Literature DB >> 25761616

Examination of the properties of IMRT and VMAT beams and evaluation against pre-treatment quality assurance results.

S B Crowe1, T Kairn, N Middlebrook, B Sutherland, B Hill, J Kenny, C M Langton, J V Trapp.   

Abstract

This study aimed to provide a detailed evaluation and comparison of a range of modulated beam evaluation metrics, in terms of their correlation with QA testing results and their variation between treatment sites, for a large number of treatments. Ten metrics including the modulation index (MI), fluence map complexity, modulation complexity score (MCS), mean aperture displacement (MAD) and small aperture score (SAS) were evaluated for 546 beams from 122 intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment plans targeting the anus, rectum, endometrium, brain, head and neck and prostate. The calculated sets of metrics were evaluated in terms of their relationships to each other and their correlation with the results of electronic portal imaging based quality assurance (QA) evaluations of the treatment beams. Evaluation of the MI, MAD and SAS suggested that beams used in treatments of the anus, rectum, head and neck were more complex than the prostate and brain treatment beams. Seven of the ten beam complexity metrics were found to be strongly correlated with the results from QA testing of the IMRT beams (p < 0.00008). For example, values of SAS (with multileaf collimator apertures narrower than 10 mm defined as 'small') less than 0.2 also identified QA passing IMRT beams with 100% specificity. However, few of the metrics are correlated with the results from QA testing of the VMAT beams, whether they were evaluated as whole 360° arcs or as 60° sub-arcs. Select evaluation of beam complexity metrics (at least MI, MCS and SAS) is therefore recommended, as an intermediate step in the IMRT QA chain. Such evaluation may also be useful as a means of periodically reviewing VMAT planning or optimiser performance.

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25761616     DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/60/6/2587

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  18 in total

Review 1.  Complexity metrics for IMRT and VMAT plans: a review of current literature and applications.

Authors:  Sophie Chiavassa; Igor Bessieres; Magali Edouard; Michel Mathot; Alexandra Moignier
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-07-24       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Comparison of global and local gamma evaluation results using isodose levels.

Authors:  Liting Yu; Tanya Kairn; Jamie V Trapp; Scott B Crowe
Journal:  Phys Eng Sci Med       Date:  2021-02-08

3.  Treatment plan complexity does not predict IROC Houston anthropomorphic head and neck phantom performance.

Authors:  Mallory C Glenn; Victor Hernandez; Jordi Saez; David S Followill; Rebecca M Howell; Julianne M Pollard-Larkin; Shouhao Zhou; Stephen F Kry
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2018-10-17       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  The role of complexity metrics in a multi-institutional dosimetry audit of VMAT.

Authors:  Conor K McGarry; Christina E Agnew; Mohammad Hussein; Yatman Tsang; Alan McWilliam; Alan R Hounsell; Catharine H Clark
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-10-29       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Interobserver variability in radiation therapy plan output: Results of a single-institution study.

Authors:  Sean L Berry; Amanda Boczkowski; Rongtao Ma; James Mechalakos; Margie Hunt
Journal:  Pract Radiat Oncol       Date:  2016-05-08

6.  Optimization of the dosimetric leaf gap for use in planning VMAT treatments of spine SABR cases.

Authors:  Nigel D Middlebrook; Bess Sutherland; Tanya Kairn
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2017-06-02       Impact factor: 2.102

7.  EPID based in vivo dosimetry system: clinical experience and results.

Authors:  Sofia Celi; Emilie Costa; Claas Wessels; Alejandro Mazal; Alain Fourquet; Pascal Francois
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2016-05-08       Impact factor: 2.102

8.  Personalized setting of plan parameters using feasibility dose volume histogram for auto-planning in Pinnacle system.

Authors:  Wenlong Xia; Fei Han; Jiayun Chen; Junjie Miao; Jianrong Dai
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2020-05-04       Impact factor: 2.102

9.  Mechanical performance of a commercial knowledge-based VMAT planning for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Mikoto Tamura; Hajime Monzen; Kenji Matsumoto; Kazuki Kubo; Masakazu Otsuka; Masahiro Inada; Hiroshi Doi; Kazuki Ishikawa; Kiyoshi Nakamatsu; Iori Sumida; Hirokazu Mizuno; Do-Kun Yoon; Yasumasa Nishimura
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2018-08-31       Impact factor: 3.481

10.  A Practical Method to Optimize Quality Assurance Results of Arc Therapy Plans in Beam Modeling.

Authors:  Jinyu Xue; Hesheng Wang; David Barbee; Matthew Schmidt; Indra J Das
Journal:  J Med Phys       Date:  2018 Apr-Jun
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.