and (iv) evaluate with SPC a new beam model in our planning system. H&N IMRT cases were planned with the PINNACLE treatment planning system versions 6.2b or 7.6c (Philips Medical Systems, Madison, WI) and treated on Varian (Palo Alto, CA) or Elekta (Crawley, UK) linacs. As part of regular quality assurance, plans were recalculated on a 20-cm-diam cylindrical phantom, and ion chamber measurements were made in high-dose volumes (the PTV with highest dose) and in low-dose volumes (spinal cord organ-at-risk, OR). Differences between the planned and measured doses were recorded as a percentage of the planned dose. Differences were stable over time. Measurements with PINNACLE3 6.2b and Varian linacs showed a mean difference of 0.6% for PTVs (n=149, range, -4.3% to 6.6%), while OR measurements showed a larger systematic discrepancy (mean 4.5%, range -4.5% to 16.3%) that was due to well-known limitations of the MLC model in the earlier version of the planning system. Measurements with PINNACLE3 7.6c and Varian linacs demonstrated a mean difference of 0.2% for PTVs (n=160, range, -3.0%, to 5.0%) and -1.0% for ORs (range -5.8% to 4.4%). The capability index (ratio of specification range to range of the data) was 1.3 for the PTV data, indicating that almost all measurements were within +/-5%. We have used SPC tools to evaluate a new beam model in our planning system to produce a systematic difference of -0.6% for PTVs and 0.4% for ORs, although the number of measurements is smaller (n=25). Analysis of this large series of H&N IMRT measurements demonstrated that our IMRT dosimetry was stable over time and within accepted tolerances. These data provide useful information for assessing alterations to beam models in the planning system. IMRT is enhanced by the addition of statistical process control to traditional quality control procedures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18975688     DOI: 10.1118/1.2975144

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  21 in total

1.  Statistical control process to compare and rank treatment plans in radiation oncology: impact of heterogeneity correction on treatment planning in lung cancer.

Authors:  Abdulhamid Chaikh; Jacques Balosso
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2016-12

2.  Image registration assessment in radiotherapy image guidance based on control chart monitoring.

Authors:  Wenyao Xia; Stephen L Breen
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2018-03-14

3.  Retrospective study on performance of constancy check device in Linac beam monitoring using Statistical Process Control.

Authors:  Bipasha Pal; Angshuman Pal; Suresh Das; Soura Palit; Papai Sarkar; Subhayan Mondal; Suman Mallik; Jyotirup Goswami; Sayan Das; Arijit Sen; Monidipa Mondol
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2019-12-10

4.  Statistical analysis of IMRT dosimetry quality assurance measurements for local delivery guideline.

Authors:  Jin Beom Chung; Jae Sung Kim; Sung Whan Ha; Sung-Joon Ye
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2011-03-28       Impact factor: 3.481

5.  Organ-specific modulation complexity score for the evaluation of dose delivery.

Authors:  Iori Sumida; Hajime Yamaguchi; Indra J Das; Hisao Kizaki; Keiko Aboshi; Mari Tsujii; Yuji Yamada; Keisuke Tamari; Yuji Seo; Fumiaki Isohashi; Yasuo Yoshioka; Kazuhiko Ogawa
Journal:  J Radiat Res       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 2.724

6.  Survey of patient-specific quality assurance practice for IMRT and VMAT.

Authors:  Gordon H Chan; Lee C L Chin; Ady Abdellatif; Jean-Pierre Bissonnette; Lesley Buckley; Daria Comsa; Dal Granville; Jenna King; Patrick L Rapley; Aaron Vandermeer
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2021-06-19       Impact factor: 2.102

7.  Statistical process control analysis for patient-specific IMRT and VMAT QA.

Authors:  Taweap Sanghangthum; Sivalee Suriyapee; Somyot Srisatit; Todd Pawlicki
Journal:  J Radiat Res       Date:  2012-12-07       Impact factor: 2.724

8.  Preliminary Retrospective Analysis of Daily Tomotherapy Output Constancy Checks Using Statistical Process Control.

Authors:  Emilio Mezzenga; Vincenzo D'Errico; Anna Sarnelli; Lidia Strigari; Enrico Menghi; Francesco Marcocci; David Bianchini; Marcello Benassi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-02-05       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Characterization of cylindrical ionization chambers for patient specific IMRT QA.

Authors:  Danielle Fraser; William Parker; Jan Seuntjens
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2009-09-30       Impact factor: 2.102

10.  Retrospective analysis of linear accelerator output constancy checks using process control techniques.

Authors:  Taweap Sanghangthum; Sivalee Suriyapee; Somyot Srisatit; Todd Pawlicki
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2013-01-07       Impact factor: 2.102

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.