Literature DB >> 23464297

On the sensitivity of common gamma-index evaluation methods to MLC misalignments in Rapidarc quality assurance.

G Heilemann1, B Poppe, W Laub.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: In this study the effects of small systematic MLC misalignments and gravitational errors on the quality of Rapidarc treatment plan delivery are investigated with respect to verification measurements with two detector arrays and the evaluation of clinical significance of the error-induced deviations.
METHODS: Five prostate and six head and neck plans were modified by means of three error types: (1) both MLC banks are opened, respectively, in opposing directions, resulting in larger fields; (2) both MLC banks are closed, resulting in smaller fields; and (3) both MLC banks are shifted for lateral gantry angles, respectively, in the same direction to simulate the effects of gravity on the leaves. Measurements were evaluated with respect to a gamma-index of 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm. Dose in the modified plans was recalculated and the resulting dose volume histograms for target and critical structures were compared to those of the unaltered plans.
RESULTS: The smallest introduced leaf position deviations which fail the >90% criterion for a gamma-index of 2%/2 mm are: (1) 1 mm; (2) 0.5 mm for prostate and 1.0 mm for head and neck cases; and (3) 3 mm corresponding to the error types, respectively. These errors would lead to significant changes in mean PTV dose and would not be detected with the more commonly used 3%/3 mm gamma-index criterion.
CONCLUSIONS: A stricter gamma-index (2%/2 mm) is necessary in order to detect positional errors of the MLC. Nevertheless, the quality assurance procedure of Rapidarc treatment plans must include a thorough examination of where dose discrepancies occur, and professional judgment is needed when interpreting the gamma-index analysis, since even a >90% passing rate using the 2%/2 mm gamma-index criterion does not guarantee the absence of clinically significance dose deviation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23464297     DOI: 10.1118/1.4789580

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


  37 in total

1.  The effect of MLC speed and acceleration on the plan delivery accuracy of VMAT.

Authors:  J M Park; H-G Wu; J H Kim; J N K Carlson; K Kim
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-03-03       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  A method for quantitative evaluations of scanning-proton dose distributions.

Authors:  Bryce C Allred; Jie Shan; Daniel G Robertson; Todd A DeWees; Jiajian Shen; Wei Liu; Joshua B Stoker
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2021-03-29       Impact factor: 2.102

3.  Patient-related quality assurance with different combinations of treatment planning systems, techniques, and machines : A multi-institutional survey.

Authors:  Beatrice Steiniger; René Berger; Sabine Eilzer; Christine Kornhuber; Kathleen Lorenz; Torsten Peil; Carsten Reiffenstuhl; Johannes Schilz; Dirk Schröder; Michael Schwedas; Stephanie Pensold; Mathias Walke; Kirsten Weibert; Ulrich Wolf; Tilo Wiezorek
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2016-11-03       Impact factor: 3.621

4.  Correlation Between Average Segment Width and Gamma Passing Rate as a Function of MLC Position Error in Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy.

Authors:  Young Min Moon; Sang Il Bae; Moo Jae Han; Wan Jeon; Tosol Yu; Chul Won Choi; Jin Young Kim
Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2021 Jan-Dec

5.  Evaluation of the ability of three commercially available dosimeters to detect systematic delivery errors in step-and-shoot IMRT plans.

Authors:  Alison Gray; Omemh Bawazeer; Sankar Arumugam; Philip Vial; Joseph Descallar; David Thwaites; Lois Holloway
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2021-09-30

6.  Optimizing the Region for Evaluation of Global Gamma Analysis for Nasopharyngeal Cancer (NPC) Pretreatment IMRT QA by COMPASS: A Retrospective Study.

Authors:  Wenli Lu; Ying Li; Wei Huang; Haixia Cui; Hanyin Zhang; Xin Yi
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-06-14       Impact factor: 5.738

7.  Class solutions for SABR-VMAT for high-risk prostate cancer with and without elective nodal irradiation.

Authors:  Sarah O S Osman; Prakash Jeevanandam; Nithya Kanakavelu; Denise M Irvine; Ciara A Lyons; Suneil Jain; Alan R Hounsell; Conor K McGarry
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2016-11-24       Impact factor: 3.481

8.  Characterization of robust optimization for VMAT plan for liver cancer.

Authors:  Hideharu Miura; Shuichi Ozawa; Hayate Kusaba; Yoshiko Doi; Masahiko Kenjo; Kiyoshi Yamada; Yasushi Nagata
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2020-04-15

9.  Evaluation of 4-Hz log files and secondary Monte Carlo dose calculation as patient-specific quality assurance for VMAT prostate plans.

Authors:  Philipp Szeverinski; Matthias Kowatsch; Thomas Künzler; Marco Meinschad; Patrick Clemens; Alexander F DeVries
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2021-06-20       Impact factor: 2.102

10.  Error sensitivity of a log file analysis tool compared with a helical diode array dosimeter for VMAT delivery quality assurance.

Authors:  Philipp Szeverinski; Matthias Kowatsch; Thomas Künzler; Marco Meinschad; Patrick Clemens; Alexander F DeVries
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2020-10-23       Impact factor: 2.243

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.