Literature DB >> 30230475

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

Mallory C Glenn1, Victor Hernandez, Jordi Saez, David S Followill, Rebecca M Howell, Julianne M Pollard-Larkin, Shouhao Zhou, Stephen F Kry.   

Abstract

Previous works indicate that intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans that are highly complex may produce more errors in dose calculation and treatment delivery. Multiple complexity metrics have been proposed and associated with IMRT QA results, but their relationships with plan performance using in situ dose measurements have not been thoroughly investigated. This study aimed to evaluate the relationships between IMRT treatment plan complexity and anthropomorphic phantom performance in order to assess the extent to which plan complexity is related to dosimetric performance in the IROC phantom credentialing program. Sixteen complexity metrics, including the modulation complexity score (MCS), several modulation indices, and total monitor units (MU) delivered, were evaluated for 343 head and neck phantom irradiations, comprising both IMRT (step-and-shoot and sliding window techniques) and VMAT. Spearman's correlations were used to explore the relationship between complexity and plan performance, as measured by the dosimetric differences between the treatment planning system (TPS) and thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) measurement, as well as film gamma analysis. Relationships were likewise determined for several combinations of subpopulations, based on the linear accelerator model, TPS used, and delivery modality. Evaluation of the complexity metrics presented here yielded no significant relationships (p  >  0.01, Bonferroni-corrected) and all correlations were weak (less than  ±0.30). These results indicate that complexity metrics have limited predictive utility in assessing plan performance in multi-institutional comparisons of IMRT plans. Other factors affecting plan accuracy, such as dosimetric modeling or multileaf collimator (MLC) performance, should be investigated to determine a more probable cause for dose delivery errors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30230475      PMCID: PMC6287268          DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/aae29e

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


  24 in total

1.  Use of a quantitative index of beam modulation to characterize dose conformality: illustration by a comparison of full beamlet IMRT, few-segment IMRT (fsIMRT) and conformal unmodulated radiotherapy.

Authors:  S Webb
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2003-07-21       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  Uncertainty analysis of absorbed dose calculations from thermoluminescence dosimeters.

Authors:  T H Kirby; W F Hanson; D A Johnston
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1992 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Impact of plan parameters on the dosimetric accuracy of volumetric modulated arc therapy.

Authors:  Laura Masi; Raffaela Doro; Virginia Favuzza; Samantha Cipressi; Lorenzo Livi
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  A new metric for assessing IMRT modulation complexity and plan deliverability.

Authors:  Andrea L McNiven; Michael B Sharpe; Thomas G Purdie
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Per-beam, planar IMRT QA passing rates do not predict clinically relevant patient dose errors.

Authors:  Benjamin E Nelms; Heming Zhen; Wolfgang A Tomé
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 4.071

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

Authors:  S B Crowe; T Kairn; N Middlebrook; B Sutherland; B Hill; J Kenny; C M Langton; J V Trapp
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2015-03-12       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  Penalization of aperture complexity in inversely planned volumetric modulated arc therapy.

Authors:  Kelly C Younge; Martha M Matuszak; Jean M Moran; Daniel L McShan; Benedick A Fraass; Donald A Roberts
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  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

9.  Treatment plan complexity metrics for predicting IMRT pre-treatment quality assurance results.

Authors:  S B Crowe; T Kairn; J Kenny; R T Knight; B Hill; C M Langton; J V Trapp
Journal:  Australas Phys Eng Sci Med       Date:  2014-05-09       Impact factor: 1.430

10.  Treatment Planning System Calculation Errors Are Present in Most Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Houston Phantom Failures.

Authors:  James R Kerns; Francesco Stingo; David S Followill; Rebecca M Howell; Adam Melancon; Stephen F Kry
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2017-04-04       Impact factor: 7.038

View more
  11 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.  Impact of different optimization strategies on the compatibility between planned and delivered doses during radiation therapy of cervical cancer.

Authors:  Agata Jodda; Tomasz Piotrowski; Marta Kruszyna-Mochalska; Julian Malicki
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2020-04-12

3.  A Collimator Setting Optimization Algorithm for Dual-Arc Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy in Pancreas Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy.

Authors:  Xinyi Li; Jackie Wu; Manisha Palta; You Zhang; Yang Sheng; Jiahan Zhang; Chunhao Wang
Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2019-01-01

4.  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

5.  Future directions of in vivo dosimetry for external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy.

Authors:  Frank Verhaegen; Gabriel P Fonseca; Jacob G Johansen; Luc Beaulieu; Sam Beddar; Peter Greer; Nuria Jornet; Gustavo Kertzscher; Boyd McCurdy; Ryan L Smith; Ben Mijnheer; Igor Olaciregui-Ruiz; Kari Tanderup
Journal:  Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol       Date:  2020-10-02

6.  Edge area metric complexity scoring of volumetric modulated arc therapy plans.

Authors:  Julia Götstedt; Anna Bäck
Journal:  Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol       Date:  2021-03-06

7.  Effective Organs-at-Risk Dose Sparing in Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Using a Half-Beam Technique in Whole Pelvic Irradiation.

Authors:  Hyunsoo Jang; Jiyeon Park; Mark Artz; Yawei Zhang; Jacob C Ricci; Soon Huh; Perry B Johnson; Mi-Hwa Kim; Mison Chun; Young-Taek Oh; O Kyu Noh; Hae-Jin Park
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-08-18       Impact factor: 6.244

8.  Verification of an optimizer algorithm by the beam delivery evaluation of intensity-modulated arc therapy plans.

Authors:  Tamas Pocza; Domonkos Szegedi; Tibor Major; Csilla Pesznyak
Journal:  Radiol Oncol       Date:  2021-11-19       Impact factor: 2.991

9.  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

10.  Sensitivity of IROC phantom performance to radiotherapy treatment planning system beam modeling parameters based on community-driven data.

Authors:  Mallory C Glenn; Christine B Peterson; Rebecca M Howell; David S Followill; Julianne M Pollard-Larkin; Stephen F Kry
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2020-08-16       Impact factor: 4.071

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.