Literature DB >> 23556913

ROC analysis in patient specific quality assurance.

Marco Carlone1, Charmainne Cruje, Alejandra Rangel, Ryan McCabe, Michelle Nielsen, Miller Macpherson.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This work investigates the use of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) methods in patient specific IMRT quality assurance (QA) in order to determine unbiased methods to set threshold criteria for γ-distance to agreement measurements.
METHODS: A group of 17 prostate plans was delivered as planned while a second group of 17 prostate plans was modified with the introduction of random multileaf collimator (MLC) position errors that are normally distributed with σ ≈ ± 0.5, ± 1.0, ± 2.0, and ± 3.0 mm (a total of 68 modified plans were created). All plans were evaluated using five different γ-criteria. ROC methodology was applied by quantifying the fraction of modified plans reported as "fail" and unmodified plans reported as "pass."
RESULTS: γ-based criteria were able to attain nearly 100% sensitivity/specificity in the detection of large random errors (σ > 3 mm). Sensitivity and specificity decrease rapidly for all γ-criteria as the size of error to be detected decreases below 2 mm. Predictive power is null with all criteria used in the detection of small MLC errors (σ < 0.5 mm). Optimal threshold values were established by determining which criteria maximized sensitivity and specificity. For 3%/3 mm γ-criteria, optimal threshold values range from 92% to 99%, whereas for 2%/2 mm, the range was from 77% to 94%.
CONCLUSIONS: The optimal threshold values that were determined represent a maximized test sensitivity and specificity and are not subject to any user bias. When applied to the datasets that we studied, our results suggest the use of patient specific QA as a safety tool that can effectively prevent large errors (e.g., σ > 3 mm) as opposed to a tool to improve the quality of IMRT delivery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23556913     DOI: 10.1118/1.4795757

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


  11 in total

1.  Toward optimizing patient-specific IMRT QA techniques in the accurate detection of dosimetrically acceptable and unacceptable patient plans.

Authors:  Elizabeth M McKenzie; Peter A Balter; Francesco C Stingo; Jimmy Jones; David S Followill; Stephen F Kry
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Onboard cone-beam CT-based replan evaluation for head and neck proton therapy.

Authors:  Alexander Stanforth; Liyong Lin; Jonathan J Beitler; James R Janopaul-Naylor; Chih-Wei Chang; Robert H Press; Sagar A Patel; Jennifer Zhao; Bree Eaton; Eduard E Schreibmann; James Jung; Duncan Bohannon; Tian Liu; Xiaofeng Yang; Mark W McDonald; Jun Zhou
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2022-02-07       Impact factor: 2.243

3.  Are simple IMRT beams more robust against MLC error? Exploring the impact of MLC errors on planar quality assurance and plan quality for different complexity beams.

Authors:  Jiazhou Wang; Xiance Jin; Jiayuan Peng; Jiang Xie; Junchao Chen; Weigang Hu
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2016-05-08       Impact factor: 2.102

4.  Investigation of error detection capabilities of phantom, EPID and MLC log file based IMRT QA methods.

Authors:  Dewayne L Defoor; Sotirios Stathakis; Joseph E Roring; Neil A Kirby; Panayiotis Mavroidis; Mohammad Obeidat; Nikos Papanikolaou
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2017-06-06       Impact factor: 2.102

5.  Comprehensive validation of halcyon 2.0 plans and the implementation of patient specific QA with multiple detector platforms.

Authors:  Eric Laugeman; Ana Heermann; Jessica Hilliard; Michael Watts; Marshia Roberson; Robert Morris; Sreekrishna Goddu; Abhishek Sethi; Imran Zoberi; Hyun Kim; Sasa Mutic; Geoffrey Hugo; Bin Cai
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2020-05-05       Impact factor: 2.102

6.  Analysis of dose comparison techniques for patient-specific quality assurance in radiation therapy.

Authors:  Liting Yu; Timothy L S Tang; Naasiha Cassim; Alexander Livingstone; Darren Cassidy; Tanya Kairn; Scott B Crowe
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2019-10-15       Impact factor: 2.102

Review 7.  In vivo dosimetry in external beam photon radiotherapy: Requirements and future directions for research, development, and clinical practice.

Authors:  Igor Olaciregui-Ruiz; Sam Beddar; Peter Greer; Nuria Jornet; Boyd McCurdy; Gabriel Paiva-Fonseca; Ben Mijnheer; Frank Verhaegen
Journal:  Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol       Date:  2020-08-29

8.  A Beam Projection-Based Modified Gamma Analysis Scheme for Clinically Interpretable Pre-Treatment Dose Verification.

Authors:  Yiling Wang; Gang Yin; Jie Wang; Yue Zhao; Min Liu; Jinyi Lang
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2021-04-08       Impact factor: 2.658

9.  Prognostic significance of microsatellite instability‑associated pathways and genes in gastric cancer.

Authors:  Xiaosheng Hang; Dapeng Li; Jianping Wang; Ge Wang
Journal:  Int J Mol Med       Date:  2018-04-26       Impact factor: 4.101

10.  Impact of the MLC leaf-tip model in a commercial TPS: Dose calculation limitations and IROC-H phantom failures.

Authors:  Brandon Koger; Ryan Price; Da Wang; Dolla Toomeh; Sarah Geneser; Eric Ford
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2020-01-21       Impact factor: 2.102

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.