Literature DB >> 23231270

A real time dose monitoring and dose reconstruction tool for patient specific VMAT QA and delivery.

Neelam Tyagi1, Kai Yang, David Gersten, Di Yan.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To develop a real time dose monitoring and dose reconstruction tool to identify and quantify sources of errors during patient specific volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivery and quality assurance.
METHODS: The authors develop a VMAT delivery monitor tool called linac data monitor that connects to the linac in clinical mode and records, displays, and compares real time machine parameters with the planned parameters. A new measure, called integral error, keeps a running total of leaf overshoot and undershoot errors in each leaf pair, multiplied by leaf width, and the amount of time during which the error exists in monitor unit delivery. Another tool reconstructs Pinnacle(3)™ format delivered plan based on the saved machine logfile and recalculates actual delivered dose in patient anatomy. Delivery characteristics of various standard fractionation and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) VMAT plans delivered on Elekta Axesse and Synergy linacs were quantified.
RESULTS: The MLC and gantry errors for all the treatment sites were 0.00 ± 0.59 mm and 0.05 ± 0.31°, indicating a good MLC gain calibration. Standard fractionation plans had a larger gantry error than SBRT plans due to frequent dose rate changes. On average, the MLC errors were negligible but larger errors of up to 6 mm and 2.5° were seen when dose rate varied frequently. Large gantry errors occurred during the acceleration and deceleration process, and correlated well with MLC errors (r = 0.858, p = 0.0004). PTV mean, minimum, and maximum dose discrepancies were 0.87 ± 0.21%, 0.99 ± 0.59%, and 1.18 ± 0.52%, respectively. The organs at risk (OAR) doses were within 2.5%, except some OARs that showed up to 5.6% discrepancy in maximum dose. Real time displayed normalized total positive integral error (normalized to the total monitor units) correlated linearly with MLC (r = 0.9279, p < 0.001) and gantry errors (r = 0.742, p = 0.005). There is a strong correlation between total integral error and PTV mean (r = 0.683, p = 0.015), minimum (r = 0.6147, p = 0.033), and maximum dose (r = 0.6038, p = 0.0376).
CONCLUSIONS: Errors may exist during complex VMAT planning and delivery. Linac data monitor is capable of detecting and quantifying mechanical and dosimetric errors at various stages of planning and delivery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23231270     DOI: 10.1118/1.4764482

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


  19 in total

1.  The use of log file analysis within VMAT audits.

Authors:  Conor K McGarry; Christina E Agnew; Mohammad Hussein; Yatman Tsang; Alan R Hounsell; Catharine H Clark
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-04-13       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Feasibility of 3D tracking and adaptation of VMAT based on VMAT-CT.

Authors:  Xiaodong Zhao; Rui Zhang
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2020-04-24       Impact factor: 6.280

3.  3D VMAT Verification Based on Monte Carlo Log File Simulation with Experimental Feedback from Film Dosimetry.

Authors:  A R Barbeiro; A Ureba; J A Baeza; R Linares; M Perucha; E Jiménez-Ortega; S Velázquez; J C Mateos; A Leal
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-11-21       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Parallel/Opposed: IMRT QA using treatment log files is superior to conventional measurement-based method.

Authors:  Nathan Childress; Quan Chen; Yi Rong
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2015-01-08       Impact factor: 2.102

5.  A method to reconstruct and apply 3D primary fluence for treatment delivery verification.

Authors:  Shi Liu; Thomas R Mazur; Harold Li; Austen Curcuru; Olga L Green; Baozhou Sun; Sasa Mutic; Deshan Yang
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2016-12-08       Impact factor: 2.102

6.  Detector system dose verification comparisons for arc therapy: couch vs. gantry mount.

Authors:  Arjunan Manikandan; Biplab Sarkar; Maitreyee Nandy; Chandra Sekaran Sureka; Michael S Gossman; Nadendla Sujatha; Vivek Thirupathur Rajendran
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2014-05-08       Impact factor: 2.102

7.  Patient-Specific Quality Assurance Using Monte Carlo Dose Calculation and Elekta Log Files for Prostate Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy.

Authors:  Yoshiyuki Katsuta; Noriyuki Kadoya; Yukio Fujita; Eiji Shimizu; Kenichi Matsunaga; Kinya Sawada; Haruo Matsushita; Kazuhiro Majima; Keiichi Jingu
Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2017-12-05

8.  Correlation of phantom-based and log file patient-specific QA with complexity scores for VMAT.

Authors:  Christina E Agnew; Denise M Irvine; Conor K McGarry
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2014-11-08       Impact factor: 2.102

9.  Comparing measurement-derived (3DVH) and machine log file-derived dose reconstruction methods for VMAT QA in patient geometries.

Authors:  Neelam Tyagi; Kai Yang; Di Yan
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2014-07-08       Impact factor: 2.102

10.  Diode-based transmission detector for IMRT delivery monitoring: a validation study.

Authors:  Taoran Li; Q Jackie Wu; Thomas Matzen; Fang-Fang Yin; Jennifer C O'Daniel
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2016-09-08       Impact factor: 2.102

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.