PURPOSE: The SRS MapCHECK® , a recently developed patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) tool for end-to-end testing of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), was evaluated in a multi-institution study and compared with radiochromic film. METHODS: The SRS MapCHECK was used to collect data on 84 SBRT or SRS PSQA plans/fields at nine institutions on treatment delivery devices (TDD) manufactured by Varian and Elekta. PSQA plans from five different treatment planning software (TPS) were selected and executed on TDDs operating at beam energies of 6 and 10 MV with and without a flattening filter. The patient plans were all VMAT except for ten conformal arc therapy fields. The plans were selected to encompass a range of size and tumor sites including brain, lung, spine, abdomen, ear, pancreas, and liver. Corresponding radiochromic film data was acquired in 50 plans/fields. Results were evaluated using gamma analysis with absolute dose criterion of 3% global dose-difference (DD) and 1 mm distance-to-agreement (DTA). RESULTS: The mean 3% DD/1 mm DTA Gamma pass rate of SRS MapCHECK in comparison to film was 95.9%, whereas comparison of SRS MapCHECK to the treatment planning software was 94.7%. 80% of SRS MapCHECK comparisons against film exceed 95% pass rate, and about 30% of SRS MapCHECK comparisons against film exceed 99% pass rate. To maintain good agreement between SRS MapCHECK and film or TPS, authors recommend avoiding plans with a modified modulation complexity score (MMCS) <0.1 arbitrary units (a.u.). In the examples presented, this coincides with avoiding plans with a mu/dose limit of >3 µ/cGy. CONCLUSIONS: Stereotactic radiosurgery MapCHECK has been validated for PSQA for a variety of clinical SRS/SBRT plans in a wide range of treatment delivery conditions. The SRS MapCHECK comparison with film demonstrates near-equivalence for analysis of patient-specific QA deliveries comprised of small field measurements.
PURPOSE: The SRS MapCHECK® , a recently developed patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) tool for end-to-end testing of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), was evaluated in a multi-institution study and compared with radiochromic film. METHODS: The SRS MapCHECK was used to collect data on 84 SBRT or SRS PSQA plans/fields at nine institutions on treatment delivery devices (TDD) manufactured by Varian and Elekta. PSQA plans from five different treatment planning software (TPS) were selected and executed on TDDs operating at beam energies of 6 and 10 MV with and without a flattening filter. The patient plans were all VMAT except for ten conformal arc therapy fields. The plans were selected to encompass a range of size and tumor sites including brain, lung, spine, abdomen, ear, pancreas, and liver. Corresponding radiochromic film data was acquired in 50 plans/fields. Results were evaluated using gamma analysis with absolute dose criterion of 3% global dose-difference (DD) and 1 mm distance-to-agreement (DTA). RESULTS: The mean 3% DD/1 mm DTA Gamma pass rate of SRS MapCHECK in comparison to film was 95.9%, whereas comparison of SRS MapCHECK to the treatment planning software was 94.7%. 80% of SRS MapCHECK comparisons against film exceed 95% pass rate, and about 30% of SRS MapCHECK comparisons against film exceed 99% pass rate. To maintain good agreement between SRS MapCHECK and film or TPS, authors recommend avoiding plans with a modified modulation complexity score (MMCS) <0.1 arbitrary units (a.u.). In the examples presented, this coincides with avoiding plans with a mu/dose limit of >3 µ/cGy. CONCLUSIONS: Stereotactic radiosurgery MapCHECK has been validated for PSQA for a variety of clinical SRS/SBRT plans in a wide range of treatment delivery conditions. The SRS MapCHECK comparison with film demonstrates near-equivalence for analysis of patient-specific QA deliveries comprised of small field measurements.
Authors: James McCulloch; Jamie Pawlowski; Neil Kirby; Karl Rasmussen; Zheng Shi; Pamela Myers; Sotirios Stathakis; Niko Papanikolaou; Daniel L Saenz Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2020-07-18 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Lauren M M Pudsey; Giordano Biasi; Anna Ralston; Anatoly Rosenfeld; Joel Poder Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2022-06-17 Impact factor: 2.243
Authors: Seng Boh Lim; LiCheng Kuo; Tianfang Li; Xiang Li; Ase M Ballangrud; Michael Lovelock; Maria F Chan Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2022-08-10 Impact factor: 2.243
Authors: Richard A Popple; Rodney J Sullivan; Yuan Yuan; Xingen Wu; Elizabeth L Covington Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2021-11-01 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Qianyi Xu; Kiet Huynh; Wei Nie; Mark S Rose; Ashish K Chawla; Kevin S Choe; Samir Kanani; Gregory J Kubicek; Jiajin Fan Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2022-03-12 Impact factor: 2.243