PURPOSE: To develop an integrated quality assurance (QA) software tool for online replanning capable of efficiently and automatically checking radiation treatment (RT) planning parameters and gross plan quality, verifying treatment plan data transfer from treatment planning system (TPS) to record and verify (R&V) system, performing a secondary monitor unit (MU) calculation with or without a presence of a magnetic field from MR-Linac, and validating the delivery record consistency with the plan. METHODS: The software tool, named ArtQA, was developed to obtain and compare plan and treatment parameters from both the TPS and the R&V system database. The TPS data are accessed via direct file reading and the R&V data are retrieved via open database connectivity and structured query language. Plan quality is evaluated with both the logical consistency of planning parameters and the achieved dose-volume histograms. Beams in between the TPS and R&V system are matched based on geometry configurations. To consider the effect of a 1.5 T transverse magnetic field from MR-Linac in the secondary MU calculation, a method based on modified Clarkson integration algorithm was developed and tested for a series of clinical situations. RESULTS: ArtQA has been used in their clinic and can quickly detect inconsistencies and deviations in the entire RT planning process. With the use of the ArtQA tool, the efficiency for plan check including plan quality, data transfer, and delivery check can be improved by at least 60%. The newly developed independent MU calculation tool for MR-Linac reduces the difference between the plan and calculated MUs by 10%. CONCLUSIONS: The software tool ArtQA can be used to perform a comprehensive QA check from planning to delivery with conventional Linac or MR-Linac and is an essential tool for online replanning where the QA check needs to be performed rapidly.
PURPOSE: To develop an integrated quality assurance (QA) software tool for online replanning capable of efficiently and automatically checking radiation treatment (RT) planning parameters and gross plan quality, verifying treatment plan data transfer from treatment planning system (TPS) to record and verify (R&V) system, performing a secondary monitor unit (MU) calculation with or without a presence of a magnetic field from MR-Linac, and validating the delivery record consistency with the plan. METHODS: The software tool, named ArtQA, was developed to obtain and compare plan and treatment parameters from both the TPS and the R&V system database. The TPS data are accessed via direct file reading and the R&V data are retrieved via open database connectivity and structured query language. Plan quality is evaluated with both the logical consistency of planning parameters and the achieved dose-volume histograms. Beams in between the TPS and R&V system are matched based on geometry configurations. To consider the effect of a 1.5 T transverse magnetic field from MR-Linac in the secondary MU calculation, a method based on modified Clarkson integration algorithm was developed and tested for a series of clinical situations. RESULTS: ArtQA has been used in their clinic and can quickly detect inconsistencies and deviations in the entire RT planning process. With the use of the ArtQA tool, the efficiency for plan check including plan quality, data transfer, and delivery check can be improved by at least 60%. The newly developed independent MU calculation tool for MR-Linac reduces the difference between the plan and calculated MUs by 10%. CONCLUSIONS: The software tool ArtQA can be used to perform a comprehensive QA check from planning to delivery with conventional Linac or MR-Linac and is an essential tool for online replanning where the QA check needs to be performed rapidly.
Authors: Eric S Paulson; Ergun Ahunbay; Xinfeng Chen; Nikolai J Mickevicius; Guang-Pei Chen; Christopher Schultz; Beth Erickson; Michael Straza; William A Hall; X Allen Li Journal: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-05-15
Authors: Stephen A Graves; Jeffrey E Snyder; Amanda Boczkowski; Joël St-Aubin; Dongxu Wang; Sridhar Yaddanapudi; Daniel E Hyer Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2019-11-13 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Carolin Rippke; Oliver Schrenk; C Katharina Renkamp; Carolin Buchele; Juliane Hörner-Rieber; Jürgen Debus; Markus Alber; Sebastian Klüter Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2022-01-12 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Carri K Glide-Hurst; Percy Lee; Adam D Yock; Jeffrey R Olsen; Minsong Cao; Farzan Siddiqui; William Parker; Anthony Doemer; Yi Rong; Amar U Kishan; Stanley H Benedict; X Allen Li; Beth A Erickson; Jason W Sohn; Ying Xiao; Evan Wuthrick Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2020-10-24 Impact factor: 7.038