Literature DB >> 29431865

Refinement of MLC modeling improves commercial QA dosimetry system for SRS and SBRT patient-specific QA.

Yair Hillman1, Josh Kim2, Indrin Chetty2, Ning Wen2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Mobius 3D (M3D) provides a volumetric dose verification of the treatment planning system's calculated dose using an independent beam model and a collapsed cone convolution superposition algorithm. However, there is a lack of investigation into M3D's accuracy and effectiveness for stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) quality assurance (QA). Here, we collaborated with the vendor to develop a revised M3D beam model for SRS/SBRT cases treated with a 6X flattening filter-free (FFF) beam and high-definition multiple leaf collimator (HDMLC) on an Edge linear accelerator.
METHODS: Eighty SRS/SBRT cases, planned with AAA dose algorithm and validated with Gafchromic film, were compared to M3D dose calculations using 3D gamma analysis with 2%/2 mm gamma criteria and a 10% threshold. A revised beam model was developed by refining the HD-MLC model in M3D to improve small field dose calculation accuracy and beam profile agreement. All cases were reanalyzed using the revised beam model. The impact of heterogeneity corrections for lung cases was investigated by applying lung density overrides to five cases.
RESULTS: For the standard and revised beam models, respectively, the mean gamma passing rates were 94.6% [standard deviation (SD): 6.1%] and 98.0% [SD: 1.7%] (for the overall patient), 88.2% [SD: 17.3%] and 93.8% [SD: 6.8%] (for the brain PTV), 71.4% [SD: 18.4%] and 81.5% [SD: 14.3%] (for the lung PTV), 83.3% [SD: 16.7%] and 67.9% [SD: 23.0%] (for the spine PTV), and 78.6% [SD: 14.0%] and 86.8% [SD: 12.5%] (for the PTV of all other sites). The lung PTV mean gamma passing rates improved from 74.1% [SD: 7.5%] to 89.3% [SD: 7.2%] with the lung density overridden. The revised beam model achieved an output factor within 3% of plastic scintillator measurements for 2 × 2 cm2 MLC field size, but larger discrepancies are still seen for smaller field sizes which necessitate further improvement of the beam model.
CONCLUSION: Special attention needs to be paid to small field dosimetry, MLC modeling, and inhomogeneity corrections in the beam model for SRS/SBRT QA. The improvements noted in this study, and further collaborations between clinical physicists and the vendor to refine the M3D beam model could enable M3D to become a premier SRS/SBRT QA tool.
© 2018 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Patient-specific QA; SRS and SBRT; quality assurance; small fields; stereotactic radiosurgery

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29431865     DOI: 10.1002/mp.12808

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


  5 in total

1.  Application of TG-218 action limits to SRS and SBRT pre-treatment patient specific QA.

Authors:  Yuqing Xia; Justus Adamson; Yana Zlateva; Will Giles
Journal:  J Radiosurg SBRT       Date:  2020

2.  Fabrication of 3D printed head phantom using plaster mixed with polylactic acid powder for patient-specific QA in intensity-modulated radiotherapy.

Authors:  Sung Yeop Kim; Jae Won Park; Jaehyeon Park; Ji Woon Yea; Se An Oh
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-10-19       Impact factor: 4.996

3.  A hybrid volumetric dose verification method for single-isocenter multiple-target cranial SRS.

Authors:  Saeed Ahmed; Jeff Kapatoes; Geoffrey Zhang; Eduardo G Moros; Vladimir Feygelman
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2018-08-15       Impact factor: 2.102

4.  Characteristics and limitations of a secondary dose check software for VMAT plan calculation.

Authors:  Andrew J Shepard; Sean P Frigo
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2021-03-05       Impact factor: 2.102

5.  Model refinement increases confidence levels and clinical agreement when commissioning a three-dimensional secondary dose calculation system.

Authors:  Brian Bismack; Jennifer Dolan; Eric Laugeman; Anant Gopal; Ning Wen; Indrin Chetty
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2022-04-07       Impact factor: 2.243

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.